funny things to do on a bike

"Eric S. Sande" wrote:

Don't read me wrong. Americans are disgusted by this prisoner abuse
and we aren't going to tolerate it. But at least we have the freedom
of the press to bring it to light and the character to condemn it and
hold those responsible, accountable.

And that includes Donald Rumsfeld, the generals involved, and the
local commanders. And the President. They are working for ME, I
cut them a check every week.

And that check has stop payment written all over it.

I agree that those who are responsible will be held accountable.

But to assume that means every time some private in the army does
something improper we need to eliminate his or her chain of command up
to and including the president is a little over the top, don't you
think? If we sign up for that program it'll be hard to know who the
president is on any given day. Heck, we'll probably get an
opportunity to hold the job for 15 minutes ourselves eventually.

The system will allow for those who 'perpetrated the attrocities" to
be punished - rightfully so. It'll also serve as an object lesson to
the Iraqis and to those in the region. In that regard, it's a good
thing.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

David Kerber wrote:
In article , says...
I've never heard of "smear the queer"...

Well, I have. It's basically a game played in an open field where
the objective is to tackle and remove the ball (usually a volley ball
or a soccer ball, but any ball will do) from whichever "queer" has it
at the time. The new ball possessor must then run with the ball until
such time as he is forcibly relieved of the ball (smeared).

We just called it "kill the man with the ball". Same description,
though.

About a month ago, my wife and I were having a conversation about games
we played as a child. "Smear the queer" came up, and after explaining
the rules, she looked at me and asked why the heck we would play it. I
mean it does seem daft, run-run-run-get-tackled-pummeled forcibly relieved
of your spheroid, and then start chasing after the daft person who took
it away from you. I couldn't quite explain the attraction to her.

It was fun though...

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
Thus spake the master programmer:
"Without the wind, the grass does not move. Without software,
hardware is useless."
-- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Mark Hickey writes:

I agree that those who are responsible will be held accountable.

This time the military is not looking for Lt. Cally, they are looking
for Pvt Guilty while the generals claim they saw nothing. Not only
did they see it, they instigated it.

But to assume that means every time some private in the army does
something improper we need to eliminate his or her chain of command
up to and including the president is a little over the top, don't
you think? If we sign up for that program it'll be hard to know who
the president is on any given day. Heck, we'll probably get an
opportunity to hold the job for 15 minutes ourselves eventually.

I see you don't understand management. Let me repeat. In this area
bicyclists were harassed by Sheriff deputies who wrote plenty of
tickets. One spot in particular was a T-intersection with a three way
stop. Straight through bicyclists passing on the non-intersecting
side of the street, when there was no traffic far and wide, would be
cited for failure to stop while equestrians could ride merrily through
on the same shoulder.

All this action ceased when we got a new sheriff and suddenly the
patrol cars became our friends. That is how effective management is
felt at the lowest echelons. The tone of prison guards is molded by
the instructions and attitudes of superiors, what they encourage and
what is rewarded. Managers who say they didn't know are either
incompetent or outright lying. Take your choice with Rummy.

The system will allow for those who 'perpetrated the attrocities" to
be punished - rightfully so. It'll also serve as an object lesson to
the Iraqis and to those in the region.

To whom?

In that regard, it's a good thing.

This seems to me a non-sequitur. Could you link that with what it is
that is good about this and what it is doing for Guantanamo prison?

Jobst Brandt

On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:54:10 GMT,
wrote:

Managers who say they didn't know are either
incompetent or outright lying. Take your choice with Rummy.

With multiple levels of command, it only takes one level that is
incompetent to disrupt your scenario. Otherwise there would be no
difference to report between units with similar missions across the
military.

Whatever her other responsibilties or guilt, there appears to be a
consensus of reports that the general in charge of the unit had lax
discipline, with the authority of command open to anyone that claimed
it at the ground - for that she needs to go.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell writes:

Managers who say they didn't know are either incompetent or
outright lying. Take your choice with Rummy.

With multiple levels of command, it only takes one level that is
incompetent to disrupt your scenario. Otherwise there would be no
difference to report between units with similar missions across the
military.

That is already a failure to perform. I've served in military units
that were well managed and in these there was accountability for
performance of the troops all the way up to the top. That is why we
have AGI inspections and ombudsmen who hear scuttlebutt. The
commander who has incompetence in the chain of command is responsible
to weed that out. That function is a major error of commercial
enterprises that fail. That is often called MBWA (management by
walking around) an essential part of knowing what's going on. The
manager who doesn't know what's going on at the action level is not
managing.

That excuse is like the car driver who runs down a bicyclist and is
excused when he claims "I didn't see him". Rummy says "I didn't know
about it." That ignorance is a court martial offense because not
knowing about it is as bad as initiating it.

Whatever her other responsibilties or guilt, there appears to be a
consensus of reports that the general in charge of the unit had lax
discipline, with the authority of command open to anyone that claimed
it at the ground - for that she needs to go.

I don't believe that for a minute. These orders came down from the
top and were reinforced by positive feedback for having "softened up
the prisoners". It's like Juliani telling his police force to rough
up street people to get rid of them. That was illegal as well.

The same goes for out former sheriff who told his foot soldiers to get
tough with those law braking bicyclists. You got the impression that
the sheriff deputies had a personal grudge against bicyclists. Of
course their subsequent courtesy after change of Sheriff was equally
fro the top down.

It is na?ve to think that these atrocities were generated at the
lowest levels.

Jobst Brandt

wrote:

Mark Hickey writes:

I agree that those who are responsible will be held accountable.

This time the military is not looking for Lt. Cally, they are looking
for Pvt Guilty while the generals claim they saw nothing. Not only
did they see it, they instigated it.

.... and you know that how, exactly (other than possibly the one female
reservist general who was supposed to be in charge)? I thought one of
the principles of justice we're trying to protect here was the
"innocent until proven guilty thing".

But to assume that means every time some private in the army does
something improper we need to eliminate his or her chain of command
up to and including the president is a little over the top, don't
you think? If we sign up for that program it'll be hard to know who
the president is on any given day. Heck, we'll probably get an
opportunity to hold the job for 15 minutes ourselves eventually.

I see you don't understand management. Let me repeat. In this area
bicyclists were harassed by Sheriff deputies who wrote plenty of
tickets. One spot in particular was a T-intersection with a three way
stop. Straight through bicyclists passing on the non-intersecting
side of the street, when there was no traffic far and wide, would be
cited for failure to stop while equestrians could ride merrily through
on the same shoulder.

I guess I don't understand management if you describe it that way.

All this action ceased when we got a new sheriff and suddenly the
patrol cars became our friends. That is how effective management is
felt at the lowest echelons. The tone of prison guards is molded by
the instructions and attitudes of superiors, what they encourage and
what is rewarded. Managers who say they didn't know are either
incompetent or outright lying. Take your choice with Rummy.

So your mimimum standard of performance for the Secretary of Defense
is that he knows precisely what every one of the hundreds of thousands
of his soldiers are doing all the time. He's gonna be a very busy
guy. Do you suspect the CEO of HP knows what every one of his (or is
it her?) employees is doing this week? It wouldn't be any more
difficult (probably considerably less). If you "understand
management" you'll know the answer to my question.

The system will allow for those who 'perpetrated the attrocities" to
be punished - rightfully so. It'll also serve as an object lesson to
the Iraqis and to those in the region.

To whom?

I'll type slower... "to the Iraqis and those in the region". They're
not used to accountability.

In that regard, it's a good thing.

This seems to me a non-sequitur. Could you link that with what it is
that is good about this and what it is doing for Guantanamo prison?

Sure. They'll see that we really DO take justice seriously when the
folks who were responsible get punished. That's not the way it's
worked for 30 years in Iraq.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Sure. They'll see that we really DO take justice seriously when the
folks who were responsible get punished. That's not the way it's
worked for 30 years in Iraq.

Nah, man, they'll just behead a few more Americans on television.

IMHO, the Abu Ghraib fiasco has basically put the last nail in the
coffin as far as the credibility of the US is concerned with regard
to the war in Iraq. It's not My Lai but it doesn't have to be My
Lai, all it has to be is a major mistake.

If you think there's any chance of establishing a democracy of any
stripe in Iraq now that we've lost any hope of the moral high ground,
well, I think that's unrealistic.

We (Americans) don't have to convince Arabs that we are strong and
essentially brutal when it comes to war, that's a given. And our
enemies, our real enemies, respect that.

But our public relations suck. And our enemies are going to exploit
that all the way to the American living room, and the Congress, just
as has been done in the past.

We as a nation have never liked a shadow war, we like it clear cut
and obvious. But I suggest that our enemies know that, there aren't
any stupid planners in Al Qaeda.

But they are a deadly enemy that must be confronted, we have not
necessarily chosen our ground well but we are attracting the enemy
to us on that ground and we are killing them. And, as is a maxim
of war, we are doing the official killing overseas.

I wish I could find a way to make this on topic. Or make this into
a bicycle metaphor.

Well, maybe I can. We're adjusting the derailleur when the immediate
problem was a flat, but the derailleur needed adjusting.

But we can't ride until we fix the flat.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:34:39 GMT,
wrote:

That excuse is like the car driver who runs down a bicyclist and is
excused when he claims "I didn't see him". Rummy says "I didn't know
about it." That ignorance is a court martial offense because not
knowing about it is as bad as initiating it.

Nonsense. Whatever the final outcome, the issue was exposed and is
being dealt with. Resolving failures of command are not instantaneous.
Never have been if you are talking top to bottom.

And the idea that the military sees not knowing about it as bad as
knowing about it and failing to control/correct/command is also
nonsense. Depends on the circumstance and why the information was not
conveyed upwards - or downwards. This isn't specualtion - the history
of the U.S.military is rife with courts martials and reviews based on
exactly that issue - including some of the most famous historical
military 'issues' from the revolutionary war on.

I don't believe that for a minute. These orders came down from the
top and were reinforced by positive feedback for having "softened up
the prisoners". It's like Juliani telling his police force to rough
up street people to get rid of them. That was illegal as well.

The issue is probably not whether or not there were a series of orders
that resulted in the mistreatment, but whether or not the final
application of the original mandate exceeeded at the ground what was
permissable or expected. That is an issue that occurs everyday in a
warzone and it cuts both ways. You have a marine commander relieved
because he chose to interpret his orders to put his men at less risk:
you have other people that choose to take a general order too far.

Prediction: This year they will rellieve some brigadiers, correctly,
for failing to exercise control in two chains of command. Next year
they will relieve a couple more in the reserve command for failure to
properly train and prepare the troops. And ten to twenty lower ranked
troops will be discharged at various less than honorable disharges.
Maybe three or four will do stockade time.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote in message . ..

Prediction: This year they will rellieve some brigadiers, correctly,
for failing to exercise control in two chains of command. Next year
they will relieve a couple more in the reserve command for failure to
properly train and prepare the troops. And ten to twenty lower ranked
troops will be discharged at various less than honorable disharges.
Maybe three or four will do stockade time.

That seems a little harsh. After all, Rumsfeld has already "accepted
responsibility" and Bush Himself apologized to the King of Jordan. If
that isn't a shining example of American justice for the rest of the
world to emulate, I don't know what is. Dick Cheney says "Don
Rumsfeld is the best secretary of defense the United States has ever
had. . . . People should get off his case and let him do his job."
All you people parsing the words 'torture', 'orders' and 'ignorance'
should just shut up and trust him.
Dietrich

Mon, 10 May 2004 23:39:57 -0700, ,
(Tom Keats) wrote, in part:

But, and I think Zoot is right in this, America is unique in talking
out of one side of its mouth and perpetrating atrocities on the
other hand, if that isn't a mixed metaphor.

I don't think America is so unique in that regard.

Me either, but it is the nation that's been most adept at capitalizing
on its atrocities.
--
zk