price and labour competition

    ____________________________________

 (31.)  price and labour competition                 [ ]

pp.517-527

   Thus there were, in the period 1871-1900, three great groups in France: 

(a) the alliance of Jews and Catholics dominated by Rothschild; 

(b) the alliance of Catholic industrialists and Catholic bankers dominated by Schneider, the steel manufacturer; and

(c) the group of Protestant bankers dominated by Mirabaud.

     [...]

Union-Comité bloc

   In the course of the period 1904-1919 the Union Parisienne group and the Comité des Forges (the French steel "trust") group formed an alliance based on their common opposition to the Third Republic and the Paribas bloc.

     [...]

the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas (Paribas)

    setup by the Rothschild group in 1972 and

the Banque de l'Union Parisienne 

    founded by the rival block in 1904

   This cooperation between the two blocs in regard to the lower levels of the banking system (the Bank of France itself) did not usually extend to industrial or commercial activity. There, competition outside the market was severe, and became a struggle to the death in 1932-1940. In some activities, spheres of interest were drawn between the two groups, and thus competition was reduced. 

   Inside France, there was the basic division between east and west, the Jewish group emphasizing shipbuilding, transatlantic communications and transportation, and public utilities, while in the west Protestant Catholic group emphasized iron, steel, and armaments in the east. 

   Outside France, the former group(Jewish group) dominated the colonies, North Africa, and the eastern Mediterranean, while the later group(Protestant Catholic group) emphasized central and eastern Europe (chiefly through the Union européene industrielle et financière, created in 1920 to be the economic counterpart of the Little Entente).

     [...]

The struggles between the 3 great economic power blocs

   The struggles between these 3 great economic power blocs in France are rather difficult for Americans to understand because they were not reflected in price competition in the market where Americans would normally expect economic competition to appear. In the field of price policies, the three blocs generally cooperated. They also cooperated in their attitudes toward labor, although to a lesser degree. Their rivalries appeared in the fields of economics and political power as struggles to control sources of raw materials, supplies of credit and capital, and the instruments of government. Price competition, which to an American always has seemed to be the first, and even the only, method of economic rivalry, has, in Europe, generally been regarded as the last possible method of economic rivalry, a method so mutually destructive as to be tacitly avoided by both sides. In fact, in France, as in most European countries, competing economic groups saw nothing inconsistent in joining together to use the power of the state to enforce joint policies of such groups toward prices and labor.

("Tragedy and Hope", by Carroll Quigley, 1966, pp.517-527)

(Quigley, Carroll (1966); "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time", pdf file (digital copy), filename: Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf, pp.517-527)

(filename of other copy on the Web: 

  Carroll_Quigley__Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

  CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope.pdf

  CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope_djvu.html

  CarrollQuigley-TragedyAndHope_djvu.txt  

   )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_and_Hope

http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf

https://www.benespen.com/2014-7-24-the-long-view-tragedy-and-hope/

   ____________________________________

<------------------------------------------------------------------------>

H. Ross Perot

 Ross Perot : my life & the principles for success. 

[c1996.]

The dollar crisis : a blueprint to rebuild the American dream / Ross Perot and U.S. Senator Paul Simon.

[c1996.]

Save your job, save our country : why NAFTA must be stopped--now! / by Ross Perot with Pat Choate.

[1993.]

 

secrecy and democracy (book review Bamford)

 https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1985/06/09/stansfield-turner-and-the-secrets-of-the-cia/f4139b9a-6cc8-4b8e-9d5c-d194245f5aa9/#main-content

Stansfield Turner and the Secrets of the CIA

By James Bamford

June 8, 1985 at 8:00 p.m. EDT

SECRECY AND DEMOCRACY; The CIA in Transition. By Stansfield Turner. Houghton Mifflin. 304 pp. $16.95.

HIGH OVER the North Atlantic the Machmeter on the forward bulkhead registered nearly twice the speed of sound. Four hours earlier Admiral Stansfield Turner, commander of NATO's southern flank , had received a "secure" telephone call in his Naples headquarters from the secretary of defense. "The president," said the secretary, "would like to see you in Washington tomorrow." Now, cushioned in a brown leather seat on the Concorde, Admiral Turner could feel his adrenalin begin to race with the Mach numbers as he pondered his future and the meaning of the sudden call.

A Rhodes scholar out of Annapolis, prot,eg,e of progressive Navy chief Elmo Zumwalt, and four stars on each shoulder by his 5hday, he was one of the Navy's best and brightest. On top of that, Jimmy Carter, the new president, had been a classmate at the Naval Academy. There were few places for the ambitious young admiral to go besides the chief of naval operations or chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, or so he hoped. But a few minutes before noon on February 3, 1977, Admiral Turner's optimism decelerated like the Concorde approaching Dulles. "Stan, I'm considering you for Director of Central Intelligence," the president told him. A few hours later he called his wife to give her the disappointing news: "Darling, we're going to the bush leagues."

Secrecy and Democracy might have been subtitled "The Education of a CIA Director." It is a surprisingly candid account of Admiral Turner's four reluctant years at the top of America's expanding intelligence bureaucracy. That it is not even more candid, however, is not the fault of the former DCI. Like the hunter who stumbles into his own bear trap, Admiral Turner complains bitterly about the way he was treated by the CIA prepublication censors who shredded more than 100 passages from his manuscript. As he points out with some irony, it was he who in 1978 urged prosecution of former employe Frank Snepp for failure to submit his manuscript to the censors. Snepp was sued by the agency and forced to forfeit all monies received from his book, Decent Interval.

"I fully support the requirement for such review," Turner writes. "What I object to is the way the present administration conducts its reviews." Chief among his complaints was the "extreme arbitrariness" of the review. "The deletions ranged from borderline issues to the ridiculous." In the latter category was an apparent requirement to delete the name of the British foreign intelligence organization, MI-6, even though this has been openly acknowledged for many decades on both sides of the Atlantic. Another was the name of the National Reconnaissance Office which has run America's spy satellite program for a quarter of a century. He is forced to continually use the wordy euphemism "the Defense organizations responsible for overhead reconnaissance," despite the fact that the name was previously cleared by the CIA for former director William Colby's book Honorable Men.

In spite of the CIA's literary butchers, Admiral Turner succeeds in producing an important book on a dark subject. He paints a frightening picture of an agency almost beyond his control as a result of an entrenched, paranoiac old-boy- network. The three major operational branches functioned as independent fiefdoms, jealously guarding their borders from any outside interference -- including that from the director. Frank Carlucci, appointed as Turner's deputy, compared the director's office with the control room of a power plant -- except that all the switches were disconnected.

On October 31, 1977 open warfare broke out between Turner and his agency when dismissal notices were sent out to a number of agency employes as a result of post-Vietnam war personnel reductions. Taking the brunt of the losses on what became known as "The Halloween Massacre" was the branch responsible for human espionage collection (known as DDO, for Deputy Director of Operations). According to Turner, only 17 people from the espionage branch were actually fired and 147 were forced into early retirement. Through normal attrition over the next two years, however, the branch would be reduced by 820 positions.

Despite the facts, Turner says the press and public were deliberately misled by current and former agency employes into believing that he was actually firing 820 people. "What was really behind the outcries," writes Turner, "was outrage at my challenging the traditional independence of the espionage branch. If I could summarily reduce the size of the espionage branch, I might next begin to supervise what it did. The cry was over power and turf."

It was also a battle between the old covert-action diehards, many of whom were in retirement, and modern technical collection -- and Turner was fully on the side of the technospy. "Their empire," says Turner speaking of the covert-action spooks, "which was surrounded by a moat of secrecy, had been invaded by an outsider who they believed would never understand or appreciate it and therefore could not properly change its ways." The former director is especially critical of the retired CIA community. He accused them of using "their training in manipulating people" to influence the "malleable" press in order to prevent any change at the agency.

Turner concludes with an "agenda for action" which includes such items as creation of an intelligence czar known as the Director of National Intelligence who would be separate from, but have authority over, the CIA and all the other resources. Another agenda item would strengthen the DCI's authority over the National Security Agency which, Turner says, frequently withholds information from the rest of the intelligence community in order to give it directly to the president or the National Security Council. "Scooping the rest of the Community is the game," says Turner, "the NSA plays it well and the overall intelligence effort suffers."

Finally Turner makes the most radical -- and progressive -- proposal of any former CIA director: the creation of a new organization to make available to any country the results of America's reconnaissance satellites. Known as the Open Skies Agency, the organization would help lessen the danger of unwanted wars brought on by misunderstanding and miscalculation by detecting and publicizing such things as buildups of conventional military power, border violations, early warning and nuclear proliferation activities. In the nonmilitary area, the agency would be able to help forecast world food supplies and thus anticipate famines, provide information on soil content and snow layers to warn of floods, and many other uses.

Such an idea is not unique. President Eisenhower first proposed an open skies concept in 1955 and in 1978 France called for the United Nations to operate a similar International Satellite Management Agency. This was rejected by DCI Turner at the time but he now calls that decision a mistake. Nor is Admiral Turner alone in this concern for such an agency. Arthur C. Lundahl, probably the foremost expert in the field and the founder of the National Photographic Interpretation Center which processes nearly all overhead spy photos, has advocated a similar organization, as have others.

Secrecy and Democracy is a frank, insightful examination of the business of espionage. One can only wonder how much more frank or insightful it might have been before it was "sanitized" by Mr. William Casey and his scissor-happy censors.

washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post

washingtonpost.com

© 1996-2024 The Washington Post

john stockwell (Why I Am Leaving The CIA)

 

https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%253A//www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1977/04/10/why-i-am-leaving-the-cia/1840ac7a-1927-4865-bd97-173fad48b656/#main-content

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1977/04/10/why-i-am-leaving-the-cia/1840ac7a-1927-4865-bd97-173fad48b656/

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Opinion Why I Am Leaving The CIA

By John Stockwell

April 9, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. EST

31 March 1977

Sir:

WE HAVE NOT MET and will not have the opportunity of working together, as you are coming into the Central Intelligence Agency as I am leaving. Although I am disassociating myself from the Agency, I have read with considerable interest about your appointment and listened to some of your comments. You have clearly committed yourself to defending the Agency from its detractors and to improving its image, and this has stirred a wave of hope among many of its career officers. However, others are disappointed that you have given no indication of intention or even awareness of the need for the internal housecleaning that is so conspicuously overdue the Agency.

You invited Agency officers to write you their suggestions or grievances and you promised personally to read all such letters. While I no longer have a career interest, have already submitted my resignation, numerous friends in the DDO [Deputy Directorate for Operations] have encouraged me to write you, hoping that it might lead to measures which would upgrade the clandestine service from its present mediocre standards to the elite organization it was once reputed to be. While I sympathize with their complaints, I have agreed to write this letter more to document the circumstances and conditions which led to my own disillusionment with CIA.

First, let me introduce myself. I was until yesterday a successful GS-14 with 12 years in the Agency, having served seven full tours of duty including chief of base, Lubumbashi; chief of station, Bujumbura; officer in charge to Tay Ninh Province in Vietnam, and chief, Angola Task Force. My file documents what I was told occasionally, that I could realistically aspire to top managerial positions in the Agency. I grew up in Zaire, a few miles from the Kapanga Methodist Mission Station which was recently "liberated" by Katangese invaders, and I speak fluent English and Tshiluba, "High" French and smatterings of Swahili and other dialects.

My disillusionment was progressive throughout four periods of my career. First, during three successive assignments in Africa from 1966 through 1977, I increasingly questioned the value and justification of the reporting and operations we worked so hard to generate. In one post, Abidjan, there was no Eastern bloc or Communist presence, no subversion, limited United States interests and a stable government. The three of us competed with State Department officers to report on President Houphouet-Boigny's health and local politics.

I attempted to rationalize that my responsibility was to contribute, and not to evaluate the importance of my contribution, which should be done by supergrades in Washington. However, this was increasingly difficult as I looked up through a chain of command which included, step-by-step: a) the branch chief, who had never served in Africa and was conspicuously ignorant of black Africa; b) the chief of operations, who was a senior officer although he had never served an operational overseas tour and was correspondingly naive about field operations; and c) the division chief, who was a political dilettante who had never served an operational tour in Africa. Their leadership continuously reflected their inexperience and ignorance.

Standards of operations were low in the field, with considerable energy devoted to the accumulation of perquisites and living a luxurious life at the taxpayer's expense. When I made "chief of station," a supergrade took me out for drinks and, after welcoming me to the exclusive inner club of "chiefs," proceeded to brief me on how to supplement my income by an additional $34,000 per year, tax free, by manipulating my representational and operational funds. This was quite within the regulations. For example, the COS Kinshasa last year legally collected over $9,000 from CIA for the operation of his household. Most case officers handled 90 per cent of their operations in their own living rooms, in full view of servants, guards and neighbors.And I expect few individuals would accept CIA recruitments if they knew how blithely their cases are discussed over the phone: "Hello, John . . . when you meet your friend after the coctail party tonight . . . you know, the one with the old Mercedes . . . be sure to get that receipt for $300 . . . and pick up the little Sony, so we can fix the signaling device."

In Burundi we won a round in the game of dirty tricks against the Soviets. Shortly after my arrival, we mounted an operation to exploit the Soviets' vulnerabilities of having a disproportionately large embassy staff and a fumbling, obnoxious old ambassador, and discredit them in the eyes of the Barundi. We were apparently successful, as the Barundi requested that the ambassador not return when he went on leave, and they ordered the Soviets assigned a competent career diplomat to the post and he arrived to receive a cordial welcome from the Barundi who were more than a little nervous at their brashness and eager to make amends. For the rest of my tour relations were remarkably better between the two countries than before our operation. The operation, nevertheless, won us some accolades. However, it left me with profound reservations about the real value of the operational games we play in the field.

Later, Africa Division policy shifted its emphasis from reporting on local politics to the attempted recruitments of the so-called "hard targets," i.e., the accessible Eastern European diplomats who live exposed lives in little African posts. I have listened to the enthusiastic claims of success of this program and its justification in terms of broader national interests, and I have been able to follow some of these operations wherein Agency officers have successfully befriended ana allegedly recruited drunken Soviet, Czech, Hungarian and Polish diplomats, by servicing their venal and sexual (homo-and hetero-weaknesses. Unfortunately, I observed and colleagues in the Soviet Division confirmed to me that none of these recruited individuals has had access to truly vital strategic information. Instead, they have reported mostly on their colleagues' private lives in the little posts. Not one has returned to his own country, gained access to strategic information and reported satisfactorily.

Agency operations in Vietnam would have discouraged even the most callous, self-serving of adventurers. It was a veritable Catch-22 of unprofessional conduct. Ninety-eight per cent of the operations were commonly agreed to be fabrications, but were paperred over the promoted by aware case officers because of the "numbers game" requirements from Headquarters for voluminous reporting. At the end, in April 1975, several senior CIA field officers were caught by surprise, fled in hasty panic and otherwise abandoned their responsibilities. One senior officer left the country on R & R leave five days before the final evacuation, abdicating all responsibility for the people who had worked for him and for the CIA in this area. Numerous middle and lower grade officers vigorously protested this conduct, but all of these senior officers, including the one who fled, have subsequently received responsible assignments with the promise of promotions.

AFTER VIETNAM, I received the assignment of chief, Angola Task Force. This was despite the fact that I and many other officers in the CIA and State Department thought the intervention irresponsible and illconceived, both in terms of the advancement of United States interests and the moral question of contributing substantially to the escalation of an already bloody civil war, when there was no possibility that we would make a full commitment and ensure the victory of our allies. From a chess player's point of view, the intervention was a blunder. In July, 1975 the MPLA was clearly winning, already controlling 12 of the 15 provinces and was thought by seeral responsible American officials andd senators to be the best qualified to run Angola; nor was it hostile to the United States. The CIA committed $31 million to opposing the MPLA victory, but six months later it had, nevertheless, decisively won the 15,000 Cuban regular army troops were entrenched in Angola with the full sympathy of much of the Third World and the support of several influential African chiefs of state who previously had been critical of any extra-continental intervention in African affairs. At the same time, the United States was solidly discredited, having been exposed for covert military intervention in African affairs, having managed to alley itself with South Africa and having lost.

This is not Monday morning quarterbacking. Various people foresaw all this, and also predicted that the covert intervention would ultimately by exposed and curtailed by the United States Senate. I myself warned the Interagency Working Group in October, 1975 that the Zairian invasion of northern Angola would be answered by the introduction of large numbers of Cuban troops, 10-15,000, I said, and would invite an eventual retaliatory invasion of Zaire from Angola. Is anyone surprised that a year later the Angola government has permitted freshly armed Zairian exiles to invade the Shaba province of Zaire? Is the CIA a good friend? Having encouraged Mobutu to tease the Angolan lion, will it help him repel its retaliatory charge? Can one not argue that our Angolan program provoked the present invasion in Zaire which may well lead to its loss of the Shaba's rich copper mines?

Yes, I know you are attempting to generate token support to help Zaire meet its crisis; that you are seeking out the same French mercenaries the CIA sent into Angola in early 1976. These are the men who took the CIA money but fled the first time they encountered heavy shelling.

Some of us in the Angolan program were continuously frustrated and disappointed with Headquarters' weak leadership of the field especially is inability to control the Kinshasa station as it purchased ice plants and ships for local friends and on one occasion tried to get the CIA to pay Mobutu $2 million for an airplane which was worth only $600,000. All of this, and much more, is documented in the cable traffic, if it hasn't been destroyed.

I CAME AWAY from the Angolan program in the spring of 1976 determined to reassess the CIA and my potential for remaining with it. I read several books with a more objective mind, and began to discuss the present state of the American intelligence establishment from a less defensive position.I read [Morton] Halperin's book and [Joseph] Smith's and [David] Philips'. I was seriously troubled to discover the extent to which the CIA has in fact violated its charter and begun surveilling and mounting operations against American citizens. I attempted to count the hundreds, thousands of lives that have been taken in thoughtless little CIA adventures.

A major point was made to me when I was recruited in 1964 that the CIA was highminded and scrupulously kept itself clean and truly dirty skulduggery such as killing and coups, etc. At that exact time, the CIA was making preparations for the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, who had grown up a few miles east of my own home in the Kasia. Eventually, he was killed, not by our poisons, but beaten to death, apparently by ment who were loyal to men who had Agency cryptonyms and received Agency salaries. In death he became in eternal martyr and by installing Mobutu in the Zairian presidency we committed ourselves to the 'other side,' the losing side in central and southern Africa. We cast ourselves as the dull-witted Goliath, in a world of eager young Davids. I for one have applauded as Ambassador [Andrew] Young has thrashed about trying to break us loose from this role and I keenly hope President Carter will continue to support him in some new thinking about Africa.

But, one asks, has the CIA learned its lesson and mended its ways since the revelations of Watergate and the subsequent investigations? Is it now, with the help of oversight committees, policed and self-policing?

While I was still serving as the Centreal Branch Chief in Africa Divison last fall, a young officer in my branch was delegated away from my supervision to write a series of memos discussing with the Justice Department the possibilities for prosecution of an American mercenary named David Bufkin. Bufkin had been involved in the Angola conflict, apparently receiving monies from Holden Roberto, quite possibly from funds he received from the CIA. In anticipation of the possibility that during a trial of Bufkin the defense might demand to see his CIA file under the Freedom of Information Act, it was carefully purged. Cetain documents containing information about him were placed in other files where they could easily be retrieved but would not be exposed if he demanded and gained access to his own file. I heard of this and remonstrated, but was told by the young officer than in his previous Agency assignment he had served on a staff which was responding to Senate investigations and that such tactics were common, "We did it all the time," as the Agency attempted to protect incriminating information from investigators.

NONE OF THIS has addressed the conditions which my former colleagues have begged me to expose. They are more frustrated by the constipation that exists at the top and middle levels of the DDO, where an ingrown clique of senior officers has for a quarter of a century controlled and exploited their power and prestige under the security of clandestinity and safe from exposure, so that no matter how drunken, inept or corrupt their management of a station might be, they are protected, promoted and reassigned.

The organization currently belongs to the old, to the burned out. Young officers, and there are some very good ones, must wait until generations retire before they can move up. Mediocre performances are guaranteed by a promotion system wherein time in grade and being a "good ol' boy" are top criteria, i.e., there are no excpetional promotions for superior performance. The truly exceptional officer gets his promotions at the same time as the "only-good" and even some of the "not-really-so-good" officers, and he must wait behind a line of tired old men for the truly challenging field assignments. These young officers are generally supervised by unpromotable middle-grade officers who for many years have been unable to go overseas and participate personally in operational activity. These conditions are obviously discouraging to dynamic young people, demoralizingly so, and several have told me they are also seeking opportunities outside the Agency.

With each new Director they hope there will be a housecleaning and reform, but each Director comes and goes, seven in my time, preoccupied with broader matters of state, uttering meaningless and inaccurate platitudes about conditions and standards inside the DDO. The only exception was James Schlesinger, who initiated a housecleaning but was transferred to the Department of Defense before it had much effect.

You, sir, have been so bold as to state your intention to abrogate American constitutional rights, those of freedom of speech, in order to defend and protect the AMerican intelligence establishment. This strikes me as presumptuous of you, especially before you have even has a good look inside the CIA to see if it is worth sacrificing constitutional rights for. If you get the criminal penalties you are seeking for the disclosure of classified information, or even the civil penalties which President Carter and Vice President Mondale have said they favor, then Americans who work for the CIA could not, when they find themselves embroiled in criminal and immoral activity which is commonplace in the Agency, expose that activity without risking jail or poverty as punishment for speaking out. Cynical men, such as those who gravitate to the top of the CIA, could then by classifying a document or two protect and cover up illegal actions with relative impunity. I predict that the American people will never surrender to you the right of any individual to stand in public and say whatever is in his heart and mind. That right is our last line of defense against the tyrannies and invasions of privacy which events of recent years have demonstrated are more than paranoic fantasies. I am enthusiastic about the nation's prospects under the new administration and I am certain President Carter will reconsider his position on this issue.

And you, sir, may well decide to address yourself to the more appropriate task of setting the Agency straight from the inside out.

Sincerely,

JOHN STOCKWELL

washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post

washingtonpost.com

© 1996-2024 The Washington Post

source:

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee#See_also

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Marchetti

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stockwell_(CIA_officer)

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wright_(MI5_officer)

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spycatcher

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Five

score takes care of itself (Bill Walsh)

 The score takes care of itself

by Bill Walsh

with Steve Jamison and Craig Walsh

The score takes care of itself : my philosophy of leadership 

read by Dick Hill

unabridged

business

bookCD  658.4092  walsh

keyword summary (audio book, unabriudged):  inspiring, motivational, leadership, lesson to be learned:  how to delegate, Achilles’ heel, personal, touching, coach, teacher

([ Thank you, Bill Walsh; you certainly did it your way ])  

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3IIWOKEBGZM4H/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1591843472

He also revealed that every coach, executive “pushes themselves to the brink and beyond, often have no support system and become isolated from family, friends, and normal interactions.” His story teaches me to be a better life and leadership coach and to be a part of that “support system” leaders can turn to.

Book Summary – The Score Takes Care of Itself: My Philosophy of Leadership by Bill Wash.

https://lanredahunsi.com/book-summary-the-score-takes-care-of-itself-bill-wash/

The Score Takes Care of Itself Book Summary

https://wisewords.blog/book-summaries/score-takes-care-itself-book-summary/

“The Score Takes Care of Itself” 

My Philosophy of Leadership 

Bill Walsh, Steve Jamison, and Craig Walsh 

Book Note by Dave Kraft 

https://davekraft.org/wp-content/uploads/BILL-WALSH.pdf

Football coaches, just like executives who push themselves to the brink and beyond, often have no support  system and become isolated from family, friends, and normal interactions. an ever-growing loathing of failure, which, uncontrolled, can eventually take over to a point of making you almost dysfunctional.

 

You must derive satisfaction and gratification from winning without letting it define your self-worth. I must admit that I’m not sure any of this would have benefitted me by the time I reached the end of my rope. The time to do it is before your tank is empty. 

1. Do not isolate yourself. 

2. Delegate abundantly. ([ Bill Walsh, coach, general manager, president, teacher ])

3. Avoid the destructive temptation to define yourself as a person by the won-lost record, the “score,” however you define it.

Like many who wear blinders and focus on victory to the exclusion of everything else, I barreled down the highway until the engine burned up. While you can influence the result to a greater or lesser degree, you do not control the result. 

The cruelty of the sport, 

One of the lessons I learned was how people change with success or failure. People’s behavior and attitudes can be transformed in the most positive or most disturbing ways. Starting in 1979 when he was appointed president, general manager, and head coach of a lowly franchise in San Francisco, a distant outpost in the eyes of many throughout the league. 

I’ve come to understand that, in some ways, my father’s life was almost Shakespearean, because what got him to the top professionally was his downfall personally; in spite of his incomparable achievements, he had trouble ever feeling fulfilled on a continuing basis. 

When you achieve what he achieved, the inability or unwillingness to grant yourself happiness and satisfaction is perhaps tragic. In this and many other ways big and small, nobody had ever done it like Bill Walsh did it. His unorthodoxy put off owners who subsequently held him at arm’s length. 

Regardless of what he did, it seemed the powers that be would not accord him equal status, would not recognize the legitimacy of his approach and his leadership skills. Thus, he increasingly became driven by a simple but almost obsessive goal: to prove them all wrong. And he did. 

As you’ve read in his own words, this desire to “do it all myself ” eventually became an Achilles’ heel for him. Improvement was his obsession—always looking for ways to improve his coaching, his team, his organization. 

Bill Walsh may not have sold his soul to the company store, but he leased it to the game he loved for many years.

10 LESSONS IN LEADERSHIP FROM BILL WALSH’S THE SCORE TAKES CARE OF ITSELF

By OLIVIER POIRIER-LEROY, NASM-CPT

https://www.yourworkoutbook.com/lessons-in-leadership-bill-walsh-score-takes-care-of-itself/

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich (2011)

 

https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Opinion|Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

Textised! : Opinion | Stop Coddling the Super-Rich - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Supported by

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion

Op-Ed Contributor

Stop Coddling the Super-Rich

By Warren E. Buffett

Aug. 14, 2011

Omaha

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

Image

Credit...Kelly Blair

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)

I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.

Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.

But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.

My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 21 of the New York edition with the headline: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Site Index

Site Information Navigation

© 2024 The New York Times Company

A Soldier's Declaration Writer: Siegfried Sassoon (1917)

 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Finished_with_the_War:_A_Soldier%E2%80%99s_Declaration

https://medium.com/@HistoryInsights/siegfried-sassoon-a-soldiers-declaration-cb2bfbacc542

Lt. Siegfried Sassoon.

3rd Batt: Royal Welsh Fusiliers.

July, 1917.

I am making this statement as an act of wilful defiance of military authority because I believe that the war is being deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it. I am a soldier, convinced that I am acting on behalf of soldiers. I believe that the war upon which I entered as a war of defence and liberation has now become a war of agression and conquest. I believe that the purposes for which I and my fellow soldiers entered upon this war should have been so clearly stated as to have made it impossible to change them and that had this been done the objects which actuated us would now be attainable by negotiation.

I have seen and endured the sufferings of the troops and I can no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings for ends which I believe to be evil and unjust. I am not protesting against the conduct of the war, but against the political errors and insincerities for which the fighting men are being sacrificed.

On behalf of those who are suffering now, I make this protest against the deception which is being practised upon them; also I believe it may help to destroy the callous complacency with which the majority of those at home regard the continuance of agonies which they do not share and which they have not enough imagination to realise.

Open Letter to the Kansas School Board (2006)

 https://www.spaghettimonster.org/pages/about/open-letter/

Open Letter to the Kansas School Board (2006)

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

https://www.spaghettimonster.org/pages/about/open-letter/

critical engineering manifesto

 The Critical Engineering Manifesto

https://criticalengineering.org/

The Critical Engineering Working Group

Berlin, October 2011-2021

Julian Oliver

Gordan Savičić

Danja Vasiliev

THE CRITICAL ENGINEERING MANIFESTO

0. The Critical Engineer considers Engineering to be the most transformative language of our time, shaping the way we move, communicate and think. It is the work of the Critical Engineer to study and exploit this language, exposing its influence.

1. The Critical Engineer considers any technology depended upon to be both a challenge and a threat. The greater the dependence on a technology the greater the need to study and expose its inner workings, regardless of ownership or legal provision.

2. The Critical Engineer raises awareness that with each technological advance our techno-political literacy is challenged.

3. The Critical Engineer deconstructs and incites suspicion of rich user experiences.

4. The Critical Engineer looks beyond the "awe of implementation" to determine methods of influence and their specific effects.

5. The Critical Engineer recognises that each work of engineering engineers its user, proportional to that user's dependency upon it.

6. The Critical Engineer expands "machine" to describe interrelationships encompassing devices, bodies, agents, forces and networks.

7. The Critical Engineer observes the space between the production and consumption of technology. Acting rapidly to changes in this space, the Critical Engineer serves to expose moments of imbalance and deception.

8. The Critical Engineer looks to the history of art, architecture, activism, philosophy and invention and finds exemplary works of Critical Engineering. Strategies, ideas and agendas from these disciplines will be adopted, re-purposed and deployed.

9. The Critical Engineer notes that written code expands into social and psychological realms, regulating behaviour between people and the machines they interact with. By understanding this, the Critical Engineer seeks to reconstruct user-constraints and social action through means of digital excavation.

10. The Critical Engineer considers the exploit to be the most desirable form of exposure.