Free thinkers and brain washed magical thinkers will truly hate this idea and that it has worked so well for this company.
The Morning Star Company, which handles 40 percent of California’s processed tomato crop, is the largest tomato processing company in the world. That’s impressive, but the most unique thing about Morning Star is that it has no managers. Instead, Morning Star embraces an approach they call “self-management.” As Paul Green, Jr. of Morning Star’s Self-Management Institute puts it: “Self-management is, at a very very high level, exactly the way you live when you go home from work. We just ask you to keep that hat on when you come to work at Morning Star.”
In our everyday lives, we don’t have bosses telling us which careers or hobbies to pursue. If we want to purchase a car or a home, we don’t have to get permission. Sure, we consult with friends and family before making important decisions, but as long as we’re prepared to take responsibility for our choices, we’re free to do what we want.
The same spirit reigns at Morning Star. Employees decide how their skill sets can best help Morning Star succeed and then develop their own lists of roles and responsibilities in collaboration with their colleagues. If Morning Star employees want to purchase new equipment, they don’t ask managers for permission. Rather, they discuss potential purchases with colleagues who will be affected by the purchase and, if others with expertise support the decision, they simply buy what they need. There is no R&D department at Morning Star. There are, however, strong incentives for every employee to innovate. Workers who successfully innovate don’t receive new titles. They earn the respect of their colleagues in addition to financial compensation.
Running a firm without managers seems like a crazy idea to many, but is it? If the most prosperous societies are organized around institutions that promote freedom and responsibility, why shouldn’t a similar approach work within a firm? If market-based societies are best able to take advantage of local and dispersed knowledge, then doesn’t it make sense to give staffers with the most local knowledge the freedom to make decisions?
More than 50 years ago, Leonard E. Read wrote “I, Pencil,” an essay that asks how we can expect central planning to succeed when nobody in the world possess all the knowledge needed to produce even a simple pencil. For more than 40 years, Morning Star has been demonstrating that you don’t need managers to run a successful company.
(Full disclosure: Morning Star founder Chris Rufer is a supporter of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason TV.)
Found HERE> And do stick around there and read everything else you can find.
When we started And Then There Were None, our goal was to convert workers…and eventually shut down abortion facilities. Since June, we have helped support more than FORTY workers as they transitioned out of the abortion industry. Now, our complete vision has finally been revealed.
One of our former workers has helped to shut down an abortion facility in Michigan.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
You knew it would happen. Within seconds of William Spengler luring firefighters to his burning home, he shot and killed two of them. The fascist anti-second amendment nuts and media yet again started calling for strong gun laws in this country because of another tragedy in which someone used a gun. Problem for the fascist left is that William Spengler, the killer of the firefighters in Webster, New York was already prohibited BY LAW from owning any guns. A lot of good that did huh?
Spengler served 17 years in prison for killing his grandmother with a hammer in 1980. He was convicted only of manslaughter, and was paroled in 1998. It seems that stronger sentencing for convicted murderers might be a more worthwhile goal of liberals seeking to prevent gun violence.
This was of course a felony, prohibiting William Spengler from owning any guns because of federal law.
So what’s next for the fascist left? Inviting a time machine so convicted felons like Spengler and prevent them from obtaining a gun in the first place?
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness, unless you’re trying to ram homosexuality down the throats of Christian teachers.
A homosexual couple has sued a Christian preschool in New Mexico after the school had accepted the three-year-old boy the two men are raising as their son, only to reject the child later. In their complaint the two men, Joseph Romero and John Keelin, allege that officials at Hope Christian School in Albuquerque first accepted their three-year-old son, then sent them a denial letter when the school realized the boy’s parents were homosexual.
In the lawsuit, the two men claim that they “were even told that a new student packet has been prepared for him and that the school was expecting to get acceptance letters out the following week.” But shortly after that notification , the two “received a denial letter on April 16, 2010,” the complaint continues. “Upon further inquiry, the school sent a letter dated June 13, 2012 to plaintiffs’ attorney. The letter indicated that the school denied admission to plaintiffs’ son because plaintiffs were a same gender couple and that, as a result, their home was inconsistent with the school’s beliefs.”
The letter from the school informed the homosexual men that “same gender couples are inconsistent with scriptural lifestyle and biblical teachings,” citing Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. The letter pointed out that their home life “doesn’t reflect the school’s belief of what a Biblical family lifestyle is.” The letter also explained that because the two parties were not in agreement on the issue of homosexuality, the educational relationship would be next to impossible, and cited the scripture Amos 3:3, “How can two walk together unless they be agreed?”
On its website, Hope Christian School explains that admission “is open to students of any race, color, or ethnic origin who are looking for a Christian environment with an emphasis on teaching Biblical principles and truths along with strong academics.”
They’re out to destroy Christianity. Because it threatens their carnal desires. And so they find a school, use a three-year-old child as a pawn, and concoct an elaborate ruse in order to muster their forces of tolerance in opposition to discrimination. Nevermind that the lessons taught by Hope Christian School contradict their very existence. Oh no, that’s the next fight. After they force their way into the school it’ll be only minutes before the teachings presented in the classroom come under fire too.
Thou Shalt Worship At The Altar Of Eros, and bow down before the power of the state — God be forsaken! — lest a pair of deviants be required to adapt their chosen lifestyle to 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy. Better to destroy the churches! Homosexuality is the future! It’s fun for the whole family!
One cannot square this circle. You can’t practice both homosexuality and Christianity. They are incompatible. And thus it is the homosexual’s demand that Christianity must change. Their warped sense of “equality” requires it. Otherwise they might feel bad, and we all know how important it is to respect the feelings of every aggrieved minority.
That slippery slope? It’s more like an avalanche. Up next, Adam and Steve sue Saint Patrick’s for the “right” to sashay down the aisle. And a shit-for-brains liberal judge will say “do it”, or else. Because we must tolerate them, but they’ll never tolerate us.
What? CANDY CIGARETTES BANNED?
Read it all HERE.
The following is for you porn lovers! hahahahahahahha
The largest porn site on the net! Where you can find any kind of porn, all those porn pictures and videos you love to watch, and so much more.
For your porn happiness, go HERE.
Oh, it is actually safe for work, school, and in front of the kids to go to this site. But after that, you are on your own!
So the key questions becomes what is the proper etiquette for going over the fiscal cliff, do you put your hands up and scream like when riding a roller coaster or do you hold hands and gun the gas pedal like Thelma and Louise? The good news is we have a little more than four days to think about it, the bad news is, today it looks a lot more likely that it will happen.
Read it all HERE.
Then the big fish turn on each other until there are no fish. That would seem to be the logical end, don’t you think? Not exactly favorable to one’s self-preservation, is it?
It seems to this humble observer that this is what big governments do. They keep eating more and more of the food supply (the economy) until there is not enough left to support them. Are big corporations playing the same stupid game? Maybe that is what Kim Strassel is suggesting in this Wall Street Journal article.
Read it all HERE.
Al “FatAss” Gore seen nodding in agreement…
True believers in global warming are not just kooks. They are evil kooks. Does that sound like hyperbole? Then check out the final solution Australian expat Richard Parncutt, a professor at the University of Graz in Austria, advocates for those who won’t drink the Kool-Aid voluntarily:
I propose that the death penalty is appropriate for influential GW deniers.
He justifies murdering his ideological opponents with the authoritarian trick of utilitarianism. Any crime can be excused if pointy-headed elitists decide that it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. As Parncutt puts it:
If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.
That is, even if there is only a 10% chance that global warming is not a complete crock, it is still the equivalent of murdering 1 million people if you do not impose global totalitarianism and Medieval living standards in an attempt to prevent it. Therefore, by shooting a few thousand people who insist on clinging to politically incorrect notions of individual liberty, our rulers would actually be saving many lives. If killing a few thousand doesn’t do the trick…
Continue reading HERE>
When it comes to the question of violent crime, the British are fairly smug. Why? Because, well, there’s less of it in Britain than in America. Bunch of cowboys over there, right?
Wrong. Per the Daily Mail:
Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.
The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.
According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.
The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.
As a result of both the different ways in which these statistics are collected and of varying definitions of “violent crime,” there will naturally be some discrepancies between countries. Enough to account for a 5:1 difference between Britain and the United States, though? I rather think not. As I observed last year when covering the London riots:
When I moved from England to New York, I was frequently advised to “be careful.” “Dodge the bullets,” said one particularly paranoid friend. I did not have the heart to say that I would likely be much safer in Gotham than the place I was leaving behind.
Budget policy in 2012 was characterized by deficit spending, major increases in the national debt, and a heated debate over the “fiscal cliff.”
With just days left for President Obama and lawmakers in Congress to avert a major tax hike, sequestration, and other major policy changes, today we bring you a list of the top 10 facts on federal spending in 2012:
OVERCOMING OBAMA’S NEW NORMAL
Going into election day a Romney win appeared imminent. The experts augured a certain victory for Mr. Romney. George Will predicted 321 electoral votes for the Governor, Dick Morris boldly projected 325 and Karl Rove modestly assured 279 electoral votes for a Romney presidency. President Obama had a four year record that was, from any dispassionate perspective, abysmal, if not criminal in nature.
A Romney victory foretold the Republic’s salvation from President Obama’s oppressive and dangerous regime. This is a president who enacted fiscal policies that reduced America’s credit standing and engendered unemployment, deficits and public debt of record proportions. He was on a quixotic mission to punish productive Americans with greater taxes while cultivating a plantation like dependent state for those suffering under his punitive policies. Mr. Obama has the dubious distinction for being the first president to enlist Marxist class warfare rhetoric by expounding on the evils of America’s free market system. He conducted a shadow unconstitutional government of unelected czars immune to congressional approval after campaigning on a guarantee to have the most transparent presidency in history.
President Obama’s first term was devoid of statesmanship. Instead of demonstrating strong, mature leadership, he displayed petty, childish divisiveness. He blamed his predecessor for his own failures and engaged in inflammatory oratory that pit American against American. The President affronted the Constitution through his obsession for centralizing presidential powers, resulting in massive regulations that stifled business expansion and economic growth. His landmark achievement ObamaCare, although held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court as an enormous tax, is a centralized governmental overreach to control one-sixth of the American economy that will cost $1.7 trillion over the next decade. Additionally, President Obama tramples on the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church by requiring the Church to comport with anti-life activities of ObamaCare.
Some of President Obama’s most egregious offenses were on the international front. He dishonored America by his disingenuous remarks on his “Apologize for America” tours, and neglected his sworn duty under the Constitution as Commander-In-Chief by refusing to fashion a cogent policy on terrorism. The domino effect resulted in terrorist attacks on American embassies across the Middle East, a dictatorial regime in former ally Egypt, the deaths of four Americans at the American consulate in Libya, and cleared a path for an Iranian nuclear enrichment program putting America’s only Middle East ally, Israel, in harms way.
Many of the President’s 2008 supporters were furious for being enticed by his “hopey-changey” sloganizing. In hindsight they felt duped and their support for him made them feel as though they bought that celebrated bridge in Brooklyn. Their anger was palatable and they would right their wrong by sending him packing from the White House. The burning question that consumed many 2008 Obama voters was whether the President’s dismal record reflected a purposeful effort to denounce America’s Constitution, it’s heritage and reduce its world standing out of pure disdain due to his Marxist upbringing, or was it simply due to sheer incompetence? Neither reason was cause for consolation.
Continue reading HERE.
Summer, think summer, good old summer time!