Performance Reviews: The real purpose

“Where do you see yourself in five years?” Aww not this question please.

She asked it to me just as I was nailing the technical parts of the review. I didn’t like the question before and I really hated it now. It assumes I’ll still be here working for this company 5 years on, doubtful. A non-answer assumes laziness and that might be worse. Actually it is definitely worse. No company wants a lazy manager. Employees come and go but managers are supposed to have larger visions, bigger goals. It’s a nerve racking proposition to be put on the spot for any review because raises and bonuses depend on them. No pressure right?

“Well, I’d like a crystal ball that’s for sure, Haha!” How ridiculous do I sound right now? The lame humor is pouring out of me like blood from a gunshot wound.

A delay says I am working on my best “Wow” response because I clearly haven’t thought about it.

A quick answer might seem too flippant or relaxed. I might curse if I am too relaxed, not professional. I swear when I am nervous too though so no good. Here it goes.  

“I’d like to manage ah, um...department…hopefully…” not convincing at all! Do you even work here?

My answer sounded more like a question. My reviewer noticed my nervousness.

“You don’t have to know exactly what you want.” She helpfully explained.

She was reading from a set of prepared answers that the corporate partners all use. Across the country nervous entry level managers everywhere are considering their options: should I go big and talk about running a store or be honest and blurt out “How the hell should I know. Why don’t you ask me how much of a raise I need? Or which of the employees on my crew should make LESS than minimum wage? Or which ones will be gone in less than a year? Those are questions I know.”  

Something to understand about the employee reviews designed to reach into your beating heart and pull a corporate logo Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom style, it isn’t true. They aren’t designed that way at all.  Companies want to hire and promote goal setters. It doesn’t matter so much what those goals are. People who plan for the future think ahead in other areas of life as well.

The minute by minute types can’t see above their level and don’t care to. They worry about their corner and nothing else. They often show up for work but aren’t flexible outside of what they know, their training. It is nearly impossible for them to get promoted in a truly meritocratic system because their work behavior acts like hedge against advancement. The review questions might seem designed to check your loyalty but more accurately they separate good employees from bad. Or at least they try to.  

Put yourself in that manager’s chair, the big leather one with a high back and a neck support. Imagine you have to get a project from early stage A to finished stage Z in the fewest days possible. Say the retailer you work for is opening a new store in 6 months and the building is a long way from finished. As the store’s manager you need to hire around 100 people in less than a month. A stack of applications sets in folders in front of you. You don’t have a shortage of people looking to work but you do have a one major problem, not enough time to do full interviews and follow ups. You need to decide on a couple key questions for department managers since the pay is better (a little) and the responsibility is greater. Remember also this is a corporate operation so you can’t make up your own interview questions. 

I know you have a ‘full proof’ method for asking Star Wars trivia and sussing out character flaws but you have to use the prepared sheet so focus. Not the whole interview of course, this is a quick and dirty ‘get em processed and working’ event and time is running short.

The ‘5 years’ question forces the one being asked to evaluate very quickly the important parts of their life, the career stuff. Answers can be messy since the point is to find out who has thought about it and who has not. You can use your own scale on what is acceptable and what isn’t. The question also works like a curve when all they have seen is fastballs down the middle. Mix it up. Change the speed and see how they handle it. Do they curse at you? Shift in their seat? Talk about the Illuminati? How they answer it might say more than the words they use.

It might seem like an exaggeration but executives and store managers are too busy to worry about how a particular question comes off. Answer honestly and don’t pretend to have Elon Musk type vision when a comfortable salary and steady hours are closer to the truth. Most important, don’t take too literal the “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” question. If you have goals or plans for career advancement share them. Even the simple ones. Pointed truthful answers get to the heart of the matter more than broad nonsensical ones.

No one is buying your non-answer anyway.  

Taiwan's Importance

The sanctions boom is about to drop on the North Koreans for their reckless missile tests and belligerent behavior. Sanctions work for the short term but what to do long term?

North Korea has been testing missiles about every month and ramping up the danger for South Korea and anyone within range. Experts think China holds the key to stopping their obnoxiousness since they are the only ally the North has. How much of an ally are they really? Would the childish dictator Kim Jong un even listen to proposals from Beijing about not launching?

China could cut off whatever rations and food they sell to them but this regime survives on very little help as it is. The country has seen a few famines over the last decade and the Kim regime is unmoved by his peoples’ own suffering and death. What specifically could China do and what does the U.S want? It would request U.N. inspectors to pour in and verify the nuclear program is defunct if such a deal could be made. I don’t see Xi Jinping agreeing to have inspectors come anywhere near his hemisphere. It is also highly unlikely that Kim Jong Un would feel pressure to surrender his nuclear program. No such leverage exists to make him give up that much.

I am fearful that Taiwan could be used as a bargaining chip with Beijing. The only reason Taipei maintains any independence from the Mainland is the United States. The current diplomatic model is the ‘One China’ framework that recognizes China as one group ethnically, but holds that there are two systems. State Department types use the word ‘systems’ because saying ‘country’ or ‘government’ implies a separate sovereign nation exists. China claims Taiwan as part of its country, just another territory or province under rebellion. This creates all manner of craziness at world bodies like the World Trade Organization where Taiwan doesn’t have a representative. They can’t fly a flag or have ambassadors. They get no recognition as a ‘nation’ from anyone. China won’t allow it.

From Beijing’s position it would be like Nebraska sending a basketball team to represent itself in the Olympics.

Taiwan could lose the fragile bit of autonomy they enjoy if the United States cancels the weapons pact. Taipei buys anti-aircraft artillery and fighter jets from us thanks to an agreement between countries signed in 1979. Or if any American organizations or government intermediaries (like the American Institute in Taiwan) see immediate changes in leadership, a diplomatic shift is coming.  

Diplomacy is messy and requires careful deliberate moves where trades-offs are common. Leaders work toward a main goal and trade down or up depending on their position. During the Yalta Conference after Germany surrendered Russian agreed to enter the war against Japan in exchange for concessions on Poland and other European borders. They were given a slice of Berlin to manage as well, something the other Allies probably resented.

America sells arms to Taiwan and trades extensively with the island. A big part of the boom in affordable electronics during the eighties centered on manufacturing plants dotted around that country. They are important strategically as well as economically. Even if they weren’t useful in a utilitarian sense, America needs to defend its allies if it wants future partners and credibility. It might seem purely sentimental to strict “Realists” but isolating friends in order to get a better deal is bad politics. Those acts resonate with governments around the world and disrupt future attempts to enlist them to our cause. It was a mistake to ignore Ukraine when they needed weapons against a belligerent Russia in 2014. We don’t need to send troops into every corner of the globe but we should at least honor commitments and be aggressive diplomatically.

The real question on North Korea is what can they be made to do? Their dictator is crazy enough to launch missiles and short range artillery at the South at the slightest provocation. Maybe he isn’t really that crazy, but that has to be the calculation when dealing with any nuclear armed tyrant.. The fallout in South Korea would be devastating even if they could intercept most of the barrage. I’ve always suspected the Communist government in Beijing relishes their influence (however much exists) over the North Koreans.

They don’t have a lot of cards to play on a global stage but being the only broker the North Koreans will listen to is an obvious advantage. 

The Chinese want Taiwan back without US meddling. The US wants North Korea's nuclear program shut down. Time to negotiate.  

Kim Jong un needs to go at a price. His very existence is a threat to free people. But don’t trade away influence or sovereignty in Taiwan; find another way. 

Clarity in Warfare: A Luxury We Rarely Get

I watched this video the other day from General Mattis USMC before he became Secretary of Defense. In it he waxes poetic on the nature of war and conflict. The phrase that sticks out for me is about “clearly defined and achievable” goals. He is right that many of the conflicts since World War II lost sight of the goal and muddled through without a clear plan losing the support of the American public. What generals never say though is that war, by its nature, is organic and plans change direction like a vine running up a fence post. The public either accepts it or loses patience.

Secretary Mattis believes the first gulf war met the ‘clear and achievable’ standard, protect Kuwait from an encroaching dictator and support the United Nations’ sanction of Saddam’s regime. Despite the coalition effort (a NATO led effort) the bombing campaign took on a more offensive role once ground troops invaded from Saudi Arabia and finished the war in about a month.Who doesn’t love a quick decisive war? Rarely are the lines that straight or the timelines so short. By limiting the goals however, Saddam was left in power to wreak havoc on his northern neighbors the Kurds. 

  

I should be clear here. Wars/conflicts/overseas operations should be limited and approached with extreme caution and clarity. Beyond that, be prepared for objectives to change, people to die and mistakes (often in bunches) to be a regular part of ongoing efforts. Most wars are this way. The assault on Omaha beach in 1944 was technically ‘successful’ because it gave the Allied forces a much needed foothold into occupied Europe. But the Allies lost over 4000 men in that one invasion and the event changed forever the appetite for attacks on the beach. The Market Garden campaign was mostly disastrous as Allied troops racked up huge losses to minor advances.

The war in Europe was constantly messy as Allies gained and lost territory; the Pacific theater was even bloodier, victory meant attacking tiny islands and losing incredible numbers.

I know I know Germany and Japan presented the world with an existential crisis. Victory meant survival. Resisting an invader is hardly a choice.

World War II had clear objectives from the start but imagine how many times Eisenhower and Marshall adjusted tactics, changed plans? One looming problem throughout the war for the US and Britain was how to keep the development of the A bomb a secret from Russia. Although technically an ally, Stalin was a potential threat to move west across a destroyed Eastern Europe. "How much should we tell them?" was a hotly debated point among F.D.R and Churchill. Decisions about the Russians changed as their success against the Germans changed in the Eastern Theater.

Insisting on adherence to ‘clearly defined and achievable’ goals isn’t practical and looks like excuse making when anything changes. Americans had to force down huge spoonfulls of ‘clear and achievable’ medicine during the Iraq war every day that Saddam’s chemical weapons went undiscovered. If there was ever a limited war with specific goals Iraq was it. Find the weapons. Arrest Saddam. Let Iraqis choose their government. In less than a year all 3 objectives changed. What looked like a ‘clear objective’ for war got turned upside down quicker than a salt shaker. It happens because war is rarely clear. It is a genuine luxury to tune in and out of foreign wars like we’re changing the channel on a military show that has suddenly become boring. “Oh not this again…see what else is on.”

Lest you think Iraq (second gulf war) was an outlier remember how Vietnam went. This is partly what Mattis is talking about. A stalled war without an endgame is disastrous for troops and potentially drags on. It isn’t that people lose focus on war because objectives are not clear. But that a lack of clear objectives becomes an excuse for a public to lose interest. “Stay the course” becomes “What is the point?” The Bush administration’s hard sell of Weapons of Mass Destruction created some additional hand wringing when none were discovered. That was their fault but other reasons existed for capturing Saddam. Both Iraq and Afghanistan had some flawed planning and unrealistic notions on insurgency and trustworthy partners but the wholesale rejection of the effort is dishonest.

I am not against limiting goals for conflicts. It should be the standard for every foreign affair whether military action or diplomatic mission. Clearly defined objectives though have taken a sound idea and fetishized it. It serves for many as an excuse for why something didn’t work out, an easy line for detractors to spout.

 “Well they didn’t have clear objectives and lost their focus you know. The American public lost interest when the war started going bad.” It’s a generic statement heard too often in recent history. Public support is a real thing and wars shouldn’t drag on but we don’t fight wars the way we used to. We could bomb Kabul and Kandahar like Dresden and build a new city on the rubble but somehow I don’t think the public would like it either.

Having a modern fighting force requires taking the good with the bad and understanding our importance in a global setting. I don’t think General Mattis is wrong about the need for clarity, few understand how planning changes in the course of a conflict better than him.

We don’t apply the same standards in life however because situations are by nature complicated many of them are due to decisions by previous leaders. Imagine a son taking over a business due to the sudden death of his father. After going over the details of the company he begins to realize the high levels of debt taken on by his father. The company is barely solvent and requires major restructuring. Now imagine the son saying “I’m sorry I need a clear set of objectives that doesn’t muddle the picture. This thing needs to be over in a few months or the family is going to lose interest.”

 It isn’t a perfect example of conflict, but does show the thread of commonality from one event to another.

.

Don't 'Beggar Thy Neighbor'

The agitation on his face was clear. This youth football coach had seen and heard enough in his years. This day he was in a bit of huff. A lose word from some ‘do-gooder’ stuck in his craw.

 “Tired of them church groups collecting soccer balls to donate to whoever; we got a lot of problems right here in America, don’t need to be sending stuff all over the globe.” 

This was someone I knew pretty well and respected. He was generous with his time, occasionally surly, but as a youth coach imparted wisdom and fair play to kids. I understood his frustration but didn’t agree. Americans are generous but some have a tendency to overlook problems at home, assuming our wealthy status insulates our people from “real” hardships. Also it is easier to send money and help to a distant place; the lack of personal contact provides a buffer to suffering and immediacy of war-torn countries like Syria. Too many of us find is easier to fund large, global causes while our neighbors suffer.

But as a wealthy country we don’t have to ignore distant causes at the expense of our own. Just because we don’t always see the donations and fundraisers we assume the needy get overlooked. They do sometimes but money and aid are always needed for less fortunate kids, just like water for exhausted players in July.  Want to see a stark picture of haves and have-nots? Look no further than youth sports fields, weathered goal posts and broken down bleachers surrounded by twisted rusty fences. Wealthy South Tulsa leagues sport high end fabrics and new gear while poorer North and East organizations make due on overused jerseys and last year’s cleats.  A cursory glance unveils a Grand Canyon sized gap between rich and poor.

This supposed wealth disparity is anything but however.

Look closer and you’ll see genuine help from donated goods and private citizens tasked with sponsoring kids who can’t afford jerseys and pads. Private companies donate equipment and items like older uniforms that didn’t sell, raise money through golf tournaments or sponsor new scoreboards. Booster clubs frequently cover registration fees and donate cleats, helmets and practice gear. The gap is still big but most schools and youth organizations have outside funding that closes much of it providing kids with opportunities to play.

 It is also a misnomer to say that the middle income areas are doing well. Some are but many do serious belt tightening just stay in the ‘great’ districts and give their kids a boost. Many work two jobs and forgo extras like vacations to pay for sports and school events.  There is a huge gulf from top to bottom that most of us understand but in between the extremes a lot of help goes unnoticed. If not for grandparents a lot of kids would never see the field. Without the Salvation Army a lot more couldn’t cover officials’ fees and maintenance costs. Without local churches many wouldn't have cleats.

   

So like my complaining buddy who understands well the local problems but overlooks the global picture, people see disparity and assume unfairness. This zero sum thinking characterizes charity in the minds of many. In economic terms when a country favors its own economy at the expense of others it is called a ‘beggar thy neighbor’ policy. Put simply countries treat each other like opponents on a…well, football field. Only one side can win if the other loses. This is great for sports but bad for growth and terrible for productivity, especially since modern economies can benefit themselves and others simultaneously. Charity works the same way. Needs are all around us like. Whether wells in South Sudan or water bottles for the little league baseball team, citizens regularly step up.

Like the unseen help and support of local groups, international groups get aid from the same place. The idea that we have to choose one or the other is a form of charitable ‘beggar thy neighbor’ attitude.. Large charities often have local branches or public affiliates like Salvation Army and the YMCA that funnel federal dollars to local sports. Big churches often support both international missions and local youth football teams because they can do both. We should never present the idea as either/or. We can and do take care of neighbors and foreigners alike.

So find a charity or youth organization and pitch in with money or help.  

Memorial Day: the Big Picture

I noticed this piece on the CATO institute website by David Boaz. I think the author is sincere in his sentiments toward the fallen on Memorial Day but clearly thinks certain conflicts don't count. He wonders if "...all wars are necessary to American freedom?" He uses World War I to highlight poor decisions (I suspect because it is less controversial than Iraq or Afghanistan).

       World War I was the worst mistake of the 20th century, the mistake that set in motion all the tragedies of the century.           The deaths of those who fell at the Marne are all the more tragic when we reflect that they did not in fact serve to                   protect our lives and all that we value.

I won't argue the merits of Word War I  but the reason we acknowledge those who have fallen is because of what the military represents to a free society, and by extension their sacrifice. It doesn’t matter that in certain cases (World War I for instance) we can't draw a straight line between a particular battle and our freedoms. We recognize that having a military or defense or national guard is essential to our way of life. It is a huge mistake to examine specific conflicts as not necessary or not critical to American peace and security.

Try using this logic on tax policy. It would be easy to point to wasteful programs and declare that taxes were theft in a particular case and therefore immoral. Not only wasteful spending but spending one just didn’t like. I could certainly come up with a quick list. Collected taxes go to a variety of necessary and unnecessary civil projects and we collectively change it on the margins. Poor policy means big changes are in store, possible radical ones. The voting public understands the connection between taxes and roads, bridges, unemployment…etc. No serious person rejects taxes as a practical matter.

We have a tax policy. It is messy and frequently wasteful. Cities, states and the federal government still need a plan for collecting and redistributing. 

Wars that aren’t popular with the public because they stray too far from our principles or suggest imperial overreach are just part of a larger philosophical debate. The larger debate we can have since our military makes it possible.  We debate the merits but never question the foundational importance of a having a military (some do). Those with freedoms like speech and voting rights only have it in areas where national defense is formidable. Countries in Europe without standing armies benefit from an umbrella policy like NATO (Lichtenstein, Monaco)  that obligate members to support one another.

Mr. Boaz doesn't say the military isn't important, but by connecting specific conflicts to our way of life he asks the wrong question about the nature of defense. Instead of 'Was this necessary for our way of life?' he should say 'Is our national defense any less important because of this?'

Don’t get sidetracked on what is and isn’t a necessary battle or war. Free people show thanks for those lives given in support of the larger cause of liberty and not the specific conflict.

Chris Cornell: The Days He Tried to Live

The easiest way to cover artists/writers/musicians who die too soon is autobiographically-or ‘how I remember it’ style. I could rehash current arguments about drug abuse and depression or whether or not artistic types are more prone than others but I won’t.

Anytime someone commits suicide we feel a little sick that they didn’t confide in anyone close to them, if they even have anyone close. His death wasn't a total surprise to a long -time fans of Cornell and his music (I even liked his first solo album despite the lack of even one catchy tune). Chris didn’t do catchy tunes, the exception might be “Spoonman” the tone and lyrics were mostly ominous. For me it was the voice, that amazing voice. I never saw him live so my opinion is based mostly on videos and CDs I grew up with. Most reviews of Soundgarden acknowledge his superb range even when criticizing the overall albums. His music was dark and internal where others like Pearl Jam are dark and external. Cornell’s idea for lyrics came from an internal struggle of depression either created by substance abuse or pushed along by it. Pearl Jam from a sense of injustice in the world.

Most believe the biggest turn in his life was the death of his friend Andrew Wood of Mother Love Bone (early grunge pioneers) It set the direction in his melancholic singing/writing career but it is tough for me to believe it caused his later problems with alcohol and drugs. I didn’t discover the essential Seattle band until after Superunknown hit the stores. Back then you could get a cassette but if you were a tech head only the CD would do, all the rage you see. My knowledge of that piece is pretty good despite not having listened to it in years. I don’t remember even one sort of fun jam piece on the whole record. Much of it seemed dark to an outsized degree. Here are just a couple of the popular tracks: “Fell On Black Days” “Black Hole Sun” “The Day I Tried to Live”. To be fair they had a few songs that sounded fluffier, “Fresh Tendrills” and “4^th of July” I assure you they aren’t.

 That voice though. He could bounce on a single note like a trampoline. He also did his share of obsessing about the end of the world. I’m sure other rock stars have gone down that ‘how-does-it-end’ road but to me it was new. Eighties metal was mostly a gratuitous sex and booze fest in both the song writing and lifestyle until this ‘grunge’ thing. Grunge was ONLY different in that its bands took themselves seriously, hence the weightier topics, suicide, depression, apostasy.  Cornell had a power ballad voice and rode his high “Aaaaahhhhh”s like a wave, a remnant of sunnier vocalists Steven Tyler and Steve Perry. His talent was obvious, but when did this ‘inner-pain’ and focus on ecological catastrophe get going? What did twenty eight year olds have to be so sad about?

Could I still like the music and think the writing is overwrought?

I didn’t listen to much Audioslave (Cornell’s other group) or even catch his second solo album. Truthfully I didn’t pay much attention to music in any genre much after the early 2000’s. For some, scavenging old CD stores and anticipating new releases stops being a thing. Can’t explain why but like collecting baseball cards it just doesn’t hold interest after a while. It wasn’t the music, as much I complained about the overtly political direction of countless bands, especially Pearl Jam. But “The music is inseparable from the politics” supporters say. Fair enough, but so is self-importance and I don’t have to like it when I hear it.

 Chris Cornell remains the saddest, loneliest and most likely to have never climbed out of his ‘hole’. Maybe he tried but never found success. From his track “When I’m down” on the Euphoria Morning album:

I know you hold precious little hope for me
And in your happiness
I'm always drowning in my grief
And I only love you when I'm down
And I'm only near you when I'm gone
But one thing for you to keep in mind, you know
I'm down all the time

 I think this is the picture of Chris most of us who liked the music have of him, super talented but down all the time.

 I am sad for his fans but mostly for his family.

Manchester United?

Enough with the silly arm in arm marches against ‘terrorism’. Enough with the hashtag grief signaling and kitschy Facebook memes that cover profile pics. If the West loves liberal democracy it needs to figure out how to defend it without apologizing. 

We don’t need grief and woe we need a serious campaign of intimidation and coercion. No more ‘no-go zones’ in large cities for Muslim populations. It should never be said of terror suspects that they were “known to police”. Taking these bombings in stride is NOT a good thing. It leads to a sense that this is normal, that these attacks happen seasonally like bad weather. “Sure it’s there but what can you do?” The worst part is by not going after kicking in doors and threatening violence against the neighborhoods and mosques protecting these animals, we favor the extremists. They thrive in interconnected communities because they offer protection like Chicago gangsters in the twenties.

 This is not the time for stiff upper lips and shrugs about the nature of living in an international city. The notion that citizens of a nation have to put up with regular terror is “Stuff and nonsense” as the Brits say. None of this acquiesce to fear need happen whether Paris or London or New York. It does take leadership though and clear thinking about the nature of the enemy. Sadly I haven’t seen or heard much of it from our cosmopolitan mayors. I understand a mayor’s role is commerce and attracting new business in the city but at some point law enforcement needs a freer hand.

 I am assuming a lot about what the police know and what they don’t but a couple of things are clear about the Manchester bombing. He is a Libyan (Muslim?) who grew up in Britain. He was likely known to law enforcement at some point. He was likely protected by a network of people who have families and bank accounts. More to come, no doubt. 

The lack of anger and outrage has been washed out of us.

 We are now a society afraid to accuse the wrong man or use the wrong pronoun when talking about the barbaric killer. You can hear it in the interviews with those who witnessed the explosion and ran with the stampeding mob toward safety. Even people who weren’t there, when asked about the incident, focus on crowd danger and avoiding large events. My local radio station had a former police officer on who gave tips on how to avoid the danger spots at large events, “Wait for the main crowd to pass and then head for the exists.” He added unhelpfully. 

Well thanks officer but what if the bastards try to blast their way into a movie theater and shoot up the place like in Aurora. Or unless they drive by that hip café and spray 9 millimeter rounds into the patrons drinking espressos like in Paris. Or the not so crowded airport in Belgium that only took a suitcase packed with metal bits to wreck everyone’s day, ditto for the airport in Istanbul. What advice do we get when just minding our own business. The anger from citizens against the perpetrator is cloudy and rushed like a blurry photo that didn’t develop. Almost as if the attacked don't know how to be upset.

“Where are those SOB’s that did this?!” said with intent becomes “We will not let these criminals tear us apart” spoken softly and carefully. The first response is urgent and active. The second is safe and useless.

Those who are quick to anger over being attacked will make some mistakes in the cause of justice. Call him Elliot (as in Ness). He may break a few eggs but will get justice and settle scores in the cause of law and order. He understand the importance of protecting freedom, the value of secular laws and the true nastiness of an attack against those principles. Elliot understand that an attack on a concert is pure hatred against liberal values and demands a full-throated response. Elliot is often reckless but always sure. Most importantly, He will put measures in place to prevent future atrocities while understanding that every city faces different challenges. He understands that the battle is long and arduous but necessary for survival. 

  

Those quick to passive words and useless phrases about ‘support’ or ‘unity’ can’t be trusted to defend true values. Call him Cosmo (Cosmopolitan). He understands trendy philosophies on the’ roots of terror’; he sees innocents everywhere but won’t name criminals. Cosmo loves slogans and marches. He gets inspired by vague anti-campaigns that encourage togetherness like ‘racism’ ‘violence against women’ ‘poverty’. He thinks the largest problem with Islamic terrorism is the Islamophobia that follows it after a devastating suicide bomb. Cosmo man can’t be trusted to take the fight to enemy or protect the innocent. He understands grief but doesn’t know how to fight against a world where everyone is a victim. He enjoys freedom but doesn’t know what it costs.

With every terrorist bombing, shooting, knifing or threatening act the West slides a little closer on the scale to Cosmo and away from Elliot. These terrorists are not part of a civilized society and should be treated like cancer, an unwelcome invader that demands surgery. Until Western cities get serious about who they let in this will continue to metastasize until the threat owns entire sections of your city.

We need more Elliots; we have enough Cosmos.