IMMATURE VENTURE CAPITAL INDUSTRY IN ASIA
My Experience as an Entrepreneur in Asia
During the time of my first startup with Jimmy and Peter, we envisioned starting an early-stage venture capital fund 7-10 years down the road. Especially because we already enjoyed helping friends and other entrepreneurs in their company building while we were involved with our own. By the time of our second startup, the desire became a little more focused towards helping entrepreneurs in Asia because our experiences on both sides of the Pacific showed us the differences in being an entrepreneur in Asia versus the U.S. We realized we were serial entrepreneurs and enjoyed working on the early stages of company growth. We also knew Asia didn't have the best elements or culture to start a new company, so we eventually wanted to be in a position to help new entrepreneurs in Asia achieve their goals and vision.
We thought about doing another startup and then raising a fund several years down the road, but an opportunity came up last year to try to start a fund so we went forward with it. Everyone didn't need to take the risk, so I volunteered to start the process and if it succeeded the other four would quit and join. If it didn't succeed, which was almost expected, we would just try again five or more years down the road. Failure was expected because we went through the process of fundraising in the U.S. and Asia. 1% of all startups receive venture capital funding in the U.S., and this was during the booms times when money was supposedly being thrown around. I'm guessing this figure is higher in Asia, but still a difficult road. Even though we were successful in raising capital for two companies, the road for raising a fund was more difficult and the odds were worse, so we were confident but realistic in our expectations.
The economic conditions were horrible in trying to raise capital, especially for a new fund, but we thought the other factors were good... lower company valuations, continuing innovation coming out of Korea and China, and a shortage of early-stage capital. We tried for a year, but it didn't work out so we'll just regroup a few years down the road and try again. The following are excerpts from our PPM, or prospectus, explaining the landscape of the venture capital industry in Asia:
"Members of our team were former entrepreneurs in Asia and much of our company’s vision was cultivated from numerous meetings with almost every venture capital and private equity firm in the Pacific Rim. From our encounters, we noticed that the majority of the professionals in Asia were former bankers versus experienced entrepreneurs or managers from corporations as in the U.S. We noticed the distinction from U.S. firms, especially in our meetings since firms in Asia would focus more on the financial projections, which were crafted from part research and part dreams. Also the outcome, whether good or bad for our fundraising goals, infrequently provided benefits in terms of business insights or advancement of our business model. While our discussions with U.S. firms tended to challenge our thinking and assisted in us improving our business model. In the end, we successfully raised capital from some of the top firms in Asia, but the seeds had been planted to change the processes that we experienced.
One explanation for this difference is the venture capital industry’s brief history in Asia. The cycles of entrepreneurism and high-tech innovation have been relatively short resulting in a lack of infrastructure ideal for entrepreneurs, whether legal, financial, or cultural. Additionally, this has resulted in a smaller pool of experienced entrepreneurs and managers from larger corporations entering the venture capital industry creating a distinction with U.S. firms. Whether from the venture capital industry or entrepreneurs working on their second or third venture, fledging entrepreneurs in Asia do not have easily accessible role models or guidance in creating new businesses due to the small pool they can draw from.
Another resource that is not readily available to all entrepreneurs is a strong personal network. In Asia, family, educational, and other personal relationships are essential for doing business. In the past, some great entrepreneurs did not succeed due to the lack of these types of relationships needed to create partnerships with larger entities, fundraise, or deal with bureaucratic issues. Additionally, bad ideas received funding due to a founder’s status within the social ladder.
.....
In Asia, there is little distinction between private equity and venture capital firms. While in the U.S., the former traditionally tends to be more conservative, diversified in old and new economy, maintains investments that range in both public and private entities, and commonly evaluates a company on the financial data and potential returns. Generally, venture capital firms are less risk adverse, more focused on private technology companies, and strongly weighs softer issues towards a company’s potential, such as the management team and strength of technology.
The composition of their teams also greatly differs. Private equity professionals generally come from the financial service industry since many funds are related to an investment bank and this prior experience matches the nature of their typical investment. Venture capital firms differ since they are composed of former entrepreneurs, experienced managers from larger corporations, and some professionals from a financial service company. One reason for this difference is that technology has been a cornerstone for the venture capital industry and disregards conventional financial analysis. The short and long-term marketability of a technology can be difficult to predict and derivative ideas and products are challenging to discover at any stage, whether it is an older existing technology like telephony or cutting-edge nanotechnology. For practical purposes, a mixed team is needed for a firm to better assess investment opportunities in technology-related, early growth industries, or really any industry. Additionally, these types of companies undeniably need assistance beyond financial support. Only 25% of startups successfully achieve the second stage of growth and financing. The success rate increases to 80% when the venture capitalists supporting the company has prior experience from running a startup and working at a larger firm.
In Asia, most venture capital firms are primarily composed of individuals from the financial service industry. This has limited the ability for these firms to effectively evaluate an investment opportunity and the scope of impact it can have towards the company’s success. We believe this homogenous grouping of financial professionals is a contributing factor to the overall lack of success in Asia for venture capital firms."
Junto Boyz
Monday, September 29, 2003
|Sunday, September 28, 2003
WORKPLACE STORIES... HUMOROUS, DISTURBING, OR JUST ODD
I've been in various industries and corporate cultures throughout my career. Primarily due to my dual interest in business and government... entrepreneurism and politics. So this has allowed me to encounter numerous types of professional personalities, habits, and situations. I actually pride myself in the ability to get along with and work with the whole spectrum of people, but as I get older there are just some types I strongly prefer not to work with. General descriptions would be: extremely selfish, very dishonest, aggressive yet stupid, strongly arrogant without substance. For example, if a person simply kicks ass but is an arrogant asshole, you sometimes just have to roll with the punches because he/she contributes so much to the company or team. With a person that's strongly arrogant without any reason to be and they have a misconception of their abilities, it simply demands a conversation or conflict on this matter. This can be a very frank discussion on their clouded vision or an action against them within the company.
I've learned to deal with these problem people in various ways depending upon the situation and my commitment to the company or a person. I just wanted to write about some of these experiences, which are mainly humorous to me.
I have no regrets in all the experiences I've been through and take each one as a blessing. I simply have this outlook on all aspects of my life and believe it has allowed me to be optimistic, happy, and easily amused at myself and people in general. I can laugh at most situations I face in life. Even when I'm angry, part of me can be laughing or in hindsight I just crack up at my actions, words, and the people involved.
In the spirit of disclosure, as I write about some of my workplace experiences, I am a person that is blunt to a fault and I will speak my mind. I will easily admit my faults and mistakes since I'm secure in who I am. I have a high tolerance for difficult personalities and problem people, but will hold in my thoughts and direct action for periods of time beyond what my friends tell me that they would do. When I reach that point, I will just let the floodgates open and deal with the situation in my blunt and sharp manner. If it isn't a serious situation, I will just tell the person at the moment or within a short time period. Sometimes softly or harshly, depending on the person and circumstances. But if it's dealing with a more serious or critical issue, I usually will wait until the right moment, which could be months later.
The Control Freak
When working in an investment bank, you get various personalities that are in the industry. One of them I would label as the "asshole director". Actually, before I joined this firm people warned me about the person I was going to work with directly. They said he was an asshole and that a fair amount of people that worked with him disliked or hated him. Since I prided myself in working with difficult personalities and was confident in my people skills, I foolishly wanted to test the waters. Within a month of working at the firm, I had my first encounter with my managing director's disturbing nature. Experience can sometimes the only teacher in life, especially to the foolishly confident.
Our office is an open space setting with no cubicles and the managing director's offices are clear glass walls. My desk was about a 15 second walk away from my MD's office. His secretary is positioned right infront of his office. So one day he phones and asks me to come over to his office.
"So, Bernard, my computer's screen saver isn't on."
"Umm... Yes, Lester."
"Do you know anything about this?"
"No." (puzzled at this point)
"Well, I left my office for a few minutes and came back and the screen saver didn't come on. If it was on, there would be a password prompt when I deactivate it. So someone must have been at my computer as I left my office."
"Umm... Well, Lester, my screen saver sometimes doesn't go on my laptop once in a while. There are glitches that my computer experiences."
"NO. That never happens. Someone MUST HAVE been on my computer. Did you see anyone come by my office?" Lester states in a harsh tone and asks his question with a fluctuation in his voice.
At this point, I really don't believe what's going on. He can't be accusing me of this. He was trying to fish whether I was actually on his computer or he actually believed I was on it and just trying to get a confession out of me. Could he really believe I timed it so that when he left his office for a few minutes, somehow I checked that his secretary was not at her desk (which around the corner and not visible from my desk), got on his computer for a minute or less for whatever reason, and walked back to my desk? What a FREAK.
"Ok. Lester, I didn't do it if that is what your asking. I was at my desk the whole time." I state with an annoyed and puzzled look.
"No, no. I wasn't accusing you. But some is strange here."
(weakass, just come out and say it if you're going to accuse me indirectly)
"Well, again, sometimes computers do strange things. And again if you are wondering, ask Rick who was sitting in front of me the whole time. I'll be back at my desk if you need me."
I walked away upset and in disbelief. What a "psycho" I thought to myself. This was only scratching the surface of his control freak nature and truly reflective of what the following year with Lester would be like. He was a control freak and believed he or others around him should be in control of the their environment. If something didn't go right due to a computer, email server, printer, airline reservation system, or whatever faliure, it wasn't acceptable to him. He needed to blame someone and take his frustration and anger out on a person. It was an odd reaction that could be classified as borderline neurosis, but humorous at times. Finally, when he would realize it was something out of his control he would pout and accept it, or just would ignore it completely.
He would also want situations or things to go along with his timetable. If it wasn't, he would get completely neurotic and get irrationally upset. My calm confidence didn't mix well with this aspect of his personality. Jimmy, my close friend from the two startsup I did, compares me to Will Smith's character in Bad Boys. I'm not a player like Mike Lowrey. Jimmy just thought I was like Lowrey since I don't get rattled in intense situations, and he's seen me in every type of situation. Board room blowups, fights with our investors, near bankruptcy of our second startup company, various aspects of my personal life, etc.
Anyway, so Lester would get rattled and angry if things weren't settling into place and I would be calm and laid back and tell him that things would work out. I wouldn't say it to simply diffuse the situation or calm him down, but only if I thought things would really settle and I thought he was overreacting. One time, he finally said, "I just don't think you are aggressive enough to be a banker. You have to push to get things done."
"Lester, just because I don't get angry, or tell everyone or you every action I take doesn't mean I'm not aggressive or pushing to get things done."
I found this to be a characteristic of some people in the banking industry that I don't like. Self-promoting to an untruthful degree, lack of patience, inability to clearly articulate what you want to achieve. Of course this leads to poor morale, bitter colleagues, poor management skills in overseeing projects, unhappy family life, shallow friendships, etc...
So some of Lester's methods would be to simply call constantly and shout to try to get things done and move a deal forward. Umm... like that is going to move the process forward especially when many situations depend on an outside party. The other qualities listed above would lead him to announce every action he does to "cover his back" or take credit when credit is not due. Of course there are office politics in any industry, but it seems to be overemphasized in this sector.
Most of my experiences with Lester were humorous. If I wrote them all down, it could become a source for Dilbert-like book with a twist. I'll end with these quotes:
"The reason I don't have many friends because I'm a type 'A' personality, which you are not. I've always been more focused on work than other things in life. I could have had more friends if I wanted to." Lester randomly stated after a client meeting. Really random because I still don't know what prompted this statement since we didn't have any prior conversations that day related to this general topic.
"Bernard, the only reason why you get deals and can do business development is because people like you and you have a lot of friends." Lester told me in a bitter tone, which I found very funny at the time that a 40+ year man would be saying something like this. It took me back to my grade school years on the playground.
Wives can be a Warning
One of the most important elements in starting a new company is the core team, their motivation, and team chemistry. The process can be short at times, so it's important to try to gather as much information as you can through various meetings and channels. This is a situation that occurred after the fact, but a lesson that I learned in hindsight.
When we were launching one of our startups, we set up a dinner gathering to kick off our operations. Families and some friends were present at this dinner. One of the executives, who I wrote about in my entry on friendship, brought along his wife. During the dinner, she brought up a statement that disturbed and caught my attention.
"Going from my husband's prior firm to this company... I don't know what we are going to do. We're going to live like paupers!..."
This statement struck some of my colleagues as warped and disgusting since she said it with such sincerity and seriousness. First, he was being paid six figures and less than a 40% cut from his prior position. Granted that he wouldn't be able to expense many things any more, but his wife was also working and bringing in a decent income. Second, to put it in a different perspective, the per capita GNI (gross national income) was US$10,013 for South Korea in 2002. The average person probably gets paid far less than this statistic shows since the distribution of wealth is highly unequal in South Korea. The U.S. has a per capita GNI of $34,870. Even in the U.S., I remember reading a statistic that showed less than 5% of the population are salaried with six figures and above. Of course this doesn't include self-employed people, business owners, and other categories, but you get the picture. They were far from becoming paupers and such a ridiculous statement was a warning flag for me.
Not all wives, and vice versa, are reflective of their husbands, but eventually it turned out to be the case here where her selfishness was revealed in her husband too during the course of our time together.
Watching Porn at a Client Site is a NO NO
On a project I was working on, we discovered that one of our team members surfed porn on a computer at the client site. The problem was that it was in an open room where many people walked through and he did it during the day. Additionally, the computer screen faced the hallway were people through in open view and the team member's back faced the hallway so he couldn't see if people were behind him.
"Dude, Sal! What are you thinking?!" I berated him.
"I don't know." Sal responded.
"I hope our client didn't see it, but what if others in the company identified you as part of our project team and not another employee?"
"How would they know?"
I glared at him because Sal was a 280 pound fat, Italian that looked like Homer Simpson with a beard and glasses. He wasn't difficult to identify.
|
I've been in various industries and corporate cultures throughout my career. Primarily due to my dual interest in business and government... entrepreneurism and politics. So this has allowed me to encounter numerous types of professional personalities, habits, and situations. I actually pride myself in the ability to get along with and work with the whole spectrum of people, but as I get older there are just some types I strongly prefer not to work with. General descriptions would be: extremely selfish, very dishonest, aggressive yet stupid, strongly arrogant without substance. For example, if a person simply kicks ass but is an arrogant asshole, you sometimes just have to roll with the punches because he/she contributes so much to the company or team. With a person that's strongly arrogant without any reason to be and they have a misconception of their abilities, it simply demands a conversation or conflict on this matter. This can be a very frank discussion on their clouded vision or an action against them within the company.
I've learned to deal with these problem people in various ways depending upon the situation and my commitment to the company or a person. I just wanted to write about some of these experiences, which are mainly humorous to me.
I have no regrets in all the experiences I've been through and take each one as a blessing. I simply have this outlook on all aspects of my life and believe it has allowed me to be optimistic, happy, and easily amused at myself and people in general. I can laugh at most situations I face in life. Even when I'm angry, part of me can be laughing or in hindsight I just crack up at my actions, words, and the people involved.
In the spirit of disclosure, as I write about some of my workplace experiences, I am a person that is blunt to a fault and I will speak my mind. I will easily admit my faults and mistakes since I'm secure in who I am. I have a high tolerance for difficult personalities and problem people, but will hold in my thoughts and direct action for periods of time beyond what my friends tell me that they would do. When I reach that point, I will just let the floodgates open and deal with the situation in my blunt and sharp manner. If it isn't a serious situation, I will just tell the person at the moment or within a short time period. Sometimes softly or harshly, depending on the person and circumstances. But if it's dealing with a more serious or critical issue, I usually will wait until the right moment, which could be months later.
The Control Freak
When working in an investment bank, you get various personalities that are in the industry. One of them I would label as the "asshole director". Actually, before I joined this firm people warned me about the person I was going to work with directly. They said he was an asshole and that a fair amount of people that worked with him disliked or hated him. Since I prided myself in working with difficult personalities and was confident in my people skills, I foolishly wanted to test the waters. Within a month of working at the firm, I had my first encounter with my managing director's disturbing nature. Experience can sometimes the only teacher in life, especially to the foolishly confident.
Our office is an open space setting with no cubicles and the managing director's offices are clear glass walls. My desk was about a 15 second walk away from my MD's office. His secretary is positioned right infront of his office. So one day he phones and asks me to come over to his office.
"So, Bernard, my computer's screen saver isn't on."
"Umm... Yes, Lester."
"Do you know anything about this?"
"No." (puzzled at this point)
"Well, I left my office for a few minutes and came back and the screen saver didn't come on. If it was on, there would be a password prompt when I deactivate it. So someone must have been at my computer as I left my office."
"Umm... Well, Lester, my screen saver sometimes doesn't go on my laptop once in a while. There are glitches that my computer experiences."
"NO. That never happens. Someone MUST HAVE been on my computer. Did you see anyone come by my office?" Lester states in a harsh tone and asks his question with a fluctuation in his voice.
At this point, I really don't believe what's going on. He can't be accusing me of this. He was trying to fish whether I was actually on his computer or he actually believed I was on it and just trying to get a confession out of me. Could he really believe I timed it so that when he left his office for a few minutes, somehow I checked that his secretary was not at her desk (which around the corner and not visible from my desk), got on his computer for a minute or less for whatever reason, and walked back to my desk? What a FREAK.
"Ok. Lester, I didn't do it if that is what your asking. I was at my desk the whole time." I state with an annoyed and puzzled look.
"No, no. I wasn't accusing you. But some is strange here."
(weakass, just come out and say it if you're going to accuse me indirectly)
"Well, again, sometimes computers do strange things. And again if you are wondering, ask Rick who was sitting in front of me the whole time. I'll be back at my desk if you need me."
I walked away upset and in disbelief. What a "psycho" I thought to myself. This was only scratching the surface of his control freak nature and truly reflective of what the following year with Lester would be like. He was a control freak and believed he or others around him should be in control of the their environment. If something didn't go right due to a computer, email server, printer, airline reservation system, or whatever faliure, it wasn't acceptable to him. He needed to blame someone and take his frustration and anger out on a person. It was an odd reaction that could be classified as borderline neurosis, but humorous at times. Finally, when he would realize it was something out of his control he would pout and accept it, or just would ignore it completely.
He would also want situations or things to go along with his timetable. If it wasn't, he would get completely neurotic and get irrationally upset. My calm confidence didn't mix well with this aspect of his personality. Jimmy, my close friend from the two startsup I did, compares me to Will Smith's character in Bad Boys. I'm not a player like Mike Lowrey. Jimmy just thought I was like Lowrey since I don't get rattled in intense situations, and he's seen me in every type of situation. Board room blowups, fights with our investors, near bankruptcy of our second startup company, various aspects of my personal life, etc.
Anyway, so Lester would get rattled and angry if things weren't settling into place and I would be calm and laid back and tell him that things would work out. I wouldn't say it to simply diffuse the situation or calm him down, but only if I thought things would really settle and I thought he was overreacting. One time, he finally said, "I just don't think you are aggressive enough to be a banker. You have to push to get things done."
"Lester, just because I don't get angry, or tell everyone or you every action I take doesn't mean I'm not aggressive or pushing to get things done."
I found this to be a characteristic of some people in the banking industry that I don't like. Self-promoting to an untruthful degree, lack of patience, inability to clearly articulate what you want to achieve. Of course this leads to poor morale, bitter colleagues, poor management skills in overseeing projects, unhappy family life, shallow friendships, etc...
So some of Lester's methods would be to simply call constantly and shout to try to get things done and move a deal forward. Umm... like that is going to move the process forward especially when many situations depend on an outside party. The other qualities listed above would lead him to announce every action he does to "cover his back" or take credit when credit is not due. Of course there are office politics in any industry, but it seems to be overemphasized in this sector.
Most of my experiences with Lester were humorous. If I wrote them all down, it could become a source for Dilbert-like book with a twist. I'll end with these quotes:
"The reason I don't have many friends because I'm a type 'A' personality, which you are not. I've always been more focused on work than other things in life. I could have had more friends if I wanted to." Lester randomly stated after a client meeting. Really random because I still don't know what prompted this statement since we didn't have any prior conversations that day related to this general topic.
"Bernard, the only reason why you get deals and can do business development is because people like you and you have a lot of friends." Lester told me in a bitter tone, which I found very funny at the time that a 40+ year man would be saying something like this. It took me back to my grade school years on the playground.
Wives can be a Warning
One of the most important elements in starting a new company is the core team, their motivation, and team chemistry. The process can be short at times, so it's important to try to gather as much information as you can through various meetings and channels. This is a situation that occurred after the fact, but a lesson that I learned in hindsight.
When we were launching one of our startups, we set up a dinner gathering to kick off our operations. Families and some friends were present at this dinner. One of the executives, who I wrote about in my entry on friendship, brought along his wife. During the dinner, she brought up a statement that disturbed and caught my attention.
"Going from my husband's prior firm to this company... I don't know what we are going to do. We're going to live like paupers!..."
This statement struck some of my colleagues as warped and disgusting since she said it with such sincerity and seriousness. First, he was being paid six figures and less than a 40% cut from his prior position. Granted that he wouldn't be able to expense many things any more, but his wife was also working and bringing in a decent income. Second, to put it in a different perspective, the per capita GNI (gross national income) was US$10,013 for South Korea in 2002. The average person probably gets paid far less than this statistic shows since the distribution of wealth is highly unequal in South Korea. The U.S. has a per capita GNI of $34,870. Even in the U.S., I remember reading a statistic that showed less than 5% of the population are salaried with six figures and above. Of course this doesn't include self-employed people, business owners, and other categories, but you get the picture. They were far from becoming paupers and such a ridiculous statement was a warning flag for me.
Not all wives, and vice versa, are reflective of their husbands, but eventually it turned out to be the case here where her selfishness was revealed in her husband too during the course of our time together.
Watching Porn at a Client Site is a NO NO
On a project I was working on, we discovered that one of our team members surfed porn on a computer at the client site. The problem was that it was in an open room where many people walked through and he did it during the day. Additionally, the computer screen faced the hallway were people through in open view and the team member's back faced the hallway so he couldn't see if people were behind him.
"Dude, Sal! What are you thinking?!" I berated him.
"I don't know." Sal responded.
"I hope our client didn't see it, but what if others in the company identified you as part of our project team and not another employee?"
"How would they know?"
I glared at him because Sal was a 280 pound fat, Italian that looked like Homer Simpson with a beard and glasses. He wasn't difficult to identify.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
SENSATIONALISM HAS GOT TO GO... PUT SOME RESPONSIBLE,
LEVEL-HEADED PRODUCERS IN THE MEDIA
CNN Sucks... And Has Idiotic Polls Too!
Last night I was channeling surfing and came across a news blip on CNN. They were presenting a recent poll that "revealed" 50% of people in the U.S. now believe that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The angle that the news anchor was presenting it from, or maybe just the way the polling question was worded, was that there has been a shift in public opinion that Saddam had no connection with 9/11. Hello?! Who did these pollsters poll? People who can't watch or read the news intelligently? Who in the U.S. initially thought Saddam had a strong connection with 9/11? It was known to be al Qaeda and bin Laden and possibly an indirect relationship with Saddam, but was 9/11 ever the primary reason for the attack on Iraq? And what was the purpose of this poll? It seemed to be a totally loaded polling question that tries to present that 9/11 was a primary reason for attacking Iraq. And since a growing majority of the population doesn't believe Saddam has anything to do with 9/11 anymore, President Bush is losing credibility now. Yes, I'm reading in-between the lines, but this poll was so obviously biased against Bush and useless that I had to write about it. Whoever the producer was that commissioned that poll is retarded and let's his political biases influence his work too much.
Additional criticism on the media was discussed in The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal and a great op-ed by Congressman Jim Marshall (D-GA), which I pasted below. The criticism is along the same lines that I wrote about back on April 2, 2003. The media places too much of a negative spin on the events in Iraq and needs to brings more positive news into the light or just none at all. Again, I don't need to be updated on every single little occurance in Iraq:
Dems to Media: Quit Bitching!
Jim Marshall, a freshman Democratic congressman from Georgia, is just back from Iraq, and he's penned an op-ed for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blasting the media for its negativism toward Iraq:
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death. . . .
In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
Other Democrats agree, reports The Hill. Rep Ike Skelton (D., Mo.): "The media stresses the wounds, the injuries, and the deaths, as they should, but for instance in Northern Iraq, Gen. [Dave] Petraeus has 3,100 projects--from soccer fields to schools to refineries--all good stuff and that isn't being reported." Rep. Gene Taylor (D., Miss.): "In fairness, the war is neither going as well as the administration says it's going or as badly as the media says it is going."
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
by Jim Marshall
September 22, 2003
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.
News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.
The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.
These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.
Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.
Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.
We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.
U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
|
LEVEL-HEADED PRODUCERS IN THE MEDIA
CNN Sucks... And Has Idiotic Polls Too!
Last night I was channeling surfing and came across a news blip on CNN. They were presenting a recent poll that "revealed" 50% of people in the U.S. now believe that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The angle that the news anchor was presenting it from, or maybe just the way the polling question was worded, was that there has been a shift in public opinion that Saddam had no connection with 9/11. Hello?! Who did these pollsters poll? People who can't watch or read the news intelligently? Who in the U.S. initially thought Saddam had a strong connection with 9/11? It was known to be al Qaeda and bin Laden and possibly an indirect relationship with Saddam, but was 9/11 ever the primary reason for the attack on Iraq? And what was the purpose of this poll? It seemed to be a totally loaded polling question that tries to present that 9/11 was a primary reason for attacking Iraq. And since a growing majority of the population doesn't believe Saddam has anything to do with 9/11 anymore, President Bush is losing credibility now. Yes, I'm reading in-between the lines, but this poll was so obviously biased against Bush and useless that I had to write about it. Whoever the producer was that commissioned that poll is retarded and let's his political biases influence his work too much.
Additional criticism on the media was discussed in The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal and a great op-ed by Congressman Jim Marshall (D-GA), which I pasted below. The criticism is along the same lines that I wrote about back on April 2, 2003. The media places too much of a negative spin on the events in Iraq and needs to brings more positive news into the light or just none at all. Again, I don't need to be updated on every single little occurance in Iraq:
Dems to Media: Quit Bitching!
Jim Marshall, a freshman Democratic congressman from Georgia, is just back from Iraq, and he's penned an op-ed for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution blasting the media for its negativism toward Iraq:
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death. . . .
In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
Other Democrats agree, reports The Hill. Rep Ike Skelton (D., Mo.): "The media stresses the wounds, the injuries, and the deaths, as they should, but for instance in Northern Iraq, Gen. [Dave] Petraeus has 3,100 projects--from soccer fields to schools to refineries--all good stuff and that isn't being reported." Rep. Gene Taylor (D., Miss.): "In fairness, the war is neither going as well as the administration says it's going or as badly as the media says it is going."
Media's dark cloud a danger
Falsely bleak reports reduce our chances of success in Iraq
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
by Jim Marshall
September 22, 2003
On Sept. 14, I flew from Baghdad to Kuwait with Sgt. Trevor A. Blumberg from Dearborn, Mich. He was in a body bag. He'd been ambushed and killed that afternoon. Sitting in the cargo bay of a C 130E, I found myself wondering whether the news media were somehow complicit in his death.
News media reports about our progress in Iraq have been bleak since shortly after the president's premature declaration of victory. These reports contrast sharply with reports of hope and progress presented to Congress by Department of Defense representatives -- a real disconnect, Vietnam déja vu. So I went to Iraq with six other members of Congress to see for myself.
The Iraq war has predictably evolved into a guerrilla conflict similar to Vietnam. Our currently stated objectives are to establish reasonable security and foster the creation of a secular, representative government with a stable market economy that provides broad opportunity throughout Iraqi society. Attaining these objectives in Iraq would inevitably transform the Arab world and immeasurably increase our future national security.
These are goals worthy of a fight, of sacrifice, of more lives lost now to save thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in the future. In Mosul last Monday, a colonel in the 101st Airborne put it to me quite simply: "Sir, this is worth doing." No one I spoke with said anything different. And I spoke with all ranks.
But there will be more Blumbergs killed in action, many more. So it is worth doing only if we have a reasonable chance of success. And we do, but I'm afraid the news media are hurting our chances. They are dwelling upon the mistakes, the ambushes, the soldiers killed, the wounded, the Blumbergs. Fair enough. But it is not balancing this bad news with "the rest of the story," the progress made daily, the good news. The falsely bleak picture weakens our national resolve, discourages Iraqi cooperation and emboldens our enemy.
During the conventional part of this conflict, embedded journalists reported the good, the bad and the ugly. Where are the embeds now that we are in the difficult part of the war, now that fair and balanced reporting is critically important to our chances of success? At the height of the conventional conflict, Fox News alone had 27 journalists embedded with U.S. troops (out of a total of 774 from all Western media). Today there are only 27 embedded journalists from all media combined.
Throughout Iraq, American soldiers with their typical "can do" attitude and ingenuity are engaging in thousands upon thousands of small reconstruction projects, working with Iraqi contractors and citizens. Through decentralized decision-making by unit commanders, the 101st Airborne Division alone has spent nearly $23 million in just the past few months. This sum goes a very long way in Iraq. Hundreds upon hundreds of schools are being renovated, repainted, replumbed and reroofed. Imagine the effect that has on children and their parents.
Zogby International recently released the results of an August poll showing hope and progress. My own unscientific surveys told me the same thing. With virtually no exceptions, hundreds of Iraqis enthusiastically waved back at me as I sat in the open door of a helicopter traveling between Babylon and Baghdad. And I received a similar reception as I worked my way alone, shaking hands through a large crowd of refinery workers just to see their reaction.
We may need a few credible Baghdad Bobs to undo the harm done by our media. I'm afraid it is killing our troops.
U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) of Macon, a Vietnam combat veteran, is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Monday, September 22, 2003
IRAQ & AL QAEDA
Critics of Bush Going to Extremes
Actually, I've been a little busy to take some time to write down some of my recent thoughts, so here's a quick post. More evidence on the connection between Saddam and terrorism. I believe it's the right approach for the Democrats to blast the Bush adminstration on this whole issue because they really have nothing to stand on with Clark, Dean, or Kerry as the front-runners of the 2004 election. They have to chip away at Bush's credibility, but woe to them once solid evidence turns up. The following editorial reveals that there are leads and connections even between Saddam and al Qaeda, so the Bush camp might be keeping silent until the right moment or when more evidence surfaces to shoot right back at the Dems. For those that are quite serious that there is still "no connection at all", their heads are in the clouds or up someone's ass. Wake up, people!
Iraq and al Qaeda
There's more evidence of a link than the critics admit.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
EDITORIAL
Monday, September 22, 2003 12:01 a.m.
The Bush Administration was cautious, arguably too cautious, when making its case for the liberation of Iraq. Exhibit A is what it said about the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Investigators, interrogators and even journalists are turning up evidence of a stronger relationship than the limited ties originally sketched by President Bush and Colin Powell.
That wasn't the big story last week of course. The big news was that Mr. Bush said he has "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Predictably, this is being spun as a concession from the Administration, which has been accused of exaggerating the al Qaeda link.
In truth, Mr. Bush has never gone further than what he reiterated last week: "There's no question Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." U.S. intelligence officials, meanwhile, have confirmed that fact once again. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was being harbored in Iraq; documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home. According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack.
Far from exaggeration, what struck us about the case the President and Colin Powell took to the U.N. last fall and winter was its restraint. It focused mainly on a then-obscure terrorist named Abu Mussab al Zarqawi with no alleged 9/11 link, and a small affiliated terror group called Ansar al Islam operating in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq. Left out entirely by Mr. Bush were the following stories:
• About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story. Al-Ani has been captured in Iraq, and the public deserves to know what he's telling U.S. officials about that meeting.
• Also in October 2001, two defectors alleged that a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, was being used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking with simple weapons such as knives. Though no link to al Qaeda was alleged, some of the trainees were said to be non-Iraqi Arabs. The fuselage was clearly visible in satellite photos, and has since been found.
• Press reports, which had begun in 1998, resurfaced that former Iraqi intelligence chief and then-ambassador to Turkey Faruk Hijazi had met with bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. Hijazi is in U.S. custody too, and has reportedly confirmed some of the alleged contacts.
That these stories never figured in the case for war was partly a function of caution on the part of the Administration. It was also partly a result of skepticism from the CIA, which had wrongly judged Saddam and Osama incapable of cooperation on the grounds that the former was secular, the latter fundamentalist.
Some CIA officials are still flogging this theory through leaks to the media. A June 9 article by James Risen in the New York Times claimed captured al Qaeda planner Abu Zubaydah had told CIA interrogators that al Qaeda had not "worked jointly" with Saddam. But what Mr. Risen's source, according to our own, neglected to mention was that the very next sentence of the Zubaydah debrief describes bin Laden's attitude toward Saddam as considering the enemy of his enemy to be his friend.
According to Insight magazine, the CIA's Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, used a lecture at Johns Hopkins University earlier this year to criticize the President's war on terror. He said that there was no evidence of Iraqi terror sponsorship since 1993, and no evidence of its involvement in the World Trade Center bombing that year. Curiously, we hear the agency has so far declined to share the file found in Iraq on Yasin (the 1993 New York bombing suspect) with other branches of the government.
One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for the Toronto Star and London's Sunday Telegraph. The February 19, 1998, memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden's name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri $300,000.
As Saddam's very public financial support for Palestinian suicide bombing would suggest, the dictator had no problem working with other fundamentalist groups based on nothing more than their mutual hatred for the United States. Sources tell us the CIA has found 1993 memos from Saddam's government directing Iraqi intelligence to assist Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and to assist Afghan-based holy warriors against the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. These facts deserve more public disclosure.
Of course, none of this "proves" any Saddam-9/11 link, as Mr. Bush acknowledges. But neither can we be sure there wasn't one. Our point is that U.S. government and intelligence officials ought to be open to the evidence of any links between state sponsors and terrorists. But for many Administration critics, it seems, nothing less than smoking-gun proof that 9/11 was an Iraqi-al Qaeda joint operation will do.
This standard ignores the multiple ways in which states can aid and abet terror--harboring, training, funding, providing false travel documents. What the President's critics seem to want, instead, is to de-link Iraq from the war on terror, and to return to the pre-9/11 practice of targeting terror groups without going after their state sponsors. We think this is short-sighted and dangerous, and that Mr. Bush should begin to call them on it.
|
Critics of Bush Going to Extremes
Actually, I've been a little busy to take some time to write down some of my recent thoughts, so here's a quick post. More evidence on the connection between Saddam and terrorism. I believe it's the right approach for the Democrats to blast the Bush adminstration on this whole issue because they really have nothing to stand on with Clark, Dean, or Kerry as the front-runners of the 2004 election. They have to chip away at Bush's credibility, but woe to them once solid evidence turns up. The following editorial reveals that there are leads and connections even between Saddam and al Qaeda, so the Bush camp might be keeping silent until the right moment or when more evidence surfaces to shoot right back at the Dems. For those that are quite serious that there is still "no connection at all", their heads are in the clouds or up someone's ass. Wake up, people!
Iraq and al Qaeda
There's more evidence of a link than the critics admit.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
EDITORIAL
Monday, September 22, 2003 12:01 a.m.
The Bush Administration was cautious, arguably too cautious, when making its case for the liberation of Iraq. Exhibit A is what it said about the links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Investigators, interrogators and even journalists are turning up evidence of a stronger relationship than the limited ties originally sketched by President Bush and Colin Powell.
That wasn't the big story last week of course. The big news was that Mr. Bush said he has "no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in the attacks of September 11, 2001. Predictably, this is being spun as a concession from the Administration, which has been accused of exaggerating the al Qaeda link.
In truth, Mr. Bush has never gone further than what he reiterated last week: "There's no question Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties." U.S. intelligence officials, meanwhile, have confirmed that fact once again. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was being harbored in Iraq; documents recently found in Tikrit indicate that Saddam provided Yasin with monthly payments and a home. According to federal authorities, the Ramzi Yousef-led terror cell that carried out the 1993 bombing received funding from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 2001 attack.
Far from exaggeration, what struck us about the case the President and Colin Powell took to the U.N. last fall and winter was its restraint. It focused mainly on a then-obscure terrorist named Abu Mussab al Zarqawi with no alleged 9/11 link, and a small affiliated terror group called Ansar al Islam operating in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq. Left out entirely by Mr. Bush were the following stories:
• About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story. Al-Ani has been captured in Iraq, and the public deserves to know what he's telling U.S. officials about that meeting.
• Also in October 2001, two defectors alleged that a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, was being used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking with simple weapons such as knives. Though no link to al Qaeda was alleged, some of the trainees were said to be non-Iraqi Arabs. The fuselage was clearly visible in satellite photos, and has since been found.
• Press reports, which had begun in 1998, resurfaced that former Iraqi intelligence chief and then-ambassador to Turkey Faruk Hijazi had met with bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. Hijazi is in U.S. custody too, and has reportedly confirmed some of the alleged contacts.
That these stories never figured in the case for war was partly a function of caution on the part of the Administration. It was also partly a result of skepticism from the CIA, which had wrongly judged Saddam and Osama incapable of cooperation on the grounds that the former was secular, the latter fundamentalist.
Some CIA officials are still flogging this theory through leaks to the media. A June 9 article by James Risen in the New York Times claimed captured al Qaeda planner Abu Zubaydah had told CIA interrogators that al Qaeda had not "worked jointly" with Saddam. But what Mr. Risen's source, according to our own, neglected to mention was that the very next sentence of the Zubaydah debrief describes bin Laden's attitude toward Saddam as considering the enemy of his enemy to be his friend.
According to Insight magazine, the CIA's Paul Pillar, National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, used a lecture at Johns Hopkins University earlier this year to criticize the President's war on terror. He said that there was no evidence of Iraqi terror sponsorship since 1993, and no evidence of its involvement in the World Trade Center bombing that year. Curiously, we hear the agency has so far declined to share the file found in Iraq on Yasin (the 1993 New York bombing suspect) with other branches of the government.
One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for the Toronto Star and London's Sunday Telegraph. The February 19, 1998, memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden's name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri $300,000.
As Saddam's very public financial support for Palestinian suicide bombing would suggest, the dictator had no problem working with other fundamentalist groups based on nothing more than their mutual hatred for the United States. Sources tell us the CIA has found 1993 memos from Saddam's government directing Iraqi intelligence to assist Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and to assist Afghan-based holy warriors against the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Somalia. These facts deserve more public disclosure.
Of course, none of this "proves" any Saddam-9/11 link, as Mr. Bush acknowledges. But neither can we be sure there wasn't one. Our point is that U.S. government and intelligence officials ought to be open to the evidence of any links between state sponsors and terrorists. But for many Administration critics, it seems, nothing less than smoking-gun proof that 9/11 was an Iraqi-al Qaeda joint operation will do.
This standard ignores the multiple ways in which states can aid and abet terror--harboring, training, funding, providing false travel documents. What the President's critics seem to want, instead, is to de-link Iraq from the war on terror, and to return to the pre-9/11 practice of targeting terror groups without going after their state sponsors. We think this is short-sighted and dangerous, and that Mr. Bush should begin to call them on it.
Friday, September 19, 2003
'AS LONG AS IT TAKES'
Iraqis are on the road to democratic self-government.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY COLIN POWELL
Friday, September 19, 2003 12:01 a.m.
I have just returned from Iraq. What I saw there convinced me, more than ever, that our liberation of Iraq was in the best interests of the Iraqi people, the American people and the world.
The Iraq I saw was a society on the move, a vibrant land with a hardy people experiencing the first heady taste of freedom. Iraq has come a long way since the dawn of this year, when Saddam Hussein was holding his people in poverty, ignorance and fear while filling mass graves with his opponents. The Iraqi regime was still squandering Iraq's treasure on deadly weapons programs, in defiance of 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions. While children died, Saddam was lavishing money on palaces and perks, for himself and his cronies.
Thanks to the courage of our brave men and women in uniform, and those of our coalition partners, all that has changed. Saddam is gone. Thanks to the hard work of Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq is being transformed. The evidence was everywhere to be seen. Streets are lined with shops selling newspapers and books with opinions of every stripe. Schools and universities are open, teaching young Iraqis the skills to live in freedom and compete in our globalizing world. Parents are forming PTAs to support these schools, and to make sure that they have a voice in their children's future. The hospitals are operating, and 95% of the health clinics are open to provide critical medical services to Iraqis of all ages.
Most important of all, Iraqis are on the road to democratic self-government. All the major cities and over 85% of the towns have councils. In Baghdad, I attended a city council meeting that was remarkable for its normalcy. I saw its members spend their time talking about what most city councils are concerned with--jobs, education and the environment. At the national level I met with an Iraqi Governing Council that has appointed ministers and is taking responsibility for national policy. In fact, while I was there, the new minister of justice announced the legal framework for a truly independent judiciary.
The Governing Council has appointed a central bank governor who will be in charge of introducing Iraq's new, unified currency next month. It also recently endorsed new tariffs and is now discussing world-class reforms to open the country to productive foreign investment. Now, the Governing Council is turning its attention to the process for drawing up a democratic constitution for a democratic Iraq.
I was truly moved when I met with my counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, free Iraq's first foreign minister. He will soon be off to New York as part of the Iraqi delegation to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly.
Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world. But our commanders also briefed me on their plan for meeting these security threats, and it is a good one.
We also need to complete the renewal of Iraq's electrical grid, its water treatment facilities and its other infrastructure, which were run down and destroyed during the years of Saddam's misrule. Here, too, we are making progress. Electric generation now averages 75% of prewar levels, and that figure is rising. Telephone service is being restored to hundreds of thousands of customers. Dilapidated water and sewage treatment facilities are being modernized. But it will take time and money to finish the job.
Indeed, that's Iraq in a nutshell. With our support, the Iraqis have made great progress. But it will take time and money to finish the job. President Bush has asked Congress for $20 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Next month, the international community will meet in Madrid to pledge additional assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. With these funds, and our continued help, I know the Iraqis will take great strides in rebuilding their battered country.
How long will we stay in Iraq? We will stay as long as it takes to turn full responsibility for governing Iraq over to a capable and democratically elected Iraqi administration. Only a government elected under a democratic constitution can take full responsibility and enjoy full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world.
Anyone who doubts the wisdom of President Bush's course in Iraq should stand, as I did, by the side of the mass grave in Halabja, in Iraq's north. That terrible site holds the remains of 5,000 innocent men, women and children who were gassed to death by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime.
The Iraqi people must be empowered to prevent such mass murder from happening ever again. They must be given the tools and the support to build a peaceful and prosperous democracy. They deserve no less. The American people deserve no less.
Mr. Powell is secretary of state.
|
Iraqis are on the road to democratic self-government.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY COLIN POWELL
Friday, September 19, 2003 12:01 a.m.
I have just returned from Iraq. What I saw there convinced me, more than ever, that our liberation of Iraq was in the best interests of the Iraqi people, the American people and the world.
The Iraq I saw was a society on the move, a vibrant land with a hardy people experiencing the first heady taste of freedom. Iraq has come a long way since the dawn of this year, when Saddam Hussein was holding his people in poverty, ignorance and fear while filling mass graves with his opponents. The Iraqi regime was still squandering Iraq's treasure on deadly weapons programs, in defiance of 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions. While children died, Saddam was lavishing money on palaces and perks, for himself and his cronies.
Thanks to the courage of our brave men and women in uniform, and those of our coalition partners, all that has changed. Saddam is gone. Thanks to the hard work of Ambassador L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, Iraq is being transformed. The evidence was everywhere to be seen. Streets are lined with shops selling newspapers and books with opinions of every stripe. Schools and universities are open, teaching young Iraqis the skills to live in freedom and compete in our globalizing world. Parents are forming PTAs to support these schools, and to make sure that they have a voice in their children's future. The hospitals are operating, and 95% of the health clinics are open to provide critical medical services to Iraqis of all ages.
Most important of all, Iraqis are on the road to democratic self-government. All the major cities and over 85% of the towns have councils. In Baghdad, I attended a city council meeting that was remarkable for its normalcy. I saw its members spend their time talking about what most city councils are concerned with--jobs, education and the environment. At the national level I met with an Iraqi Governing Council that has appointed ministers and is taking responsibility for national policy. In fact, while I was there, the new minister of justice announced the legal framework for a truly independent judiciary.
The Governing Council has appointed a central bank governor who will be in charge of introducing Iraq's new, unified currency next month. It also recently endorsed new tariffs and is now discussing world-class reforms to open the country to productive foreign investment. Now, the Governing Council is turning its attention to the process for drawing up a democratic constitution for a democratic Iraq.
I was truly moved when I met with my counterpart, Hoshyar Zebari, free Iraq's first foreign minister. He will soon be off to New York as part of the Iraqi delegation to the opening of the United Nations General Assembly.
Iraq has come very far, but serious problems remain, starting with security. American commanders and troops told me of the many threats they face--from leftover loyalists who want to return Iraq to the dark days of Saddam, from criminals who were set loose on Iraqi society when Saddam emptied the jails and, increasingly, from outside terrorists who have come to Iraq to open a new front in their campaign against the civilized world. But our commanders also briefed me on their plan for meeting these security threats, and it is a good one.
We also need to complete the renewal of Iraq's electrical grid, its water treatment facilities and its other infrastructure, which were run down and destroyed during the years of Saddam's misrule. Here, too, we are making progress. Electric generation now averages 75% of prewar levels, and that figure is rising. Telephone service is being restored to hundreds of thousands of customers. Dilapidated water and sewage treatment facilities are being modernized. But it will take time and money to finish the job.
Indeed, that's Iraq in a nutshell. With our support, the Iraqis have made great progress. But it will take time and money to finish the job. President Bush has asked Congress for $20 billion to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. Next month, the international community will meet in Madrid to pledge additional assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. With these funds, and our continued help, I know the Iraqis will take great strides in rebuilding their battered country.
How long will we stay in Iraq? We will stay as long as it takes to turn full responsibility for governing Iraq over to a capable and democratically elected Iraqi administration. Only a government elected under a democratic constitution can take full responsibility and enjoy full legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world.
Anyone who doubts the wisdom of President Bush's course in Iraq should stand, as I did, by the side of the mass grave in Halabja, in Iraq's north. That terrible site holds the remains of 5,000 innocent men, women and children who were gassed to death by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime.
The Iraqi people must be empowered to prevent such mass murder from happening ever again. They must be given the tools and the support to build a peaceful and prosperous democracy. They deserve no less. The American people deserve no less.
Mr. Powell is secretary of state.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
ART OF ASKING QUESTIONS... A VALUABLE SKILL IN ANY FIELD
Alfred Fleishman was a Visionary and Incredibly Insightful
One of the core skills we worked on while in the leadership program I wrote about a few times before was how to ask questions. Throughout the intense nine months, we constantly practiced how to ask questions to gather information and gain new insights. We learned how to ask questions within a group setting, since there were twelve Fellows, and how to drill down deeper by following up on someone else's question. When that process really clicked, it was amazing to experience the level of questioning that occurred and the information that was discovered.
To further practice our questioning, we would use rigid structures and guides to improve our skills. One was the four Ws and H... Who, What, When, Where, and How. "Why" was never used or allowed during our training because it sometimes can solicit an opinion which wasn't our objective. Our objective was to gather facts and facts that can provide new insights or lead to new ideas. Sometimes this rigid structure led to awkwardly spoken sentences that made us to mock this questioning method, but in the end it proved to be a great guide.
After going through the program, I became a "questioning snob." I realized how many people have poor questioning skills, even journalists. Majority of journalists I would hear on TV and on various talk shows would ask horrible or completely loaded questions. The worst was during graduate school. Various public policy or political science lectures would interest me, so I would attend to listen to all these great minds visiting our campus. The disappointing aspect of these lectures were the Q&A sessions. These lectures or seminars were mainly attended by Ph.D. students who didn't know how to ask questions in such a setting. Here you have these great scholars or practitioners in front of you, and only a handful of times were they asked serious questions. The majority of the time was to simply allow these Ph.D. students to expound on their works to try to impress the guest lecturer or to hear themselves talk.
More importantly, since the snob factor quickly faded, I realized how useful of a skill I acquired and how I needed to maintain that skill. Asking the right questions can open the doors to insights or information you never would have known were there, gaining the leverage needed in a business deal, or creating comfort in a room full of tension. Good questioning leads you beyond the things you know and things that you know you don't know, and to things that you don't know you don't know. A skill that always need sharpening and always helpful in life... professional and personal.
During my time in St. Louis and with the Coro Fellowship, I really gained respect for the public relations industry or at least some aspects of it. Before I thought it was to some degree simply writing and sending out press releases, which it practically is in Korea, but I found out that it was deeper than that. The main reason was being introduced to Alfred Fleishman's writing. Fleishman was the co-founder of Fleishman-Hillard, the second largest PR firm in the world. The firm was started in St. Louis and grew to having over 2,300 employees worldwide. Fleishman was considered one of the founding fathers of the public relations industry. He retired years before I moved to St. Louis, but he continued to write a column, "Common Sense Communications", for the St. Louis Business Journal. The column was reflective of his incredible knowledge and insight to the world of how people communicate with each other and how important it is to be effective communicators in our lives. When I read his columns, I found some overlap in his writings and our training materials and philosophy. I really thought he should have been a trainer or key advisor to the Coro Foundation.
Anyway, here's one of his columns that he wrote on questioning:
Questions Count
By Alfred Fleishman
St. Louis Business Journal
January 2-8, 1995
It may sound simple and even overused, but this column's subject, "communication," is about as important a single topic to observe.
What are we hearing? Where is it coming from? What are we listening to and believing? Who said it, and why?
It just makes sense that we be more careful about our conclusions and how we reach them. What have we understood? What is the full meaning? What questions were before we came to that conclusion?
It is interesting that, recently, a little book published about 40 years ago and reprinted a number of times since then is now back in print.
I'm referring to a book I first read many years ago, called "The Art of Asking Questions." It was important then, and in my opinion it is even more important now.
When the book was dedicated in 1951, its author Stanley L. Payne said, "To Claude Robinson... who insists that communication is our greatest problem." Boy, do I agree!
I do not know either Mr. Robinson or Stanley Payne, but I do react to that statement. The author suggests the "need for examining questions that are asked before we fully accept the conclusions we draw from the answers." It's worth thinking over.
When we ask questions that deal in "broad generalities," we are likely to get answers that are just as broad. From generalities we can draw all sorts of conclusions that may be right or wrong - be good, be inconsequential or even be hurtful.
Everyone knows that we are just about saturated with personal questionnaires and polls these days. Before voting places close or we get the official results, we get statistics that not only predict what the vote will be, but even why people voted the way they did.
When the president or any other important person makes statements or a speech, or asks questions, almost within ten minutes we are bombarded with what millions of people believe they heard or understood the speakers to say and mean.
How those conclusions are reached, of course, often depends on the questions that were asked.
What were the questions? How were they worded? How and when were they asked? These are all very important questions in themselves to consider before we jump to final conclusions, take action or even give money.
All one needs to do these days is read or hear C-Span discussions. From them we will see and hear how some reach many different conclusions about the same things or specific events.
For example, of the 37% of the citizens who voted in the last election, how and what did 52% of them tell us about the many different directions the nation is being asked to go?
What questions are asked that lead to any of the many conclusions? How are they interpreted by the many spokespersons on television, on the radio, in the media? When you figure that out, you can very easily become one of the spokespersons yourself.
In "The Art of Asking Questions," Mr. Payne warns that the words and phrases, or changes in the words and phrases, can and do make a very big difference in meaning - what we think we hear, the conclusions we draw or even the action we take.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is right in the beginning. Here we go back to the ill-fated Literary Digest days that some of us still remember. That was when the polls showed that Dewey was elected over Truman as president of the United States.
I'm not going into that particular subject any further except to discuss the questions that led to that conclusion.
Here's what a group of experts of the day determined. It's worth repeating. In my opinion, the results of those studies are just as applicable today as they were then, maybe even more so:
- Improperly worded questions 74%
- Faulty interpretations 58%
- Inadequacy of samples 52%
- Improper statistical methods 44%
- Presentation of results, without supporting data 41%
There seemed to be no question that the results reached by the overwhelming majority came about as the result of the "different ways of wording questions."
The big points here is the importance of wording. Other factors are important, but that factor leads the field.
Today, many of us receive mail questionnaires that ask all sorts of questions and seek all sorts of answers. These "factual surveys" are in need of careful wording, just as the "attitudinal or opinion surveys are... The facts that are reported in answers to questions are not always the facts that exist."
I haven't covered more than the first few pages of the book. However, I still remember the impression the rest of the book made upon me when I first read it. When I lost my first and only copy, I tried to get another one and was told that it was out of print.
Well, the book is back in print again. I believe it will make more than interesting reading to many who believe in the importance, background and accuracy of what they read, write, see and hear; what they make up their minds to do or endorse.
Especially about the difference in reaction to three little words: "might," "could" and "should." Is there a difference in how people perceive or react to each of these words?
We may find the answers in "The Art of Asking Questions," by Stanley L. Payne.
More later.
|
Alfred Fleishman was a Visionary and Incredibly Insightful
One of the core skills we worked on while in the leadership program I wrote about a few times before was how to ask questions. Throughout the intense nine months, we constantly practiced how to ask questions to gather information and gain new insights. We learned how to ask questions within a group setting, since there were twelve Fellows, and how to drill down deeper by following up on someone else's question. When that process really clicked, it was amazing to experience the level of questioning that occurred and the information that was discovered.
To further practice our questioning, we would use rigid structures and guides to improve our skills. One was the four Ws and H... Who, What, When, Where, and How. "Why" was never used or allowed during our training because it sometimes can solicit an opinion which wasn't our objective. Our objective was to gather facts and facts that can provide new insights or lead to new ideas. Sometimes this rigid structure led to awkwardly spoken sentences that made us to mock this questioning method, but in the end it proved to be a great guide.
After going through the program, I became a "questioning snob." I realized how many people have poor questioning skills, even journalists. Majority of journalists I would hear on TV and on various talk shows would ask horrible or completely loaded questions. The worst was during graduate school. Various public policy or political science lectures would interest me, so I would attend to listen to all these great minds visiting our campus. The disappointing aspect of these lectures were the Q&A sessions. These lectures or seminars were mainly attended by Ph.D. students who didn't know how to ask questions in such a setting. Here you have these great scholars or practitioners in front of you, and only a handful of times were they asked serious questions. The majority of the time was to simply allow these Ph.D. students to expound on their works to try to impress the guest lecturer or to hear themselves talk.
More importantly, since the snob factor quickly faded, I realized how useful of a skill I acquired and how I needed to maintain that skill. Asking the right questions can open the doors to insights or information you never would have known were there, gaining the leverage needed in a business deal, or creating comfort in a room full of tension. Good questioning leads you beyond the things you know and things that you know you don't know, and to things that you don't know you don't know. A skill that always need sharpening and always helpful in life... professional and personal.
During my time in St. Louis and with the Coro Fellowship, I really gained respect for the public relations industry or at least some aspects of it. Before I thought it was to some degree simply writing and sending out press releases, which it practically is in Korea, but I found out that it was deeper than that. The main reason was being introduced to Alfred Fleishman's writing. Fleishman was the co-founder of Fleishman-Hillard, the second largest PR firm in the world. The firm was started in St. Louis and grew to having over 2,300 employees worldwide. Fleishman was considered one of the founding fathers of the public relations industry. He retired years before I moved to St. Louis, but he continued to write a column, "Common Sense Communications", for the St. Louis Business Journal. The column was reflective of his incredible knowledge and insight to the world of how people communicate with each other and how important it is to be effective communicators in our lives. When I read his columns, I found some overlap in his writings and our training materials and philosophy. I really thought he should have been a trainer or key advisor to the Coro Foundation.
Anyway, here's one of his columns that he wrote on questioning:
Questions Count
By Alfred Fleishman
St. Louis Business Journal
January 2-8, 1995
It may sound simple and even overused, but this column's subject, "communication," is about as important a single topic to observe.
What are we hearing? Where is it coming from? What are we listening to and believing? Who said it, and why?
It just makes sense that we be more careful about our conclusions and how we reach them. What have we understood? What is the full meaning? What questions were before we came to that conclusion?
It is interesting that, recently, a little book published about 40 years ago and reprinted a number of times since then is now back in print.
I'm referring to a book I first read many years ago, called "The Art of Asking Questions." It was important then, and in my opinion it is even more important now.
When the book was dedicated in 1951, its author Stanley L. Payne said, "To Claude Robinson... who insists that communication is our greatest problem." Boy, do I agree!
I do not know either Mr. Robinson or Stanley Payne, but I do react to that statement. The author suggests the "need for examining questions that are asked before we fully accept the conclusions we draw from the answers." It's worth thinking over.
When we ask questions that deal in "broad generalities," we are likely to get answers that are just as broad. From generalities we can draw all sorts of conclusions that may be right or wrong - be good, be inconsequential or even be hurtful.
Everyone knows that we are just about saturated with personal questionnaires and polls these days. Before voting places close or we get the official results, we get statistics that not only predict what the vote will be, but even why people voted the way they did.
When the president or any other important person makes statements or a speech, or asks questions, almost within ten minutes we are bombarded with what millions of people believe they heard or understood the speakers to say and mean.
How those conclusions are reached, of course, often depends on the questions that were asked.
What were the questions? How were they worded? How and when were they asked? These are all very important questions in themselves to consider before we jump to final conclusions, take action or even give money.
All one needs to do these days is read or hear C-Span discussions. From them we will see and hear how some reach many different conclusions about the same things or specific events.
For example, of the 37% of the citizens who voted in the last election, how and what did 52% of them tell us about the many different directions the nation is being asked to go?
What questions are asked that lead to any of the many conclusions? How are they interpreted by the many spokespersons on television, on the radio, in the media? When you figure that out, you can very easily become one of the spokespersons yourself.
In "The Art of Asking Questions," Mr. Payne warns that the words and phrases, or changes in the words and phrases, can and do make a very big difference in meaning - what we think we hear, the conclusions we draw or even the action we take.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is right in the beginning. Here we go back to the ill-fated Literary Digest days that some of us still remember. That was when the polls showed that Dewey was elected over Truman as president of the United States.
I'm not going into that particular subject any further except to discuss the questions that led to that conclusion.
Here's what a group of experts of the day determined. It's worth repeating. In my opinion, the results of those studies are just as applicable today as they were then, maybe even more so:
- Improperly worded questions 74%
- Faulty interpretations 58%
- Inadequacy of samples 52%
- Improper statistical methods 44%
- Presentation of results, without supporting data 41%
There seemed to be no question that the results reached by the overwhelming majority came about as the result of the "different ways of wording questions."
The big points here is the importance of wording. Other factors are important, but that factor leads the field.
Today, many of us receive mail questionnaires that ask all sorts of questions and seek all sorts of answers. These "factual surveys" are in need of careful wording, just as the "attitudinal or opinion surveys are... The facts that are reported in answers to questions are not always the facts that exist."
I haven't covered more than the first few pages of the book. However, I still remember the impression the rest of the book made upon me when I first read it. When I lost my first and only copy, I tried to get another one and was told that it was out of print.
Well, the book is back in print again. I believe it will make more than interesting reading to many who believe in the importance, background and accuracy of what they read, write, see and hear; what they make up their minds to do or endorse.
Especially about the difference in reaction to three little words: "might," "could" and "should." Is there a difference in how people perceive or react to each of these words?
We may find the answers in "The Art of Asking Questions," by Stanley L. Payne.
More later.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
SUNSHINE POLICY MY ASS... LIGHT DOESN'T EVEN SHINE IN SEOUL
One Beam of Light Couldn't Get Through the Butt Cracks of the
North Korean Defectors in Seoul
Chosuk in Korea... When the Nation's Traffic Triples and Rice Cake Consumption Quadruples
I haven't written in a while since this past week was Chosuk in Korea, which is Korea's version of Thanksgiving and the nation's biggest holiday. I went into the software company I'm consulting for, but didn't really think about blogging. I mainly thought about getting stuff done, so that I can play football during the afternoons of the holiday week (Wednesday-Friday were holidays with many people taking off Monday and Tuesday, so they can enjoy ten days straight of vacation time). People visit their families and pay respects to their ancestors and family members who passed away. Many people's hometown or core family members live outside of Seoul, so the traffic going out of Seoul becomes crazy. Four hour car rides become ten hours... and I use to complain about Chicago and Los Angeles traffic. This holiday is similar to Thanksgiving in the sense that you simply eat and eat and stuff yourself silly. Then you veg out, play GoStop (Korean hearts-type game), watch TV, or chill with your relatives.
Anyway, DJ Kim and Roh's continuation of DJ's policies are really disappointing since they are being hypocritical and counter to the democratic principles they proclaim. Freedom of speech is one of the most basic tenets of democracy which they continue to oppress and cover the voices of numerous North Korean defectors in the name of national security and fear of North Korea's 'what I don't know'. What do they have to fear? Or is it fear? Maybe it's more brotherhood, national destiny, or some other foolish notion they hold dear. Maybe it's not a foolish notion, but a real bond they feel with North Korea? Scary. Roh's wife is the daugther of a famous North Korean spy. Going down the conspiracy road with that statement... I crack myself up.
Gagged by the Sunshine Policy
THE ASIAN WALL STREET JOURNAL
By SAM BROWNBACK
Few would have been less surprised by the lack of substantive progress at the August 27-29 six-party talks in Beijing on the Korean nuclear crisis than North Korean defector Hwang Jang-yop, once a personal tutor to Kim Jong Il.
Since in 1997 he became the highest-ranking defector in the North's history, Mr. Hwang remains the person with the most direct knowledge of the North Korean regime, its intentions and its dictator Kim Jong Il. He also served as the secretary of the Korean Worker's Party -- at the time, the sixth-highest ranking position in Pyongyang -- was a close confidant of the North's founder, Kim Il Sung, and a key architect of the juche ideology, North Korea's creed of self-reliance.
Yet, for the past six years, the one man who could shed light on North Korea's dictator and the inner workings of his regime has been sequestered in virtual isolation under heavy security by Section Five, the South Korean intelligence bureau that handles North Korean defectors. Except for those in intelligence circles, few know Mr. Hwang. Access to him by the media and visiting foreign delegations has been rare and always tightly controlled by the South Korean intelligence service.
Citing vague security concerns and unease about provoking the North, both the previous and current South Korean administrations have repeatedly refused requests by various humanitarian organizations and even members of the U.S. Congress to allow Mr. Hwang to travel to Washington. Contrary to statements by South Korean officials, it is not that Mr. Hwang does not want to come. In fact, he once managed to send a fax to former Sen. Jesse Helms in 2001 strongly stating his desire to come to the U.S., not only to talk about the North's nuclear ambitions but also about human rights and freedom for the North Korean people.
But as Mr. Hwang and others have discovered, South Korea today is a hostile place to talk about freedom and human rights. Like many, Mr. Hwang continues to be a victim of South Korea's official policy of detente with the North, the so-called "sunshine policy." First developed by the previous South Korean president, Kim Dae Jung, and continued by his successor, Roh Moo Hyun, a policy that purports to encourage greater openness and dialogue with the North now amounts to nothing short of an official gag order. For those like Mr. Hwang who are not only willing but qualified to talk about the North, it is a policy that smacks of "speak no evil" as far as Kim Jong Il regime is concerned.
That policy is not only misguided but wrong. By preventing defectors and others from speaking out against the North Korea regime, the policy denies the U.S. and other nations the ability to enhance their leverage in any future negotiations with North Korea. More importantly, it denies policy makers access to information that could increase their ability to accurately assess the nature of the North's threat to international security.
Defectors like Mr. Hwang possess information that may prove crucial in the continuing efforts to combat terrorism, both in the U.S. and around the world. Given the kind of access that Mr. Hwang had, he may hold intimate knowledge of North Korea's relationships with nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations and other rogue nations that support such groups.
Connections have already emerged between the North Korean regime and criminal organizations engaged in drug trafficking, financial crimes such as counterfeiting, and highly sophisticated smuggling operations of missile parts. And in light of the Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict suspect North Korean vessels, which is being coordinated by the U.S. with 11 other nations, it makes sense to begin exploring the extent to which North Korea may have given material support to terrorist groups in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
The little that is known about the North today -- including the existence of concentration camps and Pyongyang's continuing violations of human rights -- comes from North Korean defectors who were willing to testify in hearings before the U. S. Congress. But as one who has held some of these hearings, getting the South Korean government's approval to allow North Korean defectors to travel to the U.S. is not easy. Every defector who has testified before Congress had to endure endless bureaucratic battles and harassment by elements within the South Korean government. Even the wife of one defector who had already testified before the U.S. Senate was harassed to such a degree she had to be hospitalized.
Earlier last month, Mr. Hwang's "special security" status was downgraded to that of "general protection" by the South Korean intelligence service and he was moved to a less restrictive safe house. Mr. Hwang has now been given greater freedom to talk to the press and to meet with representatives of foreign governments and humanitarian organizations. Yet he is still waiting for permission from the South Korean government to travel to the U.S., where all he wants to do is tell his story.
Time is running out. With each passing day, North Korea comes closer to having the potential for the mass production of nuclear weapons. With 37,500 American troops currently stationed in South Korea, the U.S. has a vested interest in ensuring it is able to accurately assess North Korean threats not only to the security of Northeast Asia but to international security around the world. We owe that much to the 36,000 American troops who died during the Korean War, including 415 from my home state of Kansas, and the millions who served in that war.
With 22 million people still enslaved by Pyongyang more than 50 years later, the war to liberate the Korean people remains a painful reminder of a mission yet to be completed. That is why Mr. Hwang must be heard on American soil, and why he must be heard now.
Sen. Brownback is chairman of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate.
|
One Beam of Light Couldn't Get Through the Butt Cracks of the
North Korean Defectors in Seoul
Chosuk in Korea... When the Nation's Traffic Triples and Rice Cake Consumption Quadruples
I haven't written in a while since this past week was Chosuk in Korea, which is Korea's version of Thanksgiving and the nation's biggest holiday. I went into the software company I'm consulting for, but didn't really think about blogging. I mainly thought about getting stuff done, so that I can play football during the afternoons of the holiday week (Wednesday-Friday were holidays with many people taking off Monday and Tuesday, so they can enjoy ten days straight of vacation time). People visit their families and pay respects to their ancestors and family members who passed away. Many people's hometown or core family members live outside of Seoul, so the traffic going out of Seoul becomes crazy. Four hour car rides become ten hours... and I use to complain about Chicago and Los Angeles traffic. This holiday is similar to Thanksgiving in the sense that you simply eat and eat and stuff yourself silly. Then you veg out, play GoStop (Korean hearts-type game), watch TV, or chill with your relatives.
Anyway, DJ Kim and Roh's continuation of DJ's policies are really disappointing since they are being hypocritical and counter to the democratic principles they proclaim. Freedom of speech is one of the most basic tenets of democracy which they continue to oppress and cover the voices of numerous North Korean defectors in the name of national security and fear of North Korea's 'what I don't know'. What do they have to fear? Or is it fear? Maybe it's more brotherhood, national destiny, or some other foolish notion they hold dear. Maybe it's not a foolish notion, but a real bond they feel with North Korea? Scary. Roh's wife is the daugther of a famous North Korean spy. Going down the conspiracy road with that statement... I crack myself up.
Gagged by the Sunshine Policy
THE ASIAN WALL STREET JOURNAL
By SAM BROWNBACK
Few would have been less surprised by the lack of substantive progress at the August 27-29 six-party talks in Beijing on the Korean nuclear crisis than North Korean defector Hwang Jang-yop, once a personal tutor to Kim Jong Il.
Since in 1997 he became the highest-ranking defector in the North's history, Mr. Hwang remains the person with the most direct knowledge of the North Korean regime, its intentions and its dictator Kim Jong Il. He also served as the secretary of the Korean Worker's Party -- at the time, the sixth-highest ranking position in Pyongyang -- was a close confidant of the North's founder, Kim Il Sung, and a key architect of the juche ideology, North Korea's creed of self-reliance.
Yet, for the past six years, the one man who could shed light on North Korea's dictator and the inner workings of his regime has been sequestered in virtual isolation under heavy security by Section Five, the South Korean intelligence bureau that handles North Korean defectors. Except for those in intelligence circles, few know Mr. Hwang. Access to him by the media and visiting foreign delegations has been rare and always tightly controlled by the South Korean intelligence service.
Citing vague security concerns and unease about provoking the North, both the previous and current South Korean administrations have repeatedly refused requests by various humanitarian organizations and even members of the U.S. Congress to allow Mr. Hwang to travel to Washington. Contrary to statements by South Korean officials, it is not that Mr. Hwang does not want to come. In fact, he once managed to send a fax to former Sen. Jesse Helms in 2001 strongly stating his desire to come to the U.S., not only to talk about the North's nuclear ambitions but also about human rights and freedom for the North Korean people.
But as Mr. Hwang and others have discovered, South Korea today is a hostile place to talk about freedom and human rights. Like many, Mr. Hwang continues to be a victim of South Korea's official policy of detente with the North, the so-called "sunshine policy." First developed by the previous South Korean president, Kim Dae Jung, and continued by his successor, Roh Moo Hyun, a policy that purports to encourage greater openness and dialogue with the North now amounts to nothing short of an official gag order. For those like Mr. Hwang who are not only willing but qualified to talk about the North, it is a policy that smacks of "speak no evil" as far as Kim Jong Il regime is concerned.
That policy is not only misguided but wrong. By preventing defectors and others from speaking out against the North Korea regime, the policy denies the U.S. and other nations the ability to enhance their leverage in any future negotiations with North Korea. More importantly, it denies policy makers access to information that could increase their ability to accurately assess the nature of the North's threat to international security.
Defectors like Mr. Hwang possess information that may prove crucial in the continuing efforts to combat terrorism, both in the U.S. and around the world. Given the kind of access that Mr. Hwang had, he may hold intimate knowledge of North Korea's relationships with nonstate actors such as terrorist groups and transnational criminal organizations and other rogue nations that support such groups.
Connections have already emerged between the North Korean regime and criminal organizations engaged in drug trafficking, financial crimes such as counterfeiting, and highly sophisticated smuggling operations of missile parts. And in light of the Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict suspect North Korean vessels, which is being coordinated by the U.S. with 11 other nations, it makes sense to begin exploring the extent to which North Korea may have given material support to terrorist groups in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
The little that is known about the North today -- including the existence of concentration camps and Pyongyang's continuing violations of human rights -- comes from North Korean defectors who were willing to testify in hearings before the U. S. Congress. But as one who has held some of these hearings, getting the South Korean government's approval to allow North Korean defectors to travel to the U.S. is not easy. Every defector who has testified before Congress had to endure endless bureaucratic battles and harassment by elements within the South Korean government. Even the wife of one defector who had already testified before the U.S. Senate was harassed to such a degree she had to be hospitalized.
Earlier last month, Mr. Hwang's "special security" status was downgraded to that of "general protection" by the South Korean intelligence service and he was moved to a less restrictive safe house. Mr. Hwang has now been given greater freedom to talk to the press and to meet with representatives of foreign governments and humanitarian organizations. Yet he is still waiting for permission from the South Korean government to travel to the U.S., where all he wants to do is tell his story.
Time is running out. With each passing day, North Korea comes closer to having the potential for the mass production of nuclear weapons. With 37,500 American troops currently stationed in South Korea, the U.S. has a vested interest in ensuring it is able to accurately assess North Korean threats not only to the security of Northeast Asia but to international security around the world. We owe that much to the 36,000 American troops who died during the Korean War, including 415 from my home state of Kansas, and the millions who served in that war.
With 22 million people still enslaved by Pyongyang more than 50 years later, the war to liberate the Korean people remains a painful reminder of a mission yet to be completed. That is why Mr. Hwang must be heard on American soil, and why he must be heard now.
Sen. Brownback is chairman of the Asia-Pacific Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
DECEPTION CAN COME FROM THE LEAST EXPECTED PLACES...
Continuing a trend of three crazy weekends in Seoul, my friend got married and another had a birthday party on the same day. The wedding was beautiful, short and sweet. Andy, the groom, was sweating up a storm during the ceremony and then he stops sweating as soon as everything is done. Rattled nerves or something... I would have just been sweating throughout and afterwards. Overweight people sweat easier, which I soon found out after college. It doesn't matter whether I'm stressed or anxious, I just sweat when the temperature climbs slightly above room temperature.
Anyway, my other friend, Sunwoo, turned 34, but he looks like 50 years old... just kidding, Mike. Since he's the most infamous alcohol pushers in Seoul people wanted to take him down. Payback for all the livers he's damaged and times he pushed others to drink without drinking with them. But some of our friends were out of the country and others were too tired from a baseball game. I got to the party late after the wedding party and I gave him a couple shots, but he told me that he was drunk. I was uncertain, but just took his word. The next day I found out from my friend, Jimmy, that Mike was holding the alcohol in his mouth for a minute and then spitting it out when people weren't looking. I think Mike is in trouble the next we go out. But this deception was almost expected.
It's from the least expected sources that always knock you a few steps back. Andy had a few friends visiting from the U.S., classmates from college, and one of them knew my good friend, Paulo. As soon as I mentioned Paulo's name, the guy started saying, "He was a badass. One time at a Tae Kwon Do tournament Paulo was sending people out on stretchers."
"Really?! I never knew..."
I was somewhat surprised since Paulo never mentioned this side of his past. For the past three years I have known him, I only see Paulo as this mild-mannered, gentle soul. He's Brazilian without the machismo. He's Mr. Brady with a latin flair... Doogie Howser but older and in finance... Will (from Will & Grace) but hetero and the same taste for style. Above all, his integrity is sound. Honest to the bone and no intent for deception.
"Dude, Paulo was a white belt in Tae Kwon Do and was killing all the other white and yellow belts in this tournament... but get this! He was a black belt in Karate! Hahahaha... How badass is that!... First fight he came in, took and few swings and then, 'WHACK!'... The guy was knocked out and had to be carried out on a stretcher. Our team was going crazy and the other teams were freaked out. 'That's their white belt, then how good are the others?'"
The shock of Paulo's deception sent a shiver down my spine. It was like Billy Graham lying to the church. My faith in people was shaken. If a man such as Paulo could deceive as such, then no man is safe from deception's call.
I was going to rip and rag on him for months :)
So I called him and started my barrage.
Paulo responds, "Hey, I wasn't a black belt. I was a blue belt. That's like almost a yellow... Come one, man! Stop it! It wasn't like that..."
Paulo must of forgotten that I took seven plus years of martial arts. It depends on the martial art and how much money the school wants to make by adding the various colors of the rainbow, but generally blue is where the separation begins from yellow. This is where your intermediate skills are far greater than the beginners. Paulo was just adding to his deception in nervous defense.
This was too good to pass up. I kept laughing inside. I crack myself up easily, so I just started to laugh more at the possible avenues of taunting and embarrassment I could deliver to my close and dear friend. You reading this, Paulo?
|
Continuing a trend of three crazy weekends in Seoul, my friend got married and another had a birthday party on the same day. The wedding was beautiful, short and sweet. Andy, the groom, was sweating up a storm during the ceremony and then he stops sweating as soon as everything is done. Rattled nerves or something... I would have just been sweating throughout and afterwards. Overweight people sweat easier, which I soon found out after college. It doesn't matter whether I'm stressed or anxious, I just sweat when the temperature climbs slightly above room temperature.
Anyway, my other friend, Sunwoo, turned 34, but he looks like 50 years old... just kidding, Mike. Since he's the most infamous alcohol pushers in Seoul people wanted to take him down. Payback for all the livers he's damaged and times he pushed others to drink without drinking with them. But some of our friends were out of the country and others were too tired from a baseball game. I got to the party late after the wedding party and I gave him a couple shots, but he told me that he was drunk. I was uncertain, but just took his word. The next day I found out from my friend, Jimmy, that Mike was holding the alcohol in his mouth for a minute and then spitting it out when people weren't looking. I think Mike is in trouble the next we go out. But this deception was almost expected.
It's from the least expected sources that always knock you a few steps back. Andy had a few friends visiting from the U.S., classmates from college, and one of them knew my good friend, Paulo. As soon as I mentioned Paulo's name, the guy started saying, "He was a badass. One time at a Tae Kwon Do tournament Paulo was sending people out on stretchers."
"Really?! I never knew..."
I was somewhat surprised since Paulo never mentioned this side of his past. For the past three years I have known him, I only see Paulo as this mild-mannered, gentle soul. He's Brazilian without the machismo. He's Mr. Brady with a latin flair... Doogie Howser but older and in finance... Will (from Will & Grace) but hetero and the same taste for style. Above all, his integrity is sound. Honest to the bone and no intent for deception.
"Dude, Paulo was a white belt in Tae Kwon Do and was killing all the other white and yellow belts in this tournament... but get this! He was a black belt in Karate! Hahahaha... How badass is that!... First fight he came in, took and few swings and then, 'WHACK!'... The guy was knocked out and had to be carried out on a stretcher. Our team was going crazy and the other teams were freaked out. 'That's their white belt, then how good are the others?'"
The shock of Paulo's deception sent a shiver down my spine. It was like Billy Graham lying to the church. My faith in people was shaken. If a man such as Paulo could deceive as such, then no man is safe from deception's call.
I was going to rip and rag on him for months :)
So I called him and started my barrage.
Paulo responds, "Hey, I wasn't a black belt. I was a blue belt. That's like almost a yellow... Come one, man! Stop it! It wasn't like that..."
Paulo must of forgotten that I took seven plus years of martial arts. It depends on the martial art and how much money the school wants to make by adding the various colors of the rainbow, but generally blue is where the separation begins from yellow. This is where your intermediate skills are far greater than the beginners. Paulo was just adding to his deception in nervous defense.
This was too good to pass up. I kept laughing inside. I crack myself up easily, so I just started to laugh more at the possible avenues of taunting and embarrassment I could deliver to my close and dear friend. You reading this, Paulo?
Monday, September 01, 2003
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNING... DEFINITELY A RUSH
Illinois U.S. Senate Race... Go Steve Rauschenberger!
One experience I regret missing out on while in Asia is participating in U.S. political campaigns. Though I've never experienced the full-time rush, excitement, and stress that people can enjoy, I've tasted it in a few that I volunteered for and indirectly through a handful of friends that have run campaigns. My friend, Deborah, was a political campaign junky for a few years for the wrong side. The hours are like banking or consulting, especially when she's on hand. 80-120 hrs./weeks, but I think for her it was 24/7. Another good friend, Dave, is currently running Steve Rauschenberger's run for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. It's going to be a tough battle during the primaries to get the Republican bid. Kick ass, Dave!
I miss hanging out with Dave when we were in Springfield together working for Gov. Jim Edgar. We would comment and rip on various elected officials in the IL House or Senate while sitting in the legislative sessions. Dave's wit and raw comments would crack me up along with his timely rolling of the eyes.
Going back to campaigning, it's exciting because it is definitely a marathon race where anything can happen during the length of the course. Leads change, people trip, exhaustion sets in, tension builds up, rockslides occur, and a thousand different things can happen. Primary Colors, the movie with John Travolta and Emma Thompson, actually presents the tone and atmosphere in a fairly accurate manner.
One of the most memorable and informative seminars I attended was by a former chairman of the Republican National Committee discussing the history and changes in the U.S. presidential campaigns initiated during the Reagan years. The Reaganites revolutionized political campaigning. Before people would focus on simply attaining the popular vote and widespread recognition, but the braintrust of the Reagan campaign decided to focus on getting the necessary electoral votes to win the presidency. They targeted 25 states that they needed to win. These years are also where more advanced polling techniques and targeted advertising came into the picture. If Reagan was weak with women, 18-25 yrs., in the South, then an ad campaign was started to swing these women voters towards Bonzo's father. Even democratic politicos would admit that they studied these techniques and campaign management methods led by a handful of Repubicans.
In a distant way, Republicans are responsible for creating the polling monster that Clinton was. In my opinion, instead of using polling as a tool and means to learn about the public sentiment, Clinton used it to decide or strongly guide some of his policy decisions. Led by his pollster Stan Greenberg, or others like Celinda Lake, the Clinton administration was led by the people and not leading the people towards whatever principles he believed in.
Polling is another area of political campaigning that is fascinating. It's amazing what top pollsters could find out about what the public is thinking and the accuracy of their data. I don't want to bore you with this subject at this time, so I'll stop here.
The art and science of political campaigning in the U.S. is at such an incredible level of sophistication and skill that you really notice the difference when you visit other countries and see their political campaign methods. What it also comes down to is a lot of grunt work... pounding the pavement, organizing rallies, making the calls, and shaking a lot of hands. But this process is what makes democracy great.
|
Illinois U.S. Senate Race... Go Steve Rauschenberger!
One experience I regret missing out on while in Asia is participating in U.S. political campaigns. Though I've never experienced the full-time rush, excitement, and stress that people can enjoy, I've tasted it in a few that I volunteered for and indirectly through a handful of friends that have run campaigns. My friend, Deborah, was a political campaign junky for a few years for the wrong side. The hours are like banking or consulting, especially when she's on hand. 80-120 hrs./weeks, but I think for her it was 24/7. Another good friend, Dave, is currently running Steve Rauschenberger's run for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. It's going to be a tough battle during the primaries to get the Republican bid. Kick ass, Dave!
I miss hanging out with Dave when we were in Springfield together working for Gov. Jim Edgar. We would comment and rip on various elected officials in the IL House or Senate while sitting in the legislative sessions. Dave's wit and raw comments would crack me up along with his timely rolling of the eyes.
Going back to campaigning, it's exciting because it is definitely a marathon race where anything can happen during the length of the course. Leads change, people trip, exhaustion sets in, tension builds up, rockslides occur, and a thousand different things can happen. Primary Colors, the movie with John Travolta and Emma Thompson, actually presents the tone and atmosphere in a fairly accurate manner.
One of the most memorable and informative seminars I attended was by a former chairman of the Republican National Committee discussing the history and changes in the U.S. presidential campaigns initiated during the Reagan years. The Reaganites revolutionized political campaigning. Before people would focus on simply attaining the popular vote and widespread recognition, but the braintrust of the Reagan campaign decided to focus on getting the necessary electoral votes to win the presidency. They targeted 25 states that they needed to win. These years are also where more advanced polling techniques and targeted advertising came into the picture. If Reagan was weak with women, 18-25 yrs., in the South, then an ad campaign was started to swing these women voters towards Bonzo's father. Even democratic politicos would admit that they studied these techniques and campaign management methods led by a handful of Repubicans.
In a distant way, Republicans are responsible for creating the polling monster that Clinton was. In my opinion, instead of using polling as a tool and means to learn about the public sentiment, Clinton used it to decide or strongly guide some of his policy decisions. Led by his pollster Stan Greenberg, or others like Celinda Lake, the Clinton administration was led by the people and not leading the people towards whatever principles he believed in.
Polling is another area of political campaigning that is fascinating. It's amazing what top pollsters could find out about what the public is thinking and the accuracy of their data. I don't want to bore you with this subject at this time, so I'll stop here.
The art and science of political campaigning in the U.S. is at such an incredible level of sophistication and skill that you really notice the difference when you visit other countries and see their political campaign methods. What it also comes down to is a lot of grunt work... pounding the pavement, organizing rallies, making the calls, and shaking a lot of hands. But this process is what makes democracy great.
Business & Technology, Politics, and Random Posts from the Left, Right, and Elsewhere
Place of Birth: Seoul, Korea
Hometown: Northbrook, IL USA
Lived in: Seoul, Chicago (Villa Park & Northbrook), Madison, WI, Springfield, IL, St. Louis, New York City, Chicago (Glenview), Seoul, San Francisco
Also blogs at: AlwaysOn, Coro Blog, SportsBlog
More on Bernard or Blogger profile or GoingOn profile or Linkedin profile
Max Yow
Homeland: Canada
Sports: combative sports, sports you play with a ball, sports with no swimming, sports you can play while drinking and smoking (pool, darts, bowling, video games).
More on Max
ARCHIVES
- April 2003
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- Current Posts
If you have questions, topic ideas, or whatever, just email bernard at bernard.moon@gmail.com. Thank you!
site feed
forget the long tail!
(03/21/2006)
2084
(11/02/2005)
building the perfect team
(08/17/2005)
open it up, new york times, chicago tribune, san francisco chronicle!
(06/07/2005)
staring down the digital divide
(06/08/2005)
2005 world series of poker... tech style
(03/30/2005)
rss: real simple syndication or really saturated space?
(02/10/2005)
blogosphere: lost in translation?
(02/10/2005)
diamonds in the rough at redmond
(02/10/2005)
it's a wiki wiki world
(02/03/2005)
where technology is ubiquitous, opportunity abounds
(1/12/2005)
start of "reality media" column
(12/23/2004)
Tech
bill joy's apocalyptic vision, determinism, and commonality with stephen hawking
(07/22/2005)
google economy => blogosphere
(01/25/2005)
power of the long tail
(12/14/2004)
protectionist china... will chinese or u.s. companies lose out?
(3/15/2004)
skype... p2p telephony & a very cool company
(2/13/2004)
poor george glider is right
(2/9/2004)
it's not the deficit stupid!... tech is the primary driver for growth
(12/02/2003)
immature venture capital industry in asia (9/29/2003)
boom time memories... masayoshi son was the man
(7/1/2003)
Politics
south korea's recent idiotic policies against foreign direct investment
(09/09/2005)
my first op-ed
(11/30/2004)
100,000 protest against Bush for... what?
(11/23/2003)
Society
generalizations of east asians
(5/16/2004)
sports is the great equalizer and unifer
(4/20/2004)
defining wisdom... age is the lesser factor
(10/18/2003)
living together before marriage
(8/25/2003)
friendships, relationships, people in life... (7/7/2003)
sugar mommas
(6/13/2003)
need for laws and enforcement
(4/10/2003)
old shaq issue
(4/2/2003)
Religion
creationism & christmas
(12/23/2004)
the passion of the christ... misunderstood
(2/20/2004)
christian's view of homosexuality
(1/13/2004)
is man determined or free?
(8/18/2003)
destructive christianity
(5/3/2003)
Others
"Blah Blah Bernard Blah Blah" Changing to "Junto Boyz"... A New Direction
(4/20/2004)
art of asking questions
(9/18/2003)
ode to bacon
(8/13/2003)
big guys... eating stories iv
(7/27/2003)
big guys... eating stories i
(4/2/2003)
cnn
cnet
businessweek
economist
forbes
fortune
fast company
pe week wire
the deal
ecommerce times
ne asia online
pacific epoch
eweek
release 1.0
technology review
techweb
zdnet news
the american spectator
drudge report
foreign policy
frontpage
harvard political review
mother jones
national review
the new republic
the weekly standard
il conservative politics
the atlantic
the hill
roll call
george f. will
asianweek
financeasia
korea herald
the onion
cox & forkum cartoons
garage technology ventures
growthink research
entrepreneur.com
entrepreneur america
venture economics
venture reporter
vfinance.com
yahoo! small business
nationmaster
thomas, legislative info
american enterprise institute
brookings institute
carnegie endowment
cato institute
center for american progress
center for strategic & int'l studies
heritage foundation
hudson institute
national center for policy analysis
progress & freedom foundation
progressive policy institute
rand corporation
reason public policy institute
urban institute
columbia institute for tele-info
international justice mission
charles barkley's outrageous career
liquid generation
wikipedia
"You cannot go on explaining away things over forever or you will find that you have explained even explanation itself away. You cannot go on seeing through things forever because the whole point of seeing through something is to see something else through it." - C.S Lewis
December 11, 2005
"This telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." - Western Union internal memo, 1876
December 4, 2005
"You cannot hope to build a better world without improving the individual. To that end each of us must work for his own improvement, and at the same time share a general responsibility for all humanity, our particular duty being to aid those to whom we think we can be most useful." - Marie Curie
November 27, 2005
"One cannot step into the same river twice." - Heratidus
November 20, 2005
"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference and undernourishment." - Robert Maynard Hutchins
November 13, 2005
"We are moving away from the old idea of leadership -- leadership has less to do (now) with heroism. We don’t look for... unblemished omnipotent heroes, but leaders who are complex, dependent, changeable... We do not need one dominant authority structure telling all our inner voices to shut up..." - Walter Truett Anderson
November 6, 2005
"To know oneself is to know one’s [country]. It is also... paradoxically a form of exile from that world... to know oneself is, above all, to know what one lacks. It is to measure oneself against Truth, and not the other way around. The first product of self-knowledge is humility, and that virtue is not conspicuous in any national character." - Flannery O’Connor
October 30, 2005
"Men content themselves with the same words as other people use, as if the very sound necessarily carried the same meaning." - John Locke
October 23, 2005
"In order to thrive in a world of change and chaos, we will need to accept 'chaos' as an essential process by which natural systems, including organizations, renew and revitalize themselves." - Margaret Wheatley
October 16, 2004
"Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary." - Robert Louis Stevenson
October 9, 2004
"We will be better and braver if we engage and inquire than if we indulge in the idle fancy that we already know - or that it is of no use seeking to know what we do not know." - Plato
October 2, 2004
"Man's mind stretched to a new idea never goes back to its original dimensions." - Oliver W. Holmes
September 25, 2004
"What you learn intellectually lies in the shallow pools among the wrinkles of your brain. What you learn through the skin of experience sinks deep into your roots." - Hank Taft
September 18, 2004
"In commanding us to glorify him, God is inviting us to enjoy him." - C.S. Lewis
September 11, 2004
"A society is judged by how it treats its least desirable people." - Anonymous
September 4, 2004
"This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no "brief candle" to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to the future generations." - George Bernard Shaw
Yahoo! Directory
Vote for this Blog!
The Weblog Review
Wictory Wednesday Roll
Blogdom of God Roll
League of Reformed Bloggers Roll
ProLifeBlogs Roll
