Stealth Jets Return To The Air Following Engine Snafu

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Lockheed exec Tom Burbage told aviation reporter Dave Majumdar last year.

OK enough! They are building an aircraft that has the characteristics,  if not the look, of a flying saucer. It’s all in the z-axis baby!

OK!! There I’ve said it. Now can’t we, or at least shouldn’t, we just stop talking about all of this. 🙂

via Stealth Jets Return To The Air Following Engine Snafu — For Now | Danger Room | Wired.com.

What I Found Interesting This Week 2/2/2013

Unfortunately, many farmers markets are duds.  The prices are too high, the selection is mediocre and many of the vendors sell store brought produce/products.  In contrast, real farmers markets are run by organizations that rigorously maintain standards and recruit/scout/visit participants (to increase supply, competition, and variety).  They hum with life, variety, and are price competitive.

Yes, and this is all because we don’t have a decentralized market, ho, hum.

Well “real farmer markets” are distributive networks that each needs the other.

So while Robb’s decentralized network decentralizes into nodes towards an edge, the distributive market has no outside edges and forms a center of gravity called a community.

Where this “center” forms is any ones guess, but Robb has no clue, because he is looking for an edge, and not a community. He still thinks he is a part of the cure, i.e., a resilient community, and not the problem, too much distribution and not enough decentralization, ha!

So I guess that is what a community organizer does, he organizes all the nodes into a community without edges.

via What I Found Interesting This Week 2/2/2013.

Master sgt. says no to Chinese-made boots

“I’m troubled that the military continues to downsize because of the budget deficits — budget deficits which are in part a result of millions of unemployed American workers,” Adachi wrote in a letter to Air Force Times. “How many American workers are unemployed because military clothing is being produced in foreign countries?”

via Master sgt. says no to Chinese-made boots – Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq – Air Force Times.

Good question.

I wonder how many Americans even know how to build shoes anymore. Didn’t that industry leave this country long ago?

K.I.S.S. (K.O.S.S.)

…while President Obama’s staff prefer to emphasize to the administration’s many successes in counterterrorism operations instead of the accumulation of serious issues faced by the Department of Defense, the armed services and America’s returning veterans.

via The Coming National Defense Crack-Up – Independent Voter Network.

Yes, there is a “Coming national defense crack-up” coming, but that doesn’t mean that our national defense doesn’t have a strategy in the Global War On Terror.

The strategy is two prong.

The first prong skewers the process of “Act” that keeps the Islamist who perpetrated 9/11 from Orienting themselves, from a position of advantage. This simply means we have to  “stir” the hive to keep a plan, like that which happened on 9/11, from happening.

The second prong is one that accumulates an “Orientation” of rule-sets, which brought about an end to the Crusades. It was an Orientation of accommodation.

These condition of accommodation required the nation-state of interest to become “Islamic” instead of Christian. The Crusades ended as Jerusalem became Islamic, and the God fearing Christians existed with the Muslims.

As the US is the greatest bearer of the power of Christianity, next to the Vatican, the second prong requires the US to turn-over nations, who are under the BushII “Crusade”, to Islam, which is what happen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the nation-states most affected by the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was a civil war, but the outcome has been mostly to the advantage of the Islamist.

So, if there needs to be a debate in America, I suggest we debate the thought that we are  “turning” the US military power in the South Pacific. I don’t think it is happening, we are simply creating a line in the sand.

My thought is that there hasn’t been a turning of the power of the USA towards the Pacific. The real strategy has been that the USA has formed two fronts–one that crosses Australia and the other front that crosses Jerusalem.

Jerusalem marks the line, that America will not cross, in regards to Islam and the Middle East, as much as Australia marks the line that America will not cross in the South Pacific, and China.

To bring the war in the Middle East, fought by the nation of the Great Experiment, to a conclusion, we need to keep our strategy simple folks.

The Coming National Defense Crack-Up

…while President Obama’s staff prefer to emphasize to the administration’s many successes in counterterrorism operations instead of the accumulation of serious issues faced by the Department of Defense, the armed services and America’s returning veterans.

via The Coming National Defense Crack-Up – Independent Voter Network.

Yes, there is a “Coming national defense crack-up” coming, but that doesn’t mean that our national defense doesn’t have a strategy in the Global War On Terror.

The strategy is two prong.

The first prong skewers the process of “Act” that keeps the Islamist who perpetrated 9/11 from Orienting themselves, from a position of advantage. This simply means we  “stir” the hive to keep a plan, like that which happened on 9/11, from happening.

The second prong is one that accumulates an “Orientation” like that created to take advantage of the conditions, which enabled the Crusades to end, an Orientation of accommodation.

These condition of accommodation required the nation-state of interest to become “Islamic” instead of Christian. The Crusades ended as Jerusalem became Islamic, and the God fearing Christians existed with the Muslims.

As the US is the greatest bearer of the power of Christianity, next to the Vatican, the second prong requires the US to turn-over nations, who are under the BushII “Crusade”, to Islam, which is happening.

So, if there needs to be a debate, I suggest we debate the thought that we are  “turning” of the US military power in the South Pacific.

There hasn’t really been a turning of the power of the USA towards the Pacific. The USA has formed two fronts–one that crosses Australia and the other that crosses Jerusalem.

Jerusalem marks the line, that America will not cross, in regards to Islam and the Middle East, as much as Australia marks the line that America will not cross in the South Pacific, and China.

To bring this war, fought by the nation of the Great Experiment to a conclusion, we need to keep this simple folks.

What Is Strategy?

I have tried to answer this question, “What is Strategy”, for myself many times and failed. After looking at the prices for classes dealing with strategy, perhaps defining it  is something worth thinking about.

Of course I am kidding, but after looking at one of the classes listed: (Risk Management for Corporate Leaders; Integrating Best Practices for Superior Strategy Execution) the definition of strategy could come from understanding what this course is about.

It appears from the title that strategy is for leaders (in this case Corporate),  something that can be executed (in seemly superior and sub-superior manners), and is executed in something called practices (executed in an integrating manner between the best instead of the worst).

Some of the “practices”  (and seem to be mostly human practices) taken from the course’s “Key topics” are:

  • Behavior
  • Management
  • Processes
  • Events
  • Risks
  • Functions

So almost all the practices can be considered Ways of people.

As all Strategy covers three domains (End, Ways, and Means), this course’s key topics are the Ways of strategy, which the course’s statement: “…explore the many ways that strategies and enterprises can fail” seems to imply that the Means to failure is usually in the Way of humans. In my way of thinking, strategy’s End comes from the leaders, the Means is in the execution, and the Way is in practices.

So the program “Means” of controlling the “Way” of humans should be within the End of strategy, if this was a course in strategy. In strategy there are two Ends, the beginning of the End and the end of the End. The End is a explicit image as the word “recognize”  in the sentence, “…as well as how to recognize ” suggests. But it is the leaders who “recognize”, so perhaps it is safe to say that all “Ends” come from leaders.

From the program’s statement,,”You will learn how to develop and implement effective risk management processes”. To me the statement implies that the program doesn’t really teach Strategy–it teaches process. The “process” is the in “Way” of executing the  “Means” of strategy. The “Means” are all the resources available to the leader. This course teaches how to process the “way” of strategy. The resources in the process are mostly human, according to my bullet points.

Process, like planning and practices, is a part of strategy, but it doesn’t really answer the question: ‘What is Strategy”. After taking this course and learning the process that integrate the Means with the Ways, a person can still only hope to have a clear image of the End of strategic thinking. To get that, would take some kind of leadership course, so the definition of strategy can’t really come from this course.

Which leads me to ask another question, “Do they still have leadership courses at Harvard, if you are only going after a MBA?”

Strategy: Winning or Calculation?

Mark asks, on my twitter feed, a good question. I presume he made it after reading the post to the link in the tweet Critt also made on my feed:

Here is the post:

“What is strategy? A mental tapestry of changing intentions for harmonizing and focusing our efforts as a basis for realizing some aim or purpose in an unfolding and often unforeseen world of many bewildering events and many contending interests.

John Boyd

This quote comes from Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd, Frans Osinga. Pg.13.”

Via: http://crittjarvis.com/2012/06/boyds-elegant-epitaph-what-is-strategy/

While Boyd describes the essence of strategy, he does leave it open to Mark’s question. Is the essence of strategy about winning or is it in the calculations?

I don’t know Boyd that well to quote him accurately, but in essence he said that if you are not willing to take the steps to winning, then you should think about joining the other side. Clearly to Boyd winning is everything.

From Boyd’s quote: strategy is a bunch of steps structured as a mental tapestry that is mentally changing at different tempos and focus. At the end of the structuring process clarity is found in the forms created.

As the three domains of war are Honor, Interest, and Fear, out of the “many contending interests”, Boyd was building the structures for  the center domain “Interest”. Strategy builds a structure of form where none was before. Boyd was building interest out of human morality, and his Ends, Ways, and Means was through the OODA loop.

So the essence of strategy is not about winning, but about the calculations needed to create (build). In Boyd’s definition of strategy he is creating interest through calculations.

However, Boyd is not building a structure or domain to go to war on. To Boyd winning is everything which also means losing According to Boyd, winning might mean joining the other side, which, like the son of Genghis Khan found out, is losing.

With interest, the possibility of losing is taken out of the “bewildering events”, because a structure is created in the past (the beginning of the “End”) to build Honor on; and there is less to Fear, because a structure is also created in the future (the end of the “End”) that can be seen.

While building interest where interest was not before is a simple thought, I am sure that strategy is, in essence, simple.