OCinBuffalo

From the military prospective: One of the first pieces of knowledge that I was immediately accountable for was: my chain of command. Every day, all the time, they would ask, and I would answer. It starts with the President, then the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Division, Brigade, Regiment and/or Battalion, and Company Commanders, Platoon leader, Platoon Sergeant, Squad Leader, and Team Leader. It's funny, because no matter what, I have this strange compulsion to always make sure I at least know who the first 4 are. Sort of a "just in case" thing. I have no idea why. It's strange. Anyway, WHY do they do this? Why do they do it to the point that it instills strange compulsions in people years later? Answer: to beat it into our heads that elected/appointed civilians are in charge of the military, not general officers. So, it seems that this guy forgot what he learned when he was a plebe, and that simply ain't right. What he should be saying to Obama, and everyone else? "No excuse, sir!" Even if the civilian is a giant jackass, who doesn't know who you are....as, you know, the guy who is fighting your war, and doesn't seem to care. Even if you are an expert leader, as evidenced by your position in the Army, and you can smell a weak/bad leader a mile away. Even if you have contempt for that bad/weak civilian leader. Even if that civilian sends another civilian who is just as clueless and weak as he is to be the ambassador. Even if nobody in their right mind would argue with you about military affairs, especially when they have 0 military experience. Even if the antics of these civilians and especially their ridiculous pissant advisers represent a very real chance of getting your men killed..... Even if all these things are true.....and worse....these civilians are your bosses, and it's your job to deal with it and be a good follower. After all, they taught you to follow first, before they taught you to lead. This concept comes from General Washington himself, and no flag officer, no matter how good, is bigger than George.

Oh and as far as the Jets/ESPN stuff goes? Why do you think there is now an ESPN/Boston, ESPN/Chicago, blah, blah, blah? Because telling a lot of people what they want to hear is a great way to make money. It doesn't matter if its true, it doesn't matter if it's relevant, it doesn't matter if it the same concocted crap we hear every year from the same concocted people. ESPN spent 7 years telling us Arizona was going to make the playoffs and 6 of those years they couldn't get over .500. When they finally stopped promoting them, they went to the SB. Why? Because they are a big market. Same thing is happening all over again with the 49ers, who have a similar situation to Buffalo, but of course, they are going to be rated higher than us all year, again, even though they play in the worst division in football. I love it when Colin Cowherd says "I'm not a company man" and then goes on to promote the NBA, which is on ESPN, and dog the NHL, for 3 hours a day. I figured I would give him one more shot and, same thing, except this time he was talking up all the big market football teams, and said the Colts and Saints weren't as good. So, I'm done. Unless you are an idiot, you should be done too. The only way these people learn anything is by being ignored.

Pfft. These noobs don't know anything man, it's like pwning noobs is what some posters do, man. It's like using fake avatars and playing different characters so you can pwn noobs is awesome. The best is when the noobs don't know the strat, and they start posting responses to the character, and they don't realize they are getting owned. And they keep doing it, and the pro keeps owning them. Man, it's like a great way to own noobs. And the noobs still don't know they are getting owned, and they start laughing along, saying thinks like "hey that's real funny, dude" or saying "you spelled that word wrong" and then its like "yeah, baby I am owning you noobs". And they say "GG" at the end cause what else are they gonna say? They got owned and they don't even know what hit em.

Looks like they all whiffed on this one. "Bring us....a shrubbery!"

First let's define what I mean. We see the state and Federal government bureaucracy/unions/pensions, the whole mess, literally dying on the vine. The only way they can continue is to keep demanding that their representatives keep voting them money, which in turn, keeps the economy a mess, and business out. Sooner or later there will be a breaking point when these various governments simply cannot meet their ridiculous obligations to these ridiculous people. I am calling that Rock Bottom. I am not talking about teachers and fireman, blah, blah, blah. I am talking about giving away free money in Brooklyn for no real reason other than you can...by taxing some away from Manhattan and Amherst. If we hit Rock Bottom in NYS, none of the electoral/political math matters. Sheldon Silver and the rest of his idiots will have no power over money, if there is no money. All of the union contracts will simply have to be broken. There will be no point in suing, because there is no money. In effect, these liberal idiots will have spent their power away. The entire state will have to be forcibly reorganized and there will be little anyone can do to stop it. The worst thing that can happen, with both alcoholics, and with the government, is a near miss at Rock Bottom. This makes both feel like "they don't really have a problem" and they go right back to the bad behavior and often it's even worse. Ultimately Rock Bottom may be exactly what we need. Perhaps we should even be rooting for it. I know it will suck for a time, but anything is better than what we have had the last 20 years, and Rock Bottom = hope. Perhaps we should root for no settlement of the budget? Perhaps letting this version of NYS die is best for all? "Let me be clear"(which usually means BS is about to be spoken, but not in this case): to me these are still questions, honestly, which is why I want to know what you think.

First of all this: is a reality, not a hypothetical. These worst case scenarios are real, and they are common. I don't know if Simon deals with this situation personally, because apparently he like living in the sticks wif dem cows , but, I do personally know plenty of urban teachers who deal with these realities for a job. I know one in particular whose kids have purposely failed so that they can go to summer school, because that means they get to eat regularly, school is safe, and they don't have to worry about being abused in one way or another for at least part of the day. Much of this thread is the same old story: Teachers blame the parents Parents blame the teachers Nobody blames the little bastards for when they act like little bastards, because we might effect their self esteem Politicians look to see who is winning to see which side they will be on The unions and the government are generally worthless, and cause more problems than they solve An objective observer->outside the education industry and without kids, looks at this and sees that we aren't getting anywhere demonizing one side or the other. Yes there are bad teachers, parents, unions, government employees and kids, lots of them. Either we change who runs education, or, we change how its being run. The current arrangement fails. Here's what I know: in any system you cannot introduce a standard set of measures that ignores dependencies. In this case, we cannot attempt to create metrics that measure teacher performance, based on kid performance, and ignore the glaring dependency that is: how and if the kid shows up to class, ready to learn. That is 100% dependent on the kids and the parents. There is no way every kids starts at 0. Some start at 10, some start at -50, etc. Never mind the differences in IQ, there's variance in culture, values, etc. We aren't making homogeneous widgets here. So, we need to elevate our thinking. I deal with this misconception every day: If we are going to measure how well teachers teach, then we need to measure their execution of the teaching process itself. Measuring test scores in a vacuum pretends all kids start the same. Test scores are about student performance, and are not necessarily indicative of teacher performance. Taking an entire class of -50s and getting them to pass demands an elite command of the teaching process, while taking a class of 10s and getting them to 70 is so so. The latter will end up with higher test scores, but that doesn't reflect the teaching job that has been done relative to the former. If both teachers worked for me, I bonus the first one, and tell the second one he better pick it up next quarter. That's how "the real world" works. IF we are trying to bring "the real world"/business to education, then we need to it properly.

I found some more fun facts: Gotta love it when they self-congratulate. Maybe these people should have awards, and call themselves "living legends". Anyway, automatically opening the windows of the 6+ floors of a building....is smart? Yes, let's open only the windows where the fall is sure to kill you, and not leave you as a societal burden. I suppose that's smart. I am on the phone with a client, and suddenly the window automagically opens, blowing my gear everywhere and making it sound like I am not actually at work. Great. Isn't this a Federal Building? Therefore, isn't it safe to assume that we may have crazed/criminal/unsavory characters in and around the place? (and not just the employees). Why do we want the nth floor window to open randomly and with no warning? Does anybody besides "the building" have control over this? Heat...f'ing...rises.... I don't know who did the study on this, but how the hell is it going to be ok to be on the 15th? floor with the sun beating down, even with all the windows open, and no air conditioning? Never mind that this fails the other way:at that height, the wind is kick ass. You open windows up there and stuff is going to fly. What if it is hot AND rainy? SF weather is goofy to say the least. What if "the building" decided to automatically open windows and let the rain fly in. Or, if "the building" decides that 90 degrees is perfectly fine. Nothing says efficiency and effectiveness like swampass. If they open windows on top floors, won't that create the mother of all wind tunnels down this Grand Central Staircase they keeping talking about? Perhaps this is an adventure after all

My caption for the picture on the right in the second row: "And here we have the quasi-translucent piece of crap sticking out of the wall for no apparent functional purpose and certainly not adding any aesthetic benefit. There is the initial novelty of challenging the employees to use the athletic skills they have acquired from the elevator situation to run up the angled wall and see if they can slap it." Yes, this building has the ability remove my permanent image of SF = dodging the piss, etc. of multiple junkies relieving themselves on Castro Street from my mind. I see the world differently now. It wasn't the schit I was dodging, it was my own guilt for attempting to do something useful at 2:30pm on a Tuesday. So? What? It's a f'ing maze? Ever been to the King of Prussia Mall? They have lots of horizontal and vertical circulation paths too, and 2 holding pens, one for the lost kids, and one for the lost elderly. They also have wonderful staircases you can get trapped on, either due to the elderly, or kids playing grabass. The last time I heard this passive/aggressive BS, it was at D&T, and we all ended up with "window offices" which sounds great until you realize that you now live in a little glass box where everyone can see everything you do all the time. People stare at you to see if you are staring at them. You try to think and then suddenly realize you are accidentally making eye contact with the scary travel/expenses lady who sits friggin 30 yards away. And now she's into you. Big time. Because, why else would you be looking at her from so far away? Oh mother f this. We have places for exercise: they are called "gyms". So it is a f'ing maze. When I go to work, I want to get to my office, now. I don't want to have a 15 minute adventure where I can have a chance encounter with scary travel lady, and we can solve crimes together. This isn't the f'ing Goonies. Wonder what the rent is going to be for every 3rd floor vs the rest?

As I said in another thread, I am beat but I can't sleep, so this may be nuts, but, is it at all possible that the cage is there to beat listening devices? Lasers pointed at windows, etc.? Perhaps the FBI has an office there? US attorney, etc.?

For those of you keeping score at home: this is what Lyndon Larouche/Scientologists do. I am just not sure what Tom wants me to agree to, but I am so beat, I suppose I don't care, as long as it doesn't involve gay sex or Deepak Chopra. I can't take any more Chopra this week...

Calm down. It's just an example. It's almost midnight and I have already far exceeded my example/analogy quota for the week due to some of my client's inability to think in the abstract. I was reduced to talking in terms of waiters, chefs and food suppliers today. Not my best work. I was going to use "rapes dogs" as the morally reprehensible part, but I thought I would catch hell for that. Guess I was wrong

"And then you have Barack Obama on the other side, whose policy is to bail out the financial markets and kill people, that's why we put the mustache on him" Ahh, I see the famous Lyndon Larouche intelligence/propaganda team is at work again. Scientology has nothing on these guys. What a perfect object lesson in brainwashing and the things that come out of the mouths of the brainwashed. For those of you on the right: this is no big deal since you have heard the same thing over and over with Bush. For those of you in the middle: notice the clever combination of a public policy(bail out) which has no moral context, it's simply a choice, and, the act of murder, which is morally reprehensible. By saying "and" they put a nice little "=" in between that has no business being there. If you remember this line at all, you will remember the words bail out and murder together. Like it or not, that's simply how the brain works. Unless you specifically take the time to remember the separation and the context, eventually you will remember them together. These people know this, and that's why they create these lines. And of course, because "Obama kills people", whatever actions this idiot undertakes are now perfectly justifiable. Hmm MoveOn.org, Al Franken and Daily Kos immediately come to mind. For those of you on the left: Not so fun when it gets done to your guy now is it? Ultimately, this line is the equivalent of saying "And then you have OCinBuffalo on the other side, whose policy is to support the free trade economy and root for the Dolphins".

The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs. You know, when you see ignorant statements like this, it makes you think: somebody should run a survey that tests economic knowledge and then asks for political affiliation....

1. Yes, I meant to add: ...and so I am sorry about taking it out on you. Sorry, again. 2. Oh, well in that case I assure you: that was as genuine a concern as you are likely to get. Re-read what you wrote....you remind me of one of my Russian friends with that grammar. I honestly didn't want to bust on you if English = language #2... 3. ...which is congruent with the findings of this study = The further people lean to the left, the less likely they are to know WTF they are talking about when it comes to economics. There is no "monopoly = whoever has the largest market share" school of economic theory. If there was, we'd call it the Retard School. The same goes for the rest of the questions. These question are literally out of the first 2 classes of economics = macro and micro, not some Ph. D's dissertation. IF we are talking questions like: "Describe the conditions under which the Federal Reserve should increase the funds rate" "Describe the effects of wage and price controls" "Why have we ever listened to an idiot who said "in the long run, we are all dead" in regard to government spending policy?(hey John Maynard Keynes it's the long run now, you are dead, and now the rest of us have to deal with your mess) THEN you would have a point. But we aren't, so you don't. Start asking those questions and the "schools" start to appear. But, the survey questions were fundamentals, and neither you, or anyone else, has any hope of answering any of the "schools" questions intelligently if you don't know the basics.

1. No it didn't. It simply suggests that I live in a market with too many people that think they are demonstrating their intelligence by making up words for things for which we already have words, and I find that highly annoying if for no other reason than it confuses clients. 2. Welcome to the board. Disingenuous personal attacks are what we thrive on here, especially when they are true. 3. You don't know economics(example of a personal disingenuous attack that happens to be true). 4. In all honesty, my current impression of your understanding of economics/business is that is has been attained conversationally, what you see on TV, read in the paper, etc. Not knowing ROI, etc. exposes that. As always, my impression is subject to change, and it would if you could demonstrate some sort of formal familiarity with the material.

Interesting, thanks. I can't think of a good reason either...especially since Chef seems to blame his policies for getting them into this mess in the first place. Personally, I blame Silicon Valley women. The only logical explanation for this is poor morale. The Valley women must have stopped putting out as soon as you say the words "project manager" or "technical architect" or even, "(annoying, d-bag) system test lead". They need to resume their patriotic duties . That alone could be a reason to elect Brown if he promises it. I still say a "pay for teacher's AND parent's performance" system is the best way to go. We need to take away every excuse and solve the problem on all sides. Blaming teachers and blaming parents, and not blaming the kids themselves isn't getting us anywhere. I especially like it because it would reduce the power of the union. As we have seen, the union treats, and insists that we treat, all teachers like they are the same, and clearly, that is not the case. Oh, and tell your wife not to worry. Pay for performance is just one more thing that Obama talked about but had no intention of doing. Ask her union how happy they are now that GITMO is closed.

With all of the problems facing the black community, both systemic AND self-inflicted, the NAACP decides to crusade against a greeting card? Anybody remember the guy that got fired for saying "niggardly", and then got big $$ in the settlement? This isn't the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last. But why does this happen? Oh, I forgot all about those "identity protection" majors in college. Mission Statement of Identity Majors: "If only we can improve the identity of women/black people, problems like 50% of black children being born to single mothers will solve themselves. We simply need more "Womyn's Studies" and "African-American's Studies" majors on the job and that single mother problem is toast. You don't need Economics, Psychology, Finance, History, Biology, Public Policy, etc. to solve this problem. All you need do is study Harriet Tubman and great wisdom will be revealed unto you." Therefore, Conclusion of Identity Majors: Hmm. 50% of black children being born to single mothers....and...greeting card! That is what is causing people to think black women are whores. Yes, we should have done something about the greeting card business years ago. This whole time they are the ones ruining the identity of black women! The behavior of black women has nothing to do with it! (Incidentally, Tubman was an interesting and great lady, so I hate to use her, but, she is the poster child for Black Women's studies.)

Any idea who's going to win this one? I don't mean polls, just the sentiment of the people you have picked up on. (I am assuming due to your current vocation that you don't have a tin ear.)

As a consultant to Wall Street firms and banks on numerous engagements, I am fully aware of the term "Quant". See, I actually get paid by them and others, partly due to my knowledge of economics, mostly because I am a snappy dresser. I hope nobody is paying you for yours.

Alright, if you insist on being serious... I think this has more to do with Obama, etc.'s irrational hatred of Bush, combined with the sudden realization that all that yelling means they have foolishly committed themselves to something...different...now. But, they find out: there's not a whole lot that they can do differently, and, there's not a whole lot they can do competently, because they simply aren't familiar with the material. So, they return the bust, because, Bush asked for it, and "dammit, we are gonna do something, anything, to symbolically remove him". The potential consequences and messages we are sending England? Well, like I said, it's irrational hatred. Ultimately, Bush was a false lighting rod for all kinds of things. I.E., Bush '= Guantanamo, so let's cut the crap. The facts are: 1. that there's nothing we can do with illegal combatants 2. no state wants them 3. it reminds these people that despite all their pining, we are fighting a real war against evil men, period. 4. it reminds these people that despite all their psychobabble, real evil does exist in this world, and must be fought. If they stopped and thought for a second, they'd realize that they hate these facts, and not Bush. But, it's easier to put a face on them, and synthesize it all down to "Hate Bush because of Guantanamo". And of course, this is perfect if you intend to be politically dishonest. They can't do anything about GITMO, and everything else, so they transfer that angst to a defenseless piece of artwork.

Alright, that's 2 in a row. Cut...it...out. Any more of this and this place is going to turn into an Deepak Chopra drum circle

More confirmation of DC_Tom's earlier findings. But, before we go any further...it seems like English isn't the first language here. I don't want to bust on anybody for trying. Oh, and I will be doing Quality later today....but after that, it's right back to Quant-identity work....

Oh come on! You just passed up a perfectly good opportunity for us to hear conner drone on and on about: 1. carving up the Middle East in a seemingly stupid, but actually intelligent(if you are England) way 2. trying to keep the Irish down 3. trying to keep the Indians(dots) down (I honestly don't know if conner is aware of any of these...) And here I was: hoping that conner would start yipping about these things. Actually, I was looking forward to conner inevitably not understanding/misunderstanding/ignoring some/many(whichever conveniently support the leftist agenda at the time) of the facts, therefore, creating ridiculous arguments, and drawing ludicrous conclusions from them. Then, I was hoping Darrin and Tom and the rest if the peanut gallery would verbally abuse conner, because....Well, let's face it, we all like watching the abuse. Then, conner would talk in a circle, or, make some ridiculous claim....and then backpedal/deny, backpedal/deny. This would invariably end in the word idiot being used about 50 times, and much humor would ensue. But, no, you had to ruin it with your diffusing comment. Great.

What in the heck? What does this have to do with this thread? This is about Big Unions wasting $10 mil of their members money on a loser. Great argument for joining a union, huh? And, this is about a billionaire who should have been deported 10 years ago for actively trying to subvert this country, wasting even more money and not advancing that agenda. Ask Brandon: Bill Clinton went back home and ran ads against both the Unions and MoveOn.org/Soros saying specifically that outsiders were trying to affect an Arkansas election. That is credited for Lincoln winning. Is Clinton part of the TEA party now? Was he holding up racist signs? WTF are you talking about?

So how does any of this account for: 1. last 10 years, significantly reduced government control, massive economic growth 2. preceding 50 years, massive government control, next to 0 economic growth When Nixon opened up China, China got better. This is undeniable. Try again. It helps when you actually respond to my point. I am talking about the difference in the last 10 years vs. the preceding 50. Try to stay focused. What? Seriously? What? The relationship is: more government control = less economic growth. Look at Western Europe compared to us, again, not even close, unless, again, you fudge the #s like the Scandinavians do. One, of the many, countries that have applied Milton Freidman's economic theories to great success is Chile. Do yourself a favor and learn about Chile. Or, if you don't like that one, look at what happened to Ireland when they massive slashed their corporate taxes in the 90's. Again, there is no doubt that less government tampering with the economy is always better. Look at our current situation: the government told banks they had to give mortgages to unqualified borrowers....and the whole thing blew up. Explain how forcing that lending that was a good idea. I will be here all day.