The Ranting Game

[Brian_Holiday]

I don't have too much of a problem paying taxes for schools even though I have no children in the system. At least it gives me the right to complain about how they spend it!     

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we are on the same page. The tragic truth is the very people who are paid to care don't. Like you, that doesn't stop me from complaining about it. There is a solution, there are just too few people who are willing to fight for it. That is the sad part. I guess we just need to load up the school boards with ringers...

BH

[JDoors]

... I guess we just need to load up the school boards with ringers... ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That would be a good idea but just as in politics you have to be ... How shall I put this ... Crooked, to have a chance in hell of advancing through the system, which brings me to my next rant:

[rant] You could be the most competant, sweetest, honest, altruistic, principled, thoughtful, heroic person on Earth, but you won't get very far in politics, where those traits could help turn around or even save our country, because you have to lie and cheat, make deals and payoffs, and step on people's backs to get ahead in politics. Even if you manage to get INTO the system, once you are privy to the workings and machinations of our political system you must compromise your ethics, morals and principles, just to STAY in the system, let alone advance.

I guess what bothers me most is that we have to choose what we believe to be the least corrupt, the least incompetant, or allow ourselves to be fooled by the best liars, just to pick a candidate to vote for. Then, if that candidate makes it, they wind up being hacked to bits by the opposition, every mistake amplified, every faux paus ridiculed, every principle questioned endlessly, until they exhaust their ability to withstand the onslaught and we have to do it all over again.

Where's our George Washingtons? Our Benjamin Franklins? Has ruling the United States become too complicated, too dangerous, too unstable, too corrupted, for one man to manage? Arrghh.[/rant]

[Brian_Holiday]

Where's our George Washingtons? Our Benjamin Franklins? Has ruling the United States become too complicated, too dangerous, too unstable, too corrupted, for one man to manage? Arrghh.[/rant]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The best ideas in human history have often identified the worse parts of human nature, and turn them into things that benefit the common good. Take greed for example, without it no capitalisim. Capitalisim leads to progress and improvement of the human condition.

Now lets turn basic lust for power around on the politicians. If you can get enough people angry about a problem, it will get fixed. The key is organization, and numbers. So it isn't enough to just complain, you just have to DO something.

Activisim, it isn't just for loonies anymore....

BH

[blim]

*rant*

Ok, this has been making me angry since yesterday when I read this in the paper, and maybe posting this will make me "less pissy"!

"Newt Gingrinch ridiculed Michigan environmental regulators Friday as out-of-control bureacrats peddling a "nutty" notion that the Great Lakes could run dry.

"Do you know how hard it is to be ideologically so out of touch with reality that you've concluded that Michigan could run out of water?" Gingrich said during a State Chamber of Commerce forum, drawing laughter and applause from the audience.

"Think about it. You've got lakes on three sides. I've seen the map. This is like suggesting that the Upper Peninsula in February will run out of snow. This is nutty"

The remarks were directed at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's crackdown on bottled water exports."

OK, our town is located on Lake Michigan. Due to an increase of residents, the city went looking for an additional well for city water. Guess what??? It took over a year to find a water supply for this well. The city literally hunted and hunted for a water supply, there were constant articles in the local paper outlining their search, and the city officials were getting worried! And of course, our taxes paid for all these test wells.....

There are creeks running dry and a local lake is reduced to a swamp, and there are lakes up north turning into swamps, also.

Lake Michigan's level is down 3 inches from last year. Considering the size of this puddle, that is a huge amount of water missing.

We pay more for city water than my sister in law in Phoenix Arizona----Phoenix, folks!!!

I admit, Michigan has great water due to it being a "big chunk of sand", and sand filters water beautifully, but everytime I see a thrown away half-empty bottle of "storebought water", it makes me angry.

And this guy is supposed to be running for president in 2008. Sorry, he won't be getting this "tree huggers" vote!

*end rant* but I'm still mad...

Liz

[macmarauder]

hey i remember him. wasn't he a captain of this ship? i think this is one of his quotes.

[Brian_Holiday]

And this guy is supposed to be running for president in 2008.  Sorry, he won't be getting this "tree huggers" vote!

Liz

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, a poorly informed politician. Haven't seen one of those before...

I am sure someone will clue him in. Newt is a smart guy, but now, like in the 80's, he tends to shoot his mouth off. Write a letter, inform him (gently) of his mistake.

BH

[JDoors]

*rant* ... Lake Michigan's level is down 3 inches from last year. ...*end rant* ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are more things going on than not enough water. The lake has been much lower, and much higher, and at the same time some of the other Great Lake levels are rising at dangerous rates. Our short-term observations tell us there's not enough water, in Lake Michigan, but it's not scientifically valid to draw conclusions based on those observations. BTW, I lived in Chicago when the lake levels were dangerously high, I remember seeing the Gold Coast inundated with water, Lake Shore Drive closed due to flooding. A three inch drop in level may be an enormous volume of water, but it's almost insignificant compared to the natural variations in lake levels.

For example, from U.S. Geological Survey:

"... At Bay Mills, Michigan, on the southern shore of Lake Superior a few miles west of Sault Ste. Marie, the USGS, in cooperation with the University of Michigan, is studying sediment core samples for their historical lake-level record. Submerged sand spits, which formed at Bay Mills during the past 2,000 years, indicate periods of extended low lake levels with mean levels that are 5 feet lower than the current mean level. Natural climatic changes during that time lowered Lake Superior for extended periods, perhaps centuries."

" ... Studies have shown that the Lake Superior Basin is being progressively tilted from the northeast to the southwest as a result of residual uplift following glacier retreat about 10,000 years ago. Lake level is controlled by the spillway to the St. Marys River at Sault Ste. Marie, but the outlet is rising more rapidly than most other points along the U.S. shore of the lake. As the outlet rises, the accompanying lake level submerges the shore at an increasing rate westward from Sault Ste. Marie to Duluth, Minnesota. Wetlands and forests are submerged below the present lake level. At Duluth, as much as 18 feet of submergence has taken place. The rates of lake-level rise in these areas are on the order of 1 inch per decade. Rising lake level attributable to uplift at the outlet will continue to inundate low-lying areas and river mouths, to expand wetlands, and to contribute to erosion of exposed and erodible shores. Engineering proj-ects along shore and river mouth areas need to take such changes into account."

[Brian_Holiday]

Dang, now I am confused. Bad Brain!

BH

[Vile_DR]

[rant]

Everyone that has a job has something at their job that they don't like. Well mine became apparent this morning. I was doing my normal routine and a first week employee stopped me and asked me a question of my faith. "WHOA!, what did you just ask me?" I was shocked...he was shocked by my initial response. "How is your take on god?" The noob asked...and that is when I didn't get upset, but a little irrate because you don't do this stuff at work. I don't see him lasting very long because I am positive I am not the first person he has stopped and asked this. I understand that some people want to express their motivation for living and their experiences though the course of religion and occupancy, but not at work. Kinda like the school scene, you don't talk about it at work. If it was on a break or during lunch, sure I would have heard him out before I walked away not wanted to discuss my lack of interest in his subject, but WTF was he thinking when he stopped me in the busiest hall way in the building...I wasn't the only one hearing myself become a little intolerable, and how can he think this is sanctioned for work. Don't get me wrong, personal idealism is great...I am in no position to mock anyone of their freedoms, but leave this stuff on a personal non-work related basis. You save-face a little better when you aren't in a crowded hallway and it is easier to explain when your disinterest when it is a social thing, not a "I'm going to bug you at work about your religious understanding" thing!

[/rant]

I know I am not in the wrong because several thousand companies (including mine) have this policy of ethics and religion posted in their Employee Handbooks, but is this a matter of self-resurrection by proclaiming your beliefs, even at work?

[JDoors]

I don't know if he was out of line as far as company policy is concerned, I don't remember seeing any "can't talk about religion" statements in mine. Does sound like someone was about to try to save your soul (according to this person's doctrine) rather than an innocent conversation about faith.

If they try again I'd figure out a polite way to stop that sort of conversation. Though in my experience those who pop that kind of question are also well trained or simply experienced enough to have answers for anything you say so they may perpetuate the conversation. In that case you just have to be rude. Don't feel bad or guilty about it, if they have this habit then you won't be the first person to do so.

[Vile_DR]

Well in this case, he seemed to be very illiterate in the manner he approached me. And in the employee hand (mine), it states 'personal matters pretaining to sex, ethical concerns, religion status not involving companing procedures shall not be discussed during work hours and discussed only off-site or during scheduled break times.'

I wasn't rude in any way towards him. I very specifically told him that I am uninformed about the particular subject and do not want to discuss it in this environment. It was very un-expected and ill-timed. I wouldn't have any problems enlightening his talents if it wasn't during the work hours...but I do have a case to defend...

[Brian_Holiday]

I wasn't rude in any way towards him.  I very specifically told him that I am uninformed about the particular subject and do not want to discuss it in this environment.  It was very un-expected and ill-timed.  I wouldn't have any problems enlightening his talents if it wasn't during the work hours...but I do have a case to defend...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a long time supervisor, I would want to know. You can stop him from doing it now, or you can wait until he really offends someone and they sue. Do your company a favor and quietly and repectfully let a supervisor know. If you need to, just drop an anonymous note on his supervisors desk.

BH

[bozodog]

Yeah, report it to a superior. What is with some folks today? Another thing I hate is the new guy asking if I'm married... Like hello? What business is it of yours? Orrr, where do you live? Say what? I guess some folks have no life and think work is home. Or a social club.

Edited September 21, 2005 by bozodog

[Vile_DR]

Never thought about really notifying anyone of this, but I understand your reasonings. What if it does go to far? I'll make sure to make an appointment with the Boss when he gets back from Vacation!...

[JDoors]

... in the employee hand (mine), it states 'personal matters pretaining to sex, ethical concerns, religion status not involving companing procedures shall not be discussed during work hours and discussed only off-site or during scheduled break times.' ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's your polite way out next time, when you won't be caught off-guard like you were the first time. "Company policy states we cannot discuss this at this time, is there anything else I can help you with?"

My personal policy is to NOT report such behavior unless the person refuses to cooperate when you decline to participate. One conversation does not constitute harrassment. (Yes, I know, the paranoia about sexual harrassment has distorted that definition, but it still has legal standing.)

<edit> Oops, forgot to add a related rant: [rant] I hate those employees who run to the boss at every perceived slight, and do this so often that the poor exasperated bosses eventually wind up asking everyone to acquiesce to that employee's demands just to get them off their back.

And in that vein, on the rare occasions when those types of employees ARE repremanded by the boss the employee goes over their head, and since the poor upper management doesn't want to deal with it, at minimum they tell the boss to acquiesce to that employee's demands, or worse, sometimes they just plain get the boss into deep doody (entirely unjustified IMO) and that boss is never the same again.

Is there NO ONE in management that can simply tell someone to "Shut the %$ up and do your job!" ???[/rant]

(You can tell I'm not management material ... )

Edited September 21, 2005 by JDoors

[macmarauder]

Never thought about really notifying anyone of this, but I understand your reasonings.  What if it does go to far?  I'll make sure to make an appointment with the Boss when he gets back from Vacation!...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(hand Dr. Vile something)

[Brian_Holiday]

... in the employee hand (mine), it states 'personal matters pretaining to sex, ethical concerns, religion status not involving companing procedures shall not be discussed during work hours and discussed only off-site or during scheduled break times.' ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's your polite way out next time, when you won't be caught off-guard like you were the first time. "Company policy states we cannot discuss this at this time, is there anything else I can help you with?"

My personal policy is to NOT report such behavior unless the person refuses to cooperate when you decline to participate. One conversation does not constitute harrassment.

Bzzzz...Wrong answer. My company has been sued over several single incidents.

Here are some horror stories:

We got sued when two of our employees got into an argument. One was female, and filed a complaint that she was scared to come back to work. We paid her salary while she stayed home and litigated for 2 years.

They wanted to fire one of my team for lauging at a suggestive email he was sent by another employee. He opened it, snickered, and deleted it. Later the person checked the email logs and found it. She went home for a year with pay and I lost track.

My friends, we live in a messed up PC world where slightest hurt feelings leads to litigation. Dont be the person who let it get out of hand. And to clarify, I don't like it better than any of you.

BH

[JDoors]

Bzzzz...Wrong answer.  My company has been sued over several single incidents. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone can sue anyone at any time and as you know, some people cannot resist the money train. I don't know what the outcome of the horror story suits you mentioned might be but near as I can tell they had no case, though that doesn't mean there are no costs involved.

[rant] I was told by a neighbor years ago, as I was shoveling snow off the walk in front of my house, that I was making myself liable to a lawsuit if someone slipped and fell. That really ticked me off, he was using fear of a lawsuit to justify not shoveling his walk and trying to convince me to go along with his flawed logic. Our street is a major route for kids walking to the local grammer school and kids will walk in the street if they can't use the sidewalk. So out of fear of being sued (or, IMO, laziness) my neighbor would rather I and everyone else endanger kid's lives.

I could be sued whether I shovel the walk or not; if I don't I can be sued for negligence, if I do I can be sued for creating a nuisance. As I said above, anybody can sue anybody for anything, that doesn't, however, mean they'll win (though there's the damn costs of course).

In this case there are state laws that protect me, the so-called "good samaritan" laws, that say if you try to do something good you cannot be held liable for negative results if those results are common, expected, and unavoidable side-effects (including at least one law that specifically addresses snow removal). In addition, I am compelled by local laws to shovel the sidewalk: It's the law (his response to that nugget of knowledge was less than compelling).

A lawsuit under either condition would take time and money but either way the insurance company would likely settle the suite out of court. Not a proper moral ending to the story, but not a disaster worth endangering a child's life to avoid either.

The end result is since I can be sued either way I choose the path that results in potentially saving a child's life (and, incidentally, avoids a citation from the city for NOT clearing the walk). Grr. Lawyers and judges, the bane of modern existance.[/rant]

[JSKY]

I know where you're comming from JDoors. I live on a corner lot. And have to take care of 100ft. X 100ft of sidewalk. (not counting whats in my yard). And I have one of those neighbors to. Not the "can't get sued, but the lazy type). And if they do, half gets throwed on my sidewalk. If I say something, they look at my like I'm from another world. Really P****s me off sometimes.

(Rant) Lawyers!!!!!!!!!

Enough said on this subject. Speaks for it's-self.......LOL(rant/)

[Brian_Holiday]

The end result is since I can be sued either way I choose the path that results in potentially saving a child's life (and, incidentally, avoids a citation from the city for NOT clearing the walk). Grr. Lawyers and judges, the bane of modern existance.[/rant]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen brother! We have got to push tort reform. Like you, I would rather be sued than have a kid hurt. What is a higher insurance rate compared to a kids life.

I think they should make the filer pay for the lawsuit if it is clearly frivioulus.

Sounds like your neighbor is rationalizing. I guess he could pay someone to do it and defer the risk.

BH

[Vile_DR]

Never thought about really notifying anyone of this, but I understand your reasonings.  What if it does go to far?  I'll make sure to make an appointment with the Boss when he gets back from Vacation!...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(hand Dr. Vile something)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks MAC...always need something to get rid of the VAMPS...

Bzzzz...Wrong answer.  My company has been sued over several single incidents. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone can sue anyone at any time and as you know, some people cannot resist the money train. I don't know what the outcome of the horror story suits you mentioned might be but near as I can tell they had no case, though that doesn't mean there are no costs involved.

[rant] I was told by a neighbor years ago, as I was shoveling snow off the walk in front of my house, that I was making myself liable to a lawsuit if someone slipped and fell. That really ticked me off, he was using fear of a lawsuit to justify not shoveling his walk and trying to convince me to go along with his flawed logic. Our street is a major route for kids walking to the local grammer school and kids will walk in the street if they can't use the sidewalk. So out of fear of being sued (or, IMO, laziness) my neighbor would rather I and everyone else endanger kid's lives.

I could be sued whether I shovel the walk or not; if I don't I can be sued for negligence, if I do I can be sued for creating a nuisance. As I said above, anybody can sue anybody for anything, that doesn't, however, mean they'll win (though there's the damn costs of course).

In this case there are state laws that protect me, the so-called "good samaritan" laws, that say if you try to do something good you cannot be held liable for negative results if those results are common, expected, and unavoidable side-effects (including at least one law that specifically addresses snow removal). In addition, I am compelled by local laws to shovel the sidewalk: It's the law (his response to that nugget of knowledge was less than compelling).

A lawsuit under either condition would take time and money but either way the insurance company would likely settle the suite out of court. Not a proper moral ending to the story, but not a disaster worth endangering a child's life to avoid either.

The end result is since I can be sued either way I choose the path that results in potentially saving a child's life (and, incidentally, avoids a citation from the city for NOT clearing the walk). Grr. Lawyers and judges, the bane of modern existance.[/rant]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with both of you in this particular issue, because you never know what the other persons intentions are. I mean, if he were merely occupying my time for his and my best interests, there is no case, but if here was intending to hold me liable for any of my replies, then that produces a unethical case. I fortunately have been involved in a sexual harrassment case when I work with UPS, where I was a Operations Supervisor and had to represent the material I was confronted with and relayed to my Full Time Supervisor. I was called upon and had to explain my actions for the manner I reported to my supervisor because the female employee involved was trying to file allegations against UPS and the Individual for not following writting policies...she lost the case against the company because I followed the book as well as my Full Time supervisor.

Although a different case, this is very similar because it pushes the boundaries in which I need to handle the situation. If I was the only member of the staff he approached on this, what were his "intentions" for speaking only with me. If there was other interactions, what kinda of distractions was he placing in the work environment, was he trying to forward his actions toward self-benefit? All of these questions can't really be answered and I haven't heard any other cases of the individual approaching anyone else, but I have to report it...not in a derogatory manner to have him relieved, but just to make it aware to higher management that this is occuring, regardless.

And the shoveling snow...unfortunately I have never seen snow other than on TV or in the movies, but I really believe you are doing the right thing for many reasons. Having the kids in the iced over streets is more dangerous than on a slippery sidewalk. Have them bust their ass on the sidewalk as the cars go by, rather than falling in the street and the cars not being able to stop...that would be HORRIBLE. Also shoveling the snow shows consideration for others, "good samaritan!" You neighbor probably has a bad experience and didn't respond to it in a positive, "I"ll learn from what I did," kind of way. Just one of those things you have to let go in one hear and out the other...because IMO it is a mute subject on his behalf...you have every right to watch out for the well-being for your own as well as others children as long as it is at their best interests...no one wants to watch a child get hurt, but if they do, it is safely (kind of a contridiction, but it proves my point)!

Edited September 22, 2005 by Vile_DR

[JDoors]

... you have to let [it] go in one hear and out the other ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cute typo!

I remembered the rest of the story (this happened nearly twenty years ago when our neighborhood was new; new construction, new homeowners): I took it upon myself to shovel his <edit> sidewalk too (no blower, all by hand) and eventually he relented and, probably out of embarrassment at having someone else do all that work, he began to shovel his <edit> sidewalk himself.

He (and his wife) were the type that never once said "Hi" (until one day when the wife had a home business and they wanted to sell me something). Funny story: I had been using a local auto repair shop for years and one day the owner (whom I had gotten to know really, really well as I had crap cars back then) related a story about one of his customers who said their neighbors were "stuck up." The owner let slip the name of these poor souls with the "stuck up" neighbors: It was that guy!

I couldn't believe it (and I didn't let slip that I knew who they were). People who never once went out of their way to say howdy, who only initiated a conversation when they had something to gain out of it, had the nerve to say I was stuck up!

Edited September 22, 2005 by JDoors

[Vile_DR]

... you have to let [it] go in one hear and out the other ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cute typo!

The more and more I start to read my stuff over...the more errors I find...I guess the fingers are way behind the brain...and plus I read it the way I say it in my head...not seeing any errors...but it should read...

...you have to let it go in one Ear and out the other

Well, I don't really know how to respond to your little story there, other than saying..."WTF?!? D*mn!!!"...kinda like they beat you to the punch...but atleast it is in the past, something to look back and laugh at!

[bozodog]

You better believe we need tort reform. And we better get it done soon. The UK has been leaning more and more left on lawsuits, copying our way. And it's creating havoc on their socialist systems, like health care.

Think about it. All I have to do is *think* of a reason to sue, and even if I lose I'm only out the few bucks I paid the lawyer to file it. While *YOU* have to pay to defend yourself. The lawyers get richer, we lose.

I had a friend that invited a guy to his place to continue a nite of drinking after the bars closed. While entering his car, the guy said, "by the way, I go *both* ways" My friend said he did too. Badge was flashed, friend lost two days work and $2400 to have the stupid arrest thrown out of court. Where is the justice in that? The city should have picked up his tab because it was wrong wrong wrong. But no.... the system even allows convicts to sue at the cost of the g'ment....

Our system offers only a lose lose deal. Sued, and lose, you pay. sued and win, you still pay. WTF? No wonder all sorts of insurence is so dang expensive... (I think "they" are driving the system along, instead of reforming it)

Very much like legalizing pot. Most everyone agrees it's like booze, doesn't really lead to more distructive drugs anymore than booze. So why not legalize it? Because there is no test now available to tell just when it was used. Like booze and all other drugs. Ok, so you have a accident at work... a blood test tells if you have had a drink, (or 3) or any number of other drugs within hours of the accident. Not with pot, if you had fun at a party 3-4 weekends before then, your'e busted. Not high, not impared, just busted. So until (like never) the medical community comes up with a test that shows recent use, a safer alternitive to booze, and street drugs will never be legal.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't condone any illegal drug use. I'm just pointing out another political lobby that has control of our lives. Like lawyers.

Edited September 22, 2005 by bozodog

[blim]

LOL, Bozodog, your post reminded me of a friend's take on booze vs. pot.

She says, "you don't see a stoner going home and beating the hell out of his wife, nooooo, all the stoner wants is to cuddle on the couch; you don't see a stoner driving 120mph on the highway, nooooooo, the stoner is the one hugging the shoulder of the road going 25mph on the highway; you don't see a stoner missing work due to a hangover, noooooo; not to mention what stoners do for convenience store business, they help the economy with purchases of BBQ potato chips..."

She had a whole bunch of reasons, all of which were comical, but once you thought of it, true! Those were just the ones I remember (and no illegal stuff at my house, either, noooooo, too old for that!!!).

The sad thing about today's "sue happy attitude" is that people are afraid to do anything worthwhile for their community that might cause them to get sued. Each year I bring dancers down to a festival in KY and each year I worry. Not about anything bad happening, but the results of parents if something bad happens. I cover my rear as much as I can, but you never know what will happen. And you can bet that I will never do daycare again. I did that for 10 years and look back and thank God that I was never in a situation where a parent could sue me....accidents happen, especially with kids, no matter how careful you are.

These "call Sam" commercials aren't helping, either! The commercial that says, "I had a 'slip and fall' and guess what? I won a million dollars!!" No wonder some people get so greedy. They legally can. And people like that probably sleep like babies at night. No conscience.

Liz