Corporate executives drinking deeply from the public well? Shocking.
This is just a quiet, PR-positive way of very slowly taking governance out of the hands of voters and putting it in the hands of corporate executives. You can read about it here.
Armed soldiers with arrest powers no longer accountable to the people? What could go wrong?
To wit, you're not bitter in the least, are you?
Can you please explain (without the evasive vagaries) how observing and reporting on factual events in the workplace makes me "bitter?" The office politics had no effect on me. I quit long before the chickenshits ever got around to noticing my competence or accomplishments. I had much better things to do.
I can go to my boss and say that something's wrong with his design, and I know that we'll have a nice professional discussion weighing pros and cons of alternatives.
Sounds delightful. Do his teeth gleam when he smiles too?
How's Fortune 100 suit you for "big leagues"?
You sound awfully defensive for a man who claims to live in a professional paradise.
I'll pick the man who built a computer by hand from relays, the Emmy-winning filmmaker, the four-star general, the 25-year-career fighter pilot, and my acquaintance in this picture.
No former presidents or Nobel prize winners?
And that's exactly why I won't hire you. I don't care about whether you "outproduce" anyone.
Of course you don't, and neither does corporate America. That's why America can't build anything any more. That's why we have to outsource our space program and import socks from Honduras and we spend $600 million on a web site that doesn't work.
American middle management is interested in one thing: are you going to knuckle under and do as you're told. If not, they will do everything in their power to destroy you professionally and personally. I've seen it happen to so many people now I've lost count.
You have exactly the same personality. You expect others to respect you and your "more corporate than thou" well rehearsed "professionalism," and the way you evaluate their respect is how obsequiously they can wheedle you for a job.
And if you perchance stumble on a ram among the sheep, you engage the standard "you are a bitter failure because you are not corporate enough and by comparison I must be a hero of the workplace because my boss and I take long walks on the beach together to discuss the pros and cons of my brilliance."
Ultimately you simply cannot grasp the reality of actually being professional because you don't know what I and all other leaders know: that if we don't produce, we go out of business. You get a paycheck every two weeks regardless of what's happening in the company. That's why you can afford to be a wiseass about productivity.
When I get a paycheck, it's because I personally made it happen. That's the difference.
How much could you have grown, though, if you had curtailed your arrogance just a bit?
You mean could I have won the game by eight touchdowns instead of seven?
What amuses me is how you're so dead-set against the stereotypical corporate boss that you actually fill the role nicely. You're focused mainly on production rather than employee well-being. You're emphasizing hard certifications and years of experience over good references, and you boast about your personal triumphs rather than your team's achievements.
Oh, you must have pulled muscles reaching for that one. Go look up "false dilemma."
You're a liar, then.
What's next? Neener neener you're a weiner?
Are you so obsessed with the corporate sacrament of firing people that you can't imagine a world where a CEO has never fired anyone?
Given your string of conflicting assertions, unfounded assumptions about the context, and absolute inability to recognize your weaknesses, I'm afraid your consulting services are not appropriate for my projects' needs at this time. We've chosen a different vendor that better aligned with our workplace environment. We thank you for your time, and wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
Tell the truth. You get aroused when you write stuff like that, don't you?
It's just bad journalism all around. There's nothing newsworthy about chasing people around their front yard and ringing their doorbell at all hours.
Journalists used to have a little class.
You know nothing about my professional position, yet you assume I'm not an employer.
You did your share of mouthing off about my professional position. You act like most corporate-minded people. Others are expected to knuckle under or they can expect to be fired out of spite. It's not about the job. It's about fucking other people over to make a point.
I watched it in every place I worked. The people who kept their jobs spent all day campaigning to get others fired. The people who actually did the work got harassed for weeks and then got fired. I put up with it for about five years and pulled the eject handle, gathered up a couple bucks and started my own company. Best decision I've ever made.
if I have to worry about you mouthing off to a customer or making another engineer take a poorly-timed vacation day, you're not valuable enough to be on my team
So basically your management style is a pissing contest. Everyone else is required to sit quietly and wait to be instructed by your Olympian highness lest they upset your perfectly balanced apple cart with their amateur japes. Sounds fairly insecure and paranoid to me, but then again I only have 15 years of management experience so what the fuck do I know, right?
I don't have time to cater to your ego.
If you want to play in the big leagues, son, you had better be prepared for World Series egos, and you had better be prepared to manage them without wetting yourself with your bullshit insecurities.
I have technical skills superior to any five people you've ever worked with combined. If you hire me, you will deal with my ego, you will pay my fee and you will do it my way. If you want to shit the bed you do it on your own time. Why? Because my team produces results. I can take three of mine and outproduce any corporate tie-wearing fuck and ten of his while eating a sammich.
That's how I grew my business (with three record years) straight through the worst recession in eight decades.
Or do you just mean every other employer is like that, and when you fire someone, you have a very good reason for it?
Don't know. I've never fired anyone.
It's a pain in the ass in the beginning, but if you stick with it and make the effort to learn how to do it, you'll never miss working for a boss.
I wouldn't go back for anything now. For one thing, no employer can afford me and secondly, as far as they are concerned, I'm unemployable because they would need three people to help them read my CV. (If I print the whole thing without summarizing it, it runs to about 60 pages)
As an employer, I wouldn't hire you because your interpersonal skills suggest that I'd be constantly fighting to keep a team together unless they all simply bowed to your demands.
One of the reasons you aren't an employer, and I am, is because you don't recognize the value of my skills. I have 40 people working for me and I've been programming computers since Gerald Ford was president.
So please understand that while your lecture about how to get along with others is amusing, it only demonstrates that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
So you talk about "the only option in 2014 America", but you haven't tried any other options in this century.
Are you implying that American employers have matured in the last 15 years?
You complain about employers who "maximize your hardship", yet by being self-employed, if you screw up, you get absolutely every bit of hardship possible.
If I have a boss, and I don't screw up, I get every bit of hardship possible.
Yeah, I'd fire you, too.
Thanks for proving my point. You would fire me because you disagree with me. Not because I'm unqualified or doing a bad job, but because you have a personal disagreement with me.
That's immature, childish, irresponsible management. Par for the course in 2014 America and why I worked for 15 years to build my own company.
When good things happen, the reason is me.
I haven't had a boss for 15 years and I'm more successful now than I ever was in a corporate job.
I also can't be fired. Know why? Because firing me requires my approval.
I'm also intelligent enough to see reality even in the face of being heckled by those who don't know any better.
You keep punching that clock, Jim.
Whatever you do, do it as an independent consultant. DO NOT take a job with a boss. You will be fired when you can least afford it. American "employers" are not grown-ups. They are not emotionally or mentally capable of employing adults.
Have many clients so if one becomes a douchebag, you can fire them and rely on the others until they are replaced.
Be aware of the fact that if you ignore my advice and take a job, you will be fired, and it will be done in such a way so as to maximize your hardship.
Be your own boss. It is the only option in 2014 America.
Well, there's the Court's appellate review power in Article III, Section 2. You know, in the Constitution itself.
The Article III review power is not exclusive, and it is subject to numerous checks both within and outside the federal government.
Legally speaking, the ninth and tenth amendments are equal in weight to Article III.
Marbury vs. Madison's primary effect was to limit the government's ability to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Their review power was clarified by the case, not established by it.
It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court routinely (and illegally) abdicates their original jurisdiction (as recently as 2011, for example in National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius), while exercising appellate jurisdiction in cases where they have none (Arizona v. United States)
You'll find that jurisdiction clearly spelled out in Article III Section 2. You know, in the Constitution itself.
It's highly unlikely that the framers who wrote Article I intended to immediately neuter all powers Congress had at the time of ratification and to toss everything out.
That may be true. It's also highly unlikely that the framers went to so much trouble to enumerate Congress' powers and then granted them unlimited power in the Commerce Clause.
So, who gets to interpret that Amendment?
The states and the people. This theory that the Supreme Court somehow wields exclusive power to interpret the Constitution is a throwback to the oracles of ancient mysticism.
They have no such authority either implied or exclusive, and if there is any chance the Constitution can be interpreted that way, then it is time it is amended to clarify that loophole through which the federal government has gone on an extra-constitutional adventure that would make Frodo himself pause.
The Tenth Amendment explicitly does not trump those powers defined in the main body of the Constitution
But the ninth amendment does, and the combined weight of the ninth and tenth amendments draws a very clear dark line around the limited powers of a limited government and says in a very clear and unambiguous voice: "this far, and no further."
Radio Shack would be better off just closing all of their stores and firing everyone, as that would surely make them heroes in the eyes of the American business community.
Nobody in America cares about electronics any more. You could stage a broad daylight bank robbery perpetrated by clowns armed with handgrenades and you'd have a below average chance of getting the average American to look up from their phone.
Anything that leads to massive waves of layoffs, abandoned stores, landfills brimming with brand new discarded products, crying, pain, suffering, bankruptcy, investor fraud, theft, arson, graft, embezzlement, female store staff getting their asses pinched, CNN specials, Piers Morgan scolding us five nights a week and a government bailout is always the better option.
Close 'em all.
No. They don't. The Interstate Commerce clause does not give the federal government the authority to mandate the process of manufacturing a product. They can only regulate its sale and only if it crosses state lines.
1) The sale of the physical phones across state lines.
Which this proposal is not limited to.
2) The sale of telecom services across state lines.
Which this proposal isn't even related to.
3) The fact that the phone is a radio transmission device whose signals cross state lines.
Which has nothing to do with interstate commerce.
4) The fact that some phones are used to conduct business across state lines.
Then the business might be regulated under Article I, but that by no means gives the government blanket permission to alter the design and manufacture of the device.
5) The presence of an interstate black market in stolen phones.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate this technology.