Diary of the Mad Pigeon

Here's two people I won't be hiring

"I'm sorry young lady, young sir, you just don't have the qualifications I'm looking for."

-

A Typical Day in the Office at my Last Base

MOGS is the one with the Purple hair.  ;-)

Umm, it's not illegal to fire someone for their political views.

Put aside the real/not real aspect of the "fire all the Obama stickers" story.

This is the Federal Equal Opportunity Law

Let's move out of speculation and into some actual legal review here.

I don't see a thing in there about political membership being a protected status.  Granted, this is the federal law, so state and local statutes may be more restrictive, but I'd LOVE to see someone argue the Constitutionality of them...

The exception being of course, trying to work for the National Security aspect of the government of the United States while actively holding, expressing, or participating in political activities dedicated to its overthrow....this is an easy one, and everyone should pretty much know what these consist of, so I won't insult anyone's intelligence.

As far as "ethics" versus "legalities" goes...

One case via Planck's Constant

Now MOGS:

 - The way I see it, I think an employee, being the owner of a private, profit-driven enterprise has every right to take action within the law (such as above) to hire, fire, manage his workforce as necessary to maintain his business - that IS the ethical thing to do.  Now whether it's smart hire or fire someone based on their political views is up for debate.  If I had an employee who was my most productive, least problematic worker, but I couldn't stand his political views, I'd be willing to let bygones be bygones.  If the guy were a complete loser, but he shared my views, it would still be stupid to keep him around wouldn't it?  If the guy were useless, and held views that were opposite of mine too, well, it just got even easier to get rid of him.

- Employers are responsible to build and maintain teams in their business.  Holding the same political views is no guarantee or precursor to effective team work, in fact, your best support might come from someone who's your polar opposite.

Might.

- What are the odds though, and business decisions are based on a calculation, mathematic, rough, or WAG, of odds, of risk versus pay-off.

- The best solution, I think, is a pretty standard one, and it's two parts:  1) noneya (damn business) and 2) don't start nothin' won't be nothin'

   - BUT I think people are basically incapable of holding themselves to this, whether it's about religion, politics, the battle of the sexes, or the best sports rivalries.  That being said....

- If YOU had a choice between hiring someone, productive as hell and brilliant, effective leader and performer, BUT - they made their politics an issue at the work place and you could.  not.  personally.  stand.  them.  AND you had the option between this whizkid you hated and someone who was "good enough" but on your own wavelength, be honest...WHO would you take?  And like I said, be HONEST.  The path of least resistance would likely win out for most business leaders, let's face facts here.  

It might be questionably unethical, to not hire someone or fire someone purely for their political beliefs, but it is NOT inherently unethical. It might make for good business sense, probably would, and for that matter, it might make bad business sense.

But if I had an employee whose values and ethics I thought were incompatible with the company's values and future plans, what sort of ethics in what philosophical system outside of "I want my cake and eat it too" mandates I hold on to him or her?  

Just think about it.  That's all I'm asking.

Small Business Layoffs

A reader submits:

"Fellow Small Business Owners:

As the CFO of this business that employs 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these higher costs, I figure that our clients would have to see an increase of roughly 8% passed on to them, but since we cannot increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of our economy, ourdecision was to lay off eight of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go.

So, this is what I did. I strolled thru our parking lot and found eight Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.

If you have a better idea, please let me know."

The only thing cooler than zombies...

Pirates. Lots of them.

The rise in piracy on the high seas is troubling for several reasons. All that globalization stuff we like to talk about? It's fueled by advances in shipping (particularly the containerized kind), not to mention the colossal common good of freedom of the seas--provided by strong navies. Ours, for the record, is in decline. Due to ships getting bigger, crews getting smaller, and those pesky Americans in naval uniform becoming fewer and farther between on the sea lanes (sorry, Thai katoys), piracy is taking off in a serious way. The marginal risk is down due to ineffectual defenses by smaller crews, the marginal benefit of jacking ships is up from increased shipping volume and bigger ships, and these guys are getting outright brazen. The Royal Navy, in its much diminished form, just lit up a pirate vessel in its first hostile boarding since the Second World War.

Hey, as it turns out, you can fight terrorism with a multi-billion-dollar warship. Pirates just go for more of an economic result in terms of effecting socio-economic change through non-state violence.

The laws aren't nebulous, either. What is so "cool" about pirates is that you can kill them on sight--piracy on the high seas is one of the original crimes against humanity. It's interesting that terrorists at sea can be shot outright, but terrorists on land have all sorts of baggage attached. Perhaps it's because the threat to livelihood posed by piracy was recognized as such centuries ago, and it was generally agreed that such behavior was so far beyond the pale, it was just a good idea to shoot the people responsible. A big part of why we don't have such reasoning today is probably because of the rampant prosperity provided in part by the suppression of piracy in the first place. Fat, dumb, and happy people are the only ones with the excess time and energy to even be able to complain about waterboarding and renditions.

The solution? Violence. If it comes from navies, merchant crews defending themselves, or even the likes of Blackwater's shiny new maritime units, problems frequently get solved by putting hot metal through warm meat. After this most recent action, we might just see more restoration of a common good.

Go Navy. Beat the pirates.

Obama's Fact Sheet on Defense

If Obama's going to be my new Commander in Chief, I probably should get smart on our new strategic outlook:

Download Obama_Fact_Sheet_Defense.pdf

Of course, the fact sheet doesn't read as much like a "strategic outlook" as it does "campaign ad copy," but it's a start.

Thoughts?

Race Rears it's Ugly Head

Jesse Washington, AP:  Cross burnings. Schoolchildren chanting “Assassinate Obama.” Black figures hung from nooses. Racial epithets scrawled on homes and cars.

There have been “hundreds” of incidents since the election, many more than usual, said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes.

One was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: “I hope Obama gets assassinated.” That night, someone trashed

her sister-in-law's front lawn, mangled the Obama lawn signs, and left two boxes filled with feces outside the front door, Millner said.

She described her emotions as a combination of anger and fear.  “I can't say that every white person in Snellville is evil and anti-Obama and willing to desecrate my property because one or two idiots did it,” said Millner, who is black. “But it definitely makes you look a little different at the people who you live with.”

Potok, who is white, said he believes there is “a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them.”

Grant Griffin, a 46-year-old white Georgia native, expressed similar sentiments: “I believe our nation is ruined and has been for several decades, and the election of Obama is merely the culmination of the change.  “If you had real change, it would involve all the members of (Obama's) church being deported,” he said.   CONTINUED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I went to college in North Carolina--UNC-Greensboro, to be exact.  I haven't been back since graduating in 1994, but from what I remember Greensboro was an up-and-coming multicultural town.

But then I was invited to visit a dorm buddy's home town.

I'll spare the name to protect the innocent, but as of 1991 it was a quintessential southern hog farming town.  Indeed, you could smell the town 5 miles away.

I'm a history junkie, and my friend's town was full of good ol' fashioned southern culture:  fried foods, clapboard churches, and skinny overalled grandpas whose accents were so thick it was hard to tell it was English.  We even explored an old abandoned house on property his family owned and found newspapers dating back to 1943.  Even his church was cool, with stained glass windows dedicated to folks departed 70 years or more.  His town had both feet firmly planted in the 19th and 20th centuries, and I kind of appreciated that.

Until locals found out I was a "Northern boy." 

Me, a pink boy ever facing racism?  Can't say that I have... but it sure felt funny to have local old timers turn their backs and refuse to speak to  simply "'cause I was a Yankee."  I'm originally from Maryland, for Pete's sake! 

But close enough to the Mason Dixon line for their comfort, apparently.

My friend said they'd warm up to me if I hung around for a month, but alas a return trip was not to be.  It's been 17 years since I visited the town, and I'm still curious if the Civil War is being fought on the hog farms of southwestern North Carolina.

Having been all over the United States, I can verify racism is both a thing of the past in some areas and a looming shadow in others.

And I'll freely admit it:  growing up in Prince George's county Maryland, I fully remember the early 80's rap culture, crack cocaine, a couple of gang-on-gang fights in my high school, and Washington D.C.'s alarming murder rate.  To this day, I don't fully trust anyone "pimped out" in hip hop regalia regardless of race, because I associate such accouterments with violence.  So does that make me a racist?

I also had an older neighbor who hated--HATED--African Americans (and he didn't use those words to describe them), all because he was robbed three times in his lifetime:  by African Americans.  To his grave he was never able to shake the hatred, which I would say was born of fear.

Ah, fear... one of the greatest underlying cause of conflict in the history of mankind.  Sadly, despite Obama's achievements he remains a bugbear come to life for those who fear pigment.

I remain hopeful that this election breaks barriers--rather than strengthening them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Faultline USA, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Rosemary's News and Ideas, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

The Pigeon visits the Bargain Book Bin

It all started Sunday morning, when I looked myself in the mirror and said, "repeat after me:  I will not buy any books today."

Sigh.

What can I say?  I have a weakness for books, especially cheap ones.  And it just so happened the local Barnes and Noble (the one in walking distance, no less) added some fresh titles to their bargain bin.

My blessing and curse is I'm a jack of all trades when it comes to reading; just in the last month I've read books on medieval history, woodcarving, pastel art, international relations theory, and a fantasy text.  My "to read" list includes texts on the Reformation, Vietnam air mobile tactics, an artist perspective guide, and a Bill Mauldin biography.

So why is it a curse? 

1.  Only so much time in a day.  With everything I have going on (AF projects, grad school applications, military education classes, etc...) I can only read so much at once.  Thus the books pile up faster than my available reading time (although I do like looking at stacks of unread knowledge).

2.  Only so many George Washingtons:  After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I had to pass on an beautifully illustrated Tao Te Ching and full price copies of Arendt's The Human Condition and The Basic Writings of Nietzsche.  All I can say is, "thank God for Amazon's used book sellers."

3.  Ultimately I think I'm an inefficient trivia machine (just ask MOGS what I'm like at work when I have no supervisory guidance).  It both amazes and drives the Hummingbird crazy how I read the paper cover to cover every morning yet can't remember a thing I read unless she asks a specific question.  That, or I'll remember and blurt out some obscure detail--5 years from now (I'm constantly saying, "I read it somewhere...").  So yes, I'm well-read; but generalization without application is sometimes a time sink on my part.

What I'd do to have a USB hub in my head, but that would take away the pleasure of reading.  Indeed, when asked what I'd want as a superpower if I were a comic book hero, I always reply, "the combined knowledge of every human who has ever existed." 

But knowing my luck, I wouldn't effectively apply any of it.

Anyways, here's what I and my good friend Mr. Wallet picked up the other day:

Encyclopedia of World Religions (originally $50 for only $20--what a steal).

The Illustrated History of Weaponry

Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Medieval Warrior

The Complete Book of Drawing Skills (as an aside, I'm thinking of auditing a fine arts course next semester)

A handful of artist's magazines

I now regret not picking up the Tao Te Ching, though...

From Sam: Armistice Day Redux

And I like Schlock Mercenary as well :)

From Tresler

Amen.

Today I made a point of listening to one of Johnny Cash's lesser known songs, called Veteran's Day. If you are unfamiliar, it is worth a listen.

Howard Tayler had some nice words regarding this as well today. http://www.schlockmercenary.com/blog/index.php/2008/11/11/november-11th-you-amaze-me/

As for me, well, we may not always see eye-to-eye, but don't ever forget how much I appreciate and need your service. Thank you, Pidge, AntiTool, Mogs, and everyone else both currently serving and veterans.

Thanks Sam.

:)

the-not-always-angry-MOGS

Free speech. Like it?

Thank a veteran.

Chairman cites history in Veterans Day message 

11/10/2008 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has issued a Veterans Day message to those who now serve or have served in the armed forces. 

Here is the text of the chairman's message: 

"When Armistice was declared on Nov. 11, 1918, effectively ending World War I, over sixty-five million individuals had been mobilized for the "Great War" that resulted in almost nine million deaths and over twenty-one million wounded. In just a year and a half of operations, 126,000 Americans lost their lives on the muddy landscapes of Europe and in the icy depths of the North Atlantic. Such loss of life and limb is hard to fathom today. 

"History has debunked the notion of a 'War to End All Wars.' And history has also proven that peace does not preserve itself. It requires millions of dedicated men and women, like you and your families, all working in unison toward what one memorial hails as 'high idealism, courageous sacrifice and gallant achievement.' 

"Today, a new generation of veterans carries this torch. Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have forged the most combat-hardened force in our nation's history. Yet, no war is without its casualties. Whether seen or unseen, the wounds of war last a lifetime, and so should our care. 

"Our wounded veterans and their families deserve only the best medical care our nation can provide, care on par with the service and sacrifice these patriots have rendered. From the battlefield to regional hospitals, and rehabilitation centers to reintegration programs, our wounded, ill and injured servicemembers and their families merit a continuum of care that lasts a lifetime. 

"To all our veterans, past and present, and your families, the Joint Chiefs and I salute you and thank you for your service and your sacrifice. As we remember those who have gone before us, may we honor their service through ours. 


M.G. MULLEN 
Admiral, U.S. Navy 

Changing the Constitution?

Carly writes:  If the Constitution were scrapped or substantially "edited"---such that one of the most basic principles---one of the principles on which the nation was founded---was erased, would your oath to defend it still stand? [More questions at the end of this email]

Audio of Obama advocating redistribution of wealth as a means of "social justice", calling for "redistributive justice" in the context of the Civil Rights Movement; criticizing the constraints the Constitution puts on government effecting such "justice" and saying flat out that the Founding Fathers were wrong--that he knows better--and that it's up to the legislature/President to make "change"

Audio here  (in case you haven't heard it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Transcript of Obama's remarks (From Stop the ACLU via Ace of Spades):

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

And AoS translation of those remarks:

1. The Supreme Court never considered "redistribution of wealth" or "economic justice" among the guarantees provided to citizens.

2. Even the Warren Court was not "radical" enough to do so -- to impose real change on the nation.

3. The courts have generally provided negative constraints on the government rather than positive obligations the government owes to its citizens (specifically, here, such as economic justice and redistribution of wealth).

4. Therefore, it is a "tragedy" that the civil rights movement became so courts-focused, because it limited what redress they could actually obtain -- and it took attention away from the "community organizing" efforts which could assemble "coalitions of power" (political power, that is) to actually achieve "redistributive change." Such change simply could not be had in the courts, still laboring under the "constraints" imposed by the Founding Fathers.

5. "And in some ways we still suffer from that."
He is saying that the courts were the wrong venue to seek such change, not being "radical" enough, and that "community organizing" and assembling "coalitions of power" were the right ways to do so.  And so he's done so himself, of course. The courts were not the right vehicle for "redistributive change," but getting himself elected president, with a socialist-friendly supermajority of Democrats in Congress to rubber stamp his agenda, is the right vehicle.  The "coalitions of power" are being assembled as we speak.

Any doubt that Obama thinks the Constitution is WRONG should be dispelled by this audio in which he talks about the terrible flaw in the document: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

So here are my questions:

~Does Obama intend to FIX what's "wrong" with our founding document "when" he's POTUS?

~Would the (overwhelmingly Democrat) Congress/Senate go along with this "change"?

~Would members of the US military (you) accept this and continue to defend the updated version of the Constitution?

~ Pidge, are you still planning to vote 3rd party in Colorado (rather than AGAINST Obama, which is what a vote for McCain is)  where this anti-American stealth Marxist candidate could win the electoral votes of the state?

~Is there any reason you dudes can think of that I should NOT be scared about the future of this country if Obama wins?

OK, thanks for any/all responses :)

HOW THE PIGEON RESPONDED:

~Does Obama intend to FIX what's "wrong" with our founding document "when" he's POTUS? [AND] Would the (overwhelmingly Democrat) Congress/Senate go along with this "change"?

He could try, and perhaps congress would go along with it.  But I agree with The Economist, who said just because the Dems have control doesn't mean they can or should attempt to make extreme changes in policy; they'd be as likely to piss off the electorate as the current crop of Republicans.  

When it comes to the Constitution, they'd also have to convince the states changes are a good idea, and I don't think a majority state view exists on highly polarized issues. How Prohibition ever made it, I'll never know...

~Would members of the US military (you) accept this and continue to defend the updated version of the Constitution? 

If the Constitution were substantially altered, I would consider resigning.  I swore to a venerable document, ESPCIALLY the Bill of Rights, not a sheet of notebook paper that can be erased and rewritten at will. Of course, I still can't get over Prop 8:  how can any American look themselves in the mirror after voting to take rights away from a minority group?

~ Pidge, are you still planning to vote 3rd party in Colorado (rather than AGAINST Obama, which is what a vote for McCain is)  where this anti-American stealth Marxist candidate could win the electoral votes of the state?

I flat out didn't vote.  Personally I didn't like any of the candidates.  Technically, I changed my state of residency from PA to FL and never got around the registering. 

~Is there any reason you dudes can think of that I should NOT be scared about the future of this country if Obama wins?

America's a big place with many ideas, which thwarts the threat of "faction" which Madison worried over in the Federalist Papers (i.e. a polarized group with enough support to basically seize power).   We've made it this far--I think we'll all be fine. 

Take That!

Unity is stupid

What I mean by that, is that in the ramp-up to this election and in the aftermath, we're hearing a lot of calls for "we need to be united," "we need to stand together," "we must unify" etc, and what it sounds to me instead is like "you must abandon your orinciples and accept my side as right, period, else you are a (INSERT POPULAR EPITHET THAT USUALLY ENDS IN "IST" HERE) or what have you.

That's a load of crap.  The fact is no, we don't.  "Unity" in this creepy, Borg-like, wussy punk runk/ska sentimentalist way (I HATE "unity" songs, take that Op Ivy) does NOT guarantee good government, peace, consensus, or cooperation.  I say this because I believe 1) never underestimate the stupidity of large crowds who all enthusiastically believe the same thing - the way the stupidity seems to grow exponentially, as bad ideas somehow transform and become acceptable is mind boggling, 2) very related - none of us are as dumb as all of us, and 3) there is ZERO moral imperative.

We have absolutely forgotten the concept of "the loyal opposition."  Hasn't anyone EVER seen the Old "Question Time" clips with Lady Thatcher?  For god's sake, we DON'T have to all believe the same damn thing wholeheartedly in order to work together!  Ideological purity is NOT a prerequisite for the functioning of government, and when, and HOW the hell did we LOSE this sense of ourselves?  Adversarial government and competing interests is usually how this government WORKS BEST.  "Unity" from what I've seen tends to compound stupidity.

"Ain't nothin' wrong with another unity song" my ass.

Poseurs.

Oh well, I know who I'm voting for in 2012:

Culled from the Comics Pages

By Chuck Asay:

Defense Imperatives of the United States

Find a comfy chair and a good cup of coffee:

Download defense_imperatives.pdf

-