View Full Version : Person of the Year.........the insanity continues
Guess who's the Person of the Year? :0!
Yes, it's the donald.
The Nobel Prize Committee is hard at work too, I hear...
iris lilies
12-7-16, 2:08pm
Guess who's the Person of the Year? :0!
Yes, it's the donald.
Why the surprise? What does that mean to you?
It seems perfectly obvious to me, given the criteria for the Man of the Year designation as chief newsmaker.
Hitler got the same distinction in 1938. Stalin got it twice, I think.
iris lilies
12-7-16, 2:19pm
Hitler got the same distinction in 1938. Stalin got it twice, I think.Indeed. Whch is why I ask CathyA why she finds the choice "insane." I am trying to understand, ya know. ;)
Hitler got it twice, too.
Well, it might have met the criteria, but it's just going to inflate his warped ego even more and probably have many of his voters thinking "Yeah! We were right!" I think they should re-name the "award".......to something like "most mentioned name in print, whether it's good/bad or ugly." or "The most disgusting person" award.
Well, it might have met the criteria, but it's just going to inflate his warped ego even more and probably have many of his voters thinking "Yeah! We were right!"
I would guess Trump finds it much more ego-expansive to have armies of the people he set out to upset becoming positively unhinged over his coming administration than by any action a faltering news magazine could take. His supporters see the same people sneering at Trump who have sneered at them and feel vindicated.
I think there's a very real sense in which Trump's weird and vulgar rise to power derives at least in part from the fear and hate he inspires in so much of his opposition.
Miss Cellane
12-7-16, 4:50pm
From the New York Times:
As the magazine’s editor in chief, Nancy Gibbs, put it:
“For reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow’s political culture by demolishing yesterday’s, Donald Trump is Time’s 2016 person of the year.”
From the New York Times:
As the magazine’s editor in chief, Nancy Gibbs, put it:
“For reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow’s political culture by demolishing yesterday’s, Donald Trump is Time’s 2016 person of the year.”
You have to admire the Times' indomitable sense of self-importance. An electorate they were incapable of speaking to or for wasn't "hidden", it was just beneath their notice. The world is bigger than the Upper West Side. If Trump indeed "demolished" a political culture, it was fairly rotten to begin with. And when they pompously intone that "the truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it", I have to wonder which divinity appointed them as custodians of the truth. And perhaps ask whether their prior front-page ruminations on whether journalistic standards of objectivity should apply to Trump may have something to do with the masses not following their lead.
Well, it might have met the criteria, but it's just going to inflate his warped ego even more and probably have many of his voters thinking "Yeah! We were right!" I think they should re-name the "award".......to something like "most mentioned name in print, whether it's good/bad or ugly." or "The most disgusting person" award.
His wealth probably helped with this award - money talks.
frugal-one
12-7-16, 10:08pm
From the New York Times:
As the magazine’s editor in chief, Nancy Gibbs, put it:
“For reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow’s political culture by demolishing yesterday’s, Donald Trump is Time’s 2016 person of the year.”
Demagogue.... dictionary definition sure pertains to Trump.
You have to admire the Times' indomitable sense of self-importance. An electorate they were incapable of speaking to or for wasn't "hidden", it was just beneath their notice. The world is bigger than the Upper West Side. If Trump indeed "demolished" a political culture, it was fairly rotten to begin with. And when they pompously intone that "the truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it", I have to wonder which divinity appointed them as custodians of the truth. And perhaps ask whether their prior front-page ruminations on whether journalistic standards of objectivity should apply to Trump may have something to do with the masses not following their lead.
Considering that one of the trump campaign's chief people doesn't believe in facts* I think the times was pretty spot on with their comment about "the truth". Someone needs to try to care for the truth and considering all the BS he tweets on a daily basis that is demonstrably false Trump and his team obviously don't give a flying fig about it because they know that their supporters just don't care about the truth. At least not now. Maybe 4 years from now when their health insurance has been cancelled, the swamp is as swampy as ever, WW 3.0 the China and Iran edition has begun, and he's only saved a token number of jobs, they might care a bit more about truth than the bombast and demagoguery they currently love so much.
* http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a51152/trump-surrogate-no-such-thing-as-facts/
Considering that one of the trump campaign's chief people doesn't believe in facts* I think the times was pretty spot on with their comment about "the truth". Someone needs to try to care for the truth and considering all the BS he tweets on a daily basis that is demonstrably false Trump and his team obviously don't give a flying fig about it because they know that their supporters just don't care about the truth. At least not now. Maybe 4 years from now when their health insurance has been cancelled, the swamp is as swampy as ever, WW 3.0 the China and Iran edition has begun, and he's only saved a token number of jobs, they might care a bit more about truth than the bombast and demagoguery they currently love so much.
* http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a51152/trump-surrogate-no-such-thing-as-facts/
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Miss Cellane
12-8-16, 8:17am
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
ToomuchStuff
12-8-16, 11:58am
Guess who's the Person of the Year? :0!
Yes, it's the donald.
Two things going through my head at the same time.
First one, I read this above....
And?....... comes to mind.
The second, was, Cathy should change her avatar to a Susan Powter meme.:laff:
http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-times-trump-cover-is-a-subversive-work-of-political-art/
An interesting read on the possible symbolism that was put into the photo for the magazine's cover.
http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-times-trump-cover-is-a-subversive-work-of-political-art/
An interesting read on the possible symbolism that was put into the photo for the magazine's cover.
I suppose all that stuff could have been easily overlooked. It's interesting. What caught my attention was that "rip" they were talking about in the back of the chair. To me, it wasn't exactly a rip, but I did wonder what it was.........I actually thought it was some sort of hidden word.
Interesting article. Do you think it really was that well thought out, in it's symbolism? Was this a real photograph, un-doctored?
Considering that one of the trump campaign's chief people doesn't believe in facts* I think the times was pretty spot on with their comment about "the truth". Someone needs to try to care for the truth and considering all the BS he tweets on a daily basis that is demonstrably false Trump and his team obviously don't give a flying fig about it because they know that their supporters just don't care about the truth. At least not now. Maybe 4 years from now when their health insurance has been cancelled, the swamp is as swampy as ever, WW 3.0 the China and Iran edition has begun, and he's only saved a token number of jobs, they might care a bit more about truth than the bombast and demagoguery they currently love so much.
* http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a51152/trump-surrogate-no-such-thing-as-facts/
I've been thinking the same thing. If we could time travel to 3 years from now, are we going to see the look of surprise on the Trump voters who will be worse off than before?
iris lilies
12-10-16, 12:44pm
I suppose all that stuff could have been easily overlooked. It's interesting. What caught my attention was that "rip" they were talking about in the back of the chair. To me, it wasn't exactly a rip, but I did wonder what it was.........I actually thought it was some sort of hidden word.
Interesting article. Do you think it really was that well thought out, in it's symbolism? Was this a real photograph, un-doctored?
Cathy, the photograph is highly "doctored" and the image editorially manipulated. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a portrait, and portraits always provide a point of view of the subject. There is a LOT of editorializing in this portrait, as the article referenced by jp says. That article is fascinating, by the way.
For me the chair is fascinating, and beautiful. When I poked around the web I see that Trump was photographed in a French chair with cream colored fabric and gilded wood. The photo shoot took place in Trump Tower and that chair was presumably his. But, the chair comes out in the photo greatly changed in color and pattern, it has dark wood and blue fabric with Presidential seal on the back and age damage.
A Time magazine cover of Hitler (not his Man of the Year cover, but another) shows Hitler sitting in a similar chair with dark wood and blue upholstry. It is as though they pulled that Hitler chair out of storage where it sat for decades, decaying, and hence the rippled fabric on the back of the Trump image chair. The photo says "Hitler now Trump" with the chair.
But this is entirely my interpretation. I like analyzing symbology in art.
Outside of all of the symbolic hoopla, I think it is a good image of Trump himself, one that is serious and flattering.
frugal-one
12-10-16, 1:56pm
Very apt... The Divided States of America.
ApatheticNoMore
12-10-16, 2:34pm
Maybe 4 years from now when their health insurance has been cancelled
17 states in 2017 still haven't expanded Medicaid. This is what people keep saying about people not knowing what is really going on in much of the country. To keep thinking Obamacare is ok, when 17 states don't provide any coverage for poor people AT ALL (granted these are not states with the largest populations but then again Clinton didn't lose the popular vote). Divided states of America indeed. They can't even get ACA subsidies either as they make TOO LITTLE MONEY. Now ACA subsidies still leave care unaffordable for many lower income but not poor enough for Medicaid people (with their several thousand deductibles when most people in this country are poor and would have trouble scraping together $500) and for those who make too much for subsidies as well, but that's another issue with Obamacare. Sure you can blame the leaders of those states for not expanding Medicare or you can blame the ACA for allowing such glaring loopholes, but noone cares because the thing is: blame doesn't FIX things on way or other. Neither will Trump, oh probably not, and neither would Hillary in all likelihood either. Did she ever mention the issue in her campaign?
WW 3.0 the China and Iran edition has begun
I hear with Hillary the nuclear war would have been with Russia. Did I believe that scaremongering? Not really ... but many were very worried about her and Russia (and she seems not even to be able to drop the Russia! scaremongering now that she won't be President!!! It's hard to believe) But she seemed more consciously itching for trouble. And they have all wanted for a long time war with Iran, it's a neocon dream for a long time, but the positive thing is it seems with Assad regaining control over Syria U.S. imperialistic power may be waning.
they might care a bit more about truth than the bombast and demagoguery they currently love so much.
and what could they DO about it then? On some level it's rational not to even care about it if you can't do anything about it. It's like worry about melting polar ice caps and the briefness and precariousness of life or go to the movies? Now maybe they can do something on some level but the Presidential race is a hopeless level to even start.
I've been thinking the same thing. If we could time travel to 3 years from now, are we going to see the look of surprise on the Trump voters who will be worse off than before?
would we be surprised if they were worse off under Hillary either, would they, would anyone? Many of them are probably worse off under Obama as well.
ApatheticNoMore
12-10-16, 2:58pm
I think maybe the person of the year should be the media (it's not like it always has to be a person), ok mostly the mainstream media and maybe just television itself, should be the person of the year - because even Trump would be nothing without constant media presence, face on t.v. 24/7, and years of reality t.v. even before that, it's the power behind the throne. A Trump such as he is doesn't just come from being a rich fake businessman to be President without that endless free coverage. The media itself elected Trump president, we just pulled the levers.
Failing that the person of the year could be: the electoral college. :)
iris lilies
12-10-16, 3:08pm
I think maybe the person of the year should be the media (it's not like it always has to be a person), ok mostly the mainstream media and maybe just television itself, should be the person of the year - because even Trump would be nothing without constant media presence, face on t.v. 24/7, and years of reality t.v. even before that, it's the power behind the throne. A Trump such as he is doesn't just come from being a rich fake businessman to be President without that endless free coverage. The media itself elected Trump president, we just pulled the levers.
Failing that the person of the year could be: the electoral college. :)
I like that!
Considering that one of the trump campaign's chief people doesn't believe in facts* I think the times was pretty spot on with their comment about "the truth". Someone needs to try to care for the truth and considering all the BS he tweets on a daily basis that is demonstrably false Trump and his team obviously don't give a flying fig about it because they know that their supporters just don't care about the truth. At least not now. Maybe 4 years from now when their health insurance has been cancelled, the swamp is as swampy as ever, WW 3.0 the China and Iran edition has begun, and he's only saved a token number of jobs, they might care a bit more about truth than the bombast and demagoguery they currently love so much.
* http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a51152/trump-surrogate-no-such-thing-as-facts/
17 states in 2017 still haven't expanded Medicaid. This is what people keep saying about people not knowing what is really going on in much of the country. To keep thinking Obamacare is ok, when 17 states don't provide any coverage for poor people AT ALL (granted these are not states with the largest populations but then again Clinton didn't lose the popular vote). Divided states of America indeed. They can't even get ACA subsidies either as they make TOO LITTLE MONEY. Now ACA subsidies still leave care unaffordable for many lower income but not poor enough for Medicaid people (with their several thousand deductibles when most people in this country are poor and would have trouble scraping together $500) and for those who make too much for subsidies as well, but that's another issue with Obamacare. Sure you can blame the leaders of those states for not expanding Medicare or you can blame the ACA for allowing such glaring loopholes, but noone cares because the thing is: blame doesn't FIX things on way or other. Neither will Trump, oh probably not, and neither would Hillary in all likelihood either. Did she ever mention the issue in her campaign?
Actually she did talk about the need to make some tweaks to the ACA. Among them to fix the fact that republican state governments had refused to expand Medicaid.
Although I agree with you, there are significant issues with the ACA and would have preferred single payer, or at least a government option. But for better or worse the number of uninsured is lower now than it's ever been but if the republicans have their way we'll be going backwards.
I hear with Hillary the nuclear war would have been with Russia. Did I believe that scaremongering? Not really ... but many were very worried about her and Russia (and she seems not even to be able to drop the Russia! scaremongering now that she won't be President!!! It's hard to believe) But she seemed more consciously itching for trouble. And they have all wanted for a long time war with Iran, it's a neocon dream for a long time, but the positive thing is it seems with Assad regaining control over Syria U.S. imperialistic power may be waning.
Personally I seriously doubt Hillary would have started a war with Russia. She's not stupid. Nor is she unpredictable. Trump is already intentionally stirring the pot with China and his choices to lead the Department of War and elsewhere all have in common an extreme hate of Iran. We'll see where that leads.
and what could they DO about it then? On some level it's rational not to even care about it if you can't do anything about it. It's like worry about melting polar ice caps and the briefness and precariousness of life or go to the movies? Now maybe they can do something on some level but the Presidential race is a hopeless level to even start.
What to do about it then? Maybe next time not fall for the BS and instead vote for the Bernie Sanders candidate that actually has concern about their interests. At some point one would hope that they'll wake up and realize that the republican party politicians are just a bunch of mean, selfish folks who only have their personal self-interest as a concern.
ApatheticNoMore
12-10-16, 9:41pm
So Hillary wanted to escalate the war in Syria and Trump appointees maybe want war with Iran. 6 of one and half dozen of the other.
What to do about it then? Maybe next time not fall for the BS and instead vote for the Bernie Sanders candidate that actually has concern about their interests.
but these aren't even the same people, the fact Sanders lost is due to states like New York and California that went to Hillary in the general as well (and the South, ok maybe some Trump voters there) and of course the superdelegates that would have probably have given it to her anyway.
but these aren't even the same people, the fact Sanders lost is due to states like New York and California that went to Hillary in the general as well (and the South, ok maybe some Trump voters there) and of course the superdelegates that would have probably have given it to her anyway.
I actually meant Bernie Sanders as a modifier to the noun candidate, not specifically that they should have changed parties and voted for him in the primary. Although in reality they should have since their party is not likely to have a Bernie sanders candidate in any of our lifetimes. Their party seems to prefer things like the completely meaningless 'compassionate conservatism' over anything of substance to actually help them.
It is indeed a shame, as Bernie could have won, I have no doubt.
Oh well.
Miss Cellane
12-11-16, 8:50pm
And Trump has just announced that he is "too smart" to listen to intelligence briefings every day. He'll let Pence do that.
Mixed feelings about this. Isn't this a basic duty of Presidents? Getting briefings on things happening in the world?
On the other hand, maybe Pence will actually pay attention to the briefings and try to alert Trump when there's something he needs to know.
But still. "Too smart?"
Mixed feelings about this. Isn't this a basic duty of Presidents? Getting briefings on things happening in the world?
I don't see "attending daily meetings" listed as a duty in Article II.
Different people have different management styles.
If there's one thing I've learned in this long life, it's that people who have to tell you how smart they are, aren't.
Miss Cellane
12-12-16, 7:59am
I don't see "attending daily meetings" listed as a duty in Article II.
Different people have different management styles.
Silly bae. Not attending daily meetings. Getting the information needed to run the country.
If I was a manager which I am not, I would want to attend daily meetings not so much for the information but to get to know my team, their characters, interaction with each other while with me and look for changing dynamics being alert to changes in direction. Maybe that is my management style.
I don't see "attending daily meetings" listed as a duty in Article II.
Different people have different management styles.
True, but I also don't see anything in the constitution about having a standing army quartered at bases in every part of the world ready to threaten anyone who dares to do something we don't like. Maybe if we changed that it wouldn't matter so much whether he gets advised on what's up out there.
catherine
12-12-16, 12:29pm
Silly bae. Not attending daily meetings. Getting the information needed to run the country.
Maybe he'll appoint Ivanka to sit in for him at those meetings.
Maybe he'll appoint Ivanka to sit in for him at those meetings.
Maybe he'll want all his briefings delivered in tweets so he can retweet them.
iris lilies
12-12-16, 1:18pm
Maybe he'll appoint Ivanka to sit in for him at those meetings.
Maybe that would actually be better.
Maybe that would actually be better.
I was thinking the exact same thing--she seems pretty competent to me.
frugal-one
12-12-16, 8:24pm
Maybe that would actually be better.
Yeah, Ivanka could use the information she gleans from the briefings to make more money for their many companies ...... insider information.
All this worry about him not listening to the intelligence people is kind of beside the point. More important is the throwaway comment KellyAnne Conway made on sunday's Faze the Nation, where she mentioned that he intends to install a bunch of yes men in the agencies anyway. What could possibly go wrong with a president that ignores intelligence findings? It worked out so well for us 15 years ago...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcript-december-11-2016-mccain-conway-sanders/
"He has made very clear he is going to put his own people in there as well. "
He's so defiant. He just loves uproar. And even if he picks the best grow-the-economy people.........where is simple living in all that? Where are scrupples, foresight, ethics, concern for the "common man"....
Did I die and go to hell??
Miss Cellane
12-13-16, 12:52pm
Maybe he'll want all his briefings delivered in tweets so he can retweet them.
But then he'd be retweeting classified information. That the entire world could read.
And we know how he feels about HRC's use of a private email server for classified info.
I just read an op-ed where the writer says it's probably a good thing if Pence gets the briefings, because then D'Trump can't tweet classified info.
If you are the principal of a school system, then do you say that you won't ever attend important meetings with staff, students or parents?
Isn't attending meetings part of his duties?
I don't get it at all!
I can understand missing some briefings if there is something else on the agenda, but not all of the briefings?
Heck, he has this important job and doesn't want to perform his vital functions?
Did he think being President was some sort of leisure activity?
It is a 24/7 job that is he already saying that he doesn't want to do.
Maybe he just wanted to be in the history books!
Silly bae. Not attending daily meetings. Getting the information needed to run the country.
There are of course ways to get that information without attending daily briefings.
For instance, some CEOs I know delegate, set goals, and don't try to run the whole show by themselves - rather they rely up their subordinates to, in general, Do The Right Thing and report issues upwards as needed.
If I was a manager which I am not, I would want to attend daily meetings not so much for the information but to get to know my team, their characters, interaction with each other while with me and look for changing dynamics being alert to changes in direction. Maybe that is my management style.
I was a manager of the research and development arm of one of the most successful companies in the USA, and one that consistently was ranked in the top-10 places to work.
I had very very few scheduled meetings, and they were generally for very boring operational issues. I mostly wandered around talking to people and Getting Stuff Done.
I used to fire people who were insistent on having pointless regular meetings. If I walked into a meeting, and I didn't see an agenda, and people told me "oh, this is just our regular Thursday meeting", that was the end of that meeting.
I pulled the chairs and tables out of some of our conference rooms, and completely covered the walls in whiteboard - that worked out quite well - short short productive meetings.
$5/page penalty for color in your Powerpoint, in addition to the $10 penalty for using Powerpoint at all.
"Meetings, Bloody Meetings"
Miss Cellane
12-13-16, 4:47pm
Apparently some other Presidents have foregone the intelligence meeting every day--but they got the briefing in written form. So a meeting isn't necessary. But surely, on some level, the information is?
Or we are going to get what I've suspected all along. The President won't be calling the shots, the people he has put in place in the Cabinet and other offices will be getting the info, making the decisions, and telling the President what to do and say. Or at least what they want him to do and say. Whether or not he'll listen to or act on their advice is yet to be seen.
Apparently some other Presidents have foregone the intelligence meeting every day--but they got the briefing in written form. So a meeting isn't necessary. But surely, on some level, the information is?
Or we are going to get what I've suspected all along. The President won't be calling the shots, the people he has put in place in the Cabinet and other offices will be getting the info, making the decisions, and telling the President what to do and say. Or at least what they want him to do and say. Whether or not he'll listen to or act on their advice is yet to be seen.
And there really is no pretense anymore that we are a Democratic Republic, what with this cabinet packed with billionaires and multi-millionaires who are poised to slash programs designed to benefit ordinary citizens--Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Protection...This is a cabinet of government-hating oligarchs, pure and simple. We're going down in flames.
I've really been wondering what his voters are thinking. Are they still so naiive that they're sure he's still going to deliver to them?
And sure.......delegating is part of being the boss........but I want a president who doesn't have to consult everyone first, to be able to tell you what's going on, where, and who's who. I have the feeling that Trump will remain fairly out of touch with info he should know.
I suspect the "tainted election" narrative will take the place of birtherism as our favorite nasty political myth.
I suspect the "tainted election" narrative will take the place of birtherism as our favorite nasty political myth.
It does have all the signs of being a fine sequel!
iris lilies
12-13-16, 5:55pm
I was a manager of the research and development arm of one of the most successful companies in the USA, and one that consistently was ranked in the top-10 places to work.
I had very very few scheduled meetings, and they were generally for very boring operational issues. I mostly wandered around talking to people and Getting Stuff Done.
I used to fire people who were insistent on having pointless regular meetings. If I walked into a meeting, and I didn't see an agenda, and people told me "oh, this is just our regular Thursday meeting", that was the end of that meeting.
I pulled the chairs and tables out of some of our conference rooms, and completely covered the walls in whiteboard - that worked out quite well - short short productive meetings.
$5/page penalty for color in your Powerpoint, in addition to the $10 penalty for using Powerpoint at all.
"Meetings, Bloody Meetings"
In the last year I worked, In one of our regular weekly meetings of administrators, we sat overlooking a corner where someone was murdered. The big windows showed all of the activity. cops came. yellow tape went up.
But we couldnt interupt our meeting to see how this event affected our operation because it was our meeting time. We had to meet!
We used to have regular meetings where nothing of importance was ever discussed, but I got paid OT to come in early to attend them, so they weren't a total waste for me.
I suspect the "tainted election" narrative will take the place of birtherism as our favorite nasty political myth.
A rare instance where the sequel is better than the original!
He is used to reality television and celebrity viewing but that is NOT part of being the president.
No a president is not a figurehead - he needs to be responsible 100 percent of the time.
This is not a game - it a nation full of people.
I suspect the "tainted election" narrative will take the place of birtherism as our favorite nasty political myth.
He is used to reality television and celebrity viewing but that is NOT part of being the president.
No a president is not a figurehead - he needs to be responsible 100 percent of the time.
This is not a game - it a nation full of people.
Wait, so this isn't all fun and games for profit??? His actions may actually result in people, possibly lots of them, dying? I was hoping for the sequel (since we're talking sequels) to "how to succeed in business without really trying".
Zoe Girl
12-13-16, 10:56pm
I
I used to fire people who were insistent on having pointless regular meetings. If I walked into a meeting, and I didn't see an agenda, and people told me "oh, this is just our regular Thursday meeting", that was the end of that meeting.
I pulled the chairs and tables out of some of our conference rooms, and completely covered the walls in whiteboard - that worked out quite well - short short productive meetings.
I read a great book, Working with you is Killing Me. Loved it. It had some great advice, mostly I needed to learn to manage up after my really bad year and bad review. I still think I wasn't that bad but not so arrogant to not realize I had things to work on. One way I learned about working with my boss was to insist on regular meetings and to bring an agenda with me, rather than leaving it up to chance. It also helped me be more clear with what I was doing and how to get what I needed.
In the last year I worked, In one of our regular weekly meetings of administrators, we sat overlooking a corner where someone was murdered. The big windows showed all of the activity. cops came. yellow tape went up.
But we couldnt interupt our meeting to see how this event affected our operation because it was our meeting time. We had to meet!
I have a regular weekly meeting with my staff and reps from a couple of departments we work closely with. There's an agenda, but I find that the real value is gained when one corner of my little empire learns of a problem or solution another corner is grappling with. It save me a lot of time on the "have you got a minute" stuff, and I was never one for making the rounds playing the "here comes the great one descending into your little world to resolve your issues and mediate your disputes" thing. I would guess than an hour or so once a week probably saves me six or seven.
We don't typically do Powerpoint, but we often throw spreadsheets or our general ledger system on the projector to resolve the artistic differences that sometimes arise between accountants.
I do have a standing rule that we will adjourn for murders.
iris lilies
12-14-16, 10:36am
Sometimes you need all the players around the table to hash out a project. The one "regular" meeting at work that was very useful to me was one where my peers articulated their part of each project so that we could coordinate work, and meet expectations
It was useful because it was infrequent. The regularity was non existant, it took place about 1 of 3 times the group was supposed to meet, and for each meeting we had a full agenda.
Sometimes you need all the players around the table to hash out a project. The one "regular" meeting at work that was very useful to me was one where my peers articulated their part of each project so that we could coordinate work, and meet expectations
It was useful because it was infrequent. The regularity was non existant, it took place about 1 of 3 times the group was supposed to meet, and for each meeting we had a full agenda.
Sometimes there are connections you might not have considered. Changes in recognition of intangible assets? Suddenly you need to take another look at easements. Yet another whimsical reinterpretation by the State on pension liabilities? Back to the drawing board on the wage projection.
frugal-one
12-14-16, 5:13pm
Wait, so this isn't all fun and games for profit??? His actions may actually result in people, possibly lots of them, dying? I was hoping for the sequel (since we're talking sequels) to "how to succeed in business without really trying".
Give your daughter, Ivanka, Michele Obama's office and let her listen in on all the confidential meetings.
frugal-one
12-14-16, 5:23pm
And there really is no pretense anymore that we are a Democratic Republic, what with this cabinet packed with billionaires and multi-millionaires who are poised to slash programs designed to benefit ordinary citizens--Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Protection...This is a cabinet of government-hating oligarchs, pure and simple. We're going down in flames.
Becoming a plutocracy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.