Why Working at Home is a Lie

The CEO at Yahoo Marissa Mayer has ended the practice of "working at home" at the California headquarters and  field offices. This reversal of a popular trend is raising the hackles of many layabouts and con artists who pretend to be working at home.

Everyone knows that you cannot get anything done at home. 

Anyone who has tried doing administrative "office work" from home realizes that when no one is watching, you tend to be less effective in your use of time.  The phone rings with non-business purposes. The neighbor sees your car in the driveway and drops by for coffee.  If you have a window, you look out into the yard or street and darned if there isn't something more interesting out there than the boring report you are supposed to be working on.

Many working moms and dads claim that the flexibility of working at home permits them to avoid the stress of having to rely on daycare or babysitter.  Fine,when the kids are infants,  but we all know that it is impossible to get any office work done when there are toddlers running around, screaming and breaking stuff. 

With the TV only a click away, there is a temptation to check the weather report, and then maybe a few breaking news headlines.  Before you know it, you're watching "Judge Judy" or one of the many repeats of "How I married your Mother".

There are so many more distractions at home.  You look up idly from your desk and see unfinished tasks everywhere. You decide to rearrange the bookcase, or replace that burned-out light bulb.  Maybe you go out for a breath of air, while you're out, you may as well  jump in the car, go to the market or even the library.  Walk the dog, change the litterbox. Nap on the sofa, scan through the seed catalog that came in the mail.  Check on car rental prices for your upcoming getaway trip...This is how the day goes when you are working at home.

News articles suggest that there have been studies that conclude that home workers are more productive.  The only one I've seen cited, was done by Stanford University.  They studied a group of Chinese Call Center workers.  I would argue that such results for hourly workers whose every action is captured and measured, is not relevant to the American salaried work at home refugee from the cube farm. 

Any who argues that they get more done, or that they actually spend more time working at home is delusional.  They may be fooling themselves and maybe even the boss.  But if they are honest, they know I'm right. 

The exception to this rule: people who get paid for results  - commissioned Salespeople, who can be counted on to be working no matter where they are. Or writers who get paid by the word. Most of these people goof-off much of their time at home, but they make up for it by being intensely productive under the pressure of a time deadline.

So, my advice is: Get back to the office and get something done.

Sensible Gun Ownership

Here in Massachusetts we have the most restrictive gun laws in the US.  Our gun deaths per year are among the lowest in the nation.  Opponents to gun control do not view this as a valid correlation, yet these same folks will readily cite "gun-friendly" statistical measures when it suits them.  (I heard one gun enthusiast declare that recent mass shootings almost always occur in "gun free zones.") 

I do not think of myself as "anti-gun".  In fact, I like guns.  Like most young teens, I got a kick out of shooting cans or bottles with an air rifle shooting BB's or pellets.  Several times in my life, I have legally had my hands on a weapon that shoots real bullets.    When I was in the Air Force, we had to learn how to shoot an M-1 carbine well enough to hit a target at 500 paces.  

Some of my most favorite movie heroes are tough guys who are really good with guns.  Dirty Harry, Quigley Down Under (Tom Sellick), who shot guys a mile away with his long rifle. 
  

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  - Bill of Rights

People who reject any form of government regulation regarding gun ownership interpret the wording of this bill literally.  They say that the founding fathers were fearful of government over-reach.  An armed populace was the counter balance to tyranny.  It is a fundamental right of every citizen to own and carry a gun.  Period.

The wording of the second amendment, (and many other parts of the Constitution) made perfect sense in 1791, but cannot be taken literally in 2013.  It seems absurd to expect the Constitution to anticipate modern technology.

The Constitution is mute on the subject of automotive rights.  There is no amendment stating specifically that the government has the power to regulate who can and cannot drive.   Clearly, the founding fathers were not sufficiently perspicacious as to anticipate the proliferation of crazy motorists speeding down highways.   

 In 1790, the intent of the second amendment was to ensure  the ability of citizens to take up arms against a tyrannical ruler.  A validation of the revolutionary principles that created the free states.  

Today, the word militia is usually applied to groups of domestic terrorists.   The literal wording of the second amendment does not qualify which "arms" can be legally infringed. Yet, the government has sensibly outlawed automatic weapons, tanks and rocket launchers, bombs, grenades, mortars and flamethrowers.  Would the founding fathers be shocked to learn that people's rights to possess these weapons of human destruction had been infringed?  I think not.

Standing one's ground

I support the fundamental right of an individual to defend his home and property.  I have no problem with the "Stand your ground" laws that have been enacted in some states.  Why should victims be required to run away, rather than shoot the assailant who has entered uninvited through the door?  I think the laws defining the legitimate use of lethal force should be changed to favor the intended victim rather than protecting the bad guys. 

This right does not extend universally to public places where innocent bystanders are at risk.  We don't need a bunch of well-intentioned vigilantes pulling out weapons at a movie theater to thwart a suspect who may only be wielding a cap pistol.

Hunting

During the 1960's, I spent the better part of 4 years in Cheyenne, Wyoming.  Most of the local civilian residents  owned guns. Much of Wyoming is a big open space, with the Rocky Mountains just to the west.  Virtually everyone hunted and/or fished it was natural to own a gun.  The population was spread out.  Nature - wild and beautiful - was in your backyard.  Game was abundant. If you raised livestock, there were always predators to be dealt with. 

Like target shooting, game hunting was considered a skill challenge, using a bolt or lever-action rifle, double barreled shotgun or even a bow  -- not a slaughter with semi-automatic weapons.  

Being sensible

My take on sensible gun ownership is pretty mainstream. Individual locales should regulate gun ownership as they now do with alcohol.    
Guns are ok for sane honest citizens who like to shoot for sport or need a weapon for self defense.  But no upstanding civilian needs a military style assault weapon or large capacity ammunition clip, or ground to air missiles.  

Superbowl Thoughts

The Filled Men

We are the filled men
We are the heavy men
We sit in our easy chairs
Gazes fixed at shadows
On a Hi Def screen
Our eyes, when they see
See scampering, like goats along a cliff face
Or rumbling herds on verdant flats.

We shout - our voices
Booming like fireworks
Urging the motion,
Marveling at the synchrony of motion,
The endless scoring  replay
The repetitive replay-play
In  s  l  o  w  motion-play
Oslay otionmay
Replation

Our beer cans when empty echo
The forlorn sobs of busted plays
Dropped passes, fumbles,
Bad throws, broken tackles, lost bets…

This is the way the game ends
This is the way the game ends
Not with a touchdown
But a safety