Supersize this, JAMF

I am officially done attempting to save the planet. Period. Done deal. That's it. A movie that graphically details just how bad McDonald's food really is comes out and what happens: their stock goes up. Global warming turns out not only to be a very real phenomenon, with glaciers melting all over the place, islands looking like they're about to sink under the rising tide and does any political leader stand up and say "enough is enough," and actually do something about it? No.
So, for all practical puposes, I am no longer worrying about whether my car gets 20 or 30 mpg, that I may occasionally forget to recycle something, or that I'm not using low VOC paints. If the city takes just one of those ugly, smelly buses off the road, that will accomplish more than I will EVER be able to do in my lifetime. So, quit it already and leave me alone so I can go find some dolphins to swim with while there still are dolphins to swim with.

Christmas is here!

Stop complaining about parking, busy malls, and having too many folks to shop for. Enjoy this time of year 'cause it only last a little while and we need all the cheer we can get right now. And if mall parking is getting you down, there are plenty of little shops just about everywhere you look that are dying for you to come in and do business with them instead of Walmart-and if you even consider buying me some shit from that hell-hole, well it's coal for you next year.

Here's an idea. Instead of just driving around looking at all the pretty lights, get out of your car and take a little stroll-put some hot cocoa in a thermos, pack a snack or two, maybe even bring your pooch with you and enjoy a pleasant walk in the neighborhood. Say "hello" to some of the neighbors who, as we discovered in our town, were still out putting up even more lights and decorations. And is Sacramento, you know these people are dedicated 'cause many here don't go out when the temperature drops below 50 degrees, let alone venture out after dark (they still roll the sidewalks up here after 10 p.m. on most nights).

So, go out there and have a very, merry Christmas! Oh, and for all you humans of other religious factions, do what you do or don't do and go with the flow. Just like that cell phone commercial that combines all of 'em together.

Steriods and Ethics-Drop the First, Get Some of the Second

It's not that we have a problem with athletes using steriods-this seems pretty obvious if you just open your eyes for a moment and take a look at the size of some of the players who are currently under fire for alledged use of illegal substances-it's that we have an even larger problem of ethics, or the lack there of. The sporting world is a double edged sword: on one hand we have folks who relentlessly broadcast the evils of illicit drug use and how they lead to an inevitable downward spiral; on the other hand, we have athletes and their supporters-whether this is the owners, managers or fans does not matter, take you pick-demanding greater and more spectacular results from the players. It does not help matters that their simply must be some sort of condonment of this behaviour, otherwise it would not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. So here comes the harder question we must all answer...

Is there a workable solution to this situation that will actually accomplish something? Off-season testing would be a good place to start. Huge monetary penalties-the kind tied to a players salary-should be the next step. Who wants to risk being suspended for half the season and losing half of their yearly income in order to increase their batting average 25 points or to steal 5 extra bases? I like to think players are intelligent to figure this out for themselves and if they make the wrong choice and get caught, c'est la vie!

Seriously, I love watching Barry Bonds hit spectacular homers just as much as the next guy. However, will things balance out if all this drug use ends immediately? Or will they trade these guys because their stats drop by a few percentage points? My biggest fear is that fans will be severly disappointed and ticket sales will drop off, resulting in a huge decline in network broadcasts revenues, and therefore less televised games. Oh, sure it will eventually level out and things may improve, but this is not a chance I am willing to take. But, then again...

Those up-and-comers in athletics would then not be at a disadvantage if all there was to worry about was their individual performance, and not their inability to compete against those who are taking illegal drugs to enhance their chances of winning medals or to be chosen during the first round draft picks. And hey, maybe ticket prices will fall when owners attempt to increase attendance and more folks would be able to afford to attend major sporting events. An added bonus: not having to listen to John McCain threaten us all with more legislation.

Competition is the nature of sport; doing what it takes to make the cut, break the record, to win the game. Illegal drug usage tarnishes the name of those who use them in order to better their abilities, and in doing so, places an unfair burden upon those who choose not to: having to compete in an uneven playing field.

Of course, now it feels even better knowing the Yankees lost to the Red Sox even with Giambi's habit.

If you are sick, stay at home!

OK, even though it sounds like I'm directing this at the employees of the world, but this one is really aimed at all of you human resource managers out there who clearly need to get a better grip on the realities of the cold/flu season which, incidently, is becoming an all year event. Sick leave policies should accomplish two basic and, this seems to be not too common of knowledge to many of you, logical tasks:

1) Allow those who are truly sick to recover (at least partially) from their illness.

2) Preventing those who are sick from spreading it to the rest of us poor souls.

How tough is this concept to grap a hold of? I don't know about the rest of you, but I have no desire to stand, sit or lie (if you have a cozy break room) next to someone who is carrying a contagious disease; nor do I wish to hear them talk about it all day and I especially wish to not hear their weazing/coughing/sneezing/snorting/gurgling noises. In fact, no one wants to do this. Not the clients, not the employees, and especially not management-many of whom call in sick themselves at the first sign of any cold or flu like symptoms-and yet berate any employee who dare attempts to engage their benefit of time-off for illness. This of course does not include those of you in management who come to work no matter how desperately ill you may be and therefore consider yourself to be a model of work ethics (see task number two).

This brings me to my next rant about management style. If you have risen to the level of supervisor and, as part of your responsibilities, must speak on the telephone with those who are calling in sick, this is something you should have learned by now: PEOPLE CALL IN SICK. So, don't display any "attitude" towards them during-what should be-this brief conversation. That means no huffing, no long silent pauses, no stupid phrases like "see you tomorrow" or any other foolish rantings. Just say something like "thanks for calling in," and leave it at that. The reason you should be calm, cool and collected during these calls: you should have a back-up plan in place for when people call in sick!

So, pretty please, with sugar on top, mark this down on your calendars: winter is coming. And you know what that means, right? Answer below.

Some of your employees are going to call in sick.

The Mourning After

So this is what our country has come to. Everyone I came in to contact with on Wednesday morning looked as though they had lost a family member and were still in shock over the news. Luckily, my public exposure ended early in the day. Otherwise, I'm sure I would have needed therapy to recover from the almost overwhelming effect of speaking with several dozen depressed and discouraged United States citizens. How is it that the voting majority, who claimed that strong moral values were largely responsible for their decision, choose George W. Bush as the President?

I guess if your moral values include lying (WMDs, altered intelligence, what memo?), killing thousands of innocent folks (Iraqies and U.S. soldiers alike) and refusing to fund programs like "No Child Left Behind," then it makes complete sense. I for one, however, am dumbfounded and outraged that more than half of our population simple does not get it.