Stupid Tax

Stupid Tax

 
I am not referring to Dave Ramsey’s “Stupid Tax,” i.e. mistakes that people make with money ultimately costs them much more than they anticipated.  In this instance, I am referring to what it costs to be stupid; specifically, what it cost someone because he 1.) made a poor decision; and 2.) likely did not exercise his spine.  The idea still applies in that being stupid generally costs much more than anyone anticipates, be it dollars or anything else.

 
A lady I know has a friend whose son had a friend who had Bad Friends.  (Please forgive the lengthy connection.  While this is an anecdote, the principle applies to many situations.)

 
The son’s friend called him at 3:00 a.m. last Saturday.  The friend had been gambling until then and needed a ride home.  There is nothing too awry so far.  While I am not a gambler nor do I stay out until 3:00 a.m., I would not refuse a friend who needed a ride.  I would berate him the entire ride home and make him think twice about calling me again – or better yet, about gambling until 3:00 a.m. again.  I would not refuse him though.

 
Upon arriving at the casino, his friend greeted him with the Bad Friends.  Instead of refusing to take them all, he agreed to drop them at their apartment.  Warning bells should have sounded by this time.

 
He took them to their “apartment” and then agreed to wait for them.  Why should he have waited for people he did not know at their own apartment?  Was he now a taxi service?  He was already inconvenienced once for the evening.

 
Obviously, it was not their apartment.  As it happened, it was a drug dealer’s apartment.  They were not there to rest their weary heads.  They were there to “score” some drugs.

 
The events that happened next are somewhat unknown.  What we do know is this:  Instead of the Bad Friends being grateful for the late night ride from someone they did not know, they decided they needed his money and car instead.  They killed him then used his money to buy the drugs and took his car to leave the scene.  He was 23 years old.

 
Here are his known mistakes:

• He agreed to take several unknown people to an unknown location late at night.
• He agreed to wait for them when it made no sense for him to do so.
• He (presumably) had not armed himself.  He was 23 years old and in Louisiana; there was no reason for him to be unarmed. 
• If he was armed, he did not take action when he should have.

 
The tax assessment here is death.

 The lessons learned are:

• Tell your friend “no” when he asks if you will play taxi to a bunch of unknown people.
• Listen to those “warning bells” inside your head.  If you do not have any, spend time with wiser people than yourself.
• Arm yourself.
• Defend yourself.

 

Blogged with the Flock Browser

He Missed That One

Christopher Ruddy from Newsmax discussed a few the "unfair" criticisms of Obama in his "Obama's Real Problem" editorial on the twentieth.

He mentions accusations of Obama being a "secret Muslim" and not putting his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. 

I agree with Ruddy in that they draw attention away from the "real" reasons not to vote for Obama.  However, I will not fault anyone for voting against him for those reasons.  (Any vote against Obama or Hillary or pretty-much-any-democrat-running-for-any-office seems to be a good thing this election season.)

Ruddy completely missed the National Anthem where Obama did not put his hand over his heart.  Unlike the pledge or Muslim "controversies," that was indisputable.

Obama gave a brief explanation of this in an interview after the event.  He said that his grandfather taught him to put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.  Apparently, he was taught that during the National Anthem, you are supposed to cup your hands under your testicles as though they were about to fall off.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

With Temperate Prejudice

I am going against a personal policy of mine and writing about my actual work.  I am taking care to not name the companies or the people involved.  Doing otherwise would be a disservice to all involved.

A man that I am replacing within my company was recently fired for cause.  In the State of Texas, a right-to-work state, employees have the right to quit at any time without notice, regardless of any notification requirements in their contracts (this does not apply to independent contractors though - just "regular," W-2 employees).  Additionally, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all.

I do not know all of the particulars related to the case but I do know that the man I am replacing really upset several employees of my company's client.  In the consulting profession, this is a Cardinal Sin.

This is not to say that a consultant should be unreasonable in accommodating an client or even tell them things they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

From what I have been able to ascertain, the client has several key employees who are upset with specific actions of his.  He was not faulted for his performance.

Once the complaints against him were made, problems that were tolerated when the client was pleased with him were no longer accepted.

He was terminated with cause but I was not privy to the reason given for his termination.

Late last week, I was shown two pieces of information that I found disquieting.  One was something that had I seen, without any point of reference,  compel me to fire someone.  The other was a filing against my company and our client with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charing both with racism.

I cannot definitively say that racism was not a factor with the client.  I have not been on site with them nor have I talked with any of them in great detail.  I can say with near certainty that race was never even discussed by employer in any conversations involving me or that I had overheard.

I am a big believer in the right to association in personal and business matters.  I believe that employers have the right to hire and fire whomever they can attract or disregard.  I believe if race had been an issue, he would not have been hired in the first place.

* Side note:  I understand that some people believe that race transcends the color of skin and that "they didn't know what they were getting but didn't like it once they found out."  This really does not apply here.  I actually disregard that view entirely.

Cream will rise to the top.  Artificial barriers have been destroyed.  Pretending that they exist not only wastes time and money, it deafens the ears against legitimate complaints.

I may have to write more on this later.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Well What If...

The last few weeks for me have involved my professional life becoming a bit surreal, a lot of walking, a lot of talking, and dangling 866 feet above the ground.  And what is with teenage boys wearing capris, tight fitting shirts, and having perfectly coiffed hair made to look uncoiffed?  It is like Dr Frankenfurter meets Audrey Hepburn.  Perhaps I do not go to shopping malls often enough (or at all) to maintain any modern fashion sense.

Androgynous adolescents aside, I have a few more questions for current presidential wannabes:

Would you support water boarding and similar techniques if they alone were able to coerce terrorists into divulging their plans?

We do not even have to use a hypothetical situation.  Instead, I offer the example of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a known terrorist.

Is hurting him acceptable in order to save lives?  If not, how many people would have to die before changing your mind?  What if his having knowledge is uncertain?  Would it be acceptable as a matter of course or would we have to wait until we were hit before hurting him?

For now, I am not even talking about the gray areas like the "when does it end" scenario such as jack booted thugs applying thumb screws to jaywalkers.  Instead, I am only referring to the most extreme examples.

Even then, the current crop of candidates cannot say that they would make that difficult decision to do so.  It seems that they will do anything to avoid the question being asked of them.

What if getting KSM to "talk" meant hurting his pre-adolescent progeny?  Forget that question.  I would like to hear them even answer the first.

It seems that before they even avoid the question, they start talking about the justifications for not doing so.  Sometimes this involves, "Well we are better than..." or "It really messes up the interrogators..." or "It will alienate allies x, y, and z."

They still do not answer the question.

I wonder if they would object to holding them over the side of a building.

Blogged with the Flock Browser