In the day before we leave for the Kalahari, I find myself thinking about what I am gonna do...
I guess that I shall only know when I am doing it!
Life's Good!
Clarence said hello and enjoy the Kalahari!
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
yes sir...
What word
consortium \kuhn-SAWR-shee-uhm, -tee-\, noun:
1. any association, partnership, or union.
2. a combination of financial institutions, capitalists, etc., for carrying into effect some financial operation requiring large resources of capital.
3. Law. the legal right of husband and wife to companionship and conjugal intercourse with each other: In a wrongful death action the surviving spouse commonly seeks damages for loss of consortium.
consortium \kuhn-SAWR-shee-uhm, -tee-\, noun:
1. any association, partnership, or union.
2. a combination of financial institutions, capitalists, etc., for carrying into effect some financial operation requiring large resources of capital.
3. Law. the legal right of husband and wife to companionship and conjugal intercourse with each other: In a wrongful death action the surviving spouse commonly seeks damages for loss of consortium.
Friday, May 17, 2013
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Tuesday's Child...
Tuesday, 07 May 2013
The report is often quoted as "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone",[2] or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."[3]
The term is used as an analogy in fields such as business, politics, and sports to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, commented on the necessity of coercion in preserving the course of justice by warning, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph."[4] Also, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a charge proscribing group libel, Justice Hugo Black alluded to the Pyrrhic War in his dissent: "If minority groups hail this holding as their victory, they might consider the possible relevancy of this ancient remark: 'Another such victory and I am undone.'"[5]
Pyrrhic victory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Pyrrhic victory
is a victory with such a devastating cost that it carries the
implication that another such victory will ultimately lead to defeat.
Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way;
however, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit.Etymology
The phrase Pyrrhic victory is named after Greek King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:In both of Pyrrhus's victories, the Romans suffered greater casualties than Pyrrhus did. However, the Romans had a much larger supply of men from which to draw soldiers, so their casualties did less damage to their war effort than Pyrrhus's casualties did to his.The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.—Plutarch, [1]
The report is often quoted as "Another such victory and I come back to Epirus alone",[2] or "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."[3]
The term is used as an analogy in fields such as business, politics, and sports to describe struggles that end up ruining the victor. Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, commented on the necessity of coercion in preserving the course of justice by warning, "Moral reason must learn how to make coercion its ally without running the risk of a Pyrrhic victory in which the ally exploits and negates the triumph."[4] Also, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, a 1952 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a charge proscribing group libel, Justice Hugo Black alluded to the Pyrrhic War in his dissent: "If minority groups hail this holding as their victory, they might consider the possible relevancy of this ancient remark: 'Another such victory and I am undone.'"[5]
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Ek Se!
Thursday, 02 May 2013
Damn, I forgot what I was going to blog about...just too damn busy!
The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, tank obstacles, artillery casemates, machine gun posts, and other defenses, which France constructed along its borders with Germany and Italy, in light of its experience in World War I, and in the run-up to World War II. Generally the term describes only the defenses facing Germany, while the term Alpine Line is used for the Franco–Italian defenses.
The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilize in the event of attack, allowing French forces to move into Belgium for a decisive confrontation with German forces. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. Military experts extolled the Maginot Line as a work of genius, believing it would prevent any further invasions from the east (notably, from Germany).
While the fortification system did prevent a direct attack, it was strategically ineffective, as the Germans invaded through Belgium, flanking the Maginot Line. The German army ran through the Ardennes forest and the Low Countries, completely sweeping by the line, defeating the French army and conquering France in about six weeks.[1] As such, reference to the Maginot Line is used to recall a strategy or object that people hope will prove effective but instead fails miserably. It is also the best known symbol of the adage that "generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it".[2]
The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, and had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, air conditioning,[3] comfortable eating areas and underground railways. However, it proved costly to keep, consumed a vast amount of money and subsequently led to other parts of the French Armed Forces being underfunded.
You know what I mean!
War, everything is war...you canna do what you should do, I tell ya an they won't believe ya.
Damn, I forgot what I was going to blog about...just too damn busy!
in·ex·o·ra·ble
/inˈeksərəbəl/
Adjective
| |
Synonyms
|
The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, tank obstacles, artillery casemates, machine gun posts, and other defenses, which France constructed along its borders with Germany and Italy, in light of its experience in World War I, and in the run-up to World War II. Generally the term describes only the defenses facing Germany, while the term Alpine Line is used for the Franco–Italian defenses.
The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilize in the event of attack, allowing French forces to move into Belgium for a decisive confrontation with German forces. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. Military experts extolled the Maginot Line as a work of genius, believing it would prevent any further invasions from the east (notably, from Germany).
While the fortification system did prevent a direct attack, it was strategically ineffective, as the Germans invaded through Belgium, flanking the Maginot Line. The German army ran through the Ardennes forest and the Low Countries, completely sweeping by the line, defeating the French army and conquering France in about six weeks.[1] As such, reference to the Maginot Line is used to recall a strategy or object that people hope will prove effective but instead fails miserably. It is also the best known symbol of the adage that "generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it".[2]
The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, and had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, air conditioning,[3] comfortable eating areas and underground railways. However, it proved costly to keep, consumed a vast amount of money and subsequently led to other parts of the French Armed Forces being underfunded.
You know what I mean!
War, everything is war...you canna do what you should do, I tell ya an they won't believe ya.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)