Using Social Media to Promote a Product

I posted this short piece on using social media to promote a product on LinkedIn. I don’t claim to be an expert on how businesses should use social media, but some of these things seem painfully obvious to me, especially when a company is trying to sell a consumer good as a luxury.

Thanks for reading, and click like, leave a comment, or share if you care.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks

Or how Carroll Shelby combined an obsolete copy of an even more obsolete car with an economy car engine to beat the world, at racing.

For those who know 60s cars, when I say Shelby Cobra, one of two things come to mind; a modified Ford Mustang, with stylistic and performance related modifications, or the two seat, aluminum bodied, high performance race car, adapted for street use.

In my prior post, I was talking about the latter.

The funny thing, most people who admire, or even own the original cars, or the replicas, have limited understanding of how the Shelby Cobra came about. Which makes discussing the subject of Shelby Cobra replicas interestingly ironic, to me.

See, an original Shelby Cobra can often sell for six and even seven figures. They were very historic cars, which occupied a unique place in exotic car and sports car racing history. But what most people don’t understand is what a unique study in creative application of pre-existing technology problem solving they really were.

The Cobra was born because a famous race car driver, who was once a Texas chicken farmer, had a heart condition. When Carroll Shelby was diagnosed with heart disease, his racing driver career came to a screeching halt. In an effort to stay in racing as a profession, he found a moribund car producer, AC Motors, that had an obsolete car, which was nothing more than a copy of an even more obsolete car, the Ferrari Barchetta.

File:Ferrari 166MM.JPG

The Ferrari Barchetta ruled racing when an ultra lightweight car could turn it’s nimble nature and roughly 100 horsepower into a competitive sports car. This combination was Aces in 1948.

Speaking of “Aces”, around 1952, the AC Car company came out with a vague copy of of Ferrari’s Barchetta, and called it the “Ace”. It came equipped with a venerable British copy of the BMW straight 6.

Once it was obvious the ancient BMW 6 copy engine wasn’t sufficient to remain competitive, especially with Ferrari’s high tech racing cars, AC Cars was left without an engine to power their rapidly aging sports car.

But lucky for them, Carroll Shelby was eminently available, wanting to remain involved in racing, and most importantly, had once driven, and liked, something called an “Allard J2X”, which was a car built without an engine, and the engine was meant to be fitted by the owner.

Shelby’s Allard J2X was powered by a Cadillac V8 engine, and this gave him the foundation for fitting light cars with large engines, a concept which was not seen as practical in the early 60s, given the amount of effort Ferrari had made into high tech, high revving small engined sophisticated cars.

Carroll Shelby had found the car, but he hadn’t found the engine. He approached Chevrolet, who turned him down, flat. But Shelby managed to weasel two of the new economy passenger car engines(!) from Ford, which used a new thin wall casting technique. These small V8s formed the basis for the very first Shelby Cobras. The result was magic. Even though the technology was a combination of the obsolete and the mundane, the net result was much greater than the sum of its parts. These cars were extremely competitive on race tracks around the world from the very beginning.

Shelby AC Cobra, CSX2000.JPG

By the mid-60s, it was obvious that the elderly design, with it’s transverse “buggy spring” style leaf suspension and small passenger car engine had been made non-competitive by Ferrari and others, who continued to expend efforts on higher technology solutions.

It is at that time when Carroll Shelby appeared to have lost his mind, and responded by only adding a slightly updated and heavier duty suspension, and putting in a heavy, cast iron, low tech full size car and heavy duty truck engine into this 2400 pound, 90 inch wheelbase, two seat car. This brute force, overly simplistic, unsophisticated approach just couldn’t work in state of the art racing…. Except it did.

And how it did.

The 4.7 Liter, 385 horsepower ballerina was replaced by a 7 Liter, or 427 cubic inch, horsepower and torque monster Offensive Lineman, which again gob-stopped the racing world.

Image result for 427 Cobra csx 3008

Its impressive performance came with a price, though. Under race conditions, the 427 Cobra, as it came to be called, would casually destroy its driver, should he make a mistake. That much power, with that little weight and grip, accompanied by neutral bias was a handful to keep under control. The engine is so far back in the frame that it was no longer really in front; it was actually akin to a mid-engine car, with the driver in the back seat of a normal car.

Because of the size of the engine, and its position, there was little room for the driver’s feet. Also because of the size of the engine and its position, the driver’s feet could easily overheat and melt his shoes. Finally, the car’s body sat on a simple ladder frame, with the rest of the metal from the frame just there to hold the aluminum body up. Not really a race car designed for safety.

The aerodynamics of the car simply weren’t sufficient to handle that amount of power; the top theoretical speed of a 427 Cobra was 160 mph, which was 20 mph less on long straightaways like the Mulsanne Straight at Le Mans, which allowed the Ferraris to catch up.

Ford had the brilliant idea of supplanting Carroll Shelby’s racing team by developing the GT40. A design that never worked out, until Ford hired Shelby to make it reliable and competitive.

But before that happened, Shelby and his Cobra embarrassed both Ford and Ferrari one last time when Pete Brock designed a new body to go on the Cobra frame, creating a Cobra that could run with the Ferraris at Le Mans. They only built six, and they won until Ford ordered Shelby to shut them down and have them destroyed. Luckily, the cars were rescued, and all of them survived until this day. In January 2014, CSX2287 became the first vehicle added to the Historic Vehicle Association’s National Historic Vehicle Register in the United States

Not bad for a mashup of an economy car engine, an obsolete copy of an obsolete car design, and a washed up race car driver from Texas, huh?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

A Shelby Cobra for Me

I watched a commercial today by a famous car company known for it’s safe, boring cars. In the commercial, two young ladies are having a conversation while driving in city traffic when car in front of them stops abruptly, and their car automatically stops in response. They look at each other in visible relief, as if stopping the car was beyond their intellectual capacity and general competence.

While this is “just a commercial” I think this vignette realistically describes how poorly trained and intellectually equipped modern motorists are, compared to their forebears. And, frankly, this is the straw that has broken my personal camel’s back (talking about obscure references to old people games) in relation to modern cars.

The fact is, the safer automobiles become and the more the driving process is taken away from the driver, the worse drivers become and the less safe they are. Recently, the driver of a so-called “self-driving car” blithely sat by as his extremely expensive and automated vehicle hurtled him to his fiery death, watching blankly as it slammed into a median at a high rate of speed.

It is obvious that with the combination of safety, automation and the decrease in critical thinking in our society as a whole, driving is rapidly becoming a lost art. A loss that has lessened our society, in my opinion. As I drive along our roadways, I continually witness acts of stupidity. People appear to be more focused on their cell phones than they are in arriving safely at their destination, much less enjoying their driving experience. And common courtesy and defensive driving are just a faint memory.

I grew up in the American Midwest and learned how to drive early; I started out driving tractors at a shockingly young age, then transitioned to racing go-carts. At the tender age of 12, I earned the coveted “Farm to Market” license and became the first 5th grader to drive a 13-ton Ford F700 grain truck to school. Very soon thereafter, I sold a pen of feeder cattle and immediately attempted to purchase a clapped-out Shelby 427 Cobra at the Clay County Fair in Spencer Iowa. My father wisely dissuaded me from that foolish act which would’ve certainly ended in my own death, but helped me buy a series of Mustangs, instead. The first was a 1967 convertible, which I own to this day. The most exciting was one of the very first Hipo models produced, which I’ve since sold to a museum. I eventually owned 7 Mustangs, all of which I enjoyed immensely.

Image may contain: 2 people

Then, I entered the military, where I learned to drive tanks and off-road vehicles in challenging conditions. I also deployed to Germany, where I learned to drive on the autobahn. My first car there was a 5-series BMW which burned some oil but was an absolute rocket on the road. My new bride started a business over there, renting supercars to GIs. Occasionally, I would help her out by repositioning cars. My favorite car while there was a 1989 Porsche 911SC, which would absolutely set the road on fire.

As I get older, I’ve sworn off modern cars; I currently have just the 1967 Mustang mentioned earlier and a 1975 FJ55 Land Cruiser. Both are fun and unique to drive, and I couldn’t be happier with them. Sure, they are both challenging in their own way, but the challenge just adds to my driving enjoyment.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, car and outdoor

But part of me yearns for that 427 Cobra. It was blue, with white racing stripes and roundels, its aluminum skin had been wrecked so many times it looked like a raisin. But it was the most beautiful automobile I’ve ever seen. I recently visited Hurricane Motorsports in Lake City, Iowa, to look at their Shelby Cobra replica, which they call the 427 Roadster. They are just a couple hours down the road from me. I’ve been saving my pennies, and once I get to the place where I can pay cash, I will have, build and drive one of those.


It will be loud, powerful, inconvenient, and dangerous compared to modern vehicles. It will have zero in the nature of creature comforts; no cup holders will be allowed, much less automatic stopping systems, or a trunk that opens if you wave your toes under the bumper.  Why no cup holders? Because you don’t need caffeine if you are driving a 90-inch wheelbase car weighing 2400 pounds with 500 horsepower.

Some people may think I need psychoanalysis, but I think driving a Shelby Cobra replica may just be all the therapy I need.

Posted in cars, Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Fundraising for Marefat School

Frances D’Souza’s children are holding a very ambitious fundraiser for Marefat School. For those of you who read my blog, Marefat school is the amazing school in western Kabul that has sprung from a community with zero government funds and provides a top notch education for deserving children in Afghanistan. I count the headmaster there, Aziz Royesh among my closet friends. If you don’t know who Aziz is, he recently was nominated as one of the top 10 teachers in the world. Please, if you can spare any funds at all, go and give, so these children have a chance at a high quality education.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Women in the Military: Is Physical Size and Strength Really Necessary for Military Success?

At the current time, the US military establishment is busy studying how to incorporate women in Combat Arms Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) and the creation of physical standards to either justify or exclude them from those specialties. While the military appears to be studying the tasks and standards that will support those tasks, I do not think anyone is actually asking the real questions that should be asked. And that question that should be asked is this: Do these “standards” really help make the military more capable of fighting our nations’ wars and accomplishing missions in support of it’s political interest? What I intend to do is to rattle some cages about whether these “standards” are necessary, or even good. I also want to demonstrate that the US Military’s focus on size and strength is a “manufactured problem” and that women could be easily incorporated into Combat Military Occupational Specialties with some adjustment of philosophy.

Physical Standards

While the current fetish is on whether or not women can physically stand up to the rigors of war, perhaps it would be instructive to note some historical figures who would fail the current standards of fitness which are being touted as proof positive that women can or cannot serve in Combat MOSs.

Napoleon Bonaparte was a short, consumptive, out of shape individual, and if he were alive today, would be considered unsatisfactory to serve as a soldier in today’s US military. The fact that he invented the concept of mass armies and wars of national existence or whether he struck terror in the hearts of the western world would bear no weight using the current, or potentially future physical standards.

Horatio Nelson was another slight individual, who was limited to the use of only one arm and one eye that, despite not being able to do the minimum pull-ups in today’s Navy, only managed to completely annihilate every enemy fleet he faced, even after he was dead.

Audie Murphy failed even the lax WWII induction physical more than once. He somehow managed to finagle his way into the Army and then into a combat unit where he was relegated to rear echelon, more safe duties for one befitting his slight stature and lack of physical strength. And when he finally twisted enough arms to be allowed to serve on the front lines, all he did was to earn every U.S. military combat award for valor available from the U.S. Army and its allies.

One could also, quite daringly, actually bring up the cases of actual historic women who performed quite well on the battlefield. Women like Artemisia I, Xerxes’ naval commander who defeated the Greek navy. Or women like Joan of Arc, who awakened a moribund French army to inspire it to win battles. Or women like Boadicea, who threatened the mighty Roman. There is also the example of Marina Raskova, who was so effective against the German army in the USSR in WWII that she and her all-women regiment were singled out as the highest priority target by the Luftwaffe. Or the US’ own Margaret Corbin during the American Revolution, who served her gun faithfully to the end against the British, despite being severely wounded, and witnessing the death of her husband in the battle of Manhattan.

And that does not even mention the key role that women played as the sometimes chief advisor and de facto Chief of Staff to their military commander as they accompanied him on campaigns prior to the wide-scale adoption of General Staffs. (Since Officers were nobility and the noble women were expected to run extensive households and staffs, when women accompanied their husbands on campaign, the role of Chief of Staff came quite naturally.)

I think it is key to use myself as an example as well, here. I am a 51-year old man and exceptionally fit. I’ve served 32 years in Active Duty Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserves. I have 4.5 years deployed to a combat zone, most of which time I spent outside the wire, to include significant time conducting infantry-style operations with the Poppy Eradication Force in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Prior to that, I served as an artilleryman, armor crewman, Cavalry Scout, Intelligence Officer and Instructor. I habitually earn a max score on the Army Physical Fitness Test and have instructed and developed physical fitness programs for a couple decades, now.

My dirty little secret: I am not physically qualified to serve in the US military. I have an untreated broken L5 vertebrate, which impinges on my Sciatic nerve, which I did not know about until after induction. I’ve had major leg trauma as a teenager, which I lied about during induction; I cannot throw a grenade, due to multiple shoulder injuries from my early life as a cowboy (being able to throw a grenade a specified distance is a requirement for entry into the US Army). I am absolutely and unequivocally unqualified to serve in our nation’s military. Despite this, I have effectively closed with and destroyed our nation’s enemies with direct fire; I have commanded three companies and two battalions. I have professionally mentored subordinates that have netted nine company commanders, three battalion commanders and one Brigade Commander. I have successfully conducted direct operations at great risk to myself under extremely difficult conditions, the majority of which happened in my mid-40s.

My point in mentioning all of the above is to demonstrate, logically that the physical “standards” are largely crap. We, stupidly, as a military, recruit for the physical and then attempt to train for the mental, which is illogical and counter to what matters most for mission accomplishment. And restricting women’s participation in the US military because of theoretical and largely ego-driven and male focused physical requirements is counterproductive to military readiness.

Personalizing the Issue Further

I grew up in a small farming community in Northwest Iowa, where men and women often work together; families would often include women in the more physical tasks. I’m used to working around physically capable females, so I was delighted when a fellow northwest Iowa farm girl became available for service in Afghanistan with me. At the time I was operating a small team of direct intelligence gatherers in a military contract, so I was able to circumvent the ordinary military regulations excluding women from direct combat roles. Despite not having any military experience, this willowy, 6 foot 116 pound 23-year-old female proved to be a tough, resilient partner. In addition, her gender allowed her access to the half of the population that was normally out of bounds. I knew this young lady and her family, and knew she was entirely capable of running a shovel all day, so her gender was not even a consideration when it came to the physical demands of combat operations.

After working with this young lady and attaining remarkable success in our role as intelligence gatherers, I quickly gained the reputation of “the guy who could work with females” which led to a succession of female work partners. These females were chosen on the grounds of their intellect, their drive and their ability to communicate, in that order, and proved to be operationally excellent and physically resilient. All were in adequate to superb physical condition, to the point to where they pushed me during extremely challenging day-to-day operations as well as in physical training whenever we had the time to work out.

More importantly, our intelligence gathering efforts were exceptionally effective and productive, with both qualitative and quantitatively superior results in excess of units 10 times our size that shared our battlespace.

Strength and Size

When in discussions with military people, the political entities that administer the military, and military “experts”, one is led to believe that the primary source of military excellence and professionalism is physical strength and size. Our soldiers are asked to carry an immensely heavy load during infantry combat; with most references for so-called “light” infantry being around 120 pounds. The US Army is an Army that, despite having an abundance of protected and unprotected transport, both ground and air, makes a fetish of how much weight its infantry routinely carries into combat. But does the ability to carry immense amounts of weight convert to military prowess? Let us examine some of military forces that have proven historic excellence to test that hypothesis.

First lets look at the military that defeated the US military from 1965 to 1972: The Viet Cong and then the North Vietnamese Army consisted of soldiers which averaged 5’2” 110 pounds – These soldiers made epic, strategic foot movements, carrying only a rifle, ammunition, water, food and a tarpaulin for sleep and weather protection. They were smaller and physically weaker than a current day US Army female soldier. However, the North Vietnamese Army focused on the things that matter. You see, despite their relative lack of motor transport, the North Vietnamese were not so stupid as to load down their valuable infantry with gear, nor did they restrict their combat abilities with heavy body armor.

Before and during World War II, no rational person would claim that the Japanese Army was not capable of successful combat operations. Despite being virtually unsupported, logistically, and being thrown away in meaningless ways by their combat leaders, all their opponents universally feared the Japanese soldier. And they accomplished ferocious reputation while measuring on average only 5’3” and weighing in at 120 pounds.

Both the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac were packed with physically unfit individuals, who probably couldn’t pass the pushups and the sit-up events of today’s Army PFT.

The Roman Army was probably close to 5’ 3” tall on average, except some of the barbarian auxiliaries. It’s interesting to note that relatively small yet well trained Roman units defeated Celts that not only outnumbered them, but were physically larger, averaging 5’8”-5’10” in height.

And what about the “big, beefy American troops? The average Marine in WWII was 5’7” and 140-150 pounds. When I was an APMS at Illinois State University, our average female (we had a large proportion of female track athletes) was 5’7” and 140 pounds. And all of the physically fit ones were capable of carrying a rifle, pack and basic supplies for long distances. In my experience, a fit military female is superior at actual, versus theoretical military tasks than a typical non-fit military male.

In practical terms, there are only a few militarily relevant physical fitness tasks that we should be focusing on. These include the ability to carry a rifle, wear a rucksack with minimum necessary supplies, the ability to walk long distances and sprint short distances and the ability to get over an obstacle.

While there is the potential for activity such as loading an artillery or tank shell, as well as the oft-repeated “carrying a 270 pound man to safety” that is considered to be the pinnacle of military capability, the problem with testing these things to be the “end-all, be-all” for determining female participation in Combat Arms, is that they are tasks that prove to be rare, and sometime apocryphal in nature. While extremely rarely all crew members may be required to load an artillery or tank shell under unusual conditions, only the lowest ranking crew are required to do this action, and then only for a short time during their first enlistment (unless they are a “dud” who lacks aptitude or drive for any other task.) I was both a tank and artillery crewman, and not only do soldiers do loader duties only for a short while, professionally, there are certain “cheats” for small stature/low strength individuals to accomplish these tasks. While no sane person would assign a small stature/low strength individual to load a gun for a prolonged period of time, it can be done efficiently and quickly with practice. By the way, tank crews routinely reassign crewmen based on talent/aptitude, and small low ranking soldiers tend to start out as a driver, which is a low strength position, and large low ranking soldiers start out as a loader. Many maintenance tasks require physical strength, but again, except on the unit commander’s tank, smaller-framed crewmen can use skill in lieu of strength, and crews are routinely configured to account for lower strength individuals now.

The Institutional Cowardice of Body Armor

While we are addressing the loads of our soldiers, let’s discuss the 40-50 pounds of body armor our soldiers wear. This armor in and of itself is debilitating and reduces combat efficiency, even among physically strong and large individuals. While body armor has some utility in protection of life and the reduction of wounding effects, the current philosophy has resulted in body armor designed to attempt to prevent any and all wounds. It has also become a mandatory wear item, which reflects an illogical risk aversion in military terms. This armor is ill fitting, reduces mobility to the point of becoming a threat to mission accomplishment and produces stress injuries. When you consider the fact that the armor is not designed for a female frame, perhaps we should stop claiming females should not participate in combat tasks because they cannot carry it, and start examining why our Military leadership has bought into such ridiculous and risk averse design and wear policy, regardless of if it make sense or not.

What’s Really Behind the Physical Requirements Issue:

When one comes down to it, the focus on size and strength can be distilled down an adolescent argument about women “hacking it” and “pulling their fair share.” And if we are going to base our military staffing decisions on “fairness”, why not extend that to intelligence? What if we applied standards on a soldiers’ ability to think with the same rigor as the physical standards? Anyone who’s been in the military for more than a day or two can quite easily determine that native intelligence is not maximized or even desired. I would submit that military service, especially combat arms are much more intellectually demanding than popular sentiment gives it credit for.

Provided that the US military can get over its adolescent fixation of female soldiers being able to “carry their fair share” of weight, and the blatantly misogynistic way women are treated in the military “fraternity”, there are some relatively simple solutions to integrating women into Combat Arms.

Some easy fixes:


Despite my assertions that physical size and strength are not the key element in military endeavors, physical fitness IS extremely important. Female trainees entering the military in a combat role will need additional fitness training during their initial training, and throughout their service compared to their male counterparts, in order to ensure they are able to maximize the performance of their admittedly smaller frames, which will help them in keeping up physically with the male counterparts, because in the process of integration, they will need to keep up to gain respect.


Our young women in uniform will also have special nutrition requirements. While young men are capable of converting immense amounts of fried foods and sugar into muscle mass and energy without injury or affecting fitness for a time, women’s metabolisms have a lower tolerance of a poor diet then men’s. And to be fair, it wouldn’t hurt male soldiers to have a healthier diet as well. Military dining facilities are infamous for their low quality and large quantities of food. Military DFACs serve mainly fried foods, and most have only token healthy choice items, which are almost always prepared badly or are of low quality.

Developing Female Specific Gear

Despite a booming civilian female clothing and accessory industry in the US, the military finds it “a bridge too far” to make even token efforts to procure and produce equipment designed for female frames. Female boots are just scaled down versions of male boots, with improper flex points, support and fit, which leads to less performance and stress injuries. Female clothing and boots need to fit them, and not just be a sized-down version of male designs.

Despite the typical female frame being a more efficient load carrier than a male frame, nonsensically, military load carrying equipment is designed for the less capable male frame. Load carrying equipment that distributed loads more toward the hips and less toward the shoulders would make the woman’s ability to keep up with her male counterparts more likely. Oddly enough, the old style LCE did a better job of this, despite the effort put in to “improving” the new stuff.

Compromising on Body Armor

While I mentioned the inappropriate design and completely inflexible use of body armor, adapting body armor to a female frame would be much simpler if the body armor was made of better, lightweight materials, instead of massive, relatively low-tech Kevlar plates. Existing armor already exists that weighs just a few pounds and is designed for women. And that body armor needs to compromise on its protection ability of both female AND male frames, with the eye to ONLY protecting the truly critical areas, such as the thoracic cavity and cranium, in as minimal way possible. Complete safety through body armor is neither possible nor desirable. Only the minimum body armor consistent with mission accomplishment should be permitted. This is the single most important thing our military can do to not only integrate females into combat occupations, but also for the overall ability of the military at large to accomplish missions.

Rethinking the Load

In fact, the inclusion of females would be a great excuse for the military to rethink the load it puts on its soldiers. Despite an embarrassment of transport, and several systems designed to take the load off the US infantry, leaders continue to fetish the load our infantry carries. Except for some special missions, leaders could reduce the load by maximizing the use of transport, or even resorting to the time-proven use of bearers and caching materials, a technique that is still in Infantry manuals.

Without addressing any other aspect of female integration, it is provably false, through the use of historical examples and simple logic, that size and strength are sole or even primary criteria for military excellence. While fitness plays a role in military performance, both historic figures and entire military units have succeeded with small-framed, relatively physically weak soldiers. Our military would be better and more successful if they focused more on recruiting for intelligence and drive and training for fitness than vice versa.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Aziz Royesh Named Finalist to Global Teacher of the Year

As many of you may already know, I’ve been a big fan of Marefat High School in Dashti Barchi, Kabul, for several years now. I spent much of my early blogs singing praises of that school, and its headmaster, Aziz Royesh.

There’s more, but that is a sampling.

Seems I’m not the only one who has taken notice. My good friend Aziz Royesh is being recognized for the amazing work he, his supporters, and his talented staff and intelligent students have been doing. He has been nominated and has been named one of ten finalists for the Global Teacher of the Year. The winner will be named March 16, and I look forward and hope he wins.

Trust me when I say he is an amazing man, and a wonderful teacher. I know he has taught me a lot, in my time there.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Star of “The Buzkashi Boys” Goes To School

Picture courtesy of Fawad Mohammadi's Facebook page

If this were actually Hollywood, Fawad Mohammadi, the accidental star of “The Buzkashi Boys” would be living in some not quite mansion in an idyllic suburb of some generic “nice place” in America and “gets the girl” who is some astonishingly attractive (yet underplayed to be not quite as hot as she is) chaste woman. And he would be living by a not quite detectable means that would inexplicably earn him an upper middle class income.

Enough of Hollywood fantasy, though. This is reality. And the reality is, Fawad Mohammadi, the street kid from Kabul is actually quite brilliant, but still has to work hard to not only get into the Turkish American High School in Kabul, the place he CHOOSES to get his education, but he is managing to not only get top marks in school, but proudly posts them to his friends on FaceBook.

While Fawad was nominated for an Academy Award in 2013, the film didn’t quite win. Hollywood briefly, and in my eyes, not very sincerely, flirted with him. (Now THERE’S a shocker for you!)

Fawad Mohammadi was offered the opportunity to come to the West and get his education there, but he decided to stay in Afghanistan instead. By all accounts, he is a hard working young man who is quite brilliant. He is also very religious, an aspect of him that I admire.

He always wanted to be an airplane pilot, and I hope he gets the chance to be one. Both my wife and I have been involved in aviation at times in our lives and it is a fun, rewarding pursuit.

Fawad Mohammadi is the hope and future of Afghanistan. As the rest of the world appears to burn in radicalism and people willing to kill to make their political point, I wish peace upon those who are strong and smart enough to make it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment