Who's harrassing who?

I would like to preface my following statements with an assertion that I completely understand the viewpoints, opinions and instructions of both my supervisor our HR department. I also completely agree with their need to enforce the rules of conduct as outlined by Merrill Corporation. It is my sincere pledge to redouble my diligence in following these rules. Although, I do agree with their policies, in as far as they are designed to protect me and the company with whom I am employed, I cannot agree with the process in which these policies are administered and feel compelled to expand upon my reasoning due to the fact that there is no real avenue for my defense other than a personal statement in my own record file. This disagreement does not simply lie with Merrill or Snell & Wilmer, but with the way that we as a society litigate and deal with harassment in the work place in general.




I was asked, during my interview on December 2, 2010 to define the concept of Due Process. Since this question came from someone who is responsible for my adjudication I would like to express my interpretation of this concept. To quote The Electronic Law Library “Due process is best defined in one word--fairness. Throughout the U.S.'s history, its constitutions, statutes and case law have provided standards for fair treatment”. “The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law. A due process claim is cognizable only if there is a recognized liberty or property interest at stake. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 69 (1972).” Since this has obvious bearing on my livelihood, it is fair to surmise that this falls under the “property” clause of the 4th amendment. Throughout this investigation the only answer to my plea for fairness was, “That’s just the way it is.”



My superiors did all but admit that this situation is unfair. The reasons for this unfairness, in my humble opinion are as follows:



1) For any rule to be fair in its application, it must function universally for everyone who is subject to it. After all, the very reason these rules exist is to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and equitably. Since this rule deals with subjective criteria that can be affected by context and preconception, there is no way to apply it fairly to everyone. Reason dictates that any application of an arbitrary rule to subjective situations and behavior is illogical and unfair.

2) I subscribe to the romantic notion that resolution can only be achieved through understanding. I only want to be treated like a human being, but in this case I am not given even that privilege. Instead I am processed through a stream of intermediaries who were not present at the time of the alleged comment which I am told, was not even directed towards the complaining party. It is designed to avoid any confrontation or discomfort to my accuser. This leads me to question how offended this person was since they lack the basic conviction to see this through to its conclusion. Therefore this situation has no chance of reaching any real resolution other than the harassment of someone who did nothing other than state a matter of fact.

3) The result is a set of unsupported accusations being made to people whose job is to defend callow individuals without the ability fix their own problems or mind their own business. Since the accuser crafts the first impression of the events to the very individuals who are assigned to adjudicate the matter, it is difficult to believe that the disposition of my judges towards me is any less than cynical and at best is tainted by preconception. I have been assured that it is not the case, but with neither proper arbitration nor the ability to confront one’s accuser, it is difficult to provide an adequate defense and difficult for me to grant the benefit of the doubt to those who refuse confer me the same benefit. Ironically, the matter is resolved with brute force by placing me on a trial whose opening statement is an accusation. The sixth amendment states “the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Once again I fail to see how these clauses are not applicable to these cases.



My entire career here at Snell & Wilmer has been fraught with one simple conflict: That of thoughtful communication and intellect vs. ignorance and cynicism. I do not seek anything other than to be understood and acknowledged. I am a real flesh and blood fallible person with a great deal of integrity and personal accountability. There has never been a situation in my career where I have shunned responsibility for any of my errors which is much more than I can say for the vast majority of the people I am forced to call my peers. It is my sincerest opinion that Ron and HR have done everything in their power to deal with this unfortunate misunderstanding with fairness and respect to everyone involved. Unfortunately, it is also my opinion that the rules by which we are all forced to play are severely flawed and serve to victimize more than champion.



Respectfully,



Jim Sandoval

Plasticman. Worst Justice League member evar!

Plasticman is quite legitimately the lamest Justice League member EVER! OK, he actually has
a legitimate superpower. But look at it this way. He is like Mr. Fantastic without all that fancy
super science and genius mind.

This rant started off with a conversation that took place between my buddy Gary and myself
at work. He took the position of Batman and I took the position of Superman in an imaginary
argument about inducting the bubblegum jerk into the Justice League of America. It went
something like this.
Superman: Now that Diana has finished reading the minutes of our last meeting we can move on
to new business. First off we have some membership applications here I would like to put on the
table.

Batman: Clark. What the fuck are you doing?

Superman: What?

Batman: I saw the picture paper clipped to that file.

Superman: I am sure I don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

Batman: Look. We have had this discussion before. Plasticman is not Justice League material.
The guy is a freakish mix between Elvis, a spooky clown and a beach ball. I mean come on!
This is the Justice League!

Superman: Bruce, we can’t really sit here and pass judgment on people with legitimate
superpowers who want to use them for the benefit of others. He could prove useful in the future
and I for one don’t think we shouldn’t rule him out.

Batman: Can’t pass judgment? Can’t pass judgment? The dude runs around in a private jet with
a blonde bimbo and a fat Hawaiian guy as sidekicks chasing after bank robbers like some kind
of balloon animal Scooby Doo. We have to draw the line somewhere. Sure, I can let Aquaman
slide. Just in case we have to do some shit underwater, but I am drawing the line at this guy. He
is a joke and I know from jokers.

Superman: I don’t understand what the problem is. He is neigh indestructible. He can take on
just about any shape we can imagine. He regenerates. He can alter his color AND he is immune
to telepathic control. These are legitimate superpowers. You know…. superpowers. Not to
point any fingers at some people who don’t have any superpowers at all.

Batman: I will end you pretty boy.

Wonder Woman: Easy fellas. Let’s not get our panties in a bunch. But, Clark, I’m going to
have to side with Bruce on this one. This guy is fucking clown shoes and you know it. How are
we going to be taken seriously with this guy around? Look at what he is wearing! Paris Hilton
sunglasses, a dance leotard with lacing on the chest and no friggin pants. Hell even I got sick
of the pantless thing after a while. He is like that really weird European guy at the beech with a
speedo. EWWW!

Star Tours

Now I am going to wax nostalgic about Star Tours, who's final day was today.  I went to Disneyland yesterday and bid my fond farewell to the iconic ride.  Apparently I wasn't the only one.  Molly Lewis, a FABULOUS artist who I have recently discovered also went and had much to say.  Here was my reply to her touching post.

I took the same pilgrimage yesterday Molly. It is never easy to let go of the small threads of our youth that weave together to form the tapestry of joy and wonder we use as a warm blanket that sees us through the winter of our often cynical and banal “adult” lives. Bits and pieces of our past crumble away to make way for the future. It is hard for us to reconcile our treasured past with a future that simply cannot compare to the feelings we felt when the world was new and wonderful. Yet, I believe that it is wiser to think that it was our child like wonder and not the spectacle that filled us with those warm and wonderful feelings. The ride was simply a catalyst that inspired our reaction to these myths that fed our starving sense of wonder.

I am certain that there are many who thought as we do when Star Tours replaced the venerable Adventure Through Inner Space. I am certain that there is a generation that looks back on that ride with the same veneration we show Star Tours.

Think what we will of what our beloved Star Wars has become. Think what we will of our treasured memories being replaced with some noisy 3D monstrosity. I am fairly certain that there will be an entire generation of us who will experience a new ride and feel the same exhilaration we felt the first time we tried to take a trip to Endor’s moon. (I don’t know about you but I never made it with not so much as an apology letter from Star Tours or a free ticket to Bestine as compensation.)

Amiga turns 25.

In 1985 someone thought that a home computer should have:

The ability to multi task using a 16 bit processor.

Should focus on graphics and sound to create a true multimedia experience.

Independent processors that can handle video, audio and memory handling.

A computer should be useful to creative professionals as well as accountants.

All these things we take for granted now, but in 1985 this was a revolution.  A revolution called Amiga.

The funny thing about it is that the Amiga was often derided for being a "gaming" computer.  With all its graphics and sound capabilities it was a fantastic game platform.  Yet all of the things that made it a great gaming platform was really just foreshadowing for the future of home and business computing.

Commodore and Amiga even had Apple playing catch up.  The Apple IIgs came along in 1986 with many of the same capabilities.  This machine was in a lot of ways the precursor to the Mac.

So to you I raise my glass Amiga!  I loved you and you helped make me into the geek I am today.