The long-awaited supreme court decision is due this week, perhaps as early as today. It's the most consequential decision by the high court in my lifetime, with the possible exception of Roe v Wade. It's a decision about what sort of country we will have from this point forward; a socialist state with an all-powerful Federal government micromanaging the lives of all citizens, or a mostly free society that permits its citizens to make their own decisions.
The question asked of the government lawyer during the Obamacare hearing that was never clearly answered goes to the heart of the question (I paraphrase): "If the government has the power to force individuals to engage in private commerce for health insurance, is there any private commerce the government cannot force on them?"
As we've seen with the more recent anti-religion mandate dictating contraception, the attitude of the Obama administration is no, there is no limit to what we can force on the people. The same president just flaunted the law by making his own brand new immigration law without even consulting the other two branches of government. Dictators act like this, not United States Presidents.
The Supreme Court needs to send a strong message to the president that he's not King Barack, but must govern within the constitution and laws of the country. The best way to do so is to strike down the entire Obamacare law.
The law was passed against the will of the people. It was passed in the middle of the night by Democrats without a single Republican vote. It was passed with considerable arm-twisting, threats to Democrat legislators' careers, and bribes to other Democrat legislators. It deserves to be thrown out in its entirety.
If the court rules the law constitutional, the grand experiment that was the United States of America ends. Because that ruling will grant absolute power to the man who would be king. If our self-appointed king then hangs on to office by any means necessary in November, we'll experience something akin to Venezuela after Chavez took power, or Cuba under Castro.
That's why this decision is so vitally important. Everyone expects a single justice to make the final decision: Justice Kennedy, the man who hasn't discovered his core convictions yet.
Update: It wasn't Kennedy, but John Roberts who disappointed the nation by changing the law to manufacture a reason to uphold it. Apparently he was hyper-sensitive to being called a partisan hack by the Left. He didn't want to be the person responsible for the destruction of the Obama monarchy, so what he did was challenge all of us: "If you think Obamacare is bad law, fix it at the ballot box. Don't run to me like a child running to Daddy to complain about her brother's misdeeds."
Roberts can partially redeem this horrible precedent (changing a law to make it constitutional rather than simply ruling it unconstitutional) by striking down the Sebelius mandate denying the Catholic Church and other people of faith their first amendment rights.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Girls Get Equal Outcomes
This weekend I'm seeing lots of articles singing the praises of Title IX. They universally celebrate the way the law gave the girls equal opportunities with the boys in sports. In these times it's not cool to suggest there might be any downside to this big government program.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
I'm happy that girls have their own chances to play. But the bottom line to this issue is just like most other issues - the bottom line. The effect of Title IX was that it told schools that they had to create girls programs using money raised by the boys' programs. So the boys football and basketball teams bring in huge dollars at schools across the country. The law forced the schools to steal a big chunk of that money in order to fund a girl's sport.
Colleges around the country were forced to close down some of their men's varsity teams, because another unfortunate outcome of this law was that they had to guarantee equity in the number of varsity programs between the boys and girls. The schools couldn't figure out a way to add 2 or 3 or 4 more girls' teams to balance the number of boys' teams, so varsity sports like men's volleyball, track and field, hockey, swimming, and maybe even baseball got dropped.
For me, that's just silly. Reflecting the leftist attitude that everybody's got to get equal outcomes whether earned or not, there's plenty of unfairness in play while the government implements their own version of fair.
One article talked about a lawsuit challenging game schedules for high school boys and girls basketball. The suit complains that the boys get all the best game times, ie Friday nights, while the girls are stuck with games on weekday evenings and Saturdays. Come on, give me a break!
Oh well, it's just me again, that lonely voice crying out in the wilderness against the stupidity of our culture.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Brand New Indy Colts
One way to address the disastrous 2011 season for the Indianapolis Colts was to start over. That's the one Irsay went with, from the GM all the way to the last man on the roster. This year's Colts look like an expansion team, with only a handful of players wearing the horseshoe who also wore it last year.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
As a fan I was sort of hoping they'd figure out a way to keep Peyton Manning to help with rookie QB Andrew Luck's transition to the NFL. But the only realistic way to do that would have been to get Peyton to accept a contract that was heavy on incentives and light on guarantees, so he gets his money if he plays up to form and the Colts are reasonably well protected from a salary cap disaster if he doesn't.
But the Broncos were more than happy to pay Peyton and absorb the risk. They might ride that decision to a Super Bowl trophy, or they might lose Peyton to injury or damaged nerves in the first game. They rolled the dice in the craps game the Colts decided not to enter.
Reports from the Colts' mini-camp were that their rookie QB looked good. Strong and accurate, they say he looks great.
But he's still a rookie. As are many of his teammates. They might be good one day, but can they turn in a .500 record this season? I'm thinking maybe they can get 4 wins. But maybe, just like when Peyton was a rookie, we'll see the promise in Luck. Luck may have games where he throws a couple of terrific 60 or 80 yard touchdown passes while giving away 4 or 5 picks in yet another Colts loss.
The fan in me won't be able to help myself with the nausea that may come when Peyton's holding up the Lombardi trophy next February with that horse on his helmet instead of the horseshoe.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Contempt
Eric Holder tried to delay Mr. Issa's plan to bring him before the House of Representatives for a vote on Contempt of Congress. They met, but Holder still refused to offer any more documents about that gun-running operation called Fast & Furious.
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
The questions Issa and the Congress wants answered are pretty simple. Who came up with the stupid idea for Fast & Furious? (And stop trying to say it was the Bush Administration, that's simply false). Who ordered it? Who planned it? What was its purpose?
Apparently Holder's been stonewalling to the point that he won't even verbally offer a hint about the answer to any of those questions. He hasn't produced a scapegoat, and we've never heard about anybody he fired over the scandal, except perhaps for the whistleblower that brought it to the country's attention. We still don't have any idea where the idea came from, what they hoped to accomplish, who ordered it, or who planned and implemented it.
There aren't too many possible reasons he's been so doggedly avoiding those questions. One reason would be that it was his idea, and the purpose was political advantage in the argument over gun control legislation. Another was that it came from Obama Himself, for the same political purpose.
The only other possible reason is that the responsible person is such a close personal friend of Holder that he's willing to sacrifice himself to protect that individual. That explanation is the weakest.
We've already had leaks and whispers from Justice employees suggesting that the first explanations are going to be the truth. Making that public at this stage of the campaign could and should destroy Obama's re-election chances. Therefore Holder will eat those documents with ketchup and salt before he will let Issa see them.
I wonder, will we ever find out why Brian Terry died?
Why Obama Must Go
Obamacare
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
HHS anti-Catholic Free Contraception Mandate
Cap & Trade Implemented through EPA without a Law
Amnesty for Illegals without a Law
Nationalization of GM
Government gift of Chrysler to foreign automaker Fiat
White House closes Chrysler dealers based on owners' political alignment
Fast & Furious
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation Case Dropped for political/racial reasons
DOMA defense dropped in courts
The Litany of Outrageous, Overreaching Regulation Suppressing, Closing, and Driving Companies overseas
Apologizing for America to Enemies
Policies that Pacify Enemies and Offend Friends
Anti-Israel Policies
Demonstrable Lies in Every Public Speech
Race Baiting Rhetoric
Coordinating and Directing Media Agendas of MSNBC, Media Matters, and Major News Networks
Shuffling Federal Dollars into Pockets of Political Supporters in Bogus "Green Energy" ventures
Incompetence
Failure to Lead
Failure to Negotiate with Congress to Achieve Results
Exploding Deficits and Unsustainable Debt
Suing States over Illegal Immigration Enforcement
Suing States over Voter ID Laws
Gay Marriage
Usurpation of States' Rights
Education Systemic Failure
TSA
Homeland (In)Security
Drones to be Used Domestically to Spy on Americans
Divisiveness, Partisanship, Alinsky Tactics in White House
Leaking Classified Information Endangering lives to Prop Up Campaign
Friday, June 15, 2012
Glimpsing Truth
Recently the president's been giving us a glimpse of his true philosophy of government, which he went to great pains to conceal during his last campaign. It started with his statement that was later called a gaffe, that the private sector is doing just fine and it's the public sector that needs help.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
It wasn't a gaffe if he meant what he said, and all the proof we need that he meant it is his explanation. He's spent the rest of the week after making the head-scratching comment expounding on it, not refuting it.
In Obama's world, government is supreme. Private economic activity exists only as the money tree that funds those government workers he values most. Obama's solution to the sour economy is to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and presumably all the other government professions.
Which points out another interesting part of his philosophy. In America, the Federal Government has nothing to do with teachers, cops, and firefighters. None of those folks work for Washington, but for their local communities that raise the funds to hire them, train them, and pay their salaries.
So now we know another fact about Obama's philosophy. In his world, the Federal Government reigns supreme, and local governments must be trumped by the Feds. Because the omnipotent federal government, led by the secularist Messiah Himself, is much wiser, more caring, and better managers than any state, county, or city.
The positive outcome of all this is it finally helps us understand the stark difference between the Republican and Democrat candidates. One wants to de-emphasize the federal government and promote the private sector, while the other wants to bankrupt the nation by hiring armies of government functionaries. Which is more likely to result in economic recovery?
The answer is obvious to all but the ignorant and brainwashed.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
My Proposal to Save CNN
This is an open post for CNN with my suggestions on how they can recover from their disastrous ratings slide. CNN has lost viewers dramatically with the emergence of Fox News. They've lost many from their left-wing audience to MSNBC, leaving them without a niche.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
I have two ideas for how CNN can return to prominence. If they were to follow these two simple ideas, I believe their ratings growth would become phenomenal and force Fox to scramble in an attempt to catch up.
First, go back to CNN's roots. Return to being first and foremost a news channel. For most of the 24/7 cycle, use program blocks to rotate between Washington, the World, the Nation, and maybe a Sports segment. Do straight news, "just the facts, ma'am", without commentary. Stop managing the news to try to effect the viewers' opinions and attitudes. Stop protecting democrats and trashing republicans. Just gather and report the facts and don't stay away from stories (ie Fast & Furious or Solyndra) that might cast an unfavorable light on your favorite president. Just report the facts in a strightforward way and let the viewers decide for themselves how they feel about them.
Second, create a special debate program in primetime. Here's the idea: Bring a prominent liberal and conservative into the studio to have a moderated debate about an important issue of the day.
Imagine this: A debate between Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham about social issues, titled something like "Family Values or Sexual Diversity - Which is healthier for the United States Culture?"
Or imagine Al Gore debating Chris Horner on "Global Climate Change - Is it Real, and if so, What Should be Done About It?"
I know you won't get Maddow because she's at MSNBC, but you get the idea. Just make sure the debates are moderated fairly and the two people engaged for the debate are equally effective communicators.
It can be fun to imagine all sorts of possible debate matchups. Limbaugh vs Maher, Ted Nugent vs Alec Baldwin, Michelle Malkin vs Andrea Mitchell, Alan West vs Alan Grayson. So many fun possibilities. Talk about great TV.
Do those two things and I'd watch. I think lots of other folks would too.
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
The Problem with Exit Polling
The media thought the Walker Recall election was going to be extremely close, based on their Exit Polls. Historically, Democrats have been much more enthusiastic than Republicans about talking to the pollsters after voting, so exit polls almost always overstate the number of votes for the Democrat.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
In Wisconsin last night, the mainstream media were pumped. Until the actual results flowed in from around the state showing a pretty dominant victory for Governor Walker.
So today they're touting a 7-point or higher differential favoring Obama over Romney in November. Only problem is that Walker's margin of victory was pretty close to 7 percent. It's reasonable to conclude from the result that the Obama lead is nonexistent or at least impossible to call accurately based on those exit polls.
Watching returns early, when Walker was ahead by 20+ percentage points, I hoped his margin would stay that high or continue to widen. But apparently the larger cities take longer to report their results, so their results came in late and caused the margin to narrow to about 7 percent.
I find the phenomenon rather strange that the larger the city, the more liberal its residents. It would be very interesting to find out what factors make city dwellers so much more left-wing than farmers and small town folks.
Monday, June 04, 2012
On, Wisconsin
The unions in Wisconsin didn't like Scott Walker's budget reforms that included a scaleback of those things public unions can negotiate. That allowed him to proceed to increase public employees' contributions to their pensions and healthcare costs to relatively modest levels of 5 and 12 percent respectively.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
The outraged unions proceeded to initiate a recall petition, which succeeded in collecting more than enough signatures to force a special election that happens tomorrow. They'll either succeed in replacing Walker with a democrat or will fail and keep the governor in office.
My primary thought on the whole event is that a recall isn't justified. Walker got elected and proceeded to implement the policies he promised. Mounting the recall over policies with which others disagree isn't justification for recall. If enough citizens disagree with Walker's changes, all they have to do is vote for his challenger in the next election who promises to roll them back.
In my opinion, recalls are only appropriate in cases of illegal or immoral behavior of the elected official, not just because of policy disagreements.
By all accounts, Walker's reforms are working wonderfully well. The state's enjoying budget surpluses without cuts in services. The outraged union folks are being exposed as a bit greedy, demanding free cadillac health coverage and outrageously generous pensions while their peers in the private sector have to contribute much more for much less health coverage and mostly have no pensions at all. Polling suggests the unions are making a losing argument, so Walker's opponent isn't even campaigning on the union "rights" issue anymore.
Whether or not a Walker victory tomorrow means Wisconsin becomes a Red state that will go into Romney's column in November remains to be seen. But the two sides of the argument are pretty clear.
Unions see this as Armageddon, as a Walker win will encourage many others to proceed to weaken their power, until one day soon they become irrelevant. Conservatives hope they're right, because unions are the primary source of funding for liberal democrats, and the coming irrelevance will translate into GOP dominance of politics over the long term. Both sides seem a bit delusional.
What seems to have occured over the last couple of decades, especially in the Blue states, is the public employee unions have accrued too much power. They helped establish a vicious cycle that pours their member dues into pro-union democrat candidates who promist to keep extending their compensation and benefits and created a machine that guarantees the government class receives benefits in excess of their private sector brothers.
I am optimistic that Walker will win. If the trend continues, will we see the pendulum swing back too far the other way, with public sector employees seeing their wages and benefits and working conditions eroded to unfair levels? I don't expect that will happen, but if it does and creates a backlash that brings the Left back into power, those who caused it will have nobody to blame but themselves.
Friday, June 01, 2012
Ramping Up
After a little bit of a spring slowdown, it looks like I'm going to be ramping back up in June. Projects are coming through for me that could suddenly find me overbooked for the rest of the summer and possibly into the fall.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
It's good to be busy, but I have to admit it's been nice to have a looser schedule recently. It may take a couple of weeks to get back into busy mode, adjusting my sleep schedule and increasing my endurance for fulltime workdays and long airline trips.
Still I'd rather continue the variable work schedule that I can control than be a corporate drone living like a prarie dog in a cubicle pen, told what to do and when to show up and granted only 2 weeks vacation per year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)