Worries for Pakistan 05/06/2009 12:36:41 pm by Dan Krohn

	Recently a Taliban leader or sympathizer in Pakistan stated, "It is a natural thing when democratic avenues are not working to take up arms.” What a succinct description of the problems there. In a civilized place, when one does not get one's way in a democratic process, one continues to campaign and vote. One does not take up arms. Indeed, the very idea that armed response is the result of losing a legislative battle or election (even if the electoral battle is lost over and over thoughout many years) undermines democracy. What kind of vote is it that results from fear of armed attack. The leader making that statement did so as a justification for the Taliban's increasing incursions into Pakistan. Apparently the Taliban have moved out from merely hiding in Pakistan mountains to launch efforts in Afghanistan to an effort to take over Pakistan itself. Readers are reminded that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and at least some ability to deliver them. Thus this is one country, which in the hands of fanatics, would be terribly dangerous. Dealing with Pakistan is unusually difficult due to its history and culture. Its history is one of seeing India as the enemy. Some Pakistani's might have difficulty concluding that the Taliban is now the greater threat, especially as some of their neighbors don't mind them a bit. Similarly, Pakistani's have a history of thinking of themselves as an Islamic nation most often at war with those who are not of the same faith. The understanding that Muslims are not uniform might have not yet pervaded the Pakistani consciousness. Some might hesitate to go to war against "fellow" Muslims. Unfortunately, the United States is often seen by the Muslim world as less than friendly, understandably given its history of involvement in the Middle East. This writer has no clear answers to this situation, and this writer would be very suspect of anyone who claims a quick answer. The United States is used to acting as the "sole superpower" and imposing its will on smaller countries. But the U.S. is stretched both economically and militarily. What's more important is that the U.S. ought to be careful not to create new enemies which will last for decades if not centuries - if that is possible. There is much more involved here than just Pakistan and the U.S. Much of this Taliban problem has been exported from Afghanistan, where the struggle for stability is still on and where other countries have troops supporting the U.S. effort. Lastly, let us not forget India. India has its history of seeing Pakistan as an enemy, and it was not that long ago that terrorist violence rocked Indian locations. India is also a nuclear power. And we cannot read the Indian mind as to how it would react to a radical Taliban government ruling its traditional enemy. For now, readers, it might be just wait and pray.

	[comments?]

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do, Part 1 05/05/2009 06:53:40 pm by Dan Krohn

	Since the beginning of this year, this writer has seen a definite increase in breakups among owners of closely held businesses. This appears to be a sign of the times for many businesses whether large or small. The owners of a closely held business might find themselves changing the ownership structure or dissolving the business for reasons which include: (1) a changing market; (2) different capabilities of the business owners to contribute time or additional needed capital; (3) disagreements as to the direction the business should take; and (4) conflicts of interest with other business ventures. Also, in this economy, it is not uncommon for early stage business partners to be supported by their spouses. If the spouse should be laid off or suffer some other form of reduction in income, the business partner might have little choice but to seek additional personal income elsewhere. This writer has seen business breakups handled in many ways from peaceful and hostile negotiations to litigation and even violence. The purpose of this article is to suggest friendly negotiation as the preferred way to dissolve a closely held business. In addition to avoiding the costs of litigation and/or unreasonably protracted or hostile negotiations, peaceful negotiation as a resolution mechanism has much to offer. It provides less distraction from other matters which need attention for those involved. Distraction is the most commonly ignored and largest actual cost of litigation and hostility. Peaceful negotiation has a better likelihood of preserving assets and potential income, and/or reducing losses and preserving credit standing. As the business model might be very worthwhile with a change in the economy and quite worth preserving, the business stands a better chance of surviving peaceful negotiation, even if it must go into hibernation or semi-hibernation mode. Also, peaceful negotiation is more likely to leave the business in place operating profitably by some, if not all, of its owners; and the possibility of the owner who must take a reduced role returning in the future when circumstances change can be preserved to the benefit of all. Lastly, let’s not forget the burning of bridges which is avoidable through friendly negotiations. One never knows if or when one might want to do business with a former business partner who now works in a different place (or a relative or a friend of that former partner). In this day of online social networking, the airing of dirty laundry is far too easy and very public. Reputations are not to be destroyed lightly, but often are destroyed even without intent. With the economy in chaos there are always opportunities to maximize gains and minimize losses. Making the effort to adapt intelligently and as peacefully as possible is the preferred route.

	[comments?]

Supporting Our Troops? 05/02/2009 07:23:35 pm by Dan Krohn

	Recently there was a minor furor when the Department of Homeland Security mentioned in a report that members of the military returning from wars in Iraq or Afghanistan might be subject to recruitment by terrorist organizations, and hence could be a risk to national security. Several politicians immediately pounced screaming "How can you insult our men and women in uniform like that!" This blogger believes that the critics were asking the wrong question and addressing the wrong issue. (Readers, please note that this blogger strenuously opposes terrorism by anyone for any reason.) If indeed Homeland Security has accurately identified a risk, then the questions that occurs to this writer are how we got there and how can we change it. On reflection, recent history of how the United States has treated its enlisted men and women should give considerable pause for thought. Though virtually all of our political leaders regularly proclaim their support for our troops, for many of them – their actions contradict their words. And the American people have failed to let their leaders know otherwise. Since the move to an all volunteer military, the United States has seen a major shift in its attitude towards the military. Perhaps most critically, unlike, most recently, the days of the Vietnam War when almost anyone could be drafted; wars today are fought by “them” not “us”. “Them” are the people who have volunteered to be in the trenches, on the ships or in the air. “Them” does not typically include the young members of the upper middle and upper classes, who upon graduation from high school move directly to college and then onto careers which generally do not include the military. The recruiters for the armed services know this, and consequently they target members of the lower middle and lower classes. You will see them more active at high schools where a higher proportion of the student body fits that description. There is generally a higher percentage of minority students at those schools - another factor supporting the “them” view of our enlisted men and women. For the students from such backgrounds the military offers a more attractive deal. But let’s look at how we have been treating them. The scandalous condition of Walter Reed hospital which made the news sometime ago was only a publicized aspect of one problem. The United States is simply not giving our military personnel the kind of quality medical care they have earned. Though medical care has improved with passing of time due to advances in technology and treatment, the military relative to the average American with health insurance does not get the same medical care – at least not at government expense. In the continuing effort to balance the budget and cut spending, care for the service men and women has too often been an easy place to wield the knife. Their lobbyists cannot compare to those of the major defense industry suppliers who continue to sell the military at bloated prices. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been privatizing increased amounts of what used to be military work. In Iraq there are private security companies and other military suppliers being paid huge amounts to do what were previously considered military tasks. And guess what? The guys and gals working for those private security companies are being paid two and three times what the men and women in the armed forces are being paid. Reader, how would you feel as soldier watching those folks make twice what you’re making? So some guy finally gets back home. His leg has been blown off. He has to wait way too long to get to a doctor. He can’t get a decent job, if he gets any at all. He can’t support his family. He has incredible psychological adjustments to make, after learning to kill and watching his buddies get killed. Maybe his wife leaves him, understandably not being able to take the stress any more. He sees other people around him living better – and their lives were not on the line. His was while he was protecting their asses. This poor chap is on the edge. So now the guy is being watched as a potential terrorist recruit. This country should be providing these returning soldiers timely counseling – all that they need. They should be getting prompt and superb medical care. They should be getting the best of outplacement help to find employment. They should be getting whatever training they need to be employable. And they should be getting some form of reasonable support during the transition. Some of this is provided, but it’s not being delivered in sufficient quantity and it’s being delivered too slowly. Supporting our troops? America – it’s time to put your money where your mouth is.

	[comments?]

Music of Houston Composers in Concert 02/14/2009 10:28:16 am by Dan Krohn

	Houston is a great arts town. On any given day there are multiple events and sites worthy of checking out. And many of Houston's attractions are very reasonably priced. One Houston arts resource that is generally not well known in the Houston Composers Alliance, a group which exists to promote performances of music composed by living artists who make Houston their home. HCA is putting on one of its all too rare concerts on March 2.

	[comments?]

Third Party Content Gives Rise to Lawsuit 02/09/2009 09:08:52 am by Dan Krohn

	For quite a while this blogger has been predicting that character assassination would be the crime of our time. Aided by the Internet, it is now exceedingly easy to distribute false information quickly. Once spread, nasty gossip and rumors are never fully erased. Someone somewhere always carries a seed of distrust planted by the character assassin. And one never knows how that seed might haunt the victim years down the road. So it was with interest that this blogger spotted an article asserting that Italian soccer star Alessandro del Piero is about to sue Facebook over a faked profile. Del Piero maintains that he has never had a Facebook page. Nonetheless, one appeared with links to Nazi websites. With sports figures looking at the potential of substantial income from product endorsements and the like, it is no wonder that the intelligent among them go to great lengths to protect their reputations - less their value as spokespeople be diminished. What is yet to be determined is the degree of culpability Facebook should be assigned and the amount of damages, if any, to be assessed against Facebook. In the United States we have Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives broad immunity to Internet sites containing third party content. So long as the Internet site pulls down the offensive material promptly upon notice, they are pretty much in the clear. But not every nation has such a statute. Readers can count on some countries' being much tougher on third party content containing sites. This will be an interesting case to watch as it progresses.

	[comments?]