Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What’s on your mind?
- Thread starter Gutwrench
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I worked for a guy in NY once who was perennially late for and to everything. I was not his employee but was lent to him semiannually to force him to invent data for his budgets so they'd get done.
So one year during that timeframe I was sitting at his executive secretary's desk with a pile of papers she had left me to mull over and sketch out his next year's budget. She had also confided that that was her last day so I could feel free to leave my stuff in her desk if I wanted to while I was working for her now ex-boss, and handed me her keys.
Fascinating stuff, the paperwork... Like how many times an executive secretary of his had had to be reimbursed for taking a taxi to the cargo sheds at the JFK airport at 2 or 3 am... with $20 for the co-pilot of some cargo plane, and an envelope of slides for some presentation the next day in some city a thousand miles away where the boss had already gone. See in his mind whenever he finished sketching the artwork and verbiage for the presentation, the project was "all done except the slides, and my girl can get those to us in time, a guy I know will fly them down here."
The paperwork I was looking at also had how many head hunters he had paid last year for a new executive secretary.
On average, looked like they lasted about two, two and a half months. Right, so while I'm reading through all this stuff, the phone rings and I answer and it's the accounting department wanting to speak with the guy's secretary. I said I could take a message, I was just his budget assistant.
"Yeah that sounds about right," the guy said. "Tell him the next time he's so late for a flight someplace that he leaves his rental car at the curb at an air terminal where he hits a fire hydrant (and breaks it, and totals the car), he should try not to do it in Philadelphia again, okay? Because if there's a next time then we're blacklisted with Avis, well with rental agencies in general at that airport, and the Philadelphia Fire Department in particular says they're done with him right now and the bill's in the mail. Mid range of four figures. Where is he now, anyway?"
Yeah. True story. I laughed ever after when I'd see a fire hydrant at a curb alongside an air terminal.
Again? Or have I confused you with someone else...
It’s been two years since I got my current car. Must be someone else.
Ah. Enjoy the hunt! I was always one for driving a car into the ground once I found a good one been broken in by one owner ahead of me. Favorite was a 5-speed 1980(B) Datsun hatchback. Put about 250k miles on that one before the iron worms took it. That car got over 50 miles to the gallon. Of course it was a little like driving a paper cup in a high wind but short of that, it was wonderful. I'd probably be afraid to drive a tin can like that today the way people seem to figure hey the insurance will cover it and don't even flinch at the prospect of getting broadsided sometime reading their mail while running a stop sign.
I find it odd that it is so difficult to have a Contractor follow up, to do a job.
Rather weird, almost as if they (3 of them), simply do not want the work.
Frustrating...
Rather weird, almost as if they (3 of them), simply do not want the work.
Frustrating...
I suspect that while they may "want the work" they may also want reassurance that actually carrion out the work is reasonably safe and does not pose a health risk.
@Scepticalscribe do you Brits have available a digital repository of government docs from/by Churchill?
To be quite candid, I don't actually know, as this is something I have never thought to investigate.
Now you know what investigate next.
I expect your executive summary by the end of next week.
😛
I have been dipping into (with great enjoyment - Roy Jenkins was both a scholar, - a serious and erudite and informed one - an excellent historian, and a formidable politician who served as an impressively reforming Home Secretary in the 1960s, later, he served wth the EU Commission) the excellent one volume biography of Churchill by Jenkins, someone who has the intellect and breadth of vision of a good historian, the elegant and accessible prose style of an educated journalist, and a politician's (and cabinet minister's) understanding of how power and politics actually work.
Now, I never did read Churchill's own work (and I am fairly sure that he had pretty much untrammelled access to whatever official material he requested); Churchill wrote extremely well, and was a fine historian, but Churchill on Churchill is something that is the intellectual equivalent of helping oneself too liberally to pâté, something that is quite delicious in small doses, but risks indigestion if devoured in excessive and greedy quantities.
Last edited:
Thanks for the recommendation. I added Roy Jenkins' work to my reading list.
I agree on your evaluation of Churchill on Churchill. I've read his work on WWI and some snippets of his work on WWII. They are great writings, they are definitely a swim in a wealth of style and information, but ultimately it's the work of a biased individual. However, I love reading primary sources (calendar, diaries, letters, etc.), so I was looking for some of Churchillliana. As a matter of fact, yesterday I was reading a few pages of Jock Colville's diary (a book I previously read cover to cover in less than a week), and that's what prompted my question. I found a couple of passages in which Colville's compares Chamberlain's management style vs that of Churchill. I was quite impressed by how appreciative of Chamberlain he was (*), yet it was clear already who was the better leader.
(*) = although it's undeniable that Chamberlain made several mistakes, Manchester's biography on Churchill truly clarified to me that not only Chamberlain wasn't alone in his philosophy, but in reality he was one of the more moderates. Appeasement was somewhat strong in the UK and Europe and the US, on both sides of the aisle, and by many journalists and intellectuals. If anything, Chamberlain was probably the face of a rooted political idealism and not much else. For this reason, I think that history is a bit unjust towards him - a PM that certainly tried to do his best in the worst possible of the situations and in a very complex political scenario. However it's still not entirely clear to me why Halifax refused the PM job, handing it to Winston.
Re Chamberlain, I think that his first tragedy is that he wasn't PM a little earlier - during the Great Depression, a time when a somewhat more compassionate and perhaps imaginative hand on the domestic tiller was needed, and international relations were of less critical importance - for his social instincts were generous, and agreed, those who worked with him seem to have liked him.
However, his philosophical and conceptual range was really pretty much limited to the domestic sphere; he didn't think - he couldn't think - in epic historical terms (whereas Churchill thought in little else, which made him a poor leader when holding domestic portfolios, and singularly and imaginatively ill equipped when having to cope with alleviating the squalor and limitations - and structural inequalities - of small impoverished lives, but more than large enough and able to rise to the extraordinary challenge of providing epic leadership when called upon to do so).
Re appeasement, Chamberlain had been horrified at the casual acceptance of the stratospheric casualties of WW1 (entirely to his credit) and was determined not to repeat this; likewise, he understood that the Versailles Treaty was unjust in its conception and unworkable in its execution and needed to be revisited.
Therefore, his second tragedy is that he wasn't dealing with a rational, reasonable, responsible German leader - someone such as Stresemann - but with someone he could never have imagined into existence. Appeasement - in some shape or form - could have worked if dealing with someone reasonable, fair-minded and ethical; the pity of it was that AH was nothing of the sort, and Churchill was one of the few people (for he did read Mein Kampf and understood exactly what it was all about) who actually had an entirely accurate and insightful reading of AH's character (and appalling ambitions) by the early 1930s.
Roy Jerkins's biography is regarded is the best one volume biography of Churchill that has been written, - I think it excellent - and Jenkins himself had been an impressively reforming minister - as Home Secretary - in the 1960s, easily one of the best to have held that office in the entire 20th century (and far better than Churchill, when he was Home Secretary, for what it is worth).
However, his philosophical and conceptual range was really pretty much limited to the domestic sphere; he didn't think - he couldn't think - in epic historical terms (whereas Churchill thought in little else, which made him a poor leader when holding domestic portfolios, and singularly and imaginatively ill equipped when having to cope with alleviating the squalor and limitations - and structural inequalities - of small impoverished lives, but more than large enough and able to rise to the extraordinary challenge of providing epic leadership when called upon to do so).
Re appeasement, Chamberlain had been horrified at the casual acceptance of the stratospheric casualties of WW1 (entirely to his credit) and was determined not to repeat this; likewise, he understood that the Versailles Treaty was unjust in its conception and unworkable in its execution and needed to be revisited.
Therefore, his second tragedy is that he wasn't dealing with a rational, reasonable, responsible German leader - someone such as Stresemann - but with someone he could never have imagined into existence. Appeasement - in some shape or form - could have worked if dealing with someone reasonable, fair-minded and ethical; the pity of it was that AH was nothing of the sort, and Churchill was one of the few people (for he did read Mein Kampf and understood exactly what it was all about) who actually had an entirely accurate and insightful reading of AH's character (and appalling ambitions) by the early 1930s.
Roy Jerkins's biography is regarded is the best one volume biography of Churchill that has been written, - I think it excellent - and Jenkins himself had been an impressively reforming minister - as Home Secretary - in the 1960s, easily one of the best to have held that office in the entire 20th century (and far better than Churchill, when he was Home Secretary, for what it is worth).
Last edited:
What a wonderful, insightful post! Good points on the striking difference between Chamberlain and Churchill's different lens to see the world and how the political landscape is moving.
I must say that - for the little I understand - Chamberlain was also extremely unlikely in finding total passive behavior from the French. I read that once AH moved into Rhineland his army was incredibly weak, and even his domestic political power was quite wobbly at best. Had the French reacted at that point WW2 would've probably never happened. Instead the French were afraid of AH and Germany (without any actual good reason) and decided to let him be. The same can be said when in 1938 AH invaded Austria; at that point the French could've militarized enough to pose a threat to his regime, but again they let him be. Had France reacted, the United Kingdom would've gladly followed in helping stop the German invasion.
Yes, we may concur that the French were "wrong" to fear Hitler, especially when he occupied the Rhineland (with a mere two companies) in 1936; in truth, he did not present a serious military threat, if viewed objectively, in 1936.
But, in 1936, France was not viewing what faced them across the Rhine through the lens of current conditions or military objectivity; rather, they were haunted by, traumatised by, and informed by, what had happened, during the First World War, above all, and perhaps, also by the earlier regime collapse and complete military defeat and humiliation during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.
Actually, to be fair, - in my opinion, - what haunted the French most were the memories of the appalling - absolutely stratospheric - casualties they took in WW1; thus, to my mind, they were defeated well before WW2 started.
In absolute terms, their losses were much the same as those of the Germans and British in WW1, - roughly a million and a half dead for all three countries - but their population was not much over half of the population of that of the UK or Germany, therefore, in proportionate terms, they lost nearly twice as many people.
Their armies were close to collapse by 1918 (okay, so were everyone else's).
I have studied war memorials in several small French villages, - they are strikingly similar - those memorials that take the form of crosses with four sides at the base, with names inscribed: The first side starts off on the base of one side of these crosses, with '1914', written above the names, and is host to only a few names; remember, Franz Ferdinand was assassinated on June 28, 1914, and it took a few weeks before war was declared, and a further six weeks or so for armies to be mobilised, so the first battles only occurred in September and October of that year.
On the same side of the base of the cross, lower down, beneath '1914', and the few names of the dead from the battles of that year, is the heading "1915". This takes you to the bottom of the first side of the cross, and is full of names.
The second side of the base of this memorial will read "1916" and is crammed full of names, from top to bottom. The third side reads "1917", and likewise, the names take up the full side, squeezed and squashed in, and you will look around the village, - and the fields and farms surrounding it - marvelling that it was once home to so many young men.
The final side of the base of the cross is curious; it reads "1918", and - but this is strange - almost mirroring the carved names from 1914, the are very few names to be seen. But, the war didn't end until mid November, you think.
A full year, to all intents and purposes, until, with dawning horror, you realise that there were no more - or hardly any more - young men left to be killed; if you are that insanely prodigal and wantonly wasteful with young male life - and war is not a computer game, once killed the dead do not return to haunt the next level of the game - the lives squandered so casually by military leaders stuck in the tactics of the Napoleonic wars (very revolutionary in the early 19th century, but utterly obsolete by 1914, not least on account of technical advances in the mechanics of killing), men who had learned little or nothing from either the American Civil War, the Franco-Prussian war, or the Boer War, - eventually, with mechanised and industrialised warfare, there is hardly anyone left.
Those memorials - under the fourth section, with its date of 1918, which, despite lasting a full year, has fewer than a handful of names, is, like the first section, also home to a second date. This is 1939-45, and it also will have only a handful - if even that - of names.
Moreover, my French friends told me that by the beginning of the First World War, in 1914, that France had barely recovered demographically - or had barely begun to recover from, in demographic terms - the population collapse they had experienced during (and after) the Napoleonic wars; this was on account of the appalling losses they had taken during the Napoleonic wars, almost exactly a century earlier, for Napoleon, too, had been extraordinarily prodigal in his casual and wantonly wasteful expenditure of young male life, heedless of economic, or social consequences.
Actually, the birth rate of France has never recovered to this day - yet another century, later still - from the losses of WW1.
Last edited:
An excellent post, just a couple of points of contention; the French population in 1914 was roughly equal to the British Population (39 million) and losses were comparable (1.15M to 1.39M) - I think what was worse for France than Britain was that the war was fought on their territory, cutting across their land, through towns and villages, very visible, and undoubtedly very traumatising. With Britain, unlike the second World War where unrelenting bombing was a major cause of destruction and death, it was much more a remote, continental war unless you were called up to the frontlines yourself. Certainly not 'normal times', there was still a massive domestic effort, conversion to a war economy, but the threat of Germany actually invading was really quite distant. Contrast World War two where the fear that a Nazi invasion and everything that would entail was very much in the minds of Britons throughout.
The latter I think is why Britain ultimately was able to stay the course, and Churchill led a more united country than you might expect through such an existential struggle (propaganda or no). The Nazis had to go or they would be an ever-present threat. Without that you might well have had extreme pressure on Churchill to sue for peace as soon as the Battle of Britain was over, indeed Hitler expected this to happen and was prepared to offer a generous settlement, basically a peace on more or less equal terms, the British Empire would be left alone in exchange for giving Hitler a free hand in Europe, and especially against the Soviets.
It's jarring how a night of dreams can alter your perception of reality. Leaving you feel completely adrift and disconnected. I'm me but yet not.
Sometimes I dream of my daughter and it takes me a few seconds after I wake to remember she is gone. Not very often now, but it’s still grim when it happens.
I think it depends on how lucid and coherent your dreams are. For myself, sometimes they feel like an alternate life, and other times just jumbled messes of images, confusion and anxiety on some level, can’t find someone, something, get to work, school, or get to that flight on time. I think that is a fairly common theme in dreams which for myself are mostly annoying and I have enough awareness that I can wake myself up from.
I think it depends on how lucid and coherent your dreams are. For myself, sometimes they feel like an alternate life, and other times just jumbled messes of images, confusion and anxiety on some level, can’t find someone, something, get to work, school, or get to that flight on time. I think that is a fairly common theme in dreams which for myself are mostly annoying and I have enough awareness that I can wake myself up from.
I rarely dream to be honest. When I do, it's usually nightmares. Though the nightmare is generally of fantastical alternate reality mumbo jumbo. So it's like I wake up into a life I don't recognize. I think my brain is attempting to escape from the current stressful circumstances.
It is day 72 of quarantine and waiting to find out if it will be lifted on 1st June. Refurbished the apartment, watched so many series and movies on Netflix I feel sick, had a haircut today (yes I felt really guilty allowing a barber within 2 meters of my personal space).
What is on my mind is what is next? I am not a great reader of books, I am not artistic, I don't own a car (boy I would love to be covered in engine oil right now with a wrench in my hand). Please don't twist that around I genuinely mean it as it was said I was an enthusiastic amateur car mechanic for many years!
I just don't know what to do next to kill time before I can get back to work which most likely will be early 2021.
What is on my mind is what is next? I am not a great reader of books, I am not artistic, I don't own a car (boy I would love to be covered in engine oil right now with a wrench in my hand). Please don't twist that around I genuinely mean it as it was said I was an enthusiastic amateur car mechanic for many years!
I just don't know what to do next to kill time before I can get back to work which most likely will be early 2021.
How about an online course? I’m in the complete opposite camp. Having just bought a house loads to do. But as I’m still working and covering for furloughed colleagues I’m busier than ever.
Other than needing a haircut I’m not really living any different than before the lockdown.