Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

Aside from the industry, it also depends on the culture and physical environment of the office.

Productivity wise -- Any kind of odor, be it perfume or a cooked meal, in an open environment can be highly distracting.
Additionally, the decor of a place of business lends itself to the productivity of employees. Given that, it should be considered likewise that the personal "decor" of the employees will also work for or against you in a similar regard.

Regarding promotability -- Proper respect for your client or potential client is also something to consider. For instance, if you're a design firm who's primary client is an investment bank and there's a lot of face time at your place or theirs, you'd want to dress appropriately for no other reason than to at least you "get it" in terms of their culture and needs.

Right On --

All due respect, but I believe Mike's issue is with McCain suspending his entire campaign, not just putting off the debate.

I can agree with rescheduling a debate, but I think if you're a candidate with a real plan, now's the time to ramp up the campaign.

Especially since it seems like this might actually be a good thing in the long term...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122230704116773989.html

(also courtesy of Mike via Twitter)

"...I find myself wondering which candidate will be less damaging to our way of life, and I am not coming up with any answer...

So that's you in this boat with me.

As you say Mike, introducing politics in to this bailout discussion isn't a good thing. In that respect I can appreciate the spirit of what McCain is wanting to do. On the other hand though, if there's any job that requires great skills in multitasking and delegation, it's the President of the United States. In that regard, I'm in full agreement with Obama (and Letterman). Go do your duty, but let's not drop the ball on other important issues that still need addressing. That option won't exist once either one actually starts sitting in the big chair.

I too think it was a completely boneheaded move by McCain and his campaign, and I completely find myself in agreement with the sentiment expressed by David Letterman...

But let's not get this confused. This isn't a "republican" move, it's a McCain issue.

It's also equally important to know when to sit back, chillax, and let the process take it's course.

My dad had two huge oaks which line the boulevard behind his home crash through his back yard fence and damage his garage, as well. He called the city (they own these particular trees) and notified them, and they told him they would have people out to clean up the debris when they could.

Of course, my dad, wanting this huge forest of oak tree branches removed from his driveway, had some lawn guys take care of it. In doing so, he paid them money he'll probably never recover because he was impatient and didn't listen or follow what he was told to do.

My brother-in-law had a neighbor's tree damage part of his home after Hurricane Rita. I think they had to deal with property lines, and how much of the tree had fallen on the house...or something to that effect.

I'm glad you didn't have to go through anything like that.

And, honestly, I'm equally sorry that you had to. I was shocked to hear on the radio how Ike had merged (or something) with a front in the mid section of the US.

These things are life changers for anyone in their path, that's for sure. I do hope that you get some well deserved rest today.

Looters weren't a real likely threat [edit: for us]. We are fortunate to live in a nice area with a strong police presence. However, I guess when you're in a dark house with no power, and there's no lights on whatsoever outside -- the slightest unfamiliar noise starts messin' with your mind.

Obama has 1.7 million "supporters" on Facebook? Wow, now that's change we can believe in!

C'mon dude. It's completely the same world it's always been. The only thing that's changed is the way we view it. Believe it or not, it just didn't sneak up on us old coots who spent the better part of our politically active youth in the 1980s. In fact, some old coot you interact with even here on Chawlk might have had a part in participating in some extent to the construction of this new interactive, web-based world you kids enjoy.

Anyway, as RightOn suggests, the sucky part of youth is that one day you find yourself grown up and being the provider instead of the provided for. You find that you wish your activist rockstars and celebrities would just get back to entertaining you. You discover that the rhetoric just gets recycled every 4 years, and nothing really changes. Your years spinning 'round this globe start letting you view the man behind the curtain. Finally, you realize that, despite the number of Facebook fans, or whether you get your news from the main stream or the newsvine, that the only change that we'll actually bring to Washington is either an increase of melanin, or the subtraction of a penis.

"...they are participating far more in the process than ever before..."

Funny, I remember when the Mtv generation of the 80's was all over that too, influenced by their 60's predecessors. I guess that ole wheel keeps on rollin' down the road. As they used to say back in the day..."keep on truckin'", my brotha.

I've enjoyed this new fangled interaction, but I gotta go prepare for a hurricane.

big difference, 20 years ago, no internet.

Can you clarify what you mean here? The conservative base who voted for Bush / Quayle twenty years ago is now the conservative base which makes part of the largest demographic on the internet today -- baby boomers and early gen x.

"...I'll wager it's a temporary bump and the more Ms Palin is exposed to real questions and real debate the more hollow she will appear..."

I'll wager you're wrong using just two words and a little history..."Dan Quayle"

He was only 41 when a 64 year old Bush picked him for VP. Was just as "naive" (if you will) as some are making Palin out to be, and faced the exact same "not ready to be President" concerns.

Of course, Bush / Quayle beat Dukakis, the dem candidate who also had a much stronger VP candidate in Lloyd Bentsen.

In fact, I'll ne very surprised if you don't hear an exchange very much like this in an upcoming debate...

"...McCain was really a non issue before Palin. It seems only natural to address the one who appears to have the power..."

Seems to me then, that paying so much attention to her is only feeding that perceived power with the public. If McCain was a non-issue before Palin, wouldn't it stand to reason that he would return to that status if she were ignored (or at least returned to a "normal" coverage for a VP candidate) as the non-factor the dems are playing her up to be?

If it's all about identity politics, then ignore the identity -- right?

I pretty much guarantee you all of this attention on Palin by the Dems is playing right in to the hands of the Repubs. Because as we all know, all PR is good PR. Just ask Britney Spears.

Cooper --

I agree with you generally. However, I also believe that within 8 weeks of the election we're worrying too much about Palin. She's second fiddle to the man actually running for President. I'd much prefer hearing and debating the platform he's proposing than hearing anymore about Palin's bridge to nowhere and her daughter's sexual activities.

Honestly, I think all this attention to her speaks volumes to how off message the Obama campaign seems to have become and lends credence, in my opinion, to this article.

Actually, it would seem to me that Palin sitting out of the spotlight would be an instant and free opportunity for the Dems to take on McCain and his policies directly, without her distraction. Yet no...the focus is still on Palin, and thus an opportunity to discuss the PRESIDENTIAL candidates and their platform is blown.

She's not running the show, and McCain (should he win) is going to have a difficult enough time as it is running his stuff through a democratic congress.

For the record, the jury's still out with me on who I'm voting for. I agree with you, we're not dealing with optimal choices here on either side -- period.

That said though, I think we're (generally speaking) getting caught up here in the "what if" scenario of Palin actually sitting in the chair of power one day. Sure the Bush twins and Chelsea had their fair share of undeserved attention, but we're talking about the children of Presidents here, not VPs. Honestly how much have you ever known (or cared) about the family of a VP?

For instance, how much do you know (or care) about Hunter Biden?

Also just to be clear, I never suggested Palin makes wise choices regarding her work / life balance.

Is it possible that the real answer is just a little more simple?

Her daughter has already been raked through the coals because of the family's stance on the issue. You gotta know at this point, with the race heating up and the attacks (on both sides) ramping up a new level every day, that ANYTHING Palin says regarding sex education / abstinence will be met with the "...but her daughter..." attack dogs -- no matter how much Obama publicly decries such a response as off limits.

Could it be she just wants to let the topic cool down a bit before responding, in order to protect her daughter? I'd certainly do the same, as I'm sure you would, if it were your child's actions that raised the collective neck hair of a nation in the midst of an election battle.

Tyme --

I just ran across this article from Alan Greenspan, which I believe addresses your scenario to some extent.

Yes, I do mind -- at this juncture.

Here's why. As I think we have proven, there are a myriad of things which are contributing to the healthcare crisis we find ourselves in today. To raise taxes even slightly to address this is merely throwing hard earned money at the problem to float around uselessly in the wind.

When I start seeing some measurable action toward actually solving even one of the issues contributing to the mess, then yes I might be a little more open to the idea. But for right now, even the mere suggestion of raising taxes (even for corporations) feels like some bureaucrat is reaching in to my pocket and tossing my money out in to the street.

Frankly, whenever I hear about how Obama's plan is going to cut taxes for "95% of the middle class" but raise taxes on corporations, I feel like I'm being spun on high cycle right into the money pit. Corporations are legally required to protect the financial interests of their investors. You start taking away more and more of their income in the way of taxes, guess what? They're going to start shipping off more and more jobs offshore, and taking away more and more of your benefits -- which includes reducing your healthcare benefits to make up for their losses.

That's when you come to this state of affairs --

Saying everyone should have a job is unrealistic because the jobs aren't there. I live in an area where people would love to work and can't - no jobs. So they relocate and what happens? The place they move to ends up getting messed up in time.

Throwing money at the wind...thanks but no thanks.

Yeh, my first remembrances of political curiosity was at about the same age...although for me, it was Carter's fireside chats regarding the energy crisis.

Gnorb --

Even though I don't see squarely with you on some issues, I do respect you and your, usually, well thought out opinions. As an intelligent man, I trust you know what I mean by the "brochure".

I can understand perhaps some reservations about Palin, I have them too honestly. In fact, I have serious reservations about all 4 of the folks in this political game. I'm not frightened though, it's not like any one (or pair) of these candidates can bring the country to its knees by him or herself. Not even everyone's favorite scapegoat has been able to do it.

Since I was a little kid and learned about the system of checks and balances, and the three tiers of government, I've had a faith that things would work out for this country. As corny as it sounds, some 100 years later, I still hold true to that hope.

In my humble opinion, we have four ditzes running for first or second chair in the symphony known as the US. My hope and faith lies in the rest of the orchestra hitting the right notes and tempo, more than anything else -- and for any of the 4 of them, this will be the one and only Opus they participate in. However, as in your opinion of the governor of Florida turning out to be ok -- I'll give this bunch the ~60 days or so to make their impression on me, and convince me why they need to have the big chairs.

In regards to this post specifically, I side with RightOn in that the first few replies were crap responses to Mike's post (in particular the second half). Thank you for being a bit more transparent in your most recent reply.

So I'd like to hear what the problem with LESS taxes are. I mean, if Bob had less taxes to pay, he might be able to afford to pay his medical bills. On the same had, if corporations had less taxes to pay, they'd have more to spend on Bob's benefit package.

I don't see how raising taxes, or adding new taxes helps anyone, really. And yes Oli, I think when you look at it from that perspective, it's equivalent to theft.

Gnorb -
I don't know about all that other stuff. My point was in response to the whole "I'm scared..." answer which has now seemingly taken over the standard "Bush's fault..." response for most thimgs.

I have no issue with what Rundle or you posted here. All I have an issue with is empty thoughts like "I'm scared". Which comes straight from the brochure.

So if ONE is too many, then how is moving a few million off the list a bad or insignifiant move? Realistically even the best UH program out there isn't going wipe the list clean in one swoop. Why not take victories (even the small ones) where we can find them?

I don't think the door is ever completely closed as ya'll are arguing. They are countless stories out there of communities and corporations, groups of doctors and (yikes) even community organizers who VOLUNTEER to help or even pick up the tab for the health concerns of folks out there who can't afford it.

Not sure why you're offended Oli. My comment wasn't directed at you at all.

Thanks for the link. The section in that report on citizenship is interesting. Twenty one percent of the 47 million folks without healthcare aren't even legal citizens of the US.

Seems before we start flying off to Norway to study how to best take from their system, we should probably first spend time fixing our illegal immagration and border security issues.

Seems all we hear is the emotional side of the argument, 40 million without medical benefits. What I want to see is the breakdown of that number. How many of those folks are our down on his luck friend, Bob?

How many are retirees who CHOSE not to accept medical benefits or medicaid? How many are lackies which just expect the system to take care of them? How many illegal aliens are included in that number?

If we're going to do these studies and best practice exercises, let's deal w/actaul facts and not emotional pleas spun from a political agenda.

Oh c'mon folks. Don't you have any real opinions that weren't pulled from the standard talking points brochure?

...However, since we'd be starting essentially anew, why not study the best systems and model ours after theirs?...

Why try to force fit a square peg in to a round hole? Best practice studies ONLY work when you're modeling something that is relevant to the environment you're in. Perhaps the healthcare programs in France, Norway and Sweden are terrific. The problem though, is the US is not France, Norway and Sweden. Don't get caught in the illusion that just cause it works there, it'll work here too.

As has been pointed out, the US already has healthcare programs. Wouldn't the better solution be to look at what works (and doesn't) in Medicare, Medicaid, Emergency Rooms, Free clinics and the VA, and get those working at full efficiency, before we stack still another program into the mix? The one thing that we are guaranteed is that the addition of a new program will convolute the processes and procedures already established and understood by the existing.

I've had family in the emergency room / hospital since last Thursday. What started out as an initial diagnoses of a severe bladder infection has now progressed to suspicion of cancer. The process to get to this point, and to try and get a transfer to a cancer hospital immediately has been a trial in and of itself. Our experience thus far has consisted of relentless paperwork and tests upon tests and referrals and the need of a "hard" diagnosis to even get transferred. I can't even fathom what a cluster f* it would become should some well meaning program like UHC get dumped on top of and intertwined in this process. Perhaps this potential "bridge to nowhere" can be called the "stairway to Heaven" as people will no doubt lay around dying while waiting for the even higher stack of bureaucratic red tape to be sifted through and unwound.

Promoting a "study" of best case universal healthcare from systems outside of the US is a waste of taxpayer money. Hopefully Obama, if elected, will add it to the list of things to eliminate in the quest to cut down unnecessary government spending.

Speaking of relevancy, thanks for that little slam of creationists in this discussion of healthcare. Your little example is exactly why none of these things which sound great in speeches never work out in reality -- added pork which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The biggest thing that concerns me is the stance on Universal Healthcare.

Medicare is the closest equivalent we have to Universal Healthcare, and even in it's much smaller footprint of seniors 65+, it has been a mitigated disaster of a program since it's inception in the mid-60's.

I cant even fathom how you make such a program work for the nation at large.

you've already had 8 years having your country run by a man as dumb as a sack of hammers so yes, damn right you need somebody with brains, communication skills, flexibility, nuance, judgement, etc, etc. President of the United States is not a job that anybody can or should even attempt to do. Just like not everybody should be or attempt to be an airline pilot.

McCain and his unintentionally hilarious, never heard of her, met her once, believes the the earth was created in 6 days, Governor of Reindeerville™ VP are going to send you, and the rest of the world, even further down into a big black hole than we already are.

and RightWrong, take a good look around at the architecture in the United States, plenty of pillars and columns, all over the shop. In order to see them however you would have to open your eyes, just once.

you're just making stuff up.

Having followed several national elections McCain and his merry band of muppets are running one of the most pathetic campaigns I've ever seen. They suck at telling the truth, they suck at lying and they have no policies. Other than the ones that you think are going to mean you pay less taxes of course and keep the evil hand of government from stopping you doing stupid things, like driving a 4mpg SUV in a national forest so you can hunt squirrels with an uzi.

The rest of your point is in your own head.

yes, thank you for the communications 101

that would be because Bush is the President of the United States, so yes, it is his fault. He's a lying, miserable, pathetic son of bitch with a cold heart a delusional mind and pathological inability to admit he's wrong.

you might even be happier, you might actually stop being self centered miserable asses

bite me!

I'm sorry, who's the miserable ass here? LMAO

It amazes me how Obama is seemingly not responsible for the actions of his committee spokespeople, but Bush is somehow responsible for every failing in the US, even if the Executive Office has no control over it whatsoever.

Give. Me. A. Break.

...I'm not sure what "yukin" is so I'm pretty sure you just made that word up and that's not allowed.

I can find no comment attributed to Biden about Palin but Obama is quoted (by Politico) as saying;...

You're playing semantics, Article19. The very article you quote was written because Obama had to separate himself and Biden from the "hair trigger" remarks made by their campaign against Palin.

I also find it hilarious how McCain's continued health concerns jumped to deathwatch as soon as he named Palin. Gee, I hope he makes it to the inauguration!

To be honest, I'm not real thrilled with either party having this level of inexperience in the office.

However, given the choice of the lesser of two evils, I'd much rather have a VP learning and being mentored by a President rather than a President getting his prime direction and strategy from the office of the VP. I mean, isn't that what we pretty much have now?

...and I thought you folks were so opposed to a third term of Bush-Cheney.

BTW: Yukkin is making a lot of noise with your mouth, without really saying anything of substance

at what point did self belief, conviction and confidence become negative character traits?

Apparently, right after McCain named Palin, according to you...

McCain and his unintentionally hilarious, never heard of her, met her once, believes the the earth was created in 6 days, Governor of Reindeerville™ VP are going to send you, and the rest of the world, even further down into a big black hole than we already are.

I don't know much about her political background, but she seems to have the self belief, conviction and confidence thing down. Her experiences in Alaska seem to also reflect she also has some "brains, communication skills, flexibility, nuance, judgement, etc, etc."

Or maybe all that feel good, "you can do it" stuff works only if one is a member of the right party.

I think the elitest tag has nothing to do with celebrity, but verything to do with the "do as I say not as I do" example most politicians (on both sides) put out there.

For the Dems, the whole week was pretty much focused on how bad things are out there. They like us to think they're the empathetic party that "feels your pain." So, they feel our pain so well, they build an unprecadented (and really unecessary) venue costing millions, for the man to give a speech. Wasting the precious dollars they need for all these programs that are better pulled from our pockets.

They cry for the sick and dying planet, so they build a giant, AIR CONDITIONED stage OUTSIDE to keep the saviors of our planet cool and fresh looking for the world stage. A bunch of Republicans with a fleet of Hummers probably wouldn't dump as much CO2 into the air as that stage did.

It's all very disengenuous. Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Like you, the big production and celebrity doesn't bother me - what politician isn't a celebrity?

What gets me is that if you're going to try to convince me of something, than show me with your actions, not your big glorious speeches.