Double Bubble

There are a lot of things about Wisconsin in general, and Green Bay in particular, in which the stereotype is very close to reality.  One of them is drinking alcohol.  A lot of alcohol.

Those that know me know that I'm no tea-toddler; far from it.  However, compared to my neighbors, I'm still in the minors.  The bars around town and Lambeau Field itself, well, that my friends are the drinking big leagues.

While "two for one" offers have gone by the wayside at many bars outside of Wisconsin, they're a standard here.  But it's not "two for one."  It's "double bubble."  If you say "two for one," they'll out you as a Minnesotan and start telling you how bad your football team is.

And it isn't any rinky-dink double bubble either; one where the price is inflated to compensate for the free drink.  No sir.  This is buy one for the already affordable regular price and the next one is on the house.

My local establishment has even gone so far as establishing a Double Bubble Club, where all one needs to do is flash the magic card (originally purchased for $20), and every other drink will be free with a prior paid one.  Here's my card, along with my libation of choice, and my upside down shot glass denoting that I'm owed a free one for my next drink:

My buddy, no tea-toddler either, and I have put this to good use.  In just a couple of visits we've wiped out our purchase fee, and we're now "playing with the house's money," so to speak.  In fact, we've run some numbers and we're pretty sure we're going to get the guy that originally thought of this fired before the promotion comes to an end.  

His loss is our gain.

Double bubble.  Your guidepost to drinking economy here in Packerland.

Just don't ever call it "two for one."

Incredible Football Kicking Display

Check this stuff out:

Ten Things to Avoid When Arguing Against Guns

When conversing with anti-gun espousers, be they opinionated zealots or merely just shocked parents that feel a reactionary need to “do something,” there are a couple of themes that come up in conversation which show that they don’t know what they’re talking about.  This lack of knowledge can defeat one's argument as get things derailed.  Hence, if you’re arguing for the curtailing of our rights and you want to sound like you know what the hell you’re talking about, you may want to avoid these following errors:

• Mentioning “automatic weapons” – Those weapons, which fire multiple times with a single pull of the trigger, are already highly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  For all intense and purposes, they are already outlawed and banned for sale to the general public.  What you likely mean are semi-automatic weapons; guns which expend one shot with each pull of the trigger.
• Suggesting a ban of semi-automatic weapons – Note that pump action, revolver, and some lever action guns can be fired by proficient marksmen at a speed to rival semi-automatic fire.  Now what?
• Mentioning “the ability to order online without any kind of background check” – This rumor, rampant on left-leaning sites, is completely untrue.  Firearms cannot be shipped, except to an actively licensed FFL holder, who will then conduct the proper background (NICS) check prior to handing off the firearm for possession.  Anything else is already highly illegal
• Failure to understand clips vs. magazines – A clip feeds a magazine.  To someone familiar with firearms, saying “clip” when you mean “magazine” is an instant red flag that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
• Wanting to ban “high capacity” magazines – If you want to have the argument, you need to define “high capacity,” – exactly how many rounds, does it apply to all calibers, does it apply only to magazines or all feeder systems, etc.?  Note that there are pitfalls for each of these, depending on your definition.  Be prepared
• Making the argument that, if turned down for a firearm purchase “all someone has to do is get a friend or relative to buy it for them” – That’s called a straw purchase, and is already highly illegal.  It is punishable by a $250,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.  While someone could still do it if they wanted to, any person could commit any kind of other felony as well.
• Suggesting banning of “military-style assault weapons” – There is no such thing as a “military-style assault weapon.”  It is a generic term that could mean anything.  Throwing the “assault weapons” catchphrase out there without any kind of specific definition is like suggesting a ban on “powerful vehicles.”  Do you mean cars and trucks alike?  Vehicles that have specific hardware, capabilities, or horsepower?  Vehicles with specific paint schemes?  You see where this is headed.  Hence, when a specific ban is requested, the espouser should be prepared to discuss specific things like features, calibers, components, and the like.
• Suggesting a ban on future sale of specific firearms – Three things: 1) There are already 300 million guns in circulation in the US.  No matter what you want to ban, the cow is already outside the barn door.  Shutting it now does little good.  2) The drug trade in the US, an illegal enterprise, is over $300 billion.  The government can’t stop that (not even close), how could it stop guns? 3) The newly banned guns will only be made more attractive to exactly the type of element that society does not what to have them (e.g. criminals and the insane).  
• Suggesting the 2^nd Amendment applies only to muskets, militia, etc. and does not mean citizens can have guns – There is a wealth of information that goes back to the intent of the Founding Fathers on this one.  You may want to read up on it.  Regardless, District of Columbia vs. Heller put all of that conjecture to rest.  Until another Supreme Court case repeals that decision, private citizens maintain the right to arm themselves.  That’s our law, like it or not.
• Suggesting confiscation of anything – This is the ultimate in folly.  There are north of 300 million guns in the hands of about 50 million US citizens.  Regardless of the law that gets written, a percentage of gun owners will not comply with any order to turn over their weapons.  If that number is 1% (which I’d argue is very low), that represents 500,000 armed folks that are not going down without a fight.  500,000.  Minimum.  Any idea what that would look like? 

By avoiding these landmines you'll look a lot more like you know what you're talking about and will have a better chance of influencing your rival.  Good luck out there!

   

Family Shares Their FTLD Story

A family shares their Frontotemporal lobardegeneration story.  

It struck pretty close to home, and made me miss my Dad.  Even the sick version.

Merry Christmas

Linus, mind doing the honors?

The NRA and Me

I extended my membership with the NRA today.  

I have had a bit of a love/hate relationship with them in the past, yet I've been a member for over two decades now.  I've felt that the organization was too unyielding in its past, and its use of drama for member action gets tiresome.  But with the outrageous behavior of some in the wake of the NRA's press release yesterday, I felt I needed to push back.  So I did so by cutting them a check.

What exactly did they propose that was so terrible?

• Armed security in schools - We have armed guards in armored cars protecting money.  But when kids need protection, people are up in arms.  Why?
• The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun - Uh, exactly.  Next issue.
• A person intent on mass killing will find a safe place to do it - You don't see many police stations shot up, that's for sure.

The wailing over these sensible comments show that the Left is again "never letting a good crisis go to waste" and is moving to ban guns.  It is game on.  Just ask the folks over at the Huffington Post:

A similar recap of drunk driving deaths last night or world deaths due to starvation yesterday or literally any other human malady would have more than eclipsed this list, so the story is not about saving lives.  It is about a political move to ban guns.  Period.

That is why I support the NRA.  Other reasons? Simple:

• There are absolutely people that want to ban guns.  All of them.  I personally know plenty of these people.  I need to fight back, and the NRA is my best bet.
• I demand the right to defend myself. Unlike politicians, my family lacks armed security.  Hence I need to take care of that myself.  Police?  It has been said before: When seconds count, police are minutes away.  I simply refuse to be a victim.
• I believe in Constitution, including the second amendment.  The minute one right is legislated away without Constitutional ratification is the minute when all of the other rights contained in that document come into jeopardy.  

The overreaction to Wayne LaPierre is telling.  They hyperventilation about the NRA is illuminating.  The sides square off.  And the NRA gets my check.  

First Person Shooters - Mass Murder Training

In the debate coming in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, people are looking for answers.  While the easiest appears to be just banning guns, there is at least some talk about mental health and pop culture that is entering into the discussion.

Personally, as one that has played first person shooter video games, I'm amazed there isn't a lot more discussion going on about them.  These realistic games put the player in the role of a character behind a gun, and are designed to as closely resemble "being there" as possible.  And they do a damn good job.  

However, beyond the visual realism of the "first person" type engagement, there are multiple layers add to the realistic engagement.  Some examples of things players must master to gain proficiency in these games:

• Targeting and shooting while on the move
• The value of cover
• Which types of shots inflict what kind of damage/death, and where to taget victims
• Which types of weapons are effective in different shooting scenarios
• How to reload on the move
• The importance of reloading at every break 
• The importance of knowing exactly how many rounds are left in the magazine
• The importance of getting the gun back on target as quickly as possible after the recoil of the shot
• Muzzle control
• Sniping techniques

The list goes on and on.  But I left out the big one: body count.  In every game, the goal is to rack up as many kills as is possible.

This ain't Pac-Man, folks.  This is training ground for an "active shooter" scenario.  Short of actual range time and/or training, there is no better way for our kids to learn how to efficiently kill mass numbers of people. 

Don't believe me?  Ask your nearest teen to show you.  

Given how realistic these games are, the training they provide, and their popularity, it is frankly a miracle that we have not had more issues. 

Changing Professional Goals

As I was coming up in my career, I had a very clear mindset of where I wanted to go and what paths I'd take to get me there.  While I've not achieved all that I want of my career - I would still very much like to make SVP or CMO before I'm done - I recognize that I don't want to be a CEO, and that I can stop worrying so much about the next step and fully concentrate on what I'm doing right here and now.

Hence, the strategic chess game that is the management of my career has changed.  No, not stopped, but changed.

While my aspirations for myself have tempered, new goals and objectives take their place.  However, those goals aren't solely about me anymore.  As I've matured, I've gained more and more satisfaction out of the achievements of those on my team, and have been focusing more of my energies on their success.

Beyond the fiduciary responsibilities I have to my employer, my primary objective has now shifted away from myself and to development of my people.  I have been fortunate enough to manage/coach at least two and possibly three folks that have the capacity to be CEOs some day.  In fact, one is well on her way, and will likely be leading her company within 8 years.  Hence, my goal is to arm these folks with what I can to make them as successful as they choose to be, then to sit back and smile at their achievements.

My ultimate goal - and while it is a long-term one it is one nonetheless - is to eventually be asked to go to work for one of the people that used to work "for" me.  I can think of no better achievement or compliment that could be bestowed upon me as a leader.  

Here's hoping it happens some day.