Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Women in Combat

Today’s Military Mission: Win Wars or Jobs Program?

May 31, 2007 | By | One Comment

Some time ago, Your Business Blogger was invited by FOX NEWS to discuss social programs in the military and the new Congress. Following are the back of the envelope notes for the show prep.


Damascus Nancy Pelosi

Courtesy: Rush Limbaugh Liberal Democrats have taken control of Congress in this terrible time of war. What does this mean for the armed services?

High on the law makers’ agenda is the Global War on Terror. The debate raging over our involvement in Iraq has been high profile and headline-grabbing.

But there is another agenda; a hidden one that isn’t making headlines. An agenda that is attempting to change the culture of our military.

High on the hidden agenda is to advance liberal ideologies by remaking the military. This re-engineering campaign is a three-pronged effort:

1) Reinstituting the draft

2) Entrenching women in combat and

3) Encourage homosexuals in the military.

The Draft

Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel is pushing the draft, using involuntary conscription as a legislative tactic to end what he sees as an unpopular war by having even smart rich white kids get killed.

But what is driving the congressman’s hidden agenda is to provide manpower in the cultural war. A few years ago army veteran Rangel first introduced legislation to bring back the draft for both men and women; with no exception for conscientious objectors. Draftees would “volunteer” for some approved social public-works. Liberals want legions of indentured servants for government programs.

The purpose of the draft is to maintain military numerical strength in an extreme national emergency. Because the draft is designed for combat replacements, only men — not women must currently register.

But many social engineers including Rangel would want women drafted to fight in combat.

Women in Combat


Men have to do 3 chin-ups to be in the

Marines. Women don’t have to do any. Zero. None.The hidden agenda also includes advancing women in land combat. President Bush has clearly stated that women will not be placed in land combat and be subjected to Direct Ground Fire. But the left-leaning Flags of senior generals and admirals are not only placing women in harm’s way but also into combat. 77 women have died in our current war, where only 16 died in Vietnam, most of them were nurses.

Feminist have long preached that men and women are interchangeable and that being a male or female was simply a social construct. The new congress will want to advance these egalitarian goals in the mistake of pursuing the women’s vote as (former) senator George Allen did. (See Allen’s support of women at VMI.)

But the military is not subject to the Equal Opportunity and Employment Commission. The battlefield is not regulated by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Combat is violence against women.

Liberal Democrats in the coming months will force the armed services to evolve, to grow; to achieve higher consciousness. Liberals in Congress will demand EEO hires into OSHA compliant combat to remake a new and improved military.

The end result is a liberal Department of Defense which may or may not win any wars but will pass EEO muster.

After training by feminists in Anger Management.

Over the past few years, armed forces policy has been the domain of the generals and less of the civilians elected and appointed. The civilian leadership ceded control to the Pentagon Brass. Empty civilian Armani’s were replaced with Class A military Uniforms.

Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that…

Except the military leadership was as liberal as the civilians they replaced. Forgetting the true job of the armed forces. The purpose of our military has a single goal: To defend our institutions. Our way of life. Freedom. Congress is charged with providing for the common defense.

Unfortunately Democrats in Congress will demand control to change the culture of the military.

Lifting the Homosexual Ban

As recently as 1993, Congress affirmed in law that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. But Clinton-era “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” regulations contradict the law and cause confusion. Democrats and homosexual activists will use the confusion to work to remove the regulation and change the law, in a single synchronized move.

The key difference in our current culture wars is in understanding unit cohesion. This is the unique bond that is needed for survival in combat necessary for victory. Unit cohesion is all but unknown and nearly unnecessary in the civilian world.

In 1982 the Department of Defense said that he presence of homosexuals, adversely affects the ability … to maintain discipline and morale; to foster mutual trust. And unlike the civilian workplace military men and women, …must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy…. Sexual attraction and tension destroys unit cohesion and may detract from mission accomplishment.

Few civilian shift managers expect employees not to date each other. Few first line supervisors expect staff to jump on stray hand grenades.

What should Congress do?

Liberal Democrats have a hidden agenda for changing the military culture. But what should our law makers do instead to improve military readiness?

Keep the volunteer army. As recent studies by The Heritage Foundation have shown, our current All-Volunteer Army is well motivated, well education and truly looks like America. If the Pentagon needs more young men for combat, President Bush can lead the recruiting drive by call to arms from his bully pulpit. We have heard no such exhortation from the President.

The Army can follow the president’s orders and keep women away from Direct Ground Combat. The president can order the Pentagon to stop the charade of assigning women to non-combat units, then attaching and “co-locating” women with combat units. At the very least, the military can hold women to the same physical training standards as men.

The Pentagon can repeal the Don’t Army Don’t Tell regulations. And keep the current laws against Gays-Lesbian-Bi-sexuals and Transgender genders from serving in the military. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, then-Vice-President Al Gore and President Bill Clinton have admitted that Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell was a failure.

Homosexuals can honorably serve our country in many ways, including,

Peace Corps,

America Corps,

But not the

Marine Corps

We are a nation with citizen soldiers. We should not burden combat leaders with the needs of citizen cross-dressers. “Unfair” as it may be.

It is enough to ask the combat leader to fight and win battles with out being worried about the special needs of gender-identity politics.

By taking these actions we might have a prayer in the Global War on Terror. Because if we fail, any prayers we have will be toward Mecca.


Charmaine Debates Women in Combat with Heather Wilson

January 30, 2007 | By | No Comments


Heather Wilson

A few years ago Charmaine tangled with Congressperson Heather Wilson (R) (!) on MSNBC on women in combat.

Representative Wilson wants women exposed subjected to direct ground combat.

Unfortunately, women are not held to the same physical training standards as men.

Note in the video clip Charmaine’s emphasis that our Armed Forces like to win — as much, say, as teams in the National Football League like to win. Not many chicks near pro teams, except the campfollowers on the sidelines.

The difference being, of course, that the Army team is a merely a fight to the death.

And the NFL fights for money.

When the mission is really important, who does it right? The Army or the NFL?


(Former) Private Deanna Allen

does not represent

all women in the military Watch the clip here.


Full Disclosure: there is no nudity in the clip.

The Women in Combat Debate and Celebrating Veterans' Day on Fox

November 10, 2006 | By | No Comments

Fox News here in Your Nation’s Capital is taping a segment on women in the military. The interview will air on the 11th. Veterans’ Day. I will be discussing the contribution of women in the uniformed services.





DoD photo by: SGT R. KLIKA

Date Shot: 20 Jun 1985Our women in uniform are serving with distinction and honor in our Armed Services. The nation is proud of our women in uniform for their outstanding contribution to the security of our nation. They have faithfully discharged their duty and oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. We are grateful for their service.

To defend out institutions and our way of life. Our women in the military have made sacrifices. And for too many, the supreme sacrifice.

Women have served with distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan in the global war on terror. There is no debate, no question on the patriotism of our women in the military and their contribution to our national security.

Nothing that has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan changes the debate on women in combat. That women have been placed in combat.

The President, the Commander in Chief, has said that women willl not be in [land] combat.

Congress has decreed that women will not be in land combat.

Army rule and req have forbidden the placement of women in land combat.

The American people have demanded that women not be placed in land combat.


Women are dying in combat.

Todate, 67 women in the service have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Vietnam era only 17 women were killed. And most of those female casualties were nurses. We do not have to sacrifice our women in combat.

What has changed?

During the Clinton era army regulations were weakened to where women are now exposed to a substantial risk of capture. The end results of this change has been tragic. As we now have seen with the capture, torture and murder of our female soldiers.

We are proud of our women in the military. But we did not send them off to a war zone to be killed and captured in combat.

Double Standards involving Women (DSIW)

…here’s what a 22-year-old man and woman must do to “max” (get a perfect score of 300) the physical fitness test in each service.

Marine men must do 20 pull-ups, 100 sit-ups and run three miles in 18 minutes. Women Marines must hold the flexed-arm hang for 70 seconds, do 100 sit-ups and run three miles in 21 minutes.

Army men must do 75 push-ups, 80 sit-ups and run two miles in 13 minutes. Women soldiers must do 46 push-ups, 80 sit-ups and run two miles in 15:35.

Women are held to lower physical standards than men. Lower physical standards can jeopardize mission accomplishment and evacuation of wounded fellow soldiers.

Only about 3% of military women test as well in physical training as the average male. Women have much to offer in knowledge, skills and abilities to our armed forces. Man-handling an 80 pound back isn’t one of them.

If one of our soldiers is wounded, do we know that a female could move her buddy to safety?

This doubt, this hesitation on rescue is what destroys unit cohesion.

Women in combat does not improve the ability of our Army to fight and win.


US Marine Corps Drill Instructor Staff Sergeant Schliesman and the other Drill Instructors of the 2nd Battalion, H Company, watch as new recruits do dead hang pullups at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina. (Released to Public)

Pullups. Men have to do them. Women don’t. Double standards. For the feminists.


Thank you (foot)notes: Update: The interview was bumped. We’ll let you know when segment is re-scheduled. Your Business Blogger serves as the Vice President of the Center for Military Readiness

16 Oct



Karin Agness President of Network of Enlightened Women and Mallard Fillmore

October 16, 2006 | By | 2 Comments

How does one know when one has arrived?

When you are the subject of a cartoon.


We were honored to have Karin Agness, President of NeW, as one of our panelists for the Center for Military Readiness Celebration last week.


Karin Agness at the Center for Military Readiness Briefing


Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription or RSS for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Karin L. Agness is the Founder and President of the Network of enlightened Women (NeW), which helps female college students to confront radical feminists and liberals on fifteen college campuses. Ms. Agness is a Phi Beta Kappa member and student of law, University of Virginia. She has collaborated with the wife of Your Business Blogger, Charmaine Yoest, Ph.D..

Read Rebecca Hagelin’s take at TownHall.

The Virginia Senate Race: George Allen vs. Jim Webb

October 6, 2006 | By | One Comment


The Feminist and Women in Combat, Scott Maxim

Your Business Blogger is honored to report to Elaine Donnelly who heads The Center for Military Readiness. We have been asking questions of both candidates to clarify their positions on women in combat. Yesterday CMR released this information.

From Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness, 5 October 2006:

In the Virginia Senate race, the issue of women in combat has suddenly become a matter of great controversy. The Center for Military Readiness is non-partisan and neutral in that race. We do not endorse candidates at any level. As a public policy organization our primary mission is to provide accurate information and background on issues of concern to CMR.

On September 12 Senator Allen raised the issue of women in combat by sponsoring a high-profile news conference featuring female Naval Academy graduates. The former officers criticized Mr. Webb’s 1979 Washingtonian article opposing women in combat, titled “Women Can’t Fight.” Video from the news conference is prominently displayed on Allen’s campaign website and in a series of ads regarding respect for women. Webb apologized for some of the statements in the article, and one of the news conference speakers subsequently said that if she lived in Virginia, she would vote for Webb.

Others can debate the etymology of Allen’s unfortunate slang word or Webb’s seventies-era rhetoric. CMR is more concerned about the issues that matter today. One of these two men will be sworn in as Virginia’s Senator in January 2007. Since both candidates have put the issue of women in combat front and center, we believe the voters are entitled to answers on their records and future plans on military personnel issues of concern to CMR

To determine the candidates’ positions on current issues — not just things that were said in the past — CMR submitted four specific questions to Senator Allen and to Jim Webb. We had hoped that we would have written answers to report by now, but we have yet to receive answers from the Allen campaign. A spokeswoman for Mr. Webb provided verbal answers to three of the four questions. Our inquiries and the Webb campaign’s partial answers are posted here.

On September 17, Tim Russert of NBC’s Meet the Press put several valid questions to Allen and Webb about the Army’s practice of placing female soldiers in certain support units that are collocated or embedded with direct ground combat troops. These units are required to be all male. For months CMR has been reporting on these illegal practices, which were the subject of a major debate in the House Armed Services Committee in May 2005. Neither candidate, however, seemed prepared to answer current questions on women in land combat or related issues. Erroneous statements were made by both.

In the interests of accuracy and context, we have also posted some points of information to correct or clarify issues of concern to CMR that came up during the Meet the Press debate. This information has been shared with both candidates.

If we receive answers to our inquiries from Senator Allen or James Webb, we will let you know right away.

The four questions are at the jump.


Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

A Reminder – Join Us on October 12!

In the meantime, we are finalizing plans for our Eleventh Annual CMR Issues Briefing on Thursday, October 12.

By coincidence, our scheduled panel discussion could not be more timely or relevant to issues being discussed today. I am looking forward to joining distinguished panelists Kate O’Beirne of National Review, attorney Charles Gittins, and Karin Agness of the Network of enlightened Women (NeW) in discussing: Respect for Women: Where is the Military Taking Us?

You will not want to miss the panel discussion, which will be followed by the CMR Celebration Reception — our main fundraising event of the year. This reception gives us the opportunity to share good conversation and refreshments with friends from around the country.

Read More

What Were Feminists doing on September 10, 2001?

September 11, 2006 | By | No Comments

Following is background from Your Business Blogger in an article published just after 9.11. Things have changed since then. A little.

Booby traps at the Pentagon: Charmaine and Jack Yoest introduce you to the Pentagon’s babes in arms. What do they want? An “open dialogue” on breastfeeding. (Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services)

Originally published in The Women’s Quarterly; January 01, 2002;


Pentagon attack

ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, [2001] the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, the group most responsible for promoting women in combat, gathered in Pentagon Conference Room 5C1042. This civilian advisory committee, whose members have the protocol status of three-star generals, monitors the concerns of women in uniform. And what was the topic on the eve of the worst attack in U.S. history?

After briefings from representatives of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, DACOWITS, as the committee is known, issued a formal request for more information on what they deemed a matter of paramount military significance:


As the terrorists prepared to hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon itself, our military leaders were directed “to engage in open dialogue” on lactation tactics.

The Defense Advisory Committee on Women celebrated its fiftieth anniversary last April. At the birthday party, President Bush’s deputy secretary of defense, Paul Wolfowitz, a man well regarded for his level-headed and conservative approach to military issues, lauded DACOWITS in his address as an outstanding organization” and told the assembly of earnest women that he “looked forward to [their] advice.”

Read the article.


California Conservative has Open Post 9.11

Women in Combat: Culturally Sensitive

August 26, 2006 | By | No Comments

KARMAH, Iraq — Lance Cpl. Erin Libby doesn’t want to be treated the same as her male Marine Corps counterparts. But she does want to be treated as an equal — even in combat.

In a way, she got her chance last weekend when Marines from the 3rd Battalion…

Photo: Sandra Jontz

Chief Warrant Officer 2

Jill St. John

Combat Logistics Battalion 8

Here we go. Again. From the Stars and Stripes, “Marine raid breaks gender barrier.” (See story at Lucianne.)

erin libby.jpg
Photo: Sandra Jontz

Lance Cpl. Erin Libby

“Rocking on the front line”

Handing out toys in Karmah

The Stars and Stripes is reporting that this past Saturday, the Marines took 14 women from the Combat Logistics Battalion 8 with them on a raid 15 miles northeast of Fallujah. The women’s usual jobs involve “supplying ammunition, food, water, fuel and mail.”

The reason for the change in job assignment?

Cultural sensitivities precluded male Marines from searching women, so the female Marines were meant to deflate fears of Iraqi men and women, said the battalion executive officer, Maj. Larry Miller. It was a first in Iraq to have female Marines embedded at the lowest levels of infantry companies and working alongside their male counterparts.

So “cultural sensitivities” now justify violating Department of Defense regulations against taking women into combat and the law which requires Congressional notification before doing so?

The problem with this vignette explodes in several directions. The article uses female suicide bombers to explain why we need to be searching Iraqi women.

girl bomber.jpg

That’s a real problem. But let us ‘understand’ our enemy: because terrorists encourage their women to blow themselves up, we have to send our women into harm’s way? To respect “cultural sensitivities?”

Here’s Daniel Pipes on our efforts at cultural sensitivity: “This is probably the most “culturally sensitive” occupation of a country in all of recorded history. . . and is not likely to be rewarded with reciprocal good will.”

And then there’s the inherent contradictions in the situation — they’re in a combat zone. . . handing out teddy bears and plush toys. It’s like some sort of weird fluffernutter sandwich. They are using this experience to say that women can handle combat as well as men, boiling a frog thread; this is a perfect example) but they have enough leeway to take time and hand out stuffed animals afterward.

Lance Corporal Erin Libby is quoted as saying: “We’re out here, and we’re rocking on the front line.”

Our cultural sensitivities, and our law, includes not sending women into combat. This issue of using female soldiers to pat-down female Iraqi’s did come up in our recent Pentagon meeting: it’s time for Congress to exercise oversight about women in combat policy.

This an example of the Marine’s taking female support troops along on a combat raid, in the same duplicitous double-talk that is the Army’s argument with the gender-integrated Forward Support Companies. Where women are taken into combat.


Thank you (foot)notes:

Cross Post from Charmaine at Reasoned Audacity.

The Belmont Club points us to The Washington Post that has risk analysis in Iraq.

BaylyBlog has the question: Women and Children First(?) With compelling insight,

…if you think about it does it seem just that the sex that’s already had her body split open and shed her blood to give birth to the child should also have to shed her blood to defend that child? Isn’t one war enough for women? Why can’t men step up the plate and bear their fair share?

Satyameva Jayathe has a new high in PC about the challenge of women in combat in India.

On One Foot has Thoughts on a sensitive subject… homosexuals and women in combat in the same post.

Soldier’s Angels has a big day.

Mudville Gazette has a toast to Maryann at Soldiers Angels.

Half of Rape Allegations are False: Seven Clues

August 19, 2006 | By | No Comments


NOW Chapter President

Desiree Nall

Admitted Rape Hoaxer It is a lie, that women never lie.

And when it comes to rape, women tell the truth about half the time.

Which creates a problem for law enforcement. When a woman cries, “Rape,” a crime has been committed. The challenge for cops is, who is the criminal — the man or the woman? Either a rape has occured. Or a slander has occured. The police officer could flip a coin to determine truth with equal statistical probability.

Or could he. Are there other indicators that law enforcement could use to determine the likelyhood of the crime of rape?

Elaine Donnelly, to whom I report to at the Center for Military Readiness has Sex, Lies, and Rape: How to Distinguish Truthful Allegations form False Ones.

She cites Eugene J. Kanin, Ph.D. and Charles P. McDowell, Ph.D. who have made a number of studies involving women who claimed rape, then recanted the charge — even under the criminal penalty of filing a false report.

Bottom line: Some women lie. Here’s how the legal eagles spot the liars:

1) Revenge — Is the girl out to get even with a man or boyfriend?

2) Alibi — Does the girl need an explanation for having sex?

3) Emotional Instability — Does the girl have problems or a desire for attention?

4) Timeliness — How long did she wait to report the crime? — Some women take a year to file a police report.

5) Physical Evidence — There may not be any.

6) Self Inflicted Wounds — But never sensitive areas: no lips, eyes, gentialia, nipples.

7) Incapacitated — Drunk or drugged remembering few details.

These clues are merely clues, but can help alert investigators on the credibility of a complainant.

Donnelly quotes Warren Farrell, a former board member of the National Organization for Women who matured from a male feminist to an advocate of truth and equality that does not discriminate against men,

False accusations are not a rarity, they are themselves a form of rape…

But not all NOW-ists have so matured. Wendy McElroy writes about one Desiree Nall, that,

On April 8, [2005] the president of the Brevard, Fla., chapter of the National Organization for Women was charged by the Florida state attorney’s office with filing a false rape report and making a false official statement.

She could be imprisoned for one year on each count and forced to pay for the police investigation she incurred. The case has far-reaching implications for gender politics and for women who report sexual assault in the future.

And the NOW chapter president recanted; the rape was a hoax, McElroy continues,

According to police, on Nov. 19, Nall phoned and asked to have the case dropped. When Detective Jon Askins questioned her original report, Nall reportedly confessed that she was “not a victim of a sexual batter.” The police speculate that Nall, a vocal feminist, may have been trying to “make a statement” about violence against women. The alleged rape occurred during Sexual Assault Awareness Week, which was intended to highlight the issue of sexual violence against women.

As feminist Cathy Young correctly says,

We need a serious, honest, open discussion on false accusations of rape. Being able to accuse someone of rape is a form of power (of course that’s true of any accusation, but a charge of rape packs a unique emotional and legal punch); and it would be naive to expect women never to abuse the power they have, just as it would be naive to expect it of men.

Our feminist friends should join us conservatives to focus scarce law enforcement resources on the actual crimes of criminals. And not waste time with liars, hoax-ers and false accusers.


Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Your Business Blogger is proud to serve as the Vice President of the Center for Military Readiness.

Elaine Donnelly is quoted in Martha Mendoza’s AP Probe Looks at Recruiting Misconduct.

Wendy McElroy writes False Rape Accusations May be more Common Than Thought in Fox

Alec Rawls has clear thinking on the science.

Glenn Sacks is re-running an interesting column on Research Shows False Accusations of Rape Common.

Army veteran Billoblog has insight at False Rape Accusations Are Not Rare.

Cathy Young has Who says women never lie about Rape? in Salon. Cathy Young blogs and has a post on Rape, lies, and videotape.

Columbian Journalism Review has analysis.

Alas (a blog) has False Rape Reports.

Update 19 Sept 2006 — Also see another ‘Victim” in the Washington Post.

17 Aug



Hiring Super Stars vs Tolerating Turkeys

August 17, 2006 | By | 2 Comments

Microsoft has one real point measurement for hiring.


Your Business Blogger has hired (computer) coders, sales reps…and government bureaucrats.

When given the option of head count and budget flexibility, I always recommended to my managers to hire the most expensive talent possible — the Super Stars.

Even when hiring government workers.

Into Good and Evil reminds us that when talent really counts, when talent determines life and death, who would get hired? He points us to Professor Kingsley Browne in The Ace and the Turkeys,

“Given the cognitive and temperamental patterns required, it is not surprising to find that the ability to fly aircraft successfully in combat is an ability that not many have. Indeed, it is not an ability that even all combat pilots have. Aviation analysts recognize that the majority of combat kills are scored by a small minority of pilots. Mike Spick has observed: “The gulf between the average fighter pilot and the successful one is very wide. In fact it is arguable that there are almost no average fighter pilots; just aces and turkeys; killers and victims.”

Fighter pilots, like sales guys in a role playing exercise, can practice and give a passable presentation, but,

As one Air Force pilot stated, “Most guys can master the mechanics of the systems, but it’s instinctive to be able to assimilate all the data, get a big picture, and react offensively. Not a lot of guys can do that.”

But the Air Force has a challenge most sales managers don’t: Separating the Aces from the Turkeys,

Ideally, one would have only “aces” or “killers,” leaving the “turkeys” and “victims” to another career path. The difficulty lies, however, in the fact that there is no known way to separate the aces and the turkeys prior to combat. Unfortunately, many of those who will end up being turkeys often do not know what they are getting into. These pilots may have the ability, intelligence, and know-how to fly the plane well, but they ultimately lack the “fighting spirit” that they will need in combat. ”

(Buffalo Law Review,Winter, 2001, 49 Buffalo L. Rev. 51,Women at War: An Evolutionary Perspective By Kingsley R. Browne)

But the hiring manager does have an advantage over an Air Force Wing Commander, the civilian Ace has a track record of Kills.

The best indication of future performance is past performance. Our armed forces are hampered by looking only to recent combat or aerial engagements — and there aren’t that many of those dogfights. The hiring manager has different metrics of combat measures for top business talent. Eat what you kill. Who had produced the best numbers?

In this human resource practice and strategy, there are down-sides as Anita Campbell, my editrix at Small Business Trends citing the Trizoko Biz Journal mentions. She and others make the valid point that Super Star and Aces are nearly impossible to manage. And, indeed, can only be managed by Super Star managers.

But if these crazy iconoclasts can be harnessed, a big ‘if’ to be sure, big numbers are sure to follow. For example, when I had a modest software company, I learned the hard way that a one genius coder was worth a half dozen coders. And not because he (and he was usually a ‘he’) was faster, but that his work was nearly bug-free. Which saved me from hiring three coders just to patch.


With my sales teams, Pareto’s 80/20 Principle always played out. But the top guy, usually a deviant was always a standard deviation above the norm. My #1 sales guy was sometimes double the sales of #2, the rest of the sales team on the long tail. That #1 guy drove me nuts. But I loved his numbers.

And government bureaucrats? Goodness. I once had an agency head ‘lose’ a $100 million department. It was necessary to find it for obvious political reasons, but we only became aware of the lost unit because I was working the Y2K rollover and really needed to find all the laptops. We finally found it. Hidden away, quietly working away. And there were lots of good excuses why it was floating alone off on its own org chart, in its own universe. How they got paid is outside the scope of this post. I was assured that it was not illegal.

So Anita and Trizoko Biz are right, Super Stars are a pain.

But I wonder how many $100 million business units are lost. And could be found with a few dozen more IQ points.


Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

Your Business Blogger’s columns appear in Small Business Trends on Tuesdays and Small Business Trends Radio on Fridays. Please tune in.

The Army's Marketing Campaign for Placing Women in Combat

August 10, 2006 | By | No Comments


The Great Seal The World’s Only Super Power wields its power through the arrows of the Armed Services in one hand and in the other hand is the olive branch of…marketing.

The olive branch is traditionally known for peace, but also for known for prosperity. Commerce is usually difficult in times of war. The olive branch these days seems to represent peace as the absence of warfighting, but might also be seen in the marketing in warfighting.

If there is anything we Americans know how to do — is fight wars and sell stuff.

The Army now has a combined arms team of lethal power. Nothing on earth can resist the might of our military co-located with its American Marketing Machine. That is being turned loose on the masses of US lasses to put women in combat.

The marketing message is delivered with smart bomb precision and subtlety. It began with omissions, as when the Air Force Academy took down its huge sign, Bring Me Men. And now is actively selling with clever word changes.

Which is marketing defined. As Mark Twain said about the right word being as powerful as the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

Words count. Army Regulation 600-13, Army Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers, Dated March 1992,

…allows women to serve…except those battalion size or smaller units which are assigned a primary mission to engage in direct ground combat or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct ground combat mission.

It is the intent of Congress, the President and Army Regulation that women are not permitted in ground combat.

But note how the feminists in the armed forces are changing wording to change policy. For example,

The Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) Rifle Squad variant and Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) Weapons Squad variant each deliver 9-person infantry squads to a location from which they will conduct a close assault.

Close assault is ground combat, from which women are excluded. The Alert Reader will notice that the Army calls this fighting machine a 9-person vehicle. Where it should be a 9-MAN infantry squad.

The Army substitutes “person” for “man.” Which is the feminist agenda. Male substitution wherever possible.

The military goes a-marketing.



Was this helpful? Do comment.

Consider a free eMail subscription for this site.

Thank you (foot)notes:

See the Army’s website.

More on the Seal at the jump.

Read More