Osama Bin Laden Hiding in Plain Sight Cite

The recent death of Osama Bin Laden (Geronimo ekia) in a million dollar home near Abbottabad has media tongues wagging. Why? The town is located in the outskirts of Islamabad the capital of Pakistan.
 

What we are really seeing as we watch the news is the clash between the subtle nuances of multinational Diplomatic Relations, and a simplistic view of the world.

Part of this arises from our exposure to Middle Eastern culture having been limited to the movies, Casablanca and Algiers. I will focus on the latter.

In Algiers (the capital of Algeria, a country in northern Africa), a French jewel thief (played by Charles Boyer) is hiding out in the “old quarter” in a place known to the world as The Casbah. However, the only thing we truly know about the Casbah, aside from it’s being a labyrinthine piece of ancient architecture, is what we learned watching cartoons as children.

In the Warner Brothers cartoon, a character (an amorous skunk) known as Pepe le Pew, would hotly pursue a black cat (who having ended up with a stripe of white paint down her back took on a skunk-like appearance). As he would embrace the feline of his affections, he would utter such romantic nothings as, “Come wiz me to zee Casbah”.

Back to Algiers.

In Algiers, in The Casbah, Pepe le Moko is visited each day by an Algerian Police Detective—Inspector Slimane. The good inspector knows, however, that it is impossible to arrest Pepe in The Casbah. This is the reason he is allowed to “find” him. In addition, he knows that if he arrests Pepe, he will not be able to bring him out of The Casbah. This, he has difficulty explaining to the visiting French Prefect. 

 (Now, you may call me a flawed human being, but I liked the inspector in the fez. My apologies to Turkey and to the Turkish people who’ve outlawed the wearing of the fez.)

Inspector Slimane’s admonition: “When one can’t use guns, one must work with brains.”

Now that we have a background in our limited understanding of the Middle East (Which we’ve learned from a movie set in North Africa) we shall move on to Pakistan.

Pakistan is an ally whose President is in an untenable position.

Pakistan and India enjoy a misalliance. India is Hindu, Pakistan is Muslim. Each enjoys a diplomatic affiliation with China. India is an ally and trading partner of the United States.

Pakistan is caught between having diplomatic and military ties to the United States and the West on the one hand and a people ardently opposed to the United States in particular and the West in general on the other. 

The President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, has to maintain a level of stability with a political acumen that goes beyond anything we can imagine.  

The most difficult domestic problems we deal with in the political arena are the carping of those in the opposing party or an embarrassment cause by an extreme faction demonstrating for or against a position on an issue.

Some of the comments arising from the death of Osama Bin Laden and made by experts in global diplomatic and military affairs are: 

Osama Bin Laden was in a gilded cage. He couldn’t leave his compound. (Remember Pepe le Moko.) He was actually a prisoner of Pakistan.

The Pakistani government had to have known that Osama Bin Laden was there and gave him safe shelter.

Well, if we were watching the compound for eight months, the Pakistani government also had to have known we were there.

With the operations we were engaged in (the bombing of terrorist encampments), could the Pakistani government really believe Bin Laden would be safe if they harboured him in the Mansion on the Hill?

President Asif Ali Zardari’s remarks were for the benefit of the Pakistani people.

President Asif Ali Zardari is charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of the people of Pakistan. And so on. 

There may be an element of truth to some or all of the above. This does not deny the Media the First Amendment right to express opinions; or to insinuate opinions by asking questions with an urgent tone and a forward leaning posture intended to suggest gravitas.

Diplomacy. In the refined and cultured and nuanced world of diplomacy, what is important is quite often what is unsaid, but understood. 

As my Aunt Jean once said of men’s jewellery, “I believe a man’s jewellery should be looked for but never seen.” 

In Diplomatic discussions, what we mean should be understood, not said.

A more clear explanation: From the Quotations of Slim Fairview

Diplomacy:  If it has to be explained, it isn't diplomacy.

We should understand that President Asif Ali Zardari has a job to do on behalf of the People of Pakistan. 

We should understand that we have also have a job to do.  

The Media has a job to do.  

However, most important, we should understand that in the area of International Relations, we should not use our playbook alone when we have people on our team from different countries.

This is why I posted the monograph, “The Impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East.”  

The Link: 

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-impending-failure-of-western-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east

It is also the reason I posted the monograph, “What do we want? When do we want it? How do we get it?  

The Link:

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/what-do-we-want-how-do-we-get-it

When I was a youngster sitting in school, grammar school, we were taught, 

“We may not agree with what they have to say, but they have the right to say it.”

Now, we are taught, 

“They may not agree with what we have to say, but we have the right to say it.”

We have abandoned our pursuit of fulfilling our responsibilities in favour of pursuing our rights. 

Defending our rights is a good thing. 

Defending our rights is slightly different from pursuing them.

Now, we see Pakistan and President Asif Ali Zardari being vilified about the location of Osama Bin Laden’s “Casbah”.

The assailing of Pakistan and President Asif Ali Zardari is neither fair, nor accurate, nor productive. It arises from our need to eschew the news in favour of entertainment.  

Too many people, today, choose a lust for symbolic gestures over substantive gains.

Regards,

Slim 

Mail: Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

What do we want? How do we get it?

US forces kill bin Laden in firefight in Pakistan - The Boston Globe

What do we want? How do we get it?

The issue of Afghanistan references my comments on the world relying on the Zero Sum Game approach to future planning.

It is easy to ask, "What do the Afghan people want?" However, different people in Afghanistan may have different agendas and goals. It is not sufficient to say, "What do we want, when do we want it?" The real issue is "What do we want, how are we going to get it?" Then you must add, "What do we have to give to get it?" Other Afghans have goals. Some are mutually exclusive. The Win-Win platitude is great. However, for both sides to get something, each side must give up something.

The question also relies on issues I’ve raised in my monograph, “The Impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East.

Essential reading:

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-impending-failure-of-western-diplomacy-in-the-middle-east

And a viewing of my SlideShare ppt. presentation

The Future of the G 20 in Good Times and Bad

http://www.slideshare.net/slimfairview/the-g-20-in-good-times-and-bad-5802178

Old Chinese Saying--A white horse is not a horse.

Chinese Wisdom: In the West, when you want privacy, you go into a lock room. In the East, when we want privacy, we go into an open field.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Santayana

Those who never learned history are doomed—period. Slim Fairview

From: The Quotations of Slim Fairview © 2011 Slim Fairview

Warmest regards,

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Paradox of Cobb's Paradox

Needless to say, I Googled Cobb's Paradox.

My first impression is that it is based on the assumption that we know why projects fail.

Assuming we do know why projects fail, do we know why this project failed?

Assuming that we know why this project failed, could we have known why this project would have failed.

Assuming that we know why this project would have failed, was there anything we could have done about it?

Assuming that we know why this project will fail, is there anything we can do about it?

Assuming we know why this project will fail, why do we go ahead with the project?

Here is the real paradox:

Knowing that we know Cobb's Paradox, and assuming it is valid, why do we continue to discuss Cobb's Paradox?

Knowing that we know Cobb's Paradox, and assuming it is invalid, why do we continue to discuss Cobb's Paradox?

Discuss.

Regards,

Slim

ps. This material will be on the final exam.

Mail Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Better Than Brand New--New Theories In Education

First:

I taught math, very briefly. I taught in parochial school. My students voted math their favourite subject.

There is no teacher test in the world that will tell the principal what he or she needs to know in order to say, "I can see from the results of your teacher test that your students will vote math their favourite subject."

I left teaching because I could not afford to live on the pay in a parochial school, and I refused to embrace the theories in education propounded by those hired by the "boards of ed" to improve education in public school.

"Okay, class, how much is 10 x 10?"

"Okay, class, Billy says, 10 x 10 = 99"

"Now there are some old-fashioned, draconians who insist that 100 is the only correct answer. However, even if we pretend they are right, Billy said 99. That makes Billy 99% correct."

Second

When I was in High School, we were told that only two high schools in the state required 4 years of math. I didn't go to one of those schools. I went to the other one. My grades went as follows. c; c+; b; b+; A!

I earned an exemption from the final exam. Jesuits do not believe in grade inflation. What I accomplished was hard work. Thus, I worked hard.

The problem with every theory on how to improve education that is implemented in the classroom is that it is predicated on the assumption that the students embrace the theories of the person(s) who've come up with the theory.

The results of the projected improvements in student performance are not connected to the performance of the students. The results are intended to validate the theories of the experts who've implement them. In short, the experts got paid to do that stuff.

Third

My understanding of the "every child is gifted" school of education is that every child can (wants to) learn math at a very high level. It never occurs to anyone that to learn math at a very high level means not doing something else at a very high level. Drama club, soccer, oil painting, learning to play the French Horn. Dare to suggest that to any expert and he will insist that these are not mutually exclusive. He insists on that because that was what he got paid for.

Certainly, any child can learn high-level math. I will say that again for those who will choose to pretend that they "must have missed it, still..." Certainly, any child can learn high-level math. Now, each child, learning at his or her rate/consistent with ability will take varied amounts of time. If those running the school insist on mainstreaming, the teacher in a class of 30 will perhaps, explain the lesson to 3 children once, 4children twice, 5 children three times, 6 children four times, 5 children five times, 4 children six times, 3 children seven times. This alludes to the bell curve the author referenced at the beginning of the article. Now, explain how the first three children will learn high-level math, listening to the same lesson seven times. Yes, any child can learn high level math.

To understand the use of math to obfuscate the problems in education, lets look at reading. And Professor Harold Hill.

Yes, my friends, you have trouble. Right here in River City, with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stand for phonics. You have one, two, three, four, five vowels in the alphabet. With 21 consonants you have 62 trillion, 900 billion, aught '09 combinations. No wonder your children can't read. You don't need to know phonics to talk, do you? You just think of a word and say it."

Back to math.

If your children haven't memorized the times tables (grade appropriate), your children will be spinning their wheels in math. Compare and contrast that statement with those who say,

"Memorization stifles creativity. No wonder the Chinese children and the Russian children and the German children outperform our children in international math competitions."

If any of you have doubts about the veracity or efficacy of what I have to say in this monograph, please enjoy some further reading.

"Teachers aren't allowed to teach anymore."
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/teachers-arent-allowed-to-teach-anymore.html

"How many parents want their children to get the appearance of an education?"
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-many-parents-want-their-children-to.html

"No excuse to fail."
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-excuse-to-fail.html

Three monographs on my blog about classroom happenings.

For my challenge to the experts, my blog contains a monograph entitled, wait for it,

Experts???
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/11/experts.html


Please feel free to Google me. Slim Fairview.

Sincerest regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (C) 2011 Slim Fairview

The Unforeseen in Project Management

"There are no unintended consequences--only unwanted consequences." Slim Fairview

If you have assembled a team that includes people with experience, you can minimize the unknown unknowns.

Perhaps what you mean are the unforseeables that can't be foreseen. Don't let what may happen complicate the task at hand. Too many people, (Me included) have worried about what might happen that they create problems for them selves that would not have happened it they'd been doing their jobs in the first place instead of worrying. (There is a sentence in there, somewhere, some assembly required.)

Needless to say, when the problem comes up, they declare it the result of an unknown unknown. Don't worry about it.

Assemble a team with people who have experience. (In different areas.) Keep a network of people who've had to work in crisis management situations. (It needn't have been a big crisis, the thought process is the same.)

Then get back to work. If something should crop up, (dare I say it) call a meeting.

A Small Meeting. One with a few people skilled in the particular area of contention.

Now, it should be just about tea time across the pond, enjoy a glass of chateau Fleet Street, and remember the admonition of Horace Rumpole: Never ask the witness a question unless you yourself know the answer.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

UR Ad $$$ @ Wrk! The FOX in the MAD House

Fox Network and the Young Viewers. UR Ad $$$ @ Wrk!

This almost seems to repudiate my belief that television advertising is not the wave of the future.

I stated earlier that the networks are trying to attract viewers who don't watch television by broadcasting programmes that appeal to viewers who don't watch television. Thus, driving away audiences that do watch television.

Now, what did Mad Men think would happen when television went from a few stations, 2,4,5,7,9,11,13 and sometimes 31 to 150 stations?

Well, ad-heaven is an optimistic way of looking at it. It would have appeared that this meant more advertising dollars and a better bottom line for the agency. Of course, the number of viewers per station would be small. This brings a new market. Niche advertising. "Yes, Virginia, there really is an all golf network."

This reminds me of the joke about the man telling his friend that, "My son got his bachelors degree. Now he's going for his masters. After that, he's going for his PhD."

When his friend asked him what all that means, he replied, "That's when you learn more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing.

None-the-less, the market forces came to the fore and the advertising industry is alive an well. Good news, bad news. The good news is that there is a television series about the industry. The bad news is, that is about the industry 50 years ago.

I've often had to be all things to all people. Well, two things to two people. At the age of 10, my one friend got a go-cart. Great on the downhill--read fast! My other friend got one of those electric toy cars. Not, fast, but it could go the distance. No hill required. There was friction between them. All I had to do was to help each friend feel he had the better car.

Good news, good news. The good news: The easy part was that at the age of 10 their egos were easily assuaged. The good news, the same holds true for clients who want so spend their advertising dollars on television, the internet, or both.

For an amusing aside: Ceo the Executive or The Executives New Clothes.
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/08/ceo-executive-or-executives-new-clothes.html
or The Deficit: A Moral Conundrum (This on the topic of moral conundrums more than on the deficit.)

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/04/deficit-moral-conundrum.html

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

The Deficit--A Moral Conundrum

The Deficit—A moral conundrum

I have only two skills: An analytical mind and the ability to speak in metaphors. Here we go.

This is an example of a moral conundrum.

You arrive at work. You clock in. You go to your machine, put your Igloo^® Brand cooler down by your machine, open it, and take out the key to your locker.

In the process of opening your cooler, a co-worker sees a delicious, imported chocolate bar sitting on top of your lunch.

You go to get your tools. You leave your cooler unattended.

Now, your company has a strict no-stealing policy. Caught stealing—you’re fired.

When you return from your locker, you see your supervisor, the manager, and a co-worker standing by your cooler. There is a problem.

Apparently, your co-worker stole your candy bar. The manager shows you the candy bar. A large piece is missing. The manager is angry. Your co-worker is upset. You supervisor looks to you for a way out.

Just then, the little Angel appears on one shoulder. He says, “Oh, be forgiving.”

Then, the little devil appears on your other shoulder. “Let him suffer the punishment, “he says.

“Be merciful. It was a good candy bar. Perhaps he couldn’t resist,” the Angel says.

“That’s the point,” the devil says. “It was a really good candy bar. The good chocolate. Don’t let him get away with that!”

“Oh, don’t be mean. It was a really, really good, imported, delicious Belgian chocolate, chocolate bar. The temptation was too great. Be forgiving, be merciful,” The Angel says.

“That’s the whole point, the devil says. It was a phenomenal, delicious, imported, expensive, Belgian chocolate candy bar. Don’t let him weasel out it. Have him fire!

Just then, as you are torn between mercy and justice, between forgiveness and punishment, thinking of that chocolate bar, you take the Angel into one hand and the devil into the other and you look at them—torn. Looking for an answer. Looking for a dignified way out.

You look at the Angel. You look at the devil. You look to the Angel for divine wisdom and guidance. You look to the devil to support your desire for vengeance. Then, it suddenly occurs to you. Both the little Angel and the little devil have their lips smeared with chocolate.

That is a moral conundrum.

Now look at the members of Congress; the members from both parties, and tell me they don’t have their lips smeared with chocolate.

Regards,

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Impending Failure of Western Diplomacy in the Middle East

In a previous monograph, I discussed the fallacy of US Diplomacy in Libya.

Now I would like to expand the subject matter to include Western Nations and The Middle East.

Memo to Western World Leaders

Re: Middle East Turmoil

Subject: Don’t get happy.

There are, no doubt, many who are secretively happy to see the turmoil in the Middle East.

Diplomatically, they may express their concerns, regrets, desire to help, compassion, support, and so on. Still, inside, they are embracing the wrong impressions. They secretively believe that this turmoil will bring about not merely change in the Middle East, not merely a positive change in the Middle East, but a change that will result in truly favourable diplomatic and economic relations.

The problem arises from the fact that the Diplomacy of late falls into the following categories:

1. Diplomatic relations with those with similar, agendas and common goals.

Pro-forma Diplomatic Relations.

2. Diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and common goals.

Goal Oriented Diplomatic Relations.

3. Diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and common goals.

Expedient Diplomatic Relations.

4. Diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and dissimilar goals.

Tenuous Diplomatic Relations.

5. Anticipated diplomatic relations with those with dissimilar agendas and with divergent goals.

Now we have the need to find and engage in a mutually beneficial Diplomatic Agenda to accommodate those divergent goals.

Why will we have problems?

We have been dealing with government leaders who operate within a system of unilateral decision-making. (Disagreements, if any, are not expressed publicly and often times are not expressed privately, either.)  

The old canard, “It takes ten people to say yes but only one person to say no.” does not apply.

The old system was simple. It takes one person to say yes. Full Stop.

Soon, if the revolutions result in regime change, the changes may or may not change the above system of decision-making. If the system stays the same, the West will have to contend with the divergent goals. If there is a new system, refer to the old canard.

A second reason we will have problems establishing Diplomatic Relations is that we are not equipped to accept the types of government that may arise from the changes in the different regimes.

Within new regimes, we will be contending with the following:

1. Pro-Western Regimes.

2. Anti-Western Regimes.

3. Regimes where most are Pro-Western and a few are Anti-Western.

4. Regimes where most are Anti-Western and a few are Pro-Western.

Our Diplomatic Relations will be different with different countries out of necessity. The differences in these relationships will give rise to contention both at home and abroad. The differences will be bargaining chips in Diplomatic Relations abroad and at home, they will become justifications for political rhetoric.

“Everybody knows what everybody knows. The rest is rhetoric.” – Slim Fairview from the Quotations of Slim Fairview ^©

We are no longer engaged in relationships based on demonstrating sensitivity to a diversity of cultures. We are now about to approach people with divergent agendas, methods, and goals.

Their interests may not be our interests. There may be little common ground with some and much common ground with others.

We were told:

The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

We were also told:

It’s me and my cousin against my neighbor; but, it’s me and my brother against my cousin.

These we were told. Now it is up to us to establish Diplomatic Relations with a diversity of cultures where we’ve defined diversity as different from us.  

Now we will have to redefine diversity as those who are different from one another.

It will be interesting to watch Western Nations establish Diplomatic Relations in the Middle East with any new regimes that may arise.

Regards,

Slim 

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Fallacy of U.S. Diplomacy in Libya

The Fallacy of U.S. Diplomacy in Libya

Slim Fairview’s Four Rules of Communication:

1. Precision

2. Concision

3. Enumerate

4. Specify

The Fallacy of U.S. Diplomacy in Libya. Review the following questions and answers to arrive at a conclusion if not an understanding of how we undermine our own efforts in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

A. We can't arm the rebels because the rebels may be a greater danger.

More so than Gaddafi? Yes? No? If yes, we wouldn’t be there. If no, then arm the rebels.

B. We can’t arm the rebels because the arms may fall into the hands of our enemies.

If the rebels are our enemies, our other enemies will arm the rebels. If our enemies did not arm the rebels, then the rebels are not our enemies.

C. We can’t arm the rebels because the rebels may be our enemy.

If we don’t arm the rebels, others will. If others arm the rebels, the rebels will be their friends not ours.

[Write one thousand times: The friend of my enemy is my enemy. The enemy of the enemy is my friend.]

D. Al Qaeda members may be in Libya.

Al Qaeda members may be anywhere. That does not justify not doing anything anywhere.

E. Let’s talk about the mission. Let’s not.

What we have is regime change under the guise of humanitarian aid.

Getting rid of Gaddafi is not regime change.

Talking about Gaddafi’s sons is not regime change.

F. What will we be getting into if we don’t have regime change?

We won’t be getting into anything. We will have what we’ve had all along

G. What will happen if Gaddafi leaves?

Nothing if we define Gaddafi leaving as regime change.

H. What will happen if the rebels win and take over Libya?

We will fail at yet another diplomatic mission. Why?

To understand why, answer this question:

What happens if the rebels win and the Tribal Leaders decide to form a government where a ruling council runs Libya: a ruling council where the Tribal Leaders choose members of the Ruling Council? 

We are not equipped to establish diplomatic relations with a country where the people fought a revolution to gain freedom and established a government not consistent with our perspective of governments.

Regards,

Slim

PS.

I am not Paul Harvey.  However, I am open to becoming a paid commentator, columnist, or blogger. If you’ve found anything I said to be helpful, please don’t hesitate to send me one of those tricked-out laptops and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.

Sincerest regards,

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

For further reading on Social Media Matters

Quill Pens and Powdered Wigs in Today’s Classrooms

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/quill-pens-and-powdered-wigs-in-todays.html

Social Media is the Medium: Greater than the sum of its parts.

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/social-media-is-medium-greater-than-sum.html

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Time-Management Time Again, Folks.

The boss has been given the responsibility of fixing the problems caused by his lack of qualification to manage.

The boss hires a time management consultant.

The consultant give the presentation. The consultant hands out Day-timers. (Or whatever is now fashionable. Everyone engages in much upbeat chatter about how positive they all feel about what they've learned.

It doesn't work.

The Boss puts pressure on the employees.

"The company paid for that programme to help you."

"There is no I in team."

"People, we have to co-operate. We all have to work together to succeed."

"Success comes in cans not can'ts."


The real problems are never solved. Things do not get better. The boss blames the employees.

The employees try to explain what the real problems are.

The boss says, "Don't play the blame game."

The whole time-management thing is scrapped. (Some of the problems do resolve themselves.)

Then, 20 years later, I clicked onto a discussion about time-management.

Repeat as needed.

Let's get together in 20 years to discuss it again.

Sincerely,

Slim

mail slimfairview@yahoo.com


Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Memo to Big Oil

 

Memo to Big Oil

Diversify your perspective.

Here is the metaphor:

If people think that the Moon is made of green cheese, then Galileo didn’t explain things properly. The solution is not to explain things to the people. The solution is to explain things to Galileo.

For years, Urban Legend has been saying that the Big Oil is impeding the efforts to develop high mileage automobiles and alternative energy sources. This does not mean that Big Oil did these things. However, if this is the perception there will be a big pushback.

The solution is not to explain things to the people. The solution is to explain things to Big Oil.

To begin with, do not say, “Slim, telling us what we should have done is 20/20 hindsight.”

It is. Don’t waste time saying it. Not because you are enlightening anyone, but because you are deluding yourself.

Why is this?

Because I will say, “Now that you have 20/20 hindsight, your mistakes should be a guidepost not a hitching post.”

Your strategic planning failures of the past do not excuse your strategic planning failures for the future.

Here is a four-point plan to guide your strategic planning.

1. Invest your profits in high-mileage technology.

Why?

Because as it becomes increasingly more important, you will hold the patents. Intellectual property has value.

2. Invest in active solar power technology.

Why?

Because you will become the energy suppliers of the future.

3. Invest in electric filling station technology.

Why?

Because having gas stations all over the country, you can leverage your capital investment. This is called revenue enhancement.

4. Invest in the geothermal heating industry.

Why?

Because diversity in your portfolio and revenue enhancement are vital to continued growth.

Bon chance!

Sincerest regards,

Slim

If you find any of this information helpful, please feel free to send me on of those tricked out Apple laptops—and do please include a little WAM in the envelope along with the thank-you note.

I don’t want to be paid for what I do.

I don’t want to be paid for what I know.

I don’t want to be paid for what I think.

I want to be paid for the way I think.

Regards,

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Nuclear Power Has Lost Its Lustre, But Not Its Glow

Planning for Disaster

Dateline—1964

Class—Science

Teacher—Mrs. Holman

Project—The Photoelectric Cell

Atomic energy was just being talked about. After the detonation of the atomic bomb, the subject of nukes was a bit outré. 

It wasn’t long before a toy car came out with a photoelectric cell on top. Shine a flashlight on it and away we go.

However, it wasn’t long before the nuclear energy industry was all fired up and running like an old coal furnace—all the heat, none of the smoke.

Then the anti-nuke protesters came along.

We were told that nuclear waste is deadly. It can’t be shipped safely, it can’t be stored safely, and it stays deadly for the “half-life of an atom—186,000 years!”

After a big fuss and bother, the protesters went on to something else and nuclear energy went on to become the energy source of the future.

Easy to understand. Aside from the production of a solar power, the power source is free.

Nuclear power requires stuff. Nuclear power requires physical plant and planning. Nuclear power can be regulated. (Or not.) Nuclear power is the stuff of business. It is the stuff of manufacturing business. It involves production. Raw materials go in, there is production, and there is output.

Today, aside from a few solar panels on rooftops here and there, the solar panels of the future are still the energy source of the future. Until now.

As a result of Chernobyl, we learned nothing. As a result of Three Mile Island, we learned nothing. 

As a result of Fukushima we are learning nothing except damage control. Not damage control in the event of a disaster at a nuclear power plant; but damage control in the event of a disaster in the image of the nuclear power industry.

After almost half a century, we’ve had no problem concocting an industry out of pure science. However, we’ve concocted little in the ability to learn from our mistakes. We did not learn to come up with a plan B. We did not come up with an alternative product fabricated from pure science.

By now anyone with a lot of scientific knowledge and only a bit of common sense, would have created the industry of the future; the technology of the future; the science of the future.

By now, more than half the houses in America could have had solar panels on the roofs, geothermal heating systems installed, and a much more efficient use of materials and space in the construction.

Alas, no; and there is little evidence to suggest that anyone can see the future. Impossible, you say. Try standing on the railroad tracks and watch the train coming your way.

Oh, yeah!

We actually have the audacity to discuss preparations for any foreseeable disaster. Well, what about an unforeseeable disaster? Well, we can’t prepare for an unforeseeable disaster. Exactly.

Perhaps if we were to rid ourselves of this fixation and stop clutching retentively to our highly intelligent ignorance, we will finally stop planning to build nuclear power plants and start to develop our solar energy.

Planning to build nuclear power plants can be seen as planning for disaster. But we’re supposed to plan to prevent them, not cause them.

Regards,

Slim

PS. I am not Paul Harvey.  Still, I am open to becoming a paid blogger, columnist, or commentator.

In the meantime, if anyone finds the monographs on my blog to be especially helpful, please do not hesitate to send me on of those tricked out laptops and few dollars tucked into the envelope with the thank you note.

Sincerely  

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

The Cleavers’ Television Set is on the Way Out

The Cleavers’ Television Set is on the Way Out

One thing that has been overlooked. Social Media would not be possible without the Advertising Business.

Advertising is what really finances the operations of social media. Why then does the advertising industry act as if social media is the threat and not the partner?

I get the impression that Mad Men are doing studies to justify selling TV ads to clients because clients want TV ads because Corporate America (the clients) is infused with people who sit around discussing whether or not social media is costing American industry productivity time.

Meanwhile, the Media sees social media as a threat and not as a portal. (When I was a freelance website designer, I took out a full-page ad in a local paper listing all the people (businesses) in the local business community who had a web page on the portal website I set up. ("Fish where there are fish." -- Political adage.) )

Point being, The Media better wake up and smell the triple-shot cappuccino venti and start broadcasting via the internet. Television isn’t on the way out; the Cleavers' television set is on the way out.

Regards

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

President Obama's Homegrown Diplomatic Conundrum

President Obama is doing fine. As he pointed out:

1. No flag burnings or Anti US rhetoric in Egypt.

2. Bringing together a broad based coalition involving, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.

3. Setting a precedent for future cooperation among disparate nations and cultures--perhaps for peaceful rather than military purposes.

4. Showing that Ivy league types can handle global diplomatic and military matters.

Now, the only problem is dealing with the surfeit of professional pundits who've raised the task of asking question to the level of high, intellectual discourse.

Since when did "I don't know...." and "I don't understand..." serve to repudiate another person's opinion?

How many times does one have to ask a question when the answer is intuitively obvious to the casual observer?

Regards,

Slim


Copyright (c) Slim Fairview

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Netopia, Blogging, and the Libyan Crisis

While reading the New York Times, Sunday, I came across the article about blogging. I read it twice. Why? Because I blog. What did I take away from the article? The comment by Ezra Klein. He pointed out how as more people read his work, he realised he should be more circumspect about how he expresses himself.

The example he gives is, "...Mr. Lieberman was “willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score.” A comment about Senator Joe Lieberman and health care legislation. Mr. Klein regrets the phrasing.

Why bring this up? Because I want to post a comment about health care and about phrasing. Also, because I want my comment to include military intervention in Libya.

The problem with the health care legislation passed back in the mists of time is not about Liberals or Conservatives or about Democrats or Republicans. The problem arises from the sublimation of the legislative process. Now, If I'd said, "...the sublimation of the democratic process," I would have sunk to the level of ideological rhetoric.

The difference lies in the fact that while we may have opinions about democracy, the legislative process is a matter or rules and procedures. (Almost.)

This makes it important to both the bloggers and the readers that the opinions are expressed in a manner consistent with the vision of the blogger. Case in point: If Art Buchwald were alive and blogging (and I believe he would be), we would immediately recognise that what is posted is intended to be funny. (And, as humour almost always contains an element of truth, reflects a truth that is understood albeit not accepted by everyone.)

Some bloggers are understood to be incendiary. We know this. We accept this. We respect the right of the blogger to do this. However, ultimately, we do know this about the blogger.

Other bloggers present themselves as objective assessors of what is in the news. While they may express an opinion, they present themselves as conveyors of opinions that are rooted in sincere belief and in truth.

What happens in the news cannot always withstand the strictness that the empirical method of scientific analysis imposes on proving theories. With the empirical method, we test for one variable. The procedures of the experiment are adhered to. We must duplicate our results. Someone else, using the same procedure and using the same variable and constants (k) must produce the same results.

In politics, we formulate a theory then seek the facts that will substantiate our conclusions. We see this in the spirited debate about Libya, about the economy, about every issue.

For years people have criticised the UN Security Council because, as the old adage goes, "it takes ten people to say yes but only one person to say no."

We saw this with the resolution providing for the coalition formed to approve the Libyan operation. Generally what we saw was that this country doesn't like that, that country doesn't like this, and another country likes them both, but doesn't like something else.

Then, no sooner than the President finds consensus among the members of the Security Council than members of Congress, left and right, recapitulate the impediment. One Senator doesn't like this, one Senator doesn't like that, and a third Senator likes both but doesn't like something else.

Then, the process is further challenged by talk of impeachable offenses. This rhetoric only gives ammunition to those nations looking to stop any future military action that may be crucial to global peace and security. It will be too easy for one country to veto the call for a coalition action citing their not wanting to lead our President into committing an impeachable offense.

There is a reason our Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that declares the President to be the Commander-in-Chief and not the Chairman of the Committee.

Regards,

Slim

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

First North American Serial Rights.

Quill Pens and Powdered Wigs in Today's Classrooms

Students learn to read, write, add, subtract, multiply, and divide in grammar school.

Twitter's 140 characters are not the end. They are the means.

Thomas writes a draft of the Constitution, he uploads the doc. file to Slideshare: He clicks the T and it uploads to Twitter.

George sees the Tweet, clicks the link and the file appears. He wants to Share this with his Facebook friends around the colonies. He copy-pastes the twitter link to his Facebook page for his friends. His colonial rebellion group page on Facebook. A thumbnail comes up. This thumbnail is a miniature of the doc. file.

John sees this on the group page and clicks the thumbnail. He reads the draft. Under the comments page he adds his views on the matter.

Those who have a problem incorporating technology into the classroom should go back to quill pens, powdered wigs, and candle light. They have no business in the classroom.

Did I hear someone say Visit Williamsburg? I believe there is a website for that.

Regards,

Slim

P.S.

Again? Still! Sometimes when I eavesdrop on the conversations about social media and technology, I get the feeling that people are getting their information from my Grandfather. That would not be a problem if I were 8 yrs old, but I'm 58 years old.

A bit of History for the slow folks:

The world is flat. You'll fall off the edge.
It'll never get off the ground. If God wanted me to fly, he'd have given me wings.
"The motor car? Noisy, smelly, toy for the rich. It'll never replace the horse."
Talkin' Pitchers? People don't want all that chatter, they want to see real acting.

51% of Americans 12+ years old are on Facebook. Factor out the number 12-22 and find the number of adults. (Something for math class.)

Social Media is the Medium: Greater than the sum of its parts.
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/social-media...

The Virtual Classroom: Class Reunion Highlights.
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/thye-virtual...

And, of course, Edison invented the light bulb by candlelight.
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/edison-inven...

And for those concerned with Social Studies and Global Politics, Current Events and Economics:
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/01/egypt-and-ot...

Don't "Get Real". Get Virtual.

"At last: I have a Twitter account, a Facebook account, a Linkedin account, a SlideShare account and a Blog. Finally I feel like a virtual person. For a while, I didn't think I was going to make it." -- Slim Fairview

Regards,

Slim


(By the way, I've been on-line since the 20th century.)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to clap some erasers.

Slim

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview


mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Allergic to Peanuts or to Good Manners?

Allergic to peanuts or to good manners?

Hey Florida, et. al.

In my Beaver Cleaver childhood, we left our lunch outside in the cupboard. We washed our hands. These were neither politically correct nor politically incorrect. They were not compliance with the ADA. They were not political issues, social issues, legal issues, or hygiene issues: they were not issues at all. We simply left our lunches in the cupboard and washed our hands. How did normal behaviour become so controversial?

When new neighbors moved in, I asked the parents if their child had a peanut allergy. Why? Because after work, I would mix a martini, make half a peanut butter sandwich and go out into the back yard. If we met over the fence, I did not want my sandwich to be the cause of an allergic reaction.

Maybe we can resolve the dispute my falling back on that old canard: Good manners?

Regards,


Slim

mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Netopian Reality

"People who criticize social media, are using the past to understand the present. That will never help them to understand tomorrow." Slim Fairview

Social Media is the Medium: Greater than the sum of its parts.
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/social-media-is-medium-greater-than-sum.html

Still explaining the importance of social media to the naysayers.
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2011/03/still-explaining-importance-of-social.html

Regards,

Slim

Facebook
Twitter,
Blogspot
Linkedin
SlideShare

"I have a Twitter account, a Facebook account, a Linkedin account and a Blog. At last. Finally I feel like a virtual person. For a while, I didn't think I was going to make it." -- Slim Fairview


Copyright(c) 2011 Slim Fairview

email slimfairview@yahoo.com

Social Media is the Medium: Greater than the sum of their parts.

Social Media is the Medium: Greater than the sum of its parts.

How do you do it? Never mind. The real question is, “How will you be doing it?”

Some slow thinkers say, “Soon, tomorrow will be here.” The quick folk say, “Soon, tomorrow will be gone.”

Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Blogspot, and SlideShare.

What do they all have in common besides each other? They are greater than the sum of their parts.

Write something. Save the document. Post it on your blog, on Facebook, on Slideshare. Click the links to share what you’ve written. They go to your Twitter account with a link to click that will take readers to your monograph.

If you’ve posted a document on SlideShare, the link will not only appear on the wall of your Facebook page, but there will be an option for you to choose that will allow a “thumbnail” of the document to appear. If a visitor to your Facebook page clicks the graphic, up pops the document.

Links will automatically appear on the home page of Linkedin—but wait, there’s more:

That document has provisions for links. These links will send your reader to supporting documents—and that’s still not all.

The printed word is now a global event no longer limited to the familiar and ever popular website.

The printed word is now appearing on the internet.

Publications, which include but are not limited to The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Atlantic Monthly, The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, and others, are now on the internet.

Many of the articles invite commentary. It is there, that your brief thoughts can invite readers to view a more comprehensive expression of your opinions. Now, this is fine; however, there are business applications as well.

Websites like Linkedin offer the opportunity to create a global network of business colleagues.

Moreover, we’ve barely scratched the surface. Yesterday, I posted PowerPoint presentations on SlideShare. Yesterday, I should have been posting videos on YouTube.

These tools are the virtual offices in use. They are in use globally.

Virtual offices, virtual teams, virtual project management, presentations, lectures, speeches, meetings, all on your computer screen.

If you have a Mac, they are available to you in transit. If using a Mac is not an option, they are available to you on your iPad or your iPhone.

Meetings will not so much be detested by the members of your staff who have work to do, but more efficiently handled by logging on to a virtual meeting.

Documents, photos, contacts, and other information will be shared within seconds. No one will find it necessary (and cumbersome) to lug stuff to the conference room.

Costs will be cut significantly by having information available through links rather than through copies being handed out.

The business research formerly the domain of the business research department, is now a Google away.

Information can be reviewed, commented on, verified, questioned and affirmed, repudiated, or assigned for further review in moments.

Prep work for the meeting will take place in moments.

The tools that are available are not limited to home and office. Nor to your company, industry, or locale.

These tools will enable you to do business globally. I posted two PowerPoint presentations:

Global Management: A shift in the paradigm of corporate America

&

The Future of the G – 20 in Good Times and Bad.

Each can be viewed at http://slideshare.net/slimfairview

For additional information:

http://facebook.com

http://blogspot.com

http://linkedin.com

http://twitter.com

For more monographs on management and business administration, please visit my blog: http://slimviews.blogspot.com
 

PS.  I am not Paul Harvey.  However, I am open to becoming a paid commentator, columnist, or blogger.

If you’ve found anything I said to be helpful, please don’t hesitate to send me one of those tricked-out laptops and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.

Sincerest regards,

Slim

slimfairview@yahoo.com

PPS. I forgot to mention the email option: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Sarah Palin and Mad Men

Sarah Palin, draws a crowd, sells books, makes appearances, (Uh, attracts customers?) some people would say she does not have campaign advisers she has a well-oiled marketing team. Look past the politics, the platform, the ideology and study marketing technique. Without the snide remarks. As the old marketing adage advises: "Find a need and fill it."

If I were half as good, people would be booking me for advice, speeches, and book tours.

Still, I was not spellbound by Sarah Palin. I was more fascinated by the public response (pros and cons). Hillary Clinton was an easy out for those who did not want to embrace a female governor who hunts and fishes and does all the guy stuff and does it better than most guys. (Anyone hear the "oops!" when she became the running mate?) Trick question. I'm not talking about the male voters.

Hillary Clinton is tough and smart. I don't hear people raising the cliché comments about women being tough and smart. Another myth debunked? (!)

None-the-less, in a business site, on a business topic, Sarah Palin should be a marketing study. So, too, should Hillary Clinton. However, this is best left for the B-school kids and the MBA candidates. (Although I'd be surprised if Mad Men aren't already in the midst of the study. Albeit one with ponderous academic overtones to deflect the critics. Waffles go best with maple syrup.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview