OCinBuffalo

Yes, if by main street...you mean 5th Avenue, or the Avenue of the Americas. Or...Capitol Avenue, 1st Street, etc.

The only way that is true...is if Aloof Professor Obama shows up again, and gets curb-stomped again. Much depends on how the media, and his handlers, dress and accessorizes Obama both before and after the debate. If OWS Organizer Obama is what people see, then he loses. If it's Cool Cat Grad Student Obama, who we like because he's is 10x better at teaching, and ain't afraid to hit the bar after class, then he can win. Yes, it is like Barbie, because, yes, Obama is an empty vessel, and yes, people like that, because they put whatever they want on him, and it makes them happy.

Wait...did Obama just say Elmo = OJ?

EDIT: I don't care what else you look at in addition to BPM, if you aren't looking at BPM, you are wrong. Microsoft has never done anything other than set the BPM discipline of management consulting back. Every damn year, every damn product, sucks ass. There's a reason why MS Project has lost all market share. There's a reason why Back Office died. There's a reason why Microsoft Word won, but they can't even beat open source BPM companies who are 1/1000th of their size who nobody knows...except guys like me. Microsoft is good at low-end, "for the masses" software. They suck at doing anything that is requirement specific, or has higher end requirements, because their culture is geared towards "one-size-fits-all". Again, MS Office, good, BizTalk Server? Assclownery. So, it's no surprise that the Gates foundation, using MS...Thinking , would struggle, and do stupid things like look at test scores. Nobody hires Microsoft for BPM, if they are objective, and not a Microsoft-always shop. Doing extensive performance evaluations, if that word means what it usually does, is just doing more worthless, HR stuff. Talking about this skill or that one, or "best practices" defines that HR approach. Feel free to re-explain what you said above, but, based on what you are saying...it's all HR, and mostly worthless, if we haven't done the real BPM work properly. Business Process Management...means what it says. If one can't define business process properly, and do all the other things we do in my job, and wants to dance around the periphery of that, then they have 0 chance of getting anything done. There's a reason why this is a Ph.D discipline, and I get by, because while I don't have one, I've got the years of doing it in the field to, at least, put me on = footing. The reason why I'm asked to speak...by the Ph.Ds? Microsoft does software for administrative assistants. I do software for enterprises, and specifically, CEOs. One-size-fits-all....is the consistent approach taken by these Big Government programs, every time. Now, who keeps telling us that it's better to Federalize...everything? Who keeps looking to create massive organizations...and walks down the street in all their glory when they do that. But then, years later, when these big organizations create processes and standards that make those massive organizations easier to manage....but are awful for the purposes of actually doing the job the massive organization was created to do....who comes back and tells us "we need more money"? Buddy, if you want to go down this road...I can write 3 dissertations on the not-standards, and retarded instruments, that are used to determine quality, and reimbursement, in Medicare. You want to talk "long posts". I have one acronym for you: MDS 3. Big Government is responsible for that abortion. Democrats are responsible for Big Government. Don't like that one? How about "meaningful use"? Yes, there's nothing quite like using a subjective word...to create a standard. Your results suck. Don't try to duck it, or blame others. They suck because the design that creates them is inherently flawed. I've demonstrated those design flaws, in detail, in these posts. It's up to you whether you want to be objective about it, and deal with what I've put in front of your nose.

Then you are wrong as well. Look, what you are talking about...is what we call "black boxing". Black boxing means: pick a particular metric, in this case 30% to 70%, set a time frame, 6 months, and then do something different, however specific, and however defined...and then see what comes out the other end. You have an idea of the effect, but you can't know the cause. All you can do is establish a corollary. And that's only if you actually meet the goal. This is the equivalent of trial and error. Even if you can establish that something works, and comes out of the "black box" as expected, there can be 1000 reasons for why it works, therefore, you haven't learned anything. The "black box" in this case, are the specific business processes of the school. Until we understand them, you are, if we go old school , doing a level 0 diagram, or context diagram(depending on which old school ) and merely studying inputs vs. outputs. The fact is, the work itself, or, what is INSIDE the black box...is what is driving the outcome. Measuring the outcome, "30%-70%", is the backasswards way to do this. Measuring the work is measuring the causes. It also has the added benefit of actually being something we can standardize. Democratic/Big Government/one-size-fits-all thinking is to blame here, because show me one kid who is not proficient. Then, show me another. Is what we do to get one to proficient going be =...in terms of teacher time, nurse time, etc(utilization of resources)....to what we have to do to get the other one proficient? Rarely, if ever. If we fail with one, and succeed with the other...it's quite possible we performed better with the one that succeeded, but, it's also quite possible that the opposite is true. The irony here: the teacher's unions, who hate this black box approach, don't realize that treating teachers as a monolithic collective, and measuring by individual student...is the root cause of the problem. They should be talking in terms of the individual...teacher...and not the collective of teachers. Christ, you almost had it in the beginning = establish the tasks, and then define what "good" looks like, but then you went into some goofy HR stuff. HR stuff is what we do...AFTER we've established our business processes, and AFTER we've determined the proper performance standards for them. It's easy to say, because it's right to say. Focusing on the student, the outcome, will always be wrong. Focusing on what we do, identifying each task with necessary granularity, setting a standard for each, and comparing what we do, to those standards, will always be right. Constantly looking for REAL causal effects, and being disciplined enough to demand that we prove these causes beyond question, is how we improve business process. Everything else is just F'ing about.

You sound like a lot of good clients I've worked with. But please understand, as they would: I am arguing that, even with acknowledging that pre-testing is necessary, and setting a baseline for each kid, thus determining that Mary is a -5, and Billy is a 0, as NY is doing right now, and then measuring the movement upwards from the baseline...it's still wrong. It's less wrong than Florida's "let's see how many we can get to 3, or 2.8 for African-American kids", but it is still WRONG. This is because we have no way of knowing if the work it took to get Mary from -5 to -1 is = to the work it took to get her from -1 to 3. That's because we aren't measuring the work itself. Or, better stated, the scale of work, and the scope of each individual task...is the ONLY measurement that can be consistent, because it is the only thing that can be defined consistently, therefore, it is the only thing that qualifies as a standard. Using Mary, or an average of all the Mary's, and setting a standard of "gets >= this grade on proficiency test" has no chance of providing us what we need in terms of teacher performance. So, while I understand the "prejudice of lowered expectations" argument, and, I also understand the "lowered expectations suck in general, for all races" argument, the idiocy I am describing is an order of magnitude larger. As long as we keep creating non-standards, by basing them on students(um we already have a student performance instrument...it's called grades), which inherently bring a 1000+ external factors for which no teacher can control, and not the work that is being done by the teacher themselves, we have no chance of measuring teacher performance accurately. I am being...."progressive". I am also offering a way out of the endless "we need more money/no you don't" argument, as well as the "we need to grade teachers somehow/your performance measurement system sucks, because I can't control what happens at home" argument. The answer is easy: stop arguing over the wrong F'ing data, measured using the wrong F'ing standards, and, nobody gets to say a word about $ until we know our REAL utilization #s--> our real cost per kid. Until then, none of you will be right, because you are all wrong.

Mind if I take a whack? The problem is, once again, a standard that is one-size-fits-all. This time it's one-size-per-race. This is always retarded, every time I've run across it. It never produces the intended results. Let's flip this to make the point: rather than talking about the kids who are in trouble, what about the kids who are advanced? This "proficiency"/one-size standard...means nobody has to do anything for those kids at all. How well are we teaching the kid who knows how to read before they get to kindergarten? With this standard, you will have no idea. Doesn't that kid's parents pay taxes? The child was at 5 when they walked in the door, and if the standard is 3...you get credit for doing nothing. The reverse is also true: if you have a kid who can't focus in class, because they are itching from the bed bug bites that cover their body, they are way behind. We have to worry about getting them from -5 to 0, first, prepared to learn, bite-free. The teacher's job is to get them from 0 to 3, yet the one-size standard means they are accountable for a movement of 8 points. I've struggled for years with both accountants and salespeople, on this. Some clients are at -5 when we get there. Some are at 3. Some are at 4 and have the damn thing deployed and halfway integrated before we show up. You can't set your expectations in terms a homogenous transaction on a balance sheet. If you sold a -5 client, then you, not anyone else, are responsible for why it takes longer, moron. Life rarely works in terms of going to 0 to 3, no matter how much easier it would be for us, and no matter how much we wish it would. There is no "model" or average client, student, or patient that is useful here. You can do averages, and financial allocations, but ask yourself: how often have you drank exactly 2.4 cartons of milk? What does that have to do with you, if you drink 0, or 4, every day? Is that 2.4 a real measurement of you, in any way? If we set the standard as 2.4...what does that have to do with you, or anybody that doesn't regularly drink 2.4 cartons of milk? NOTHING! So what is the answer? First, what is the real problem? Same problem as health care: focusing on the patient = seeking to define performance on a standard...that WILL NEVER BE a standard. We are looking at the student here, and not looking at the work the worker does. This is idiotic. Do we judge the Bills O line play based on the score, or, based on moving their feet, bending their knees, toughness, beating their man, play by play, etc.? We always look at the individual things done, or not done, by individuals, then move on to how the group functions as a unit, then the offense as whole, after looking at other individuals, etc. We focus on the work each worker does, absolutely, and FIRST. When determining worker performance, me MUST focus on the work that the worker does, and whether that is up to standard. What is performance if not the work correctly done/done poorly/not done over time? If the goal is to determine which teachers are performing, and whether, for once and all, we do actually need more/less of them, we need to define what a "good", or just "acceptable" teacher does and how long that generally takes. Then, we must see who is doing that, and who isn't, who is taking shorter time, who is taking longer. Then, we must learn why, and make the necessary corrections. Measure the work again, and see if we've improved. The MBA types here know that work sampling can do this, but I prefer...a never ending sample of work, and ALL of the work. Tends to be a lot more accurate, and helpful. Instead, we have idiots who keep repeating "patient-centered", or in this case "student-centered". Yes, let's create a permanently moving target that can be effected by 1000+ factors, all external to our system and its processes, and then create an arbitrary standard for that moving target, that isn't indicative of anything, because it = 2.4 cartons of milk...and then congratulate ourselves for how much we care about....patients...students...whatever the F. Unmitigated morons. This is not how the job gets done.

I'm not. I want to see that. Tell them you're from Hollywood and that you will sue all of them. Wear a cape. Come on, I'm sure some of them are wrestling fans! Come on....do it, Andy!

As long as it doesn't involve these hammers: Or...does it...or...did I not get the joke?

You are new here, so I will train you: 1st, this is what we do. This place would be boring otherwise. The whole point is to provoke. More often than not, that provocation is what gets people to drop their annoying pretense, and say what they really think, as I have done with you on more than one occasion. Your problem has been: what you really think seems to change over pages and pages of a thread. 2nd: Don't make assumptions. Somehow, I've been able to walk through city after city, stinking drunk, and nobody has ever mistaken me for a mark. Is that a coincidence? Now, you know that, and you also know: I work in IT, so calling each other much worse names than moron is basically WTF we do all day Come now. Who wants to fix entitlements? Who wants to keep them the same? Certainly you can understand that Democrat behavior on entitlements is not in line with the behavior of a progressive. Just as much as conservative views on social stuff...is conservative. The distinction, and difference ought to be clear. This time you didn't babble, thus, this time you got a response. Right, because Republicans like Rudi Guliani don't exist in your fantasy, yet analytic, world. The only people talking social issues are the Democrats...and dumbass Rick Santorum. If it wasn't for his nonsense, and forcing Romney to address the social stuff that we can't afford to care about, given the economy, and that scares women, Romney would be 10 pts up by now. The only people who want to pretend that fiscal can't be separated from social, are the clowns like Santorum who have, personal, political agendas. Or...whatever happened, to the evangelicals who tried to co-opt the TEA party? Remember that goofy TEAvangelical book? Yeah, he was tossed out on his ass. The TEA party has no time or tolerance for religious zealotry attempting to keep them from their stated objectives. This is a new electorate, and, the social people better get in line, or Obama will run them, over and over. Their days of running things have been over since Bush. Bush was their guy(and the neocon Jews), and the idiocy of "compassionate conservatism" and "let's blow billions on democracy wars" their ideas. That bill had to be paid, and the libertarians collected. If the fiscal policy/national security stuff can be attained, only then will their stuff get a look, and not before, and certainly not at the risk of giving the Democrats issues. Blah...blah...blah..This all comes down to: you don't know any real enterprise IT/management consultants. Hint: none of us would be caught dead working at your law firm. Certifications...are for those who you can't tell are money in the first minute of conversation. People hire us to evaluate the tool and the people who wrote it, not be trained on it. Certification. Absurd. If you can't take a readme off github and 20 minutes, and be able to write that code, you can't be me. Same is true if you can't visualize the DB, by looking at the GUI. Where do I get my certification in: "Please tell us how to do what we have to do in 3 months, since we've already wasted 6, given our uniquely Fed up set of circumstances and requirements, so we don't all get fired"? Don't think Microsoft or Oracle has that class. Pretty sure I, and those like me, "certify" people in that. The true test: ask any client who he gets rid of first, his consultant(real one), or his lawyer. They will always answer lawyer, because you are a dime a dozen, while we know their entire business process and systems better than they do, and we can either, bring all their people together, or kick their asses individually, to get big things done. You...tell them stuff, or hand them pieces of paper. It's not even close.

1) What's it going to take for you realize that the only people that Republicans seem to hate more than the clueless, who won't take their own lives seriously, and/or are too busy pleasing themselves to take their kid's lives seriously, are the liberals, who enable them to do this? Cluelessness is not race-specific. 2) Libertarians, if not Republicans in general, now, thanks to the TEA party, would dislike a white old guy party that can't stop spending money = as much as a party 80% comprised of Peurto Rican, Jewish Lesbians. 3) You are the ones who see race in everything. When I see Rubio I see "stud" who has 30 years of winning ahead of him. I see: "hey liberals, hope you enjoy losing Florida for the rest of your worthless lives" AHhahahahahahah! I see Chris Christie the same way I see Charles Krauthammer, the same way I see Laura Ingraham, the same way I see Kelly Ayotte, the same way I see the black mayor of Salt Lake City whose name I guarantee both of us won't be able to forget soon, all of them: the same way I see Paul Ryan.... ....whenever they are on TV: some poor feckless liberal is about to get his/her ass kicked. I don't see race...I see a whipping coming, because I see competence and clarity of purpose. I stop what I am doing, and turn up the volume...because who doesn't like seeing a public beating, especially of some clown, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz? (That's your "bench" enjoy that future!) And here's the thing: whenever I see Michael Steele or Pat Buchannan? I ignore...not because of their race, but because they both suck. It's like with the Bills. We would take a Korean Mormon at QB...if he had Joe Montana skills, because Joe Montana skills fits perfectly into Chan's offense, and because a beat down is gonna happen.

Uh...I'm visual, so, I guess...an empty chair with an English accent, glasses, and a penchant for telling long stories only tenuously connected to the work at hand?

It entails supporting the people who are most likely to 1) take the problem seriously 2) not try and demagogue anyone else that does 3) have serious approaches, or actual solutions, to solving the problem. The key to abbreviation and paraphrasing...is to retain the meaning. You have failed. WTF is this babble? I....took a book definition of the word progressive, used that as my system of measure, applied said measurement to current liberal/progressive/whatever behavior WRT education, tax policy, etc.....and my measurement came back as a negative #, as in: conservative. The definition of progressive....doesn't change because Hillary Clinton decides to co-opt it, and try to bastardize it. This has nothing to do with "coming full circle", or how the Green party actually agrees with libertarians on lots of things, or whatevetheF you are saying. This has to do with 2, diametrically opposed, and politically permanent, antonyms = Conservative and Progressive. Each defines a set of expected behavior, but really, the behavior defines the word. I have correctly identified clinging onto old FDR/LBJ programs without changing them, is by definition, conservative, not progressive, behavior. Unmitigated Moron. I am in IT. I have been getting paid to do this since I was 16. The first time I heard "bastardize" was in reference to using a PC as a way to get around Mac vs. Vax networking problems. We bastardized the PC into being a router...of sorts...that could translate the problem child vax commands into something macs would get. The first time you heard "bastardize" it was from an IT guy, or, you heard it from a guy who heard it from an IT guy. So spare me.

You know, the worst part is, I think I screwed this up, and I'm talking about Duck Dodgers instead. No matter, BFFE, Duck, it's all the same. Both are regularly, and rightfully, "disciplined" by Tom.

Yes! Where is MDP? We could have a conner/MDP battle royale! It's a puzzle: Would CEOs rather continue to steal equity(EDIT: or whateverthef he was saying) from their laborers....or fire them for voting for Obama? Ready.....GO!

No, seriously. David Axelrod is seriously trying to make this into an issue. http://www.realclear...k_in_libya.html This is being said by the #1 beneficiary, representing an entire party, who used the Iraq War for political gain. How did we end up with Nancy Pelosi in a seat she had no business being in? The Iraq War. How did we end up with the occupier of the WH? The Iraq War. Did the Democrats earn, anything, when they gained the House and Senate in 2006/Obama wave in 2008? No. They opposed the Iraq war, people were mad at Republicans, and their loss was Democrats gain. The proof: could they retain control of government after the Iraq War? No. Have people agreed with their agenda or programs since the Iraq War? No. There isn't a single policy that isn't underwater nationally....except ending the Iraq War. Killing Bin Laden isn't a policy, you unmitigated morons. Now, we KNOW they have nothing left. Now, we KNOW how bad...they think...Libya is for them. I am fond of talking about behavior, rather than polls. This behavior tells me that risking being called a massive hypocrite is fine, because they think they truly have nothing to lose. Reverse Bob Dylan: nothing to lose means you have nothing. The liar thing didn't stick to Romney, and now, this is what they have, and it is nothing.

and tolerance dammit, don't forget tolerance! Ahh, it's my favorite..."elephants = sea shells, because they are both grey" poster. A CEO laying out clearly what he sees as the future of the company given political, competitive or any other external activity...is doing his job. We could also say that these union bosses are doing their jobs. Which one is a violation of a number of both state and Federal laws? Hint: not the first one.

Yes, definitely in the "won't know when Tom's being an idiot" category. Also in the "don't get the joke" category. And definitely in the running for most ironic post of the week. Nice work

Our HOF QB will always be a man, and theirs will always be a girl, and they have to live with that.

The LLC...was created specifically to protect the small...from the big. The S-corp, C-corp etc. is where you want to place your wrath. Unfortunately, as we see with things like Dodd Frank, your intention is to punish the big, but it is tripped up by either monolithic thinking, or, the big's good lawyers, and the "equal protection" clause. You seem oblivious to the fact that the big is either smarter, has more resources, or both, than the small. Or...do you enjoy the fact that 5 banks are now "too big to fail"? That's the deal that was made. When you set out to go after the "big corporations" all you succeed in doing is laying waste to the small businesses, and keeping people out of starting them. The big, are big, and therefore are either tipped off, excluded from, or have the resources to avoid your punishment. Adam Smith would correctly recognize this distinction. My business-illiterate, politically retarded, leftist, scientist cousin...understands this distinction, and gets that it does in fact represent a difference. She is also, but only recently, beginning to understand what "unintended consequences" means. Consider: You and your friends are empowered with making all the rules, and seeing them implemented. There's a good chance at least one of your friends got to that post via corporate support, and, there's an even better chance that most of your friends have other things on their agenda, and will take the pay-off on this, in order to see those other things accomplished. Your efforts will be compromised, before they even start. But, that is how we do things: compromise. It's also how we runs things in business most of the time, unless you are holding most of the cards. In 2008-2010 Obama et al were holding ALL of the cards and Dodd Frank was the result. Even when the "corporation-killers" were completely in control....all they succeeding in doing was empowering the biggest, and killing the smallest. Same thing with Obamacare, where they exempted the big, or their pals, and left the small to deal with idiocy of it. Now, what exactly would Adam Smith have to say about this, in terms of small and big?

Yes, it's exactly the same as here: you don't have to listen to me, but will find that you do, and reply to it...regularly. Now, where is BFFE? Nah. Crayonz is independently wealthy, has a bentley, and does finance stuff like you do. Essentially not a fit. However, if we do open up a "harassment of competitor's customer service message board" division, Crayonz is my first call. Just imagine that for a second. Then "When I called to ask you why this feature doesn't work, you keep telling me to hit F too. I am done calling you. I have been hitting F after every thing I do in this software for the whole damn day, and it doesn't do anything. Is this some Canadian thing? Should I try hitting A after everything instead?"

A collective public service that wasn't based on progessive taxation? Or taxation of any kind? How dare you?! Well, now we know why it didn't work: you didn't tax anybody, you didn't tax people that had nothing to do with your collective, and sent their kids elsewhere, you didn't have any unions, and you didn't have any tenure. So, what did you expect? Those things that you cited had nothing to do with it. And, no, had you instituted a recruitment program, that replaced the kids that were "graduated", it still wouldn't have worked. And, you're daughter was only 2 years ahead due to your social/economic status. Her own ability and hard work had nothing to do with that. You should be ashamed for your daughter being better than other kids, as well. Have you even considered what her very existence does to the self esteem of other kids in her class? How dare you? EDIT: On second thought...uh...somebody actually said that part to my mom once. I was a "disruption" because I was finishing my worksheets too fast, and the "solution" was for me to slow down. I've often said "if i was just a little dumber...". Tell your daughter: it only gets worse. Just wait until high school. Enjoy!

Then you do agree with me. You just don't get the metaphor. Saturday....evening.....newspaper...pipe. Done. (Hehehehe...check out hockey girl. Rockwell knew what was coming) Normal Rockwell was popular once, because it reflected the society we had. SSI's current model was right once, because it reflected the society we had. We don't live in a society where a girl with a hockey stick is nutty way to sell papers...we live in one where girls play every day. Normal Rockwell, is dead, and so is SSI if we keep the same model, and refuse to recognize that we don't have the same society, in any respect, that we once had. The ONLY argument I have heard from the Democrats you ID with, for participating in the idiocy of not reforming it: boils down to a nostalgic one. I have heard this both literally and figuratively. You don't want to relinquish the nostalgia, because that is what you base your party's identity on. The problem is: if you continue to be driven by this need to protect dead presidential legacies, those legacy systems are going to get you "fired".

Heh...uh...what? Now I'm not sure what you're saying. Sex ed, or sex itself? What I'm saying is: using the strict, and correct, definition of the word, as long as your school produces better results(and I don't see how that isn't possible, given what I guess? was, at least, the prevention of 8 year-old sex) and relies on new technologies to get that done...you made the literal, progressive choice. Now, given the "period of time" part, it seems you were unsuccessful for the rest of the time. A true progressive, would identify what went wrong and make a better solution, or, admit that it wasn't working, and cease. So, on this score, it seems you are a progressive as well. Contrast that with those who demand that we change nothing, and keep doing the same thing, but with more money, expecting a different result. It's not enough just to do something different, it has to work, and be better. For example, in my view, having gone through it myself, Montessori is on the fence in terms of being "progressive". In one sense, not having a desk to sit at, and being forced to sit there wait until the dumbest kids got it, and, the mindset of being personally responsible for what I learned each day, has served me well to this day. On the other hand, doing that in a newly desegregated school, or later, in a mix of very rich and very poor? Where everyone was looking to start fights? Not such a good idea.

Well, then how's about evolving your ass over to where the grown ups are, who know that we have to do something genuinely different than we are, rather than trying to keep FDR/LBJ alive for nostalgic purposes? Your nostalgia, and conservatism, is going to run the country into the ground. As in my sig, Normal Rockwell is nice and all, but I assume you like your PS3, or whatever, and don't spend your Saturdays reading the evening paper, whilst smoking your pipe.