"Doug Kanter" wrote:

Good theory. But, the CEO has to be ready to behead an underling when
necessary, and with little or no warning.


That fits your liberal definition of how business works. But rarely is it
that easy, or tightly defined. In business, we tend to try to give people
at least as much elbow room as you libs want to give *convicted* criminals.

Otherwise, you'd be out of a job in no time flat.

Jack

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Rethink" means you head to the web? That's not thinking.


Ohhh come on Doug! A little research at a US Gov't web site, presenting a
few facts and coming to a conclusion isn't thinking? My head felt all
tingly
so I must have been thinking. No, I'm not drinking beer.

Doug, Let me try again and I'll try to keep it simple.

1) You asked if I would rethink my statement that only a small fraction of
incarcerated felons were in the Federal system. I said "certainly."

No, that's not what I asked. I asked you to rethink your comment about one
president or another being connected with incarceration rates. Your theory
is way too simple. Crime rates and subsequent results are the result of a
system, not a particular politician, although politicians will get in front
of microphones and choke their chickens all day long about how they're going
to fix things that their predecessors broke.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
om...

"Doug Kanter" wrote:

Good theory. But, the CEO has to be ready to behead an underling when
necessary, and with little or no warning.


That fits your liberal definition of how business works. But rarely is it
that easy, or tightly defined. In business, we tend to try to give people
at least as much elbow room as you libs want to give *convicted*
criminals.

Otherwise, you'd be out of a job in no time flat.

Jack



The theory of "the buck stops here" is convenient, until it isn't. :-) Your
boy likes to dress up and play house and act like a big cheese, but that's
not leadership. Leadership would consist of few, if any verbal comments from
the White House about an issue like the prison scandal. The comments would
consist of people suddenly out of work.

"Zing" wrote in message
...

Stupid is as stupid does. Afghanistan is successful thus far. The economy
is
coming back.

What??? Where did you hear that? And, in your own words, please describe
"the economy" of Afghanistan with a little bit of detail.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:12:35 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"Zing" wrote in message
...

Stupid is as stupid does. Afghanistan is successful thus far. The
economy
is
coming back.

What??? Where did you hear that? And, in your own words, please describe
"the economy" of Afghanistan with a little bit of detail.

Well, the opium crop is doing quite well. I check the following link
periodically, and the situation has seemed to settle a little, but it is
still *far* from a success.

http://afghanistannews.net/

A little tidbit on the continuing prisoner abuse scandal:

http://paktribune.com/news/index.php...7 3ca79393cc9

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 19 May 2004 13:12:35 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:

"Zing" wrote in message
...

Stupid is as stupid does. Afghanistan is successful thus far. The
economy
is
coming back.

What??? Where did you hear that? And, in your own words, please describe
"the economy" of Afghanistan with a little bit of detail.

Well, the opium crop is doing quite well. I check the following link
periodically, and the situation has seemed to settle a little, but it is
still *far* from a success.

http://afghanistannews.net/

I was wondering if zing could say with a straight face that the economy's
doing well, when it's based on a drug which our gov't would stamp out
completely if it could.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"thunder" wrote in message
news
I was wondering if zing could say with a straight face that the economy's
doing well, when it's based on a drug which our gov't would stamp out
completely if it could.

Doug:

I was referring to the US economy in that post. Sorry for the confusion.

My point was Afghanistan is doing OK. The enemy is on the run, there is
relative peace (compared to the last 2 decades), some infrastructure is
being rebuilt, prospect for fair elections, though delayed are still real.
The general population seems to accept the Western security presence. Sure,
the list of problems are huge, including the opium crop, but it's
comparative progress IMO.

Kind regards - Zing

"Zing" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"thunder" wrote in message
news
I was wondering if zing could say with a straight face that the
economy's
doing well, when it's based on a drug which our gov't would stamp out
completely if it could.

Doug:

I was referring to the US economy in that post. Sorry for the confusion.

My point was Afghanistan is doing OK. The enemy is on the run, there is
relative peace (compared to the last 2 decades), some infrastructure is
being rebuilt, prospect for fair elections, though delayed are still real.
The general population seems to accept the Western security presence.
Sure,
the list of problems are huge, including the opium crop, but it's
comparative progress IMO.

Kind regards - Zing



The opium crop represents 65% to 80% of their GNP. They have almost nothing
else. If you consider that to be a healthy country, you'd probably be happy
living on an ice floe.