Bush Administration placed ideology above the Constitution.

Is anyone really surprised by this report?

The Bush administration not only exercised an ideological purity test, akin the the Gestapo's litmus test for handing out jobs. They also lied about it.

I have first hand experience with the ideological side of political hiring.

While living in Washington back in 2004-2005, I sought government employment as an attorney.

When I asked for some assistance as to contacts and suggestions from my home state Senator--Bill Frist--I was advised that I needed to write him a letter explaining in graphic detail the nature and extent of loyalty to the Republican agenda.

What I found truly galling was that I was specifically instructed to spell out my loyalty to and adherence to Christianity.

As an attorney, well-versed in the Constitution, I was thoroughly offended that I was expected to pass some religious guantlet as well as an ideological purity test.

It took me days to get over my anger.

My desire to serve overcame my anger at the Republican's ignorance of the Constitution and using my legal skill, I drafted a letter that punted on the requested purity tests, while speaking highly of my country and parents.

I was never called back.

I'm so glad Bush and his wingnuts are gone. Those who seek to serve should not be turned away because of their loyalty to country over or church.

Managers take heed.

Managers do many things to undermine the enterprise they endeavor to lead.

As a life-long student of good leadership and proper management, I'm unduly sensitive to matters affecting employee morale and affecting capacity to accomplish the mission.

Some of the biggest mistakes management makes are as follows:

1) Assigning responsibility without delegating the authority to effect change.

You cannot ethically make someone responsible for a task or a job unless you empower them with the tools to do the job. Management is notorious for this violation because of their own insecurity issues. Managers further compound this mistake when they ask subordinates to "buy into" the program. It's insulting.

2) Causing shit to roll down hill.

I learned this after eight years in military school. I'm reminded of Harry Truman's famous quote when I see management trying to lay blame on subordinates. "The Buck Stops Here." Good management doesn't shirk responsibility nor cravenly lay it at the feet of subordinates. It takes spine to be responsible, but spine is often not a requirement for management, just good blame-shifting skills.

3) Using only sticks to insure compliance.

The best managers use a combination of carrots and sticks. In that order. Resorting to sticks alone marks a manager as dictatorial. It undermines morale and breeds disloyalty.

4) Using divide and conquer as a strategy on those managed.

Not only does it breed contempt, it sucks as a management strategy. Why would any manager want subordinates devoting time and energy to infighting when a job needs doing? Only emotionally stunted managers use this strategy. It will kill a business if not stopped quickly.

There are many more, but this is a good sampling of what "not" to do in management.

Bush apologist is a liar.

Okay, another Bush apologist has done it again.

He's giving Bush credit for stopping the "Global Warming Alarmists." Which is something that everyone knows is all a bunch of crap.

Well, just today I read an article by, you guessed it, a bunch of scientists who offer proof to silence climate skeptics.

You don't have to take my word for it because it's on Science Daily and here's a link to the article.

It's time we called out liars. Fred Barnes is a liar and he's pushing an agenda without the facts to support it.

I'll be emailing Fred Barnes the article.

Bush apologists still peddling logical fallacies to justify idiocy.

Articles like this one from the New York Post all serve to underscore the problems with ideologues.

All the neocon fanatics still trot out the old logical fallacy used during Bush's '04 election that since Bush has been in office we've not been attacked by terrorists.

Like Bush is somehow responsible for something not happening.

Here's the same logic but in a form that shows how stupid and idiotic it is:

Ever since my birth, there has not been a Spanish Inquisition. Therefore, my birth was responsible for preventing the dreaded Spanish Inquisition.

See how stupid it is? Well, claiming Bush is responsible for a negative is the same.

There's a reason ideologues are anti-intellectual: Because their justifications and rationales WILL NOT STAND UP TO REASON!

People are finally waking up from their dream of a conservative America.

Thanks GOD.

Maybe it's time we outsmarted Iran instead of trying to out-piss them?

What I find entertaining about stories like this one in the Washington Post is the constant use of the adjectives like elaborate and complicated.

Let's be clear about this: This is a failing of U.S. intelligence and counter-terrorism.

This stuff isn't that complicated and elaborate.

Instead of actually doing their job and stopping stupid schemes like this, the government and more specifically the CIA, would rather bellyache about Leon Panetta.

Give me a damn break!

I could set up a scheme like this in about and hour, but I wouldn't do so because I actually give a crap about my country.

The best way to deal with this sort of bullshit is to make it too costly from a social standpoint on Iran. The old way of sanctions and embargoes has done wonders, so perhaps we should try something a little less muscular (like sanctions and military might) and more intelligent (like outsmarting them).

What I suggest is that we make their people love us so much that it become too politically costly for their politicians and leaders to mess with us. If we did something like that, we'd win.

We've tried the alternative, so now we should be reminded of Winston Churchill's chestnut about Americans: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've exhausted all other possibilities."

Well, we've tried and failed at the tough guy bit. Let's try actually talking to the bastards.

Alabama shows itself to be the paragon of corruption...again

Someone should explain the concept of incentives to the State of Alabama.

If you create a system where someone makes a lot of money by ignoring a responsibility, then the responsibility will be shirked. You reward irresponsibility by making it pay.

Despite the fact that Alabama Sheriffs take an oath to uphold the Constitution, when money is involved, the incentives to find every justification and rationalization for getting their grubby little hands on the cash, even at the expense of prisoners' health and well-being is irresistible.

This is exactly what happens in Alabama. The State foments this mess by authorizing Sheriffs to pocket any excess money remaining from food expenditures for prisoners housed in their jails. This corruption-driven mechanism leads to unjust enrichment of the local constabularies at the expense of prisoners.

What a bunch of idiots. When crap like this happens, we shouldn't complain about everyone making fun of the South. We do stupid crap like this and expect to get away with it.

Marry this whole scenario with a tough on crime philosophy and you have a recipe for abuse. Why? Few people stick their necks out for criminal welfare.

Cool experiment if you can get over the "eww" aspect

This is a cool experiment that offers up some tantalizing evidence about human phermones and their effect.

Aside from the ick factor, it says more is going on than we consciously realize.

Job losses greatest in six decades

The economy is heading south and fast.

Job losses have reached 1945 levels. We're talking over 2 million jobs lost in the last year.

History will lay this at the feet of the Bush administration. They've been in power for 8 years, so it's hard for them to blame a previous administration.

We must all pull together in this or we'll surely hang separately.

Beghe story paints a scary picture of Scientology.

I'll probably get a lot of flak for this post, but I think it important. Just so you know, I get very few emails or otherwise related to this blog, so if that changes as a result of this post, I'll be sure to let you know.

I came across this interview on youtube with Jason Beghe. He's an actor that's been around for awhile. Anyway, he was high up in the Church of Scientology, but became dissatisfied and left. Here's a story from a British T.V. show about his very public and very noisy withdrawal from the Church.



I put this up here because I've had some odd experiences with the Church of Scientology. When I was 18, I visited L.A. right after graduation. I was questioning my faith. I got a flyer on my car talking about a free personality test.

As an 18 year old, I didn't have much to do, so I went to check it out. I spent about an hour with those people and they asked all sorts of probing questions, etc.

To make a long story short: Even though I was young and in a vulnerable state, I got the impression it was rather cult-like and had nothing further to do with them.

The Chuch had other ideas. They harassed me for years through the mail and did all sorts of things to get me to come visit them again. I threw it all in the trash. I spoke about it with a friend and she told me of a similiar experience she had with the Church while living in Britain. Scary stuff.

Now, as an affirmed agnostic and secular humanist, I see the Church of Scientology for what it is.

I post this for the edification of anyone who doesn't know.

Burris should be seated.

This whole Blagojevich mess has had me scratching my head.

Any appointment by the Illinois governor will obviously be tainted by the press and the prosecution.

Yet, I'm reminded of the Constitution when I think of the appointment of Roland Burris. Specifically, that the accused is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

As it stand, there's only an accusation of guilt. The governor is innocent under the law.

Does that mean he didn't do what he's accused of? No. It means that the burden of proving guilt is upon the government and that until his guilt is proven, he should be without legal hindrance to carrying out his duties.

Of course the politicians want him gone because of the embarrassment he represents. Yet, these politicians are charged with upholding the Constitution and the laws of the United States, so for them to convict him without benefit of trial is to ignore their duty to the law.

I know nothing of Roland Burris and his qualifications. I do know that he should be seated. Until the governor is convicted, he enjoys all the power of his position; that includes the power to appoint a Senator.

It may smell bad, but that doesn't make it illegal.

Reagan era Republicanism is dead; Democrats the new pragmatists.

E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post sums it up clearly with his analysis of the future of the both Democrats and Republicans.

The broader point shouldn't be ignored: Republicans should realize that the Reagan era is over and find a new pragmatism.

Democrats have embraced pragmatism and will thus survive much stronger and with greater ability to run the show as a result.

Are we truly as free as we think we are?

I came across this radio show that offered some really astounding ideas--all based on scientific research--about freedom of choice.

Here's the show. It's about 15 minutes long.



This stuff makes me giddy. It really throws some wrenches into to whole freedom thing.

Fascinating.

Here's the link to the page with even more shows on it.

Literate cities lean liberal

Here's something of note. A listing of the most literate and least literate cities in the U.S.

Something that pops out at me is the political leanings of the most literate cities: They tend to support Democrats and lean liberal.

Something to be said for reading and political affiliation.

Interestingly, least literate cities tend to be in Texas or California with one exception: Hialeah, Florida.

U.S. health care has a fatal structural flaw - profit over people

The author of this article is obviously against a single-payer system in health care.

She obviously wishes to scare everyone with the title to the article.

However, she makes a good point at the end by begging us to ask the hard questions.

Here are some hard question for the author to answer.

Is it better to have rationed health care or no health care? Too many people are without health insurance and they can't afford it either.

Does it make sense for us to have the best health care system in the world if only a small percentage of our population can participate in it?

Our health care system has a fundamental flaw. The profit motive.

Profit is not a panacea and to place people's lives at risk for profit is immoral.

So as a last hard question: What's more important, people or profit?

Single-payer system places people above profit, while our current system values bottom-lines.

Health care reform should never be about profit because that's basically placing a dollar value on lives.

Saltsman is an idiot...apparently the appropriate choice to lead the RNC

Here's why I constanty wring my hands over the state of politics in Tennessee.

Apparently, this Republican from Nashville, Chip Saltsman, is running for the RNC Chair.

In a fit of parochial idiocy, Saltsman sent a CD containing a song entitled "Barack the Magic Negro".

Of course Rush Limbaugh is all over this accusing the liberal media of applying a double standard because they supposedly supported Gangster Rapper Ice-T when he released a song called "Cop Killer".

Saltsman gives Tennessee a bad name. His asinine decision reflects poorly on Tennessee painting an image of us to the world as backward hicks. Thanks Chip for destroying any progress the state has made in repairing our image to the rest of the world. Chip is apparently unaware or at least oblivious to the fact that the KKK was born not 80 miles from Nashville.

Let's straighten something out about the Ice-T issue: Americans are by history anti-establishment. "Cop Killer" was an honest response reflecting the irritation certain communities had with the establishment as represented by the police.

Saltsman's idiocy, even if the song was not technically a slur against the President-Elect, did carry the stain of racism by virtue of its title.

The song was sent in a wink-wink sort of way with an eye toward laughing as a result of racial issues associated with it. THAT'S THE PROBLEM!

Not the intent behind it. Few are accusing Saltsman of being a racist. He's just an insensitive boob without any sense of history or discretion.

The bozos on the Right deserved to lose and they'll end up longer in the wilderness for lining up behind Saltsman's foolishness.

I'll say it again: Thanks Saltsman. Thanks RNC. Thanks right-wing morons for making us all look bad to the world.

Real Housewives of the OC takes the cake.

I think I've witnessed either the most vacuous piece of television in my life or one of the most brazen. I'm speaking of: The Real Housewives of the OC.

The women on that show have to be some of the most shallow and lacking in insight that I've ever seen.

At first I thought the show was just as shallow as the cast, but on second thought, I realized that the producers probably pulled a fast one.

I imagine their pitch meeting going something like this: "Okay, imagine we get a bunch of rich bitch housewives from the most vapid and shallow place in the country--Orange County--and we put them on display. It'll be perfect. The housewives will do it because televising their lives and how good they have it will appeal to their vanity. They'll practically leap at the opportunity to show the world how good they have it. While the rest of the world will watch because of the stupendous display of vacuity and self-absorption."

Well Bravo gave the green light.

I've seen the show once and I was thoroughly appalled by these women. They do nothing but shop, tan, and figure out ways to entertain themselves. They display histrionics at the drop of the hat for no apparent reason other than to get attention.

They behave in ways most of us would find ridiculous and narcissistic. For example: One housewife's husband was in the hospital dying with leukemia, but instead of being by his side, she couldn't deny herself the opportunity to go the lake and party. Of course she got called out on her selfishness and cried that "others shouldn't judge her."

Huh?

This is the very stuff people judge you for; it's the type of stuff you should be judged for.

Another cried that she was a bad mother because her tattooed son got the inside of his lip tattooed. No, she's a bad mother because she set the example that it was okay for her son to have a sense of entitlement and that he could live a life of dissipation at another's expense.

I don't know what it is about these shows, but I have difficulty watching shallow people doing shallow stuff and being paid for it.

No wonder the U.S. has hit a snag. Too many people cocooning in material excess.

I knew it! Religion has brain damage as a cause!

This study paints an interesting picture about religion.

Apparently, those who experience high levels of selflessness are experiencing decreased activity in part of their brains.

I suspected that religion was about brain damage all along.

TV networks are shooting up with Reality programming to avoid profit losses--too bad

I've noticed a troubling change in the programming on many television channels lately. Favorite channels, like SciFi and so on are moving toward more Reality shows.

This is troubling for a number of reasons.

Reality t.v. is a low cost option for networks. This type of programming appeals to the younger crowd.

Reality t.v. is a low-cost option used to buttress the bottom line through cost control. It comes at the expense of long-term viewership and long-term quality.

Once a network comes to rely on Reality programming, they lose a core audience (like me) making it difficult to regain viewership from hardcore fans.

Reality programming is nothing more than giving in to short-term financial demands at the expense of long-term profitability.

Yes, the younger demographic is a hot commodity, but to ignore the loyal older demographic--you know, the one with $ to spend is to sew the seeds of decline.

I know why networks resort to Reality programming: It's hard to resist the low cost of production. Plus, it doesn't require a network to actually make a commitment to Real programs of substance requiring an executive to stick their neck out.

I worry that the short-term greed will kill the long-term viability of certain networks. For those like the SciFi network, a good portion of the viewership wants shows with some aspect of real science and less of the fiction.

Why the hell do I want to watch Ghost Hunters--a show with nothing but camera tricks designed to build tension. Not one show has provided any evidence of ghosts. It's all bullshit and no science fiction.

Inhofe is a complete moron on climate change.

I'm not one for political correctness. Unfortunately, most of those who complain about political correctness are just wanting to wear their racism and bigotry openly, but feel constrained by polite society.

I'm neither a bigot nor a racist, so my irritation with the pc crowd boils down to the fact that I feel constrained from calling people idiots, when in fact they are...this includes bigots, racists and truth deniers.

I don't know about you, but I think America is over-endowed with idiots.

I just read an article about NASA scientists talking about global warming.

This article concerns me, because I recall that James Inhofe, the Republican Senator from Oklahoma thinks climate change is a hoax.

I'm gonna say it clearly: James Inhofe is a complete moron for publicly claiming actual facts are a hoax. If he claimed the sky was green we'd say he was mistaken, but no one will point out his error on global warming? Come on people!

When it comes down to NASA scientists or James Inhofe, I'm believing the scientists BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY STUDY GLOBAL CLIMATE! Inhofe is pandering to the idiot constituency.

How do I know Inhofe is pandering to idiots?

1) He's a Senator from Oklahoma

2) He's a Republican

3) He's not a scientist

This reasoning is definitely not PC. So be it.

Sometimes the truth isn't pretty nor will it win one many friends.

Someone needs to turn off the talk radio and actually learn something.

Deja vu for the French Revolution in our current economic state

It's easy to ignore the lessons of history--especially if you benefit from the present's largesse.

Corporate executives should be reminded of Marie Antoinette's famous display of obliviousness when she said: "Let them eat cake."

It seems that America's corporate executives are falling into the trap laid bare by the French Revolution.

While the rest of us suffer from unbridled greed, those who view themselves through the lens of narcissistic entitlement fail to countenance the reality of their situation.

America--despite her failings--will not allow the prideful and ignorant to live long at a feast while the masses scavenge.

Robespierre will be reborn from the egos of the well-situated should they ignore their history.