As we’re driving home from Extra Mile, I ask my son, “How’s that Icee?”
“Good,” he says.
“What flavor did you go with?”
“Pineapple Mango.”
“It makes me feel good to be able to provide my son with the finer things in life.”
“A 99-cent Icee?”
“Fine things don’t have to cost a lot of money.”
People who use the word “signage,” e.g., “We’ve got to put up some signage so people can find the right conference rooms.”
Look — like most words, the plural of “sign” is formed by adding “-s” at the end, not “-age.” This kind of language abuse just makes everyone stupider.
I was out for a walk today when a little Chinese boy about 1 year old in human years pointed at me and said, “Panda!”
Do I look like a panda to you?
— Lightning 
In fact I love to put my feet up at the end of the day, and watch them looking kinda good. I say in my mind to them: “Thank you for taking me around for so many years to so many places and still doing so – with happy steps. You’re the best!”
You just have issues. I have a real problem.
A team committed to providing great products or services on time will shift its point of view on authority.
It will move from viewing authority as emanating from bosses to viewing authority as emanating from ideas and from the nurturing and championship of an ecology of ideas.
Originally uploaded by www.marcel-sauer.de
Originally uploaded by wombatarama
Originally uploaded by wombatarama
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=pt&v=2kPy0H9k__M]
Saying that you want something implies that you are willing to change to get it. Otherwise, you really don’t want the thing.
Teams must intentionally create an environment where it is safe to express all ideas.
High-tech workers fervently believe in time and people shortages.
Much of the time, you have no idea whether a shortage really exists. You assume that the shortage is real, instead of carefully examining the situation. Many explanations based on insufficiencies arise from unexamined assumptions.
Many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.
That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama’s statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we’ll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America’s employers would remain the backbone of the nation’s health care system.
Hence, health-care reform risks becoming a victim of unintended consequences.
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.
