I got this in an e-mail
Fidel dies and goes to heaven. When he gets there, St. Peter tells him that he is not on the list and that no way, no how, does he belong in heaven. Fidel must go to hell. So Fidel goes to hell where Satan gives him a hearty welcome and tells him to make himself right at home.
Then, Fidel notices that he accidentally left his luggage back in heaven and tells Satan, who says, "No hay problema. I'll send a couple of little devils to get your stuff."
When the little devils get to heaven, they find the gates are locked - St. Peter is having lunch - and they start debating what to do. Finally, one comes up with the idea that they should climb over the wall and get the luggage.
As they are climbing the wall, two little angels see them, and one angel says to the other, "My goodness! Fidel has been in hell no more than ten minutes and we're already getting refugees."
#1
My experience with projects that are behind overrun is that corners are cut to meet schedule and to stop the buget hemmorage. I will not step foot on one until they are proven to be airworthy. That will be quite a few years of no incidents.
#6
My experience with projects that are behind overrun is that corners are cut to meet schedule and to stop the budget hemorrhage. You are right Brer. In addition to the well known triple constraints of project management; scope, schedule, and cost; there are also project risk and quality factors. To ameliorate the risk of the project failing altogether, management must revisit the scope of the WhaleJet and see if specification changes can reduce projected costs and establish a reasonable schedule while assuring that design and production quality are not compromised. A tall order for a leader who comes from the glass-making industry. Color me skeptical. And the discussion hasn't even addressed the changes to airport terminals and runway needed to accommodate this monster.
Brer's 'wait until it's really proven air worthy' seems like sound advice to me.
Despite their dreams of recapturing one or both houses of Congress this November, the Democrats seem determined to reprise their poor showings in 2002 and 2004. Now, as then, they are dozing in the campaign's homestretch, like Aesop's hare, lulled by rosy predictions and the premature applause of Hollywood and the mainstream press. Soon, however, they may awake to discover that while they snoozed before the finish line, George W. Bush hunkered down in his tough shell, kept his slow legs moving, and inched them out.
The president has had a rough year since his re-election. But the furor is now subsiding, and once again, turtlelike, his poll numbers are creeping forward. The economy continues growing. Interest rates, unemployment and inflation remain manageable. Gas may fall to $2 a gallon. It matters little whether the president is as responsible for the price decline as he was for its rise -- the public feels better all the same.
In hindsight, Hurricane Katrina is increasingly seen as the singular natural disaster it was -- made worse by lapses in government at all levels. And too much federal largess, rather than too little, is the new worry.
The line between the supposedly good "multilateral" war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and the bad "unilateral" one that ousted Saddam is blurring. Suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices are the terrorism of choice in both theaters. In some weeks, more are killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq. And al Qaeda, unlike the U.S. media, sees both as integrated jihadist struggles against the infidel.
When the smoke cleared in Lebanon, Israel had not lost to Hezbollah -- but gained even more support from the American people, according to most recent polls. Nor did the elected Lebanese government collapse. Indeed, rumor has it that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are much less pleased with the result of the war than Western journalists had supposed. And Iran appears to be backing down somewhat from its nuclear agenda. He is more sanguine than I throughout this paragraph, but I can hope it's because he has better perspective.
America has not been hit again since September 11, 2001. And, perhaps preferring to err on the side of safety, most Americans continue to back interrogations and detentions at Guantanamo. For now, most still believe it is jihadists -- not their own president -- who pose the real threat to their way of life.
Europeans no longer smugly believe the Islamists are incited only by the cowboy George Bush. They are weary and increasingly angry over the Danish cartoon hysteria, Dutch murders, French riots, London and Madrid bombings, foiled plots in Britain and Germany, and the most recent threats to the pope. Terrorist communiques allege anger over Iraq -- but also Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Gaza, Kashmir, Kosovo, Lebanon, the Philippines, the West Bank, and on and on.
Despite their troubles, the Republicans remain more unified and pragmatic than their opponents. In the end it's the differential that matters, right?
The party establishment stood behind the often anti-Bush Sen. Lincoln Chafee in a tough but successful re-election fight in Rhode Island. In contrast, the Democratic establishment watched in horror as the party's activist wing drummed out their own moderate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, as a turncoat.
In the past, leftist shrillness -- whether it was Michael Moore calling Iraqi terrorists "Minutemen" or Cindy Sheehan pronouncing an American president "the world's greatest terrorist" -- hurt the Democrats, who came across as amused by the noise of these supportive public megaphones.
Once again such rhetorical craziness is turning off moderates. A film has just been released imagining the assassination of a sitting American president. On the Democratic side, only Sen. Hillary Clinton has denounced such creepiness; other Clintonites were far more worried only about looking bad in the recent docudrama "The Path to 9/11."
Democrats denounce the conduct of the war against terror. All well and good -- but they also must explain how they would snatch Osama bin Laden from his friendly tribes in Islamic and nuclear Pakistan. They rail against the Iraq war, but they cannot agree on when -- not to mention whether -- to depart. They lament appeasement of Iran but offer no military or political alternative to the ongoing multiparty negotiations.
The Democrats claim Mr. Bush is not protecting us at home and is battling the wrong enemies abroad. But even of those sympathetic to such a message, how many believe Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are better suited to fight a war against terror? And where the president is vulnerable -- illegal immigration, continual energy dependence, spiraling debt and profligate federal spending -- the Democrats' solutions are even more at odds with public opinion.
The result is that Mr. Bush, tucked into his shell, keeps lumbering forward, grimfaced -- resisting withdrawal from Iraq and warning against Islamic fascism. And the more the Democratic hares yawn and snore -- the more this unfazed turtle keeps moving toward the November elections.
#2
It is interesting to see the dynamic that the 9/11 has permanently imposed on the American election cycle. Poll gains by peaceniks in August recede like the tide in September as defense becomes a priority again. I wonder whether GW would have been reelected had the attack been in March vice September.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/23/2006 21:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't think it really matters, people don't pay attention until elections get close and the Demo's always shoot themselves in the foot. When people start getting piss at Repub they turn to Demo's the Demo's start talking and people go ooookkkk back to repubs. :)
#5
#4 anon2u - Not to brag or anything, but a couple of stations in Chesterfield County, VA, (outside Richmond) were at $1.98 this afternoon. (I heard it on the radio; they didn't give the station names, but the locations mentioned they were probably a Sheetz and a WaWa.)
Even the Exxon near my house was at $2.02 this afternoon. What's really interesting is that the station across the street from the Exxon is still at $2.19. Is anyone stupid enough to buy there? Why?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/23/2006 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Interesting comparison..... from "cheap gas in Austin, TX" ... far north of Austin, gas at $2.15... far south of Austin,... best price at $2.28. Big difference. Maybe a 15 mile difference.
Then drive about 30 miles south, mid-way between Austin and San Antonio, gas is always about $.10 more than the south Austin price. All stations, all brands get gas from one source. Thus, the difference.
#1
Holy Dogma-Buster Batman! That article will take a long time to digest, tipper. Obviously, I'm not qualified to address the specifics analyzed within it on the author's level of expertise. I'm playing around with a response, but dunno if I'll waste the bandwidth or not. Thx, tipper!
#2
A differing opinion but with similar tones is that the American military, specifically the Army, became enamored with Clausewitz during its deep self examination in the post Vietnam period. It was good in that it brought focus and objective in reforming the Army in the direction that it is now the pinnacle model many in the world are examining. However, the adhering to Clausewitz meant that the authors own experience of mass European warfare would crowd out all other military experiences. So the time line for the development of theory, doctrine, and operations for the Army begins in 1939. In doing this, the Army abandoned its own record of a hundred years of history from the start of the Nation. For that first hundred years, a small professional volunteer army was the sword of the republic on the developing frontier facing hostiles and building a nation. It was something Clausewitz had no experience or concept. Take this passage from Robert M. Utleys Frontier Regulars: The United States Army and the Indian 1866-1891
. Chapter 3: The Problem of Doctrine.Three special conditions set this mission apart from more orthodox military assignments. First, it pitted the army against an enemy who usually could not be clearly identified and differentiated from kinsmen not disposed at the moment to be enemies. Indians could change with bewildering rapidity from friend to foe to neutral, and rarely could one be confidently distinguished from another...Second, Indian service placed the army in opposition to a people that aroused conflicting emotions... And third, the Indians mission gave the army a foe unconventional both in the techniques and aims of warfare... He fought on his own terms and, except when cornered or when his family was endangered, declined to fight at all unless he enjoyed overwhelming odds...These special conditions of the Indian mission made the U.S. Army not so much a little army as a big police force...for a century the army tried to perform its unconventional mission with conventional organization and methods. The result was an Indian record that contained more failures than successes and a lack of preparedness for conventional war that became painfully evident in 1812, 1846, 1861, and 1898.
Sound familiar? How about from Chapter 4. The Army, Congress, and the People.
Shermansfrontier regulars endured not only the physical isolation of service at remote border posts; increasingly in the postwar years they found themselves isolated in attitudes, interests, and spirit from other institutions of government and society and, indeed from the American people themselves...Reconstruction plunged the army into tempestuous partisan politics. The frontier service removed it largely from physical proximity to population and, except for an occasional Indian conflict, from public awareness and interest. Besides public and congressional indifference and even hostility, the army found its Indian attitudes and policies condemned and opposed by the civilian officials concerned with Indian affairs and by the nations humanitarian community.
Maybe a little less time worrying about mass warfare on a continent, and a little more time spent on what it took to tame a frontier. The new 21st Century frontier being real civilization.
#3
I never discussed this with anyone, but in 2003 when we first took land in Iraq, I thought we should form 'soccer leagues' for teenage boys. These would cull the less religious from the alla snackbar types, by channeling them into specific teams. The less religious would be screened and taught english, field medicine, and hand to hand combat, while pretending to be a soccer league unto themselves. The point of all this would be to form a (dare I say it ?) secret police. I had no reason to expect a terrorist insurgency at the time, but my gut feeling was to form a strong grip on future Iraqi forces. This force would also be a source of neighborhood intel while they formed a tight brotherhood of killers and spies. They could also form the office corps for a strong Iraqi defense force.
We didn't, they don't, so now we fight the alla snackbar types piecemeal, and the MSM gets to say it's Bush's fault.
#4
The author is obviously somebody who is an intensely annoying name-dropper at cocktail parties. He uses the writing style that if you name enough sources, you only need a vague concept of your thesis.
The bottom line is that what matters is the idea, not the source of the idea. You first justify your idea with real-world examples, and only if it seems outrageous do you cite a source.
And, if you ignore his sourcing, his ideas don't seem all that impressive. If you know his sources, it seems downright silly. For instance, while he might reference Clasewitz for land warfare, Mahan wrote the definitive book for *naval* warfare. Apples and oranges.
Worst of all, he made no reference to the US Indian Wars. The similarities between them and the WoT are staggering. The technological US Army against tribes, using vastly different techniques depending on the circumstances.
He should have been name dropping Kit Carson, Philip St. George Crook, Philip Sheridan, W.T. Sherman and a host of others whose exploits are legendary.
In such a case, it could be pointed out that the US has 200 years experience in fighting tribal agencies, both at home and overseas. We even eclipse the British in that unbroken stream of conflict.
#1
I suspect they're calculating it's a "feature", not a "bug": they're busily courting Muslims as a new "Officially Designated Poor Helpless Victimized Minority" to pander to in exchange for votes. And they figure that Jews, like Blacks, can simply be taken for granted.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/23/2006 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
well, if they stay in it, they deserve what they get from that party
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2006 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is irony in motion. Demos welcomed the Jews, who created a decidedly liberal bent in the party. Now, they've turned their back on them. But, they really are rejecting the entire Judeo-Christian ethic. Rejecting any religiosity whatever.
#5
Since the House of Representatives appears to be headed toward a Democratic majority and certain key Chairmanships will fall into the hands of Democrats with anti-Israel histories, these trends will have very serious implications for Jews and for the state of Israel.
Bzzzzzt! Not.Gonna.Happen.
Republicans need to get out and vote. Speaker Pelosi? Does that turn your stomach? Get out and VOTE!
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2006 14:34 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
