government | Piss and Moan

Holier than thou

Posted on April 27, 2020 by backuphill

Photo by Ashutosh Sonwani on Pexels.com

Alright, I am sure this will likely irritate people. Do I care, really? Nope. Have I ever given that impression?

I am tired of people complaining about other people “violating” the “stay home, stay healthy” mandate, as though they are holier than other people.

The reality of it all – you can only control you.

If someone wants to violate the mandate (which may or may not be Constitutional), that is their prerogative. Right? If people aren’t going to live in fear but have common sense and try to go about their daily lives as much as possible, that’s on them. That isn’t your concern.

If someone chooses to see their children or grandchildren in the front yard of their home with little or no contact, that isn’t your concern. If they decide to let them in the house and give each other hugs, that still isn’t your concern.

If someone decided they want to work on a new deck (or any other home improvement project) and need to go to Home Depot to get supplies, that isn’t your concern.

If someone wants to go for a drive, or for a walk, or go camping, or go fishing, or fly on an airplane, or sit on a park bench by themselves, or go windsurfing/paddleboarding…none of that is your concern.

If someone doesn’t want to wear gloves, or a face mask in public, not your concern.

Stay home. No one is forcing you to have human interaction. You can only control you.

If you are going to live in fear, stay home. If you want to hunker down and not see the light of day or get fresh air, that’s your choice. If you wanna live in the TV news cycle and hear about all the bad new, or whatever, that’s your call. If you wanna isolate yourself from the world, more power to you. BUT, keep it to yourself. You can’t and shouldn’t try to control others.

You are not the social police nor should you act like one. Don’t be hiding behind the curtains and reporting people because you don’t think they are beings “safe.” Not your call to make.

This looks different for everyone and their needs are different than yours.

You do you. You are only responsible for protecting yourself and how you do that is your choice.

You aren’t responsible to protect other people. That is their responsibility and if they choose not to do it the way you do it, then they are doing themselves the way they see fit.

Don’t forget the whole thing about pointing fingers…yeah, you know what I am talking about.

No, I’m sorry

Posted on March 31, 2020 by backuphill

alarm clock and analog camera on wooden desk

Photo by bongkarn thanyakij on Pexels.com

19 days.

For that.

I waited 19 days to hear from HR about a question I asked to get in response, “No, I’m sorry.”

GEE, thanks. Good thing I didn’t ask an important question.

I asked if they knew the “program code” for a supplement to the healthcare program provided by the state. Not a tough question. Not one that I expected would take 19 days to answer.

When I submitted the question I anticipated an answer in a day or two. I figured it would be something they knew since it was provided by the state and encouraged by the state to participate. They should know this, right? I though so too.

After a couple of days of hearing nothing, I was wondering what was going on. Mind you, after seven days I no longer needed the answer I was looking for. I gave up trying to get signed up. After seven days I figured someone might be trying to track down the information since they should probably know this to pass along to others who might need it.

After two weeks of hearing nothing I just assumed the HR department had decided to ignore my question so I forgot all about the fact that I even asked it.

On day 19 I get a “No, I’m sorry.”

There’s no ‘Sorry it took so long to get back to you’ or ‘I tried finding the information and had no luck.” No ‘You’ll have to work with the program provider to get that info’ or ‘Here’s a number you can try.’

So, I can only conclude that little to no effort was put into my question and therefore the response AND getting any info, let alone a response, from the HR department in a timely manner is out of the question. I can also assume that when this email was seen 15-18 days ago it was too much trouble to respond with the “No, I’m sorry” then.

NO, I’m sorry I asked…

Small minority

Posted on March 27, 2020 by backuphill

Photo by Markus Spiske on Pexels.com

Why should a small minority dictate to the majority what is appropriate and acceptable, or what is not?

Case in point: schools are closed in WA and they are trying to figure out how to go forward as this corona virus thing continues. It was communicated out from OSPI (our state superintendent’s office) that districts couldn’t continue to educate their students if they couldn’t guarantee “equity” for all students it serves. Or, at least, they couldn’t require students to attend because of equity (lack of internet, ELL, SpEd, etc.).

OK, on the surface, that makes sense and it looks great on the PR side of things. However, it doesn’t make sense when you start looking at the numbers. That closer look ends up making the policy a complete “F” in my book.

The closer look:

So, we’re not going to educate 90% of the students because 10% can’t participate because of various challenges?

What if it was 50/50? Is that still too low to continue offering education to those who can participate? You can play with the numbers however you like, but at just about any point you can’t justify depriving a larger group of people from something because of a smaller group. It just doesn’t make any sense.

Do you scuttle the sailboat because there is no wind?

Do you throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Do you cut off your hand because you got a splinter in your little finger?

Do you cut off your foot because you broke a toe?

Do you demolish an entire building because a couple rooms in it aren’t or can’t be occupied?

Catch my drift?

Why do we let small groups of people dictate what happens with the larger groups? Seems a bit backwards, doesn’t it?

Remember the saying, “Greatest good for the greatest number“? Why doesn’t that apply these days? Or any day? How did we get so far away from an idea that mostly works?Sure, I know we have to make sure the “minority” group doesn’t get abused by those who are more powerful or has the most resources, but there is still something true about this thought:

What is the greater good when it comes to educating our students?

Why fight?

Posted on March 18, 2020 by backuphill

No need for combat shopping…

No need to brawl over anything. Just cough.

Need more space? Cough.

Want a little more “social distancing”? Cough.

Don’t wanna talk to people about their problems? Cough.

Suddenly, the cough has become the cure to society’s problems. Weird.

40%

Posted on March 13, 2020 by backuphill

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

We, as in our office (which is in a separate location from the “head office”), got an update on the policies regarding telecommuting during this health crisis, scare, whatever you wanna call it.

Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, telecommuting policy said that we could telecommute up to 40% of a work week (two days) and that could only be done on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. I have talked about before how my job could literally be done from anywhere in the world with an internet connection, so 40% for my office is a ridiculous restriction.

Now, with COVID-19 being a thing and recommendations from every level of government (techinically I am a public employee) stating that employees should stay home and telecommute if feasible (again, it is totally feasible for my office) the “head boss” has issued new permissions for telecommuting.

Yesterday’s email said, in effect, “we are allowing telecommuting on Mondays and Fridays now, but we are still limiting overall permission to 40% of the work week, per board policy.” In other words, we are still required to go into our office three days a week! So, if I may paraphrase…policy over people. I gotta say, that right right there is some crappy ass leadership.

I have said it before and I will maintain that I am not an alarmist by any means. I am going about my daily life normally. I went out to eat last night and supported a local business near my home.

This issue I have here is that a public institution is going against the recommendations of the government, the one that funds it, and demanding adherence to a policy which they clearly have been given the green light to alter in this extraordinary time. There is no expectation by me or my colleagues that the alteration would adjust regular practice in the future (though we would like to see that). We just want acknowledgement that our government agency is recognizing the recommendations of the government and that isn’t happening.

I am in the office today. Nearly all of us are. But none of us are happy about it.

Mixed messages

Posted on March 12, 2020 by backuphill

Photo by Heorhii Heorhiichuk on Pexels.com

I know for a fact that I don’t need to stock up on TP. That is already clear.

What I am more concerned about is whether or not there will be a shortage of hazmat suits, thus a significant rise in the zombie population.

I don’t feel like the government is addressing this concern. Can we just get some clarification? Do I need a hazmat suit now, or should I wait for demand to overrun the supply so I can pay a price that is in effect equivalent to price gouging?

I mean, I really have an aversion to having zombies and REALLY have an aversion to having my brains eaten (or other body parts – depends on the type of zombie). I know I can start training now to get in physical shape to outrun some zombies, but I am not sure I can social distance myself from all of them, again it depends on the type of zombie.

The government has really fallen down on it’s recommendation here. I am getting mixed messages….

Is there a danger of a zombie apocalypse or not? Do I need a hazmat suit and to begin training to be in top physical condition or not?

I am just trying to determine my next course of action and the mixed messages aren’t helping.

Sponsorship

Posted on March 3, 2020 by backuphill

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Sponsorship is a weird thing.

No, I haven’t been sponsored yet, but if you would like to, just leave me a note in the comments and I’ll follow up.

Anyway, on my trip last week I was at the Phoenix Suns game and I noticed in lots of different places that they had things going on around the arena that were sponsored by a college. Northern Arizona University, to be specific.

To be clear, I know nothing about this college. I don’t really care to know anything about this particular school. But, what I do know of colleges in general is that they are expensive – usually for no good reason other than they are trying to make a profit (even the supposed “non-profit” schools).

Therein lies the rub for me.

Sponsorships are usually something that has to be paid up front so you can have your name plastered all over the event, product, or other whatever. So, the way I see it is that this school sponsored events at a professional sports game and arena so that it could be noticed and maybe more students would enroll there. One can only assume at this point then is that the school is jacking up tuition and fees so that it can pay for official sponsorships at high profile locations like professional sports teams and arenas, which by the way don’t really need any help with promotions.

Why is college expensive? One of the many reasons is because of unnecessary crap like this. I highly doubt they can show that promotions at this venue have generated sufficient enrollments to cover the cost of the sponsorship.

Colleges shouldn’t be allowed to do sponsorships, period.

Tell me I’m wrong. Well, try to anyway.

Need to know

Posted on February 11, 2020 by backuphill

Photo by Linda Eller-Shein on Pexels.com

“You’re on a need to know basis, and you don’t need to know.”

The above phrase gets tossed around a lot, but there are actual times when it applies. Yesterday, I ran into an instance from my employer that seems to fit this to a T.

The admin assistance to our department director came around with a new form to fill out. It supposedly is something that we have filled out previously and supposedly only has one line changed on the whole document. The supposed change is “to comply with federal grant requirements.” The added line really isn’t the issue for me though.

The document is basically a “driver screening” risk management form. I get that in order for me to drive a company vehicle, they have to ask certain questions and it is expected that I report certain details should circumstances require the necessity to do so. That isn’t really an issue for me. I understand the necessity of such a screening. HOWEVER…

The document goes on to ask about information that I believe is totally unnecessary and, quite frankly, a violation of my privacy by asking about my personal vehicle. As in, should I drive my personal vehicle during work hours and on work time. The document is asking for the kind of vehicle I drive and license plate (why would it matter what vehicle I drive if it is my vehicle?), what insurance company I use and the policy number (with specific amounts of coverage); it requires to inform my employer if I drop expected level of insurance to a lower level, and expects me to waive all rights as an employee if on company time and there is an accident in my personal vehicle.

Does this sound invasive? Is this typical? Do you willingly give your employer information they don’t really need?

Yes, there is travel required as part of my job. Yes, I do prefer to drive my personal vehicle instead of the crappy company cars. But, the requirements of this document are “part of my continued employment” with the company, as though the document and my driving my vehicle have anything to do with my job performance and skills as a trainer and software analyst.

A big part of me bristles as this whole thing. I can accept that my employer needs to know certain things about me, but I don’t accept that they need to know everything about me.

I partially joked with a co-worker who was feeling the same way as I was yesterday that it won’t be long and they’ll be asking for our homeowner’s insurance policies since we telecommute several days a week.

I can see the future, and I don’t like it.

Fact check

Posted on February 5, 2020 by backuphill

Photo by Prateek Katyal on Pexels.com

“Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”

The rise of fact checkers has never been more needed. We need to make sure our politicians are being truthful (because we all know their not, no matter what side their on). “The spin” is always in play and, quite frankly, can be rather disgusting when it gets right down to it.

So, I appreciate that we have people and organizations who do some fact checking. BUT, they are not exactly infallible. While they purport to be “unbiased,” they are not. We still need to watch for bias and we still need to be aware of leanings. Sure, they may not be as obvious in their bias as some media outlets, but it is still there. Example: simply by choosing what and what not to fact check and then report it could display bias.

Factcheck.org is one of my go to places for fact checking. It’s comprehensive and it appears to have little bias. However, there is still a problem. I’ll use the 2020 State of the Union Address from last night as a demonstration of what I was saying in the last paragraph. The linked article above only covers issues that the president got wrong or embellished. There is nothing in the article that points to where he was correct or telling the truth.

To me, that isn’t a balanced fact check. If you’re gonna do the job, do the whole job – line by line and tell us what is correct and what isn’t. Support it good research. Fact check it all. Once the speech is published in its entirety, fact check the whole thing. Don’t pick and choose what and what not to check.

So, if you are looking for more info, you can also check other places. Get a well rounded view of what is going on and what happened. Get info from every perspective, including from places deemed to have little bias. You can, again, use the president’s address from last night as an introduction to the site. The site is Allsides.org.

I know I have talked about these websites before. But I can’t help but make sure you have a place (or places) you can go to get information that is tainted as little as possible with bias. With a flood of information from anywhere and everywhere on the internet, you need to make sure that what you are consuming is as accurate as possible.

We can’t afford to be ignorant. We must be well informed.

Do your due diligence.

Becoming rather taxing

Posted on January 31, 2020 by backuphill

accounting analytics balance black and white

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The state I live in, Washington, has no income tax. It’s against the law.

What you’ll read in this article is that our legislature is trying apply a tax on businesses with employees who are paid more than $150k a year. All in the name of battling homelessness.

Sounds great does’t it? Not so fast.

The Seattle City Counsel passed a “head tax” on Seattle business last year (you’ll also read that in the article too). That tax was aimed at large corporations whom they feel are exploiting workers and causing the housing costs to go up. So, they would tax these companies X number of dollars per employee, over a certain number of employees. If I remember correctly, it was $550/per employee for really large corporations and $250/per employee for smaller ones. Small business were exempt, supposedly. The counsel soon rescinded that because they did it illegally by holding secret meetings, behind closed doors, etc etc etc.

Now, instead of the local group trying to unfairly tax corporations, the state legislature is taking up the issue and calling it an “excise tax”. As one person interviewed in the article calls it, “New coat of paint on a bad idea.”

The City of Seattle, King County, and others have tried to pass an income tax on high earners ($400K+) several different times. It has consistently been voted down by citizens and the courts as illegal and against the state constitution.

This new effort by the state legislature is essentially moving the high income earners tax from the earner to the employer. Thus, it is an income tax, they have just prettied of the terminology to try and disguise what it actually is.

Our Democrat friends, who constantly like to have their hands in our pockets are at it again. Our Democrat friends are now also playing a different game at every level of politics – if you don’t like the definition of a word, give it a different one and shame everyone who disagrees with you. (I use the word “friend” very loosely.)

This issue is no different. They want their hands in our pockets again….and they don’t like the definition of “income tax” so they just keep renaming it in the hope that no one is paying attention.