About the Blog
This blog comments on the great questions of our day in finance and economics; the emergence of China and India; energy security, clean energy, and climate change; and technological trends from a rational Republican perspective. Sometimes it will even proscribe policy solutions. While this blog will not comment only on conservative issues, it will be colored by them.
About the Editor
Sean Hazlett, CFA most recently served as an investment professional at Quantum Capital, where he invested in technology equities. Prior to that, he was an equity analyst and investment banker at Morgan Stanley where he focused on enterprise software, semiconductor, and clean energy companies. Sean also spent time at Horsley Bridge Partners where he invested in venture capital and buyout funds and served as the firm’s cleantech subject matter expert.
Sean has published over two hundred research reports on enterprise software, semiconductors, and clean energy including Wall Street’s first comprehensive market analysis of opportunities in the smart grid, which was cited twice in The Economist (See “Making Every Drop Count” and “Smart Grids: Wiser Wires“).
Before covering clean energy companies, Sean was a research associate at the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project where he worked on energy security issues that included the United States-India Strategic Partnership and policy options for confronting Iran’s nuclear program. He won the 2006 Policy Analysis Exercise Award at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government for his work on policy solutions to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Sean also spent time at Booz Allen Hamilton as an intelligence analyst focusing on strategic war games and simulations for the Pentagon. Before graduate school, Sean was a cavalry officer in the United States Army where he trained American forces for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at the National Training Center.
Sean holds a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School, a Master in Public Policy from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and bachelor’s degrees in History and Electrical Engineering from Stanford University.
Sean Hazlett, “Plan B for Persia Precarious But Necessary if Diplomacy Fails,” The Council for Emerging National Security Affairs (CENSA), August 2007
Sean Hazlett, “How to Defeat the Motorized Rifle Company at the National Training Center,” Armor Magazine, May-June 2002, 16-21
Sean Hazlett, “Here’s How the U.S. Could Respond to a California Rebellion,” We Are the Mighty, 11 April 2017
John Wells, Sean Hazlett, and Niladri Mukhopadhyay, “Riding with the Blackhorse (A),” HBS Case No. N9-706-509, 27 June 2006
Sean Hazlett, Plan B for Persia: Responding to Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program Absent Diplomatic Agreement, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2006)
Alex Cohen, “Army Training Center Immerses Tankers in Simulated Desert Combat,” The California Report, KQED Public Radio, 11-13 April 2003
Robin MacBlane and Larry Whitler, “Sean Patrick Hazlett Interview – www.WritersOfTheFuture.com“, AM Ocala Live!, WOCA The Source Radio, 22 August 2016
Sean Hazlett, “Blogging to Build an Audience 101: 10 Lessons about Building an Online Platform“, Presentation for the California Writers Club Mount Diablo Branch, 10 March 2012
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Movement to First Contact“, Plasma Frequency Magazine 4 (February/March 2013): 9-14
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Remember New Roanoke“, The Colored Lens 8 (Summer 2013)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Cerebral Vortex“, NewMyths.com 24 (September 2013)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Spirals and Starways“, Plasma Frequency Magazine 8 (October/November 2013)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Shooting Stars and Schadenfreude“, Mad Scientist Journal: Autumn 2013
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “The Witchwood Whispers“, Mad Scientist Journal: Winter 2014
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Enemy Allies”, Fictionvale Magazine: Episode Three (May 2014)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “White Nights, Mammon’s City“, NewMyths.com 28 (September 2014)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Entropic Order“, Outposts of Beyond #7 (January 2015)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Chandler’s Hollow“, Perihelion Online Science Fiction Magazine, (March 12, 2015)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Boomer Hunter“, Grimdark Magazine, Issue #5
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Hill of Souls“, Outposts of Beyond #10 (October 2015)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Skin“, Kasma SF Magazine, (November 15, 2015)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Tunguska“, Kasma SF Magazine, (January 15, 2016)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Close Encounter in Coyote Canyon“, Kasma SF Magazine, (June 15, 2016)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “The Decision“, Sci Phi Journal, (July 7, 2016)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Chasing A.M.I.E.“, The Overcast, Episode 36, (August 3, 2016)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Quantum Shadows“, Stupefying Stories Showcase, (October 3, 2016)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Pinned“, Kasma SF Magazine, (December 3, 2016)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Twinwalkers“, Unnerving Magazine, Issue #1 (December 2016)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “We Hit Back“, Abyss & Apex, Issue #61 (January 1, 2017)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Mukden”, Weirdbook, Issue #34 (February 9, 2017)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Adramelech”, Writers of the Future, Volume #33 (Galaxy Press: April 2017)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Evolution’s Echo”, Dark Moon Digest, Issue #27 (Perpetual Motion Machine Publishing: April 2017)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, “Titan’s Twins“, Speculate! (Evil Girlfriend Media: April 2017)
Sean Patrick Hazlett, Alien Abattoir and Other Stories (Promethium Press: April 2015)
Quite the resume, Sean. I appreciate your background and look forward to following your blog.
I look forward to following yours as well.
Okay, now I’m intimidated.
I don’t know, Moe. All that education and I still am only right, at best, 50% of the time.
As my father jokingly still tells me, “You ain’t sh**.”
Great stuff, Sean.
Didn’t see where better to post this? Please move at your discretion. It’s Allen West talking about military vs. civilian standards. Your thoughts?
His argument is a bit crude. My friend, Sean Bielat, got raked over the coals for making a similar “short people” argument when he ran against Barney Frank.
However, I agree with his point that the military abides by harsher rules than the rest of society. For instance, it punishes soldiers who try to get out of duty because of sunburn as “damage to government property.” I think the only way a DADT repeal could work if it included rules that barred openly gay personnel from serving in combat units (much like females currently are), while still enforcing DADT for homosexuals who wished to serve in those units, but who kept their sexual orientation private.
Otherwise, you will have the sex on the battlefield problem coupled with the collapse of the last reasonable argument against allowing women to serve in combat units.
The problem with the whole issue is that at a high level it seems like a perfectly reasonable and fair thing to do, but in practice it may threaten good order and discipline.
Right or wrong, the repeal is not popular among most warfighters.
A question that I’ve never thought to ask before; you say “otherwise, you will have the sex on the battlefield problem”.
So here’s my question (understand guys, this has nothing to do with my own opinion of DADT and stipulating that I’ve never been in combat – although gay friends HAVE):
What’s wrong with sex on the battlefield – hetero or homo – so long as the rules about enlisted/officer etc are observed?
In combat and as an officer, you want your soldiers focused solely on the task at hand, which is killing the enemy. You also want your soldiers to make the best and most rational decisions. Additionally, you want to minimize any distractions that might reduce their edge on the battlefield. The last thing a commander wants is his unit to turn into a sexual romper room.
Imagine the following situation. Two soldiers in the same unit have a sexual relationship with a third soldier (as you said, it doesn’t matter if they be male or female). Given the harshness of conditions under which soldiers operate in deployments and the small and limited number of potential sexual partners, this situation is more likely to happen in the military than in the civilian world. The tension among the three people will make a unit much less effective in combat. Can the cuckolded person trust their life with the other two? Can the cuckold? Will the third soldier’s lover take unnecessary risks or make decisions that result in unnecessary harm to other soldiers if the third soldier’s life is in danger?
Then, even among the enlisted, there is rank. If one soldier is a sergeant and that soldier is having an affair with a subordinate private, the level of trust within the unit will be lower because there will be charges of favoritism, justified or unjustified. It is one thing to manage favoritism in the civilian world or in the barracks, but quite another when folks are armed with instruments of death.
And soldiers will have sex with each other under these conditions. During the Gulf War (this is anecdotal, but I trust my source), some enterprising female soldiers literally set up brothel tents where tens or hundreds of male solders lined up for their services. How they got away with this, I have no idea. But it happened. When people are facing the prospect of death, they take actions that maximize self-preservation. One of these activities is pro-creation. Additionally, male sexual arousal heightens in situations where their lives are threatened.
Psychological research by psychologists, Donald G. Dutton and Arthur P. Aron supports this notion. Here is a brief description of the study and the results. I apologize for using Wikipedia, but I looked for this specific study after vaguely remembering it from the only Psych course I took at Stanford and asking my wife, who majored in psychology and actually took a class from famed Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo, the guy who designed the infamous Stanford prison experiment.
What you say makes sense Sean and I certainly defer to your judgement on this. All good points.
But let me toss out a few more thoughts:
1. Based on what you said, using a brothel is safer emotionaly and thus presents less danger
2. Sex – again either kind – will happen no matter what the rules are. So sex is forbidden or its not. People break rules. Is the argument that there will be MORE sex if gays/women are allowed into combat even if its against the rules?
3. What say you to the anecdotal stories – and there are many – that come out of previous conflicts – WWII and Vietnam particularly – of soldiers being just fine with it once they were in actual combat, no matter their previous opinions. Just so long as they had each other’s backs. (and again, failure to support fellow troops would be unlikely to arise from sexual orientation.)
“1. Based on what you said, using a brothel is safer emotionaly and thus presents less danger”
These “bothels” were both adhoc and unsanctioned. They were also in the support areas, not on the front lines.
“2. Sex – again either kind – will happen no matter what the rules are. So sex is forbidden or its not. People break rules. Is the argument that there will be MORE sex if gays/women are allowed into combat even if its against the rules?”
While there may be MORE sex if gays/women are allowed to serve in combat roles, that is not the key argument. The key argument is that people will be having sex on or very near the front lines, which is where natural human psychology would make it more likely and where the military can least afford to have its added distraction and reduction in unit cohesion.
“3. What say you to the anecdotal stories – and there are many – that come out of previous conflicts – WWII and Vietnam particularly – of soldiers being just fine with it once they were in actual combat, no matter their previous opinions. Just so long as they had each other’s backs. (and again, failure to support fellow troops would be unlikely to arise from sexual orientation.)”
This may be true for many, but there is a distinct subculture in the military, particularly in combat arms where some troops might actually kill others solely because of sexual orientation. Yep, even in this day an age. The majority of soldiers who self-select into combat arms are either white male southerners or hispanics, both groups of whch have been historically intolerant of homosexuality. After the implementation of the all-volunteer force, the military lost its more cosmopolitan veneer and political and economic diversity (but not racial diversity), so the anecdotal stories from WWII and Vietnam must be tempered by the realization that those militaries had a more politically and economically diverse population. Today, most combat soldiers are poor, southern whites or hispanics, religious, and conservative, a group that is unlikely to be open-minded about DADT’s repeal. As an example, an Army major sent me a rage-filled diatribe on DADT Repeal Training that exposed many of the practical difficulties in implementing the repeal that even the Army itself hasn’t entirely thought through. Some of his objections reflect unrealistic fears about openly-gay soldiers living on post near children and violating off-duty dress codes, but others seem like reasonable objections.
For instance, male homosexuals can bunk with their lovers so long as they maintain some fig leaf of randomness about their affair. When someone asked if male soldiers could bunk with their also-enlisted girlfriends so long as they also maintained some fig leaf of randomness, the Army said it would not permit it.
Any incident in which a soldier wants to separate from the Army because he or she has moral concerns with the new policy will have to push the case all the way up to the Chief of Staff of the Army. General Casey has indicated in code language that he will deny most of these requests.
Someone even asked what would happen to the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s (UCMJ) anti-sodomy regulations. OK, this is a weird one. As far as I am concerned, what someone does with a consenting adult is their own business. However, the Army’s response was interesting. Apparently, the Army briefer tried to stake out a position where sodomy would be allowable for homosexuals but still against UCMJ for heterosexuals. Seriously, I cannot make this stuff up.
The beauty of the DADT compromise is that homosexuals could serve in these units and the military still had a legitimate reason for keeping combat units all male. With the repeal of DADT, there is no longer any reasonable argument that can be made without bringing on charges of hypocrisy.
Sorry for the long answer. I just want to communicate that while the goals may be noble, the devil is in the details of the policy.
Sean – thanks for the thougtful reply – lots of stuff I hadn’t realized.
On the all-volunteer military – even though I opposed (and demonstrated against) the Vietnam war, I never opposed the draft. For the reasons you mention (a professional military class sharing cultural values is not a good thing for the rest of us) but also because I beleive we all have an obligation to serve in some way at some time in our lives. Whether it’s a doing paperwork or serving on the front lines, we should all do a stint.
Barring universal service, I think we should at least bring back the draft – I know that the brass say the army is much more efficient and much better warfighters because it’s all volunteer. I am sure that’s true. But we run risks to ourselves if we allow those who defend us to become apart from the larger society and allow the larger society to become disinterested in its countries adventures.
You say a lot of good things here. The advantage of the all-volunteer force is that it is much more professional and efficient. The disadvantage is the one you mention.
I agree with a draft in principle, but it needn’t be a strictly military draft. Just one that encourages people to serve for 18-24 months in the public sector as teachers, policemen, soldiers, nurses, what have you. That way one can lighten the sting of involuntary servitude. Instead of making it mandatory, however, I would provide some sort of incentive. For instance, people could refuse to do it. However, they would lose the right to vote or to benefit from Social Security or to donate money to political parties or to run for political office. I don’t necessarily know which one it would be, but those who did not serve would not go to prison, they would just not be able to benefit from the political process in some way. I would also bar deferrments outright.
It will never happen, but I think you and I are on the same sheet of music on this. One indirect consequence linked to removing the draft was that American society has become increasingly Balkanized since.
You’re quite right that the end of the draft is a cause of the divisions we’ve been experiencing these last decades.
By the way, maybe you know the answer to this – it’s basically a draft question: once upon a time, the conscientious objectors were taken into service but served in non combat roles – drivers, whatever. What’s the history on that if you know?
No clue. Sorry.
However, I imagine it would be pretty easy to staff these folks in the “rear with the gear.”
Yeah, I’m sure they’ll be manning the guns with their pants off. It’s a battlefield, jerk. I’m sure they won’t be in the mood while fighting for their lives.
Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
Shannon, sex on the ‘battlefield’ is legal or its not. If it’s not and people do it – male or female, hetero or homo – they’ve broken the law and punishment follows. If they don’ t break the law, what the frack is the issue?
I think Shannon was being sarcastic to belittle my perspective. It’s a technique, but it’s certainly not a persuasive one. Nor did it do much to add to what I think was a very productive, open, and thoughtful discussion between you and me about the issue.
I want to know what your opinion on the flat tax is?
So far I have done research that shows in msot countries a flat tax has actually been more beneficial in that it makes people want to get better jobs and support their own economy and such.
Most of the arguments I’ve read and heard on this is it would cause the super poor class to hurt. *looked at the current tax bracket for a single person in the 0-8,500 a year range and its 10%*
In a question I asked would 10% really hurt the economy excluding the government as it should be for the most part. Most responces were that it would cause loss of jobs to the super poor class *again look to earlier statement on this* and that a single parent would suffer for it… In my opinion if your making 8,500 a year and have a child… CPS should look into that as a form of child abuse as a single person can’t live off that.
But I was raised on the beliefe that if people have money to spend they will help the economy in the long run by the average joe able to spend and strengthen our dollar. But at the current moment in time in my job if I work over 70 hours a week *which isnt unheared of in security* i go into a new tax bracket and have actually made less money than if i worked below 70 hours. In the worst case per say my father which went from living in a trailor to owning 2 houses and other hobbies that he has paid for has nearly half his check taken by taxes and such. Does this make me not want to actually improve my own life or even work harder?
Thank you for taking your time to submit to this question and queuery
P.S. Nice resume and blogs have loved reading every one of them to date and hope you put out more on such subjects.
Thanks Xerik for the kind words.
I haven’t done much research on a flat tax, but I suspect it might actually bring in more revenue than the current system because it is both simpler and would be more difficult to dodge using tax loopholes. Additionally, it would provide a universal incentive for all Americans to demand only reasonable services from the government. In the current system, roughly 50% of the population pays no income tax whatsoever. Therefore, they have no incentive not to demand continued expansion of the federal government. I’m convinced a flat tax would fundamentally alter that dynamic.
If you’re just in it for the money, you’re not admirable. Just greedy.
@Shannon, some of the most greedy people I’ve met have been people who think a progressive tax based system is beneficial for all. I’ve never understood why if I make more money I should pay more in taxes. Most people come up with this response “Because it’s fair.” Well how is it fair? I myself make over 60+k a year having lived on the streets for about 2-3 months before. Got a job worked my way out of it into a apartment. Then decided on going back to college. First time failing and getting into a car wreck which effectively ended that option. Second time I actually was able to finish college with a degree in automotive science and technology. Both paying for a house and a car and having help from the government for going to school. I have no finished paying off my car and finished college and now work in the automotive industry so. Because I worked hard and got this far in life on my own I should be taxed more because the family down the street with 5-7 kids has a father whom is in jail due to drug possession or the mother is jobless cause she never worked a day in her life.
Where are in a society where we punish people who make money and promote those who don’t. So yea me wanting to keep my money might be a little greedy, but so is the person who doesn’t want to help their fellow person out. So in the end I could say anything and everything a person says or does can be viewed as greed. A person wanting to be happy all the time goes out and does nothing but do things that make them happy could be viewed as greed. But no money is viewed in it.
It’s fair because low income people need every dime they can get to survive. Or do you want to go back to the old days of snatching food out of children’s mouths to pay taxes?
“Having help from the government to finish my degree”. And where do you think the money for that help came from? So, you accepted government assistance when you weren’t making much money, and now that the big bad government has helped you move into the middle class, you have the audacity to whine about paying a little more taxes so that other people might have the same opportunity as you?
You’re not just greedy. You’re a damn hypocrite.
Let’s see im paying back on that money the government lent me. That I’m thankful for the government having. Well greedy Shannon who thinks they sh*t smells liks roses. Also if you had read my post like I had said.
I have been poor but i didn’t ever ask for help except when I went to school which DUN DUN DUNNN is pretty much forced upon you as you start college regardless of the college. Some colleges actually require you *if not all by now* have everything paid in full before they will allow you into the school. So if I was given the choice of not paying for it through the government then I wouldn’t have plain and simple. But I wanted to further my own life and have a better life. Also the base tax right now for the poor is at and around 15% so if you have a “legal” job you are paying minimum of 15% on taxes. On top of that I myself pay with all property taxes and such around 25% plus any other tax would put it around 30-35% of my check gone to pay for schools that are closing down. Police stations not getting the equipment they need, Fire departments not getting what they need or another water tower built.
So I ask you this oh wise Shannon. Where the hell is the money going? Oh wait thats right the poor get so many dang tax breaks. Yes, I said it, TAX BREAKS, For every child up to 3 children where i liver is anywhere between 1-1.5k back on your return per child. Along with the fact that if you make only so much per year *which isn’t hard in this economy* you get even more money back. I know I used to live in that kind of life style and worked my ass to get out of it. So a “poor” family usually stays poor because they don’t try to better them selves and have been taught they will be “given” a better life and expect that the “rich” pay for them. I hate that idea.
Get off the behind and work for it. My father makes over 6 digits a year. His taxes are enough to feed a couple of families of 4 on his fed. taxes ALONE. thats not including property or anything else along those lines. But hey he worked hard to get where he is at. So its not fair for others who don’t work to get there thats the kind of mentality you seem to throw out there. For your information Shannon you can actually look up a person who has served in any military branch and see what rank they left and when and where they join and when and where they left. Also I did find Sean P. Hazlett went to said colleges I guess your mental capacity of getting off your behind is like those of the poor who deserve hand outs. To dang lazy to actually look.
Just to let you know as well Shannon, when I moved out of my father’s house I left with the clothes on my back. Yea my family has money but they don’t give it to any one. Greed, not at all. Why should they give something away for free. I mean heck they just spent the last 17 years taking care of me and raising me with THEIR money. So they should support me? I can honestly be thankful towards my father for NOT helping me get off the streets. Taught me how to save, be self reliant, to pay bills, to feed myself. This won’t be true of every one but I’m glad that my father did what he did. Nor will I ever ask him for money because thats something you earn not something given to you like you believe it is. Fair tax means no more tax breaks. Means that people who don’t contribute will have to actually contribute.
Also a fair/flat tax has been showen to make people work harder because frankly if its ALL 15% that equates to more money in my pocket I KEEP when i work harder for that money. So what right now 49-51% of ALL americans *illegal not included* arn’t paying taxes while the rest are. So what would taht percent be if we included illegals? That right there scares me to really know that the middle and rich class are paying for EVERYTHING. Please Shannon if you want to argue then come at people with a logical base with some information that a person could easly “google” and find out to be true or false.
I leave you Shannon with this in mind that my fifth grade teacher once said “Never be afraid to question anything some one teaches you, never be afraid of actually exapnding your mind, never be afraid to research information to further and better yourself.” I took what he said to heart.
I was wondering if you accept guest post for your blog. If you do, I would like to submit a few. I’m a recent college graduate, with an English major, looking to build out my portfolio. I can write on a wide variety of topics and am sure you would be happy with the quality. Please email me back if you are interested. Thank you for your time.
– Kathleen Hubert
Hats off. You’ve made a career out of what I’ve only managed as an avocation. Not sure that you’re going to gleen much of use from following me but appreciate the vote of confidence. I hope that my keyboard wandering and then trying to consolidate my findings with a slanted viewpoint may be of some slight interest, in spite of the occasional typos and mixed metaphors. In the interim, I’m certainly glad for the extra set of eyes and any ideas that resonate that might bring about anything that inspires people to help save the republic.
Thanks for the kind words. I haven’t quite made a career anything writing thing yet, but I hope to at some point. I also look forward to following your blog as well.
I smell bullshit.
What do you mean by that, Shannon?
I mean I just read your resume, and my bullshit detector is ringing so loud it’s shaking my wall apart.
For example, you say you were a cavalry officer who trained troops for action in Iraq and Afghanistan. That places you in the army in 2003. And yet you say you got that award at Harvard in 2006. That’s a two year program, and to get that award you would have had to have started well before 2006. I believe the minimum enlistment period is three years. I’m not sure what it is for officers, however I do believe you’d have to add time for ROTC or DEO. That’s a pretty narrow window. And then there’s the question as to how you afforded it. Military service is not exactly a road to riches, and the GI bill doesn’t send you to Harvard.
And then there’s your supposed Stanford education. Electrical engineering and history? That’s a pretty weird combination. They have nothing to do with each other, so that’s eight years in school just for that. And MBA and the MB-whatever, another four years. That’s twelve years. The term “professional student” mean anything to you?
Oh, and then there’s your supposed work history. I count at least three-ex jobs. Assuming you graduated in 2006, that means you spent less than two years in each one. Oh, and then there’s your pic. I’ve known some very academically talented individuals, and they don’t look like male models, especially after serving time in the military.
Thanks for the compliment…I guess.
I assure you, everything else is the real deal. I went to Stanford from 1994-1998. I was able to double major in history and electrical engineering because I had a year’s worth of AP credit and three college courses in Multivariable Calculus, Differential Equations, and Statistics. To finance my education, I earned an ROTC scholarship. When I was at Stanford, the university didn’t allow ROTC on campus, so I had to commute to Santa Clara University for ROTC training three days a week. I entered the Army in 1998, reporting to Fort Knox in November 1998. After Armor Officer Basic and the Scout Platoon Leader’s Course, I reported to Fort Irwin where I served as a tank platoon leader, support platoon leader, executive officer, and lastly as a public affairs officer (check my media kit for a radio interview I conducted with KQED, California’s NPR affiliate).
I left the Army in August 2003 to attend both the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, and Harvard Business School. Separately each program takes two years, but if you do both together it takes 3 years. I graduated in 2006 and worked at an investment bank, first in investment banking, then in equity research where I focused on clean tech. I briefly left the first for about 15 months to join HBP, a private equity fund of funds.
Again, just go to my media kit. My KQED interview places me in the Army in 2003. I published a Harvard Business School case in 2006, and I published an article in an Army publication in 2001. It’s all there. Don’t take my word for it. Check.
I’m the real deal.
I thought you said you were a cavalry officer?
I was. Modern cavalry is armor. I was a member of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment.
Wow. Do you do this to everyone Shannon? Require a resume with references and other documentation before you’ll deign to engage in a dialogue?
Your comment is strange – to say the least.
I think Shannon is applying a friend or foe algorithm. Republican = bad liar. Democrat = friend. I’m hoping he/she’ll see that I’m still okay despite my Republican “dark side.” I think it would really confuse her/him if he/she went to your site. Seeing Republicans and Democrats exchanging ideas in a respectful and thoughtful way on a left-leaning site might really compel her/him to call BS.
Be ready to substantiate your claim that you dated Richie Havens before he became famous…in triplicate. 😉
There’s still a lot that smells fishy, like how a low-ranking officer could afford a Harvard MBA or get accepted with no business experience. And a “double major” in History and Electrical Engineering still sounds suspicious. However, if you’re telling the truth about doing simultaneous degrees at Harvard and Stanford, the timelines do match up. So at this point I can’t prove you’re lying.
To pay for graduate school, I took out a ton of debt. I also worked as a research assistant for my thesis advisor at the Kennedy School during my final year. My wife also worked while I was in school, which helped a great deal.
About 5% of Harvard Business School’s class is filled with former military officers, so my background is actually a fairly common path.
I appreciate your skepticism of my background. There are plenty of charlatans out there. I’m also flattered that you think I don’t really exist.
Hey Shannon thats a wierd way to try to get a date with a guy. Call a guy phony and cut him down? I think he’s married anyhow.
If youre looking for a date (and you’re actually a girl) I’m available, but I only did 2 years in the Guard so I dont know if that really counts. If it does post your pics and I’ll post mine cause I like bitter chicks! Yeeeeeahhhh! Just kidding. I know this isn’t plentyoffish.
Seans picks are probably photoshopped but hey its the Internet so if yours are photoshopped that’s OK too. I should probably photoshop mine because I need to slim down a little as well. Or, if you are anorexic you’d have to add pounds to your pic! Not saying you are, but imagine that, someone wanting to make themselves look BIGGER in their picture? Who does that? How weird would that be? Hahahahahaha They can take some of my lbs for free.
As a former cavalry officer and a queer trans-woman I disagree with your opinion on the repeal of DADT. The repeal has not made it possible for openly transgender people to serve, but I can assure you that many trans people have served honorably and with distinction.
I do respect your education and point of view, however I hope your homophobia and transphobic opinions will mature.
Thank you for stopping by. I respect your opinion as well.
I believe my view is grounded more in pragmatism than fear. My view is that repealing DADT will result in unnecessary distractions for our combat forces that could degrade their fighting ability. There are also practical problems as well. That said, if the repeal ultimately results in a military that is as effective or more effective than it was under DADT, I will certainly change my view. The problem, of course, is those things are difficult to measure, though I am sure the military will find a way.
Hey, I spotted a link to this blog on the WOTF forum. I thought you might enjoy the political blog my husband and I run. Though it’s not Republican, it’s all about small government and personal freedom. It’s freedomforgepress.com.
I’ll check it out.
Sean – somehow I lost your email – if you drop a comment at my place, I can get it from there. Meanwhile, I see Fantasy Politics beta play is active. Shoould I sign up on my own or wait on you?
Sean, I don’t know how I missed your “about” page until now, but I’m glad I found it. I enjoyed the discussion you had with Mo about the draft and DADT. I agree that everyone who is an American citizen should serve this country in some fashion. Your credentials are impressive and a bit intimidating. I’ve noticed that many of your commenters here ( with the possible exception of Shannon) are fairly educated as well. I guess that makes me the resident “blue collar” commenter giving the “just folks” perspective, and I’ll have to step up and not trust the spell checker so much.
“I’ll have to step up and not trust the spell checker so much.”
I don’t take my spelling as seriously when I comment. My comments are riddled with errors. I’m happy you follow the site, and look forward to many more discussions! 😉
i am a member of the Contra Costa Republican Central Committee and would like to talk to you. How can we set that up?
I enjoyed speaking with you today. I look forward to future conversations!
I’m not sure if there’s a better place to post this, but I would like to see more posts about Mitt Romney as the presidential candidate.
What is your opinion on Mitt Romney’s politics before and during his time as governor of Massachusetts. Specifically, what do you think about the similarities between “Romneycare” and “Obamacare”?:
Also, I have heard some criticism of Obama’s “evolution” of opinion on gay marriage. What is your opinion on this, considering Romney ran in 1994 as both pro-choice and pro-gay rights, attending Planned Parenthood events and having his campaign hand out fliers at the gay pride parade.
It doesn’t bother me all that much that Romney flip flops on social issues. I frankly don’t care much where he stands on social issues at all.
I favor Romney, because I think he is the more pragmatic and less ideological of the two candidates. In other words, I believe he will do what it takes to get the economy back on track. Moreover, I think he is likely to take the best approaches from both sides rather than call for austerity (Republicans) or wealth redistribution (Democrats).
I couldn’t find any contact info for you so I’ll post my comments here and you can follow-up via email if you choose…
As a left-leaning Democrat, I disagree with many of your views but I very much appreciate the rational, non-hyperbolic manner in which you present them. I’ve recently retired (was an engineer and business manager for a major DoD contractor) and am just starting up my own blog. My vision for it is to present rational views from the left, much in the same manner you do here. If you are willing, I’d like to pick you brain on how to get it up and running.
Good on you! I’d be happy to help. Send me an email at: shazlett (at) mba2006 (dot) hbs (dot) edu, replacing the “at” with “@” and the “dot”s with “.” and we can set up a time to speak.
Hi Sean, I found yor site while searching for econ info on GDP performance and relationship to economic policy. I am a Dem (moderate, perhaps) and believe that I am objective, well balanced and seek out factual, reliable data. If your blog is “rational” over teh emotional – I look forward to your observations, insites and open dialogue.
Thanks, Gil. I try my best.
Great site. Garryowen.