| thoughts on two recent items in the news; pet-food and terror | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 9 2007, 11:40 AM (121 Views) | |
| Dominic Guglieme | May 9 2007, 11:40 AM Post #1 |
|
the human MICROscope!!
![]()
|
These two items are not related in any practical sense, but there is a common "know your enemy" (as attributed to Sun Tzu) theme to both. The first is the pet-food scandal. For those who are unaware, a few weeks back, there was an outbreak of deaths among house pets. According to reports, the death were caused by tainted pet-food out of China. The cause of the taint was the addition of an industrial chemical, (not suitable for consumption), that was added to create the illusion of a more nutrient packed food. Now, besides the obvious fraud involved in this, one has to wonder what the pet-food manufacturers were thinking. At a basic practical level, adding what is essentially a toxin to pet-food is a bad business move. Lets assume for a moment that you manufacture pet-food. You care nothing for animals. They are a tool to be used at best. You know some people keep them, and thus need to feed them. So, you manufacture pet-food. If you can make money off of the stupidity of people who collect what you see as living art, great. Now, the temptation to manufacture something more cheaply is going to be there. And, adding toxins to the food is one way to do this. You are not in this business for the animals, and frankly, you are comforatable with fraud. But, there is a practical consideration. If somebody's pet dies, because of your product, there may well be fall-out for you. Enough animals dying is likely to bring a good deal of scrutiny on you operation. And, most importantly, it could cost you money, both in terms of lost sales, and in terms of modifying your production. Granted, the people complaining are being unreasonable. After all, their pets are just fancier than average toys, that they will have to replace at some point anyway. But, think at a purely selfish level, how would you, a rational and sensible person, react if your property was damaged or destroyed by the fraud of another? And, now, how do you think an irrational person, somebody who forms emotional attachments to their property, is going to react? Like them or not, respect them or not, those crazy irrational folk are your market. Take them, and their whims (however crazy), seriously. The other issue relates to the recent news about a planned terror attack at Fort Dix in PA. Long and short, your standard "bunch of guys" terror cell was planning to attack the base and kill US military personel. According to the reports, they are not directly affiliated with al Qida and UBL, nor are they Middle Eastern, or from the sub-continent. The idea of self-directing terror cells seems to be taking some people in the news by suprise. Really, it should not. Peter Bergen wrote a book several years back, based on his study of UBL, that outlined al Qida as a very decentralized organization with fluid leadership. While there are some "top-down" style commands given, for the most part, UBL (and his Egyptian doctor) provide strategic direction and symbolic inspiration more than practical direction. They make requests that their followers ("good Muslims") kill Americans, but really do not specify how. They may provide some money, which Bergen says is analogous to "venture capital", but beyond that, it is on the individual cells. What does this mean? It means that just checking to see if somebody has travelled to certain areas is not enough. Granted, the guys who planned to attack Fort Dix were not from America, but where some of them were from is not the stereotypical Gulf or sub-continent state. There are Slavs in this terror cell. Yes, Slavs. You know, guys who tend to be pale, and not where the "standard" head piece and robes? (Of course, Atta, Shehi, Jarrah, Hanjour, and their 15 henchmen did not where such clothing either, but, hey....) Of course, the presence of "European Muslims" should not be much of shock to anyone. There have been reports for the last several years about al Qida recruiting from this population, specifically because they are assuming Americans will not look for people who do not "look" Muslim." Boy, that makes it hard huh? We might actually have to start looking at people more objectively, beyond facile determinations based on ethnicity and region. (So, who wants to talk about how fast Islam is growing around the world, including in South America?) Of course, the idea of non-Middle Eastern Muslims being terrorists does not get as much consideration as it should. Some of this is based on (unforgivable) ignorance, some of it is based on willful blindness. For whatever reason, the West is reluctant to acknowledge that Chechnya is a failed state, and terrorist haven, and that those terrorists are Muslim, and a possibly recruiting pool for UBL and his ilk. Of course, it is not even a question of being Muslim. (I have met Muslim immigrants who are fundamentally better Americans than a good many native born citizens I know.) You see, Islam is not monolithic. Besides the obvious (if only recently discussed) Sunni/Shia split, there are splits within splits. So, where do UBL and his followers fit in? Well, they are on the Sunni side of the big split. (American's might be forgiven for intuitively thinking Shia's are more fundamentalist, but objectively, UBL is a Sunni.) But, UBL is part of a sub-group called Wahabbis. But, even then, worrying over Wahhabis does not work. In fact, there are some Wahhabis we work with. (If you cannot place that reference, look at any highway, or gas station. The answer will come to you.) The sub-groups of Wahhabis that UBL et al belong to is called Salafism. But, even then, there is no "register of Salafists", nor is there any real ID card or other physical mark one can look for. In other words, we (the civilized world), need to assess threats more realistically. So, what went right with the Fort Dix plot being foiled? Well, if you listen to officials, it looks like they did some hard grunt work. The aspiring terrorists did not gain US attention by virtue of their ethnicity or religion. They earned the scrutiny by virtue of their actions. They were stock-piling weapons, and filming themselves while training for the attack. (Can we say "suicide video" anyone?) Really, these are the same tactics that worked in the lead up to out (wholly justified) raid in Waco Texas against the Branch Davidians back in the 90s. I am not saying that law-enforcement is the only counter-terrorism tool. The military does have a place. We could not reasonably send the "Keystone Cops" into the Hindu Kush mountains to kill UBL. (And, even so, for all his symbolic value, UBL could be replaced easily enough.) And, there are noteable military successes against terrorists, albeit not always American successes. (Syria did a fantastic job at Hama, back in the 80s.) But, the key here is to correctly assess a threat and identify one's enemy. Whether you are trying to sell somebody something, or preven them from kiling you, understanding your "enemy" is key. Willful ignorance and short-sighted actions are suicidal, and may lead to (arguably well deserved) failure. |
|
Keep it local. The healthiest leper in the colony is still very very sick. www.theanimalrescuesite.com | |
![]() |
|
| Viper Commander | May 10 2007, 12:57 PM Post #2 |
|
Unregistered
![]() |
See, your article was well written and makes sense. But most business owners in China dont care about such things, they open a factory, pump out tons of cheap low quality goods and when they get shuttered they just start it up all over again with a new company. They opress their own people, and have absolutely no repsect for the enviroment or human rights. I might be biased since my parents are from Taiwan, but then again Im probably a hypocrite since all the toys I buy are made in China.
|
|
|
| Dominic Guglieme | May 10 2007, 01:20 PM Post #3 |
|
the human MICROscope!!
![]()
|
Ah, but remember, I was not making a moral arguement, but a utilitarian one. You are right, in that Chinese industry is so heavily bound into the state that if it fails, it can easily pick up and start over elsewhere. But, if there is no market for the low quality goods, (and the pet-food scare has really ramped up scrutiny on food imports, human and animal, especially from China), then nobody (factory or state) makes any money. My arguement for better quality control was not based on anything other that sound business practice, and good common sense. (Note: I have several cats who mean the world to me. But, when making an arguement on something like this, it helps to be objective.) |
|
Keep it local. The healthiest leper in the colony is still very very sick. www.theanimalrescuesite.com | |
![]() |
|
| Viper Commander | May 15 2007, 07:39 AM Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
![]() |
See, you hit the nail right on the head, business owners and corporations should focus on these things instead of just trying to maximize profits. Nobody is in it to make things better anymore, everyone just wants to get rich and retire with a fat bonus. To hell with everyone else, right? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Dominic Guglieme | May 15 2007, 12:42 PM Post #5 |
|
the human MICROscope!!
![]()
|
But, even from a profit perspective, my arguement makes sense. Objectively, what is better, $1000 dollars this week, or $300 a week for the next 5 weeks, and beyond? In the long term, the latter is better. But, many companies seem to forget this. |
|
Keep it local. The healthiest leper in the colony is still very very sick. www.theanimalrescuesite.com | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · XTRA! XTRA! · Next Topic » |








