Well, it’s that time of year that a friend of mine calls “The Silly Season.” All the pressures of work move to the sidelines and people are friendlier. Well…I decided to join in your festivities by providing a video of Christmas Carols…featuring Snowball, the dancing Cockatoo…Enjoy and HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

There are simply no words to describe how excited I am about this new album .. click this link for the new video .. wow!

http://www.noisecreep.com/2009/12/22/living-sacrifice-rules-of-engagement-video-premiere/

The new year is approaching. It’s a new decade. How was your last decade? How do you feel about your prospects during the next year and next decade?

This is the time of year to start looking at your past and make promises to improve yourself.

This is the time of year to ask for or purchase presents for yourself. Is anything that will help you improve your options on the list?

Let me make a recommendation. Beginning NOW (no need to wait for the calendar to flip to the new year), order the following books:

• Yes!Attitude by Jeffrey Gitomer
• Tribes by Seth Godin

Sign up for the following FREE ezines:

• Sales Caffine by Jeffrey Gitomer
• SBDiTips by Pat Ferdinandi

Set up your RSS feeds (replace the news ones…they aren’t helping you achieve greatness) with these blog feeds:

• Seth Godin
• CopyBlogger

Follow Tweets of those that Don’t Abuse Your Time by providing real thoughts and suggested actions. I set up a list of proven architects. I also have a page that lists the latest 20 tips from people that inspire me to be better. I have a twitter list of Architects with impact. What are you doing to keep in the loop?

Hey, you can start to improve any time. All it takes is commitment.

This is an excellent follow-up to my earlier post: “How the U.S. Government is Killing American Troop.”

“The front page article, “Foreign Legion Takes On New War?,” illuminates a serious and deadly problem in the Afghan war, that of the Rules of Engagement.

They spell out in near fairyland detail just what circumstances will allow our warriors to actually defend themselves and respond aggressively to threats.

Two recent actions in Helmand Province illustrate the deadly consequences these Rules of Engagement are having upon our troops.

In one action, a Marine combat patrol enters an Afghan village and is informed by villagers that Taliban are in an orchard on the outskirts of the village. This is a classic time for employing supporting arms, conducting a “reconnaissance by fire” to locate and fix the enemy.

But no, the current Rules of Engagement would not allow this most logical course of action. After all, there just might be some civilians in the affected area who just might suffer collateral damage — unintended casualties.

The patrol continued on foot to check out the orchard, and the point man was killed. With sensible Rules of Engagement, this death could have been prevented.

I do not propose or support wanton firing upon citizens. My Lai in Vietnam was an atrocity. Any serious student of war knows that at times there are unwanted collateral casualties.

We must give our troops the power to defend themselves. Those on the scene can best judge the appropriate course of action.

Our senior military and civilian leadership needs to revisit Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and Jomini to refresh their understanding of the principles of war.

Memoirs of our own generals from the Revolutionary War to World War II can provide examples of practical application of those principles.

I stop with World War II because that is the last time we cared enough to actually win a war.

You do not win a war fighting on the other fellow’s terms. You win by fighting on your own terms (check out William Tecumseh Sherman and Stonewall Jackson).

The Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan are more appropriate to a court of law than a field of battle.

They constitute a “paper fence,” protecting the rear ends and careers of senior leadership.

Those who inflict such restrictions upon our gallant warriors do not deserve the honor of leading them.

If we refuse to give our warriors the means of self-protection, then we have arrived at the time to bring them all home. We don’t deserve their sacrifice.

JAMES VANAIRSDALE,

Lt. Col., USMC, retired,

Hi Pat:
One of my users, who are not the project sponsor, wants a weekly update on the project’s progress. The time it takes to update the user takes time away from making any progress. Some weeks, we don’t have a lot of progress to report yet he still expects a report. How do I explain this problem to him?
Signed, Richard

Hi Richard,
If he’s part of the team that supplied requirements, he has a right to know where he stands as far as progress or the priority of his requirements among others. Weekly updates are not unheard of. You can issue a weekly update with the same “in-progress” message along with the same expected completion date. If you do not have an expected completion date for the high-level task, start adding it. They will see that they will not get any new news until you are close to that date. A standard template will save you time. The current trend is using a color stop-light to indicate if:

• the high-level task is on time (green)
• there are concerns that may cause delay (yellow),
• the task will not be completed on time (red).

Keep in mind that most business people don’t care about WHY the project is delayed or what caused the slippage. Business wants to plan around your delivery. Instead, tell them:

1. the new date,
2. what you need from them to meet that date, and
3. how you are going to ensure the new date is met.

Cheers, Pat

Sign up and receive valuable tips sent directly to your email biweekly.

Here are some excerpts from a couple articles concerning how our soldiers are being killed because of ‘rules’ and restrictions imposed on them in combat. Families want to know why President Barack Obama, McChrystal, Mullen, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Commandant Gen. James Jones, Obama’s national security adviser, send our troops into combat and won’t allow them to protect themselves:

Reported in the Military Times:

“The rules of engagement are so convoluted, so open-ended, that it puts the people on the ground at risk no matter what they do,” said Bernard, who retired from the Corps in 2003. “It’s insane. You don’t let your guys languish there when these things happen. You err on the side of your guys, not the civilians.”

Army, Marine and Afghan National Army troops experienced the effect of McChrystal’s tighter rules directly Sept. 8, when their small outpost in Ganjgal, in Kunar province near the Pakistan border, was blindsided by insurgents.

Three Marines and a corpsman died that day, and a soldier, 41-year-old Sgt. 1st Class Kenneth Westbrook, who was shot through the mouth and neck, died Oct. 7 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. An embedded reporter with McClatchy News Service, Jonathan Landay, reported that “U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.”

While waiting literally for months for Mr. Obama to make up his mind how to get more of our troops killed a
First Lt. Johnson sent an e-mail to his twin brother Danny not long before he died, according to their father, expressing frustration that on election day his Marines were not allowed to open fire on possible insurgents unless they had “proof positive” the Afghans had ill intent.

“For [Obama] to say he needs to wait because he doesn’t know which government he’s going to be working with is complete bull— because we need a plan that can working regardless of which corrupt government goes in there,” Johnson’s dad said. “I think the president needs to act like a commander-in-chief instead of manager-in-chief and make up his damn mind. Putting this thing off like a management decision is not sitting well with me at all.”

The World Net Daily reports:

The actual ROEs are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier accounts, those restrictions include the following:

No night or surprise searches

Only women can search women

Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.
Often, rules of engagement require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken. In one case, villagers had tipped off U.S. forces of the presence of a Taliban commander who was threatening village elders.

To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces’ approval to the plan. The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act.

Click on the link below for more:

Families+outraged+over+engagement+restrictions.

Defined in Seth Godin’s book, Tribes: We Need You To Lead Us, he defines

“A fundamentalist is a person who considers whether a fact is acceptable to his religion before he explores it.”

Change the word religion to method or methodology and you will see why introducing a new way to approach development or analysis is difficult. People judge to eliminate before they explore and try a new approach. Even if the approach has caused pain and suffering. If you want anyone to try some new process, show them what is in common FIRST to allow entry into their thought process.

On December 9, 2009 we hosted a webinar entitled, “The Anatomy of the Interview Process“.  During the presentation we discussed how a company’s interview process is their formalized relationship building practice.  Our goal was to convey to job seekers the fact that like all relationships, the interview process is designed to evolve in stages.  Therefore, a key contributor to interviewing success is respect for the process.

To illustrate these stages we loosely compared the interview process to the stages of forming a long term romantic relationship.  These stages were labeled as:

• The Screening  -  “The Interest Building Stage”
• The Telephone Interview  -  “The Curiosity Stage”
• First Round Interview  -  “The Present Compatibility Stage”
• Second Round Interview  -  “The Future Compatibility Stage”
• Final Interview  -  “The Proposal”
• The Offer  -  “The Confirmation”
• The Trial Period  -  “The Honeymoon”

We understand that when people are on the job market, interviewing can feel like a “David and Goliath” situation, but when it comes down to David won.  When you interview, keep in mind that it is a meeting between equals.  The company has a problem and they are hoping that you are the solution.  If you feel that you are, help them to see it.  You can’t do that if you are hiding behind a fear that they will reject you, nor can you be clear if you don’t realize that their process is meant to protect them from making a hiring mistake.

It’s all about relationships and we all know what it is like to learn lessons from previous relationships.  Well companies do too and often times their interview process reflects that.  To go a little deeper, let’s explore some hypothetical situations that can hurt a companies feelings.

Long Commute – Long distance relationships are hard.  We’ve tried them before and had an unpleasant experience. One of our best employees left us for a company closer to home.  It was hard to see them go.  Since then we are only interested in people within a certain mile radius.

Too Much Pay – “More attractive” offers are hard to pass up.  We once hired someone who was “willing to take a considerable pay cut for the opportunity to be a part of our company”.  Three months in she was offered a deal that was an increase on her previous salary.  That put us behind on a critical project.  Now we only look at people that have salaries within our range or are extremely close.

Career Level – We once hired a Sr. VP who “longed to return to his individual contributor days”.  From the first day there were challenges.  He had no patience for his coworkers with less experience and tried to assume the lead on every project he was a part of.  Despite his talent, we had to let him go for morale reasons.  From now on we pay attention to the previous roles our candidates have held.

Former Employees -  We once hired a former employee who left the company for a better deal. Three years later she applied and was hired for a position similar to the one she held previously. By six months it was obvious that she wasn’t happy.  She cited that the company was not as she remembered it.  Now we treat hiring former employees very delicately. 

We hope that stories told in this context will help job seekers see the human element of the interview process.  Understanding that a lot of the decisions made in the hiring process are not personal cannot only help you to stay motivated throughout your job search, it can also empower you to address the circumstances from the company’s point of view.  That’s engagement–something you should always be mindful of when building relationships.

If you’d like to hear more insight on subtleties of the interview process visit the links below from our webinar:

• Slides
• Audio

Here is a video by my mentor, Jeffrey Gitomer about Asking Powerful Questions. 

 Though Mr. Gitomer is talking about salespeople…the same applies to any technology person that interacts with the business community.

President Obama chose West Point to mgive his speech on his new strategy for Afghanistan.  He got a luke warm reception at best.  Cadets appeared to be sleeping during Obama’s speech.  They had to be ordered to applaud.  Reports from soldiers in Afghanistan indicate that Obama did no better with the troops in the field. 

Obama announced that he was sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but would withdraw them in 18 months.  What he failed to acknowledge was what has become know to the troops as the Karzai 12.  The Washington times described it this way, “

“Karzai 12″ refers to Afghanistan’s newly re-elected president, Hamid Karzai, and a dozen rules set down by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, to try to keep Afghan civilian casualties to a minimum.

The Times compiled an informal list of the new rules from interviews with U.S. forces. Among them:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

These rules sound great, if one is the enemy we are fighting.  They are a great way to lose a war.  They are an even greater way to get thousands of American soldiers and marines killed.  As the Times pointed out, the Taliban doesn’t have to obey these rules, only we do.  If Obama wants to win this war, he should take a lesson from the last great war the US actually fought to win.  He should look to our fathers and grandfathers that won WWII.  They carpet bomber Berlin and never lost a minute of sleep.  Any idea how many civilians died at that time?  Or when the Enola Gray dropped her nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?  Did our leaders lose sleep over the loss of civilian lives then?  NO.  We did what we had to do to win, to protect American lives at home.  Obama is fighting this war like an idiot child with his “if we are nice to them, they will be nice to us attitude.” 

Should Obama send additional troops?  Without a doubt, he should send the 40,000 General McChrystal needs, and the additional 80,000 he would like to have.  And in order to actually win this war, Obama needs to immediately change the Rules of Engagement to reflect our desire to actually win.  The only rule we need is if they appear to be the enemy, kill them.  If civilians get hurt, sorry but it is a war, that is what happens in war.  Next time the civilians that don’t want to get hurt in war will stop the Taliban and their Al-Qaeda counterparts from starting a war with America.

I didn’t watch Obama blabber on about troops and “getting out” of Afghanistan last Tuesday night….My stomach couldn’t bear listening to the CIC (Campaigner-In-Chief)….Heck, I can’t blame the cadets for falling asleep, either.  But I have read the transcript, some clips, and many evaluations of the speech.

Victor Davis Hanson summarized the speech as “strange” and “sort of (a) talk a college provost gives to the faculty at the September back-to-school assembly”.

Aside from the fact the speech doesn’t include an emphasis on victory and that Obama seemed irritated to be giving the speech, Hanson made a couple of points that summarize for me the loathing that Obama has for our military and for American involvement overseas:

On the deficit (my emphasis):

Deficit. How strange on this military occasion to hear worries about fiscal responsibilities from a president who has just given the country its largest annual budget deficits in history, and who will, according to his own schedule, add more to the national debt than all previous presidents. In a speech intended to win support for more troops, Obama worries more about the $30 billion cost of Afghanistan, even while he borrows $1.7 trillion for everything from AIG bailouts to GM takeovers to “cash for clunkers.”

I guess “hope-n-change” doesn’t include finishing a war with victory nor does it include the full support of our Commander-In-Chief.   Heck, since the defense of our country is one of the things our Constitution clearly enlists the government to do, I guess “hope-n-change” just isn’t based in the Constitution either.

Obama and the Democrats would rather take over private industry, generate $1 trillion dollar slush funds for Democratic re-elections in 2010, and give money to Obama’s union thug buddies than spend one additional dime on the military — DURING A WAR.

This infuriates me.  (and many other Americans).

On Obama’s commitment, from Hanson:

I am happy that for another 18 months, Obama will fight the Taliban. But I think that, in times of war, when troops are headed into battle, Americans would rather hear “smoke ‘em out” and “dead or alive” than a Noble Peace Prize preamble.

Of course, even though it seems we will take the fight to the Taliban, it is still not exactly clear to me what rules of engagement for our troops will entail.  Will they stand by and intervene only if necessary?  Or will they truly take the fight to the enemy? Exactly how will we “fight” the Taliban until Obama is ready to start “ending the war”?

That last sentence from Hanson clearly sums up the Obama approach…..He dare not declare America will actually win something because it would counter the “smart diplomacy” where Obama apologizes for his own country at various places all over the world.  Instead, we get another teleprompter speech from Mr. “I did nothing to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize”.  

In the “victory” vision of war, where America declares their effort at victory, real courage, conviction and leadership are required…the other “end the war” vision just takes oratory skills, a disdain for American excellence, and cowardice — cowardice being a staple of the Democratic party and disdain for America a component of Obama’s personal makeup.

The Anchoress also has a succinct and accurate view of Obama’s speech and his view of the military(my emphasis):

 Ungenerousness was one of Obama’s defining characteristics even before the election, and he clearly hates his predecessor. But I thought it was especially unwise for Obama to diss President Bush before that particular audience. Obama seems not to understand that his troops are not inspired or reassured by a CIC who tells them that the previous CIC -whom the troops loved, because they knew he respected them- was unworthy of their affection, much less their adulation. Adulation, it seems, should belong only to Obama.

He did not use the word “victory,” but that is no surprise. He is only interested in electoral and policy victory…………

……………Finally, when he said the only nation he’s interested in building is America, I got chills, and not the good kind. So far, the America he is “remaking” is giving me the willies.

All in all, not a great speech. Obama wears his CIC hat very uncomfortably.

Other notable repercussions from Obama’s dithering, 18-month end of war strategy in Afghanistan:

Pakistani Officials: Obama’s 2011 Withdrawal Timeline “Is Not a Wise Decision”

Afghanistan US Troop Casualties up by 65% under Obama

A blog post by Tom Graves that is worth reading on the difference between Architecture and Design…

This topic came up in a discussion on LinkedIn, in which Ron Segal asked “Why are we shy of ‘design’?“:

As an observation, the business and enterprise architecture communities seem remarkably reticent to use the word ‘design’ to describe what we do (e.g. see this group’s ‘what do you do’ discussion). Why is this, as although not all design is architecture, isn’t all architecture design?

There’s a lot of confusion between the two terms and the respective business-roles, so I thought throw in my own view on this, as follows:

Architecture and design are closely related; the main difference between them is really about which way we face.

Architecture faces towards strategy, structure and purpose, towards the abstract.

Design faces towards implementation and practice, towards the concrete.

Most designers and architects will do both types of work; but most will describe themselves as either a ‘designer’ or an ‘architect’ according to which way they most often face.

Continue reading the entire post…http://weblog.tomgraves.org/index.php/2009/10/09/architecture-versus-design/

The top executive concern is customer relationships. After all, without customers, do you have a business?

What are YOU doing to improve customer relationships? It isn’t the project. It isn’t the technical knowledge you have. It isn’t the job you perform or the process you follow.

The way YOU can improve customer relationships is to understand how relationships are built. It requires a counter-intuitive thought process of thinking in terms of the other person and not YOU. It is changing the I:YOU ratio to be focused on the other person in the relationship first. It is continually adding value to the other person and becoming a trusted advisor.

Want to help your executive? Learn how to build personal relationships with everyone you meet. It takes time…it takes practice…yet you will do more for the company and yourself by mastering relationship-building skills. Once you mastered the skill, you will see (and be asked to participate in) many relationship building projects.

November 16, 2009

U.S. troops battle both Taliban and their own rules

The Times compiled an informal list of the new rules from interviews with U.S. forces. Among them:

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

Sara A. Carter

KASHK-E-NOKHOWD, Afghanistan | Army Capt. Casey Thoreen wiped the last bit of sleep from his eyes before the sun rose over his isolated combat outpost.

His soldiers did the same as they checked and double-checked their weapons and communications equipment. Ahead was a dangerous foot patrol into the heart of Taliban territory.

“Has anyone seen the [Afghan National Army] guys?” asked Capt. Thoreen, 30, the commander of Blackwatch Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment with the 5th Stryker Brigade. “Are they not showing up?”

A soldier, who looked ghostly in the reddish light of a headlamp, shook his head.

“We can’t do anything if we don’t have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police],” said a frustrated Capt. Thoreen.

“We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules,” he said. “Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It’s not easy for anyone out here.”

via Washington Times – U.S. troops battle both Taliban and their own rules.

I’m feeling a little lazy today… AND have a lot of work to catch up on that I should have been doing this weekend.  But as promised, here’s installment number 2 of The Love Dares:   (argh! and my cockatiel is apparently feeling neglected.  He is attacking my fingers as I type, attempting to chew on my mouse cord, and walking all over my keyboard!)

Day 11:

What need do your spouse have that you could meet today? Example: Choose a gesture that says “I love you” and do it with a smile.

Day 12:

Demonstrate love by willingly choosing to give in to an area of disagreement between you and your spouse.
When doing this, make certain it is an area that you won’t be resentful or bitter.  It isn’t going to do the relationship any good if you let it go today but nag about it for the rest of the year or throw it in her/his face the next time you disagree.

Day 13:

Talk with your spouse about establishing healthy rules of engagement and resolve to abide by them when the next disagreement occurs.
I’m not sure dictionary.com’s definition carries the same meaning!  Some good examples of rules to abide by within a disagreement:

• Never go to bed angry.
• Schedule a time to calmly discuss the issue after an appropriate cooling down time.
• Don’t bring up past disagreements (see dare 12).
• Don’t interrupt.
• No cussing or name-calling!
  

Day 14:

Purposefully neglect an activity you would normally do so you can spend quality time with your spouse.

• Turn that TV off!  “Unplug” for a whole weekend to spend quality time together.
• Stay up late together.  Remember when you were first dating?  Being with him/her was more important than sleep then; you can lose a little sleep for them now, can’t you?

Day 15:

Choose a way to show honor and respect to your spouse that is above your normal routine.

You chose to spend the rest of your life with her/him.  Don’t you think you should treat him/her better than you would a stranger?  Go out of your way to make them feel good.

Day 16:

Pray for three specific areas where you desire for God to work in your spouse’s life and in your marriage.
In keeping with the secular theme, I suggest changing this to “Journal about three specific ways you could put more effort into marriage.”

Day 17:

Determine to guard your mate’s secrets and pray for them.
Protect him/her.  Not only keep his/her secrets, but trust your secrets to her/him as well.

Day 18:

Prepare a special dinner at home and focus this time on getting to know your spouse better.
Remember dates?  I’d order in for this one, so the preparation and clean up don’t take away from your time together.  Make a point to talk about hopes, dreams, fears.  If at all possible, avoid topics such as the budget, the kids, the plumber, etc.

Day 19:

Ask God to show you where you stand with him, and ask for the strength and grace to settle your eternal destination.
Default…. journal again!

Day 20:

Dare to take God at his word and trust Jesus Christ for salvation.
Journal????

From the SBDi Tips bi-weekly ezine (issue #42). Click here to review the Rules of Engagement Article Archive.

Pat:

Should a business analyst report to the business side of the house or Information Technology?

Sincerely, James  

Hi James:

I’ve seen both organization structures. The success is tied to the scenario that the business analysts report to one manager as a support for all business units. This promotes the sharing of information across business departments. For very large organizations, I do see separate groups for each division. In these cases, the business analysts are part of the Information Technology group. If each corporate division has a separate Information Technology group, they each have an analyst group.

Cheers, Pat

Sign up to receive SBDi Tips ezine via email.

Recently, I’ve had the opportunity to reflect on being a planner. While it’s what I always wanted to be (since 2001), I think what I want to be, as far as “advertising” goes, is so much more than ” planner.” And in an industry that survives on the fact that situations can be influenced and things always change, do you [planners] want to be what you’ve always been?

Given the rise in social media and the impact of technology on customer relationship management (you can measure almost anything now), it seems “planning” should be broadened beyond brand tracking studies, concept testing, creative briefs and briefings. Given that consumers are expanding their use of technologies and platforms, media, and networks, and that in these new realms they’re discovering new ways to interact with brands – there are in fact, new rules of engagement. And shouldn’t planning guide brand communications and marketing here? Or is that the job the media planners? If so, then why don’t I see any “media planners” in the blogosphere? just asking.

Not to mention the fact that when it comes to social media, we’ve always wanted people to talk about our products. In 2009, not only are they talking about our products, our brands, the services our brands provide, and the general experiences they have with our brands, but they’re talking about every detail of every minute leading up to these kinds of decisions. Isn’t it these insights (aka. finding the “gold nugget”) that have always been at the heart of planning?

If you answered yes, then you stand for evolution of a discipline. Because finding those insights is at our fingertips these days, often for free (just check one of the many social media or real-time search engines). But “the process” will have to change, or your job description will have to change from what it currently is.

As the role and definition of brands change to adapt in a world of new media, who will you be in the next generation of planning?

American contractors killed and mutilated in 2004, masterminded by Ahmed Hashim Abed.

Yes, you read that correctly. Three US Navy SEALs, who in September captured a man believed to have masterminded an attack that left American contractors dead and mutilated, now face court martial over charges that they assaulted him during his capture.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Poor baby. He was just minding his own business, killing and maiming Americans on a battlefield in a time of war, and these terribly mean American servicemen gave him, gasp, a bloody lip. Between this and civil trails for our captured enemies it may become completely impossible to capture the enemy in the future. I beg any Soldiers who eventually find Bin Laden, don’t bring him back alive – just execute him in the field before the ACLU sets him free.

As for the attack in 2004 that Ahmed Hashim Abed is believed to have staged:

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

Could we possibly have prevailed in any previous war with this attitude? George Washington once crossed a river in the middle of the night, on Christmas Eve no less, and butchered a bunch of Prussians in their sleep. Compare that to the rules of engagement now and tell me you don’t understand why we’re having such a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An Attorney for one of the seals makes an interesting point:

“I don’t know how they’re going to bring this detainee to the United States and give us our constitutional right to confrontation in the courtroom,” Puckett said. “But again, we have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they’re going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia.”

He’s likely right. And this is the leadership that will win in Afghanistan?

From the SBDi Tips bi-weekly ezine (issue #42). Click here to review the Rules of Engagement Article Archive.

Pat:

I’m dealing with a business person that won’t give me the time of day. I need him to validate requirements supplied by her staff. How do I get him to review them?

Thanks, Carol  

Carol:

Have you been copying him on all the meeting minutes with his people? If not, summarize the results at a high level and send that report. Offer him a chance to comment on higher-level requirements.  Also, offer him a chance to delve into detail on any section. If you still do not receive any response, have your manager approach him with a basic question: “Do you trust your people enough for them to approve the requirements?” Have your manager get that in writing. The reason for not getting back to you may simply be that he is swamped with making revenue-driven decisions. He may really trust his people completely. You do not know.

Cheers, Pat

Sign up to receive SBDi Tips ezine via email.

It’s interesting when dueling networks have similar programming.  It was painfully clear a few years ago when reality tv was all the rage and EVERYONE was showing the same programming but with different characters and producers but the storylines from week to week would be shockingly similar.

I can remember when I first started watching Grey’s Anatomy that many of the basic plots were the same as what I’d been watching on House in previous seasons.  To the point where the diagnoses were spot on.

Even wannabe shows that don’t seem to last have constant similarities to currently high-rated programming.  Take a look at Rules of Engagement, which only last little more than a season.  There you had 2 couples, and a single guy.  It felt like I was watching a cheapened version of How I Met Your Mother.

So, in light of all those crappy rip offs and wannabe shows, I present to you the very latest in the Battle of the Networks: Accidentally on Purpose vs Cougar Town.  CBS vs ABC.

I watch both shows.  I LOVE both shows.  They each have their own little quirks and qualities that make them funny.  But are they the same show?

The basic premise is the same: older woman (40s) is having trouble with being the older woman and ends up in search of a younger life, thus leaving her in the arms of a much younger man.  Each woman is an individual.  They both have their own little things that makes them special.  And funny.

The MAJOR difference between the shows?  One is pregnant by her younger man, and the other already has a kid, and has lived that life.

Bille (Accidentally on Purpose) shacks up with a guy in his early 20’s and ends up getting knocked up.

Whereas, Jules (Cougar Town) already has the kid, and is looking to recapture her youth after a divorce.

Both shows provide hilarious antics and amusing dynamics between the characters.  It’s even easy to see which characters match up on both shows.  Two best friends, the guy next door and his friends.

But each show is funny in it’s own right.

What I do find comforting is the fact that after their freshman seasons respectively, each show will find footing and become more original and unique.  And both, on separate networks will probably survive.

Just look at House and Grey’s Anatomy.  Sure, early on some of the episodes had hints from the other show, but here we are, many MANY seasons later, and each show has a completely different feel, and have both taken totally different paths.  *Sniffle sniffle*  They grow up so fast.

So, in looking at all those things, I like both shows because of their similarities and differences and can’t wait to see each one pan out for more than a season because it will be interesting to see which path each show chooses.

Whose side are you on?

Information Technologists are quick to provide technical advice.

• The best phone
• The best methodology
• The best software

“The Best” is really only an opinion. An opinion based on a limited set of facts and a limited set of circumstances and a limited set of experiences. Yet, technologists tend to express “The Best” as the one and only option. The only option that should be considered. The only option that will work for ANYONE (in his or her humble opinion).

This is a very narrow view and can create more obstacles for anyone in the future. Why? Because you don’t have all the information. The Best is what worked for you and may not be the best solution for the person asking for advice. If it works out, great, you are considered a valuable source. If it doesn’t, well…that affects your credibility and destroys a link to not only the person you gave advice but to all those he or she talks to about the bad advice.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Harvard  Business Review had a quick article last month titled Approach Avoidance (Don Moyer). You can destroy your networking opportunities by giving bad (any advice that didn’t work for the person acting on it) advice or by not giving any advice at all. In both cases, you are not adding VALUE to the other person.

In the case we are discussing here, the problem with giving advice that turns bad is the advice YOU are giving is focused on YOU and not the other person. What you consider “The Best” may not be right for the other person.

Before giving advice, ask questions that will lead you to understanding his or her situation. If you still feel your recommendation is right, phrase it with a caveat: “This worked for my circumstances. It might work for you if you do a little more research on …” This approach acknowledges that no circumstance is exactly the same. You are acknowledging that you respect that his or her circumstances are different and many solutions exist. You are showing that you are thinking in terms of HIM or HER and not YOU. Now, you become a valuable connection.