The No-Asshole Rule
Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t
Robert I. Sutton, Ph.D.
The American Lawyer
February 20, 2007
The first time that I ever heard about a book on assholes was more than 30 years ago. It happened at an Italian restaurant in San Francisco called Little Joe’s, where customers sat behind a long counter that faced an open kitchen. Most of us came to see the flamboyant chef, who sang, joked with customers and employees, and entertained us by igniting dramatic flames with olive oil as he cooked. Employees wore T-shirts that said “Rain or shine, there is always a line,” and waiting for a seat was good fun because of the constant banter and clowning around.
One day, I waited behind an especially rude customer who was sitting at the counter. He made crude comments, tried to grab the waitress, complained about how his veal parmigiana tasted, and insulted customers who told him to pipe down.
This creep kept spewing his venom until a fellow customer approached him and asked (in a loud voice), “You are just an amazing person. I’ve been looking everywhere for a person like you. I love how you act. Can you give me your name?” He looked flustered for a moment, but then seemed flattered, offered thanks for the compliment, and provided his name.
Without missing a beat, his questioner wrote it down and said, “Thanks. I appreciate it. You see, I am writing a book on assholes … and you are absolutely perfect for Chapter 13.” The entire place roared, and the asshole looked humiliated, shut his trap, and soon slithered out — and the waitress beamed with delight.
This story is more than a sweet and funny memory. That incident at Little Joe’s reflects seven key lessons about the no-asshole rule.
…
From the book “The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t,” by Robert I. Sutton, Ph.D. Copyright © 2007 by Robert Sutton. Reprinted by permission of Warner Books, New York, NY. All rights reserved.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1171620180188&rss=newswire
==========
[Dallas Fed] Volatile Oil and Natural Gas Prices
Volatile Oil and Natural Gas Prices”
In Depth
February 2007
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
This article takes a look at the roller coaster ride energy prices have taken since the first of the year.
http://dallasfed.org/research/indepth/2007/id0701.html
==========
Leaked Iraqi Oil Law
The New York Times reported this week: “A draft version of the long-awaited law that would govern the development of Iraqi oil fields and the distribution of oil revenues has been submitted to Iraq’s cabinet, the first step toward approving the legislation, two members of a senior negotiating committee said this weekend.”
A leaked copy of the 29-page proposed oil law has just been translated by Raed Jarrar, a D.C.-based Iraqi analyst who is in close contact with Iraqi parliamentarians.
RAED JARRAR, jarrar.raed@gmail.com,
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/20/1523250
Jarrar is Iraq Project director for Global Exchange. A translated opy of the proposed oil law is at:
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com — his web page.
He said today: “Financially, the proposed law legalizes very unfair ypes of contracts that may freeze Iraq into very long-term contracts hat can go up to 35 years and cause the loss of hundreds of billions of ollars from Iraqis.
“The proposed law undermines Iraq’s sovereignty since Iraq would not be capable of controlling the levels of production, which threatens Iraq’s membership in OPEC. And Iraq will have this very complicated institution called the Federal Oil and Gas Council, that will have representatives from the foreign oil companies on the board of it. So representatives from companies like ExxonMobil and Shell and British Petroleum will be on the federal board of Iraq approving their own contracts.
“Finally, the law gives regional authorities final say in dealing with the oil, instead of giving this final say to a central federal government. So it opens the door for splitting Iraq into three regions or possibly even three states in the near future.”
From: Institute for Public Accuracy
==========
THE REAL IRAQ BY UK’S CHANNEL 4 [VIDEO]
By Evan Derkacz
48 Minute doc explores the truth on the ground…
At:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/48225/
==========
Iran: Claims and Context
DAVID LINDORFF, dlindorff@yahoo.com,
http://www.ThisCantBeHappening.net
Lindorff wrote the piece “A word of caution on U.S. claims of Iranian weapons killing GIs.” He said today: “Why do those bombs that they displayed as ‘evidence’ of Iranian perfidy have U.S. English words and dates on them? … Newspapers were reporting as much as two years ago that insurgents had figured out how to make such devices themselves (the technology was invented by a U.S. naval engineer in 1888!). The BBC reported in 2005: ‘According to defense sources, basic armor-piercing weapons are easy to manufacture, drawing on principles discovered more than a century ago and in use since World War Two.’”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/051010-shaped-bombs.htm
Lindorff is co-author of the book “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office.”
From: Institute for Public Accuracy
==========
ROVE SAID TO HAVE RECEIVED IRANIAN PROPOSAL IN 2003
By Gareth Porter, IPS News
Who else in the Bush administration was aware of the secret
proposal?
At:
http://www.alternet.org/stories/48238/
==========
Former NSC Official Contradicts Rice on Iran Peace Offer
GARETH PORTER, garethporter@rcn.com,
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=11539
Porter wrote a recent piece titled “Burnt Offering: How a 2003 ecret overture from Tehran might have led to a deal on Iran’s nuclear capacity — if the Bush administration hadn’t rebuffed it.”
The Washington Post Wednesday published online a fax about the peace proposal. Porter said today: “The document just published by the Washington Post online effectively refutes the claims by Rice and other present and former administration officials that they didn’t know if the Iranian proposal for a framework for negotiating with the United States in 2003 was endorsed by Iran’s top leaders. It reveals the details of the Swiss ambassador’s discussions with a key figure with close ties to both the Iranian foreign minister and the supreme leader, who had gotten approval for the initiative from the highest levels of the Iranian government.”
PDF of the document is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/documents/us_iran_1roadmap.pdf
From: Institute for Public Accuracy
==========
LEAVING IRAQ: APOCALYPSE NOT
By Robert Dreyfuss, Washington Monthly
Much of Washington assumes that withdrawing from Iraq will lead to a bigger bloodbath. We need to question that assumption.
At:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48186/
==========
Terrorist attacks in Iran and Iraq point to the involvement of the U.S. and Britain
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, February 19, 2007
GlobalResearch.ca – 2007-02-18
“The US and Britain, which allege to be pioneers in the campaign against terrorism, are themselves actually defending the terrorists, training them and providing them with the needed media and financial supports and facilities.” (Soltan-Ali Mir, Iranian Interior Ministry)
Both the Iranian government and provincial officials in southeastern Iran have accused the United States and Britain of attempting to create instability in Iran and the Middle East. Since the invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain, Iran has experienced an increasing number of explosions (or “terrorist attacks”) in Iranian border provinces and areas.
These provinces, which are subject to a new waves of attacks by previously unknown groups, border Anglo-American occupied Iraq to the West and Pakistan and Afghanistan in the East.
Pakistan is within the Anglo-American orbit and has close intelligence links with the United States and Britain, while Afghanistan is under military occupation, and Iraq has had cases where Coalition troops have been caught red handed attempting to commit acts of terrorism which have been portrayed by the media as sectarian Iraqi violence or the work of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The Pakistani ambassador in Iran has also been summoned by the Iranian Foreign Ministry in regards to the attacks in Zahedan, southeastern Iran—attacks which do not seem possible without the cooperation or knowledge of the Pakistani government and Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).
The methodology of terror attacks in the Middle East and around the world is beginning to show a disturbing trend and pattern which is closely related to Anglo-American interests. These “terrorist attacks” directly serve the interests of the U.S., Britain and Israel. The pattern of terrorist attacks in Iraq, Iran, and even Lebanon, are remarkably similar.
A study of terrorist incidents and their political outcomes and results will show that on the home front, the United States and its partners have benefited domestically from public outrage which in turn has justified and legitimized their policies. In the Middle East, the incitement of violence and acts of carnage has allowed the United States and Britain to linger in their internationally illegal occupation of Iraq, while spreading sedition amongst the peoples of Iraq and the Middle East.
Creating divisions amongst the different sectarian, religious, and ethno-cultural groups of the Middle East is part of the Anglo-American strategy to balkanize and control the region. The violence in Iraq and the tensions in Lebanon are the direct work of the United States and its partners, which aim to redraw the map of the Middle East in various aspects and ways.
While a link is evident that Iran, under the Khatami Administration, helped the United States and Britain in establishing the puppet Iraqi government during the questionabe Iraqi elections, it is apparent that Washington D.C. and Tehran are no longer on the same wave length in regard to Iraq and clearly no longer cooperating with each other.
At first sight, the Iranian charges of U.S. and British involvement and weaponry seems like a symmetric move that parallels the U.S. charge that Iran and Syria are arming and supporting anti-American militias in Iraq with Iranian weaponry to kill Coalition troops.
Deeper examination suggests that Iran has been accusing the United States and Britain since 2003 for trying to destabilize Iranian border zones. The charge of U.S. and British weaponry is most likely a possible political rebuttal to the U.S. claims of Iranian weaponry targeting Coalition troops, but the events in question seem to bear the fingerprints of the Anglo-American alliance, as documented by several press reports.
…
URL of the complete article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070218&articleId=4841
From:
==========
three to see
M.e Cohen: you surge with the body armor you have…
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/31222/
Dwayne Booth, Mr. Fish: wipe feet before entering oval office
http://cagle.com/working/070218/booth.jpg
David Horsey: somewhere in iowa
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20070220/cartoon20070220.gif