Previous posts in this discussion:
PostRed States, Blue States and the 2014 Mid-Term Elections (Randy Black, USA, 11/07/14 1:22 am)
When I put together my post on the "do-nothing" Democratic leaders in the US Senate, I expected John Eipper to question my summation from his own political position.
I was surprised when John blithely brushed off the outcome of the November 4th state and national elections as predictable and normal for a mid-term election. The tsunami of dissatisfaction with the Obama agenda by voters across the political spectrum, and across the Red and Blue states, is not to be taken so lightly.
To win to the extent that the Republicans did on Tuesday took a pick-up of millions of voters from the traditional Democratic Party base. That base includes young voters, Blacks, Hispanics, single women, voters on state-sponsored welfare programs and labor unions. The Republicans did exactly that.
They also needed President Obama to claim that he was not on the ballot. He did not disappoint, as he claimed in an October speech at Northwestern U, that while his name was not on the ballot, his agenda was. It was just what we needed. He reminded voters that the billion dollar Obamacare website debacle was his responsibility. We also needed to hear from his lips that our troops were sent to North Africa two months ago to try to control the Ebola crisis with no protective tools. As a result, our troops are now quarantined in Italy, as our colleague Eugenio Battaglia has reminded us.
Last Tuesday, the Republicans accomplished something they had not done as well as the Democrats had for years: they got out the vote.
Ironically, the Democratic Party leadership, the president, the vice president, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Sharpton and a host of impressively pedigreed Democrats predicted a landslide for the Democrats.
Regarding John's assertion that it was mostly the Red States that enjoyed the successes of last Tuesday, one news outlet wrote: Of the four targeted purple-state Senate races, Republicans picked up three, and in a fifth, they came within a hair of ousting Sen. Mark Warner. In Colorado, GOP Senator-elect Cory Gardner comfortably defeated Sen. Mark Udall, in part thanks to besting the GOP's traditional performance among Hispanic voters in the state.
In Iowa (Blue), Republican Joni Ernst comfortably defeated Democrat Bruce Braley, winning by a 7-point margin in a state that Obama carried twice.
Rep. Dan Maffei, representing a Syracuse-based district (Blue) that gave President Obama 57 percent of the vote, lost by 18 points to GOP lawyer John Katko. They elected two African-American Republicans, including one in a solidly Democratic south Texas district.
The governorships provided the biggest surprises of the night, with Republicans nearly running the table, mostly in Democratic/Blue states. The biggest shocker of the night came when Republican Larry Hogan picked up the Maryland governorship.
RB: In each election that asked for and received an appearance from Hillary Clinton, that candidate lost.
To sum up, President Obama is incompetent. He shares guilt with the stumbling foreign policy debacles in the State Department and the criminal actions of the IRS.
His newest IRS appointee yesterday admitted that the thousands of IRS call center employees will only answer about 53% of the phone calls from voters in the approaching tax season. They can employ thousands of armed agents to track down violators of the new Obamacare tax, but are unable to answer the phone calls from taxpayers. He said he would secure our borders six years ago but then ordered the US Border Patrol to "stand down" and release those found sneaking across our borders.
Lawrence J. Peter wrote that "Managers rise to their level of incompetence" in his groundbreaking The Peter Principle. I'm of the mind that the quote might be applied to our current president.
Ask a student if they are able to choke down one of Michelle Obama's "healthy" school lunches. Especially ask a Navy SEAL, many of whom died after Obama "outted" them during his TV appearance when he took credit for their murder of bin Laden.
Ask a physician in private practice. Ask the relatives of our ambassador to Libya about the cover-up when the military was ordered to stand down before it could launch a rescue attempt.
Ask anyone who suffered from the 2009 terrorist attack at Fort Hood that resulted in the 13 murders and 32 additional victims and the President's minions labeling of that attack "workplace violence." The murderer plead guilty to his crimes with "I did it to prevent attacks on Muslim insurgents overseas."
Ask the family of the murdered US Border Patrol agent in Arizona who died at the hand of a drug cartel using one of the thousands of guns sold during the failed Justice Department's "Fast and Furious" campaign.
God help us if the Republicans cannot field a better candidate than Barack Obama in two years.
JE comments: More than a postmortem on last Tuesday, Randy Black has fired the opening salvo of the 2016 presidential contest. We can expect the longest of the long shots to throw in their hats by year's end. Let's hold a WAIS contest: who's going to declare first? The winner gets a bag of WAIS trinkets and bragging rights for two years.
But seriously, Randy: are you saying that before 2008, it was possible to get a call through to the IRS and school lunches were universally yummy? Or far more seriously, that the Fort Hood attack was Obama's fault?
The last time I tried to call the IRS was probably during the Clinton years, and I don't recall ever getting through to a human.
I'll stop here; don't want to sound too blithe.
Red States, Blue States and the 2014 Mid-Term Elections
(Paul Levine, Denmark
11/07/14 7:36 AM)
I won't dispute the midterm election results with Randy Black (7 November). The Democrats deserved to lose, though the big loser may
be the nation if Republicans prove to be as incompetent as the Democrats. Looking at their leadership and the recurrent
power of the Tea Party faction, we are not hopeful. But I wonder about Randy's conclusion: "To sum up, President Obama is incompetent. He shares guilt with the stumbling foreign policy debacles in the State Department and the criminal actions of the IRS."
If Obama is incompetent and his administration criminal, what does that make his predecessor, George W. Bush, and his cohorts who presided with Texan bravado over a botched war in Iraq and a ruined economy at home? Bush may be living proof that the idea of Intelligent Design is a flawed concept.
JE comments: Yes, the opening salvos of the next presidential election are upon us. I wrote Paul Levine off-Forum that I'd like to remove the "Intelligent Design" quip, but Paul pointed out to me that Randy Black this morning called Obama criminal and incompetent. Paul makes a good point.
Next up: Eugenio Battaglia and Tor Guimaraes. As we march towards 2016, I hope that analysis will prevail over vitriol. You'll probably hear me saying that a lot.
- US Elections 2016 (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 11/07/14 7:51 AM)
Re: Randy Black's post of 7 November.
Looking at the heart of the Empire from the outskirts in Savona, the first impression on the future presidential contest is damn scary. The Republicans, but also Hillary Netanyahu, do not promise anything good.
JE comments: Bill Clinton, as well as Sara Ben-Artzi Netanyahu (just checked, and she's the third Mrs. N) might have a thing to say about this. What really fascinates me in this remark from Eugenio Battaglia is the perception that Hillary is so "intimate" with Israel. Hillary sentiment in the US, both pro and contra, tends to focus on other issues.
So--should we begin discussing the likelihood of Hillary '16, or give it another six months of rest?
US Elections 2016; Catalonia Referendum 9 November
(Enrique Torner, USA
11/08/14 3:03 AM)
Eugenio Battaglia (7 November) stated that the next US presidential elections are scary. I agree with this to a certain degree, though not with Eugenio's political ideology.
However, what I'm really scared about right now is what's going to happen in Catalonia tomorrow (November 9th), the "referendum" day. Are they really going to vote? And, more importantly, if they vote, what's the Spanish government going to do? Is there going to be violence? Another civil war? Check this news:
JE comments: Yes, tomorrow is the much-anticipated November 9th. We've been talking about the Catalonian referendum for well over a year.
As far as I can tell, the vote will go on as planned. It is a high-stakes game, but another Civil War? I'm confident that level heads will prevail.
- Red States, Blue States and the 2014 Mid-Term Elections (Tor Guimaraes, USA 11/07/14 7:45 PM)
Republican partisans like Randy Black (7 November) have been gloating about the triumph of their party in the last round of elections. Unfortunately for the American people, their victory has no apparent short-term or long-term benefits. Looking at the Republican political victory, and recognizing that the Democratic party in the last six years has performed well below what is needed, I am extremely worried about the latest Republican success. As an Independent, I wish I could "not worry and be happy," but I have many good reasons to worry:
1. Obviously, big money bought the election on both sides.
2. Watching many of the debates, I was amazed how deceitful the candidates on both sides were. For example, Republicans who are known to be against saving Social Security would refuse to admit it and explain why. Democrats who voted for Obama's initiatives most of the time refuse to admit it and explain.
3. The two parties talk a lot about the need to get things done, for working together on the enormous problems facing our nation, but each side has its own agenda ideologically very far apart.
4. America is moving fast toward a feudal state with a small percentage controlling most of the wealth. Democrats in power did not improve that. Republicans are even worse in this department.
5. America is moving toward an oligarchic form of government with big money influence destroying our democracy. Both parties are guilty.
6. America is addicted to military power as the vehicle for foreign policy, and that is terribly wasteful in treasure and lives. It creates unexpected enemies, further conflict, and there is no end in sight. Both parties are guilty, but I expect Republicans will be worse.
7. America has become very disrespectful of the law: porous borders, rampant financial fraud, welfare rip offs, vote suppression, etc.
The real victory for the American people is when we can elect leaders who will address these crucial problems. Until then it will be business as usual, further and further into decay. Happy whatever!
JE comments: Business as usual, as Tor Guimaraes phrases it, will likely define the next two years. Still, the ol' USA always manages to muddle through. I will confess to being less of a model citizen than Tor, however: I didn't watch a single political debate during this mid-term election. On Tuesday Michigan elected a Republican governor and a Democratic senator. I'm not really sure why.
- Bruce Rauner Wins in Illinois (David Duggan, USA 11/07/14 8:04 PM)
To Randy Black's list of the table that the Republicans ran on Tuesday night, we should add the deep-blue People's Republic of Illinois, one-time home to Barack Obama, where governor-elect Bruce Rauner (Dartmouth '78) defeated my one-time law school fellow-student Pat Quinn by taking 51% of the vote to Quinn's 45% (a libertarian candidate got the balance). Quinn, who had worked for reform Gov. Dan Walker in the 1970s, got to Northwestern because Walker (a NULS classmate of my father) had placed a phone call (one of several such special admits), and promptly began his political career before turning 30, getting enough signatures on a ballot initiative to reduce the size (and ultimately rig the composition) of the Illinois legislature. (I won't go into the details because they are too difficult to explain without writing a treatise, but for those who heard or watched on-line my presentation on Chicago politics at last year's Adrian WAIS conference, they are suitably Byzantine). This initiative passed, and the Democrats have controlled the Illinois House for 30 of the last 34 years. Since 1980 when Quinn graduated, he's drawn a public paycheck for 90% of those years, from the Citizens' Utilities Board (a "watchdog" group that has tried to prevent "regulatory capture" by the utilities of the rate-setting Illinois Commerce Commission), the Board of Review of property tax assessment appeals, or from the State as treasurer, lieutenant governor or (accidental) Governor, after current guest of the federal government, Rod Blagojevich, was impeached. Oh, and there was a brief time as Mayor Harold Washington's revenue director, but Washington fired him for what amounted to incompetence. Quinn ran for lieutenant governor in the 1990s, and in what seems like a pattern, he contested the primary results by claiming fraud. At a news conference on Wednesday, he refused to concede to Rauner, saying merely that he didn't have the votes. Utterly classless.
I was at Rauner's campaign headquarters Tuesday night at the Hilton downtown (formerly Stevens Hotel, built by the father of now retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens before he went into bankruptcy during the Depression), and the atmosphere and enthusiasm were electric. It's been a long time since I have yelled myself hoarse (certainly the Bears and Cubs have not merited my doing so), and I nearly got to shake the Governor-elect's hand in the sea of humanity, crying "Go Dartmouth" at the top of my lungs. My voice didn't recover for two days. At Rauner's press conference yesterday announcing his "transition team," he sadly included Democratic retreads like Bill Daley (the former mayor's brother, Al Gore's first-mate-on-the-Titanic-campaign manager, Obama's chief of staff, and co-fee-monger with Mayor Rahm Emanuel in putting together the Ameritech-AT&T merger in the late 1990s where they both used their political influence with the Clinton administration), and Ron Huberman (Mayor Daley's head of the CTA, the public schools and LBGT poster child). Only a cynic would say that these appointments were payback to Emanuel, whom former investment banker Rauner employed to grease that telecom merger, and who was conspicuously silent as to his preference in the race (though his PAC wrote a $150K check to Quinn's campaign: that's about 1% of its balance sheet). When will they learn that diversity is not a synonym for competence?
Oh, and did I mention that both Barack and Michelle came to Chicago to raise money for Quinn? Don't be surprised that the next news coming out of Washington will be that the Obama Presidential Library will be going to some other state than Illinois. I hear that Hawaii is lovely this time of year.
JE comments: Is there a US presidential library in Nairobi? (Ha! Randy Black and I don't agree on politics, but he knows I have a sense of humor.)
I didn't know Governor-elect Rauner was a Dartmouth grad; makes me proud. Coincidentally, Jack Ryan, who lost the Senate race to Obama in 2004 because of a sex scandal, is also a fellow Dartmouth alumnus. Ryan is probably more responsible than any individual on this planet for Obama becoming president.
- 2014 Mid-Term Elections (Rodolfo Neirotti, USA 11/08/14 3:22 AM)
In another of his sectarian summations, Randy Black wrote on 7 November, "When I put together my post on the 'do-nothing' Democratic leaders in the US Senate, I expected John Eipper to question my summation from his own political position."
I would rather phrase it as: "When I put together my post on the 'avoiding doing anything' Republican leaders in the US Congress."
I also think that Mr Black constantly forgets the horrors and errors made by his partisans in the recent past, as well as their cost in term of human lives and burden for taxpayers.
JE comments: The Congressional Republicans will be acting come January. First off, we can expect renewed attempts to gut Obamacare. (Undoing is doing something.) The Republicans have a difficult dance to perform over the next two years. How can they chalk up concrete "wins" without allowing too much credit to go to the despised Obama? When they didn't control the Senate, they could simply lay the blame on the Obama-Harry Reid "cabal."
This all points to a political truism: it's far easier to be in the political opposition.
- Mid-Term Elections 2014; on Ebola (Paul Pitlick, USA 11/09/14 9:32 AM)
Given Randy Black's previous posts, I'm not surprised that he would comment favorably about the Republican "ass-whuppin" (7 November). However, I am surprised that he included a reference that labels the information in his own post "half true."
I don't question the veracity of 352, or even of 380 as numbers. I question the blame-game we're playing here. In the above reference, mention is made of the 55 bills with unanimous Democratic support, which were "pretty mundane; ... things like names for federal buildings, minor tweaks to legislation, and even the granting of an immigration visa to an individual." Hardly the stuff of "job-creation" (although I wonder why the Senate didn't go along with the silly games the House played so it would look like they're all doing their jobs in fine fashion and passing these great--sarcasm intended--bills). Rather than just "Harry Reid," I suspect there's a more-concrete explanation--the "Hastert Rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule ), in which bills will be considered in the House only if they would be passed by a majority of the Republicans. Dare we suggest that Republicans might play partisan politics, and that their bills may not appeal to the partisans of the opposite party who control the Senate? Multiple attempts to repeal of Obamacare come to mind.
Rather than commenting on all of Randy's other points, I would like to address two in particular. One was how badly Obamacare has turned out, based on the horrible (no quibble from me on this point) roll-out of the Federal website. Isn't it time to get over that, and look at something substantial? Once the website was straightened out, it enrolled as many applicants as it was expected to. And people have actually benefited. And nobody died as a result of the botched roll-out. It's not as if, for example, the Secretary of State went and lied to the UN, or that we wasted some unfortunate country based on false information.
Another issue is Randy's comment that "our troops were sent to North Africa two months ago to try to control the Ebola crisis with no protective tools. As a result, our troops are now quarantined in Italy." My opinion (it's "opinion" here; in 2 weeks it may become more fact-based) is that there's much more fear-mongering here than is warranted. My understanding is that most of these troops were sent to build hospitals, not to actually take care of patients: no contact with Ebola patients means no Ebola--period. Maybe Republicans aren't familiar with how medical "science" works. We're at the beginning of an epidemic. If you catch Ebola in Africa, it's pretty bad, mortality >50%. We're beginning to develop some experience with Ebola in the US--our early mortality isn't as high as in Africa, so far. The one death I can remember (the Liberian immigrant) wasn't treated very well in Texas initially, and probably didn't have health insurance. It's also not clear how contagious Ebola will be in the US. For example, my understanding is that none of the family members of either the Liberian patient nor the physician in New York (who is doing well) caught the disease. We'll also know in a few days whether the nurse in Maine will be spared from Ebola. And in another 2 weeks we'll know whether any of the US GIs who went to West Africa actually come down with Ebola and therefore "needed" to be isolated. If the answer is "none," that's 21 man-days each wasted. That's how we learn if we choose to, or we can continue to encourage a climate of fear in which everything is perceived as a problem and it's always the president's fault.
JE comments: I'm especially grateful for Dr. Pitlick's perspective on the Ebola crisis and its treatment. Is the fear-mongering here sincere, or is it largely motivated by xenophobia and the desire to paint Obama in the worst possible light? It could be both things at once.
Emergency Preparedness for Ebola; Stanford Hospitals
(Paul Pitlick, USA
11/10/14 1:22 AM)
As a follow-up to my post of 9 November, I am nowhere near an authority on Ebola, but I'll contribute an anecdotal experience.
I went to a talk about 2 months ago, several weeks before the Liberian gentleman appeared in Texas. The talk was given by the head of the Emergency Room at Stanford, and he described what they are doing in preparation for possible Ebola case(s). The first step was that all visitors, before entering the waiting room, are screened by a guard, with one question--"Have you been to West Africa recently?" If not, they go on in to the regular triage process. However, if they have been to West Africa, they are shunted to an isolation room, not into the regular waiting room. If they have a fever, they are treated as if they have Ebola--the ER personnel are garbed in the complete protective gear, and meticulous care is taken in drawing blood, handling lab samples, etc., until it's proven that they are Ebola-free. Knock on wood, there have been no cases so far; I don't know how many patients they have had to isolate until the tests came back negative.
What made this talk especially impressive is that the same gentleman had given a talk to the same forum about 9 months ago summarizing Stanford's response to the Asiana Airlines crash at SFO on July 13, 2013. It happened around noon on a Saturday, and he happened to be on duty at the time. He said that a nurse was doing something in a room with a patient, and overheard on a TV set that there had a crash at SFO, so she passed that information along, since Stanford is one of the designated trauma sites. Although they were not officially notified by anyone at the airport, they began getting ready--moving non-critical patients out of the ER, figuring out ambulance flow into and out of the ER receiving area, locating gurneys, calling in medical teams, etc.
Somewhere like 20 or 30 minutes later, the ER got a call from the guard at the helipad on the roof of the hospital. A helicopter had just landed with 2 critically injured patients, and nobody had alerted him. About that time, the ER did receive an official call to expect more patients, and then ambulances, and even buses with less-injured patients, began rolling in, and the medical teams went to work. Very impressive. However, what was even more impressive was an added wrinkle. The plane had started in Seoul. Many of the passengers were not American--many spoke no English, and there were several Chinese school groups of minor children, whose parents were still home, as well as passengers from Japan and Korea. Passports and other identifications had been left behind on the burning plane. So into a virtual Babel, we insert unaccompanied minors, with no identification, probably no health insurance, and anyone who has ever had any involvement with the INS can imagine how they reacted. Eventually, a command and control center was set up with interpreters, hospital administrators, representatives of various consulates, etc., etc. I recall that Stanford took care of more than 100 plane-crash victims that (very long) day.
To prepare for emergencies, the hospital runs occasional mock drills, to practice what to do with respect to the medical stuff, lines of authority, communication, etc. I don't know how many of the legal, language, health insurance, and immigration problems related to the plane crash had been anticipated, but the ER folks are smart, resourceful people, and they were able to improvise to solve the problems. The recent Ebola talk was not just a description of what the ER is doing; it was also intended to educate the medical staff about what we need to know if we are involved in the care of possible Ebola patients.
My point here? Whether it's an airplane crash or Ebola, there is no place for hysteria. Preparation is everything. Learn from your experiences. At some point, you have to trust people who know what they're doing, and you can ignore the rest; it is important to figure out the difference.
JE comments: No place for hysteria: that's good advice for all of life's unexpected dramas. Let us hope that smaller hospitals, with far fewer resources than Stanford, are able to emulate this level of preparedness.
(Rodolfo Neirotti, USA
11/11/14 6:57 AM)
"Preparation is everything"
This recommendation emphasizes the importance of the five Ps: Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance. Because history is shaped by "Black Swans," events that seem impossible until they happen, this approach is applicable to almost everything in life. So why do the leaders of some organizations fail to identify key problems and act before things turn catastrophic? They don't want to see, they can't see, because the group isn't designed to see, and there are other people who are doing their best to keep them from seeing--motivated blindness.
As described by Paul Pitlick (10 November), Stanford's response is an example of good crisis management and adaptive leadership--the capacity to adapt that enables both individual and business needs to be met through making changes to the time (when), location (where), and manner (how) in which people work. This attitude requires flexibility, a mindset that allows leaders to adapt, to react and to operate according to the needs of different contexts and to move fast. These are the most difficult things to do when handling uncertainty in the first hours and days.
Adding estimative intelligence to gauge uncertainty and make assumptions about different scenarios, to anticipate the consequences and probabilities, can improve analytic capabilities and outcomes. Another important element in this situations is honesty. Accurate and correct information is crucial. Misinformation invariably backfires.
Imagine applying these concepts to Iraq and Afghanistan. It would have prevented loosing many lives and saved billions of dollars.
JE comments: The CYA (cover your ass) phenomenon is what defines most organizations. It prevents people from sticking their necks out to make the changes necessary to prepare for contingencies. CYA isn't just limited to the military (full disclosure: I've been listening to Catch-22 on my commute during the last couple of weeks). One can imagine, for example, how individual actors in that Dallas hospital were more motivated by self-preservation than by identifying and treating Ebola patient #1.
Thoughts on Emergency Preparedness, Organizational Change
(Tor Guimaraes, USA
11/16/14 5:32 AM)
The 11 November posting from Rodolfo Neirotti addressed a subject close to home: "Business Innovation and the Management of Change." Indeed, "preparation is everything," and this wisdom "is applicable to almost everything in life." Rodolfo stated, "the leaders of some organizations fail to identify key problems and act before things turn catastrophic," because "they don't want to see, they can't see, because the group isn't designed to see, and there are other people who are doing their best to keep them from seeing--motivated blindness."
Based on my 50 years of experience studying the management of organization change, trying to integrate the academic knowledge with what actually goes on in practice, I have noted one critical dimension which Rodolfo does not address in his posting: the degree or intensity of the change required. Ranging from the slow and continuous change needed for organizations to improve under the prescriptions of Total Quality Management (TQM), to more "dramatic changes" prescribed under Business Process Reengineering, to the even more dramatic changes necessary under severe crisis management, where many people are risking death, such as in the last Ebola crisis.
My most effective model (empirically tested in the manufacturing, hospital, and banking sectors) indicates that the likelihood of success in change management can be improved by preparation in four major areas: the right kind of leadership, awareness/knowledge of the environment surrounding the organization, the organization's ability to manage relevant technology broadly defined, and the characteristics of the change process used to implement the required changes. I have not studied severe crisis management, but I venture to say some new factors may be important. Similarly, most of what is relevant to manage slow change has also been found important for increasing success managing more dramatic changes. The main difference is as the uncertainty, risk, and intensity of required change grow, so does the importance of leadership at the strategic and project levels.
Trust in the leaders and other group members is not sufficient for success in managing change, but it has been found to be absolutely critical for efficient (quick) implementation of solutions. Please note that trust is the antithesis of the CYA syndrome discussed by John Eipper, of poor communication within the group, and of perceived dishonesty.
Last, Rodolfo mused about "applying these concepts to Iraq and Afghanistan," and how "it would have [saved] many lives and saved billions of dollars." For these disasters our leaders indeed failed "to identify key problems and act before things turn catastrophic."
However, it is not applicable that "they don't want to see, they can't see, because the group isn't designed to see." The American people told the Bush/Cheney neocons not to stay in Afghanistan and not to invade Iraq, but the American people were lied to and deliberately ignored. Finally, regarding "there are other people who are doing their best to keep them from seeing--motivated blindness," the statement in this case is spot-on: the media chicken hawks did their best to fool the American people but failed, but the neocons went ahead anyway. In the case of war, President Eisenhower was right: beware of the military-industrial complex. I like to add: beware of being a pawn for global business interests disguised as American companies.
JE comments: Has anyone bought President George W. Bush's new book, 41: A Portrait of My Father? I heard a couple of GWB interviews last week on National Public Radio, and it appears that after a six-year sabbatical, Bush 43 is now energetically working on his legacy. From the snippets I heard, GWB is willing to offer a few "mistakes were made" half-excuses, but he stands firmly by his position that in the wake of 9/11, US national security absolutely required the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Organizational behavior under crisis is a fascinating topic. It always gets me thinking: what would happen to WAIS if IT Director Roman Zhovtulya and I were hit by the same bus, or by different buses at the same time? David Duggan, it's time for more training on the care and feeding of our website. (I don't plan to go near any buses, but it's best to fix the roof while the sun shines: does anyone else volunteer for potential WAIS crisis management?)
- Thoughts on Emergency Preparedness, Organizational Change (Tor Guimaraes, USA 11/16/14 5:32 AM)
- Emergency Preparedness (Rodolfo Neirotti, USA 11/11/14 6:57 AM)
- Red States, Blue States and the 2014 Mid-Term Elections (Tor Guimaraes, USA 11/07/14 7:45 PM)
- US Elections 2016 (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy 11/07/14 7:51 AM)