Let's Play Pretend

Let’s just play pretend for a short minute.  Let’s say that there is a company out there named Company A.  It is a good company.  It has a long history of success and it is highly respected in the industry.  It’s had its bumps and bruises over the years, like any company.  But it has survived, thrived, and become a great place to work.  

Now, things got a little rocky with Company A a few years ago.  There was a lot of discontentment in the company about how things were run.  It seemed like some people wanted the company to get more progressive and some others thought the company should stick to what made it so successful. (There were many more underlying issues, too, but you could boil down the overall problem to that big difference.) When the last CEO was going to step down, this all came to a head.  The two camps clashed over who the new CEO should be.  One camp thought that the CEO should come from within, like it almost always had - ironically it was the group that was advocating more change that wanted to hire the more traditional choice.  The other camp thought that Company A needed to go outside to get a CEO with fresh ideas that was not colored by the company’s biases and history. In the end, the company chose the outsider as the CEO.  The decision left the company very split and created aftershocks that were very troubling to the workers and other companies in the industry.

So the new CEO took over and immediately started shaking things up, as he said he would.  He fired a lot of the middle management and filled those positions with people he knew, as he said he would. He overturned some of the policies that were in place, as he said he would.  He didn’t connect so well with a lot of the workers, which wasn’t surprising since he came from a completely different background.  As you would expect, a lot of the people at the company were not happy with things. They didn’t want this CEO in the first place.  But this is how business goes.

Then things started to get a little weird…

The CEO started to do some things that - completely independent of what he thought about the future of Company A - were very disturbing.  There was another company next door to this company - we will call it Company M.  They were in the same industry, but nowhere near competitors.  The CEO got angry because Company M next door didn’t have as nice of landscaping and so a bunch of the squirrels from their property kept getting across the property line.  The CEO demanded that Company M build a giant fence between the two companies so the squirrels couldn’t cross over.  The facts that these squirrels could climb the fence, dig under the fence, run around the fence, find places where the fence was broken, or catch a ride with people going from Company A to Company M made no difference. Neither did the fact that the second company had absolutely no plan to build the fence anyway.  

The CEO wasn’t content to just act combative with the company next door.  There was another company on the other side of town that was run by the halfwit son of the former owner, who also wasn’t too bright.  We will call this Company Nutso.  They fancied themselves as a competitor of Company A.  To anyone observing this posturing by Company Nutso, the entire proposition was sheer lunacy.  Company A was the best widget maker in the whole city. What Company Nutso made was barely considered widgets at all.  Rather they looked like something a group of preschoolers would create when given the materials to make a widget.  They would be thrown together, covered with clumps of glue and sparkles.  Flames would be drawn on them with crayons.  The R would always be written backwards.  But Company Nutso kept insisting they were amazing at widget making.  Company A’s CEO didn’t leave these ridiculous comments alone.  Instead, he kept wildly freaking out and would tweet out comments on the company twitter account taking shots at Company Nutso.  He kept threatening them and insulting them.  However the CEO didn’t consider the fact that, while Company Nutso was atrocious at making widgets, it was simply fantastic at raising fire ants. They had enormous fire ant hills all over their property.  These ants would obey every command and could worm themselves into everything. And they would frequently unleash these fire ants onto other companies’ properties - just to cause mischief and mayhem.  Even though it seemed like a bad choice, playing with fire ants, the CEO just couldn’t stop himself.  

His refusal to work well with other CEOs and companies within the industry was quite disturbing. During the annual convention for major companies in the widget industry, the CEO did everything he could to irritate all of the other CEOs.  He said that he would not continue to work together with Company E and Company F on their joint widget improvement projects.  He insulted just about every other CEO.  He skipped out on meetings he was committed to and even was seen pushing another CEO out of the way in a group photo.  Most baffling, though, was his bizarre interactions with Company Red’s CEO.  They seemed to hit it off very well, to the point that some speculated Company A’s CEO would rather be working for Company Red.  The worst example of this related to the WidgetMAX.  Company A had created WidgetMAX in conjunction with Company E and Company F.  They were planning to roll out WidgetMAX in thirty days and everyone was working very hard to make sure there were no problems with the launch.  But the CEO told Company Red all about WidgetMAX as well as several journalists that were at the conference … and some waiters, valet drivers, maids, and even a traveling minstrel.  In fact, the only people he didn’t talk to about WidgetMAX were the CEOs of Company E and Company F.  By the end of the conference, most of the other companies were considering severing ties with Company A.

But this wasn’t all.  The CEO seemed to completely lose his sense of reason when he got angry.  A perfect example of this was when he started attacking the local high school’s football team because he didn’t like the way they walked into the stadium - a stadium built by generous donations from Company A. He railed against the players in meetings and flew off the handle because he didn’t think they were being respectful with their entrances. He cursed about several of the players and insisted they should be cut by the team.  This had absolutely no bearing on how Company A actually ran, mind you, but the CEO just couldn’t bear the slight.  He didn’t limit his outrage to the football team. He also got into a fight with the local high school’s basketball team.  They were a little hesitant to come to Company A’s factory for their annual tour and career day, due to the well-documented friction within the company. The CEO once again used the company’s twitter account and publicly withdrew the invitation from the team.  He also would use the same twitter account to make random verbal assaults on people that worked at the company, that lived in the town, that worked at other companies.  He demanded that people who didn’t even work for Company A should fire employees or shut down their own companies because they didn’t agree with him.  He kept tweeting out violent cartoons and comments about the person that he defeated in the CEO vote. Anyone who questioned the CEO's behavior, decisions, fashion sense, or dessert options would immediately be besieged by an onslaught of insults and threats -- more often than not on the company twitter account.

As long as the CEO was doing a good job running Company A, it could all be justified.  At least that was what a lot of workers were saying.  But he wasn’t even taking care of Company A.  He frequently bailed on important planning and strategy meetings to play golf.  Even though Company A was cash-strapped and in great debt to several banks, the CEO kept taking expensive trips using Company A’s resources.  He frequently made comments about Company A that were not even true. He routinely attacked the publication team that put out the monthly newsletter, saying that they were lying about what was going on in the company.  There was a group of employees from the mailroom who had taken to creating an unofficial newsletter during their lunch break. They would write it on paper towels from the employee bathroom and stick copies up around the building with tape and used gum.  The CEO began referencing these paper towels as the real company newsletter and even transferred some of the mail clerks to run the publication department.  At one end of the major production facilities for Company A, there was a large hydroelectric dam that generated power for the entire complex.  There had been several problems caused by the dam.  Leaks had sprung, flooding some ares of the complex.  It shut down productivity for that entire sector for months, costing workers their jobs.  In response, the CEO threw a picnic for the workers in that sector and thanked them all for coming.  He then bragged about how many workers showed up and then mumbled something about the allure of a really good potato salad, took a selfie, and went to the bowling alley. Several of the engineers who built and maintained the dam came to the CEO with concerns that the dam was possibly unsafe.  It was older and needed some upkeep.  It also was overworked and would benefit from some alterations to the energy use policies in the company.  The CEO refused to listen to the engineers and fired them. He replaced them with some guys who liked model trains and used to dress up as engineers who didn’t believe in the fact that dams could fail.  He got rid of the employee training team and hired someone to head up training that had spent her career to that point as the owner of a bookstore.  He even sided with a group of workers who wanted to publicly fire and banish anyone who had green eyes.  And to top it all off, he hired his children to serve as CFO, CIO, and COO - even though their experience to that point had been shopping for clothes, watching television, and caddying at the golf range.

Now, at this point in our pretend story, don’t you think that the company should possibly rethink its decision to bring on this particular CEO.  We haven’t even gotten into how he ran the company. The policies he enacted within the company seems irrelevant, truthfully.  All of the hostility that led to his hiring wouldn't even be involved in this decision.  The employees from both side of the divide should take a second and look at how things are going and at least ask if this is the person to be in charge. Instead of defending these increasingly ludicrous behaviors, instead of trying to justify everything this CEO did, employees who really care about Company A should take a pause and seriously perform a quality control check, right? How is this a beneficial direction for the company?  How far will the CEO go?  At what point do the workers do something?  I don’t care if a group of workers felt that this CEO candidate was more concerned with their welfare at the outset and even agreed with some of the measures taken within the company. There still should be some part of all of this that makes THAT group go, “You know?  This CEO is a little unhinged.  Maybe this isn’t the best dude to be in charge of my life and livelihood.”  It becomes about much more than the internal mechanisms of the company at that point.  This CEO is ruining the reputation of Company A.  He is destroying everything that Company A has stood for over the years.  The question isn’t if he is causing damage; it is how much damage he is going to cause before he quits, gets fired, or finishes his contract.  What state will Company A be in by the time that happens?  Right?  

"The president is the CEO of the country.” 

Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations

May 14, 2017

Watch Out for Charlie Crist

At the risk of being too political, there is something that is really bugging me lately.

For those of you reading this that live in Florida, you'll figure this all out quickly.  For those in other states, you may not care.  But you should still read this because I guarantee that your state is going to make stupid choices like this soon.  As you probably know, a state takes in various taxes from its citizens.  This helps to fund the budget for the state.  Now, for larger states (like Florida), the budget is bigger than most countries.  That is what happens when so many people move to your state like flies on a fresh carcass.  

So, the state has various taxes - property, sales, vehicle.  Most states have a state income tax.  Florida does not, so that means that it has to rely even more on taxes to fill its coffers.  So, if you were to remove or cut a particular tax, that would cut a large amount of money out of the budget.  What is the next step?  Things that the budget funds get cut.  And I'm sure that there are tons of personal ego projects that the legislature and governor have crammed into the budget.  So what actually gets cut is important stuff.  This is how it happens in our personal budgets, right?  If you stop getting income, you have to cut expenses.

Well, at the primary election, we in Florida also had to vote on Amendment One.  It was personally proposed and shepherded by our Governor Charlie Crist.  Up until this point, property tax in Florida was handled thusly:

• When you bought a house, your house was appraised and you were levied a tax depending on area of town, price of house, etc.  Let's just say this figure was $3600 a year - which is a common figure in the Orlando area.
  
• Next year, your tax was only legally allowed to go up 3%.  That is the most if could ever go up.  So your tax would be $3708.  This happens each year.  $3819.  $3933.  And so on.
• However, when you moved, your new home was subject to the current tax rates.  
• This caused problems for especially the elderly, who would live in a home for 30 years and still be paying taxes based on when that law first was passed.  Then they would get a smaller place and pay twice in taxes.

Crist's proposal was that you would now be able to take your 3% with you.  So your new home would only be able to have your tax raise 3% - even if the house value was higher than what you were in.

Sounds great, right?  If you are a homeowner you would love this.  You would pretty much lock in your tax rates on the first home you bought.  (Of course, with property values nosediving, it doesn't sound so great now.)  However, as the vote neared, I began to notice something as I thought on this issue.  Just about every public service group (Police, firefighters, teachers) were fighting the issue.  Why?  Well, think about it.  When that Amendment passed, the legislature would find itself with a shortage.  And we all know the first thing they are going after.

Crist was confronted with this and waved his arms and squawked, "No no no people.  I will not let a single public service get hurt by this."  The media helped Crist by trying to paint this as a home owner vs home renter issue - which never made any sense.  I voted No for several reasons.

• I don't believe that legislative issues like this should be run through making Amedments.  It is a fact that in Florida it is easier to pass an Amendment than a bill.  So this was a way to circumvent the legislature - who already had shot this proposal down.
• If this passed, the state would know that they would only have one shot to nail a homeowner with a high tax rate - on their first home.  How much you want to bet that tax rates are going to skyrocket on new homes?  That $3600 will be $6000 before you know it.  (Doesn't sound like much?  That adds $200 a month to your mortgage!)
• I knew that the services would get whacked.  I've watched politics enough to know they are ALWAYS the first thing that gets hurt - regardless of Crist's thoughts.

Turns out I was part of the 29% minority as the Amendment sailed through.  So what happened?  The legislature is working on the budget right now.  And they immediately told every state-funded service to slash their budgets.  The biggest hit?  Schools.  Orange County Schools were told to cut $70 MILLION out of their budget!  (jaw drops)  So, the people of the state took this into their own hands and just shot their kids in the foot.  The new teacher hires in the state have been cut in half.  And road repair, emergency services, etc etc all took hits too.

Way to go Governor Crist!  Of course, people are starting to get angry.  Florida is the worst hit by the subprime fiasco, with Orlando in the top 10 cities in America for foreclosures.  (I heard it was #1 at one point.)  And now these people realize that schools just got decimated by the budget cuts.  Crist's popularity is the lowest since he took office.  And his solution to all of this?  You ready?  No seriously, this is how proposal.  He wants to legalize gambling.  Not just lottery, which we have had for 20 years.  He wants to legalize full-scale gambling.  Awesome.  Yes, my friends, this is the man who was personally hand-picked to replace Jeb Bush (who was a GREAT governor - I don't care what his last name was).  Charlie Crist, defender of the conservative moral right.  

Oh it gets better.  You want to know who is high up on the short list for Republican Vice President list?  That's right.  Charlie Crist.  So those of you out of state just went back and re-read this post?  Charlie Crist is being considered for the Vice Presidential nomination.  That kills me.  In 15 months he has lost 20 percentage points of favor in the third most populous state in the country.  He personally damaged the already struggling education system.  And he mortgages the state's future for the present (on second thought, he sounds like he is perfect for the national stage).  

I will say this right here.  If John McCain picks Charlie Crist, it will have made me 95% sure that I will NOT vote for the GOP ticket.  Unless the Democrats pick a convicted felon.  Actually, I would not at all be surprised that after the completely unexciting Republican offering, and the sure-to-be-contentious Democratic convention, there will be a third party candidate show up and really mess up the whole process.  Seriously.  You watch.  Once the conventions are over, someone will step up and really throw a monkey wrench into everything.  

***This post was not sponsored by the Republican Party, Democratic Party, Green Party, or Bachelor party.  I am David Staples, and I approved this message.

Democratic Delegates

A couple weeks back I slightly pushed the Political Door open.  Then yesterday I pushed it a little further.  Since I haven't gotten attacked or beaten with rods, I guess I should just go ahead and kick the door in and jump.

There is a huge battle brewing about the Democratic Delegates from Florida and Michigan.  Here's the latest.  The Democratic Party punished Michigan and Florida for moving their Presidential primaries earlier in the election season.  The punishment was the that their primaries would not count, and the delegates would not be seated at the convention.  With the Democratic Party, the delegates are handed out based on the outcome of the state.  Every candidate gets them, and the percentage of votes determines number of delegates.  The candidates all agreed to stay away from those two states.  Well, sort of...

Hillary Clinton put her name on the Michigan ballot, even though she wasn't supposed to.  And she actually did some campaigning in Florida, even though she promised she wouldn't.  So, she won both states.  Now, everyone in those two states want their delegates included.  If I was Obama, I would be furious about this.  You see, I can say all of this, because at this point I don't like ANYONE left in any of the races.  So I don't care about defending one person over another.  But these are the simple facts.

• The Democrats agreed to stay out of Michigan and Florida.
• Everyone did that - except Clinton.
• She won both states - largely because of name recognition.
• Voters in both states were told repeatedly their votes did not matter.
• Voters in both states were not given the opportunity to hear both sides.
• Clinton broke the Party's rules in both states.

So, why exactly should we just allow the delegates to be seated based on the original votes?  Clinton is obviously pushing for this because she is in trouble and knows she would score a bucket load of delegates for winning both states.  But is that fair?  I don't think so.  I think that it is dirty pool.  I mean everyone knew this battle would come up.  I don't know if everyone thought the Democratic race would be so close at this point.  But they knew that Florida and Michigan would want seated.  I'm guessing most pundits didn't think it would matter if they were.  But now it does.  

(And how is it that Florida is always at the center of these election fiascos?  I swear, it is like Florida is the Island from Lost or something.  I'm always expecting to run into Jack whenever I wander near a wooded region.  Think about it.  Bizarre weather patterns . . . Beaches . . . Big abandoned hatches all over (air raid shelters) . . . Lots of foreign people with agendas . . . Shipwrecks . . . Always causing trouble.  I'm making sense, aren't I?) 

I know that in Michigan the rules states that if over 15% of voters in the primary picked "Undecided" then the delegates assigned to that percent could vote however they wanted - allowing the other candidates to pick up some votes.  And it ended up that over 40% voted "Undecided."  But, still, that means that Clinton got 60% for breaking the rules.  

I think that the only fair thing is something that - of all people to come up with a smart thought - Howard Dean (head of the Democratic Party) came up with is to re-vote in Michigan and Florida.  This is the only fair thing!  It is the only way to make sure that a "true" democratic process is observed that is fair to all candidates.  It is the only way to allow both Clinton and Obama a chance to win voters.  And it is the only way to make sure that the Democratic Party is able to choose the person the party really wants.  

If you think this doesn't matter to you because you are a Republican or Independent or Green or whatever, think about this.  There is a very good probability that the person who wins the Democratic nomination will be elected.  They are leading in every poll - regardless of who wins the Party nod.  So, it really comes down to the fact that how Florida and Michigan go will determine the nominee.  If it stays as is and the delegates aren't included, Obama will very likely win.  If they are included based on the messed up election, Clinton will very likely win.  Kind of raises the stakes, doesn't it? 

Why I Voted for Huckabee

So today was Super Tuesday.  Something like sixteen states across our fine land cast their votes in their primaries.  Not down here in Florida.  Noooooo.  We moved our primaries up a week to mess with people's heads.  As a result, the Democrats penalized Florida and won't let their delegates sit at the convention.  (For now)  Probably for the best.  Apparently, hundreds of people called election offices in Florida to find out where to vote (huh?).  This was explained away by some people as saying it was confusion from people in California calling the Orange County, Florida election offices.  Um, the 407 area code didn't tip them off?

Anyway, I know that talking about politics is the sure way to get put on the jerk list - or to get punched in the mouth.  But after hearing so much of this political blather, I felt like someone needed to just come out and say how they felt.  I voted for Mike Huckabee last week.  I have been a big fan of his for many months - technically since before he officially was running.  And I have tried to spread the word.  Even after one of Fox News' "brilliant" talking heads said Huckabee was a non-entity and a dead campaign, I still thought there was something worth backing.  I don't think I have been this actively involved in an election ever.  Why?

I have been reading the Reagan Diaries book for many months - it takes a long time to slot through eight years of info.  One thing about Reagan that I was continually impressed by was his convictions.  I honestly didn't know if we ever would see another politician who combined strong convictions with the fortitude to back that up.  I've seen people have strong convictions (I would argue that W does).  And I have seen people have fortitude and competence.  But they don't seem to intersect that often.  Huckabee has very strong convictions.  They have been tested again and again by the news casters in charge of interviews and debates.  He is even willing to make sure that he keeps his convictions honored even if he looks stupid - like with the whole negative ad business when he killed a negative ad the day it was supposed to run.

But he also has been very competent.  His is the most eloquent and presidential in his debates.  The people of Arkansas LOVE him and think he did a great job (I actually got them from some Arkansas residents).  He seems unflappable.  He may not be the most trained on every single issue, but he is a tremendous leader and speaker.  And that is the kind of person Reagan was - and the kind of person people can get behind.

I have been ridiculed by others (even Republicans) for backing Huckabee because he is "unelectable" or because I am "wasting my vote."  I completely disagree.  First of all, it is a primary.  This is the perfect time to back someone who may not win it all.  How else do you show what you believe?  If Huckabee continues to be a pain to the Republicans with his victories and showings, he can't be ignored.  His approach, stances, policies have to be acknowledged.  Some have said that his presence hurts Romney.  I don't care.  Romney should have worked harder or something.  It is not MY job to help the candidate I don't back.

I like the way he ran his campaign.  I like the fact that he has not had much money, yet still is winning delegates and states.  I like his compassion for people.  I like his approach to taxation.  I like his stance on abortion.  I like his approach on health care.  I like his views on gun control and Iraq and blah blah blah.  Probably most importantly, I like him.  Huckabee is a man of integrity.  He is a GOOD man and a FAIR man.  And I for once wish we could have a President that we were proud of.  I know that as a person who voted for W - twice - there are many times I am embarrassed by things that happen.  And I know that some of the stupid decisions made in the last eight years will cost us for a long time.  

I admire Huckabee - his pluck, his drive, his decency, his faith, his family, his hope, his humor.  He is a not a lifelong politician who has guarded every step and sentence for decades to make sure that he was safe when he ran.  He is a normal guy who saw a broken government and thought he could fix it (Arkansas).  And he is doing the same thing now.  He saw a chance to  make a difference and did.  Go investigate how much money he has and see what he did with it.  At one point during the Florida campaign, Romney had spent $30 million on TV ads in Florida.  Huckabee had spent $7 million on his entire campaign.  Guiliani spent six months trying to win Florida.  Huckabee was there for five days and only lost to Rudy by 23K votes.  People like him.  People relate to him.  

I wish that more people had the guts to actually vote the way they wanted - no matter who it is for.  Stop listening to the news shows and the pundits and the spin doctors.  Find someone you trust and can be proud of and take a freaking stand.  Don't vote just based on who can win.  How else will anything get done?  Back someone who you believe in.  Who cares if they have a chance in the world.  If everyone did that, the parties would have to pay attention.  And in the meantime, your candidate may shock some people.  After all, Huckabee did win five states already tonight, and still could win or come close in a couple others.  So apparently he's not such a pointless vote after all.  Like him or not, I know one thing, you can't ignore him now.  I hope that didn't offend you too bad.