Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Willful ignorance
With a handy translation for the lucky people out there who live far away from these idiots.
I heard you had to drive him home after two umbrella drinks
*He drinks what he likes, that kind of confidence scares me*
I heard he's got a Prius, 'cause he's into bein' green
*He made a responsible smart choice when choosing an automobile*
My buddies said he saw ya'll, eatin' that sushi stuff
*He is open to new things and food he didn't grow up with*
Baby that don't sound like you, that don't sound like love, sounds like it sucks...
*What happened to the moron I used to love, he is way better than me*
(Chorus)
He can't even bait a hook
*He can't do the trivial things I can, probably cause he has deeper interests*
He can't even skin a buck
*he shops at the grocery store, he's urban, I'm so backwoods*
He don't know who Jack Daniels is
*He is not an alcoholic, I have a destroyed liver*
He ain't ever drove a truck
*he has a nice car, I am jealous*
Knows how to throw out a line, but not the kind in a field and stream book
*he is social and can talk to women, I hide in the woods*
No darlin' I ain't even worried, you'll come runnin' back
*I am in denial*
He can't even bait a hook.
*Come back baby, I won't hit you anymore*
Has he kissed you in a hay field as the summer rain falls down?
*Remember that one time we made out?*
Has he took you to meet his mama, back in his home town?
*You can't leave me, my mother would be disappointed*
Does he drive the interstate, or take them old back roads?
*He has a GPS and takes the most efficient route, he is better than me*
Can he melt your heart with a country song, every good old boy should know?
*Can he write dumb shit like this song*
I didn't think so...
*Please come home, I will find a job, I promise*
(Chorus)
At the end of the song he mumbles something about the new boyfriend not being able to change the tires on his expensive European car. First off, the Prius is made by Toyota which is a Japanese company. So once again Justin Moore is an idiot or this guy is rich enough to own a Prius and an expensive European car. Secondly, you'd think someone who makes enough for a Mercedes and a Prius would probably have AAA, just a thought.
If you listen to this song and it speaks to you, was written about you, or you even kind of like it... kill yourself. This kind of stupidity and insular backwardness is what makes people hate country music and rural America in general. Seriously if this song is "cool" to you - kill yourself, it would make my trips to Wal-Mart more pleasant.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
A large portion of my life
BS = Business Speak
"My speculation: People disagree in corporations, often virulently, or they would disagree if enough real debates were allowed to reach the surface. The use of broad generalities, in rhetoric, masks such potential disagreements and helps maintain corporate order and authority. Since it is hard to oppose fluffy generalities in any very specific way, a common strategy is to stack everyone's opinion or points into an incoherent whole. Disagreement is then less likely to become a focal point within the corporation and warring coalitions are less likely to form.
Many morale-improving corporate practices are precisely what people perceive as somewhat demoralizing, such as fluffy rhetoric, forced socializing, and a somewhat egalitarian bonus structure. Rule of thumb: when you see the demoralizing, start with the premise that it is being done for morale."
"To me the corporate speak makes me think about the way modern companies approach variation in ability. Most companies put together official and unofficial norms and processes to smooth out the difference in abilities. This can hamper truly competent people but it limits the impact of less competent people and whatever damage they can do. If you delineate every process step you may get less variation. Some companies, like Netflix, specifically reject this model of business and constantly search for high performers. However that takes a conscious decision to fire even adequate employees and spend alot of money in HR looking for the best employees.
In my current org (large SI) has a massive churn rate and hires people often on a project basis. For long term positions there is much more freedom but they decided to use an up or out model to cultivate their best performers.
I think there is value in both approaches but it is easier to straight-jacket the employees you find than go out and compete for the best performers."
The comments are just as interesting as the post.
"My speculation: People disagree in corporations, often virulently, or they would disagree if enough real debates were allowed to reach the surface. The use of broad generalities, in rhetoric, masks such potential disagreements and helps maintain corporate order and authority. Since it is hard to oppose fluffy generalities in any very specific way, a common strategy is to stack everyone's opinion or points into an incoherent whole. Disagreement is then less likely to become a focal point within the corporation and warring coalitions are less likely to form.
Many morale-improving corporate practices are precisely what people perceive as somewhat demoralizing, such as fluffy rhetoric, forced socializing, and a somewhat egalitarian bonus structure. Rule of thumb: when you see the demoralizing, start with the premise that it is being done for morale."
"To me the corporate speak makes me think about the way modern companies approach variation in ability. Most companies put together official and unofficial norms and processes to smooth out the difference in abilities. This can hamper truly competent people but it limits the impact of less competent people and whatever damage they can do. If you delineate every process step you may get less variation. Some companies, like Netflix, specifically reject this model of business and constantly search for high performers. However that takes a conscious decision to fire even adequate employees and spend alot of money in HR looking for the best employees.
In my current org (large SI) has a massive churn rate and hires people often on a project basis. For long term positions there is much more freedom but they decided to use an up or out model to cultivate their best performers.
I think there is value in both approaches but it is easier to straight-jacket the employees you find than go out and compete for the best performers."
The comments are just as interesting as the post.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
At the gym, a true story...
....just come get me if you need a spot = cool guy.
..... feel free to work in with me if you want to learn something = douchebag.
..... feel free to work in with me if you want to learn something = douchebag.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)