Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Bussing for Tips
Recently, the media, particularly cable news (including FOX) have featured stories about greedy entrepenuers in New Orleans who have started bus tours of the flood ravaged areas of the Big Easy. These stories have mostly taken the tone that this is horrendous exploitation of the poor victims of this natural disaster. They spice this story up with pictures of these minibusses traversing the flotsam of storm-ravaged neighborhoods with occasional cuts to the actual flood itself (avec bodies if possible). I find such criticism to be blatantly hypocritical … since these same cable channels have been doing the electronic equivalent of these bus tours for the last three months … and for the big advertising bucks, not just tickets and tips.
Friday, December 23, 2005
Quotable Quotes
Glad to be back!!! (See how long this lasts.)
DEN says: [Bush's] attitude seems to be that our brave soldiers support the mission so you citizens back home do not have the right to question it.
Clooney says: Another national politician saying that we are losing the war in Iraq and can't possibly win it ... is not questioning it ... it is traitorous defeatism pure and simple.
My favorite quote regarding this issue is from A. Lincoln:
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Signed: A Raving Nationalistic Nazi
DEN says: [Bush's] attitude seems to be that our brave soldiers support the mission so you citizens back home do not have the right to question it.
Clooney says: Another national politician saying that we are losing the war in Iraq and can't possibly win it ... is not questioning it ... it is traitorous defeatism pure and simple.
My favorite quote regarding this issue is from A. Lincoln:
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Signed: A Raving Nationalistic Nazi
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Oops
I have been plagued by computer malfunctions lately. I am relegated to a dial-up connection which is both agonizing and hideous.
In a misguided effort to update my last entry, I deleted Clooney as a contibutor along with his latest post. I plan to rectify this situation. Clooney fans (both of you) stay tuned and things will be set aright.
DFM Manager
In a misguided effort to update my last entry, I deleted Clooney as a contibutor along with his latest post. I plan to rectify this situation. Clooney fans (both of you) stay tuned and things will be set aright.
DFM Manager
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Leadership and Common Sense
I subscribe to the definition if leadership as “Getting others to want what you want” - as opposed to merely getting them to do what you want. Most managers never really learn this important distinction between being a manager and being a leader.
In his speeches lately George W is characterizing actions that are being questioned as "Leading." He believes that his role as President means that he has a duty to do what he thinks is right. I might agree with him if what he thinks is right is upholding the Constitution. He is not an Emperor. I do not think that he had shown enough leadership, frankly. His attitude seems to be that our brave soldiers support the mission so you citizens back home do not have the right to question it.
I really do want to believe that the war in Iraq was necessary. And, I do believe that the US needs to exert power to defend allies and interests. But, I have to say that I do not feel safe with Bush in charge. He is not able to coordinate a coalition of nations like a real Leader. So, the USA looks like “cowboys” to the world. The most disturbing thing is that his staunchest supporters are mostly raving nationalistic nazis who do not care what the rest of the world thinks. (Too bad we have not been offered a better choice for the job of President of the US).
On the other hand, I do support what I see as "reasonable" the search methods of surveillance that have raised such a furor of late. It just seems like common sense to secretly tap the phones of people who are legitimately suspected of dealing with terrorists. To be sure, this can become a bit slippery - as when the anti-war meetings of Quaker grandmothers are given the same scrutiny as secret meetings between suspected Jihadists. Still, there is no evidence that the recent surveillance flap affected anyone who did not deserve it.
It seems to me that the Constitution aims to protect the right of Citizens to raise their voices in protest to government policies, but does not seek to protect those who would advance their cause through violence. Despite the interpretations of some, The right to revolt is not guaranteed.
Those who oppose any form of surveillance often use the quote attributed to Ben Franklin "Those who would sacrifice a little freedom to gain a little safety deserve neither the safety or the freedom."
How this quote passes for wisdom is beyond me. It makes no logical sense. Of course we are all willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety. This is why we allow ourselves to be taxed, policed and regulated. If Ben Franklin really said that he should be fired. Who is he to decide what measure of anything people deserve anyway?
Another bogus quote that has always mystified me - MLK said: "If a man can't find a cause that he is willing to die for, then he isn't fit to live." Really? Let's see, I am not fit to live because I don't want to die? Hmmn. Let me get back to you on that one....
In his speeches lately George W is characterizing actions that are being questioned as "Leading." He believes that his role as President means that he has a duty to do what he thinks is right. I might agree with him if what he thinks is right is upholding the Constitution. He is not an Emperor. I do not think that he had shown enough leadership, frankly. His attitude seems to be that our brave soldiers support the mission so you citizens back home do not have the right to question it.
I really do want to believe that the war in Iraq was necessary. And, I do believe that the US needs to exert power to defend allies and interests. But, I have to say that I do not feel safe with Bush in charge. He is not able to coordinate a coalition of nations like a real Leader. So, the USA looks like “cowboys” to the world. The most disturbing thing is that his staunchest supporters are mostly raving nationalistic nazis who do not care what the rest of the world thinks. (Too bad we have not been offered a better choice for the job of President of the US).
On the other hand, I do support what I see as "reasonable" the search methods of surveillance that have raised such a furor of late. It just seems like common sense to secretly tap the phones of people who are legitimately suspected of dealing with terrorists. To be sure, this can become a bit slippery - as when the anti-war meetings of Quaker grandmothers are given the same scrutiny as secret meetings between suspected Jihadists. Still, there is no evidence that the recent surveillance flap affected anyone who did not deserve it.
It seems to me that the Constitution aims to protect the right of Citizens to raise their voices in protest to government policies, but does not seek to protect those who would advance their cause through violence. Despite the interpretations of some, The right to revolt is not guaranteed.
Those who oppose any form of surveillance often use the quote attributed to Ben Franklin "Those who would sacrifice a little freedom to gain a little safety deserve neither the safety or the freedom."
How this quote passes for wisdom is beyond me. It makes no logical sense. Of course we are all willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety. This is why we allow ourselves to be taxed, policed and regulated. If Ben Franklin really said that he should be fired. Who is he to decide what measure of anything people deserve anyway?
Another bogus quote that has always mystified me - MLK said: "If a man can't find a cause that he is willing to die for, then he isn't fit to live." Really? Let's see, I am not fit to live because I don't want to die? Hmmn. Let me get back to you on that one....
Friday, December 09, 2005
War and Peace
War and Peace
I’ve suspected for a long time that there is a simple solution for winning wars -- you must out-brutalize your opponent(s). By “out-brutalize” I mean you pursue your enemy with absolute and unstopping ruthlessness. This does not mean that you exact sinister or sadistic revenges but rather measured punishments that go beyond your enemy’s actions by a degree sufficient to discourage their further agression.
If they buzz bomb London for months on end, you, once you achieve air superiority, fire bomb their industrial and population centers every night for the remainder of the war … killing and destroying with moral justification. If they invade your country for the second time by sending an army of elephants and legions of mercenaries against your capital, you respond by burning down their capital, killing as many of their citizens as possible … and salting their fields (Carthega delenda est). If they send suicide pilots in planes stuffed with high explosives to crash against your navy closing in on their mainland, you unleash the terrible terror of atomic weaponry against them. If they cut the heads off your countrymen and allies who have been taken prisoner, you pass laws that say your interregators of these same enemy prisoners must treat them with respect and honor. If they fly airplanes into your skyscrapers killing 3,000 innocents, you seek to have them tried in criminal courts by a jury of their peers. (Obviously, the last two examples are meant to illistrate the absurdity of our country’s actions.)
Combatants must be careful in crafting such responses to terrorists so they are not understated or overstated. For instance, when Germany lined up everyone in a Polish village and shot them in retaliation to the killing of a German soldier by a sniper, that was an overstatement. When Israel responded to Hamas’s suicide bombers by razing their familys’ homes, this was an understatment. (I think it just served to piss off terrorists, not scare the piss out of them.) But, when Israel changed tactics to that of sending missles into the cars of Hamas leaders, these suicide bombings dropped off significantly. I happen to believe that another appropriate response to suicide bombers who kill many innocents would be to execute their immediate families (assuming that they were the support group that caused such atrocities to happen.) I think that this would be appropriately measured brutality.
My point is -- I think we really need to rethink how we are responding to the Iraqi and other Islamo-facist terrorist acts … and be more brutal, not less.
POSTED BY CLOONEY
I’ve suspected for a long time that there is a simple solution for winning wars -- you must out-brutalize your opponent(s). By “out-brutalize” I mean you pursue your enemy with absolute and unstopping ruthlessness. This does not mean that you exact sinister or sadistic revenges but rather measured punishments that go beyond your enemy’s actions by a degree sufficient to discourage their further agression.
If they buzz bomb London for months on end, you, once you achieve air superiority, fire bomb their industrial and population centers every night for the remainder of the war … killing and destroying with moral justification. If they invade your country for the second time by sending an army of elephants and legions of mercenaries against your capital, you respond by burning down their capital, killing as many of their citizens as possible … and salting their fields (Carthega delenda est). If they send suicide pilots in planes stuffed with high explosives to crash against your navy closing in on their mainland, you unleash the terrible terror of atomic weaponry against them. If they cut the heads off your countrymen and allies who have been taken prisoner, you pass laws that say your interregators of these same enemy prisoners must treat them with respect and honor. If they fly airplanes into your skyscrapers killing 3,000 innocents, you seek to have them tried in criminal courts by a jury of their peers. (Obviously, the last two examples are meant to illistrate the absurdity of our country’s actions.)
Combatants must be careful in crafting such responses to terrorists so they are not understated or overstated. For instance, when Germany lined up everyone in a Polish village and shot them in retaliation to the killing of a German soldier by a sniper, that was an overstatement. When Israel responded to Hamas’s suicide bombers by razing their familys’ homes, this was an understatment. (I think it just served to piss off terrorists, not scare the piss out of them.) But, when Israel changed tactics to that of sending missles into the cars of Hamas leaders, these suicide bombings dropped off significantly. I happen to believe that another appropriate response to suicide bombers who kill many innocents would be to execute their immediate families (assuming that they were the support group that caused such atrocities to happen.) I think that this would be appropriately measured brutality.
My point is -- I think we really need to rethink how we are responding to the Iraqi and other Islamo-facist terrorist acts … and be more brutal, not less.
POSTED BY CLOONEY
