ON NEW YEARS EVE... HAPPY NEW YEARS!!
Random Entry... Best Wishes for Everyone!
I haven't been blogging much over the past several days after hitting a decent streak. I've been busy with tons of friends visiting Seoul, spending time with my girlfriend, organizing a party, and preparing for my trip to the U.S. A group of friends and I threw a charity party on December 27th in Seoul that went well. About 240 people showed up, which was not like the one we had last year (almost 600 people), but good for only two weeks prep time and one week of marketing. Everyone had a great time and it was all for a good cause instead of our wallets... that's one thing that is underdeveloped in Korea is the non-profit sector (number of organizations and amount of funding). I believe all developing countries need a strong non-profit sector to take it to the next stage of growth towards a more civil society and culture, and Korea lacks in supporting many needed services and functions (e.g. homeless support, assisting disabled people, combating domestic violence) that government or the private sector would never provide due to political or financial reasons.
Anyway, I'm going to Las Vegas again for a convention next week and then I'm staying for my brother's bachelor party. My younger bro is getting married at the end of the month! We always knew he would get married before me even though he's five years younger. He's off to a Christian mission training program for a few months and then starts business school at Columbia University. I guess we'll be a Columbia family now... same school different graduate programs. My brother and I are different since he's primarily focused the corporate sector for his career while I'm split between business and government.
I have to take off now. Going to a New Year's Eve dinner at my friend Paulo's. Best wishes for everyone! God bless you! Have a Happy and Safe New Years!!
Junto Boyz
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
|Thursday, December 25, 2003
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!
A Little Bit About My Faith
Since Christmas is the celebration of Christ's birth, I might as well write about its importance in my life. It's amazing to think how much of an impact one man has had on the history of this earth, and it was really only three years of public ministry where Jesus Christ exerted any type of influence. Incredible.
Coming from a Buddhist background and very little exposure to Christianity until my eighth grade, allowed me to accept Christianity without any social or family pressures that some people face at a young age. Sometimes being cold and naturally cynical of everything around me, I didn't accept Christianity out of an emotional need at some church camp, a fiery Sunday sermon, or friendly nudges by a friend. It was a process of questioning, reading, and thinking that led me to accept the whole of Christianity since there really is no other way. I don't believe in "blind faith", so my initial acceptance of Christianity was followed by several years of further questioning, reading, and thinking. Probably why I enjoy listening and reading to C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias more than Billy Graham or Charles Swindoll.
In the end, I found the Christian life to be the most difficult life to live. Far from a "crutch for the weak" as some philosophers label religion, it is difficult for a very independent and confident person to submit their will to a greater, unseen power. The Christian journey has been the most toilsome but at the same time the most joyful experience for me.
Anyway, below is an essay by an unknown writer on the life and impact of Christ. Not a great piece of writing, but gets the point across. Also below are the lyrics to one of my favorite songs by Michael Card, a Christian singer and writer. The depth of his thinking and knowledge is truly reflected in many of his songs. Merry Christmas again!
One Solitary Life
Here is a man who was born in an obscure village,
the child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another village, and that a despised one.
He worked in a carpenter shop for thirty years,
and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never wrote a book.
He never held an office.
He never owned a home.
He never had a family.
He never went to college.
He never put His foot inside a really big city.
He never traveled, except in His infancy,
more than two hundred miles from the place where He was born.
He had no credentials but HIMSELF.
While still a young man,
The tide of popular opinion turned against Him.
His friends ran away.
One of them betrayed Him.
He was turned over to His enemies.
He went through the mockery of a trial.
He was nailed upon a Cross between two thieves.
His executors gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth,
His seamless robe.
When He was dead,
He was taken down from the cross
and laid in a borrowed grave through the courtesy of a friend.
Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone,
and today Jesus is the centerpiece of the human race,
and the leader of all human progress.
I am well within the mark when I say that
all the armies that ever marched,
all the navies that were ever built,
all the parliaments that have ever sat, and
all the kings that have ever ruled put together
have not affected the life of man upon this earth
like this one solitary personality.
All time dates from his birth,
and it is impossible to understand or interpret
the progress of human civilization in any nation on earth
apart from his influence.
Slowly through the ages man is coming to realize that
the greatest necessity in the world is not
water, iron, gold, food and clothing, or even nitrate in the soil;
but rather Christ enshrined in human hearts, thoughts and motives.
More poems have been written,
more stories told,
more pictures painted, and
more songs sung about Christ
than any other person in human history,
because through such avenues as these
the deepest appreciation of the human heart
can be more adequately expressed.
God's Own Fool
by Michael Card
Seems I've imagined Him all of my life
As the wisest of all of mankind
But if God's Holy wisdom is foolish to men
He must have seemed out of His mind
For even His family said He was mad
And the priests said a demon's to blame
But God in the form of this angry young man
Could not have seemed perfectly sane
(chorus)
When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and He opened our eyes
When we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong
And so we follow God's own fool
For only the foolish can tell-
Believe the unbelievable
And come be a fool as well
So come lose your life for a carpenter's son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you'll have the faith His first followers had
And you'll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see
(chorus)
So we follow God's own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well
|
A Little Bit About My Faith
Since Christmas is the celebration of Christ's birth, I might as well write about its importance in my life. It's amazing to think how much of an impact one man has had on the history of this earth, and it was really only three years of public ministry where Jesus Christ exerted any type of influence. Incredible.
Coming from a Buddhist background and very little exposure to Christianity until my eighth grade, allowed me to accept Christianity without any social or family pressures that some people face at a young age. Sometimes being cold and naturally cynical of everything around me, I didn't accept Christianity out of an emotional need at some church camp, a fiery Sunday sermon, or friendly nudges by a friend. It was a process of questioning, reading, and thinking that led me to accept the whole of Christianity since there really is no other way. I don't believe in "blind faith", so my initial acceptance of Christianity was followed by several years of further questioning, reading, and thinking. Probably why I enjoy listening and reading to C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias more than Billy Graham or Charles Swindoll.
In the end, I found the Christian life to be the most difficult life to live. Far from a "crutch for the weak" as some philosophers label religion, it is difficult for a very independent and confident person to submit their will to a greater, unseen power. The Christian journey has been the most toilsome but at the same time the most joyful experience for me.
Anyway, below is an essay by an unknown writer on the life and impact of Christ. Not a great piece of writing, but gets the point across. Also below are the lyrics to one of my favorite songs by Michael Card, a Christian singer and writer. The depth of his thinking and knowledge is truly reflected in many of his songs. Merry Christmas again!
One Solitary Life
Here is a man who was born in an obscure village,
the child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another village, and that a despised one.
He worked in a carpenter shop for thirty years,
and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.
He never wrote a book.
He never held an office.
He never owned a home.
He never had a family.
He never went to college.
He never put His foot inside a really big city.
He never traveled, except in His infancy,
more than two hundred miles from the place where He was born.
He had no credentials but HIMSELF.
While still a young man,
The tide of popular opinion turned against Him.
His friends ran away.
One of them betrayed Him.
He was turned over to His enemies.
He went through the mockery of a trial.
He was nailed upon a Cross between two thieves.
His executors gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth,
His seamless robe.
When He was dead,
He was taken down from the cross
and laid in a borrowed grave through the courtesy of a friend.
Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone,
and today Jesus is the centerpiece of the human race,
and the leader of all human progress.
I am well within the mark when I say that
all the armies that ever marched,
all the navies that were ever built,
all the parliaments that have ever sat, and
all the kings that have ever ruled put together
have not affected the life of man upon this earth
like this one solitary personality.
All time dates from his birth,
and it is impossible to understand or interpret
the progress of human civilization in any nation on earth
apart from his influence.
Slowly through the ages man is coming to realize that
the greatest necessity in the world is not
water, iron, gold, food and clothing, or even nitrate in the soil;
but rather Christ enshrined in human hearts, thoughts and motives.
More poems have been written,
more stories told,
more pictures painted, and
more songs sung about Christ
than any other person in human history,
because through such avenues as these
the deepest appreciation of the human heart
can be more adequately expressed.
God's Own Fool
by Michael Card
Seems I've imagined Him all of my life
As the wisest of all of mankind
But if God's Holy wisdom is foolish to men
He must have seemed out of His mind
For even His family said He was mad
And the priests said a demon's to blame
But God in the form of this angry young man
Could not have seemed perfectly sane
(chorus)
When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
He played the fool and He opened our eyes
When we in our weakness believed we were strong
He became helpless to show we were wrong
And so we follow God's own fool
For only the foolish can tell-
Believe the unbelievable
And come be a fool as well
So come lose your life for a carpenter's son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you'll have the faith His first followers had
And you'll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see
(chorus)
So we follow God's own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
FINDING GEORGE WILL
Dean is Dumb... Where are you Bill Bradley?
A side benefit of blogging has been the expansion and broadening of my weekly reading. For the past several years, I've been immersed in business and technology journals and equity research reports, so I haven't kept up with policy journals, political magazines, and leisure reading. Also without easy access to U.S. magazines, I've been missing the writing of some of my favorite columnists, such as George Will. I love his prose and wit.
Anyway, here's his recent commentary on campaign finance reform (Candor and Campaign Finance, Nov. 23, 2003), which I thought would be interesting since I mentioned this topic a few days ago on Dec. 19th.
And another great commentary on Howard Dean's intellectual capacity (The Dean of Shallow Thought, Dec. 7, 2003). Excerpt:
Appearing on "Hardball" with the human Gatling gun, Chris Matthews, Dean said that in terms of legal rights there is no practical difference between same-sex civil unions and marriages. Matthews: "So why are we quibbling over a name?" Dean: "Because marriage is very important to a lot of people who are pretty religious."
So, the argument about the public meaning of marriage is merely a semantic quibble important only to the "pretty religious"? Dean has said of his faith that "I don't think it informs my politics," and that he became a Congregationalist "because I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church about 25 years ago over a bike path." Fine.
Wow. If Dean isn't "pretty religious" then he's pretty petty in leaving a church over a fight about a bike path.
|
Dean is Dumb... Where are you Bill Bradley?
A side benefit of blogging has been the expansion and broadening of my weekly reading. For the past several years, I've been immersed in business and technology journals and equity research reports, so I haven't kept up with policy journals, political magazines, and leisure reading. Also without easy access to U.S. magazines, I've been missing the writing of some of my favorite columnists, such as George Will. I love his prose and wit.
Anyway, here's his recent commentary on campaign finance reform (Candor and Campaign Finance, Nov. 23, 2003), which I thought would be interesting since I mentioned this topic a few days ago on Dec. 19th.
And another great commentary on Howard Dean's intellectual capacity (The Dean of Shallow Thought, Dec. 7, 2003). Excerpt:
Appearing on "Hardball" with the human Gatling gun, Chris Matthews, Dean said that in terms of legal rights there is no practical difference between same-sex civil unions and marriages. Matthews: "So why are we quibbling over a name?" Dean: "Because marriage is very important to a lot of people who are pretty religious."
So, the argument about the public meaning of marriage is merely a semantic quibble important only to the "pretty religious"? Dean has said of his faith that "I don't think it informs my politics," and that he became a Congregationalist "because I had a big fight with a local Episcopal church about 25 years ago over a bike path." Fine.
Wow. If Dean isn't "pretty religious" then he's pretty petty in leaving a church over a fight about a bike path.
Monday, December 22, 2003
U.S. TECHNOLOGY LEADS... WHILE THE WORLD FOLLOWS
Asia's Implementation Leads While the U.S. Follows
I haven't received an email newsletter from Business 2.0's 'Future Boy' in a while, but it sure was timely. I posted an entry on how U.S. cellphones lag behind Korea (& Japan) earlier today and now I get this article below that marvels, "The coolest and perhaps most far-reaching demonstration I see at Dundee, though, is of a technology that is still in the R&D phase. An NCR researcher takes out a Nokia (NOK) phone that's been outfitted with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip and swipes it over a pad on an ATM, which transfers money wirelessly from the account to the phone. Now the phone can act as an electronic wallet and be used to buy products from vending machines or retail outlets also equipped with RFID readers."
Excuse me? Where has Schonfeld been this whole time? I actually had to double-check to see if the article was written in 2002. It's not exactly the same technology, but mobile commerce has been implemented in Korea for over a year now where your cellphone acts as an ATM card.
And yes, Nokia is not a U.S. company, so my header is misleading but sometimes I just like to write those types of lines. And yes, mobile technology and use also is ahead in Europe, especially since the Internet isn't as widely prevalent and utilized as in the U.S.
Not Your Father's ATM
Automated teller machines are about to get a dramatic upgrade.
Business 2.0
By Erick Schonfeld
December 19, 2003
The upper half of Timmy's body is projected on the frosted-glass sliding door leading into NCR's (NCR) advanced technology demo center in Dundee, Scotland. She is wearing a tight blue blouse and has exaggeratedly full lips. Timmy greets me by name, pauses, looks down as if reading from a script, and flicks her hair. She is an avatar -- a computer-generated character. Her mannerisms and robotic voice are still a bit crude, but that won't keep Timmy from coming soon to an ATM screen near you.
There she will greet you by name and deliver a personalized marketing message (perhaps an offer to increase your home equity line of credit). Or she may demonstrate how to use one of the ATM's many new features, such as the machine's ability to accept a wad of bills or a check without an envelope.
Timmy is the face of the new ATM. A confluence of regulatory, technological, and competitive trends is building toward a wholesale upgrade of the nation's ATM networks. The most significant of these is a law passed in October called the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, or Check 21, which will allow the digital image of a check to have the same legal standing as the original paper version. That means that instead of depositing checks in an envelope, you can feed them directly into the ATM, where their images will be captured. And instead of waiting three days for the checks to clear because they have to be unloaded from the ATM at night and shipped to a processing center, you can have them approved as fast as the network can carry the image. Thus the banks will get to digitize what remains one of the most labor-intensive parts of their business.
Both NCR and its main competitor, Diebold, offer ATMs with such abilities. But as banks upgrade or replace their current ATMs to take advantage of Check 21, these ATM vendors hope that the banks will also add other new features. For instance, it makes little sense to get rid of envelopes for check deposits but still require them for cash deposits. So newer ATMs come with a separate slot that accepts bunches of notes as well. The sensors and software inside the ATM can accommodate multiple denominations and spot counterfeits.
ATMs are increasingly being used as a communications and marketing channel as well. As ATMs become more complicated to use, more avatars like Timmy might be popping up to give onscreen tutorials for new features. Not only can Timmy help instruct you to properly unfold your bills and deposit them faceup, but she can try to sign you up for a new credit card as well, or alert you to mortgage refinancing opportunities when the rates are low. Text-to-speech software running on the PC inside the ATM (it uses a modified version of Windows that is more crash-proof and more secure) can help Timmy personalize her message specifically to you depending on what the bank knows about your account.
The problem with all of this, of course, is that I am going to like Timmy only to the extent that she helps me out with a transaction I am having trouble with or gives me an offer that I actually care about. Encountering a computer-generated teller at the ATM might be novel at first, but it will quickly become tiresome if Timmy starts making it harder for me to get to my cash. One of the key advantages of going to an ATM is its speed and convenience. I don't want to have to sit through an advertisement every time I go to the ATM. So banks would be wise to use Timmy (and other ATM marketing schemes) sparingly. Even if such marketing is successful, and I find Timmy helpful instead of annoying, the person behind me in line might not appreciate the fact that I am tying up the ATM. Despite its promise, turning the ATM network into an effective marketing channel will be tricky, to say the least.
The coolest and perhaps most far-reaching demonstration I see at Dundee, though, is of a technology that is still in the R&D phase. An NCR researcher takes out a Nokia (NOK) phone that's been outfitted with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip and swipes it over a pad on an ATM, which transfers money wirelessly from the account to the phone. Now the phone can act as an electronic wallet and be used to buy products from vending machines or retail outlets also equipped with RFID readers. Who needs cash?
|
Asia's Implementation Leads While the U.S. Follows
I haven't received an email newsletter from Business 2.0's 'Future Boy' in a while, but it sure was timely. I posted an entry on how U.S. cellphones lag behind Korea (& Japan) earlier today and now I get this article below that marvels, "The coolest and perhaps most far-reaching demonstration I see at Dundee, though, is of a technology that is still in the R&D phase. An NCR researcher takes out a Nokia (NOK) phone that's been outfitted with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip and swipes it over a pad on an ATM, which transfers money wirelessly from the account to the phone. Now the phone can act as an electronic wallet and be used to buy products from vending machines or retail outlets also equipped with RFID readers."
Excuse me? Where has Schonfeld been this whole time? I actually had to double-check to see if the article was written in 2002. It's not exactly the same technology, but mobile commerce has been implemented in Korea for over a year now where your cellphone acts as an ATM card.
And yes, Nokia is not a U.S. company, so my header is misleading but sometimes I just like to write those types of lines. And yes, mobile technology and use also is ahead in Europe, especially since the Internet isn't as widely prevalent and utilized as in the U.S.
Not Your Father's ATM
Automated teller machines are about to get a dramatic upgrade.
Business 2.0
By Erick Schonfeld
December 19, 2003
The upper half of Timmy's body is projected on the frosted-glass sliding door leading into NCR's (NCR) advanced technology demo center in Dundee, Scotland. She is wearing a tight blue blouse and has exaggeratedly full lips. Timmy greets me by name, pauses, looks down as if reading from a script, and flicks her hair. She is an avatar -- a computer-generated character. Her mannerisms and robotic voice are still a bit crude, but that won't keep Timmy from coming soon to an ATM screen near you.
There she will greet you by name and deliver a personalized marketing message (perhaps an offer to increase your home equity line of credit). Or she may demonstrate how to use one of the ATM's many new features, such as the machine's ability to accept a wad of bills or a check without an envelope.
Timmy is the face of the new ATM. A confluence of regulatory, technological, and competitive trends is building toward a wholesale upgrade of the nation's ATM networks. The most significant of these is a law passed in October called the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, or Check 21, which will allow the digital image of a check to have the same legal standing as the original paper version. That means that instead of depositing checks in an envelope, you can feed them directly into the ATM, where their images will be captured. And instead of waiting three days for the checks to clear because they have to be unloaded from the ATM at night and shipped to a processing center, you can have them approved as fast as the network can carry the image. Thus the banks will get to digitize what remains one of the most labor-intensive parts of their business.
Both NCR and its main competitor, Diebold, offer ATMs with such abilities. But as banks upgrade or replace their current ATMs to take advantage of Check 21, these ATM vendors hope that the banks will also add other new features. For instance, it makes little sense to get rid of envelopes for check deposits but still require them for cash deposits. So newer ATMs come with a separate slot that accepts bunches of notes as well. The sensors and software inside the ATM can accommodate multiple denominations and spot counterfeits.
ATMs are increasingly being used as a communications and marketing channel as well. As ATMs become more complicated to use, more avatars like Timmy might be popping up to give onscreen tutorials for new features. Not only can Timmy help instruct you to properly unfold your bills and deposit them faceup, but she can try to sign you up for a new credit card as well, or alert you to mortgage refinancing opportunities when the rates are low. Text-to-speech software running on the PC inside the ATM (it uses a modified version of Windows that is more crash-proof and more secure) can help Timmy personalize her message specifically to you depending on what the bank knows about your account.
The problem with all of this, of course, is that I am going to like Timmy only to the extent that she helps me out with a transaction I am having trouble with or gives me an offer that I actually care about. Encountering a computer-generated teller at the ATM might be novel at first, but it will quickly become tiresome if Timmy starts making it harder for me to get to my cash. One of the key advantages of going to an ATM is its speed and convenience. I don't want to have to sit through an advertisement every time I go to the ATM. So banks would be wise to use Timmy (and other ATM marketing schemes) sparingly. Even if such marketing is successful, and I find Timmy helpful instead of annoying, the person behind me in line might not appreciate the fact that I am tying up the ATM. Despite its promise, turning the ATM network into an effective marketing channel will be tricky, to say the least.
The coolest and perhaps most far-reaching demonstration I see at Dundee, though, is of a technology that is still in the R&D phase. An NCR researcher takes out a Nokia (NOK) phone that's been outfitted with a radio frequency identification (RFID) chip and swipes it over a pad on an ATM, which transfers money wirelessly from the account to the phone. Now the phone can act as an electronic wallet and be used to buy products from vending machines or retail outlets also equipped with RFID readers. Who needs cash?
TIME WARP IN THE U.S.
Cellphones Slowly Catching Up
After seeing the headline, "America Zooms In On Camera Phones", in a BusinessWeek article today, it just reminded me how far behind the U.S. cellphone industry is in terms of the design and functionality of handsets. Cellphones with cameras built-in are now commonplace in Korea and were the hot things about a year ago. They were introduced a couple years ago, but the pricepoint was too high for the average consumer. Now it seems like everyone has them in Seoul besides a non-camera guy like me.
|
Cellphones Slowly Catching Up
After seeing the headline, "America Zooms In On Camera Phones", in a BusinessWeek article today, it just reminded me how far behind the U.S. cellphone industry is in terms of the design and functionality of handsets. Cellphones with cameras built-in are now commonplace in Korea and were the hot things about a year ago. They were introduced a couple years ago, but the pricepoint was too high for the average consumer. Now it seems like everyone has them in Seoul besides a non-camera guy like me.
Sunday, December 21, 2003
MOMENTUM CHANGING... HMMM, MAYBE WAR WAS A GOOD THING
Libya to End Its WMD Program
I watched Return of the King this past weekend and soon afterwards I started to compare our recent current events with this movie that will be a classic for decades to come. As the changing of the tide occurred on the Pelennor Fields (plains infront of Minas Tirith), our present battle against terrorism and the general perspective on the invasion of Iraq is shifting. Don't you feel it? The fruits of war are beginning to bloom, such as with Libya's Moammar Gadhafi coming clean and now planning to dismantle all of his WMD programs.
Of course war isn't an agreeable thing, and if there was a better solution than I would strongly support that path. If time wasn't a factor, then I would advocate more diplomatic avenues, economic sanctions, and other similar means. But time does matter here because how can you not take into account the value of human lives lost over time? Do you let Saddam continue to massacre thousands of people? When did FDR commit the U.S. to helping Europe in their battle against Hitler? When do you say 'enough is enough'? Is 9/11 enough? Is 61,000 lives enough? These are the hard questions that leaders face.
Do you let terrorism continue to spread and grow? I think some people mistakenly envision terrorists living like a hornet's nest and that we should not hit the hive out of fear of stirring up more. These terrorists are more like sewer rats slowly populating the earth and decaying whatever is in their path. They are like the orcs from The Lord of the Rings trilogy that grow, destroy whatever is in their path, and spread their evil. The movie is a realistic example of why diplomatic actions are ineffective against terrorists, so I guess there is another reason besides time as to why I supported the war. We don't speak the same language, and negotiations is about working to get on the same page but it's not even the same book with people like Osama or Saddam. How do you negotiate and peacefully settle with someone like Sauron? Or Hilter? Or Saddam?
If Kofi Annan was Gandalf, he would probably move to cut off all resources to Sauron, ask for ring inspectors in Mordor which would drag on for 500 years as Sauron secures an army of 500,000, and brings Frodo to the negotiating table with Sauron. Of course this would result in Frodo becoming hobbit soup, Gandalf burned to dust in the fires of Mount Doom, and the total destruction of men in Middle-earth. If everyone was rationale and good-hearted on this earth, then we wouldn't need war or the threat of war. Everyone does not speak the language of love or brotherhood or freedom. Many do not want world peace, world order, or food on every plate. There are many people in the world that only care about themselves or the death and destruction of others.
The peaceful courses of action against Saddam and the elements of terrorism might have worked over a century of time, but love doesn't always conquer all. Like I said, it's not about being on the same page of humanity, we're in completely different books.
Gadhafi's Conversion
Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. It's no coincidence.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
EDITORIAL
Monday, December 22, 2003
Now we know why the Bush Administration was willing to go along this past summer with Moammar Gadhafi's attempt to buy off the victims of his terrorist past. It was secretly negotiating a much larger Gadhafi concession to abandon his programs to produce weapons of mass destruction.
We criticized that earlier payoff as trading with a terrorist, but the result announced late Friday at least yields real security gains. The Libyan dictator since 1969 has now admitted lying for years about his weapons plans, has already allowed Americans and others to inspect 10 weapons sites, and has promised to allow "intrusive" inspections in the future.
Shutting down any rogue nuclear weapons project is a big deal in the age of al Qaeda. U.S. officials say Libya's program was further along than the CIA had thought, much as Iraq was before the first Gulf War, and included centrifuges intended to enrich uranium. More important will be any intelligence that the U.S. now gleans about what countries or underground networks supplied Libya. U.S. officials are hinting that they've already picked up such helpful information.
The timing and nature of this conversion also vindicates the Bush anti-terror Doctrine. Gadhafi's emissaries first approached British officials in March, just as the war in Iraq was getting under way. From the first days after September 11, Mr. Bush offered state sponsors of terrorism a choice to be with us or against us. If Gadhafi had any doubts about U.S. resolve after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan, they vanished once he saw that Saddam Hussein was also headed for the spider hole of history.
It's amusing to see the same people who have opposed the Bush Doctrine now claiming that Gadhafi's conversion is the triumph of "diplomacy." European Commission President Romano Prodi averred on the weekend that Libya's reversal "demonstrates the effectiveness of discrete diplomacy and engagement, which has been the European Commission's consistent approach." The French and Senator John Kerry said something similar, as usual.
But years of diplomacy by itself didn't seem to move Libya from its terrorist ways. Only when Gadhafi could see that WMD programs were a path to his own self-destruction, as they were in Iraq, did he agree to turn state's evidence against himself. Mr. Bush's new Proliferation Security Initiative, which is attempting with 10 other nations to use the military to intercept WMD shipments, was also noticed by the Libyan.
Mr. Kerry's Saturday statement that "this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush Administration's overall foreign policy" shows why he's going to have to mortgage more than his Beacon Hill home to become commander-in-chief. He doesn't understand that the credible threat of force, and often its use, is essential before diplomacy has any chance of working.
Along those lines, we'd offer two caveats amid all of the cheering over the Gadhafi news. One is that the dictator continues to be responsible for killing hundreds of innocents, many of them Americans. In international relations and especially in the age of terror, moral trade-offs for the sake of security are sometimes necessary. But Mr. Bush's promise on Friday that Colonel Gadhafi "can regain a secure and respected place among the nations" goes too far in our copybooks. He may be giving up his weapons but he isn't becoming a democrat. We'd still like to see him tried for his terrorism, a la Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam. Short of that but as a proven liar, Gadhafi must be held to his new commitments.
The other caution is about the limits of the Gadhafi outcome as a precedent, especially for North Korea and Iran. Both countries are much further along than Libya in their weapons plans, so they will have an even harder time giving them up. Both regimes have also previously agreed to honor global arms-control agreements, only to be caught lying and then repudiate those commitments.
As it basks in the Libyan surrender, we hope the Bush Administration keeps the pressure on both of those charter members of the "axis of evil." Iran's most recent promise of renewed cooperation with U.N. inspectors isn't nearly as extensive, for example, as what Libya is now promising. And since its nuclear threat is the only reason North Korea has any claim on world attention, we doubt Kim Jong Il will ever give up his secret programs.
With the capture of Saddam and now the concessions from Gadhafi, it has been a good 10 days for Mr. Bush's policy of military power and diplomatic resolve in the war against terror. Now is not the time to abandon it.
|
Libya to End Its WMD Program
I watched Return of the King this past weekend and soon afterwards I started to compare our recent current events with this movie that will be a classic for decades to come. As the changing of the tide occurred on the Pelennor Fields (plains infront of Minas Tirith), our present battle against terrorism and the general perspective on the invasion of Iraq is shifting. Don't you feel it? The fruits of war are beginning to bloom, such as with Libya's Moammar Gadhafi coming clean and now planning to dismantle all of his WMD programs.
Of course war isn't an agreeable thing, and if there was a better solution than I would strongly support that path. If time wasn't a factor, then I would advocate more diplomatic avenues, economic sanctions, and other similar means. But time does matter here because how can you not take into account the value of human lives lost over time? Do you let Saddam continue to massacre thousands of people? When did FDR commit the U.S. to helping Europe in their battle against Hitler? When do you say 'enough is enough'? Is 9/11 enough? Is 61,000 lives enough? These are the hard questions that leaders face.
Do you let terrorism continue to spread and grow? I think some people mistakenly envision terrorists living like a hornet's nest and that we should not hit the hive out of fear of stirring up more. These terrorists are more like sewer rats slowly populating the earth and decaying whatever is in their path. They are like the orcs from The Lord of the Rings trilogy that grow, destroy whatever is in their path, and spread their evil. The movie is a realistic example of why diplomatic actions are ineffective against terrorists, so I guess there is another reason besides time as to why I supported the war. We don't speak the same language, and negotiations is about working to get on the same page but it's not even the same book with people like Osama or Saddam. How do you negotiate and peacefully settle with someone like Sauron? Or Hilter? Or Saddam?
If Kofi Annan was Gandalf, he would probably move to cut off all resources to Sauron, ask for ring inspectors in Mordor which would drag on for 500 years as Sauron secures an army of 500,000, and brings Frodo to the negotiating table with Sauron. Of course this would result in Frodo becoming hobbit soup, Gandalf burned to dust in the fires of Mount Doom, and the total destruction of men in Middle-earth. If everyone was rationale and good-hearted on this earth, then we wouldn't need war or the threat of war. Everyone does not speak the language of love or brotherhood or freedom. Many do not want world peace, world order, or food on every plate. There are many people in the world that only care about themselves or the death and destruction of others.
The peaceful courses of action against Saddam and the elements of terrorism might have worked over a century of time, but love doesn't always conquer all. Like I said, it's not about being on the same page of humanity, we're in completely different books.
Gadhafi's Conversion
Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. It's no coincidence.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
EDITORIAL
Monday, December 22, 2003
Now we know why the Bush Administration was willing to go along this past summer with Moammar Gadhafi's attempt to buy off the victims of his terrorist past. It was secretly negotiating a much larger Gadhafi concession to abandon his programs to produce weapons of mass destruction.
We criticized that earlier payoff as trading with a terrorist, but the result announced late Friday at least yields real security gains. The Libyan dictator since 1969 has now admitted lying for years about his weapons plans, has already allowed Americans and others to inspect 10 weapons sites, and has promised to allow "intrusive" inspections in the future.
Shutting down any rogue nuclear weapons project is a big deal in the age of al Qaeda. U.S. officials say Libya's program was further along than the CIA had thought, much as Iraq was before the first Gulf War, and included centrifuges intended to enrich uranium. More important will be any intelligence that the U.S. now gleans about what countries or underground networks supplied Libya. U.S. officials are hinting that they've already picked up such helpful information.
The timing and nature of this conversion also vindicates the Bush anti-terror Doctrine. Gadhafi's emissaries first approached British officials in March, just as the war in Iraq was getting under way. From the first days after September 11, Mr. Bush offered state sponsors of terrorism a choice to be with us or against us. If Gadhafi had any doubts about U.S. resolve after the Taliban fell in Afghanistan, they vanished once he saw that Saddam Hussein was also headed for the spider hole of history.
It's amusing to see the same people who have opposed the Bush Doctrine now claiming that Gadhafi's conversion is the triumph of "diplomacy." European Commission President Romano Prodi averred on the weekend that Libya's reversal "demonstrates the effectiveness of discrete diplomacy and engagement, which has been the European Commission's consistent approach." The French and Senator John Kerry said something similar, as usual.
But years of diplomacy by itself didn't seem to move Libya from its terrorist ways. Only when Gadhafi could see that WMD programs were a path to his own self-destruction, as they were in Iraq, did he agree to turn state's evidence against himself. Mr. Bush's new Proliferation Security Initiative, which is attempting with 10 other nations to use the military to intercept WMD shipments, was also noticed by the Libyan.
Mr. Kerry's Saturday statement that "this significant advance represents a complete U-turn in the Bush Administration's overall foreign policy" shows why he's going to have to mortgage more than his Beacon Hill home to become commander-in-chief. He doesn't understand that the credible threat of force, and often its use, is essential before diplomacy has any chance of working.
Along those lines, we'd offer two caveats amid all of the cheering over the Gadhafi news. One is that the dictator continues to be responsible for killing hundreds of innocents, many of them Americans. In international relations and especially in the age of terror, moral trade-offs for the sake of security are sometimes necessary. But Mr. Bush's promise on Friday that Colonel Gadhafi "can regain a secure and respected place among the nations" goes too far in our copybooks. He may be giving up his weapons but he isn't becoming a democrat. We'd still like to see him tried for his terrorism, a la Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam. Short of that but as a proven liar, Gadhafi must be held to his new commitments.
The other caution is about the limits of the Gadhafi outcome as a precedent, especially for North Korea and Iran. Both countries are much further along than Libya in their weapons plans, so they will have an even harder time giving them up. Both regimes have also previously agreed to honor global arms-control agreements, only to be caught lying and then repudiate those commitments.
As it basks in the Libyan surrender, we hope the Bush Administration keeps the pressure on both of those charter members of the "axis of evil." Iran's most recent promise of renewed cooperation with U.N. inspectors isn't nearly as extensive, for example, as what Libya is now promising. And since its nuclear threat is the only reason North Korea has any claim on world attention, we doubt Kim Jong Il will ever give up his secret programs.
With the capture of Saddam and now the concessions from Gadhafi, it has been a good 10 days for Mr. Bush's policy of military power and diplomatic resolve in the war against terror. Now is not the time to abandon it.
Friday, December 19, 2003
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE PROJECT
I've been meaning to post this up for you political junkies interested in campaign finance reform for a few weeks. My grad school classmate, Rachel, works with The Campaign Disclosure Project and helped to complete this Grading State Disclosure report a few months ago. The project is a partnership between the UCLA School of Law, the Center for Governmental Studies, and the California Voter Foundation. She works for the California Voter Foundation.
Anyway, I'm interested in campaign finance reform and I believe some changes are needed in the current system. Of course being removed from deep policy circles for the past few years has me swimming in the shallow end on the various complexities and issues involved, so please don't ask me my policy position on this because I will sound like an idiot at this time.
|
I've been meaning to post this up for you political junkies interested in campaign finance reform for a few weeks. My grad school classmate, Rachel, works with The Campaign Disclosure Project and helped to complete this Grading State Disclosure report a few months ago. The project is a partnership between the UCLA School of Law, the Center for Governmental Studies, and the California Voter Foundation. She works for the California Voter Foundation.
Anyway, I'm interested in campaign finance reform and I believe some changes are needed in the current system. Of course being removed from deep policy circles for the past few years has me swimming in the shallow end on the various complexities and issues involved, so please don't ask me my policy position on this because I will sound like an idiot at this time.
Thursday, December 18, 2003
RUNNING ROBOT
Pretty cool. Reason why the Japanese lead in robotics: "Sony Unveils World's First 'Running' Humanoid Robot."
|
Pretty cool. Reason why the Japanese lead in robotics: "Sony Unveils World's First 'Running' Humanoid Robot."
RIGHT WING, LEFT WING... DISAPPOINTMENTS EVERYWHERE
What were Terry McAuliffe and George Ryan Thinking?
Republican or Democrat... Right-wing or Left-wing... People are people, but it is sometimes easy to forget in the whirlwind of political rhetoric, blind partisanship, and heated debates. So today I present idiots from both sides of the spectrum: Terry McAuliffe and George Ryan.
McAuliffe, Democratic Party National Chairman, used his time in addressing high school students to heavily criticize President Bush ("‘Party politics’ during PHS speech raises ire"). Some Republicans labeled it a "I Hate Bush" fest, but I'm not certain if his language was that strong. What I am bothered by is that his speech should have been more informative on the political process or history. Something without such strong biases and political rhetoric. The school's superintendent responded by stating that they have to make "sure that students are not the targets of political exploitation." Come on, Terry, sometimes give it a rest. You don't have to be in campaign mode all the time. Lighten up. Also next time, at least do it with some subtleness... geeez.
In a more serious case, George Ryan, the former Illinois Governor who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for ending capital punishment and clearing death row in Illinois, was indicted on corruption charges. Pathetic. Using his position of higher office for his own selfish gain. I guess he was a career politican more so than someone wanting to be a servant to the public or to change the world. From my two years in Springfield, IL, you realize that there are a fair amount of career politicans at the local levels of government. Definitely a black mark for Illinois Republicans and my home state.
"Workers under Ryan when he was secretary of state sold driver's licenses for bribes to fill his campaign chest... received illegal cash payments, gifts, vacations and personal services while serving as both secretary of state and governor, the indictments alleged."
|
What were Terry McAuliffe and George Ryan Thinking?
Republican or Democrat... Right-wing or Left-wing... People are people, but it is sometimes easy to forget in the whirlwind of political rhetoric, blind partisanship, and heated debates. So today I present idiots from both sides of the spectrum: Terry McAuliffe and George Ryan.
McAuliffe, Democratic Party National Chairman, used his time in addressing high school students to heavily criticize President Bush ("‘Party politics’ during PHS speech raises ire"). Some Republicans labeled it a "I Hate Bush" fest, but I'm not certain if his language was that strong. What I am bothered by is that his speech should have been more informative on the political process or history. Something without such strong biases and political rhetoric. The school's superintendent responded by stating that they have to make "sure that students are not the targets of political exploitation." Come on, Terry, sometimes give it a rest. You don't have to be in campaign mode all the time. Lighten up. Also next time, at least do it with some subtleness... geeez.
In a more serious case, George Ryan, the former Illinois Governor who was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for ending capital punishment and clearing death row in Illinois, was indicted on corruption charges. Pathetic. Using his position of higher office for his own selfish gain. I guess he was a career politican more so than someone wanting to be a servant to the public or to change the world. From my two years in Springfield, IL, you realize that there are a fair amount of career politicans at the local levels of government. Definitely a black mark for Illinois Republicans and my home state.
"Workers under Ryan when he was secretary of state sold driver's licenses for bribes to fill his campaign chest... received illegal cash payments, gifts, vacations and personal services while serving as both secretary of state and governor, the indictments alleged."
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
DEMOCRATS' "ENDER'S GAME"
Awesome Critique of Current Democratic Strategy
My close friend, Jimmy (not the drunken vampire/pseudo celebrity, but the quiet married man who i did two startups with), is going to love this editorial by Orson Scott Card below. He's a Republican and a huge fan of Orson Scott Card. He loves Card's books, such as Ender's Game. I didn't know Card was a Democrat, but I appreciate and respect his ability to put aside partisanship and critique his own party's actions and the players involved in this political mudslinging contest, such as the mainstream media.
I feel like Yoda lately since my prior blog mentioned the elements of hate and fear in the heart of the Democratic Party, and Card discusses this today. Also a couple weeks ago I wrote about investment in technology and how it drives economic growth, and then a few articles came out around the same time. Am I implying something here? Nope. Just wishing... wishing I had Yoda's wisdom and ability to gaze into the future. Too much pizza during dinner does that to me sometimes... all the blood is sucked out of my brain and it goes into fantasy mode.
Anyway, a great editorial to take a few minutes from work or play to read. Doesn't matter what party you're from, nation, or faith, Card's makes you think about this year's election campaigns in the U.S. and how it has degraded America and hurt the heart of liberty. Americans should be more united during these times not divided, especially by rhetoric driven by selfish goals and hate-filled hearts.
What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.
The Campaign of Hate and Fear
Some of my fellow Democrats are unpatriotic.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY ORSON SCOTT CARD
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs." Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans."
Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil." Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public.
There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America.
But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.
And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.
Osama bin Laden's military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn't actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle.
It's what happened in Somalia, isn't it? And it's what happened in Vietnam, too.
Reuters recently ran a feature that trumpeted the "fact" that U.S. casualties in Iraq have now surpassed U.S. casualties in the first three years of the Vietnam War. Never mind that this is a specious distortion of the facts, which depends on the ignorance of American readers. The fact is that during the first three years of the war in Vietnam, dating from the official "beginning" of the war in 1961, American casualties were low because (a) we had fewer than 20,000 soldiers there, (b) most of them were advisers, deliberately trying to avoid a direct combat role, (c) our few combat troops were special forces, who generally get to pick and choose the time and place of their combat, and (d) because our presence was so much smaller, there were fewer American targets than in Iraq today.
Compare our casualties in Iraq with our casualties in Vietnam when we had a comparable number of troops, and by every rational measure--casualties per thousand troops, casualties per year, or absolute number of casualties--you'll find that the Iraq campaign is far, far less costly than Vietnam. But the media want Americans to think that Iraq is like Vietnam--or rather, that Iraq is like the story that the Left likes to tell about Vietnam.
Vietnam was a quagmire only because we fought it that way. If we had closed North Vietnam's ports and carried the war to the enemy, victory could have been relatively quick. However, the risk of Chinese involvement was too great. Memories of Korea were fresh in everyone's minds, and so Vietnam was fought in such a way as to avoid "another Korea." That's why Vietnam became, well, Vietnam.
But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.
In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.
Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic?
Not at all--I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.
Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions. And they can wrap themselves in the flag and say they "support our troops" all they like--but it doesn't change the fact that their program is to promote our defeat at the hands of our enemies for their temporary political advantage.
Think what it will mean if we elect a Democratic candidate who has committed himself to an antiwar posture in order to get his party's nomination.
Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war on the battleground that matters--American public opinion. So they will continue to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can, because it works.
Our soldiers will lose heart, because they will know that their commander in chief is a man who is not committed to winning the war they have risked death in order to fight. When the commander in chief is willing to call victory defeat in order to win an election, his soldiers can only assume that their lives will be thrown away for nothing. That's when an army, filled with despair, becomes beatable even by inferior forces.
When did we lose the Vietnam War? Not in 1968, when we held an election that hinged on the war. None of the three candidates (Humphrey, Nixon, Wallace) were committed to unilateral withdrawal. Not during Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, in which more and more of the war effort was turned over to Vietnamese troops. In fact, Vietnamization, by all measures I know about, worked.
We lost the war when the Democrat-controlled Congress specifically banned all military aid to South Vietnam, and a beleaguered Republican president signed it into law. With Russia and China massively supplying North Vietnam, and Saigon forced to buy pathetic quantities of ammunition and spare parts on the open market because America had cut off all aid, the imbalance doomed them, and they knew it.
The South Vietnamese people were subjected to a murderous totalitarian government (and the Hmong people of the Vietnamese mountains were victims of near-genocide) because the U.S. Congress deliberately cut off military aid--even after almost all our soldiers were home and the Vietnamese were doing the fighting themselves.
That wasn't about "peace," that was about political posturing and an indecent lack of honor. Is that where we're headed again?
This time an enemy attacked civilian targets on our soil. The enemy--a conspiracy of terrorists sponsored by a dozen or so nations and unable to function without their aid--was hard to attack directly; so the only feasible strategy was to remove, by force if necessary, the governments that sheltered and sponsored terrorism.
I would not have chosen Afghanistan and Iraq to start with; Syria, Iran, Sudan and Libya were much more culpable and militarily more important to neutralize as sponsors of terror. (They say that Libya and Sudan have changed their tune lately, but I have my doubts.)
But once we chose Afghanistan and Iraq, once we began a serious campaign, we must continue the war until we achieve our objective, which is to remove all the governments that sponsor terror, or convince the remaining sponsors of terror to absolutely, thoroughly, and completely reverse their policy and actively seek out and destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders. Anything less, and all our effort--all those American lives--were wasted.
And in the midst of this global struggle, when both parties should have united, disagreeing at times about methods and priorities, but never about the steadfast will of the American people to see the war through to a successful conclusion, we find that the candidates of the party out of power are attacking the president for fighting the war at all, and are calling our the war itself a "failure" even though there is no rational measure by which it can be said to have failed--especially since we're still fighting it.
In a war, the enemy probes for weaknesses, and always finds some. When they find a weakness in your positions, they teach you where it is by attacking there; then you learn, and strengthen that point or avoid that mistake. Meanwhile, you constantly probe the enemy for weakness. The result is that even when you are overwhelmingly victorious, the enemy still finds ways to inflict damage along the way.
The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.
Our national media are covering this war as if we were "losing the peace"--even though we are not at peace and we are not losing. Why are they doing this? Because they are desperate to spin the world situation in such a way as to bring down President Bush.
It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape.
This is the same trick they played on the first President Bush, for his recession was also over before the election--but the media worked very hard to conceal it from the American public. They did it as they're doing it now, with yes-but coverage: Yes, the economy is growing again, but there aren't any new jobs. Yes, there are new jobs now, but they're not good jobs.
And that's how they're covering the war. Yes, the Taliban were toppled, but there are still guerrillas fighting against us in various regions of Afghanistan. (As if anyone ever expected anything else.) Yes, Saddam was driven out of power incredibly quickly and with scant loss of life on either side, but our forces were not adequately prepared to do all the nonmilitary jobs that devolved on them as an occupying army.
Ultimately, the outcome of this war is going to depend more on the American people than anything that happens on the battlefield. Are we going to be suckered again the way we were in 1992, when we allowed ourselves to be deceived about our own recent history and current events?
We are being lied to and "spun," and not in a trivial way. The kind of dishonest vitriolic hate campaign that in 2000 was conducted only before black audiences is now being played on the national stage; and the national media, instead of holding the liars' and haters' feet to the fire (as they do when the liars and haters are Republicans or conservatives), are cooperating in building up a false image of a failing economy and a lost war, when the truth is more nearly the exact opposite.
And in all the campaign rhetoric, I keep looking, as a Democrat, for a single candidate who is actually offering a significant improvement over the Republican policies that in fact don't work, while supporting or improving upon the American policies that will help make us and our children secure against terrorists.
We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel. But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans.
I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House. But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home.
And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.
Mr. Card is a science fiction writer. This article first appeared in the Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, N.C.
|
Awesome Critique of Current Democratic Strategy
My close friend, Jimmy (not the drunken vampire/pseudo celebrity, but the quiet married man who i did two startups with), is going to love this editorial by Orson Scott Card below. He's a Republican and a huge fan of Orson Scott Card. He loves Card's books, such as Ender's Game. I didn't know Card was a Democrat, but I appreciate and respect his ability to put aside partisanship and critique his own party's actions and the players involved in this political mudslinging contest, such as the mainstream media.
I feel like Yoda lately since my prior blog mentioned the elements of hate and fear in the heart of the Democratic Party, and Card discusses this today. Also a couple weeks ago I wrote about investment in technology and how it drives economic growth, and then a few articles came out around the same time. Am I implying something here? Nope. Just wishing... wishing I had Yoda's wisdom and ability to gaze into the future. Too much pizza during dinner does that to me sometimes... all the blood is sucked out of my brain and it goes into fantasy mode.
Anyway, a great editorial to take a few minutes from work or play to read. Doesn't matter what party you're from, nation, or faith, Card's makes you think about this year's election campaigns in the U.S. and how it has degraded America and hurt the heart of liberty. Americans should be more united during these times not divided, especially by rhetoric driven by selfish goals and hate-filled hearts.
What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.
The Campaign of Hate and Fear
Some of my fellow Democrats are unpatriotic.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY ORSON SCOTT CARD
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
In one of Patrick O'Brian's novels about the British navy during the Napoleonic wars, he dismisses a particularly foolish politician by saying that his political platform was "death to the Whigs." Watching the primary campaigns among this year's pathetic crop of Democratic candidates, I can't help but think that their campaigns would be vastly improved if they would only rise to the level of "Death to the Republicans."
Instead, their platforms range from Howard Dean's "Bush is the devil" to everybody else's "I'll make you rich, and Bush is quite similar to the devil." Since President Bush is quite plainly not the devil, one wonders why anyone in the Democratic Party thinks this ploy will play with the general public.
There are Democrats, like me, who think it will not play, and should not play, and who are waiting in the wings until after the coming electoral debacle in order to try to remake the party into something more resembling America.
But then I watch the steady campaign of the national news media to try to win this for the Democrats, and I wonder. Could this insane, self-destructive, extremist-dominated party actually win the presidency? It might--because the media are trying as hard as they can to pound home the message that the Bush presidency is a failure--even though by every rational measure it is not.
And the most vile part of this campaign against Mr. Bush is that the terrorist war is being used as a tool to try to defeat him--which means that if Mr. Bush does not win, we will certainly lose the war. Indeed, the anti-Bush campaign threatens to undermine our war effort, give encouragement to our enemies, and cost American lives during the long year of campaigning that lies ahead of us.
Osama bin Laden's military strategy is: If you make a war cost enough, Americans will give up and go home. Now, bin Laden isn't actually all that bright; his campaign to make us go home is in fact what brought us into Afghanistan and Iraq. But he's still telling his followers: Keep killing Americans and eventually, antigovernment factions within the United States will choose to give up the struggle.
It's what happened in Somalia, isn't it? And it's what happened in Vietnam, too.
Reuters recently ran a feature that trumpeted the "fact" that U.S. casualties in Iraq have now surpassed U.S. casualties in the first three years of the Vietnam War. Never mind that this is a specious distortion of the facts, which depends on the ignorance of American readers. The fact is that during the first three years of the war in Vietnam, dating from the official "beginning" of the war in 1961, American casualties were low because (a) we had fewer than 20,000 soldiers there, (b) most of them were advisers, deliberately trying to avoid a direct combat role, (c) our few combat troops were special forces, who generally get to pick and choose the time and place of their combat, and (d) because our presence was so much smaller, there were fewer American targets than in Iraq today.
Compare our casualties in Iraq with our casualties in Vietnam when we had a comparable number of troops, and by every rational measure--casualties per thousand troops, casualties per year, or absolute number of casualties--you'll find that the Iraq campaign is far, far less costly than Vietnam. But the media want Americans to think that Iraq is like Vietnam--or rather, that Iraq is like the story that the Left likes to tell about Vietnam.
Vietnam was a quagmire only because we fought it that way. If we had closed North Vietnam's ports and carried the war to the enemy, victory could have been relatively quick. However, the risk of Chinese involvement was too great. Memories of Korea were fresh in everyone's minds, and so Vietnam was fought in such a way as to avoid "another Korea." That's why Vietnam became, well, Vietnam.
But Iraq is not Vietnam. Nor is the Iraq campaign even the whole war. Of course there's still fighting going on. Our war is against terrorist-sponsoring states, and just because we toppled the governments of two of them doesn't mean that the others aren't still sponsoring terrorism. Also, there is a substantial region in Iraq where Saddam's forces are still finding support for a diehard guerrilla campaign.
In other words, the Iraq campaign isn't over--and President Bush has explicitly said so all along. So the continuation of combat and casualties isn't a "failure" or a "quagmire," it's a "war." And during a war, patriotic Americans don't blame the deaths on our government. We blame them on the enemy that persists in trying to kill our soldiers.
Am I saying that critics of the war aren't patriotic?
Not at all--I'm a critic of some aspects of the war. What I'm saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party's political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.
Patriots place their loyalty to their country in time of war ahead of their personal and party ambitions. And they can wrap themselves in the flag and say they "support our troops" all they like--but it doesn't change the fact that their program is to promote our defeat at the hands of our enemies for their temporary political advantage.
Think what it will mean if we elect a Democratic candidate who has committed himself to an antiwar posture in order to get his party's nomination.
Our enemies will be certain that they are winning the war on the battleground that matters--American public opinion. So they will continue to kill Americans wherever and whenever they can, because it works.
Our soldiers will lose heart, because they will know that their commander in chief is a man who is not committed to winning the war they have risked death in order to fight. When the commander in chief is willing to call victory defeat in order to win an election, his soldiers can only assume that their lives will be thrown away for nothing. That's when an army, filled with despair, becomes beatable even by inferior forces.
When did we lose the Vietnam War? Not in 1968, when we held an election that hinged on the war. None of the three candidates (Humphrey, Nixon, Wallace) were committed to unilateral withdrawal. Not during Nixon's "Vietnamization" program, in which more and more of the war effort was turned over to Vietnamese troops. In fact, Vietnamization, by all measures I know about, worked.
We lost the war when the Democrat-controlled Congress specifically banned all military aid to South Vietnam, and a beleaguered Republican president signed it into law. With Russia and China massively supplying North Vietnam, and Saigon forced to buy pathetic quantities of ammunition and spare parts on the open market because America had cut off all aid, the imbalance doomed them, and they knew it.
The South Vietnamese people were subjected to a murderous totalitarian government (and the Hmong people of the Vietnamese mountains were victims of near-genocide) because the U.S. Congress deliberately cut off military aid--even after almost all our soldiers were home and the Vietnamese were doing the fighting themselves.
That wasn't about "peace," that was about political posturing and an indecent lack of honor. Is that where we're headed again?
This time an enemy attacked civilian targets on our soil. The enemy--a conspiracy of terrorists sponsored by a dozen or so nations and unable to function without their aid--was hard to attack directly; so the only feasible strategy was to remove, by force if necessary, the governments that sheltered and sponsored terrorism.
I would not have chosen Afghanistan and Iraq to start with; Syria, Iran, Sudan and Libya were much more culpable and militarily more important to neutralize as sponsors of terror. (They say that Libya and Sudan have changed their tune lately, but I have my doubts.)
But once we chose Afghanistan and Iraq, once we began a serious campaign, we must continue the war until we achieve our objective, which is to remove all the governments that sponsor terror, or convince the remaining sponsors of terror to absolutely, thoroughly, and completely reverse their policy and actively seek out and destroy all terrorists that once had safe harbor within their borders. Anything less, and all our effort--all those American lives--were wasted.
And in the midst of this global struggle, when both parties should have united, disagreeing at times about methods and priorities, but never about the steadfast will of the American people to see the war through to a successful conclusion, we find that the candidates of the party out of power are attacking the president for fighting the war at all, and are calling our the war itself a "failure" even though there is no rational measure by which it can be said to have failed--especially since we're still fighting it.
In a war, the enemy probes for weaknesses, and always finds some. When they find a weakness in your positions, they teach you where it is by attacking there; then you learn, and strengthen that point or avoid that mistake. Meanwhile, you constantly probe the enemy for weakness. The result is that even when you are overwhelmingly victorious, the enemy still finds ways to inflict damage along the way.
The goal of our troops in Iraq is not to protect themselves so completely that none of our soldiers die. The goal of our troops is to destroy the enemy, some of whom you do not find except when they emerge to attack our forces and, yes, sometimes inflict casualties.
Our national media are covering this war as if we were "losing the peace"--even though we are not at peace and we are not losing. Why are they doing this? Because they are desperate to spin the world situation in such a way as to bring down President Bush.
It's not just the war, of course. Notice that even though our recent recession began under President Clinton, the media invariably refer to it as if Mr. Bush had caused it; and even though by every measure, the recession is over, they still cover it as if the American economy were in desperate shape.
This is the same trick they played on the first President Bush, for his recession was also over before the election--but the media worked very hard to conceal it from the American public. They did it as they're doing it now, with yes-but coverage: Yes, the economy is growing again, but there aren't any new jobs. Yes, there are new jobs now, but they're not good jobs.
And that's how they're covering the war. Yes, the Taliban were toppled, but there are still guerrillas fighting against us in various regions of Afghanistan. (As if anyone ever expected anything else.) Yes, Saddam was driven out of power incredibly quickly and with scant loss of life on either side, but our forces were not adequately prepared to do all the nonmilitary jobs that devolved on them as an occupying army.
Ultimately, the outcome of this war is going to depend more on the American people than anything that happens on the battlefield. Are we going to be suckered again the way we were in 1992, when we allowed ourselves to be deceived about our own recent history and current events?
We are being lied to and "spun," and not in a trivial way. The kind of dishonest vitriolic hate campaign that in 2000 was conducted only before black audiences is now being played on the national stage; and the national media, instead of holding the liars' and haters' feet to the fire (as they do when the liars and haters are Republicans or conservatives), are cooperating in building up a false image of a failing economy and a lost war, when the truth is more nearly the exact opposite.
And in all the campaign rhetoric, I keep looking, as a Democrat, for a single candidate who is actually offering a significant improvement over the Republican policies that in fact don't work, while supporting or improving upon the American policies that will help make us and our children secure against terrorists.
We have enemies that have earned our hatred, and whom we should fear. They are fanatical terrorists who seek opportunities to kill American civilians here and Israeli civilians in Israel. But right now, our national media and the Democratic Party are trying to get us to believe that the people we should hate and fear are George W. Bush and the Republicans.
I can think of many, many reasons why the Republicans should not control both houses of Congress and the White House. But right now, if the alternative is the Democratic Party as led in Congress and as exemplified by the current candidates for the Democratic nomination, then I can't be the only Democrat who will, with great reluctance, vote not just for George W. Bush, but also for every other candidate of the only party that seems committed to fighting abroad to destroy the enemies that seek to kill us and our friends at home.
And if we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end.
Mr. Card is a science fiction writer. This article first appeared in the Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, N.C.
Monday, December 15, 2003
FAN OF JAMES TARANTO
Whackos on the Angry Left React to Saddam's Capture
I love The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto. His "Best of the Web Today" his insightful, humorous, and informative. He just cracks me up. I have a bunch of his past articles that I wanted to post on my blog, but I didn't get a chance to do it yet. Anyway, below is today's post on some of the reactions against Saddam's capture.
What a bunch of whackos! Especially on Howard Dean's blog. Ok, Republicans and conversatives have whackos too, but these people are beyond being normal lunatics (slightly biased, self-amusing comment). Taranto's statement at the bottom sums it up well. Their grievances and hatred lead them down a dangerous path. The Star Wars series comes to mind for me. Remember what led Darth Vader to the darkside? Remember what Yoda's initial assessment of young Anakin Skywalker was in Episode I?
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you."
Best of the Web Today - December 15, 2003
By JAMES TARANTO
Who's Whooping It Up Now?
We don't know for sure that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with the attacks of Sept. 11, but in at least one respect his capture allows Americans to enjoy a measure of revenge. Remember how Palestinians whooped it up on that infamous day, dancing in the streets and handing out candy, unable to contain their joy over the mass murder of Americans? Well, they're pretty bummed right about now, and it serves them right.
"Palestinians in the West Bank reacted with shock and disbelief to the capture of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, with many expressing deep disappointment that the man who symbolized defiance against the US and Israel surrendered without resistance," reports the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh:
Jihan Ajlouni, a 24-year-old university student, said, "This is a big loss for the Arab nation. Saddam was one of the great Arab leaders who supported the Palestinian people and many Arabs. We feel very sad today, and we say to all the traitors and collaborators: Don't rush to celebrate because there are millions of Saddams in the Arab world."
A million Saddams? All we can say is bring 'em on! Come out of those holes with your hands up!
The Post adds that "the Palestinian Authority declined to comment on the arrest of Saddam, but a senior PA official in Ramallah said Yasser Arafat was 'saddened' by the news from Baghdad. 'President Arafat was sad to see an Arab leader in an humiliating position,' said the official."
Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
America's Palestinians
Here's a sampling of comments on Saddam's capture from the Howard Dean campaign's "Blog for America (some appear on this page and this one):
Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
Leslie in SF: "I think it is shameful that the ACLU has not commented on the obvious mistreatment Hussein has suffered at the hands of the American military."
Muslims4Dean: "If the Death toll mounts--good. It will teach the American people not to support Nazi Republicans who invase [sic] Muslim lands."
Johnny Smith: "Muslims4Bush [sic]-- don't think we can put it that way. We don't want Americans to die. But if Bush will not bring our boys home--then they're going to have to die so that Howard Dean can win."
The Angry Left is America's equivalent of the Palestinians: a self-destructive political movement based on nothing but a collection of grievances rooted in a falsified, self-justifying history. These grievances so distort their view of the world that they lose the capacity for ordinary moral judgment and cannot understand something as simple as that the fall of a genocidal tyrant is a good thing.
|
Whackos on the Angry Left React to Saddam's Capture
I love The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto. His "Best of the Web Today" his insightful, humorous, and informative. He just cracks me up. I have a bunch of his past articles that I wanted to post on my blog, but I didn't get a chance to do it yet. Anyway, below is today's post on some of the reactions against Saddam's capture.
What a bunch of whackos! Especially on Howard Dean's blog. Ok, Republicans and conversatives have whackos too, but these people are beyond being normal lunatics (slightly biased, self-amusing comment). Taranto's statement at the bottom sums it up well. Their grievances and hatred lead them down a dangerous path. The Star Wars series comes to mind for me. Remember what led Darth Vader to the darkside? Remember what Yoda's initial assessment of young Anakin Skywalker was in Episode I?
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you."
Best of the Web Today - December 15, 2003
By JAMES TARANTO
Who's Whooping It Up Now?
We don't know for sure that Saddam Hussein was directly involved with the attacks of Sept. 11, but in at least one respect his capture allows Americans to enjoy a measure of revenge. Remember how Palestinians whooped it up on that infamous day, dancing in the streets and handing out candy, unable to contain their joy over the mass murder of Americans? Well, they're pretty bummed right about now, and it serves them right.
"Palestinians in the West Bank reacted with shock and disbelief to the capture of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, with many expressing deep disappointment that the man who symbolized defiance against the US and Israel surrendered without resistance," reports the Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh:
Jihan Ajlouni, a 24-year-old university student, said, "This is a big loss for the Arab nation. Saddam was one of the great Arab leaders who supported the Palestinian people and many Arabs. We feel very sad today, and we say to all the traitors and collaborators: Don't rush to celebrate because there are millions of Saddams in the Arab world."
A million Saddams? All we can say is bring 'em on! Come out of those holes with your hands up!
The Post adds that "the Palestinian Authority declined to comment on the arrest of Saddam, but a senior PA official in Ramallah said Yasser Arafat was 'saddened' by the news from Baghdad. 'President Arafat was sad to see an Arab leader in an humiliating position,' said the official."
Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994.
America's Palestinians
Here's a sampling of comments on Saddam's capture from the Howard Dean campaign's "Blog for America (some appear on this page and this one):
Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
Leslie in SF: "I think it is shameful that the ACLU has not commented on the obvious mistreatment Hussein has suffered at the hands of the American military."
Muslims4Dean: "If the Death toll mounts--good. It will teach the American people not to support Nazi Republicans who invase [sic] Muslim lands."
Johnny Smith: "Muslims4Bush [sic]-- don't think we can put it that way. We don't want Americans to die. But if Bush will not bring our boys home--then they're going to have to die so that Howard Dean can win."
The Angry Left is America's equivalent of the Palestinians: a self-destructive political movement based on nothing but a collection of grievances rooted in a falsified, self-justifying history. These grievances so distort their view of the world that they lose the capacity for ordinary moral judgment and cannot understand something as simple as that the fall of a genocidal tyrant is a good thing.
NO SADDAM
"What has been surprising is the negative media coverage and the shameless exploitation of the war for partisan political purposes that I've seen since returning from Iraq in September. "
'No Saddam'
It'll be hard now for the media to deny our accomplishments in Iraq.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JOHN R. GUARDIANO
Monday, December 15, 2003
At first I thought I was dreaming. I was half asleep and only turned on the TV for a weather report. Snow and an accompanying "wintry mix" had been forecast for the Washington area, and I was concerned about not being able to shop for family Christmas presents.
"Saddam Hussein may have been captured," CNN was reporting. My thoughts quickly raced back eight months to the day I arrived in Al Hillah, Iraq. My Marine Corps reserve unit had been activated before the war, and my team had found itself in the Babylon province. We were 60 miles south of Baghdad and were to help stabilize and reconstruct this small Iraqi city.
The war was just a month old when we arrived in Al Hillah, yet already the facts on the ground had changed dramatically. The eerie silence of war had given way to large and boisterous crowds of young people--happy, smiling children who rushed out to greet us. Most of what they said was in Arabic and thus unintelligible to me. But their facial expressions and body language said enough. They were happy to see us. Some even managed to shout more than a few English phrases.
"Americhi, Americhi!" they shouted. "Bush good, Saddam bad!" "What's your name?" Some enterprising young Iraqis even offered to sell us soda and water. All of them, it seemed, gave us a hearty thumbs-up and vigorously waved and pumped their hands in gratitude and appreciation of our presence there.
The kids surrounded our vehicles en masse almost as if we were rock stars. They were eager to see us and to talk with us. To them it was clear that we were heroes who had liberated them from Saddam Hussein.
Their reaction had surprised me and, truth be told, scared me more than a little. Of course I was heartened by their reaction; it made me want to both smile and cry. But as far as we Marines were concerned, we were still in a war zone with plenty of bad guys--embittered Baathists, Saddam loyalists and angry foreign jihadis--who were determined to kill us.
We all knew that it took just one sniper or one suicide bomber to send us home in body bags. It would be easy, I thought, for the bad guys to hide behind these children and attack us. I shuddered at the thought of the mayhem and carnage I knew would result from such an attack.
We kept our guard up and I resolved not to become too sentimental. After all, at first I was but one of eight Marines riding along in two Humvees. And I had an immediate security problem: I was sitting in the back of a Hummer peering out the back when the canvas top came lose and blocked my view. The Iraqi crowd was descending on us, so I moved quickly to jerry-rig the canvas out of the way. But with no real success, so we decided to junk the top altogether.
Our comfort level with the Iraqi people grew considerably in the coming weeks and months as we assumed effective governing control of Al Hillah and the surrounding province. We came to realize that the gratitude and affection we experienced on that first day was far from fleeting and ephemeral. It was instead deeply rooted in the people's recent collective conscience.
Al Hillah is overwhelmingly Shiite, and the Babylon province is home to at least two mass graves, where thousands of innocent men, women and children were buried (sometimes alive) after Saddam and his henchmen had tortured them. Virtually everyone, it seemed, had a story to tell about a family member abducted in the dead of night by the Baathists, never to be seen or heard from again.
For the Iraqis who endured the sadism and cruelty, there was a deep-seated, lingering fear that Saddam would one day rise again, that the Baathist tyranny would resume under his leadership if the United States tired of the fight and left the country.
That is why the most common question I was asked by Iraqis, especially in those initial weeks after the Hussein regime had been overthrown, was, "Where's Saddam?" The Iraqis found it quite reassuring to hear me, a young, gun-toting Marine, tell them, "No Saddam!" as I ran my finger across my throat to simulate his throat being cut.
I also would point to the ground and stomp my feet to indicate that Saddam had been buried (I didn't realize how right I was). The children would smile back happily, give me the thumbs-up sign, and imitate me. Soon I was being greeted with shouts of "No Saddam!" as the children slapped their hands and stomped the ground. This became a bond of understanding and appreciation between us.
Not surprisingly, the kids were quick to praise the killing of Saddam's sons. "No Uday! No Qusay!" they shouted to us last summer after the two were killed in a firefight in Mosul.
I was therefore not surprised to see ordinary Iraqis cheering Saddam's capture and firing rifles into the air. What has been surprising is the negative media coverage and the shameless exploitation of the war for partisan political purposes that I've seen since returning from Iraq in September.
"It's almost as if what we did over there never happened and doesn't matter," one of my staff sergeants told me. But what we did, and what the U.S. military is still doing, does matter, as the Iraqis whom I was privileged to know and befriend will tell you.
And although I certainly am thankful to be home, I wish I could see the faces of the Iraqi children today when they ask, "Where's Saddam?" Because I could forthrightly tell them what U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer said yesterday: "We got him."
No Saddam, indeed, not on our watch.
Lance Cpl. Guardiano is a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps' Fourth Civil Affairs Group and, as a civilian, defense editor of Rotor and Wing magazine.
|
"What has been surprising is the negative media coverage and the shameless exploitation of the war for partisan political purposes that I've seen since returning from Iraq in September. "
'No Saddam'
It'll be hard now for the media to deny our accomplishments in Iraq.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JOHN R. GUARDIANO
Monday, December 15, 2003
At first I thought I was dreaming. I was half asleep and only turned on the TV for a weather report. Snow and an accompanying "wintry mix" had been forecast for the Washington area, and I was concerned about not being able to shop for family Christmas presents.
"Saddam Hussein may have been captured," CNN was reporting. My thoughts quickly raced back eight months to the day I arrived in Al Hillah, Iraq. My Marine Corps reserve unit had been activated before the war, and my team had found itself in the Babylon province. We were 60 miles south of Baghdad and were to help stabilize and reconstruct this small Iraqi city.
The war was just a month old when we arrived in Al Hillah, yet already the facts on the ground had changed dramatically. The eerie silence of war had given way to large and boisterous crowds of young people--happy, smiling children who rushed out to greet us. Most of what they said was in Arabic and thus unintelligible to me. But their facial expressions and body language said enough. They were happy to see us. Some even managed to shout more than a few English phrases.
"Americhi, Americhi!" they shouted. "Bush good, Saddam bad!" "What's your name?" Some enterprising young Iraqis even offered to sell us soda and water. All of them, it seemed, gave us a hearty thumbs-up and vigorously waved and pumped their hands in gratitude and appreciation of our presence there.
The kids surrounded our vehicles en masse almost as if we were rock stars. They were eager to see us and to talk with us. To them it was clear that we were heroes who had liberated them from Saddam Hussein.
Their reaction had surprised me and, truth be told, scared me more than a little. Of course I was heartened by their reaction; it made me want to both smile and cry. But as far as we Marines were concerned, we were still in a war zone with plenty of bad guys--embittered Baathists, Saddam loyalists and angry foreign jihadis--who were determined to kill us.
We all knew that it took just one sniper or one suicide bomber to send us home in body bags. It would be easy, I thought, for the bad guys to hide behind these children and attack us. I shuddered at the thought of the mayhem and carnage I knew would result from such an attack.
We kept our guard up and I resolved not to become too sentimental. After all, at first I was but one of eight Marines riding along in two Humvees. And I had an immediate security problem: I was sitting in the back of a Hummer peering out the back when the canvas top came lose and blocked my view. The Iraqi crowd was descending on us, so I moved quickly to jerry-rig the canvas out of the way. But with no real success, so we decided to junk the top altogether.
Our comfort level with the Iraqi people grew considerably in the coming weeks and months as we assumed effective governing control of Al Hillah and the surrounding province. We came to realize that the gratitude and affection we experienced on that first day was far from fleeting and ephemeral. It was instead deeply rooted in the people's recent collective conscience.
Al Hillah is overwhelmingly Shiite, and the Babylon province is home to at least two mass graves, where thousands of innocent men, women and children were buried (sometimes alive) after Saddam and his henchmen had tortured them. Virtually everyone, it seemed, had a story to tell about a family member abducted in the dead of night by the Baathists, never to be seen or heard from again.
For the Iraqis who endured the sadism and cruelty, there was a deep-seated, lingering fear that Saddam would one day rise again, that the Baathist tyranny would resume under his leadership if the United States tired of the fight and left the country.
That is why the most common question I was asked by Iraqis, especially in those initial weeks after the Hussein regime had been overthrown, was, "Where's Saddam?" The Iraqis found it quite reassuring to hear me, a young, gun-toting Marine, tell them, "No Saddam!" as I ran my finger across my throat to simulate his throat being cut.
I also would point to the ground and stomp my feet to indicate that Saddam had been buried (I didn't realize how right I was). The children would smile back happily, give me the thumbs-up sign, and imitate me. Soon I was being greeted with shouts of "No Saddam!" as the children slapped their hands and stomped the ground. This became a bond of understanding and appreciation between us.
Not surprisingly, the kids were quick to praise the killing of Saddam's sons. "No Uday! No Qusay!" they shouted to us last summer after the two were killed in a firefight in Mosul.
I was therefore not surprised to see ordinary Iraqis cheering Saddam's capture and firing rifles into the air. What has been surprising is the negative media coverage and the shameless exploitation of the war for partisan political purposes that I've seen since returning from Iraq in September.
"It's almost as if what we did over there never happened and doesn't matter," one of my staff sergeants told me. But what we did, and what the U.S. military is still doing, does matter, as the Iraqis whom I was privileged to know and befriend will tell you.
And although I certainly am thankful to be home, I wish I could see the faces of the Iraqi children today when they ask, "Where's Saddam?" Because I could forthrightly tell them what U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer said yesterday: "We got him."
No Saddam, indeed, not on our watch.
Lance Cpl. Guardiano is a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps' Fourth Civil Affairs Group and, as a civilian, defense editor of Rotor and Wing magazine.
Sunday, December 14, 2003
U.S. BELIEVES SADDAM CAPTURED
Win for Humanity, Win for the World
'We got him!' Bremer says after Saddam captured in hometown - USA Today
Articles above are the biggest new flash now... Saddam is finally capture. Awesome for the people of Iraq and great win for humanity. How can anyone not celebrate this? Even if you're against the Bush adminstration's decision to invade Iraq, you have to be at least happy about this news... unless you're so filled with hate or so dogmatic that you can't see the other side nor be empathetic to people outside of your small, little world.
Political sidenote... this is a loss of ammo for Dean and the Dems. What will they think of next? The anger and hate tactics can get very old very quickly for the majority of America. They need a new, new thing for their campaign.
|
Win for Humanity, Win for the World
'We got him!' Bremer says after Saddam captured in hometown - USA Today
Articles above are the biggest new flash now... Saddam is finally capture. Awesome for the people of Iraq and great win for humanity. How can anyone not celebrate this? Even if you're against the Bush adminstration's decision to invade Iraq, you have to be at least happy about this news... unless you're so filled with hate or so dogmatic that you can't see the other side nor be empathetic to people outside of your small, little world.
Political sidenote... this is a loss of ammo for Dean and the Dems. What will they think of next? The anger and hate tactics can get very old very quickly for the majority of America. They need a new, new thing for their campaign.
Saturday, December 13, 2003
SCO GROUP... MONEY GRUBBERS
Not Who Your Mama Wanted You to be Like
Came across this article in News.com, Attack on SCO sites at an end, and another in Forbes pasted below on the SCO Group. After reading both articles, it seems that the sole purpose of this company is to generate revenue through litigation. What kind of souls or principles do they have? Pure greed is the heart and fuel of this company and it sickens me. They are suing for the use of Linux because it "owns copyrights to the Unix system that inspired Linux", but they had nothing to do with the development of Linux. How whacked is that? The focus of the company is not to make a product that consumers or companies desire, it is not for the improvement of society or the world, and it is not even for a questionable or debatable purpose, such as manufacturing F-16s. Even thieves or con-man might have nobler causes because they might argue that they enjoy the con or chase. SCO... pathetic losers.
Holding Up Hollywood
FORBES
Daniel Lyons, 11.24.03
Special-effects makers love the "free" Linux operating system. That could end up costing them.
These days the big star at Sony Pictures' special-effects shop, Imageworks, isn't Spider-Man or Stuart Little--it's a piece of software called Linux. Twelve years ago a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds hacked it together and gave it away on the Internet. Since then thousands of programmers around the world have developed it collaboratively, crafting an operating system that is fast, stable and--best of all--free.
So instead of buying pricey specialized computers from the likes of Silicon Graphics, the techies at Imageworks simply load Linux onto hundreds of cheap Intel-based PCs to crank out dazzling effects for movies like Lord of the Rings, Seabiscuit and Spider-Man. Better yet, these low-cost systems are way more powerful than what they replaced.
"Almost everything we do now we could not have done before," says George Joblove, a senior vice president at Imageworks. "To have Spider-Man swinging through New York City, to have the entire city--the sky, the buildings, everything in that frame--digitally created, that could not have been done five years ago."
Most of Hollywood's big special-effects and animation companies now use Linux. DreamWorks, maker of Shrek and Sinbad, boasts on its Web site of its "groundbreaking adoption of Linux." Digital Domain, which worked on Titanic and Apollo 13, runs Linux on about 1,000 processors. Lucas Digital runs Linux on nearly 1,500 boxes to create effects for the Star Wars epics and Harry Potter movies.
But this love affair with freeware may prove costly. SCO Group, a $64 million (sales) software shop in Lindon, Utah that owns copyrights to the Unix system that inspired Linux, aims to collect fees from companies that use the free code. It may target Hollywood next. "They're using a ton of Linux in Hollywood, so they've become a lightning rod for us," says Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive.
McBride points out that Hollywood studios, keen to protect their movies from being pirated on the Internet, have preached the need to respect copyrights. "It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, ‘Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,'"he says.
And Hollywood is just the start. SCO, which has retained hired gun and Microsoft nemesis David Boies, plans to target titans of financial services, transportation companies, government agencies and big retail chains, says Christopher Sontag, an SCO senior vice president. SCO aims to collect a one-time fee of $699 for every server processor that runs Linux. That would offer a nice windfall:Worldwide, nearly 2.6 million machines run a server version of Linux, says IDC, a market researcher. SCO has a list of 300,000 Linux servers and their owners. Earlier this year it sent warning letters to 1,500 big companies and claims some have signed up, though it won't name any. "We're ahead of plan," Sontag says.
McBride concedes that many firms scoff at the notion of paying fees to some little, unknown outfit, especially since SCO hasn't proven its claims are legitimate. Formerly known as Caldera, the firm didn't even play a role in creating Unix, laying claim to it through a circuitous round of deals. AT&T sold its Unix version in 1992 to Novell, which in 1995 sold it to a firm named Santa Cruz Operation, which in 2001 sold it to Caldera. Santa Cruz became Tarantella and last year Caldera renamed itself SCO.
So what if the studios tell SCO to take a hike?"We're going to force people down a path,"McBride says. "They can choose licensing or litigation. If someone says they want to see a court ruling before they pay, we'll say, ‘Fine, you're the lucky winner. We'll take you first.' I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit."
SCO began its litigious crusade in March when it sued IBM for $3 billion, alleging IBMdevelopers put Unix code into Linux. IBMdenies it and has filed a counterclaim; a federal trial is set for 2005 in Salt Lake City.
By contrast, the assault on Hollywood has started on a softer note. SCO claims it has had brief conversations with executives at Fox, Universal and Sony Pictures. Patrick Scholes, an investment banker at Morgan Keegan & Co. who advises SCO, says that on Oct. 9 he spoke by phone with Mitch Singer, a senior vice president at Sony Pictures, broaching the fact that Hollywood companies use a lot of Linux. Scholes says Singer understood the implication. "He said, ‘Okay, I can read between the lines,'" Scholes recalls.
Singer was unavailable for comment. Sony's Imageworks runs Linux on 1,400 dual-processor servers. But executives there say they have had no conversations with SCO, and Imageworks President Tim Sarnoff says he isn't worried. "It's not on our radar right now." DreamWorks and Lucas Digital declined to comment on SCO's threats, as did Digital Domain.
Most of these companies use Linux in "render farms," where hundreds of low-cost Intel-based servers are yoked together to do the number-crunching needed to churn out visual effects and animated images. Imageworks and others also use Linux to power some desktop machines that artists use.
Until two years ago most effects shops used expensive workstations from SiliconGraphics. The SGI machines used specialized chips and SGI's own souped-up version of Unix. But these days ordinary Intel machines can outgun SGI machines for a fraction of the price, and free Linux sharpens that edge. Hammerhead Productions, a 30-person effects house in Studio City, Calif. that created effects for Blue Crush and 2 Fast 2 Furious, uses Linux machines that cost one-tenth the price of its old SGIgear--$1,200 versus $12,000--and yet are ten times faster, says Thaddeus Beier, director of technology.
Beier, who runs a 30-server render farm, says he hasn't heard from SCO, but the idea of being asked to pay for Linux makes him furious. "That just sends me right up. If I had explosives, I'd be in Salt Lake City," he says, adding that if SCO presses him, he may drop Linux and switch to a free version of Unix.
Some tech execs say SCO is bluffing and running a shakedown. Investors believe otherwise; after all, SCO previously bought a little-known program related to Microsoft DOS and exacted a multimillion-dollar settlement from the formidable software giant. SCO shares, which traded at less than $1 before SCO sued IBM, have soared to $17.36. And even at that price Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Skiba rates SCO a buy, saying it could hit $45 in the short term.
Two investors, Integral Capital Management and Royce & Associates, recently have boosted their stakes in SCO, Securities & Exchange Commission filings show. In October BayStar Capital paid $50 million to acquire a 17.5% stake in SCO through a private placement of 2.9 million shares.
BayStar is betting that SCO will be able to collect license fees from Linux users. "We think this licensing initiative is going to work," says Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner. "We spent a lot of time calling around to potential licensees, and we believe SCO is going to sign enough companies to make this an interesting growth story."
McBride's assault on the "peace and love" Linux movement already has made SCO the most hated villain in the computer industry. Now he wants to shake down the people who make cartoons for kids. Happy to play the heavy, he tells of receiving voice mail recently from an anonymous caller who challenged him to a fistfight, leaving a callback number, "if you have the guts." Feeling playful, he had his secretary contact the irate critic and offer to set an appointment for the clash. The caller declined.
|
Not Who Your Mama Wanted You to be Like
Came across this article in News.com, Attack on SCO sites at an end, and another in Forbes pasted below on the SCO Group. After reading both articles, it seems that the sole purpose of this company is to generate revenue through litigation. What kind of souls or principles do they have? Pure greed is the heart and fuel of this company and it sickens me. They are suing for the use of Linux because it "owns copyrights to the Unix system that inspired Linux", but they had nothing to do with the development of Linux. How whacked is that? The focus of the company is not to make a product that consumers or companies desire, it is not for the improvement of society or the world, and it is not even for a questionable or debatable purpose, such as manufacturing F-16s. Even thieves or con-man might have nobler causes because they might argue that they enjoy the con or chase. SCO... pathetic losers.
Holding Up Hollywood
FORBES
Daniel Lyons, 11.24.03
Special-effects makers love the "free" Linux operating system. That could end up costing them.
These days the big star at Sony Pictures' special-effects shop, Imageworks, isn't Spider-Man or Stuart Little--it's a piece of software called Linux. Twelve years ago a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds hacked it together and gave it away on the Internet. Since then thousands of programmers around the world have developed it collaboratively, crafting an operating system that is fast, stable and--best of all--free.
So instead of buying pricey specialized computers from the likes of Silicon Graphics, the techies at Imageworks simply load Linux onto hundreds of cheap Intel-based PCs to crank out dazzling effects for movies like Lord of the Rings, Seabiscuit and Spider-Man. Better yet, these low-cost systems are way more powerful than what they replaced.
"Almost everything we do now we could not have done before," says George Joblove, a senior vice president at Imageworks. "To have Spider-Man swinging through New York City, to have the entire city--the sky, the buildings, everything in that frame--digitally created, that could not have been done five years ago."
Most of Hollywood's big special-effects and animation companies now use Linux. DreamWorks, maker of Shrek and Sinbad, boasts on its Web site of its "groundbreaking adoption of Linux." Digital Domain, which worked on Titanic and Apollo 13, runs Linux on about 1,000 processors. Lucas Digital runs Linux on nearly 1,500 boxes to create effects for the Star Wars epics and Harry Potter movies.
But this love affair with freeware may prove costly. SCO Group, a $64 million (sales) software shop in Lindon, Utah that owns copyrights to the Unix system that inspired Linux, aims to collect fees from companies that use the free code. It may target Hollywood next. "They're using a ton of Linux in Hollywood, so they've become a lightning rod for us," says Darl McBride, SCO's chief executive.
McBride points out that Hollywood studios, keen to protect their movies from being pirated on the Internet, have preached the need to respect copyrights. "It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying, ‘Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,'"he says.
And Hollywood is just the start. SCO, which has retained hired gun and Microsoft nemesis David Boies, plans to target titans of financial services, transportation companies, government agencies and big retail chains, says Christopher Sontag, an SCO senior vice president. SCO aims to collect a one-time fee of $699 for every server processor that runs Linux. That would offer a nice windfall:Worldwide, nearly 2.6 million machines run a server version of Linux, says IDC, a market researcher. SCO has a list of 300,000 Linux servers and their owners. Earlier this year it sent warning letters to 1,500 big companies and claims some have signed up, though it won't name any. "We're ahead of plan," Sontag says.
McBride concedes that many firms scoff at the notion of paying fees to some little, unknown outfit, especially since SCO hasn't proven its claims are legitimate. Formerly known as Caldera, the firm didn't even play a role in creating Unix, laying claim to it through a circuitous round of deals. AT&T sold its Unix version in 1992 to Novell, which in 1995 sold it to a firm named Santa Cruz Operation, which in 2001 sold it to Caldera. Santa Cruz became Tarantella and last year Caldera renamed itself SCO.
So what if the studios tell SCO to take a hike?"We're going to force people down a path,"McBride says. "They can choose licensing or litigation. If someone says they want to see a court ruling before they pay, we'll say, ‘Fine, you're the lucky winner. We'll take you first.' I'd be surprised if we make it to the end of the year without filing a lawsuit."
SCO began its litigious crusade in March when it sued IBM for $3 billion, alleging IBMdevelopers put Unix code into Linux. IBMdenies it and has filed a counterclaim; a federal trial is set for 2005 in Salt Lake City.
By contrast, the assault on Hollywood has started on a softer note. SCO claims it has had brief conversations with executives at Fox, Universal and Sony Pictures. Patrick Scholes, an investment banker at Morgan Keegan & Co. who advises SCO, says that on Oct. 9 he spoke by phone with Mitch Singer, a senior vice president at Sony Pictures, broaching the fact that Hollywood companies use a lot of Linux. Scholes says Singer understood the implication. "He said, ‘Okay, I can read between the lines,'" Scholes recalls.
Singer was unavailable for comment. Sony's Imageworks runs Linux on 1,400 dual-processor servers. But executives there say they have had no conversations with SCO, and Imageworks President Tim Sarnoff says he isn't worried. "It's not on our radar right now." DreamWorks and Lucas Digital declined to comment on SCO's threats, as did Digital Domain.
Most of these companies use Linux in "render farms," where hundreds of low-cost Intel-based servers are yoked together to do the number-crunching needed to churn out visual effects and animated images. Imageworks and others also use Linux to power some desktop machines that artists use.
Until two years ago most effects shops used expensive workstations from SiliconGraphics. The SGI machines used specialized chips and SGI's own souped-up version of Unix. But these days ordinary Intel machines can outgun SGI machines for a fraction of the price, and free Linux sharpens that edge. Hammerhead Productions, a 30-person effects house in Studio City, Calif. that created effects for Blue Crush and 2 Fast 2 Furious, uses Linux machines that cost one-tenth the price of its old SGIgear--$1,200 versus $12,000--and yet are ten times faster, says Thaddeus Beier, director of technology.
Beier, who runs a 30-server render farm, says he hasn't heard from SCO, but the idea of being asked to pay for Linux makes him furious. "That just sends me right up. If I had explosives, I'd be in Salt Lake City," he says, adding that if SCO presses him, he may drop Linux and switch to a free version of Unix.
Some tech execs say SCO is bluffing and running a shakedown. Investors believe otherwise; after all, SCO previously bought a little-known program related to Microsoft DOS and exacted a multimillion-dollar settlement from the formidable software giant. SCO shares, which traded at less than $1 before SCO sued IBM, have soared to $17.36. And even at that price Deutsche Bank analyst Brian Skiba rates SCO a buy, saying it could hit $45 in the short term.
Two investors, Integral Capital Management and Royce & Associates, recently have boosted their stakes in SCO, Securities & Exchange Commission filings show. In October BayStar Capital paid $50 million to acquire a 17.5% stake in SCO through a private placement of 2.9 million shares.
BayStar is betting that SCO will be able to collect license fees from Linux users. "We think this licensing initiative is going to work," says Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner. "We spent a lot of time calling around to potential licensees, and we believe SCO is going to sign enough companies to make this an interesting growth story."
McBride's assault on the "peace and love" Linux movement already has made SCO the most hated villain in the computer industry. Now he wants to shake down the people who make cartoons for kids. Happy to play the heavy, he tells of receiving voice mail recently from an anonymous caller who challenged him to a fistfight, leaving a callback number, "if you have the guts." Feeling playful, he had his secretary contact the irate critic and offer to set an appointment for the clash. The caller declined.
Friday, December 12, 2003
GREAT TECH NEWS & BLOG SITE
I don't plug for a website often, but I recently came across this news and blog site, AlwaysOn, and it was great. Good content, nice layout, and decent participation. I don't know when it started, but it has the potential to become a very popular site.
..... Ok, I checked out the site in detail, and it was started by some of the team from Red Herring. Makes sense since that was my favorite tech news magazine before it stopped circulation.
|
I don't plug for a website often, but I recently came across this news and blog site, AlwaysOn, and it was great. Good content, nice layout, and decent participation. I don't know when it started, but it has the potential to become a very popular site.
..... Ok, I checked out the site in detail, and it was started by some of the team from Red Herring. Makes sense since that was my favorite tech news magazine before it stopped circulation.
Thursday, December 11, 2003
FREELOADING FOREIGNERS ARE SPONGING OFF
AMERICAN DRUG COMPANIES
Steve Forbes editorial below. Interesting and informative commentary on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. I'm not really a fan of drug companies, but this does bring up an issue of fairness in the global economy. Why should other nations benefit from the billions of dollars U.S. drug companies put into research without paying their fair share?
Also I'm wondering if price controls in foreign nations were abolished or changed, would drug companies adjust their prices accordingly? Wondering what the other side's response to this commentary would be.
Fact and Comment
Steve Forbes, 11.24.03
The Freeloaders
Europe, Japan, Canada and much of the rest of the world are mooching off the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. They refuse to pay fair prices for the medicines that were developed through our drug companies' research and development. These nations have imposed price controls on medicines; medical manufacturers thus can't recover fair compensation for their R&D costs. Result: Americans are medically subsidizing the rest of the world. It's one thing to help struggling countries, quite another to help rich, developed, high-standard-of-living states such as Germany, France and Japan. Make no mistake: These countries are engaged in a costly form of piracy. As Food & Drug Administration head Mark McClellan recently pointed out, "The economic consequences of overly strict price controls on drugs are no different than violating the patent directly through compulsory licensing to make copies of the drug."
The costs of bringing a new drug to market run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Globally, U.S companies now pay the lion's share of pharmaceutical R&D spending. When will foreign governments start to pay an appropriate share of the cost of developing these medical breakthroughs? Dr. McClellan recently asked that question in a major speech. While he offered no detailed answer, other than to suggest finding ways of pricing drugs overseas based on a nation's income, his question should be taken to heart by the Administration's trade policymakers.
McClellan's query isn't an academic one. Pressures are growing here at home to squeeze the pricing power of pharmaceutical companies. Treks by the elderly to Canada, on the hunt for bargain prescriptions, are a media staple. (Of course, stories about the flood of Canadians coming to the U.S. for advanced medications and treatments unavailable in medically socialized, short-on-care Canada are practically nonexistent.) Few people realize that Americans are unwitting ATMs for foreign drug consumers. The net result will be fewer disease-curing or -preventing, pain-reducing, quality-of-life-enhancing medical breakthroughs.
Foreign nations naturally show no sign of voluntarily coughing up more money; the short-term political benefits of underpricing medicines are irresistible. Brazil, for example, recently demanded that U.S. drug companies sell it medicines at prices charged the poorest of poor nations around the globe. While Brazil is still a developing country, its economy is nonetheless the world's ninth largest. Why should it get the same bargain as disease-ridden, poverty-stricken Haiti, which has a per capita income barely one-sixth of Brazil's?
Should pharmaceutical companies refuse to sell to rich countries? Not before the American public--and foreign ones--are fully aware of how those nations are sponging off of us. We'd also better be prepared to fight hard if some of those nations rip off our companies' patents.
McClellan demolishes the charge that there are other factors at work catapulting the prices of medications in America. Consumer advertising? "On net such advertising benefits the public health. It gets more people into treatment for conditions that are undertreated in the population. [It] account[s] for less than 2% of U.S. pharmaceutical spending." Too much spending on "me-too" drugs? "Over the 1990s, only about 20% of pharmaceutical R&D spending was devoted to improving or modifying existing products," and many of these were perfectly justified medically.
So let's see if the pols and the media glom onto the real villains of our high-cost medicines--freeloading foreigners.
|
AMERICAN DRUG COMPANIES
Steve Forbes editorial below. Interesting and informative commentary on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. I'm not really a fan of drug companies, but this does bring up an issue of fairness in the global economy. Why should other nations benefit from the billions of dollars U.S. drug companies put into research without paying their fair share?
Also I'm wondering if price controls in foreign nations were abolished or changed, would drug companies adjust their prices accordingly? Wondering what the other side's response to this commentary would be.
Fact and Comment
Steve Forbes, 11.24.03
The Freeloaders
Europe, Japan, Canada and much of the rest of the world are mooching off the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. They refuse to pay fair prices for the medicines that were developed through our drug companies' research and development. These nations have imposed price controls on medicines; medical manufacturers thus can't recover fair compensation for their R&D costs. Result: Americans are medically subsidizing the rest of the world. It's one thing to help struggling countries, quite another to help rich, developed, high-standard-of-living states such as Germany, France and Japan. Make no mistake: These countries are engaged in a costly form of piracy. As Food & Drug Administration head Mark McClellan recently pointed out, "The economic consequences of overly strict price controls on drugs are no different than violating the patent directly through compulsory licensing to make copies of the drug."
The costs of bringing a new drug to market run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Globally, U.S companies now pay the lion's share of pharmaceutical R&D spending. When will foreign governments start to pay an appropriate share of the cost of developing these medical breakthroughs? Dr. McClellan recently asked that question in a major speech. While he offered no detailed answer, other than to suggest finding ways of pricing drugs overseas based on a nation's income, his question should be taken to heart by the Administration's trade policymakers.
McClellan's query isn't an academic one. Pressures are growing here at home to squeeze the pricing power of pharmaceutical companies. Treks by the elderly to Canada, on the hunt for bargain prescriptions, are a media staple. (Of course, stories about the flood of Canadians coming to the U.S. for advanced medications and treatments unavailable in medically socialized, short-on-care Canada are practically nonexistent.) Few people realize that Americans are unwitting ATMs for foreign drug consumers. The net result will be fewer disease-curing or -preventing, pain-reducing, quality-of-life-enhancing medical breakthroughs.
Foreign nations naturally show no sign of voluntarily coughing up more money; the short-term political benefits of underpricing medicines are irresistible. Brazil, for example, recently demanded that U.S. drug companies sell it medicines at prices charged the poorest of poor nations around the globe. While Brazil is still a developing country, its economy is nonetheless the world's ninth largest. Why should it get the same bargain as disease-ridden, poverty-stricken Haiti, which has a per capita income barely one-sixth of Brazil's?
Should pharmaceutical companies refuse to sell to rich countries? Not before the American public--and foreign ones--are fully aware of how those nations are sponging off of us. We'd also better be prepared to fight hard if some of those nations rip off our companies' patents.
McClellan demolishes the charge that there are other factors at work catapulting the prices of medications in America. Consumer advertising? "On net such advertising benefits the public health. It gets more people into treatment for conditions that are undertreated in the population. [It] account[s] for less than 2% of U.S. pharmaceutical spending." Too much spending on "me-too" drugs? "Over the 1990s, only about 20% of pharmaceutical R&D spending was devoted to improving or modifying existing products," and many of these were perfectly justified medically.
So let's see if the pols and the media glom onto the real villains of our high-cost medicines--freeloading foreigners.
GAMING INDUSTRY KICKING ASS... VIDEO GAMES NOT GAMBLING
Game Industry Leads Race for Digital 'Uberdevice'
One of the most heavily touted concepts of the Internet boom was "convergence"--the notion that practically all consumer technologies, from television to instant messaging, would be housed in a single box.
Special report by News.com above. Interesting how quickly technological trends have changed over the past few years. My first startup in 1998 was a video-on-demand company and during those times most people thought convergence would come through the cable set-top box... video-on-demand, e-commerce, email, etc.
Others thought it would be the PC, but various surveys have proven Americans like lazy interactivity and I really can't see people pulling up their lay-z-boys to their PCs to watch movies or TV. I believe Korea was the only major global economy where a vast majority (70% or more) of its people preferred their PCs to TVs. If you watched Korean TV or cable, you probably would play with your PC more too. The content on the tube really sucks here.
Anyway, the darkhorse candidate for convergence, the gaming console, now appears to be the possible frontrunner with Sony and Microsoft leading the charge. It is also how amazing the video game industry has grown. Last year it surpassed the movie industry in terms of overall revenues, and continued growth on the only thing on the horizon for the gaming industry.
Korea has a unique subsector of the global gaming industry. This nation is the leader in online gaming worldwide. In terms of user numbers and financial performance, Korean gaming companies kick ass. The typical profile of the top companies are US$60 million in annual revenue with net profit margins of 40%. 40%!!
Since broadband is so widespread in Korea, it has allowed new industries such as online gaming to develop and flourish. 95% of Internet users have broadband access and over 60% of broadband users play games. Cheap access is probably more important with inexpensive monthly ISP costs or 80 cent per hour rental fees at one of the 20,000+ PC rooms, and has allowed for rapid growth and extremely inexpensive marketing and distribution for many gaming companies in Korea. Additionally, the micro-payment infrastructure allows people to pay 50 cents to a few dollars to play casual inexpensive games (e.g. poker, tetris, pool) or hardcore games (e.g. fantasy role-playing games). All these factors combine to give Korea the edge and leadership in the global online gaming industry.
I believe once broadband becomes more prevalent in other countries you will see similar developments occur in Internet services and online games as it has occurred in Korea. Specifically in the U.S., I believe once the infrastructure is laid down online gaming will rapidly grow since gaming is such a large part of American culture.
|
Game Industry Leads Race for Digital 'Uberdevice'
One of the most heavily touted concepts of the Internet boom was "convergence"--the notion that practically all consumer technologies, from television to instant messaging, would be housed in a single box.
Special report by News.com above. Interesting how quickly technological trends have changed over the past few years. My first startup in 1998 was a video-on-demand company and during those times most people thought convergence would come through the cable set-top box... video-on-demand, e-commerce, email, etc.
Others thought it would be the PC, but various surveys have proven Americans like lazy interactivity and I really can't see people pulling up their lay-z-boys to their PCs to watch movies or TV. I believe Korea was the only major global economy where a vast majority (70% or more) of its people preferred their PCs to TVs. If you watched Korean TV or cable, you probably would play with your PC more too. The content on the tube really sucks here.
Anyway, the darkhorse candidate for convergence, the gaming console, now appears to be the possible frontrunner with Sony and Microsoft leading the charge. It is also how amazing the video game industry has grown. Last year it surpassed the movie industry in terms of overall revenues, and continued growth on the only thing on the horizon for the gaming industry.
Korea has a unique subsector of the global gaming industry. This nation is the leader in online gaming worldwide. In terms of user numbers and financial performance, Korean gaming companies kick ass. The typical profile of the top companies are US$60 million in annual revenue with net profit margins of 40%. 40%!!
Since broadband is so widespread in Korea, it has allowed new industries such as online gaming to develop and flourish. 95% of Internet users have broadband access and over 60% of broadband users play games. Cheap access is probably more important with inexpensive monthly ISP costs or 80 cent per hour rental fees at one of the 20,000+ PC rooms, and has allowed for rapid growth and extremely inexpensive marketing and distribution for many gaming companies in Korea. Additionally, the micro-payment infrastructure allows people to pay 50 cents to a few dollars to play casual inexpensive games (e.g. poker, tetris, pool) or hardcore games (e.g. fantasy role-playing games). All these factors combine to give Korea the edge and leadership in the global online gaming industry.
I believe once broadband becomes more prevalent in other countries you will see similar developments occur in Internet services and online games as it has occurred in Korea. Specifically in the U.S., I believe once the infrastructure is laid down online gaming will rapidly grow since gaming is such a large part of American culture.
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
TOP TEN LISTS
TopTen lists are entertaining and informative. I've been a fan of David Letterman's Top Ten Lists for a while, and I love ESPN's Page2 lists, such as "All-time clutch performers" and their interactive readers' lists. MSN just put out some topten lists, but I only found a few interesting or from respectable sources:
Screen classics: A critic's take on the top 10 American movies
By JOHN HARTL
Special to MSN
American movies now dominate the international market in a way they haven't since the days of silent films, which (aside from title cards) didn't have to go through the bother of translation to another language.
But our movies have always been influential, demonstrating to Russian filmmakers the possibilities of creative editing and even affecting the way French critics and directors looked at the world. More recently, action films and blockbusters have been more commercially successful overseas than in this country. We're everywhere, to the distress of some countries that sense there's no way to compete.
No matter how foreigners may fear this cultural dominance, everyone seems to have a favorite moment or song or performance from an American movie. Perhaps it's Donald O'Connor knocking himself out in "Singin' in the Rain," or Chaplin eating his shoe in "The Gold Rush," or Angela Lansbury embodying Machiavellian fanaticism in "The Manchurian Candidate."
Some movies even worship other movies. In "Play It Again Sam," Woody Allen obsesses over Bergman and Bogart in "Casablanca." On the bumpy road to the White House in "Primary Colors," only Alan Ladd's "Shane" provides a glimpse of a true hero. In the new British comedy-drama, "Love Actually," a widower and his son drown their sorrows by watching Kate and Leo in "Titanic."
Here's a roundup of 10 classics that seem (to me) essential:
"Intolerance" (1916). D.W. Griffith's costly and insanely ambitious epic, often called the only "film fugue," wasn't as popular as his first blockbluster, "The Birth of a Nation," but it's had a more lasting impact. The director uses four stories from different periods of history to illustrate religious or social intolerance through the ages. The ancient-Babylon section is the most famous and spectacular episode, but the 20th Century American story is the most moving. In the never-topped finale, all four stories are brilliantly edited into what appears to become one sweeping chase sequence.
"Sunrise" (1927). When he came to Hollywood near the end of the silent era, the groundbreaking German director F.W. Murnau ("Nosferatu") was given the run of 20th Century Fox. He responded by creating a visual tour-de-force (and the first Oscar winner for best cinematography) from a simple story of adultery, attempted murder and redemption. The elaborately staged scenes in which a rural couple are overwhelmed by their visit to the big city are among the most lyrical in all cinema.
"The Wizard of Oz" (1939). Thanks to dozens of network television showings, more people have seen this MGM musical than any other film in history, and for good reason. Everything clicks here: the songs, the casting, the sepia-toned tornado scenes in Kansas, the dazzling switch to the Technicolored land of Oz, and of course the story of a charlatan exposed by four humbler people in search of things they've always had.
"Gone With the Wind" (1939). The Civil War sometimes seems less important than the romantic troubles of Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler — so perfectly embodied by Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable — but what a fascinating backdrop it provides for nearly four hours. While many talented people worked on the picture, including three directors, "G.W.T.W." is perhaps Hollywood's best argument for a producer's control. David O. Selznick's touch is visible in every richly detailed frame.
"Citizen Kane" (1941). Orson Welles' barely disguised treatment of the life of newspaperman William Randolph Hearst is a tragedy about a man who almost literally gains the whole world and loses his soul. Welles tells the story with such wit and bravado that the movie's serious intentions don't really announce themselves until it's half over. This is, almost despite its ambitions, a very funny movie, filled with withering, still-potent commentary on the state of American journalism. (Welles' followup film, "The Magnificent Ambersons," is nearly its equal.)
"It's a Wonderful Life" (1946). Frank Capra's post-war masterpiece, starring James Stewart as a harried family man who tries to commit suicide on Christmas Eve, introduced a dark side of Stewart's personality that Hitchcock would later explore in "Vertigo" and "Rear Window." Despite its happy ending, it's the edgiest tale Capra ever told. Most of the film's final third is a nightmarish episode in which Stewart's home town is transformed into the greed-driven Pottersville. It stands as a film-noir-ish warning of the potential corruption of the country.
"Lawrence of Arabia" (1962). David Lean's deeply personal epic, which deals in part with the birth of Iraq, has never seemed so timely, though it's always been timeless. Focusing on a foreigner's love affair with the desert, Lean presents this infatuation in a way that allows the audience to share it. In one lengthy sequence, Freddie Young's camera deliberately dwells on the image of a mirage, recording the heat waves and distortions that separate a camel from its rider. The result is a sense of mystery that no special effects can touch.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968). Perhaps the most experimental multi-million-dollar production ever released by a major studio (MGM), Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's science-fiction epic imagines the evolution of mankind from desperate ape to corporate-speak space traveler to ecstatic Star Child. Like "Lawrence of Arabia," it takes its time to establish the nature of the environment which defines its characters — who are (almost) no match for a diabolical computer with murder on its mind.
"The Godfather, Parts I and II" (1972-74). For too many years now, Francis Ford Coppola seems to have been content to create mere entertainments. Not since the 1970s, when he made "Apocalypse Now," "The Conversation" and the first two "Godfather" movies, has he directed anything exceptional. But "The Godfather" raised the bar as high as "Citizen Kane" did three decades before. Movies have not been the same since Coppola found, in the family bonds and betrayals of the Mafia, his great metaphor for 20th Century America.
"The Thin Red Line" (1998). Terrence Malick's expansive adaptation of the James Jones novel is a surprisingly spiritual war drama. The Eden-like quality of a Pacific island (so reminiscent of the "magic hour" beauty of the images in Malick's "Days of Heaven") becomes as much of a presence as the two armies that battle over it. This contemplative stream-of-consciousness epic plays like the "Red Badge of Courage" of World War II. It presents war as a circumstance to be transcended, even in death.
John Hartl writes film reviews for MSNBC.com and was formerly the chief film critic for The Seattle Times. American Dreams is a special report from MSN.
The 10 greatest adventure vacations in America
By RICHARD BANGS
Special to MSN
Once a province of the improbable, practiced by mythopoetic men, the likes of Edmund Hillary, Jacques Cousteau and Thor Heyerdahl, "adventure travel" was something seen in the pages of National Geographic, not available to the average Jane or Joe. The only adventure travel on Main Street was when a well-planned vacation went wrong.
Now, with the prospering of a generation steeped in environmentalism, self-health and individualism, adventure travel has become the vogue. By one survey, fully half of all U.S. adults took an adventure getaway within the last five years.
I've spent a career exploring and adventuring, and am always delighted to rediscover how varied and rich the adventure opportunities are in my own backyard. You don't have to cross a border to find some of the best adventures in the world.
The adventures cited below were chosen because they have personally delighted. It is unfair — to say nothing of impertinent — to list only a small percentage of the great adventures in America. But that is the nature of a list. I have attempted, though, to use criteria, including location, duration, activity, and a quality I might as well call wonder.
So, herein a list of the 10 best adventure vacations in America, as scientifically calculated with subatomic precision by yours truly:
Llama Trekking the Hoover Wilderness Area
California's High Sierra is a toothed landscape of lodgepole pine and red fir, arid desert, U-shaped glacial valleys, a place of solitude and spectacle. The Hoover Wilderness is 42,800 acres of primitive country in the east-central part of the state, touching Yosemite National Park at the Sierra Crest. This adventure features a five-day trek among the sage brush and thistle, the escarpments and the late summer snow fields, as South American llamas carry the cargo. Expect to see mule deer, and perhaps bobcats, coyote, bear and maybe even a mountain lion. The streams choke with trout, while the high peak region — including Matterhorn and Dunderber (each over 11,000 feet) — host schools of technical and amateur climbers. A llama can carry 70-90 pounds and doesn't have to carry extra food for itself. Llamas are browsers, like deer, and will eat grass found in the mountains. Llamas are very quiet, very friendly to the environment and do not destroy trails. August is the best month.
Adventure Sailing Florida's Gulf Coast
Sail aboard 26-foot Commodores through the small islands off Fort Myers for seven days and nights in flotillas of up to six boats at a time. The crafts are designed for four adults, and qualified sailors can captain their own craft for the duration. Lots of time to free sail, and explore the tropical barrier islands inhabited only by gulls, pelicans, and man-of-war birds. Dolphins lace the bow, red snappers snap at the lines, living shellfish color the limpid waters, and Gulf breezes fill the foresails. Fort Myers is on the Southwestern coast of Florida near Sanibel and Captiva Islands, 120 miles south of Tampa and 110 miles north of Key West and the Dry Tortugas. Available year-round.
Kayaking the San Juan Islands
Scattered like precious jades within the sheltered waters of Washington's coastal zone, the San Juan's are treasures not so hidden, yet not overly touched. In waters flat as a Bible belt, the boats glide like a prayer. Bald eagles swoop to scan the emerald waters; orcas dance and dine in the salmon-laced tides; scaups and scoters drive for fry near the forested isles. Sea kayakers meet them all, eye to eye and beam to beak. No previous experience needed. June-September.
Canoeing the Boundary Waters
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, largest in North America, has over 1,500 icy, clear water lakes accessible by paddle only in an area of well over a million acres, unchanged since when the Sioux, Chippewa and French-Canadian voyagers navigated through hundreds of years ago. Every fall from about 1750 until the mid-1800s, the Voyageurs carried trade goods through the Boundary Waters as far as the Great Slave Lake in Canada's Northwest Territories. They spent the winter in the interior trading with the Native Americans. When the ice went out of the lakes and rivers, they returned with beaver and other pelts. In fact, the Voyageurs' route through the Boundary Waters defines the Canadian-U.S. border. Trips begin at Gunflint, Minnesota, and head out for six days of paddling and portaging. Canoeists typically encounter moose, beavers, black bear, eagles, loons, otters, and timber wolves, the last large packs in the lower 48 states. Fishing lines bring in walleye, northern and lake trout, as well as smallmouth bass. May through September.
Mountain Biking the Grand Staircase
Between the pink cliffs of Bryce Canyon and the sheer walls of the Grand Canyon's north rim, an expansive geological staircase climbs skyward in rainbow pastels. Through the vast wilderness of remote forested mesas and flamboyantly stained buttes flows the Paria River, whose waters, cutting unceasingly through layers of sedimentary rock, have formed some of the finest slot canyons in the world. On this adventure fat tires float through the sinuous yet spacious backcountry of the upper Paria, which flows out of Bryce Canyon. After descending Echo Cliffs and rumbling along dirt roads to the rim of the Grand Canyon, the bikes climb from sagebrush valleys to groves of pinon to tall ponderosa pine forests following jeep trails into the Kaibab Mountains, where vestiges of the Anasazi culture are ever-present. April through July.
Climbing Denali
An ascent up the west buttress of Denali, North America's highest point, is no slick adventure tour, as there is no easy way up. An outfitted climb takes about three weeks on the mountain, living and climbing in true expedition style. Base camp is set at 7,000 feet on the tongue of Kahiltna Glacier, and from there relay loads are made over the course of a week to the 14,000-foot level, and finally to high camp at 17,200 feet. Then the team waits-for the crystal clear morning when the wind is still and the horizon line sharp and the snowy route to the summit firm. The final push to the 20,320-foot apex makes the most of mountaineering skills honed while on the climb. Although previous climbing experience is helpful, it is not essential. Far more useful is the physical and mental health necessary to cope with the long days of glacier travel, the snow and ice climbing, and the possibility of poor weather delaying, or perhaps canceling, the summit attempt. April-June.
Riding the Tetons
Sally along the edge of the Continent Divide through the lush meadows and pine forests of the Snake River canyons, passing herds of elk and bighorn sheep. Pause to fish for cutthroat trout in the clear blue waters of Jackson Lake, glancing about for beaver, otter, osprey and moose, and perhaps even the recently reintroduced gray wolf, all enjoying protection of the National Park. Then meander along the Buffalo River, through aspen forests to open meadows, where brilliant wildflowers and awesome views abound. Traveling this way you'll regret the invention of the car. July and August.
Hiking Hidden Hawaii
Step through the natural wonders of Kauai, an island so diverse in color, mood and miracle that one wonders what keeps the feet on the ground. Traverse the mottled and multi-hued cliffs of Waimea Canyon, the "Grand Canyon of the Pacific," and negotiate through the bamboo forests and rainbow-draped scenery of the Na Pali Coast. The pali, or cliffs, provide a rugged grandeur of deep, narrow valleys ending abruptly at the sea. Waterfalls and swift-flowing streams continue to cut these narrow valleys while the sea carves cliffs at their mouths. Extensive stone walled terraces can still be found on the valley bottoms where Hawaiians once lived and cultivated taro. The Kalalau Trail provides the only land access to this part of the rugged coast. The trail traverses five valleys before ending at Kalalau Beach where it is blocked by sheer, fluted pali. The 11-mile trail is graded but almost never level as it crosses above towering sea cliffs and through lush valleys. The trail drops to sea level at the beaches of Hanakapi'ai and Kalalau. Year-round.
Dogsledding the Gates of the Arctic
One of the largest and most remote wilderness areas in North America is the 8.4 million-acre Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. Alaska's Brooks Range runs through the park, with two peaks, Frigid Crags and Boreal Mountains, forming the "Gates" from the central Brooks Range into the high Arctic. This adventure begins with a ski-plane flight from Bettles, Alaska, to a wilderness outpost at Eroded Mountain. Over the next nine days, you travel north through the dramatic Koyukuk River Valley. Dog teams carry all communal gear and heavy personal items while tour members take turns skiing and mushing. Camps are made in heated-wall tents along the trail. Moose, caribou, dall sheep, bears, wolves, and foxes inhabit the park. The longest day's run goes approximately 15 miles, and daytime temperatures average 20 degrees. April.
Rafting the Grand Canyon
The Colorado River through the Grand Canyon is the best single adventure trip in America, and a marvelous paradox: a wet and wooly whitewater ride in one of the most peaceful places on earth. After caroming down some of the biggest rapids on earth, such as Lava and Crystal, bask in the spectral beauty of Elves Chasm, lounge in the turquoise waters of Havasu, and wonder at the mysteries of the Anasazi ruins. The Colorado cuts a course 2 billion years and a mile deep into the Earth's crust, exposing the rainbow colors of Marble Canyon, the dark foreboding rock on the inner gorge, and side canyons of exceptional beauty. May through October.
Richard Bangs is founding partner of the adventure company Mountain Travel/Sobek, is author of 14 adventure travel books, and is currently editor of www.greatescapes.msnbc.com. American Dreams is a special report from MSN.
|
TopTen lists are entertaining and informative. I've been a fan of David Letterman's Top Ten Lists for a while, and I love ESPN's Page2 lists, such as "All-time clutch performers" and their interactive readers' lists. MSN just put out some topten lists, but I only found a few interesting or from respectable sources:
Screen classics: A critic's take on the top 10 American movies
By JOHN HARTL
Special to MSN
American movies now dominate the international market in a way they haven't since the days of silent films, which (aside from title cards) didn't have to go through the bother of translation to another language.
But our movies have always been influential, demonstrating to Russian filmmakers the possibilities of creative editing and even affecting the way French critics and directors looked at the world. More recently, action films and blockbusters have been more commercially successful overseas than in this country. We're everywhere, to the distress of some countries that sense there's no way to compete.
No matter how foreigners may fear this cultural dominance, everyone seems to have a favorite moment or song or performance from an American movie. Perhaps it's Donald O'Connor knocking himself out in "Singin' in the Rain," or Chaplin eating his shoe in "The Gold Rush," or Angela Lansbury embodying Machiavellian fanaticism in "The Manchurian Candidate."
Some movies even worship other movies. In "Play It Again Sam," Woody Allen obsesses over Bergman and Bogart in "Casablanca." On the bumpy road to the White House in "Primary Colors," only Alan Ladd's "Shane" provides a glimpse of a true hero. In the new British comedy-drama, "Love Actually," a widower and his son drown their sorrows by watching Kate and Leo in "Titanic."
Here's a roundup of 10 classics that seem (to me) essential:
"Intolerance" (1916). D.W. Griffith's costly and insanely ambitious epic, often called the only "film fugue," wasn't as popular as his first blockbluster, "The Birth of a Nation," but it's had a more lasting impact. The director uses four stories from different periods of history to illustrate religious or social intolerance through the ages. The ancient-Babylon section is the most famous and spectacular episode, but the 20th Century American story is the most moving. In the never-topped finale, all four stories are brilliantly edited into what appears to become one sweeping chase sequence.
"Sunrise" (1927). When he came to Hollywood near the end of the silent era, the groundbreaking German director F.W. Murnau ("Nosferatu") was given the run of 20th Century Fox. He responded by creating a visual tour-de-force (and the first Oscar winner for best cinematography) from a simple story of adultery, attempted murder and redemption. The elaborately staged scenes in which a rural couple are overwhelmed by their visit to the big city are among the most lyrical in all cinema.
"The Wizard of Oz" (1939). Thanks to dozens of network television showings, more people have seen this MGM musical than any other film in history, and for good reason. Everything clicks here: the songs, the casting, the sepia-toned tornado scenes in Kansas, the dazzling switch to the Technicolored land of Oz, and of course the story of a charlatan exposed by four humbler people in search of things they've always had.
"Gone With the Wind" (1939). The Civil War sometimes seems less important than the romantic troubles of Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler — so perfectly embodied by Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable — but what a fascinating backdrop it provides for nearly four hours. While many talented people worked on the picture, including three directors, "G.W.T.W." is perhaps Hollywood's best argument for a producer's control. David O. Selznick's touch is visible in every richly detailed frame.
"Citizen Kane" (1941). Orson Welles' barely disguised treatment of the life of newspaperman William Randolph Hearst is a tragedy about a man who almost literally gains the whole world and loses his soul. Welles tells the story with such wit and bravado that the movie's serious intentions don't really announce themselves until it's half over. This is, almost despite its ambitions, a very funny movie, filled with withering, still-potent commentary on the state of American journalism. (Welles' followup film, "The Magnificent Ambersons," is nearly its equal.)
"It's a Wonderful Life" (1946). Frank Capra's post-war masterpiece, starring James Stewart as a harried family man who tries to commit suicide on Christmas Eve, introduced a dark side of Stewart's personality that Hitchcock would later explore in "Vertigo" and "Rear Window." Despite its happy ending, it's the edgiest tale Capra ever told. Most of the film's final third is a nightmarish episode in which Stewart's home town is transformed into the greed-driven Pottersville. It stands as a film-noir-ish warning of the potential corruption of the country.
"Lawrence of Arabia" (1962). David Lean's deeply personal epic, which deals in part with the birth of Iraq, has never seemed so timely, though it's always been timeless. Focusing on a foreigner's love affair with the desert, Lean presents this infatuation in a way that allows the audience to share it. In one lengthy sequence, Freddie Young's camera deliberately dwells on the image of a mirage, recording the heat waves and distortions that separate a camel from its rider. The result is a sense of mystery that no special effects can touch.
"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968). Perhaps the most experimental multi-million-dollar production ever released by a major studio (MGM), Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's science-fiction epic imagines the evolution of mankind from desperate ape to corporate-speak space traveler to ecstatic Star Child. Like "Lawrence of Arabia," it takes its time to establish the nature of the environment which defines its characters — who are (almost) no match for a diabolical computer with murder on its mind.
"The Godfather, Parts I and II" (1972-74). For too many years now, Francis Ford Coppola seems to have been content to create mere entertainments. Not since the 1970s, when he made "Apocalypse Now," "The Conversation" and the first two "Godfather" movies, has he directed anything exceptional. But "The Godfather" raised the bar as high as "Citizen Kane" did three decades before. Movies have not been the same since Coppola found, in the family bonds and betrayals of the Mafia, his great metaphor for 20th Century America.
"The Thin Red Line" (1998). Terrence Malick's expansive adaptation of the James Jones novel is a surprisingly spiritual war drama. The Eden-like quality of a Pacific island (so reminiscent of the "magic hour" beauty of the images in Malick's "Days of Heaven") becomes as much of a presence as the two armies that battle over it. This contemplative stream-of-consciousness epic plays like the "Red Badge of Courage" of World War II. It presents war as a circumstance to be transcended, even in death.
John Hartl writes film reviews for MSNBC.com and was formerly the chief film critic for The Seattle Times. American Dreams is a special report from MSN.
The 10 greatest adventure vacations in America
By RICHARD BANGS
Special to MSN
Once a province of the improbable, practiced by mythopoetic men, the likes of Edmund Hillary, Jacques Cousteau and Thor Heyerdahl, "adventure travel" was something seen in the pages of National Geographic, not available to the average Jane or Joe. The only adventure travel on Main Street was when a well-planned vacation went wrong.
Now, with the prospering of a generation steeped in environmentalism, self-health and individualism, adventure travel has become the vogue. By one survey, fully half of all U.S. adults took an adventure getaway within the last five years.
I've spent a career exploring and adventuring, and am always delighted to rediscover how varied and rich the adventure opportunities are in my own backyard. You don't have to cross a border to find some of the best adventures in the world.
The adventures cited below were chosen because they have personally delighted. It is unfair — to say nothing of impertinent — to list only a small percentage of the great adventures in America. But that is the nature of a list. I have attempted, though, to use criteria, including location, duration, activity, and a quality I might as well call wonder.
So, herein a list of the 10 best adventure vacations in America, as scientifically calculated with subatomic precision by yours truly:
Llama Trekking the Hoover Wilderness Area
California's High Sierra is a toothed landscape of lodgepole pine and red fir, arid desert, U-shaped glacial valleys, a place of solitude and spectacle. The Hoover Wilderness is 42,800 acres of primitive country in the east-central part of the state, touching Yosemite National Park at the Sierra Crest. This adventure features a five-day trek among the sage brush and thistle, the escarpments and the late summer snow fields, as South American llamas carry the cargo. Expect to see mule deer, and perhaps bobcats, coyote, bear and maybe even a mountain lion. The streams choke with trout, while the high peak region — including Matterhorn and Dunderber (each over 11,000 feet) — host schools of technical and amateur climbers. A llama can carry 70-90 pounds and doesn't have to carry extra food for itself. Llamas are browsers, like deer, and will eat grass found in the mountains. Llamas are very quiet, very friendly to the environment and do not destroy trails. August is the best month.
Adventure Sailing Florida's Gulf Coast
Sail aboard 26-foot Commodores through the small islands off Fort Myers for seven days and nights in flotillas of up to six boats at a time. The crafts are designed for four adults, and qualified sailors can captain their own craft for the duration. Lots of time to free sail, and explore the tropical barrier islands inhabited only by gulls, pelicans, and man-of-war birds. Dolphins lace the bow, red snappers snap at the lines, living shellfish color the limpid waters, and Gulf breezes fill the foresails. Fort Myers is on the Southwestern coast of Florida near Sanibel and Captiva Islands, 120 miles south of Tampa and 110 miles north of Key West and the Dry Tortugas. Available year-round.
Kayaking the San Juan Islands
Scattered like precious jades within the sheltered waters of Washington's coastal zone, the San Juan's are treasures not so hidden, yet not overly touched. In waters flat as a Bible belt, the boats glide like a prayer. Bald eagles swoop to scan the emerald waters; orcas dance and dine in the salmon-laced tides; scaups and scoters drive for fry near the forested isles. Sea kayakers meet them all, eye to eye and beam to beak. No previous experience needed. June-September.
Canoeing the Boundary Waters
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, largest in North America, has over 1,500 icy, clear water lakes accessible by paddle only in an area of well over a million acres, unchanged since when the Sioux, Chippewa and French-Canadian voyagers navigated through hundreds of years ago. Every fall from about 1750 until the mid-1800s, the Voyageurs carried trade goods through the Boundary Waters as far as the Great Slave Lake in Canada's Northwest Territories. They spent the winter in the interior trading with the Native Americans. When the ice went out of the lakes and rivers, they returned with beaver and other pelts. In fact, the Voyageurs' route through the Boundary Waters defines the Canadian-U.S. border. Trips begin at Gunflint, Minnesota, and head out for six days of paddling and portaging. Canoeists typically encounter moose, beavers, black bear, eagles, loons, otters, and timber wolves, the last large packs in the lower 48 states. Fishing lines bring in walleye, northern and lake trout, as well as smallmouth bass. May through September.
Mountain Biking the Grand Staircase
Between the pink cliffs of Bryce Canyon and the sheer walls of the Grand Canyon's north rim, an expansive geological staircase climbs skyward in rainbow pastels. Through the vast wilderness of remote forested mesas and flamboyantly stained buttes flows the Paria River, whose waters, cutting unceasingly through layers of sedimentary rock, have formed some of the finest slot canyons in the world. On this adventure fat tires float through the sinuous yet spacious backcountry of the upper Paria, which flows out of Bryce Canyon. After descending Echo Cliffs and rumbling along dirt roads to the rim of the Grand Canyon, the bikes climb from sagebrush valleys to groves of pinon to tall ponderosa pine forests following jeep trails into the Kaibab Mountains, where vestiges of the Anasazi culture are ever-present. April through July.
Climbing Denali
An ascent up the west buttress of Denali, North America's highest point, is no slick adventure tour, as there is no easy way up. An outfitted climb takes about three weeks on the mountain, living and climbing in true expedition style. Base camp is set at 7,000 feet on the tongue of Kahiltna Glacier, and from there relay loads are made over the course of a week to the 14,000-foot level, and finally to high camp at 17,200 feet. Then the team waits-for the crystal clear morning when the wind is still and the horizon line sharp and the snowy route to the summit firm. The final push to the 20,320-foot apex makes the most of mountaineering skills honed while on the climb. Although previous climbing experience is helpful, it is not essential. Far more useful is the physical and mental health necessary to cope with the long days of glacier travel, the snow and ice climbing, and the possibility of poor weather delaying, or perhaps canceling, the summit attempt. April-June.
Riding the Tetons
Sally along the edge of the Continent Divide through the lush meadows and pine forests of the Snake River canyons, passing herds of elk and bighorn sheep. Pause to fish for cutthroat trout in the clear blue waters of Jackson Lake, glancing about for beaver, otter, osprey and moose, and perhaps even the recently reintroduced gray wolf, all enjoying protection of the National Park. Then meander along the Buffalo River, through aspen forests to open meadows, where brilliant wildflowers and awesome views abound. Traveling this way you'll regret the invention of the car. July and August.
Hiking Hidden Hawaii
Step through the natural wonders of Kauai, an island so diverse in color, mood and miracle that one wonders what keeps the feet on the ground. Traverse the mottled and multi-hued cliffs of Waimea Canyon, the "Grand Canyon of the Pacific," and negotiate through the bamboo forests and rainbow-draped scenery of the Na Pali Coast. The pali, or cliffs, provide a rugged grandeur of deep, narrow valleys ending abruptly at the sea. Waterfalls and swift-flowing streams continue to cut these narrow valleys while the sea carves cliffs at their mouths. Extensive stone walled terraces can still be found on the valley bottoms where Hawaiians once lived and cultivated taro. The Kalalau Trail provides the only land access to this part of the rugged coast. The trail traverses five valleys before ending at Kalalau Beach where it is blocked by sheer, fluted pali. The 11-mile trail is graded but almost never level as it crosses above towering sea cliffs and through lush valleys. The trail drops to sea level at the beaches of Hanakapi'ai and Kalalau. Year-round.
Dogsledding the Gates of the Arctic
One of the largest and most remote wilderness areas in North America is the 8.4 million-acre Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. Alaska's Brooks Range runs through the park, with two peaks, Frigid Crags and Boreal Mountains, forming the "Gates" from the central Brooks Range into the high Arctic. This adventure begins with a ski-plane flight from Bettles, Alaska, to a wilderness outpost at Eroded Mountain. Over the next nine days, you travel north through the dramatic Koyukuk River Valley. Dog teams carry all communal gear and heavy personal items while tour members take turns skiing and mushing. Camps are made in heated-wall tents along the trail. Moose, caribou, dall sheep, bears, wolves, and foxes inhabit the park. The longest day's run goes approximately 15 miles, and daytime temperatures average 20 degrees. April.
Rafting the Grand Canyon
The Colorado River through the Grand Canyon is the best single adventure trip in America, and a marvelous paradox: a wet and wooly whitewater ride in one of the most peaceful places on earth. After caroming down some of the biggest rapids on earth, such as Lava and Crystal, bask in the spectral beauty of Elves Chasm, lounge in the turquoise waters of Havasu, and wonder at the mysteries of the Anasazi ruins. The Colorado cuts a course 2 billion years and a mile deep into the Earth's crust, exposing the rainbow colors of Marble Canyon, the dark foreboding rock on the inner gorge, and side canyons of exceptional beauty. May through October.
Richard Bangs is founding partner of the adventure company Mountain Travel/Sobek, is author of 14 adventure travel books, and is currently editor of www.greatescapes.msnbc.com. American Dreams is a special report from MSN.
Monday, December 08, 2003
POLITICS 101... WHAT WAS HE THINKING?
States scrutinize e-voting as primaries near
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was established in response to the controversies surrounding the 2000 presidential election and the disgraceful reaction by Al Gore... come on you Democrats, you know what I'm talking about. It was like the scene in Swingers when Mikey keeps calling the girl and leaving a message. You're cringing, twisting and turning, feeling the pain...
"Al, just drop it. Don't go to court... It's going to make you look bad... Ewh... please, just stop..."
I wasn't thinking this as a Republican, but as an objective observer that if he pursues that course of action he looks bad and if he fails he will never get another chance in 2004. For the political newbies, a party would never support him after such actions whether the Democrats or Republicans. I guess Gore placed all his chips on the court's decision, which he lost. AND it looked worse when I saw him on NBC's "Meet the Press" earlier this year. He sounded like a little baby complaining that the "parties that be" would not let him run, but how he was interested in running. I don't remember the exact words, but this was the basic message... "I wanna run, but the men pushing the buttons in the Democratic party aren't letting me... so I'm going to gripe indirectly on national TV."
Like he's going to hold any real power positions in the future now. Along similar lines, the CEO of Diebold Election Systems had a huge lapse in judgment recently and discussed in the News.com article above:
"Diebold Election Systems of North Canton, Ohio. The company has become a lightning rod for criticism following partisan political statements by its chief executive and revelations of security flaws within its flagship product.
......
Diebold, which has deployed 33,000 touch-screen voting machines in the United States, first gained notoriety after its chief executive wrote in an August fund-raising letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to (President Bush) next year."
|
States scrutinize e-voting as primaries near
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was established in response to the controversies surrounding the 2000 presidential election and the disgraceful reaction by Al Gore... come on you Democrats, you know what I'm talking about. It was like the scene in Swingers when Mikey keeps calling the girl and leaving a message. You're cringing, twisting and turning, feeling the pain...
"Al, just drop it. Don't go to court... It's going to make you look bad... Ewh... please, just stop..."
I wasn't thinking this as a Republican, but as an objective observer that if he pursues that course of action he looks bad and if he fails he will never get another chance in 2004. For the political newbies, a party would never support him after such actions whether the Democrats or Republicans. I guess Gore placed all his chips on the court's decision, which he lost. AND it looked worse when I saw him on NBC's "Meet the Press" earlier this year. He sounded like a little baby complaining that the "parties that be" would not let him run, but how he was interested in running. I don't remember the exact words, but this was the basic message... "I wanna run, but the men pushing the buttons in the Democratic party aren't letting me... so I'm going to gripe indirectly on national TV."
Like he's going to hold any real power positions in the future now. Along similar lines, the CEO of Diebold Election Systems had a huge lapse in judgment recently and discussed in the News.com article above:
"Diebold Election Systems of North Canton, Ohio. The company has become a lightning rod for criticism following partisan political statements by its chief executive and revelations of security flaws within its flagship product.
......
Diebold, which has deployed 33,000 touch-screen voting machines in the United States, first gained notoriety after its chief executive wrote in an August fund-raising letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to (President Bush) next year."
SPEAKING OF GENOCIDE
Where Were You Kofi Annan?
It is not a surprise that the U.N. has not taken a stance against the hatred that fueled the genocide of the Jews, or the Holocaust, when they have all but ignored the genocide Saddam committed against his own people over the past decades. Niko Price, an Associated Press writer, reveals the possible extent of this madman's activities. What a sick sick man Saddam is. Why did he torture and kill all those people? Because they didn't win a few soccer games? Because they didn't bow down to his statue? Because they didn't accept his value system?
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
|
Where Were You Kofi Annan?
It is not a surprise that the U.N. has not taken a stance against the hatred that fueled the genocide of the Jews, or the Holocaust, when they have all but ignored the genocide Saddam committed against his own people over the past decades. Niko Price, an Associated Press writer, reveals the possible extent of this madman's activities. What a sick sick man Saddam is. Why did he torture and kill all those people? Because they didn't win a few soccer games? Because they didn't bow down to his statue? Because they didn't accept his value system?
The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
ANOTHER REASON WHY THE U.N. SUCKS
Dump Kofi Annan... New Blood Needed at the U.N.
My girlfriend hates it when I write these sensationalist titles or utilize simplistic words, like "sucks", to capture attention on my blog. Part of my excuse is that I get amusement out of using fourth grade language that I normally wouldn't be able to use in my professional world.
Anyway, an informative and disturbing article written by Ms. Bayefsky on the U.N.'s inaction towards anti-Semitism. Such hatred, fear, and ignorance against the Jews is wrong, and I believe much of it is fueled by ignorance and jealousy. I remember living in Springfield, IL, which is essential small-town America, and how I first collided with raw ignorance. Some of these people actually believe in some "seven gnomes of switzerland" theory, which described how seven Jewish bankers in Switzerland ruled the world. I love X-Files, but it's nothing more than a TV show for me.
If you're not going to read the whole article, just read the last couple paragraphs below.
"The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of the Holocaust."
The U.N.'s Dirty Little Secret
The international body refuses to condemn anti-Semitism
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY ANNE BAYEFSKY
Monday, December 8, 2003
Last week, the U.N. once again proved itself incapable of rising to the moral challenges embraced in its founding Charter: "tolerance," "the dignity and worth of the human person" and "equal rights." A draft resolution on anti-Semitism--which would have been a first in the U.N.'s 58-year history--was withdrawn in the face of Arab and Muslim opposition.
Daily incidents of anti-Semitic violence around the globe are reported in the media. Yet while leaders of the Free World condemn synagogue bombings in Turkey, firebombings of Jewish schools in France, and the hate speech of Malaysia's president who now heads the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the U.N. moves in the opposite direction, encouraging the proliferation of this centuries-old hatred.
In marked contrast, other forms of intolerance continue to consume the U.N.'s attention and resources. A special rapporteur mandated by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports regularly to the U.N. on "discrimination against Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world" including any "physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centers, businesses and properties." An entire 2003 Commission resolution "combating defamation of religions," mentions only prejudice against Muslims, Arabs and Islam.
Condemnation of anti-Semitism--which ought to be axiomatic--engenders controversy and intransigence at the U.N. At this year's General Assembly, Ireland assumed the role of gatekeeper, slamming the door in the face of a resolution to protect Jewish victims. Ireland has shepherded resolutions on religious intolerance through U.N. bodies for nearly 20 years without introducing anti-Semitism. In mid-November current events prompted demands in the Irish Parliament for an explanation of this omission from Foreign Minister Brian Cowen. The shabby excuse offered at that time was to sacrifice Jewish rights on the U.N.'s alter of "consensus and a wide level of co-sponsorship."
In plain language, to Ireland, Arab and Muslim opposition to condemning anti-Semitism meant . . . cut and run! Irish unwillingness or inability to stand up for principle at a time when it is assuming the Presidency of the European Union, does little to enhance the credibility of either the U.N. or the EU as honest brokers in the Middle East peace process.
The behind-the-scenes story of this Machiavellian plot involves an Irish breach of a deal struck between Foreign Minister Cowen and Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom only two weeks ago. Israel agreed to drop efforts to include "anti-Semitism" in the religious intolerance resolution in exchange for a promise from Ireland to introduce a new resolution specifically on anti-Semitism. But after the General Assembly's Third Committee adopted the resolution on religious intolerance minus any reference to anti-Semitism, Ireland refused to carry out its side of the bargain.
From the common era to the modern age, genocidal persecution of Jews has been justified by whichever label has served the perpetrator's interests: Religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality have all functioned, at one time or another as grounds for anti-Semitism. Ironically, the U.N. today can find none of these grounds sufficient to launch the vital campaign required to prevent the atrocities this hatred inspires. Instead, U.N. diplomats use the multiplicity of alleged Jewish crimes to place anti-Semitism between the stools. When the U.N. passed a major treaty on racial discrimination in 1965, they omitted "anti-Semitism" on the grounds that it "was out of place." Yet, a matching treaty on religious intolerance, promised by the General Assembly in 1962, was never acted upon.
Now, Mr. Cowen and company are claiming that anti-Semitism is, indeed, a matter of racial discrimination rendering it unsuitable for the resolution on religious intolerance. This self-serving reversal has been perversely justified in the name of the U.N.'s infamous 2001 Durban Racism Conference, which actually served as a platform for anti-Semitism.
The Durban Declaration excluded virtually all references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust when it came to the specifics of taking action, and in a devil's bargain between the European Union and Arab states permitted a minimal reference to anti-Semitism in exchange for including a condemnation of alleged Israeli racism. Last week the U.N. General Assembly permitted reference to anti-Semitism in a resolution on follow-up to the Durban Conference, knowing that the United States and Israel would be forced to vote against.
At the heart of the U.N.'s problem with anti-Semitism lies rejection of the very idea of Jewish victimhood. Instead of ensuring that victimhood brooks no discrimination, on Nov. 26 a resolution condemning terrorist attacks on Israeli children failed to make it through the General Assembly while one on Palestinian children was adopted with only four states opposed. Israel was forced to withdraw its resolution because Egyptian amendments deleting "Israeli" before every mention of the word "children" were guaranteed an automatic U.N. majority.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan--who has occasionally paid lip-service to the problem of anti-Semitism--ignored the requests of both NGOs and the state sponsors of the anti-Semitism resolution to weigh in on the importance of the issue with U.N. members, or to press the point with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, just as he has never convened a conference or written a report dedicated to anti-Semitism. The unwillingness of the U.N.'s principal organs and its secretary general to confront and take meaningful action against this scourge, including its Muslim and Arab sources, is not merely a sin of omission.
The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of the Holocaust. The inability of the organization to address seriously one of the very evils it was intended to prevent is a scandal of global proportions. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared, "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind." Fifty-five years later the outrage is gone, the silence of the U.N. when it comes to anti-Semitism is deafening, and the only ones benefiting are those planning future barbarous acts against Jews everywhere.
Ms. Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School and professor of political science at York University, Toronto, is a member of the governing board of UN Watch.
|
Dump Kofi Annan... New Blood Needed at the U.N.
My girlfriend hates it when I write these sensationalist titles or utilize simplistic words, like "sucks", to capture attention on my blog. Part of my excuse is that I get amusement out of using fourth grade language that I normally wouldn't be able to use in my professional world.
Anyway, an informative and disturbing article written by Ms. Bayefsky on the U.N.'s inaction towards anti-Semitism. Such hatred, fear, and ignorance against the Jews is wrong, and I believe much of it is fueled by ignorance and jealousy. I remember living in Springfield, IL, which is essential small-town America, and how I first collided with raw ignorance. Some of these people actually believe in some "seven gnomes of switzerland" theory, which described how seven Jewish bankers in Switzerland ruled the world. I love X-Files, but it's nothing more than a TV show for me.
If you're not going to read the whole article, just read the last couple paragraphs below.
"The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of the Holocaust."
The U.N.'s Dirty Little Secret
The international body refuses to condemn anti-Semitism
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY ANNE BAYEFSKY
Monday, December 8, 2003
Last week, the U.N. once again proved itself incapable of rising to the moral challenges embraced in its founding Charter: "tolerance," "the dignity and worth of the human person" and "equal rights." A draft resolution on anti-Semitism--which would have been a first in the U.N.'s 58-year history--was withdrawn in the face of Arab and Muslim opposition.
Daily incidents of anti-Semitic violence around the globe are reported in the media. Yet while leaders of the Free World condemn synagogue bombings in Turkey, firebombings of Jewish schools in France, and the hate speech of Malaysia's president who now heads the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the U.N. moves in the opposite direction, encouraging the proliferation of this centuries-old hatred.
In marked contrast, other forms of intolerance continue to consume the U.N.'s attention and resources. A special rapporteur mandated by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights reports regularly to the U.N. on "discrimination against Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world" including any "physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centers, businesses and properties." An entire 2003 Commission resolution "combating defamation of religions," mentions only prejudice against Muslims, Arabs and Islam.
Condemnation of anti-Semitism--which ought to be axiomatic--engenders controversy and intransigence at the U.N. At this year's General Assembly, Ireland assumed the role of gatekeeper, slamming the door in the face of a resolution to protect Jewish victims. Ireland has shepherded resolutions on religious intolerance through U.N. bodies for nearly 20 years without introducing anti-Semitism. In mid-November current events prompted demands in the Irish Parliament for an explanation of this omission from Foreign Minister Brian Cowen. The shabby excuse offered at that time was to sacrifice Jewish rights on the U.N.'s alter of "consensus and a wide level of co-sponsorship."
In plain language, to Ireland, Arab and Muslim opposition to condemning anti-Semitism meant . . . cut and run! Irish unwillingness or inability to stand up for principle at a time when it is assuming the Presidency of the European Union, does little to enhance the credibility of either the U.N. or the EU as honest brokers in the Middle East peace process.
The behind-the-scenes story of this Machiavellian plot involves an Irish breach of a deal struck between Foreign Minister Cowen and Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom only two weeks ago. Israel agreed to drop efforts to include "anti-Semitism" in the religious intolerance resolution in exchange for a promise from Ireland to introduce a new resolution specifically on anti-Semitism. But after the General Assembly's Third Committee adopted the resolution on religious intolerance minus any reference to anti-Semitism, Ireland refused to carry out its side of the bargain.
From the common era to the modern age, genocidal persecution of Jews has been justified by whichever label has served the perpetrator's interests: Religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality have all functioned, at one time or another as grounds for anti-Semitism. Ironically, the U.N. today can find none of these grounds sufficient to launch the vital campaign required to prevent the atrocities this hatred inspires. Instead, U.N. diplomats use the multiplicity of alleged Jewish crimes to place anti-Semitism between the stools. When the U.N. passed a major treaty on racial discrimination in 1965, they omitted "anti-Semitism" on the grounds that it "was out of place." Yet, a matching treaty on religious intolerance, promised by the General Assembly in 1962, was never acted upon.
Now, Mr. Cowen and company are claiming that anti-Semitism is, indeed, a matter of racial discrimination rendering it unsuitable for the resolution on religious intolerance. This self-serving reversal has been perversely justified in the name of the U.N.'s infamous 2001 Durban Racism Conference, which actually served as a platform for anti-Semitism.
The Durban Declaration excluded virtually all references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust when it came to the specifics of taking action, and in a devil's bargain between the European Union and Arab states permitted a minimal reference to anti-Semitism in exchange for including a condemnation of alleged Israeli racism. Last week the U.N. General Assembly permitted reference to anti-Semitism in a resolution on follow-up to the Durban Conference, knowing that the United States and Israel would be forced to vote against.
At the heart of the U.N.'s problem with anti-Semitism lies rejection of the very idea of Jewish victimhood. Instead of ensuring that victimhood brooks no discrimination, on Nov. 26 a resolution condemning terrorist attacks on Israeli children failed to make it through the General Assembly while one on Palestinian children was adopted with only four states opposed. Israel was forced to withdraw its resolution because Egyptian amendments deleting "Israeli" before every mention of the word "children" were guaranteed an automatic U.N. majority.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan--who has occasionally paid lip-service to the problem of anti-Semitism--ignored the requests of both NGOs and the state sponsors of the anti-Semitism resolution to weigh in on the importance of the issue with U.N. members, or to press the point with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, just as he has never convened a conference or written a report dedicated to anti-Semitism. The unwillingness of the U.N.'s principal organs and its secretary general to confront and take meaningful action against this scourge, including its Muslim and Arab sources, is not merely a sin of omission.
The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people, and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of the Holocaust. The inability of the organization to address seriously one of the very evils it was intended to prevent is a scandal of global proportions. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared, "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind." Fifty-five years later the outrage is gone, the silence of the U.N. when it comes to anti-Semitism is deafening, and the only ones benefiting are those planning future barbarous acts against Jews everywhere.
Ms. Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School and professor of political science at York University, Toronto, is a member of the governing board of UN Watch.
Sunday, December 07, 2003
THREATS ON U.S. TECH LEAD... AGAIN
Now India and China Loom in the Horizon... Analysis of Korea
Continuing on this technology and innovation theme from last week's entries, I came across this article in BusinessWeek. It discusses how the U.S. faced challenges in the past from Russia and Japan, but those "predictions of imminent doom never came true." As I wrote before, one factor to consider in this discussion of innotivation and growth is how these challengers actually allocate and utilize their funding and resources. Also what base elements are they working with? What type of research talent do they have? I think it was in Denise G. Shekerjian's "Uncommon Genius: How Great Ideas Are Born" that I read about how Russia devoted more resources than the U.S. to science and technology development in the latter part of the 20th and how many countries', including Russia, children scored higher than children in the U.S. on science and math tests, but the U.S. still produced a far greater number of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences. Even the MacArthur Prize, which her book focused on, identifies and champions creativity within America. The U.S. culture and emphasis on being well-rounded individuals has an intangible or difficult to measure quality that encourages creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
As an example, let's take a look at Korea, which is the easiest comparison for me to point to. I've lived here for over three years now, I have noticed the effect that the different education systems have on the workforce here. Korea's students are always ranked one of the highest in math and science while U.S. children are in the middle or above the medium in world rankings. The secondary school system is intense and rigorous where high school students typically attend afterschool private classes and study beyond midnight to pass their college entrance exams. Studying consumes their lives and memorization is the key method of learning. Additionally, Korea has the highest number of Ph.D. per capita (recently Palestinians have been making this claim, but i don't know if this is true or how they came up with this figure) and this is easily encountered after visiting any company and believable after living here and experiencing the strong emphasis on education.
The result of all this has been a well-educated workforce that lacks in creativity and innovation. This is one of the first qualities I noticed during my first year in Korea while building HeyAnita Korea up from the ground floor with my friends. The employees were excellent at the initial stage of analysis, following processes, and other duties, but problem solving and creativity was greatly lacking. This is a common discussion I hear from expatriate managers in Korea when comparing native Koreans to Korean Americans and Koreans that have lived or studied abroad. Even when I spoke with a native Korean manager at Accenture, I remember him telling me how he noticed the difference between Koreans and other national groups during their initial training sessions. At the beginning, Koreans did just as well or better than their U.S. and European counterparts since those sessions focused on memorization or process oriented work. As the sessions shifted to more problem solving and creativity exercises, the Koreans began to lag behind. He told me that's when he realized the deficiencies in Korea's education system. Of course, change is always very difficult at the institutional level, but I hope Korea can make this change to become a more innovative and creative society and nation.
As for the U.S., with President George W. Bush requesting the largest federal R&D budget in history ($112 billion for FY03 alone), and the unique web of culture, education, and financial systems continually spurring innovation I don't see a real reason to be concerned at this time with the up and coming dynamic growth engines of India and China.
BusinessWeek
DECEMBER 8, 2003
COVER STORY
Commentary: Meeting the Asian Challenge
How America can boost innovation
The U.S. has always worried about falling behind in science and technology. In October, 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first satellite, into orbit, Americans were stunned. With the Soviets' supposedly better-trained and educated scientists and engineers, it seemed just a matter of time until that country surpassed the U.S. both militarily and economically.
In the 1980s, the designated bogeyman was Japan, which excelled in manufacturing while devoting 2.5% of its gross domestic product to nondefense research and development. The U.S., spending only 1.8% of GDP on civilian R&D, seemed sure to become a technological laggard.
Of course, the predictions of imminent doom never came true. The scientific and engineering strengths of the Soviet Union and Japan were offset by abysmal weakness in governance and finance. Meanwhile, the U.S. responded effectively to both challenges, beefing up the resources devoted to innovation and education and reinforcing its position as the leading technological and economic power.
NOW IT'S TIME for another round of paranoia, with India and China playing the villains. China is running massive manufacturing trade surpluses with the U.S. Meanwhile, India seems to be absorbing big chunks of the U.S. info-tech job market, as politicians and corporate leaders warn darkly of endless supplies of inexpensive Indian engineers taking help-desk and programming jobs once held by U.S. workers. What's more, as U.S. companies open research centers in India, there are fears of a "giant sucking sound" -- to use a phrase H. Ross Perot once applied to Mexico -- as even high-end IT jobs leave the U.S.
Before abandoning ourselves to Perot's nightmare, let's do a reality check. First, any upgrade of the Indian and Chinese economies is an unalloyed good for the over 2 billion people living in those countries. These are poor nations finally climbing the ladder of economic development.
Second, there's no evidence of a major flight of educated jobs from the U.S. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that employment of college-educated workers has increased by 3.6% in the past year, despite a stagnant overall job market. And info-tech hiring has finally turned up, with employment in computer and mathematical occupations growing by 152,000 since June.
Still, the U.S. can't be complacent. As India and China ascend the economic ladder, the U.S. must do all it can to bolster its strength in innovation. That's how the country can create well-paying new jobs. Even if some research is done in India, Russia, or Japan, U.S. scientific and financial leadership will ensure the strength of the domestic economy.
Thus, the U.S. needs to focus on improving the four key components of innovation: R&D spending, education, finance for invention, and the national willingness to take risks. Here's what should be done in each of these areas.
-- Boost government spending on R&D. Adding $10 billion or more to government civilian R&D spending -- a roughly 20% hike -- should seem like a no-brainer. After all, R&D is the starting point for all technological innovation. In particular, basic research and early-stage applied research is quite properly the province of government.
But federal spending on R&D has not kept pace with the economy's growth. Figures from the National Science Foundation show that government R&D outlays fell from 0.96% of GDP in 1992 to 0.67% in 2000 before bouncing back up again over the past few years. But even the latest rebound in federal R&D spending has been concentrated almost entirely in the areas of defense and health. In fact, federal spending on civilian nonhealth areas such as energy has risen much slower then GDP over the past 10 years.
-- Add funding for graduate science and engineering students. It's impossible to do cutting-edge research without PhDs in science and engineering -- and that's a problem. Since 1997, the number of science and engineering doctorates going to U.S. citizens or permanent residents has dropped by 16%. That includes a 25% decline in math and computer-science PhDs.
That makes it essential to increase direct scholarship support for graduate science and engineering students. In addition, enlarging R&D funding would open up additional science and engineering jobs and make the degree more attractive.
-- Encourage vibrant financial markets. Other countries have fine technology and smart workers, but the biggest competitive advantage for the U.S. in the 1990s was its financial markets. Venture capital, high-yield bonds, and initial public offerings provided market financing for innovative tech companies on an unsurpassed scale, which helped create enormous numbers of new jobs in the U.S.
Still, continuing reports of corruption threaten to undermine the U.S. financial edge. That means it's necessary to aggressively prosecute corrupt individuals and companies while adopting a philosophy of transparency that gives investors the information they need to make good decisions.
The U.S. shouldn't cripple the flexibility of its financial system with too much regulation, though. The U.S. IT industry prospered in the '90s by using stock options to attract top talent from all over the world; they came because of the chance to win big if their company went public. Thus, it's counterproductive to make it harder for innovative companies and startups to use stock options to compensate their employees.
-- Strengthen anew our willingness to take risks. The financial bust, the 2001 terrorist attacks, and the struggles in Iraq combined to wound U.S. optimism. Rather than embracing innovation, Americans seem to be concerned with adopting protectionist measures and trying to hold on to existing jobs.
Rather than worrying about IT positions going offshore, the U.S. should focus on generating new jobs -- in new industries -- at home. In the end, an open economy, a commitment to invest in innovation and education, and a willingness to take risks will lead to success for Americans and for the U.S. economy. Together, those factors turned the "jobless economy" of the early 1990s into a boom with a 4% unemployment rate. They will work today as well.
By Michael J. Mandel
|
Now India and China Loom in the Horizon... Analysis of Korea
Continuing on this technology and innovation theme from last week's entries, I came across this article in BusinessWeek. It discusses how the U.S. faced challenges in the past from Russia and Japan, but those "predictions of imminent doom never came true." As I wrote before, one factor to consider in this discussion of innotivation and growth is how these challengers actually allocate and utilize their funding and resources. Also what base elements are they working with? What type of research talent do they have? I think it was in Denise G. Shekerjian's "Uncommon Genius: How Great Ideas Are Born" that I read about how Russia devoted more resources than the U.S. to science and technology development in the latter part of the 20th and how many countries', including Russia, children scored higher than children in the U.S. on science and math tests, but the U.S. still produced a far greater number of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences. Even the MacArthur Prize, which her book focused on, identifies and champions creativity within America. The U.S. culture and emphasis on being well-rounded individuals has an intangible or difficult to measure quality that encourages creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
As an example, let's take a look at Korea, which is the easiest comparison for me to point to. I've lived here for over three years now, I have noticed the effect that the different education systems have on the workforce here. Korea's students are always ranked one of the highest in math and science while U.S. children are in the middle or above the medium in world rankings. The secondary school system is intense and rigorous where high school students typically attend afterschool private classes and study beyond midnight to pass their college entrance exams. Studying consumes their lives and memorization is the key method of learning. Additionally, Korea has the highest number of Ph.D. per capita (recently Palestinians have been making this claim, but i don't know if this is true or how they came up with this figure) and this is easily encountered after visiting any company and believable after living here and experiencing the strong emphasis on education.
The result of all this has been a well-educated workforce that lacks in creativity and innovation. This is one of the first qualities I noticed during my first year in Korea while building HeyAnita Korea up from the ground floor with my friends. The employees were excellent at the initial stage of analysis, following processes, and other duties, but problem solving and creativity was greatly lacking. This is a common discussion I hear from expatriate managers in Korea when comparing native Koreans to Korean Americans and Koreans that have lived or studied abroad. Even when I spoke with a native Korean manager at Accenture, I remember him telling me how he noticed the difference between Koreans and other national groups during their initial training sessions. At the beginning, Koreans did just as well or better than their U.S. and European counterparts since those sessions focused on memorization or process oriented work. As the sessions shifted to more problem solving and creativity exercises, the Koreans began to lag behind. He told me that's when he realized the deficiencies in Korea's education system. Of course, change is always very difficult at the institutional level, but I hope Korea can make this change to become a more innovative and creative society and nation.
As for the U.S., with President George W. Bush requesting the largest federal R&D budget in history ($112 billion for FY03 alone), and the unique web of culture, education, and financial systems continually spurring innovation I don't see a real reason to be concerned at this time with the up and coming dynamic growth engines of India and China.
BusinessWeek
DECEMBER 8, 2003
COVER STORY
Commentary: Meeting the Asian Challenge
How America can boost innovation
The U.S. has always worried about falling behind in science and technology. In October, 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first satellite, into orbit, Americans were stunned. With the Soviets' supposedly better-trained and educated scientists and engineers, it seemed just a matter of time until that country surpassed the U.S. both militarily and economically.
In the 1980s, the designated bogeyman was Japan, which excelled in manufacturing while devoting 2.5% of its gross domestic product to nondefense research and development. The U.S., spending only 1.8% of GDP on civilian R&D, seemed sure to become a technological laggard.
Of course, the predictions of imminent doom never came true. The scientific and engineering strengths of the Soviet Union and Japan were offset by abysmal weakness in governance and finance. Meanwhile, the U.S. responded effectively to both challenges, beefing up the resources devoted to innovation and education and reinforcing its position as the leading technological and economic power.
NOW IT'S TIME for another round of paranoia, with India and China playing the villains. China is running massive manufacturing trade surpluses with the U.S. Meanwhile, India seems to be absorbing big chunks of the U.S. info-tech job market, as politicians and corporate leaders warn darkly of endless supplies of inexpensive Indian engineers taking help-desk and programming jobs once held by U.S. workers. What's more, as U.S. companies open research centers in India, there are fears of a "giant sucking sound" -- to use a phrase H. Ross Perot once applied to Mexico -- as even high-end IT jobs leave the U.S.
Before abandoning ourselves to Perot's nightmare, let's do a reality check. First, any upgrade of the Indian and Chinese economies is an unalloyed good for the over 2 billion people living in those countries. These are poor nations finally climbing the ladder of economic development.
Second, there's no evidence of a major flight of educated jobs from the U.S. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that employment of college-educated workers has increased by 3.6% in the past year, despite a stagnant overall job market. And info-tech hiring has finally turned up, with employment in computer and mathematical occupations growing by 152,000 since June.
Still, the U.S. can't be complacent. As India and China ascend the economic ladder, the U.S. must do all it can to bolster its strength in innovation. That's how the country can create well-paying new jobs. Even if some research is done in India, Russia, or Japan, U.S. scientific and financial leadership will ensure the strength of the domestic economy.
Thus, the U.S. needs to focus on improving the four key components of innovation: R&D spending, education, finance for invention, and the national willingness to take risks. Here's what should be done in each of these areas.
-- Boost government spending on R&D. Adding $10 billion or more to government civilian R&D spending -- a roughly 20% hike -- should seem like a no-brainer. After all, R&D is the starting point for all technological innovation. In particular, basic research and early-stage applied research is quite properly the province of government.
But federal spending on R&D has not kept pace with the economy's growth. Figures from the National Science Foundation show that government R&D outlays fell from 0.96% of GDP in 1992 to 0.67% in 2000 before bouncing back up again over the past few years. But even the latest rebound in federal R&D spending has been concentrated almost entirely in the areas of defense and health. In fact, federal spending on civilian nonhealth areas such as energy has risen much slower then GDP over the past 10 years.
-- Add funding for graduate science and engineering students. It's impossible to do cutting-edge research without PhDs in science and engineering -- and that's a problem. Since 1997, the number of science and engineering doctorates going to U.S. citizens or permanent residents has dropped by 16%. That includes a 25% decline in math and computer-science PhDs.
That makes it essential to increase direct scholarship support for graduate science and engineering students. In addition, enlarging R&D funding would open up additional science and engineering jobs and make the degree more attractive.
-- Encourage vibrant financial markets. Other countries have fine technology and smart workers, but the biggest competitive advantage for the U.S. in the 1990s was its financial markets. Venture capital, high-yield bonds, and initial public offerings provided market financing for innovative tech companies on an unsurpassed scale, which helped create enormous numbers of new jobs in the U.S.
Still, continuing reports of corruption threaten to undermine the U.S. financial edge. That means it's necessary to aggressively prosecute corrupt individuals and companies while adopting a philosophy of transparency that gives investors the information they need to make good decisions.
The U.S. shouldn't cripple the flexibility of its financial system with too much regulation, though. The U.S. IT industry prospered in the '90s by using stock options to attract top talent from all over the world; they came because of the chance to win big if their company went public. Thus, it's counterproductive to make it harder for innovative companies and startups to use stock options to compensate their employees.
-- Strengthen anew our willingness to take risks. The financial bust, the 2001 terrorist attacks, and the struggles in Iraq combined to wound U.S. optimism. Rather than embracing innovation, Americans seem to be concerned with adopting protectionist measures and trying to hold on to existing jobs.
Rather than worrying about IT positions going offshore, the U.S. should focus on generating new jobs -- in new industries -- at home. In the end, an open economy, a commitment to invest in innovation and education, and a willingness to take risks will lead to success for Americans and for the U.S. economy. Together, those factors turned the "jobless economy" of the early 1990s into a boom with a 4% unemployment rate. They will work today as well.
By Michael J. Mandel
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
JIMMY HAS LEFT THE HOUSE!
Celebrity Life in Korea Tires Out A Legend
My good friend Jimmy left Korea a week ago to go back to Los Angeles to rest and to decide upon his future. He recently left his investment fund/incubator and has some heavy decisions to make during his six week stay in LA. Which country to work in for the next few years, consulting or banking or corporate, whether he should take a job offer in LA or not, stay in Korea with his harem or his girlfriend in LA (just kidding, j!)...
Anyway, Jimmy (otherwise known as "Limmy Lun" in a previous entry) is my only friend who actually asked me to write about him in my blog. I know a fair amount of healthy egos in this world and among my friends, but Jimmy might be the mountain among all those mole hills. I had various thoughts about how to approach this... Do I exaggerate for my own amusement? Do I write a humerous piece for the enjoyment of others? Do I tell a fable with a life lesson at the end? But my conscious weighed heavily upon my heart, so I decided to tell the truth. Only the truth will do justice to Jimmy's celebrity lifestyle in Korea.
Jimmy is a good-looking man with chiseled features and a smirk for a smile. One time a woman, probably high on coke, told Jimmy that he looks like a Korean Antonio Banderas, which was very funny to hear. To be honest, he looks more like a Korean Erik Estrada. Almost slick looking but still has a trustworthy face like a young Michael Corleone. This is the look that gets him in trouble.
One example I remember last year was when a bunch of our friends attended this year-end party for the fashion industry in Korea. Towards the end of the party, while I drank my milk in the corner of the bar, Jimmy was in his usual post at the bar surrounded by various women. One young lady approached him and said, "My friend is asking that you come over. She's the famous designer, Lee SooKyung (name changed to protect the random)."
He looks carefully at the lady and says, "No. I'm sorry. I'm not interested."
The young lady asked him again, but Jimmy politely refuses as he looks around. I don't know if Jimmy at this point thought the actual offer was from the young woman, but I do know that he thought she was ugly because he could barely look at her when she spoke. He's such a shallow guy.
Anyway, so the young woman walked away. A few minutes later, a woman in her upper-thirties stands next to Jimmy and places her arm upon his shoulders. Rubbing it ever so gently. Jimmy slowly turns and his stern lips bend into a smile.
"Hello."
"Hello."
"Do you know who I am?"
"No."
"Well, I'm Lee SooKyung. If you come with me tonight by tomorrow morning, I will make you famous throughout Seoul. Throughout Korea..."
Jimmy pauses and smiles again. She rubs again but lower on his body. Jimmy pauses and then says, "I can't. I'm sorry."
"I will give you pleasure beyond what you can only dream of... sex that you have only read about..."
"Mhhhmm...," clearing his throat and becoming blush with the rush of a thousand images flooding his mind, "I'm sorry... I can't."
The famous designer glared at Jimmy and walked away. The next day Jimmy was bragging to EVERYONE about the story... calling his girlfriend in LA, friends, and ex-girlfriends.
More recently, a few months back Jimmy became acquainted with a famous singer in Korea, Kim Ji Hyun (to the asia illiterate, last names come first). Jimmy and my other friend Billy became hangout buddies with her. One evening after some party they attended, they were at a restaurant sobering up and eating. Koh Chong Soo, a famous Korean soccer player, who was friends with Ji Hyun became a little feisty. He has a reputation for having a bad temper and getting into scuffles, and just had a fight with a pop singer the week before. Anyway, for some reason there was tension between him and Jimmy... jealousy in thinking Ji Hyun was madly in love with the Korean Erik Estrada? hatred of pretty boys? who knows? But as they left the restaurant, Chong Soo sucker punched Jimmy and then started to kick him on the ground.
The next week it was all over the press in Korea. This story was on every sports daily (Korea's tabloids, which are more like the Sun in the UK and less like the National Enquirer) and a few other newspapers. Jimmy was a star.
So if you want to become famous in a small international market and the desire of thousands of women, follow the path of my friend, Jimmy.
*Disclaimer. The overall events described here have been truthful. The details of the events and conversations have been exaggerated and scripted for entertainment purposes.
**Shoutout: public recognition or praise of a friend, associate, or institution. typically in written form within open public forums online or verbal form within offline open mike gatherings.
***Wipeout (my new word): public recognition and smearing of a friend, associate, or institution for one's own selfish amusement.
|
Celebrity Life in Korea Tires Out A Legend
My good friend Jimmy left Korea a week ago to go back to Los Angeles to rest and to decide upon his future. He recently left his investment fund/incubator and has some heavy decisions to make during his six week stay in LA. Which country to work in for the next few years, consulting or banking or corporate, whether he should take a job offer in LA or not, stay in Korea with his harem or his girlfriend in LA (just kidding, j!)...
Anyway, Jimmy (otherwise known as "Limmy Lun" in a previous entry) is my only friend who actually asked me to write about him in my blog. I know a fair amount of healthy egos in this world and among my friends, but Jimmy might be the mountain among all those mole hills. I had various thoughts about how to approach this... Do I exaggerate for my own amusement? Do I write a humerous piece for the enjoyment of others? Do I tell a fable with a life lesson at the end? But my conscious weighed heavily upon my heart, so I decided to tell the truth. Only the truth will do justice to Jimmy's celebrity lifestyle in Korea.
Jimmy is a good-looking man with chiseled features and a smirk for a smile. One time a woman, probably high on coke, told Jimmy that he looks like a Korean Antonio Banderas, which was very funny to hear. To be honest, he looks more like a Korean Erik Estrada. Almost slick looking but still has a trustworthy face like a young Michael Corleone. This is the look that gets him in trouble.
One example I remember last year was when a bunch of our friends attended this year-end party for the fashion industry in Korea. Towards the end of the party, while I drank my milk in the corner of the bar, Jimmy was in his usual post at the bar surrounded by various women. One young lady approached him and said, "My friend is asking that you come over. She's the famous designer, Lee SooKyung (name changed to protect the random)."
He looks carefully at the lady and says, "No. I'm sorry. I'm not interested."
The young lady asked him again, but Jimmy politely refuses as he looks around. I don't know if Jimmy at this point thought the actual offer was from the young woman, but I do know that he thought she was ugly because he could barely look at her when she spoke. He's such a shallow guy.
Anyway, so the young woman walked away. A few minutes later, a woman in her upper-thirties stands next to Jimmy and places her arm upon his shoulders. Rubbing it ever so gently. Jimmy slowly turns and his stern lips bend into a smile.
"Hello."
"Hello."
"Do you know who I am?"
"No."
"Well, I'm Lee SooKyung. If you come with me tonight by tomorrow morning, I will make you famous throughout Seoul. Throughout Korea..."
Jimmy pauses and smiles again. She rubs again but lower on his body. Jimmy pauses and then says, "I can't. I'm sorry."
"I will give you pleasure beyond what you can only dream of... sex that you have only read about..."
"Mhhhmm...," clearing his throat and becoming blush with the rush of a thousand images flooding his mind, "I'm sorry... I can't."
The famous designer glared at Jimmy and walked away. The next day Jimmy was bragging to EVERYONE about the story... calling his girlfriend in LA, friends, and ex-girlfriends.
More recently, a few months back Jimmy became acquainted with a famous singer in Korea, Kim Ji Hyun (to the asia illiterate, last names come first). Jimmy and my other friend Billy became hangout buddies with her. One evening after some party they attended, they were at a restaurant sobering up and eating. Koh Chong Soo, a famous Korean soccer player, who was friends with Ji Hyun became a little feisty. He has a reputation for having a bad temper and getting into scuffles, and just had a fight with a pop singer the week before. Anyway, for some reason there was tension between him and Jimmy... jealousy in thinking Ji Hyun was madly in love with the Korean Erik Estrada? hatred of pretty boys? who knows? But as they left the restaurant, Chong Soo sucker punched Jimmy and then started to kick him on the ground.
The next week it was all over the press in Korea. This story was on every sports daily (Korea's tabloids, which are more like the Sun in the UK and less like the National Enquirer) and a few other newspapers. Jimmy was a star.
So if you want to become famous in a small international market and the desire of thousands of women, follow the path of my friend, Jimmy.
*Disclaimer. The overall events described here have been truthful. The details of the events and conversations have been exaggerated and scripted for entertainment purposes.
**Shoutout: public recognition or praise of a friend, associate, or institution. typically in written form within open public forums online or verbal form within offline open mike gatherings.
***Wipeout (my new word): public recognition and smearing of a friend, associate, or institution for one's own selfish amusement.
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
MIT'S TECHNOLOGY REVIEW AND I BONDED
It's funny that yesterday I wrote my entry on technology, innovation, and economic growth, and today I went to News.com and came across a link to MIT's Technology Review. Under "Today's Featured Stories", were two articles related to my post yesterday (i was wondering if they actually change this column daily). Though I don't read their journal regularly, I feel a special bond now. Almost similar to my special bond with Buffalo Joe's chicken wings in Evanston, IL (i'm convinced they drug it. why else would i still crave it across the Pacific?) or an Italian sausage and beef combo (if you haven't tried it, just fly to Chi-Town for this!) from any decent joint in Chicago or falafel from any good street vendor in NYC or a fat pastrami sandwich with mayo and mustard from any good deli in NYC... so hungry right now.
Anyway, the first one pasted below isn't the full article and I didn't want to subscribe to obtained it. Second article is in full, but I don't know for how long the links will be active.
Academic Patent Binge
By Tracy Staedter
Innovation News
December 2003/January 2004
Patent activity at colleges has jumped in both quantity and quality over the last five years. Data provided exclusively to Technology Review by CHI Research in Haddon Heights, NJ, which ranks universities by technological strength (a measure combining both the number of patents issued and their relevance) reveal how great the upsurge is. In fact, in 2002, 13 of the top 25 universities saw a 50 percent or greater increase over the number of patents issued in 1997, six of which have seen increases of 100 percent or more...
The Corporate R&D Scorecard 2003
The R&D spending of 150 top technology companies.
December 2003/January 2004
For many of the world’s top 150 technology companies, spending on research and development continues to take a beating. A quick scan of the R&D Corporate Scorecard reveals an abundance of negative numbers, especially in electronics and telecommunications: Ericsson, Lucent, and Nortel Networks have cut budgets more than a third, while Cisco Systems is down by a quarter. The semiconductor sector is also unsteady, with Intel’s and Texas Instruments’ expenditures flat.
The good news is that R&D spending as a whole is up more than $4 billion compared to last year, with bright spots in biotech and automotive. Spending by biotech companies has more than doubled, and automakers are shelling out $5 billion more for research and development than they did last year. In fact, Ford Motor and DaimlerChrysler rank number one and two among all corporations worldwide, laying out $7.4 billion and $6.4 billion, respectively.
A few of the unusually large increases in spending can be attributed to acquisitions. For example, Hewlett-Packard’s R&D expenditure jumped more than 53 percent after its merger with Compaq Computer in May 2002. Amgen is up 375 percent after buying Immunex in July 2002, and MedImmune shows a whopping 1,495 percent increase after its January 2002 acquisition of Aviron.
In total, the top 150 companies spent more than $236 billion on research and development. Ultimately, however, the success of R&D investment is best measured by the brilliant ideas coming out of corporate labs, so in “Seven Hot Projects,” Technology Review profiles some of the most promising technologies that will soon affect your life.
And while a prominent handful of companies continue their robust R&D spending, the general frugality is, some argue, beginning to hamper the innovation process. In “Our Innovation Backlog,” innovator and entrepreneur Kenan Sahin makes a strong case that although technological advances are continuing at a steady pace, there is often a failure to invest enough money to commercialize them. The result: an excess of great ideas gathering dust. Sahin lays out the problem and offers a few solutions.
Download the R&D Scorecard (Excel spreadsheet)
|
It's funny that yesterday I wrote my entry on technology, innovation, and economic growth, and today I went to News.com and came across a link to MIT's Technology Review. Under "Today's Featured Stories", were two articles related to my post yesterday (i was wondering if they actually change this column daily). Though I don't read their journal regularly, I feel a special bond now. Almost similar to my special bond with Buffalo Joe's chicken wings in Evanston, IL (i'm convinced they drug it. why else would i still crave it across the Pacific?) or an Italian sausage and beef combo (if you haven't tried it, just fly to Chi-Town for this!) from any decent joint in Chicago or falafel from any good street vendor in NYC or a fat pastrami sandwich with mayo and mustard from any good deli in NYC... so hungry right now.
Anyway, the first one pasted below isn't the full article and I didn't want to subscribe to obtained it. Second article is in full, but I don't know for how long the links will be active.
Academic Patent Binge
By Tracy Staedter
Innovation News
December 2003/January 2004
Patent activity at colleges has jumped in both quantity and quality over the last five years. Data provided exclusively to Technology Review by CHI Research in Haddon Heights, NJ, which ranks universities by technological strength (a measure combining both the number of patents issued and their relevance) reveal how great the upsurge is. In fact, in 2002, 13 of the top 25 universities saw a 50 percent or greater increase over the number of patents issued in 1997, six of which have seen increases of 100 percent or more...
The Corporate R&D Scorecard 2003
The R&D spending of 150 top technology companies.
December 2003/January 2004
For many of the world’s top 150 technology companies, spending on research and development continues to take a beating. A quick scan of the R&D Corporate Scorecard reveals an abundance of negative numbers, especially in electronics and telecommunications: Ericsson, Lucent, and Nortel Networks have cut budgets more than a third, while Cisco Systems is down by a quarter. The semiconductor sector is also unsteady, with Intel’s and Texas Instruments’ expenditures flat.
The good news is that R&D spending as a whole is up more than $4 billion compared to last year, with bright spots in biotech and automotive. Spending by biotech companies has more than doubled, and automakers are shelling out $5 billion more for research and development than they did last year. In fact, Ford Motor and DaimlerChrysler rank number one and two among all corporations worldwide, laying out $7.4 billion and $6.4 billion, respectively.
A few of the unusually large increases in spending can be attributed to acquisitions. For example, Hewlett-Packard’s R&D expenditure jumped more than 53 percent after its merger with Compaq Computer in May 2002. Amgen is up 375 percent after buying Immunex in July 2002, and MedImmune shows a whopping 1,495 percent increase after its January 2002 acquisition of Aviron.
In total, the top 150 companies spent more than $236 billion on research and development. Ultimately, however, the success of R&D investment is best measured by the brilliant ideas coming out of corporate labs, so in “Seven Hot Projects,” Technology Review profiles some of the most promising technologies that will soon affect your life.
And while a prominent handful of companies continue their robust R&D spending, the general frugality is, some argue, beginning to hamper the innovation process. In “Our Innovation Backlog,” innovator and entrepreneur Kenan Sahin makes a strong case that although technological advances are continuing at a steady pace, there is often a failure to invest enough money to commercialize them. The result: an excess of great ideas gathering dust. Sahin lays out the problem and offers a few solutions.
Download the R&D Scorecard (Excel spreadsheet)
IT'S NOT THE DEFICIT STUPID!... DEMS GET IT WRONG
Technology is the Primary Driver of Economic Growth!... Pro-Nelson on this Blog!
During the Clinton years, the two most common things I heard from high-profiled Democrats was how the deficit reduction caused the boom times, or how Clinton asking Greenspan to lower short-term rates caused the boom times. I would just roll my eyes at such simplistic statements. If only cause and effect could actually be that simple, the Merovingian would truly rule our matrix. The reality is that for every effect there are probably at least 5 factors causing it… probably a lot more. But that is the way of politics, pick one of the causes or statements that can effectively cling to the minds of most voters and spread the virus of malcontent against your opponent, or create a statement of “fact” that makes a candidate or party a hero.
Anyway, the article from last week’s BusinessWeek begins to unravel the Democrats' claim that Clinton caused the boom times of the ‘90s. It almost similar to Al Gore claiming he invented the Internet. Interesting article to read below (for those wondering, i paste the whole article on my blog because many online publications archive the articles after a few weeks and are not accessible anymore for free), but not really the focus of this entry.
The cause of the boom times can be traced back to the DARPA's (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project that led to the birth of the Internet (yes, not Al Gore, DARPA... with respect to Joseph E. Stiglitz below, I'm going to take a step back into a bigger picture). More importantly, this was the result of the unique matrix within the fabric of the U.S. that greatly invests public and private money into science. University labs, corporations, and government research centers all heavily invest into science. Whether the search for the "truth" in the universe, basic science, or research for a commerical purpose, applied science, all types of research have led to the benefit and growth of our society and economy. On top of this layer, is America's strong encouragement of entrepreneurism and the availability of risk capital, especially for early-stage companies. This complex web of universities, government institutions, corporate entities, venture capital firms, wealthy individuals investing in high-risk ventures, and the abundance of entrepreneurs have allowed the U.S. to prosper at various times and lead the charge into new eras of economics growth and technological advances.
To be upfront, I'm influenced by my former professor, Michael Crow, who taught U.S. science policy while he was at Columbia University (also gracious advisor to my first startup and failed early-stage fund effort). He was influenced by Richard Nelson, a neo-Schumpeter, considered a founder of evoluntionary economics.
Nelson and others within the same camp believe technical advance or growth in technology account for 50%-70%+ of long-term economic growth. Seeing how the U.S. has become the world's foremost economic power, it's difficult to deny some of the truth and theories developed from Nelson and others. Whole new industries were created by developments that sprouted from U.S. R&D labs throughout the 20th century. From Xerox's fabled Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) to AT&T's Bell Labs to DARPA, inventions such as laser printing (1971), Ethernet, the graphical user interface, the Internet (1969), and cellular communications (1947) were given birth to in these halls.
One of the people most responsible was Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development under FDR. His report to President Roosevelt, "Science The Endless Frontier" (July 1945), help set forth and secure U.S. investment into scientific research as one of its core policies. Heavy investment by the government into various military and non-military labs were initiated.
One danger that is recently occuring is the decrease in funding for basic research. Basic research allows scientistics to research for the sake of researching. To seek out their curiosities and find the truths of the universe. This is more of a non-linear approach that allows for a wide-range of possibilities, and many inventions that have changed our lives have come from basic research (e.g. x-rays, superconductivity, laser... what would you do without CDs or DVDs?). Over the past decade, corporations under pressure to perform have cut back or closed down their basic research efforts and only focused on applied research that seeks out a specific solution or product that can eventually generate revenue for the company. Even universities have scaled back on their basic research efforts since the licensing of their patents and inventions have become huge sources of funding since the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, and have become more focused on applied research.
I really don't know the true impact of this shift in research funding and focus, but I hope it does not lead to the loss of leadership for the U.S. in the area of technical advance. Of course, the funding shift alone probably will not lead to the U.S.'s decline since there are many factors that make the U.S.'s innovation engine unique in world history (e.g. spirit of 'mother necessity', educational development of its citizens, legal foundation of the U.S... such as separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and so on). As long as the U.S. maintains its leadership in technology, I believe it will be in good position to remain the dominant power in the world.
Harping On The Deficit May Undo The Dems
NOVEMBER 24, 2003
BusinessWeek
ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT
By Robert Kuttner
I hope the Democratic candidates for President are in touch with Joseph E. Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel prize co-winner in economics, who served as chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 until 1997. In Stiglitz' new book, The Roaring Nineties, and at a recent conference at Columbia University honoring his work on market failures,
Stiglitz challenged a premise that has become like holy writ: the idea that deficit reductions caused the boom of the 1990s.
Under this scenario, Clinton agreed to cut the deficit, the Federal Reserve obliged with lower short-term rates, markets were reassured, and the great boom was on. Message: A balanced budget equals prosperity. Stiglitz has a more persuasive view: Other forces, most notably higher productivity growth, allowed the Fed to run a hotter economy. "Deficit reduction," he writes, "accelerated the decline in interest rates, which helped recapitalize the banks. But interest rates would have fallen anyway. The forces taming inflation -- weaker unions and increased international competition in addition to rising productivity -- were already at play. It was the lower inflation as well as the deficit reduction that lowered long-term interest rates."
STIGLITZ DID SUPPORT REDUCTION of the structural deficits inherited from the Reagan and Bush I administrations, resulting from excessive tax cuts. These had to be reduced because they had put the budget on a path to ever-rising national debt. But in Stiglitz' view, Clinton overdid a good thing. He writes that if the Clinton Administration had put less money into deficit reduction and more into research and development, technology, infrastructure, and education, "given the high returns for these investments, [gross domestic product] in 2000 would have been even higher, and the economy's growth potential would have been stronger."
Stiglitz told Clinton all this. But he lost that argument with Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, on whom Clinton relied to understand the markets' pulse. Recently, Rubin reiterated that high deficits cause high interest rates because government competes with other users of credit for a limited supply of savings. However, this premise is true only at full employment.
Stiglitz' point on the deficit is especially important now, as George W. Bush repeats Reagan's squeeze play: cut taxes, generate huge deficits, make Democrats play the role of fiscal Scrooges, and force permanent program cuts. As Rubinomics has more sway over most Democrats than Stiglitz-omics, Democrats are about to repeat Clinton's mistake.
It's hardly surprising that the immense deficits have stimulated sizzling short-term growth. The third-quarter growth is impressive, but entirely Keynesian. And while temporary deficits can generate short-term stimulus, permanent structural deficits can sap productivity.
As Stiglitz made clear at the recent conference, the Bush tax cuts should certainly be repealed, save those for middle- and lower-income taxpayers. But the revenue gained should not go entirely for deficit reduction. Rather, it would be better in the short term if the money went to help states and localities avoid cutting jobs. In the long term, it would be better for more money to go into productivity-enhancing public investments in education and technology. And the proposed new corporate tax cuts? They won't spur much investment, given the capacity overhang.
Bush's earlier tax cuts were so huge that even if those for the rich are repealed, there appears to be little room for increased public outlay. Here, I commend The New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal, the definitive investigation of legal (and illegal) tax cheating. Johnston shows how tax avoidance among corporations and upper-income individuals is far outrunning the audit capacity of the Internal Revenue Service. There's a $113 billion gap between what corporations should be paying and what they pay. And 78% of the cases of known underpayment by partnerships were not even pursued by the IRS.
Combine a repeal of much of the tax cut with a serious effort to collect revenue, and the deficit can be brought down to, say, 2% of GDP, with money to spare for new public outlays. This would be sensible economics and better politics, since it would let Democrats offer something tangible to voters. But it's more likely the Dems will wrap themselves in the reassuring -- and suffocating -- blanket of Rubinomics.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and author of Everything for Sale
|
Technology is the Primary Driver of Economic Growth!... Pro-Nelson on this Blog!
During the Clinton years, the two most common things I heard from high-profiled Democrats was how the deficit reduction caused the boom times, or how Clinton asking Greenspan to lower short-term rates caused the boom times. I would just roll my eyes at such simplistic statements. If only cause and effect could actually be that simple, the Merovingian would truly rule our matrix. The reality is that for every effect there are probably at least 5 factors causing it… probably a lot more. But that is the way of politics, pick one of the causes or statements that can effectively cling to the minds of most voters and spread the virus of malcontent against your opponent, or create a statement of “fact” that makes a candidate or party a hero.
Anyway, the article from last week’s BusinessWeek begins to unravel the Democrats' claim that Clinton caused the boom times of the ‘90s. It almost similar to Al Gore claiming he invented the Internet. Interesting article to read below (for those wondering, i paste the whole article on my blog because many online publications archive the articles after a few weeks and are not accessible anymore for free), but not really the focus of this entry.
The cause of the boom times can be traced back to the DARPA's (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project that led to the birth of the Internet (yes, not Al Gore, DARPA... with respect to Joseph E. Stiglitz below, I'm going to take a step back into a bigger picture). More importantly, this was the result of the unique matrix within the fabric of the U.S. that greatly invests public and private money into science. University labs, corporations, and government research centers all heavily invest into science. Whether the search for the "truth" in the universe, basic science, or research for a commerical purpose, applied science, all types of research have led to the benefit and growth of our society and economy. On top of this layer, is America's strong encouragement of entrepreneurism and the availability of risk capital, especially for early-stage companies. This complex web of universities, government institutions, corporate entities, venture capital firms, wealthy individuals investing in high-risk ventures, and the abundance of entrepreneurs have allowed the U.S. to prosper at various times and lead the charge into new eras of economics growth and technological advances.
To be upfront, I'm influenced by my former professor, Michael Crow, who taught U.S. science policy while he was at Columbia University (also gracious advisor to my first startup and failed early-stage fund effort). He was influenced by Richard Nelson, a neo-Schumpeter, considered a founder of evoluntionary economics.
Nelson and others within the same camp believe technical advance or growth in technology account for 50%-70%+ of long-term economic growth. Seeing how the U.S. has become the world's foremost economic power, it's difficult to deny some of the truth and theories developed from Nelson and others. Whole new industries were created by developments that sprouted from U.S. R&D labs throughout the 20th century. From Xerox's fabled Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) to AT&T's Bell Labs to DARPA, inventions such as laser printing (1971), Ethernet, the graphical user interface, the Internet (1969), and cellular communications (1947) were given birth to in these halls.
One of the people most responsible was Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development under FDR. His report to President Roosevelt, "Science The Endless Frontier" (July 1945), help set forth and secure U.S. investment into scientific research as one of its core policies. Heavy investment by the government into various military and non-military labs were initiated.
One danger that is recently occuring is the decrease in funding for basic research. Basic research allows scientistics to research for the sake of researching. To seek out their curiosities and find the truths of the universe. This is more of a non-linear approach that allows for a wide-range of possibilities, and many inventions that have changed our lives have come from basic research (e.g. x-rays, superconductivity, laser... what would you do without CDs or DVDs?). Over the past decade, corporations under pressure to perform have cut back or closed down their basic research efforts and only focused on applied research that seeks out a specific solution or product that can eventually generate revenue for the company. Even universities have scaled back on their basic research efforts since the licensing of their patents and inventions have become huge sources of funding since the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, and have become more focused on applied research.
I really don't know the true impact of this shift in research funding and focus, but I hope it does not lead to the loss of leadership for the U.S. in the area of technical advance. Of course, the funding shift alone probably will not lead to the U.S.'s decline since there are many factors that make the U.S.'s innovation engine unique in world history (e.g. spirit of 'mother necessity', educational development of its citizens, legal foundation of the U.S... such as separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and so on). As long as the U.S. maintains its leadership in technology, I believe it will be in good position to remain the dominant power in the world.
Harping On The Deficit May Undo The Dems
NOVEMBER 24, 2003
BusinessWeek
ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT
By Robert Kuttner
I hope the Democratic candidates for President are in touch with Joseph E. Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel prize co-winner in economics, who served as chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 until 1997. In Stiglitz' new book, The Roaring Nineties, and at a recent conference at Columbia University honoring his work on market failures,
Stiglitz challenged a premise that has become like holy writ: the idea that deficit reductions caused the boom of the 1990s.
Under this scenario, Clinton agreed to cut the deficit, the Federal Reserve obliged with lower short-term rates, markets were reassured, and the great boom was on. Message: A balanced budget equals prosperity. Stiglitz has a more persuasive view: Other forces, most notably higher productivity growth, allowed the Fed to run a hotter economy. "Deficit reduction," he writes, "accelerated the decline in interest rates, which helped recapitalize the banks. But interest rates would have fallen anyway. The forces taming inflation -- weaker unions and increased international competition in addition to rising productivity -- were already at play. It was the lower inflation as well as the deficit reduction that lowered long-term interest rates."
STIGLITZ DID SUPPORT REDUCTION of the structural deficits inherited from the Reagan and Bush I administrations, resulting from excessive tax cuts. These had to be reduced because they had put the budget on a path to ever-rising national debt. But in Stiglitz' view, Clinton overdid a good thing. He writes that if the Clinton Administration had put less money into deficit reduction and more into research and development, technology, infrastructure, and education, "given the high returns for these investments, [gross domestic product] in 2000 would have been even higher, and the economy's growth potential would have been stronger."
Stiglitz told Clinton all this. But he lost that argument with Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, on whom Clinton relied to understand the markets' pulse. Recently, Rubin reiterated that high deficits cause high interest rates because government competes with other users of credit for a limited supply of savings. However, this premise is true only at full employment.
Stiglitz' point on the deficit is especially important now, as George W. Bush repeats Reagan's squeeze play: cut taxes, generate huge deficits, make Democrats play the role of fiscal Scrooges, and force permanent program cuts. As Rubinomics has more sway over most Democrats than Stiglitz-omics, Democrats are about to repeat Clinton's mistake.
It's hardly surprising that the immense deficits have stimulated sizzling short-term growth. The third-quarter growth is impressive, but entirely Keynesian. And while temporary deficits can generate short-term stimulus, permanent structural deficits can sap productivity.
As Stiglitz made clear at the recent conference, the Bush tax cuts should certainly be repealed, save those for middle- and lower-income taxpayers. But the revenue gained should not go entirely for deficit reduction. Rather, it would be better in the short term if the money went to help states and localities avoid cutting jobs. In the long term, it would be better for more money to go into productivity-enhancing public investments in education and technology. And the proposed new corporate tax cuts? They won't spur much investment, given the capacity overhang.
Bush's earlier tax cuts were so huge that even if those for the rich are repealed, there appears to be little room for increased public outlay. Here, I commend The New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston's Perfectly Legal, the definitive investigation of legal (and illegal) tax cheating. Johnston shows how tax avoidance among corporations and upper-income individuals is far outrunning the audit capacity of the Internal Revenue Service. There's a $113 billion gap between what corporations should be paying and what they pay. And 78% of the cases of known underpayment by partnerships were not even pursued by the IRS.
Combine a repeal of much of the tax cut with a serious effort to collect revenue, and the deficit can be brought down to, say, 2% of GDP, with money to spare for new public outlays. This would be sensible economics and better politics, since it would let Democrats offer something tangible to voters. But it's more likely the Dems will wrap themselves in the reassuring -- and suffocating -- blanket of Rubinomics.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and author of Everything for Sale
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
