Run!

I got fired a couple of years ago from my previous job.  I was not fired for cause, though they tried unsuccessfully to dig up dirt on me.

The job started off great.  I was a high performer and was rewarded with a promotion after about a year.  Unfortunately, the CEO retired, and the new guy was radically different than his predecessor.  The old CEO came up through the ranks, personally knew the founder of the company, and fostered a culture that valued the employees.  The new guy was (and still is) the exact opposite.  He's laser focused on maximizing profit at all costs, and has zero tolerance for dissent in the ranks.  He's a know-it-all bully.  I made it about nine months into his tenure before I got the boot.

During that time, he cut staff by about 1/3, and he cut with a hatchet, not a scalpel.  Many of the best and brightest were dismissed, and there was a strong correlation with age and salary.  Those left behind were overworked, underpaid, and inexperienced.  As you can imagine, the environment radically shifted from being a place where people were happy to a culture of fear.

When I left, I was offered an insultingly low severance, which I declined.  A condition of that severance was a non-disparagement clause, meaning that I'd be unable to tell my story.  When they canned me, it was shortly after one of my employees committed suicide.  These bastards used his death to launch an investigation into me, alleging that I engaged in bullying behavior.  I was suspended for two weeks (with pay) while they conducted their "investigation."  When they "interviewed" me, they took something I said completely out of context and tried to say that I was behaving in an inappropriate manner.  Furthermore, this "incident" occurred completely outside of work.  It was an impromptu gathering of my team to celebrate the life of our deceased co-worker.  It was not company-sanctioned in any way, shape or form.

Since investigation did not yield anything that could get me fired for cause, they at-will fired me.  I know they fired me because I was highly compensated, because I stood up for my team, and because I did not quake in fear over C-Suite executives.  From my perspective, part of my job is to speak up if I see something wrong as opposed to cowering in the corner, keeping my head down and my mouth shut.

While I hate what the company has become, and have nothing but contempt for the leadership, I do keep in touch with former co-workers.  I also see a lot of activity on LinkedIn from these people, and from the company.  This evil empire still touts itself as a great place to work, and it's a total lie.  I constantly see people sharing LinkedIn posts saying "I'm happy to announce that I've landed a job at [company]" but to my knowledge, headcount has not grown at all.  This, of course, would indicate high turnover and a culture that remains $h!++y.

When I see these LinkedIn posts -- and I see them weekly -- I feel like I'm watching a horror flick.  I want to scream "run!" but I know they wouldn't listen any more than the characters in the slasher film.

Part of me wants to post my story on LinkedIn or Glassdoor, but I'm going to refrain.  That's a good way to get myself blacklisted, meaning I'd screw myself if I were to go job hunting in the future.  Employers tend to avoid potential employees who would dare speak truth to power.  

Let's Watch Rome Burn

It's been reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi has said (and I'm paraphrasing) if we were to prosecute everyone involved in the Epstein files, the whole system could collapse.  Let me start by saying that I haven't seen a concrete verification of this statement, but if she did say it, I would counter by saying that's not a reason to NOT do it... it's a reason TO do it.

We are supposed to live in a system that provides equal justice for all.  We ostensibly live in a society that protects the innocent.  By choosing to not enforce the core tenets of civilized society because doing so "could cause collapse," that system has already ceased to exist.  We're not supposed to do what's comfortable or convenient; we need to do what's right.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not talking about sex.  Heck, I've done the sex thing once or twice and I'm a big fan.  If you're an adult and you want to go to an island to to let your freak flag fly, then by all means knock yourself out.  The only conditions are that everyone involved in that snake ball must be a willing participant, and old enough to give informed consent.  To clarify further, I don't care if some or all of the participants are prostitutes, as long as they are willing, and of legal age.  In the grand scheme of things, that's a pretty low bar of acceptability.

If we're not prosecuting people because the system could collapse, then I say let's watch Rome burn.  I'll bring the fiddle... and the marshmallows.

Eliminate the State of the Union Address

Here's a fun fact... a lot of people mistakenly believe that the annual State of the Union (SOTU) address is required. It's not. While the Constitution mandates that the President periodically give Congress information on the State of the Union, there is no requirement that it be delivered in person, that it's annual, or that it's broadcast to the public.  I believe it's time to get rid of the dog and pony show that SOTU has become.  The longstanding "opposition response" should demonstrate how SOTU has devolved from a constitutional duty to partisan showmanship, which in my opinion undermines the original idea.

I need to share that this is not my original idea.  I read or heard the idea, thought about it for a bit, and realized that the idea has some merit.  Let's quit giving these @$$ clowns so much attention, so they can get back to their actual jobs, which is running the country.  And to clarify, I'm talking about all of the elected clowns in the car, not just the executive branch, and not just a single party.

While there is no concrete proof or consensus, there's a general agreement that elected officials tend to have a higher rate of narcissism than the population at large.  It's also established that narcissists thrive on attention.  The most effective method of reshaping that attention-seeking behavior is to ignore it.  We need to stop paying attention to negative and manipulative behavior.  By eliminating the State of the Union address (in its current form) we are removing one of the stages our elected officials use to seek and gain attention.

Do Atheists Believe in Soul Mates?

I find the concept of soul mates a little far-fetched.  After all, there are over 8 billion people in the world right now.  If there is one perfect fit for each person, the odds of finding that specific individual is infinitesimal, because geographically speaking that person could be anywhere.  It's also statistically likely that any two given soul mates can't speak the same language.

If soul mates exist, the most likely demographic to find their one and only would be citizens of India.  Their population is about 1.5 billion, meaning at least they have just under a 20% chance of their perfect match living in the same country.  By way of comparison, citizens of Monaco, a country with a population of about 40,000, stand less than a hundred thousandth of a percent chance of living in the same country as that special someone.  Specifically they have a 0.000005 percent chance of living in the same country as their soul mate.

Mathematically speaking, this means that if soul mates exist, either you're almost guaranteed to never find your soul mate, or some external factor would need to exist that guides one to the right individual, at the proper time, in the correct place. Anecdotally speaking, this external factor would need to possess some form of awareness, otherwise it would be unable to identify the correct pair before bringing them together.

This, of course, brings me back to my basic question.  Do atheists believe in soul mates?

The Food Cylinder

I grew up with the food pyramid.  While I'm a bit older than the food pyramid of the 80's, it's certainly all I specifically recall about nutrition.  For those of you who are unfamiliar, the base of the pyramid was the bread and cereal group.  the next level up was the fruit and vegetable group, and the top level was the meat group.

The new food pyramid, implemented under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., current Secretery of Health and Human Services, has not quite flipped that on its head by recommending a base of fruits and vegetables, with meat in the middle, and grains at the top of the pyramid.

Before I go any further, I need to state for the record that I believe RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist nutjob, and as such, I'm generally disinclined to give credence to anything he says.  In this specific case though, there may be something to what he's saying.  (Hey, I'm more interested in truth than I am in discrediting people with whom I disagree; truth is more important than pride.)

And while I also hold a disdain for Fox "News," I will credit them for getting me to re-examine my original skepticism regarding the new food pyramid.  The gist of what got me to reconsider my preconceived bias was an article that pointed out how obesity really exploded around the time that the old food pyramid came out.  This also corresponds with when the medical community started encouraging low fat diets.

Now I'm going to pull in my history, because it's important to this story.  I grew up as a Midwest kid, meaning I was raised on meat and potatoes... and the potatoes were usually smothered in butter.  There were certainly fruits and vegetables served with each meal, much to our youthful disgust.  Breakfasts consisted of unsweetened cereal, but I always corrected that travesty with heaping teaspoons of granulated sugar on my Cheerios.  My point here is that my childhood diet didn't exactly follow the dietary guidelines of the day.

I'm going to gloss over the diet of my late teens and early 20's for a couple of reasons: 1) At a macro level, most young adults tend to have a $h!++y diet.  I feel this is partly because young adults a) tend to go wild and eat the things they were denied as children, b) tend to lack the skills and materials to cook for themselves, or c) lack the financial resources required for a well-rounded diet.  2) In my specific case, I was in the military, so my nutritional needs were generally met at the chow hall.

After the military, wife 1.0 did most of the cooking, but I did have a reasonable amount of influence over our diet.  After we split, I became master of my dietary destiny, though wife 2.2 did manage to sway some of my culinary tastes and practices.  With my dietary history out of the way, let's talk about my personal experience.

I should start by sharing a bit about my physical condition.  I'm sharing this because in this specific case, my physique directly impacts my credibility.  I have no formal education or training in this area, so I can only share my experience.  And with that in mind, I'd have zero credibility if I were shaped like a marshmallow.  Conversely, if I had the build of a bodybuilder, I'd have outsized credibility.  So, let's say this...

I'm 57 years old 

I'm about 5'10"

I have never weighed more than 165 lbs. in my life.

I currently weigh about 155 lbs, and have for 20+ years.

I am physically active. I can run 3 miles in about 30 minutes.  I can do about 7 pull-ups.  When I do a toe touch, my knees are locked, and my middle knuckle can touch the floor.  I can swim a mile in about 45 minutes.

In other words, I'm going on 60 and am in better physical condition than the vast majority of young adults.

Okay, getting back to the nutrition discussion... as a kid, I was taught a low fat diet based on the food pyramid.  The reality was close, but it was more of a food cylinder.  I ate way more meat than suggested.  I consumed far less grain than recommended.  I probably ate about the right amount of fruits and vegetables.

I carried this personal preference into my adulthood.  I formally realized my dietary preferences and practices somewhere in my mid 30's.  That's about the time I started calling my diet the food cylinder.  Here's a general overview of what my diet looks like:

As implied by my "food cylinder" comment, I tend to eat meat, dairy, grain and fruits/vegetables in about the same amount.  My meat is primarily poultry.  Red meat is a medium-distant second, and fish falls waaay behind red meat.  My dairy intake is almost exclusively cheese, but I eat a lot of it.  I don't do much milk, yogurt, etc.  My fruit and vegetable intake weighs very heavily toward vegetables.  My grain intake is generally bread, tortillas and tortilla chips, all of which lean toward whole grain.

I consume very little fried food.  While I grew up sauteing in butter, I changed to olive oil.  I rarely eat dessert.  When I do eat sweets, it's usually one or two kid-sized snickers or reese's, a little ice cream, or a slice of cheesecake.

I tend to eat a small brunch and a larger dinner.

I generally drink water, and occasionally treat myself with 100% fruit juice.

My dietary indulgences are salt and beer. 

After I pondered all of this, I grudgingly realized that RFK jr. may be onto something.  If you take a look, the two common items that are most glaringly absent from my diet are highly processed carbohydrates, sugar, and highly processed meat.  That's what really got my attention from RFK's new food pyramid... it's about highly-processed food.  Anecdotally speaking, grain-based food is most susceptible to excessive refinement.  Think about it... at a fundamental level, chips and cookies are about the easiest foods on the planet to over-process.  Furthermore, grain-based food is the cheapest to produce and consume, because they have a crazy long shelf life.

Now that I've said this, I MUST remind you, dear reader, that correlation is not causation. Furthermore, if you take my word as authoritative, you are likely falling to the hasty generalization fallacy.  I am not trying to present myself as an authority in this area.  All I'm doing is sharing my experience, and acknowledging that I've been given food for thought.  (No pun intended.)  As is usually the case, I encourage you to do your own independent research, specifically focusing on viewpoints that challenge your own preconceived notions.

Gonna Sound Cold

This is going to sound cold and uncaring, but I'm of the opinion that the media is spending too much time talking about Nancy Guthrie.  For those of you who are unaware, Nancy Guthrie is the mother of journalist Savannah Guthrie, and she disappeared a couple of weeks ago under mysterious circumstances.

Before you go branding me heartless and unfeeling, hear me out.  People go missing every single day.  If we were to give this kind of press to everyone who went missing, we'd have entire television station channels and newspapers that did nothing but discuss the missing.  From my perspective, the attention that Nancy Guthrie's disappearance is receiving is just another example of the rich and famous receiving preferential treatment.

I'd also like to clarify that if I were in Savannah Guthrie's shoes, I'd do the same thing.  I'd absolutely leverage my connections to ensure the safe return of my missing loved one.  In that respect, I freely admit that I'm a bit hypocritical.

I'd also like to note that I'm not exactly decrying the indisputable fact that life is unfair.  I get it, and I accept it.  It's just that every now and then, such as here, and with the Epstein files, it's frustrating and discouraging to be constantly reminded how far the scales of justice and fairness are tipped toward the social elite.

He'll Never Know

At a previous job, I served as an IT manager, and I was pretty good at it.  After only a year, I received a promotion that doubled the size of my team.  With the expanded team, I inherited a problematic employee.  He was good at his job, but he had poor people skills, he wasn't really interested in expanding his skill set, and he groused about working outside of his scheduled shift.  (That last item is problematic in the IT field.)  One of my tasks was getting this guy to improve as an employee or move on.  From a manager's perspective, the guy was chaos incarnate.  He had an endless series of emergencies that required people to carry his load.  I gave him opportunities to shine and he consistently shot himself in the foot.

I was kind of desperate to help him succeed, so I sent him to help set up a new office.  The job was incredibly simple.  All he had to do was set up and test all of the new computers and phones.  A high school kid could do it.  He still failed.  During the setup, he got into an argument with another employee, who was tasked with physically setting up the cubes.  The argument was over the phone, and my guy got hostile with the other dude and hung up on him.  The other guy reported him to his supervisor, who reported it to me.

Furthermore, he failed to set up all of the workstations.  The reason he failed the setup is because there was a shortage of monitors.  However, he was scheduled to be there long enough that if he'd have simply counted what was needed vs. what was on hand on day one, I could have ordered what was missing and had it there before the office was opened.  Instead, he just let it go, and I didn't find out until the new office manager told me that we had an incomplete setup.  I had to fly to that office personally to fix the technical issues and politically smooth things over.  As you can imagine, I was ready to write the guy up.  A day or two after I returned, but before I wrote him up, he called me, saying he needed a few days off because he was being evicted from his house.

Later that day, I had a meeting with my boss, and told her about his failures, and she instructed me to fire him.  I refused and told her that he'd just been evicted from his home.  She stood firm.  While I acknowledged that his behavior and work (or lack thereof) were worthy of termination, I'm a human being before I'm a manager.  I told my boss that regardless of performance, firing someone immediately after being evicted was inhumane, and that I wouldn't be a part of it.  She agreed to "settle" for me writing him up, with the stipulation that I expressly state that any further infractions would result in termination.  When I wrote him up, I never told him that I saved his job.  I didn't want to throw my boss under the boss, and I didn't want to be seen as his savior.

At the end of the year, when it was time for annual reviews and raises, I rated him as a marginal employee and recommended a minimal raise.  I was again overridden and told that he would receive zero raise.  The thing is, I used all of my goodwill leverage saving this guy's job.  However, since I had no choice in the matter, I did not feel obligated to shield my boss, so I did inform him that I requested a raise and was overridden.  (It was actually my boss's boss who made the no raise decision, and I shared that.)  I said that I fought the good fight, and that I believed he would likely not progress past his current position at this company. 

He got the hint and within a month or two, he had landed a new job.  We're connected on LinkedIn, and he seems to be doing well at his new job.  I'm happy for him, and I wish him nothing but success.  But to this day, he doesn't know that I traded all of the political clout I'd built up just to save his job... meaning that I allowed him to leave on his timeline instead of getting fired when his life was already in a shambles.  I didn't do this because he was a great employee.  He wasn't.  I did it because he's human, and like I said earlier, to fire him right after losing his house would have been inhumane.