HOLY BIASED, BATMAN!... WASHINGTON POST DOES IT AGAIN
'Bush Campaign Accents The Negative'... And the Kerry Campaign?
Okay. These writers from The Washington Post are not biased against President Bush... are they? In this lengthy article about the Bush campaign's unprecedented volume of attacks, they give one paragraph to state that Kerry's campaign also "made his own misleading statements and exaggerations." But of course Bush made more of such statements so they write this article and give space to this important relevation. Can they please stop being so biased? If they are going to use their pen to push such an agenda, can they please provide better qualititative information to make this more believeable or interesting? At least make it entertaining for me, if they are not going to write a quality piece of news.
Bush campaign accents the negative
Scholars say volume of attacks is unprecedented
The Washington Post
By Dana Milbank and Jim VandeHei
May 31, 2004
It was a typical week in the life of the Bush reelection machine.
Last Monday in Little Rock, Vice President Cheney said Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry "has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all" and said the senator from Massachusetts "promised to repeal most of the Bush tax cuts within his first 100 days in office."
On Tuesday, President Bush's campaign began airing an ad saying Kerry would scrap wiretaps that are needed to hunt terrorists.
The same day, the Bush campaign charged in a memo sent to reporters and through surrogates that Kerry wants to raise the gasoline tax by 50 cents.
On Wednesday and Thursday, as Kerry campaigned in Seattle, he was greeted by another Bush ad alleging that Kerry now opposes education changes that he supported in 2001.
The charges were all tough, serious -- and wrong, or at least highly misleading. (full article)
Junto Boyz
Monday, May 31, 2004
|
BILL COSBY SPEAKS OUT TO BRING ISSUES TO THE FOREFRONT
I read this a couple weeks ago, but I guess this is still getting press. Though I strongly leans towards the notion of personal responsibility, but societal and cultural pressures can create an unfair advantage for many African American youth. More education and awareness is needed in many underprivileged communities, whether black, white, latino, or asian. Emphasis on a child's educational success is definitely key:
"These people marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around," Cosby said at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund observance.
"I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said, according to published reports. "And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth."
He also turned his attention to the population of black prison inmates, saying "These people are not political prisoners. ... People getting shot in the head over a piece of poundcake. ... We're outraged (saying) 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the poundcake in his hand?"
Among blacks, reaction has been a mixed bag of praise and criticism for the entertainer. (full article)
|
I read this a couple weeks ago, but I guess this is still getting press. Though I strongly leans towards the notion of personal responsibility, but societal and cultural pressures can create an unfair advantage for many African American youth. More education and awareness is needed in many underprivileged communities, whether black, white, latino, or asian. Emphasis on a child's educational success is definitely key:
"These people marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around," Cosby said at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund observance.
"I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said, according to published reports. "And then I heard the father talk ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth."
He also turned his attention to the population of black prison inmates, saying "These people are not political prisoners. ... People getting shot in the head over a piece of poundcake. ... We're outraged (saying) 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the poundcake in his hand?"
Among blacks, reaction has been a mixed bag of praise and criticism for the entertainer. (full article)
Sunday, May 30, 2004
WWII MEMORIAL DEDICATION... 140,000 PRESENT
Awesome. Proud to be an American. What an awesome sacrifice our citizens, soldiers, and nation made for freedom, the world, and against tyranny.
|
Awesome. Proud to be an American. What an awesome sacrifice our citizens, soldiers, and nation made for freedom, the world, and against tyranny.
LINKS BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA BECOMING CLEARER
Of course the major media outlets and the liberal critics will ignore the facts if the links are verified.
Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Thursday, May 27, 2004
One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.
It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.
That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.
After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.
One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
Of course the major media outlets and the liberal critics will ignore the facts if the links are verified.
Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Thursday, May 27, 2004
One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?
One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.
It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.
That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.
After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.
One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
'LEFT BEHIND' SERIES... 62 MILLION AND COUNTING
Willow Creek Community Church Visit... Plug for Lincoln Brewster
Last week at the airport, I picked up a copy of Newsweek with Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins on the cover for some best selling series I never heard of. I tried to find the article online to link to, but I don't think Newsweek put it up yet. These co-authors have written a series called "Left Behind" that is based on the Book of Relevation and endtimes prophecies from the Bible. Their books have sold more than Stephen King and John Grisham. More than 62 million!
Admittingly, the reporter stated that most of mainstreet didn't know how popular it was since majority of their readers are in the Midwest and South. Only 6% of people in the Northeast have read one of their books. Talk about a Christian "underground" that shocks most of the major media outlets. For some of the liberal media, it's probably similar to Indiana Jones walking through the cave, lights a torch, and suddenly realizes he's engulfed in a small nation of rats. Scary for some New York reporters that would call this readership "a bunch of rednecks."
For me it was very refreshing and cool that a Christian series was so popular. I asked my younger brother if he heard of the series and he said, "Of course." I guess being out of the country and mainstream Christian culture put me in the shade. It's also relevant to me because I really do believe the 'endtimes' can be within my lifetime. More and more Bibical prophecies have been fulfilled over the past hundred years that signal the end as we know it. Maybe I'll write about these signs in a later post. Anyway, I tried to find the recent article but couldn't, so I'm posting an older article from Newsweek about this series below.
Lastly, I visited Willow Creek church this past Wednesday for their evening service. Good service and they had a good Christian singer, Lincoln Brewster, I wanted to plug. Talented and energetic.
The Way the World Ends
The third millennium approaches, bringing with it visions of peace, apocalyptic terror--and a stream of new books about the last days. What the Bible says about the end of time, and how prophecy has shaped our world.
NEWSWEEK
Kenneth L. Woodward (with Anne Underwood)
November 1, 1999
The Christian Bible begins with the creation of the world, before time itself began. It closes with a harrowing vision of the world's end, when time will be no more. For most of Western history, when the world began has been a matter of curiosity. But predicting when the world will end has been an all-consuming passion.
Of all the books of the Bible, none has fired the imagination of the West more than the last: the mysterious Apocalypse. The four horsemen of the apocalypse, the heavenly book with seven seals, the beast with the mark of 666, the Whore of Babylon, the deceitful Antichrist--these are just a few of the powerful and troubling images that Revelation injected into Western art and consciousness. Its prophecies have been of even greater consequence: the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, the millennial kingdom of Christ on earth, the Battle of Armageddon and the promise of a new heaven and earth have justified numerous wars and rev! olutions and inspired utopias and religious sects of every sort.
Millennial dreams and apocalyptic nightmares are never far below the surface of the American psyche--especially now, as the third millennium approaches. Of course, few people seriously think the apocalypse will come at 12:01 on New Year's Eve; some of those who do will descend on Jerusalem at the year-end with millennial expectations, putting Israeli police on high alert (following story). The deeper and more interesting phenomenon is the enormous role prophecy has played in Western religious and popular culture. A NEWSWEEK Poll found that 40 percent of American adults do believe that the world will one day end, as Revelation describes, in the Battle of Armageddon. Every choir that sings "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" or the Salvation Army's "Onward, Christian Soldiers" resurrects martial images and themes from Christian prophecy. In the 1970s, the best-selling book of the decade was Hal Lindsey's apo! calyptic "The Late Great Planet Earth," with 28 million copies sold by 1990. More recently, a series of "Left Behind" novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins based on Christian prophecies, including two published this year, have sold more than 9 million copies. Among academics, studies of the apocalyptic tradition have produced dozens of new books. "Over the past 30 years," says Bernard McGinn, a medieval specialist at the University of Chicago Divinity School, "more scholarship has been devoted to apocalypticism than in the last 300."
Like Christians and Jews, Muslims also see an apocalyptic end to the world: there will be natural calamities, followed by the war of Armageddon led by the "hidden" imam, a descendant of Muhammad, and Jesus against the forces of evil, led by Dajjal, an Antichrist figure. After a millennium of peace, both Jesus and the imam will die and the final judgment will take place. For Hindus and Buddhists, time is cyclical, and so the world renews itself after each cycle but never ends.
Christian apocalypticism-! -the vision of the endtimes--comes from a mysterious book written by John, a Christian prophet living in exile on the island of Patmos toward the end of the first century. His intention was to warn the fledgling Christian communities of Asia Minor against compromising with the Roman Empire and its cult of the divine emperor. His message, though, took the form of a personal revelation from Christ filled with mythic beasts, avenging angels and terrifying tribulations for humankind amid clashing cosmic forces. Much suffering would come to the world, John prophesied, before Christ himself would return to defeat his human adversary, the Antichrist, in the Battle of Armageddon. Christ would then establish a millennial kingdom on earth for the just. Then, after a final clash with Satan, Christ would pass judgment on all the living and the dead. For the just, there would be a heavenly Jerusalem--a new heaven and a new earth. But the precise meaning of John's figurative revelation w! as hidden in strange and forbidding symbols that Christians have tried to decipher ever since.
"The whole of Western history can be read through the prism of John's Apocalypse," says historian McGinn, coeditor of a recent three-volume Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. In the 12th century, for example, the Crusaders saw the recapture of Jerusalem from the Muslims as a defeat of the Antichrist. Christopher Columbus set sail thinking his voyage to India would hasten the return of Christ to earth. For the same reason, Oliver Cromwell readmitted Jews to England after the English civil war, thinking his victory would establish the New Jerusalem on British soil. Isaac Newton wrote a book on the Biblical prophecy, hoping to prove that "the world is governed by providence." In Puritan New England, America's greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards, studied John's Apocalypse and calculated that the millennium of Christ's kingdom on earth would begin in the year 2000.
"Apocalypticism"--the belief that God will shortly intervene in history, destroy! the wicked and initiate his own kingdom on earth--did not begin with John of Patmos. Jesus himself was a Jewish prophet "who taught and expected the end of the world as he knew it," argues New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman in his new book, "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium." The apostle Paul, writing two decades after the death of Jesus, expected to witness Christ's return to earth. But the Gospel of Matthew, reflecting views of Christians some 60 years later, has Jesus warning his disciples to look out for signs of the endtimes--among them, wars and famines and earthquakes. But he also warned that "the end is not yet."
Whether John's Apocalypse (the word means "unveiling") is a foretelling of the future or a symbolic interpretation of the then current situation of Christians has long vexed church theologians. Early Christianity had revived the long-dormant spirit of Hebrew prophecy, and in doing so relied on Jewish precedents. Much of John's arcan! e imagery is borrowed from Ezekiel, Zachariah and especially the dream s of Daniel. He also uses numbers as a code for letters. Thus the beast whose number is 666 translates to Nero, the mad emperor who had persecuted Christians; his seven heads refer to the first seven Roman emperors. Similarly, the number 1,000 does not denote a period of 10 centuries but symbolizes an indefinite period of long duration.
In short, most contemporary Biblical scholars now believe that John was not predicting a distant future. Rather, he was locating the trials of the first-century churches within a wider cosmic battle between Christ and Satan. Like the earlier prophets, he wanted Christians to know that the faithful would be rewarded and their oppressors punished.
For as long as the early church suffered persecution, John's vision of a divine rescue was both compelling and consoling. By the third century, however, John's Apocalypse was widely considered unworthy of being included among the canonical books of the Bible. Jerome and other church father! s thought that John's endtimes vision encouraged religious fanaticism (reading it, one bishop led his flock out to the desert to await the end) and that his anti-Roman polemics provoked unnecessary civil discord. Augustine defined what soon became the official Catholic position: John's Revelation should not be interpreted literally or as future-telling, but as an allegory of the everyday struggle between good and evil, the church and the world. On that basis, the Apocalypse was officially accepted as Scripture.
Even so, medieval Christians wanted to know where they stood on God's timetable. They had no clocks or watches, no universal calendar to record the passing of the centuries, much less mark the end of the first millennium. But they did have an abundance of wars, famines and natural calamities--precisely the signs that Jesus said would signal the endtime. Medieval society lived in the shadow of imminent apocalypse, but this apprehension often spurred missionary a! ction. Convinced that Christ's return was near, Pope Gregory I (590-60 4) sent a group of monks north to convert England where its leader, Augustine, became both the first Archbishop of Canterbury and a saint.
The Middle Ages were rich in speculations by learned monks about where their own age stood in relation to the endtimes. Chief among these was Joachim of Fiore, who claimed that a personal revelation had unlocked the secret of John's Apocalypse as the key to the whole Bible. In essence, Joachim found that all of history was divided into three progressively more spiritual epochs: the age of the Father (the period of the Old Testament), the age of the Son (the period since Christ) and a soon-to-come age of the Holy Spirit, in which new religious orders would renew the church and through it purify the entire human race. His own age, he saw, was one of transition and crisis: the Antichrist, he believed, was already alive in Rome and his defeat would bring about the end of the present era in 1260.
Joachim's scheme of progressively p! urer ages influenced millenarian movements for the next 700 years. Never mind that he--and others--miscalculated specific dates. What mattered was his vision of a purified world, which appealed to spiritual reformers of every stripe. Radical followers of Saint Francis (whom some saw as the sixth angel of John's Apocalypse) proposed the abolition of property and other institutions in favor of a pure communist society. In the 16th century a group of Anabaptists, convinced the millennium was near, took over the town of Leiden. John, their leader, proclaimed himself king and messiah. Through terror, he abolished private ownership of money, instituted polygamy and banned all books but the Bible. In the late 19th century, early Marxists could claim this radical tradition as a precursor of true communism.
Indeed, millenarian dreams were a constant problem for Europe's established churches. When a visionary friar informed Pope Benedict XIV that the Antichrist had arrived and ! was already 3 years of age, the pope was visibly relieved. "Then I sha ll leave the problem to my successor," he said. What made the Apocalypse of John so enduring is that any hated or revered figure could be identified as one of the mythic players in his symbolic endtimes scenario. For some in the late Middle Ages, it was Emperor Frederick II; for Frederick's supporters it was Pope Innocent IV, whose name could be translated into the dread mark of the beast--666. For many Christians it was Muhammad or the Turks in general, whose armies threatened to devour Europe. Eventually, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and even Mikhail Gorbachev (who seemed to have the "mark of the beast on his forehead") entered the list of Antichrists.
Martin Luther was the first to identify the papacy as such with the Antichrist. At first he discounted the value of John's Apocalypse. But then he saw in it a revelation of the Church of Rome as the deceiving Antichrist who secretly served Satan. For him, the papacy was the "synagogue of Satan" and "the kingdom of Babylon ! and of the true Antichrist"--a view that was to become dogma for all Protestant churches. "By 1641," writes historian Eugen Weber in his brilliant new book, "Apocalypses," "a clergyman could be denounced to [the English] Parliament for declaring that the pope was not Antichrist."
The Puritans who settled Massachusetts were driven by prophecy as well. Having endured a transatlantic exodus, they began to see their theocratic colony as a real, if as yet imperfect, model of the New Jerusalem prophesied by John. They were, it seemed to many of them, participants with God in creating a millennial kingdom of God on earth. Eventually, many of their descendants came to believe in a revised endtimes script: Christ would return after--not before, as John wrote--his American saints had established a millennial society. This optimistic vision was well expressed in 1832 by revivalist Charles Grandison Finney, a president of Oberlin College. He thought that if the church helped conv! erts to be educated, given just wages and thus regenerated in body as well as in soul, then "the millennium may come in this country in three years."
Others were more pessimistic. In 19th-century America, as in 14th-century Europe, the country was overrun with visionaries, reformers and prophets. Among the most creative was Joseph Smith, who concluded at an early age that the entire Christian enterprise was a corruption of what used to be. In 1823, he reported angelic revelations, telling him to gather a group of latter-day saints in preparation for Christ's return to earth. (Mormons believe he will appear in Independence, Mo., as well as in Jerusalem.) Twenty years later, Baptist convert William Miller concluded, after extensive study of Biblical prophecy, that Christ would return in 1843, then changed it to Oct. 22, 1844. Thousands of believers withdrew from their churches in anticipation. When Christ failed to appear, Miller's movement was shattered. But a remnant under Ellen White reinterpreted the spiritual meaning of the prophesied! date and formed the Seventh-day Adventists.
Catholics, too, received prophecies and warnings of the endtimes in the 19th century. They came in a series of apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes and other European sites. After her appearance to Catherine Laboure in Paris in 1830, the church struck a "miraculous" medal for distribution among the faithful. On it was an image of the Virgin appearing as "the woman clothed with the sun," a figure straight out of John's Apocalypse.
Although John's prophecies were aimed at Christians, they have also had enormous significance for Jews. According to one ancient tradition, the Antichrist will be Jewish, but the predominant emphasis in Christian prophecy is on the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple as a prelude to the Jews' conversion to Christ. This view made Christian fundamentalists, for whom prophecy fulfilled is proof of the Bible's literal truth, one of Zionism's stronge! st supporters over the last century. It also explains why the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 excited fresh expectations that the countdown to Armageddon had surely begun.
Jews, of course, have their own apocalyptic traditions built around the coming of the messiah. One view, espoused by the great medieval philosopher Maimonides, is that the messiah will be an exceptional but human being who will preside as king over a free Israel for a thousand peaceful years, according to God's covenant with his people. The other, more mystical view, says philosopher Shaul Magid, of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, is that "flesh will no longer exist and there will be pure spiritual reality." Talmudic tradition divides history into three ages of 2,000 years each: an age of confusion (from creation to Abraham), the age of Torah (from Abraham on) and the age of redemption (approaching the coming of the messiah). This year on the Jewish calendar is 5760, leaving 240 years in which the messiah could come.
Christian fundamentalism ! owes much of its continuing power and appeal to the belief that the prophecies of John, Daniel and other Biblical writers forecast a sequence of specific historical events. But fundamentalists have also shown a remarkable capacity to add to the stock of apocalyptic portents. Since the Antichrist must have the means for controlling the world, many new technological advances are now seen as ominous signs: Social Security numbers, bar codes, ATMs, international organizations like the United Nations and the European Common Market, and--most recently--the World Wide Web. As a newly elected president, George Bush set off alarms among many Biblical literalists when he announced in 1990 his ambition to create a "new world order." Could he be, some fundamentalists wondered, the cat's-paw for the Antichrist?
Whether fundamentalists and other "prophetic" Christians will suffer in the endtimes remains for them a matter of some dispute. They have built an escape clause into the en! dtimes scenario: "the rapture." This means that at a trumpet's blast, all true Christians will suddenly ascend halfway to heaven the moment Christ begins his descent. Cars will be driverless, planes will be pilotless and children will lose parents if they are among the secret elect. Others think that even the elect will suffer at least part of the seven years of hell on earth that God plans for the wicked. At least one church, in North Hollywood, has taken steps to preserve its property should its officers disappear during the rapture. The church's insurance companies have agreed to delay premium payments for seven years, when the raptured officers return.
Of those who say they believe in the Bible's endtime prophecies, few are likely to translate those beliefs into such direct action. Nor, with a robust economy, are there too many signs of millenarian social unrest. Next month authors LaHaye and Jenkins will publish yet another volume, a nonfiction title that asks, "Are We Living in the End Times?" Clearly, the answer is "Not yet"; the ! last in their fiction series is planned for the year 2003. For most Americans, it appears, the Biblical account of the endtimes continues to resonate because there are few competing narratives. Even nuclear annihilation and ecological implosion can be fit into John's Apocalypse. When Ronald Reagan was president, recalls University of Wisconsin historian Paul Boyer, who has studied modern apocalyptic movements, he suggested that "we may be the generation that sees Armageddon." But on leaving the White House in 1989, Reagan allowed that "America's greatest moment is yet to come." He wasn't thinking of the millennium.
Exiled on his island, John of Patmos never imagined that his apocalyptic writing would become a handbook for interpreting historical events. Like most first-century Christians, he thought the end was imminent. And one can only wonder how he'd react to those throughout history who have used his vision to justify violence, war, paranoia and even hate.
Though widely read for the wrong reasons, John's Apocalypse nonetheless insists on hard truths that no serious believer can discount. One is that sinners have reason to fear a God who, having chosen to create the world, can also choose to destroy it. The second is that the just have reason to hope in a God who stands by those who trust their lives to him. Thinking of the end of the world--like contemplating one's own end--is a painful process. But studying the Apocalypse presumes that even the end of the world is within the province of God. And who's to say that John's mythic battle between Christ and Antichrist is not a valid insight into what the history of humankind is ultimately all about?
|
Willow Creek Community Church Visit... Plug for Lincoln Brewster
Last week at the airport, I picked up a copy of Newsweek with Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins on the cover for some best selling series I never heard of. I tried to find the article online to link to, but I don't think Newsweek put it up yet. These co-authors have written a series called "Left Behind" that is based on the Book of Relevation and endtimes prophecies from the Bible. Their books have sold more than Stephen King and John Grisham. More than 62 million!
Admittingly, the reporter stated that most of mainstreet didn't know how popular it was since majority of their readers are in the Midwest and South. Only 6% of people in the Northeast have read one of their books. Talk about a Christian "underground" that shocks most of the major media outlets. For some of the liberal media, it's probably similar to Indiana Jones walking through the cave, lights a torch, and suddenly realizes he's engulfed in a small nation of rats. Scary for some New York reporters that would call this readership "a bunch of rednecks."
For me it was very refreshing and cool that a Christian series was so popular. I asked my younger brother if he heard of the series and he said, "Of course." I guess being out of the country and mainstream Christian culture put me in the shade. It's also relevant to me because I really do believe the 'endtimes' can be within my lifetime. More and more Bibical prophecies have been fulfilled over the past hundred years that signal the end as we know it. Maybe I'll write about these signs in a later post. Anyway, I tried to find the recent article but couldn't, so I'm posting an older article from Newsweek about this series below.
Lastly, I visited Willow Creek church this past Wednesday for their evening service. Good service and they had a good Christian singer, Lincoln Brewster, I wanted to plug. Talented and energetic.
The Way the World Ends
The third millennium approaches, bringing with it visions of peace, apocalyptic terror--and a stream of new books about the last days. What the Bible says about the end of time, and how prophecy has shaped our world.
NEWSWEEK
Kenneth L. Woodward (with Anne Underwood)
November 1, 1999
The Christian Bible begins with the creation of the world, before time itself began. It closes with a harrowing vision of the world's end, when time will be no more. For most of Western history, when the world began has been a matter of curiosity. But predicting when the world will end has been an all-consuming passion.
Of all the books of the Bible, none has fired the imagination of the West more than the last: the mysterious Apocalypse. The four horsemen of the apocalypse, the heavenly book with seven seals, the beast with the mark of 666, the Whore of Babylon, the deceitful Antichrist--these are just a few of the powerful and troubling images that Revelation injected into Western art and consciousness. Its prophecies have been of even greater consequence: the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, the millennial kingdom of Christ on earth, the Battle of Armageddon and the promise of a new heaven and earth have justified numerous wars and rev! olutions and inspired utopias and religious sects of every sort.
Millennial dreams and apocalyptic nightmares are never far below the surface of the American psyche--especially now, as the third millennium approaches. Of course, few people seriously think the apocalypse will come at 12:01 on New Year's Eve; some of those who do will descend on Jerusalem at the year-end with millennial expectations, putting Israeli police on high alert (following story). The deeper and more interesting phenomenon is the enormous role prophecy has played in Western religious and popular culture. A NEWSWEEK Poll found that 40 percent of American adults do believe that the world will one day end, as Revelation describes, in the Battle of Armageddon. Every choir that sings "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" or the Salvation Army's "Onward, Christian Soldiers" resurrects martial images and themes from Christian prophecy. In the 1970s, the best-selling book of the decade was Hal Lindsey's apo! calyptic "The Late Great Planet Earth," with 28 million copies sold by 1990. More recently, a series of "Left Behind" novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins based on Christian prophecies, including two published this year, have sold more than 9 million copies. Among academics, studies of the apocalyptic tradition have produced dozens of new books. "Over the past 30 years," says Bernard McGinn, a medieval specialist at the University of Chicago Divinity School, "more scholarship has been devoted to apocalypticism than in the last 300."
Like Christians and Jews, Muslims also see an apocalyptic end to the world: there will be natural calamities, followed by the war of Armageddon led by the "hidden" imam, a descendant of Muhammad, and Jesus against the forces of evil, led by Dajjal, an Antichrist figure. After a millennium of peace, both Jesus and the imam will die and the final judgment will take place. For Hindus and Buddhists, time is cyclical, and so the world renews itself after each cycle but never ends.
Christian apocalypticism-! -the vision of the endtimes--comes from a mysterious book written by John, a Christian prophet living in exile on the island of Patmos toward the end of the first century. His intention was to warn the fledgling Christian communities of Asia Minor against compromising with the Roman Empire and its cult of the divine emperor. His message, though, took the form of a personal revelation from Christ filled with mythic beasts, avenging angels and terrifying tribulations for humankind amid clashing cosmic forces. Much suffering would come to the world, John prophesied, before Christ himself would return to defeat his human adversary, the Antichrist, in the Battle of Armageddon. Christ would then establish a millennial kingdom on earth for the just. Then, after a final clash with Satan, Christ would pass judgment on all the living and the dead. For the just, there would be a heavenly Jerusalem--a new heaven and a new earth. But the precise meaning of John's figurative revelation w! as hidden in strange and forbidding symbols that Christians have tried to decipher ever since.
"The whole of Western history can be read through the prism of John's Apocalypse," says historian McGinn, coeditor of a recent three-volume Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. In the 12th century, for example, the Crusaders saw the recapture of Jerusalem from the Muslims as a defeat of the Antichrist. Christopher Columbus set sail thinking his voyage to India would hasten the return of Christ to earth. For the same reason, Oliver Cromwell readmitted Jews to England after the English civil war, thinking his victory would establish the New Jerusalem on British soil. Isaac Newton wrote a book on the Biblical prophecy, hoping to prove that "the world is governed by providence." In Puritan New England, America's greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards, studied John's Apocalypse and calculated that the millennium of Christ's kingdom on earth would begin in the year 2000.
"Apocalypticism"--the belief that God will shortly intervene in history, destroy! the wicked and initiate his own kingdom on earth--did not begin with John of Patmos. Jesus himself was a Jewish prophet "who taught and expected the end of the world as he knew it," argues New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman in his new book, "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium." The apostle Paul, writing two decades after the death of Jesus, expected to witness Christ's return to earth. But the Gospel of Matthew, reflecting views of Christians some 60 years later, has Jesus warning his disciples to look out for signs of the endtimes--among them, wars and famines and earthquakes. But he also warned that "the end is not yet."
Whether John's Apocalypse (the word means "unveiling") is a foretelling of the future or a symbolic interpretation of the then current situation of Christians has long vexed church theologians. Early Christianity had revived the long-dormant spirit of Hebrew prophecy, and in doing so relied on Jewish precedents. Much of John's arcan! e imagery is borrowed from Ezekiel, Zachariah and especially the dream s of Daniel. He also uses numbers as a code for letters. Thus the beast whose number is 666 translates to Nero, the mad emperor who had persecuted Christians; his seven heads refer to the first seven Roman emperors. Similarly, the number 1,000 does not denote a period of 10 centuries but symbolizes an indefinite period of long duration.
In short, most contemporary Biblical scholars now believe that John was not predicting a distant future. Rather, he was locating the trials of the first-century churches within a wider cosmic battle between Christ and Satan. Like the earlier prophets, he wanted Christians to know that the faithful would be rewarded and their oppressors punished.
For as long as the early church suffered persecution, John's vision of a divine rescue was both compelling and consoling. By the third century, however, John's Apocalypse was widely considered unworthy of being included among the canonical books of the Bible. Jerome and other church father! s thought that John's endtimes vision encouraged religious fanaticism (reading it, one bishop led his flock out to the desert to await the end) and that his anti-Roman polemics provoked unnecessary civil discord. Augustine defined what soon became the official Catholic position: John's Revelation should not be interpreted literally or as future-telling, but as an allegory of the everyday struggle between good and evil, the church and the world. On that basis, the Apocalypse was officially accepted as Scripture.
Even so, medieval Christians wanted to know where they stood on God's timetable. They had no clocks or watches, no universal calendar to record the passing of the centuries, much less mark the end of the first millennium. But they did have an abundance of wars, famines and natural calamities--precisely the signs that Jesus said would signal the endtime. Medieval society lived in the shadow of imminent apocalypse, but this apprehension often spurred missionary a! ction. Convinced that Christ's return was near, Pope Gregory I (590-60 4) sent a group of monks north to convert England where its leader, Augustine, became both the first Archbishop of Canterbury and a saint.
The Middle Ages were rich in speculations by learned monks about where their own age stood in relation to the endtimes. Chief among these was Joachim of Fiore, who claimed that a personal revelation had unlocked the secret of John's Apocalypse as the key to the whole Bible. In essence, Joachim found that all of history was divided into three progressively more spiritual epochs: the age of the Father (the period of the Old Testament), the age of the Son (the period since Christ) and a soon-to-come age of the Holy Spirit, in which new religious orders would renew the church and through it purify the entire human race. His own age, he saw, was one of transition and crisis: the Antichrist, he believed, was already alive in Rome and his defeat would bring about the end of the present era in 1260.
Joachim's scheme of progressively p! urer ages influenced millenarian movements for the next 700 years. Never mind that he--and others--miscalculated specific dates. What mattered was his vision of a purified world, which appealed to spiritual reformers of every stripe. Radical followers of Saint Francis (whom some saw as the sixth angel of John's Apocalypse) proposed the abolition of property and other institutions in favor of a pure communist society. In the 16th century a group of Anabaptists, convinced the millennium was near, took over the town of Leiden. John, their leader, proclaimed himself king and messiah. Through terror, he abolished private ownership of money, instituted polygamy and banned all books but the Bible. In the late 19th century, early Marxists could claim this radical tradition as a precursor of true communism.
Indeed, millenarian dreams were a constant problem for Europe's established churches. When a visionary friar informed Pope Benedict XIV that the Antichrist had arrived and ! was already 3 years of age, the pope was visibly relieved. "Then I sha ll leave the problem to my successor," he said. What made the Apocalypse of John so enduring is that any hated or revered figure could be identified as one of the mythic players in his symbolic endtimes scenario. For some in the late Middle Ages, it was Emperor Frederick II; for Frederick's supporters it was Pope Innocent IV, whose name could be translated into the dread mark of the beast--666. For many Christians it was Muhammad or the Turks in general, whose armies threatened to devour Europe. Eventually, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and even Mikhail Gorbachev (who seemed to have the "mark of the beast on his forehead") entered the list of Antichrists.
Martin Luther was the first to identify the papacy as such with the Antichrist. At first he discounted the value of John's Apocalypse. But then he saw in it a revelation of the Church of Rome as the deceiving Antichrist who secretly served Satan. For him, the papacy was the "synagogue of Satan" and "the kingdom of Babylon ! and of the true Antichrist"--a view that was to become dogma for all Protestant churches. "By 1641," writes historian Eugen Weber in his brilliant new book, "Apocalypses," "a clergyman could be denounced to [the English] Parliament for declaring that the pope was not Antichrist."
The Puritans who settled Massachusetts were driven by prophecy as well. Having endured a transatlantic exodus, they began to see their theocratic colony as a real, if as yet imperfect, model of the New Jerusalem prophesied by John. They were, it seemed to many of them, participants with God in creating a millennial kingdom of God on earth. Eventually, many of their descendants came to believe in a revised endtimes script: Christ would return after--not before, as John wrote--his American saints had established a millennial society. This optimistic vision was well expressed in 1832 by revivalist Charles Grandison Finney, a president of Oberlin College. He thought that if the church helped conv! erts to be educated, given just wages and thus regenerated in body as well as in soul, then "the millennium may come in this country in three years."
Others were more pessimistic. In 19th-century America, as in 14th-century Europe, the country was overrun with visionaries, reformers and prophets. Among the most creative was Joseph Smith, who concluded at an early age that the entire Christian enterprise was a corruption of what used to be. In 1823, he reported angelic revelations, telling him to gather a group of latter-day saints in preparation for Christ's return to earth. (Mormons believe he will appear in Independence, Mo., as well as in Jerusalem.) Twenty years later, Baptist convert William Miller concluded, after extensive study of Biblical prophecy, that Christ would return in 1843, then changed it to Oct. 22, 1844. Thousands of believers withdrew from their churches in anticipation. When Christ failed to appear, Miller's movement was shattered. But a remnant under Ellen White reinterpreted the spiritual meaning of the prophesied! date and formed the Seventh-day Adventists.
Catholics, too, received prophecies and warnings of the endtimes in the 19th century. They came in a series of apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes and other European sites. After her appearance to Catherine Laboure in Paris in 1830, the church struck a "miraculous" medal for distribution among the faithful. On it was an image of the Virgin appearing as "the woman clothed with the sun," a figure straight out of John's Apocalypse.
Although John's prophecies were aimed at Christians, they have also had enormous significance for Jews. According to one ancient tradition, the Antichrist will be Jewish, but the predominant emphasis in Christian prophecy is on the return of the Jews to the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple as a prelude to the Jews' conversion to Christ. This view made Christian fundamentalists, for whom prophecy fulfilled is proof of the Bible's literal truth, one of Zionism's stronge! st supporters over the last century. It also explains why the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 excited fresh expectations that the countdown to Armageddon had surely begun.
Jews, of course, have their own apocalyptic traditions built around the coming of the messiah. One view, espoused by the great medieval philosopher Maimonides, is that the messiah will be an exceptional but human being who will preside as king over a free Israel for a thousand peaceful years, according to God's covenant with his people. The other, more mystical view, says philosopher Shaul Magid, of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, is that "flesh will no longer exist and there will be pure spiritual reality." Talmudic tradition divides history into three ages of 2,000 years each: an age of confusion (from creation to Abraham), the age of Torah (from Abraham on) and the age of redemption (approaching the coming of the messiah). This year on the Jewish calendar is 5760, leaving 240 years in which the messiah could come.
Christian fundamentalism ! owes much of its continuing power and appeal to the belief that the prophecies of John, Daniel and other Biblical writers forecast a sequence of specific historical events. But fundamentalists have also shown a remarkable capacity to add to the stock of apocalyptic portents. Since the Antichrist must have the means for controlling the world, many new technological advances are now seen as ominous signs: Social Security numbers, bar codes, ATMs, international organizations like the United Nations and the European Common Market, and--most recently--the World Wide Web. As a newly elected president, George Bush set off alarms among many Biblical literalists when he announced in 1990 his ambition to create a "new world order." Could he be, some fundamentalists wondered, the cat's-paw for the Antichrist?
Whether fundamentalists and other "prophetic" Christians will suffer in the endtimes remains for them a matter of some dispute. They have built an escape clause into the en! dtimes scenario: "the rapture." This means that at a trumpet's blast, all true Christians will suddenly ascend halfway to heaven the moment Christ begins his descent. Cars will be driverless, planes will be pilotless and children will lose parents if they are among the secret elect. Others think that even the elect will suffer at least part of the seven years of hell on earth that God plans for the wicked. At least one church, in North Hollywood, has taken steps to preserve its property should its officers disappear during the rapture. The church's insurance companies have agreed to delay premium payments for seven years, when the raptured officers return.
Of those who say they believe in the Bible's endtime prophecies, few are likely to translate those beliefs into such direct action. Nor, with a robust economy, are there too many signs of millenarian social unrest. Next month authors LaHaye and Jenkins will publish yet another volume, a nonfiction title that asks, "Are We Living in the End Times?" Clearly, the answer is "Not yet"; the ! last in their fiction series is planned for the year 2003. For most Americans, it appears, the Biblical account of the endtimes continues to resonate because there are few competing narratives. Even nuclear annihilation and ecological implosion can be fit into John's Apocalypse. When Ronald Reagan was president, recalls University of Wisconsin historian Paul Boyer, who has studied modern apocalyptic movements, he suggested that "we may be the generation that sees Armageddon." But on leaving the White House in 1989, Reagan allowed that "America's greatest moment is yet to come." He wasn't thinking of the millennium.
Exiled on his island, John of Patmos never imagined that his apocalyptic writing would become a handbook for interpreting historical events. Like most first-century Christians, he thought the end was imminent. And one can only wonder how he'd react to those throughout history who have used his vision to justify violence, war, paranoia and even hate.
Though widely read for the wrong reasons, John's Apocalypse nonetheless insists on hard truths that no serious believer can discount. One is that sinners have reason to fear a God who, having chosen to create the world, can also choose to destroy it. The second is that the just have reason to hope in a God who stands by those who trust their lives to him. Thinking of the end of the world--like contemplating one's own end--is a painful process. But studying the Apocalypse presumes that even the end of the world is within the province of God. And who's to say that John's mythic battle between Christ and Antichrist is not a valid insight into what the history of humankind is ultimately all about?
MICHAEL ROBERTSON SHOWING... SIPPHONE
MP3.com and Lindows founder, Michael Robertson, has a new gig. He's started a company where the "first time a pure SIP based network with no monthly service fee can dial directly to any number on the existing phone system."
|
MP3.com and Lindows founder, Michael Robertson, has a new gig. He's started a company where the "first time a pure SIP based network with no monthly service fee can dial directly to any number on the existing phone system."
CHRISTIANITY TODAY INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT BUSH
From LGF... Good interview. Again he's sincere, honest, bold... a solid leader.
|
From LGF... Good interview. Again he's sincere, honest, bold... a solid leader.
Friday, May 28, 2004
ODD DOUBLE STANDARD... OUR GI EXECUTED IN PRISON
Sgt. Donald Walters Killed By Iraqi fighers... Where is the Outrage Now?
Earlier on TV, I saw an interview of Norman Walters, Donald Walter's father, who perfectly capture the odd double standard between Abu Ghraib's prisoners and his son by many social critics (primarily from the left). I don't remember the quote word for word, but basically he was saying what is the big deal of the psychological torment those prisoners went through when they killed my son during his imprisonment.
Will there be just as much outrage by the U.S. media now? By the left? By the international community? Is the life of an American GI less than psychological torment of a dozen Iraqi prisoners? Who from the left will stand up on this issue? Will some say, "He was an intruder... an invader, so he opened himself to such a fate?" Or will someone say something more absurd?
I doesn't anger me so much as it disheartens me that fellow Americans are blinded by their partisanship and hatred against this administration to such a degree that pits them against other Americans and in some cases act anti-American. There are some that will be more angered by the abuse of the Abu Ghraib prisoners than by the death and abuse of Donald Walter during his imprisonment. Is this logical? No. Justified in any manner? No. Even death of an American GI cannot disrupt their cause. I cannot grasp how some people can think like this. Is the life of a human being from a 'stronger and wealthier' nation of less value? To be mourned less? I don't understand.
|
Sgt. Donald Walters Killed By Iraqi fighers... Where is the Outrage Now?
Earlier on TV, I saw an interview of Norman Walters, Donald Walter's father, who perfectly capture the odd double standard between Abu Ghraib's prisoners and his son by many social critics (primarily from the left). I don't remember the quote word for word, but basically he was saying what is the big deal of the psychological torment those prisoners went through when they killed my son during his imprisonment.
Will there be just as much outrage by the U.S. media now? By the left? By the international community? Is the life of an American GI less than psychological torment of a dozen Iraqi prisoners? Who from the left will stand up on this issue? Will some say, "He was an intruder... an invader, so he opened himself to such a fate?" Or will someone say something more absurd?
I doesn't anger me so much as it disheartens me that fellow Americans are blinded by their partisanship and hatred against this administration to such a degree that pits them against other Americans and in some cases act anti-American. There are some that will be more angered by the abuse of the Abu Ghraib prisoners than by the death and abuse of Donald Walter during his imprisonment. Is this logical? No. Justified in any manner? No. Even death of an American GI cannot disrupt their cause. I cannot grasp how some people can think like this. Is the life of a human being from a 'stronger and wealthier' nation of less value? To be mourned less? I don't understand.
FOBMAN 2... NEW TRUE TALENT DUDES AT IT AGAIN
I've been meaning to post this new video clip from the guys at New True Talent, a non-profit Korean American production group. Warning to non-Asians: mainly funny and more relevant if you're from an Asian American background.
|
I've been meaning to post this new video clip from the guys at New True Talent, a non-profit Korean American production group. Warning to non-Asians: mainly funny and more relevant if you're from an Asian American background.
VIDEO GAME GOD... CHECK THIS OUT!
Scottie, my shady friend from London, sent me this clip. This kid has amazing reflexes. There must be some transferable skills to a real job for him. I thought I was pretty good when I broke a million on Atari video pinball or was campus Mortal Kombat champ. This kid is a stud.
|
Scottie, my shady friend from London, sent me this clip. This kid has amazing reflexes. There must be some transferable skills to a real job for him. I thought I was pretty good when I broke a million on Atari video pinball or was campus Mortal Kombat champ. This kid is a stud.
NEXT PRESIDENT OF SOUTH KOREA... JIN PARK?
Note from my friend, Mingi:
I've met many South Korean lawmakers, gov't officials and former politicians, and none of them compares to the young and conservative brilliance that is PARK JIN. Amongst the South Korean moderate and right-wing circles, he's tabbed and supported as a definite presidential candidate for the conservative party in the years ahead. And if South Koreans know what's good for them, Park should become South Korean president within the next 10 years. Unfortunately, as seen from election results over the past decade, South Koreans are digging their own grave and going left.
Rep. Park to Talk With High-Level US Officials
THE KOREA TIMES
Grand National Party (GNP) lawmaker Park Jin will fly to Washington tomorrow to gather information and convey his party's concerns regarding the recent U.S. decision to shift some of its troops stationed here to Iraq.
Park, one of the few international relations experts in South Korea's parliament, said he will meet various high-level officials in the U.S. administration, Congress and think-tanks during his weeklong trip. As a special envoy of the opposition party, he will also be learning more about the U.S. position on key security issues such as the troop realignment and the North Korean nuclear crisis.
``U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific Affairs James Kelly will be one of the high-level officials I'll contact, Park said in an interview with The Korea Times. He balked at giving any additional names, only adding that they will include other high-profile officials from the White House, State Department and the Pentagon, as well as leaders from the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
On Monday, the South Korean government confirmed that it has agreed to a U.S. plan to move about 3,600 troops out of the 37,000-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) to Iraq on a one-year mission.
Despite the allies' assurances that the relocation will not hurt their combined defense stance against threats from the communist North, the move prompted public concerns about a possible security vacuum, especially among conservative forces represented by the GNP.
The main opposition party, often regarded to be friendlier to George W. Bush's administration than the Uri Party, has continuously raised their voices in fear of any decline of the half-century-long ROK-U.S. alliance.
``I will deliver my party's concerns and position about the recent development surrounding the alliance to the U.S., Park said.
He added that he would provide more detailed results to the press of his activities in the U.s. when he returns home on May 28.
Born in Seoul in 1956, Park graduated from Kyonggi High School and Seoul National University with a BA in law. He served as a naval officer after passing a state exam training the country's diplomats in 1977. He later studied at Harvard University's Kennedy School in the U.S. and Oxford University in the United Kingdom before serving as a staff member of Chong Wa Dae in 1994.
In addition to his latest book on North Korea's nuclear problem published last year, he also wrote a book in 2002 based on his encounters with prominent world leaders, including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, whom he met while serving as a secretary of former President Kim Young-sam in the early 1990s.
|
Note from my friend, Mingi:
I've met many South Korean lawmakers, gov't officials and former politicians, and none of them compares to the young and conservative brilliance that is PARK JIN. Amongst the South Korean moderate and right-wing circles, he's tabbed and supported as a definite presidential candidate for the conservative party in the years ahead. And if South Koreans know what's good for them, Park should become South Korean president within the next 10 years. Unfortunately, as seen from election results over the past decade, South Koreans are digging their own grave and going left.
Rep. Park to Talk With High-Level US Officials
THE KOREA TIMES
Grand National Party (GNP) lawmaker Park Jin will fly to Washington tomorrow to gather information and convey his party's concerns regarding the recent U.S. decision to shift some of its troops stationed here to Iraq.
Park, one of the few international relations experts in South Korea's parliament, said he will meet various high-level officials in the U.S. administration, Congress and think-tanks during his weeklong trip. As a special envoy of the opposition party, he will also be learning more about the U.S. position on key security issues such as the troop realignment and the North Korean nuclear crisis.
``U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific Affairs James Kelly will be one of the high-level officials I'll contact, Park said in an interview with The Korea Times. He balked at giving any additional names, only adding that they will include other high-profile officials from the White House, State Department and the Pentagon, as well as leaders from the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
On Monday, the South Korean government confirmed that it has agreed to a U.S. plan to move about 3,600 troops out of the 37,000-strong U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) to Iraq on a one-year mission.
Despite the allies' assurances that the relocation will not hurt their combined defense stance against threats from the communist North, the move prompted public concerns about a possible security vacuum, especially among conservative forces represented by the GNP.
The main opposition party, often regarded to be friendlier to George W. Bush's administration than the Uri Party, has continuously raised their voices in fear of any decline of the half-century-long ROK-U.S. alliance.
``I will deliver my party's concerns and position about the recent development surrounding the alliance to the U.S., Park said.
He added that he would provide more detailed results to the press of his activities in the U.s. when he returns home on May 28.
Born in Seoul in 1956, Park graduated from Kyonggi High School and Seoul National University with a BA in law. He served as a naval officer after passing a state exam training the country's diplomats in 1977. He later studied at Harvard University's Kennedy School in the U.S. and Oxford University in the United Kingdom before serving as a staff member of Chong Wa Dae in 1994.
In addition to his latest book on North Korea's nuclear problem published last year, he also wrote a book in 2002 based on his encounters with prominent world leaders, including former U.S. President Bill Clinton, whom he met while serving as a secretary of former President Kim Young-sam in the early 1990s.
Thursday, May 27, 2004
YEAH, I'M A LAKER HATER... EVEN KOBE IS ON THE DOWN
Kobe's 42 is Great?... MJ Averaged 41 During a NBA Finals
Ralph Wiley has a good article on the Lakers in ESPN's Page2. All the preseason hype about this Lakers team being one of the greatest has proven to be just hype. Squeaking by the Spurs where fortunes could have easily crumbled if Fisher's prayer shot didn't go in, these Lakers are stumbling towards greatness. I still believe the Pistons have the best chance to beat this fading team, so let's just watch and wait.
As for all the talk about how great Kobe is, he still doesn't come close to Michael Jordan. Sportscasters were yellin' and a screaming after he scored 42 on the Spurs. 42 points? MJ AVERAGED 41 points against the Suns in the 1993 NBA Finals. Kobe still hasn't proven to me if he can take the double-teaming that Shaq doesn't allow. When Shaq was sidelined with injuries and teams focused on double-teaming Kobe, he was not as effective. It will be interesting to see if he leaves LA how he will respond. Lastly, in this era of no hand-checks, I believe a young MJ would have dominated even more. During the year where he average 37 points for the season, he would have gone above 40 if people were not allowed to hold, grab, and push on his Airness.
I'm not a fan of Shaq, and now Kobe's favored status is losing steam with me. After reading last month's ESPN Magazine's article on Kobe's general attitude of entitlement and treatment of his employees disturbs me (e.g. treating them "like slaves"). The article portrayed Kobe's attitude as a prince among paupers, where the paupers were the majority of the human race. Kobe was on the down in my book after reading that article.
|
Kobe's 42 is Great?... MJ Averaged 41 During a NBA Finals
Ralph Wiley has a good article on the Lakers in ESPN's Page2. All the preseason hype about this Lakers team being one of the greatest has proven to be just hype. Squeaking by the Spurs where fortunes could have easily crumbled if Fisher's prayer shot didn't go in, these Lakers are stumbling towards greatness. I still believe the Pistons have the best chance to beat this fading team, so let's just watch and wait.
As for all the talk about how great Kobe is, he still doesn't come close to Michael Jordan. Sportscasters were yellin' and a screaming after he scored 42 on the Spurs. 42 points? MJ AVERAGED 41 points against the Suns in the 1993 NBA Finals. Kobe still hasn't proven to me if he can take the double-teaming that Shaq doesn't allow. When Shaq was sidelined with injuries and teams focused on double-teaming Kobe, he was not as effective. It will be interesting to see if he leaves LA how he will respond. Lastly, in this era of no hand-checks, I believe a young MJ would have dominated even more. During the year where he average 37 points for the season, he would have gone above 40 if people were not allowed to hold, grab, and push on his Airness.
I'm not a fan of Shaq, and now Kobe's favored status is losing steam with me. After reading last month's ESPN Magazine's article on Kobe's general attitude of entitlement and treatment of his employees disturbs me (e.g. treating them "like slaves"). The article portrayed Kobe's attitude as a prince among paupers, where the paupers were the majority of the human race. Kobe was on the down in my book after reading that article.
Wednesday, May 26, 2004
WHO'S WORSE CLARKE OR MOORE?... CLARKE CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AGAIN
From Power Line:
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
|
From Power Line:
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA HISTORIC TALKS
Highest level military talks between North and South Korea since the Korean War.
|
Highest level military talks between North and South Korea since the Korean War.
MICHAEL MOORE WINS TOP PRIZE AT CANNES
He's a Liar, Ego-Maniac... Don't Believe He's Smart
Just got into Chicago around midnight from my week in San Francisco. Got into my parents' home, ate dinner, and caught up on the Lakers disappointing win over the Wolves. Still on west coast time, so I decided to catch up on news and blog a bit. Big news a few days ago was Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' winning the Cannes Film Festival's prestigious Palme d'Or. His films are well made, but well made set ups and lies. It's disappointing to learn how he twists reality for his films, fame, and personal agenda:
Then there's the scene in which Moore opens an account in a rural bank and is given the free shotgun offered to new customers. "Don't you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?" he asks. It's a good question. And the answer is: the bank doesn't normally do anything of the sort. Customers have to wait six weeks for background checks. According to the bank, the scene was staged at Moore's request. (The Daily Telegraph, "Only stupid white men would believe Michael Moore")
Also Fred Barnes, from The Weekly Standard, explains how Michael Moore blatantly lied about him. Good thread at LGF. And finally check out the article from WSJ below.
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Isn't to Be Confused With Truth Telling
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
by Alan Murray
Walt Disney Co.'s decision to stop its Miramax Films division from distributing agitprop filmmaker Michael Moore's new movie can be called many things. But "censorship" isn't one of them.
Is Walt Disney worried about rupturing carefully cultivated relationships with Republican leaders in Washington and Tallahassee? You bet. Is the company that distributes Sean Hannity's conservative radio show being disingenuous when it says it doesn't want to put out a political polemic in an election year? No question about it.
But Disney officials say they made it clear when the company first invested in the project a year ago that it didn't want Miramax distributing the film. And there's nothing in the First Amendment that compels a company to promote a politically charged movie against its will.
The only harm caused by Disney's decision is to its own bottom line. Mr. Moore's films make oodles of money, and lots of companies will be happy to pick up where the Mouse House leaves off. Moreover, the publicity surrounding all this ensures more people will see "Fahrenheit 9/11," not fewer. That is too bad, because this is a movie that will inflame the nation's political debate, not inform it. It is based, in part, on a false premise, and it would be better if it sinks into obscurity.
To be fair, I haven't seen the film -- Miramax hasn't made it available. And my employers are balking at my proposal to spend the next week in Cannes, where it is being screened at that French resort's annual film festival.
But I have read a synopsis, provided by Miramax. It says the film explores, among other things, President Bush's "close personal friendships and business ties with the bin Laden and Saudi royal families" and culminates "in the decision to allow bin Laden family members to fly out of the country days [after Sept. 11, 2001] without FBI questioning." Mr. Moore makes the
same charge in his book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" "While thousands were stranded and could not fly," he writes, "if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" This would be a shocking charge...if it were true. But it isn't.
The Saudi flights -- including "Air Laden" -- have been investigated exhaustively by the 9/11 Commission, which carries no water for the president. Staffers found that there were indeed six chartered flights, carrying 142 people, most of whom were Saudi nationals, which left the U.S. between Sept. 14, 2001, and Sept. 24, 2001. But contrary to Mr. Moore's claims, not one left until after commercial airspace reopened and normal flights resumed. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation screened all passengers to ensure that no one of interest to various terror investigations was aboard.
The infamous "bin Laden" flight left on Sept. 20 with 26 passengers, most of them members of the sprawling bin Laden family. Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, however, the FBI interviewed 22 of those passengers, and checked all of them against various databases. There was no indication that any of them had been in recent contact with Osama bin Laden, or had been involved in
questionable activity. The 9/11 Commission staff ran all 142 names against an updated terror watch list again this spring, and again came up with no matches.
The commission also found no evidence that the flights resulted from high-level Saudi contacts with the White House. They seem to have originated with lower-level contacts with the FBI, which apparently was delighted to have these Saudi nationals located, gathered in one place, made available for questioning and allowed to leave the country. Even Richard Clarke, the
counterterrorism official turned White House nemesis, agreed the flights were of no particular concern.
Most of this is public record, readily accessible to Mr. Moore. When I pointed this out to him yesterday, he said: "I'm going to stick with the FBI agent who speaks on camera in my movie. The normal procedures were not followed."
Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey urged his colleagues last week to investigate Disney's actions. He fears too much media concentrated in too few corporate hands could become tantamount to censorship. "It's worrisome as hell to me," he said.
But the "Fahrenheit 9/11" saga proves the opposite. The film will be distributed, no matter how much media magnates like Mr. Eisner kowtow to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. As the photos of abused Iraqi prisoners now flying around the Internet prove, no one has control of today's media. As long as there are people who want to see films like Mr. Moore's, they will get out.
That is the good news. The bad news is that in today's freewheeling media environment, consumers seem increasingly unable to distinguish truth from fiction, news from polemic, reality from fantasy. The danger isn't that people won't see Mr. Moore's film. The danger is they will see it...and believe it.
|
He's a Liar, Ego-Maniac... Don't Believe He's Smart
Just got into Chicago around midnight from my week in San Francisco. Got into my parents' home, ate dinner, and caught up on the Lakers disappointing win over the Wolves. Still on west coast time, so I decided to catch up on news and blog a bit. Big news a few days ago was Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' winning the Cannes Film Festival's prestigious Palme d'Or. His films are well made, but well made set ups and lies. It's disappointing to learn how he twists reality for his films, fame, and personal agenda:
Then there's the scene in which Moore opens an account in a rural bank and is given the free shotgun offered to new customers. "Don't you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?" he asks. It's a good question. And the answer is: the bank doesn't normally do anything of the sort. Customers have to wait six weeks for background checks. According to the bank, the scene was staged at Moore's request. (The Daily Telegraph, "Only stupid white men would believe Michael Moore")
Also Fred Barnes, from The Weekly Standard, explains how Michael Moore blatantly lied about him. Good thread at LGF. And finally check out the article from WSJ below.
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Isn't to Be Confused With Truth Telling
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
by Alan Murray
Walt Disney Co.'s decision to stop its Miramax Films division from distributing agitprop filmmaker Michael Moore's new movie can be called many things. But "censorship" isn't one of them.
Is Walt Disney worried about rupturing carefully cultivated relationships with Republican leaders in Washington and Tallahassee? You bet. Is the company that distributes Sean Hannity's conservative radio show being disingenuous when it says it doesn't want to put out a political polemic in an election year? No question about it.
But Disney officials say they made it clear when the company first invested in the project a year ago that it didn't want Miramax distributing the film. And there's nothing in the First Amendment that compels a company to promote a politically charged movie against its will.
The only harm caused by Disney's decision is to its own bottom line. Mr. Moore's films make oodles of money, and lots of companies will be happy to pick up where the Mouse House leaves off. Moreover, the publicity surrounding all this ensures more people will see "Fahrenheit 9/11," not fewer. That is too bad, because this is a movie that will inflame the nation's political debate, not inform it. It is based, in part, on a false premise, and it would be better if it sinks into obscurity.
To be fair, I haven't seen the film -- Miramax hasn't made it available. And my employers are balking at my proposal to spend the next week in Cannes, where it is being screened at that French resort's annual film festival.
But I have read a synopsis, provided by Miramax. It says the film explores, among other things, President Bush's "close personal friendships and business ties with the bin Laden and Saudi royal families" and culminates "in the decision to allow bin Laden family members to fly out of the country days [after Sept. 11, 2001] without FBI questioning." Mr. Moore makes the
same charge in his book, "Dude, Where's My Country?" "While thousands were stranded and could not fly," he writes, "if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" This would be a shocking charge...if it were true. But it isn't.
The Saudi flights -- including "Air Laden" -- have been investigated exhaustively by the 9/11 Commission, which carries no water for the president. Staffers found that there were indeed six chartered flights, carrying 142 people, most of whom were Saudi nationals, which left the U.S. between Sept. 14, 2001, and Sept. 24, 2001. But contrary to Mr. Moore's claims, not one left until after commercial airspace reopened and normal flights resumed. Moreover, the Federal Bureau of Investigation screened all passengers to ensure that no one of interest to various terror investigations was aboard.
The infamous "bin Laden" flight left on Sept. 20 with 26 passengers, most of them members of the sprawling bin Laden family. Contrary to Mr. Moore's claim, however, the FBI interviewed 22 of those passengers, and checked all of them against various databases. There was no indication that any of them had been in recent contact with Osama bin Laden, or had been involved in
questionable activity. The 9/11 Commission staff ran all 142 names against an updated terror watch list again this spring, and again came up with no matches.
The commission also found no evidence that the flights resulted from high-level Saudi contacts with the White House. They seem to have originated with lower-level contacts with the FBI, which apparently was delighted to have these Saudi nationals located, gathered in one place, made available for questioning and allowed to leave the country. Even Richard Clarke, the
counterterrorism official turned White House nemesis, agreed the flights were of no particular concern.
Most of this is public record, readily accessible to Mr. Moore. When I pointed this out to him yesterday, he said: "I'm going to stick with the FBI agent who speaks on camera in my movie. The normal procedures were not followed."
Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey urged his colleagues last week to investigate Disney's actions. He fears too much media concentrated in too few corporate hands could become tantamount to censorship. "It's worrisome as hell to me," he said.
But the "Fahrenheit 9/11" saga proves the opposite. The film will be distributed, no matter how much media magnates like Mr. Eisner kowtow to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. As the photos of abused Iraqi prisoners now flying around the Internet prove, no one has control of today's media. As long as there are people who want to see films like Mr. Moore's, they will get out.
That is the good news. The bad news is that in today's freewheeling media environment, consumers seem increasingly unable to distinguish truth from fiction, news from polemic, reality from fantasy. The danger isn't that people won't see Mr. Moore's film. The danger is they will see it...and believe it.
Sunday, May 23, 2004
GOOGLE'S IPO... GREAT FOUNDERS, GREAT COMPANY
I've been meaning to post up these articles and links on Google for weeks now. I just have scattered priorities during this period of my life. Anyway, especially the Newsweek article below shows the solid character, humility, and awesome culture the founders cultivated at Google. There is also an article from Knowledge@Wharton below (yes, this is a long post), and a prior Newsweek article here and one by the Economist.
A Very Public Offering
After months of anticipation, the Sultans of Search have finally announced their IPO. And they're doing it their way.
NEWSWEEK
By Steven Levy
With Brad Stone in San Francisco
May 10, 2004
Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one." With those words, one of the chattiest, most idealistic and economically momentous "S-1" forms ever--the filing that announces a public stock offering--hit Wall Street with a wallop. The century's most anticipated IPO was on, and the document, revealing the search giant's financial details, business strategy and risk factors instantly eclipsed Bob Woodward's Iraq book as the most-talked-about tome in the nation. Thousands downloaded it from the SEC's Web site, poring through hundreds of pages with a single question on their minds, a query not answerable by the otherwise perspicacious Google search engine: should I get in on this? In a period where many investors are still nursing portfolios wounded in the dot-com bust four years ago, that's more than a stock pick: it's a dilemma worthy of Kierkegaard. So much attention, in fact, will be spent contemplating a bid in the Internet auction that will determine who gets to buy $2.7 billion worth of Google stock that many may miss the dramatic chords in what's whimsically called "an owners manual" for potential shareholders. "I've never seen anything like it in an IPO prospectus," says David Walek, an adviser to companies on public offerings and governance issues. Colloquially written in the first person by Larry Page, 31, and placed over his signature and that of his cofounder, Sergey Brin, 30, it is a stern prescription for a focused business and a cri de coeur bemoaning the get-rich culture that may interfere with it.
First some background. In case you've missed a cover story or two, that little Internet search engine that does so well in producing information on lawn-care products, the weather in Biloxi and next Friday's blind date, is the product of two Stanford graduates who formed a company around it in 1998. They followed the classic trajectory, hiring wizards like themselves, pleasing customers by allowing them to use their services for free and obtaining seed money from the Valley's most famous venture-capital firms, Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins.
Unlike many Internet companies, however, Google knew how to make money. So much money that the company didn't seem too eager to engage in the logical next step in the trajectory: a public stock offering.
To the dismay of the founders, the IPO became viewed as a Silicon Valley watershed, something to wash clean the bubble residue and start inflating the tech economy once again. "What would anyone extrapolate from our going public?" asked an annoyed Brin some weeks ago. "That it's good to invest in students from Stanford? If we make that decision, we will do it purely on what's best for the future of Google, and in service to the world--not based on the hopes of the greater Mountain View area or Wall Street."
But even as the cofounders and their CEO, Valley veteran Eric Schmidt, pondered the pros and cons of going public, there really was no way around it. For one thing the venture capitalists, with employees granted stock options, wanted liquidity for their shares. (For $12.5 million each, Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins are now 10 percent owners of the company.) And then came an April 29 deadline: the Securities Act of 1934 requires companies to report financial details within a certain period after accumulating 500 stockholders. That means you have to report as if you were a public company, but don't get the loot from offering shares to the public.
So it was time, and maybe it wouldn't be so bad. "I have always believed that an IPO is a good thing, and should occur," said Schmidt earlier this year. "But it shouldn't affect the company, which should be run based on the principles that have done so well for us." And so Sergey and Larry determined that Google's IPO would be done their way.
They could get away with it because, as outsiders finally learned, Google is an awesome cash machine. Before last week, nailing down the numbers behind this secretive start-up was harder than getting Dick Cheney to identify his energy advisers. It turns out that Google has been in the black since 2001. Last year it made more than $100 million in profit on revenues of just under $1 billion, and the trend is skyward: in the first quarter of 2004, its profits are already around $64 million. "We all knew they were doing well but seeing it in print--in a federal filing--is pretty stunning," says Mitchell Kertzman, partner in the Hummer Winblad VC firm. "This is an amazing business."
Wall Street prognosticators now estimate that when Google stocks are issued some weeks from now, the company will be valued at as much as $30 billion, making Brin and Page (who each own about 15 percent) worth more than $4 billion each. But personal wealth is clearly not the obsession of the cofounders, who share a cluttered office in the campus dubbed the Googleplex. As evidenced by their "owners manual," they have been grappling with a deep question: how can they preserve their company approach, culture and vision if it is to be publicly traded and beholden to shareholders? And they have come up with some answers.
A public company owned by the public. Google is obsessed with democracy. The basis of all its wealth springs from the Google search algorithms, which search through and index the Web in such a way as to capture the collective intelligence of its users. It's kind of a democratic process, and apparently this idea carries over to who should own shares. Google is loathe to be associated with the go-go (and, ultimately, gone-gone) supernovas of the dot-com era, and to discourage speculation Page and Brin outline "a fair process for our IPO that is inclusive of both small and large investors." They propose an auction that will bypass the daytraders and fat cats and, hopefully, reach their ideal investor--a wise soul willing to hang in for the long haul.
When it comes to control, though, Google's leaders believe that it should rest with them. The company will have two classes of stock, one of which has greater voting rights owned by them.
Sticking to long-term planning. Sounding dangerously like a fortune cookie, the cofounders write, "A management team distracted by a series of short term targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half hour." Google won't fall for that, they insist. There will be no attempt to massage quarterly results to please Wall Street. And if you ask them how things will go in the next couple of months, "we will respectfully decline" to offer guidance.
Maintaining a quirky, employee-centric culture. Brin and Page knew that doubters predicted that going public would be the end of Google's employee amenities like free lunches cooked by Jerry Garcia's former chef and rubdowns on call. But "when you look at the financials, that costs nothing ," said Brin recently. "It's less than a rounding error." He and Page are telling shareholders to "expect us to add benefits rather than pare them down over time."
Decentralized management. Brin, Page and CEO Eric Schmidt run the company as a messy triumvirate. However, they do include spats between them as a possible risk factor. And the chain of command will be further complicated by their requirement that the board chairman should not be an insider.
Official Do-Gooding. In case there was any doubt about Google's priorities, Page and Brin put it in black and white: "We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place." The company motto is "Don't be evil," and shareholders should be aware that this could impact stock price. Google is putting 1 percent of its wealth in a foundation that someday "may eclipse Google itself in terms of overall world impact."
All fascinating but not really an answer to that big question: should you get in on this? That will depend on how Google can maintain its amazing momentum in the face of some very tough competitive challenges. The risk factors lay out the problems pretty well: Microsoft is gunning for its business, and Yahoo has a huge base of registered customers. Ad sales might stall, or new technology might block them. "Index spammers" might affect the quality of users' search results. And Google might not be able to manage its spiraling growth effectively, or keep its newly flush employees in the 'Plex.
Finally, there's the question of whether going public, despite the best efforts of the founders, might force an idealistic young company to, well, grow up, following the well-trodden path toward accommodating the desires of the shareholders and the Street.
But so far, Brin and Page, following a muse morphed from Warren Buffett and the Justice League of America, have managed to build a consistently innovative money-making engine without consulting the standard rule book. Why should Google's journey as a public company be any different?
The Buzz on Google's IPO
Knowledge@Wharton
May 19, 2044
Dan Hunter, a professor in Wharton’s legal studies department, happened to be in San Francisco the weekend after Google filed its much-anticipated paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for a $2.7 billion initial public offering of stock. The mood among the computer cognoscenti was electric, as if the 49ers had won the Super Bowl or the Giants had swept the World Series in four straight.
News of the IPO was all over the place. Denizens of Silicon Valley were genuinely thrilled that the search-engine company’s co-founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were on the verge of becoming billionaires. “The buzz was all about Google,” Hunter says. “The metric by which you value somebody in the Valley is, ‘Can they take a core technology, create a killer application and then cash out?’ These guys are admired.”
Wharton faculty members express deep admiration for Google – its business model, its laser-like customer-focus, its ability to generate revenue and profit. But they say the company faces formidable competitive challenges – from Microsoft, Yahoo! and others – although they differ on how serious those challenges will be. They say that even the act of going public, which will raise capital and reward the employees and investors who have been with Google since its early days, is not without possible drawbacks: a relinquishment of some managerial control and a loss of key employees who, with their newfound wealth, may retire or look for employment elsewhere. Some faculty members say that the IPO itself and its accompanying hoopla are much less interesting and important than thinking about the company’s long-term prospects. In the months and years to come, Google will have to devise ways to generate more revenue without alienating its legions of loyal users around the world.
Few Internet start-ups (eBay and Yahoo! come to mind) have achieved the level of success of Google, whose business is based on patented software called PageRank, a system that employs an algorithm to allow Internet users to search the vast expanse of cyberspace and quickly find websites with information about almost anything. “There is no other company with this kind of vision,” says marketing professor Peter S. Fader.
Unusual Company, Unusual Letter
The company’s Valley-style quirkiness was evident in the tone – at times folksy, at times preachy – of its Form S-1 registration statement, filed with the SEC on April 29. Google’s financial clout was also on clear display in the numbers that laid out, for the first time for public consumption, its robust revenue and profitability. In 2003, Google had net income of $106 million on revenues of $962 million. In 2001, its first year of profitability, Google earned just $7 million on revenues of $86 million. The company, based in Mountain View, Calif., was founded in 1998 when Brin and Page were graduate students at Stanford University. The filing disclosed that the patent for Google’s core search-engine technology, which belongs to Stanford, is to expire in 2011.
The filing contains a letter written by Page and signed by both co-founders. The letter tries to position Google on the side of the small investor while at the same time stating that its executives do not want their disciplined, long-term-oriented management style to be hamstrung by undue investor meddling.
The filing makes clear that Google was eager to bypass Wall Street’s investment banking middlemen by deciding to conduct a so-called “Dutch auction” over the Internet to disseminate and price its shares, thus making more stock available to more people and avoiding the hefty 7% fee that investment banks typically charge to take a company public. By announcing that it would issue two classes of stock and forego quarterly earnings guidance, Google also attempted to stress that it would adhere to the close-knit, collaborative management approach that had made it successful so far.
What do Brin, 30, Page, 31, and CEO Eric Schmidt, the 48-year-old management veteran hired to assist the young co-founders, do now to top what they already have done? Has Google, by deciding to go public, relinquished two elements vital to its already considerable success – its independence and its desire to play things close to the vest? The IPO raises other issues, too. Does the public interest in Google presage a resurgence of the kind of dot-com stock frenzy that went down in flames in 2000? Following Google’s lead, will auctions be used by an increasing number of start-ups that want to raise money from equity offerings?
Faculty members say Google is a superbly managed, highly profitable company run by talented people that has so far done just about everything right. Google has the world’s most popular search engine, a global brand name and legions of devoted customers. It also has a quirky, corporate milieu that emphasizes altruism – one section of the SEC filing is headed, “Don’t Be Evil,” while another is headed, “Making the World a Better Place ” – along with honesty, integrity, informality, playfulness and secretiveness. In addition, it has demonstrated a commitment to old-fashioned hard work and a yearning for profitability to which any 70-something CEO would tip his hat.
“Eric, Sergey and I intend to operate Google differently, applying the values it has developed as a private company to its future as a public company,” the SEC filing reads. It adds: “We will live up to our ‘don’t be evil’ principle by keeping user trust and not accepting payment for search results. We have a dual-class structure that is biased toward stability and independence and that requires investors to bet on the team, especially Sergey and me.”
“This is a company that’s always marched to its own beat in an incredibly wonderful way. I can’t say anything cynical about them at all,” says Fader. “At the height of the dot-com craze, they went into a crowded sector – search engines and portals – and did something difficult without varying from that start one tiny little bit. It’s really tremendous.
“Neither I nor anyone else you talk to have the right to second guess Google,” Fader adds. “They’re smarter than all of us. And you don’t hear me say that about too many companies. Their credo is, ‘Do No Evil.’ It’s hard to imagine a bigger source of evil than the IPOs of five years ago when only the rich got richer. Google has to set itself apart from that process where the little guy was left high and dry. I think the whole auction system is not only another way of thumbing their nose at Wall Street but another way to [put their principles into practice].”
Pros and Cons of the IPO
The registration statement says Google wants to raise $2.7 billion by selling two classes of stock but does not specify a per-share price. It is not known when the IPO will take place.
Under a Dutch auction (named after a method of selling flowers in the Netherlands), individual and institutional investors alike can bid for Google shares, with the first-day price being set by the level of demand by many bidders. With traditional IPOs, Wall Street underwriters determine the number of shares to be sold and set the price. Typically, favored customers of investment houses have benefited from the traditional arrangement. During the Internet stock bubble of the 1990s, many IPO stocks soared on the first day of trading, resulting in big profits for lucky early buyers.
The Wharton experts say there are pros and cons to the decision to do an IPO. Management professor Raphael (Raffi) Amit, academic director of the Goergen Entrepreneurial Management Programs at Wharton, calls the auction “a clever move” on Google’s part. “Underwriters have an incentive to lowball the value of the firm,” he explains. “Underwriters want to satisfy their customers who buy large blocks of IPOs. They want to make sure these investors make money right away and that they come back to buy future IPOs. The underwriters get paid by the issuing firms, but they’re really looking after themselves.”
Finance professor Franklin Allen says fledgling firms in the United States (but not necessarily companies elsewhere in the world) traditionally have avoided Dutch auctions because it has been felt that investment banks were needed to conduct road shows to drum up interest in a new stock. But that was not an issue with Google, which has a recognizable name and is used by 100 million people each month. “The fees investment banks charge for IPOs are enormous, on the order of 7%,” Allen says. “Google thinks they’ll get enough publicity that they won’t have a problem reaching investors. And they’ll save a fair amount of money.”
David Croson, a Wharton faculty member currently serving as visiting professor of information strategy at MIT, says he and Wharton colleague Lorin Hitt have been advocating auction-style IPOs for years. “Especially for companies where nobody knows what their shares are worth and where different investors might have vastly different opinions of what shares should trade at, a Dutch auction allows companies to raise more money for a given amount of shares because the people [willing to bid the most] for these shares end up getting them the first day,” Croson says. As a result, he adds, “People who buy the Google IPO thinking there will be a first-day pop [in the stock price] will be really disappointed and they might even lose money in the first week or two as speculation gets taken out of [the price of the shares].”
Amit and Allen agree that Google could pave the way for other young companies to go the auction route in years to come. “[Google] may just break the mold and change the way things are done,” Allen says, “but it won’t happen overnight.”
For his part, Fader thinks the media frenzy over the IPO is way out of proportion, saying “I can’t imagine a bigger non-story than this. An IPO by itself means nothing.” People like to speculate on what the stock price may turn out to be, but he says “those questions have no bearing on the conduct or performance of the company. It’s one of those things to talk about around the water cooler. To its great credit, Google has stayed private so long. The company has disclosed the minimal amount of information.”
Dual-class of Stock
Although the auction would appear to put Google on the side of small investors, the company’s decision to create Class A and Class B shares puts the lion’s share of the voting rights squarely in the hands of Google management. The dual-class structure tends to raise eyebrows these days among experts in corporate governance, many of whom believe concentrating too much power in the hands of management can lead to corporate misdeeds.
In its SEC filing, however, Google defends the two-stock approach. “While this structure is unusual for technology companies, it is common in the media business and has had a profound importance there,” Page writes in his letter. “The New York Times Company, the Washington Post Company and Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, all have similar dual class ownership structures. Media observers frequently point out that dual class ownership has allowed these companies to concentrate on their core, long-term interest in serious news coverage, despite fluctuations in quarterly results. The Berkshire Hathaway company [headed by investor Warren Buffett] has applied the same structure, with similar beneficial effects.”
The filing goes on to say that academic studies have found that, “purely from an economic point of view, dual class structures have not harmed the share price of companies. The shares of each of our classes have identical economic rights and differ only as to voting rights.”
Hunter, who specializes in research relating to Internet law, believes that going public will actually harm Google because the company has relied on a secretive, offbeat culture to become profitable. “I think it hurts them, but [an IPO] is inevitable,” Hunter explains. “It was something they couldn’t do anything about. Having taken the venture capital money early on, it was almost impossible for them not to go public because the venture capitalists were pushing them. The only way was to buy them out. Google became so valuable so quickly. Neither Larry nor Sergey could find a billion bucks and buy out the venture capitalists.”
Hunter says the language in the filing shows that Brin and Page were reluctant to do an IPO. “They’re clearly indicating to the market they’re doing this [because they have to]. But it doesn’t conform to how they think companies ought to be run … I’m not sure to what degree they can keep their autonomy even with this two-class structure.”
Hunter says it also is possible that Google engineers and other employees who will become millionaires from the IPO will quit the firm to pursue other interests because being publicly traded may alter the company’s culture. “This is one reason they didn’t want to do an IPO,” Hunter suggests.
Preparing for Competition
Fader is optimistic that Google will continue to muster the continued creativity to withstand competitive pressure from Microsoft, Yahoo! and others. “Google has not only established technical superiority but customer trust,” Fader says. “Even if Microsoft could come up with something better, why bother? If Google gives you everything you need, there is no reason for people to go elsewhere. That’s more important than the quality of the search. This company understands its customers better than any other company I can identify.”
Fader notes that Google has already built upon its core search-engine foundations to expand its business. It offers Froogle, a way to shop for goods online, and the recently announced Gmail, a free, search-based service that includes one gigabyte of storage. What makes Gmail different from other e-mail offerings is a search engine that allows users to get any message they have ever sent or received, eliminating the need to file messages away to locate them in the future. Privacy questions have been raised about Gmail because Google would review the content of people’s messages to determine how to target ads to their interests, but several faculty members say they think Google’s integrity would outweigh privacy worries.
Fader is certain that Brin and Page have other ideas in the works to grow the company. “It’s hard to imagine the things they’ll be doing [in the future to stay ahead of competition], but I think they’ll do it. Their outlook is extremely bright.” Fader does suggest, though, that Google consider charging users a fee, perhaps $10 a month, for some kind of premium service that adds value beyond what users get now. “People might grumble about it but they’ll pay it,” he says. Some 95% of Google’s revenue comes from advertising.
Croson echoes Fader’s suggestion, noting that Google for too long has undervalued the service it provides. He says the company should think about charging fees to professors, business people and others who use the search engine for serious research.
“Google’s main risk has always been the challenge of collecting the value they’ve created,” Croson says. “I’ve been a Google user for years. Instead of going to a library, I use Google to find [academic] citations because it’s [much faster]. I had lunch with Larry Page at a conference in 2000 and I offered him $1,000 a year to use Google if I was the only person at Wharton allowed to use it. I was serious. He said, ‘Why in the world would you want that?’ I don’t think they know how to harness 1% of the value they’re creating for customers. What they need to do is figure out a way to charge people who are searching for deep, relevant searches. This is the path they have not gone down yet.”
Croson admits that such a move would carry its own risks – the potential for alienating users. “I don’t know what it would take for them to implement this plan without causing disruption to their business model.”
Amit is less sanguine about Google’s ability to fend off the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo! “The Google story reminds me too much of the Netscape story,” Amit warns. “They had a browser but were eaten alive by Microsoft, which developed Explorer, and Netscape was later sold to AOL. Google has a fantastic algorithm and it is synonymous with search engines today, but at the same time it is extremely vulnerable. Strategically, it is very vulnerable.”
Amit says that Google’s IPO is big by any standard but especially large for an Internet company. According to Thomson Financial, raising $2.7 billion would make Google’s IPO the sixth largest in history, excluding spin-offs of existing companies. Google would follow UPS’s $5.5 billion IPO, the $3.2 billion raised by both Charter Communications and Goldman Sachs, and the $3 billion and $2.9 billion raised by Prudential Financial and MetLife, respectively. (The largest IPO ever, $10.6 billion, was that of AT&T Wireless, a spin-off of AT&T Corp.)
“The remarkable thing about the Google offering is it is so big and it’s an Internet company,” says Amit. “The frightening thing is this may be the beginning of a new bubble. We’ve learned some hard and costly lessons about bubbles. Many other companies are in the process of filing for IPOs. I think chances are we will see more tech offerings coming our way following this offering. That will set up new pricing metrics or structures for stocks. Prices have been depressed for a broad range of tech companies but they’ve come back, not to levels we used to see them at but there is more stability now. Investors are getting more comfortable with the stocks. After all, tech companies are responsible for the productivity gains in the U.S.”
Amit praises the accomplishments of Brin, Page and Schmidt, but says Google’s culture is the kind of “loose environment” that can be problematic as well as beneficial. “You run a publicly held company a lot differently than a privately held company,” he notes. In addition, he says, Google users do not spend as much time on Google’s website as on the sites of Yahoo! and Microsoft. And then there is the question of whether Google’s search technology will some day be superseded by that of another company.
The SEC filing left unstated the number of shares Google will sell to raise its $2.7 billion. But Wall Street analysts have estimated that the company could be worth anywhere from $20 billion to more than $40 billion, according to various news reports. By comparison, eBay is valued at about $54 billion and Yahoo! at about $35 billion. At such lofty valuations, Amit says he would not invest in Google. “You can take that to the bank.”
|
I've been meaning to post up these articles and links on Google for weeks now. I just have scattered priorities during this period of my life. Anyway, especially the Newsweek article below shows the solid character, humility, and awesome culture the founders cultivated at Google. There is also an article from Knowledge@Wharton below (yes, this is a long post), and a prior Newsweek article here and one by the Economist.
A Very Public Offering
After months of anticipation, the Sultans of Search have finally announced their IPO. And they're doing it their way.
NEWSWEEK
By Steven Levy
With Brad Stone in San Francisco
May 10, 2004
Google is not a conventional company. We do not intend to become one." With those words, one of the chattiest, most idealistic and economically momentous "S-1" forms ever--the filing that announces a public stock offering--hit Wall Street with a wallop. The century's most anticipated IPO was on, and the document, revealing the search giant's financial details, business strategy and risk factors instantly eclipsed Bob Woodward's Iraq book as the most-talked-about tome in the nation. Thousands downloaded it from the SEC's Web site, poring through hundreds of pages with a single question on their minds, a query not answerable by the otherwise perspicacious Google search engine: should I get in on this? In a period where many investors are still nursing portfolios wounded in the dot-com bust four years ago, that's more than a stock pick: it's a dilemma worthy of Kierkegaard. So much attention, in fact, will be spent contemplating a bid in the Internet auction that will determine who gets to buy $2.7 billion worth of Google stock that many may miss the dramatic chords in what's whimsically called "an owners manual" for potential shareholders. "I've never seen anything like it in an IPO prospectus," says David Walek, an adviser to companies on public offerings and governance issues. Colloquially written in the first person by Larry Page, 31, and placed over his signature and that of his cofounder, Sergey Brin, 30, it is a stern prescription for a focused business and a cri de coeur bemoaning the get-rich culture that may interfere with it.
First some background. In case you've missed a cover story or two, that little Internet search engine that does so well in producing information on lawn-care products, the weather in Biloxi and next Friday's blind date, is the product of two Stanford graduates who formed a company around it in 1998. They followed the classic trajectory, hiring wizards like themselves, pleasing customers by allowing them to use their services for free and obtaining seed money from the Valley's most famous venture-capital firms, Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins.
Unlike many Internet companies, however, Google knew how to make money. So much money that the company didn't seem too eager to engage in the logical next step in the trajectory: a public stock offering.
To the dismay of the founders, the IPO became viewed as a Silicon Valley watershed, something to wash clean the bubble residue and start inflating the tech economy once again. "What would anyone extrapolate from our going public?" asked an annoyed Brin some weeks ago. "That it's good to invest in students from Stanford? If we make that decision, we will do it purely on what's best for the future of Google, and in service to the world--not based on the hopes of the greater Mountain View area or Wall Street."
But even as the cofounders and their CEO, Valley veteran Eric Schmidt, pondered the pros and cons of going public, there really was no way around it. For one thing the venture capitalists, with employees granted stock options, wanted liquidity for their shares. (For $12.5 million each, Sequoia and Kleiner Perkins are now 10 percent owners of the company.) And then came an April 29 deadline: the Securities Act of 1934 requires companies to report financial details within a certain period after accumulating 500 stockholders. That means you have to report as if you were a public company, but don't get the loot from offering shares to the public.
So it was time, and maybe it wouldn't be so bad. "I have always believed that an IPO is a good thing, and should occur," said Schmidt earlier this year. "But it shouldn't affect the company, which should be run based on the principles that have done so well for us." And so Sergey and Larry determined that Google's IPO would be done their way.
They could get away with it because, as outsiders finally learned, Google is an awesome cash machine. Before last week, nailing down the numbers behind this secretive start-up was harder than getting Dick Cheney to identify his energy advisers. It turns out that Google has been in the black since 2001. Last year it made more than $100 million in profit on revenues of just under $1 billion, and the trend is skyward: in the first quarter of 2004, its profits are already around $64 million. "We all knew they were doing well but seeing it in print--in a federal filing--is pretty stunning," says Mitchell Kertzman, partner in the Hummer Winblad VC firm. "This is an amazing business."
Wall Street prognosticators now estimate that when Google stocks are issued some weeks from now, the company will be valued at as much as $30 billion, making Brin and Page (who each own about 15 percent) worth more than $4 billion each. But personal wealth is clearly not the obsession of the cofounders, who share a cluttered office in the campus dubbed the Googleplex. As evidenced by their "owners manual," they have been grappling with a deep question: how can they preserve their company approach, culture and vision if it is to be publicly traded and beholden to shareholders? And they have come up with some answers.
A public company owned by the public. Google is obsessed with democracy. The basis of all its wealth springs from the Google search algorithms, which search through and index the Web in such a way as to capture the collective intelligence of its users. It's kind of a democratic process, and apparently this idea carries over to who should own shares. Google is loathe to be associated with the go-go (and, ultimately, gone-gone) supernovas of the dot-com era, and to discourage speculation Page and Brin outline "a fair process for our IPO that is inclusive of both small and large investors." They propose an auction that will bypass the daytraders and fat cats and, hopefully, reach their ideal investor--a wise soul willing to hang in for the long haul.
When it comes to control, though, Google's leaders believe that it should rest with them. The company will have two classes of stock, one of which has greater voting rights owned by them.
Sticking to long-term planning. Sounding dangerously like a fortune cookie, the cofounders write, "A management team distracted by a series of short term targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half hour." Google won't fall for that, they insist. There will be no attempt to massage quarterly results to please Wall Street. And if you ask them how things will go in the next couple of months, "we will respectfully decline" to offer guidance.
Maintaining a quirky, employee-centric culture. Brin and Page knew that doubters predicted that going public would be the end of Google's employee amenities like free lunches cooked by Jerry Garcia's former chef and rubdowns on call. But "when you look at the financials, that costs nothing ," said Brin recently. "It's less than a rounding error." He and Page are telling shareholders to "expect us to add benefits rather than pare them down over time."
Decentralized management. Brin, Page and CEO Eric Schmidt run the company as a messy triumvirate. However, they do include spats between them as a possible risk factor. And the chain of command will be further complicated by their requirement that the board chairman should not be an insider.
Official Do-Gooding. In case there was any doubt about Google's priorities, Page and Brin put it in black and white: "We aspire to make Google an institution that makes the world a better place." The company motto is "Don't be evil," and shareholders should be aware that this could impact stock price. Google is putting 1 percent of its wealth in a foundation that someday "may eclipse Google itself in terms of overall world impact."
All fascinating but not really an answer to that big question: should you get in on this? That will depend on how Google can maintain its amazing momentum in the face of some very tough competitive challenges. The risk factors lay out the problems pretty well: Microsoft is gunning for its business, and Yahoo has a huge base of registered customers. Ad sales might stall, or new technology might block them. "Index spammers" might affect the quality of users' search results. And Google might not be able to manage its spiraling growth effectively, or keep its newly flush employees in the 'Plex.
Finally, there's the question of whether going public, despite the best efforts of the founders, might force an idealistic young company to, well, grow up, following the well-trodden path toward accommodating the desires of the shareholders and the Street.
But so far, Brin and Page, following a muse morphed from Warren Buffett and the Justice League of America, have managed to build a consistently innovative money-making engine without consulting the standard rule book. Why should Google's journey as a public company be any different?
The Buzz on Google's IPO
Knowledge@Wharton
May 19, 2044
Dan Hunter, a professor in Wharton’s legal studies department, happened to be in San Francisco the weekend after Google filed its much-anticipated paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for a $2.7 billion initial public offering of stock. The mood among the computer cognoscenti was electric, as if the 49ers had won the Super Bowl or the Giants had swept the World Series in four straight.
News of the IPO was all over the place. Denizens of Silicon Valley were genuinely thrilled that the search-engine company’s co-founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were on the verge of becoming billionaires. “The buzz was all about Google,” Hunter says. “The metric by which you value somebody in the Valley is, ‘Can they take a core technology, create a killer application and then cash out?’ These guys are admired.”
Wharton faculty members express deep admiration for Google – its business model, its laser-like customer-focus, its ability to generate revenue and profit. But they say the company faces formidable competitive challenges – from Microsoft, Yahoo! and others – although they differ on how serious those challenges will be. They say that even the act of going public, which will raise capital and reward the employees and investors who have been with Google since its early days, is not without possible drawbacks: a relinquishment of some managerial control and a loss of key employees who, with their newfound wealth, may retire or look for employment elsewhere. Some faculty members say that the IPO itself and its accompanying hoopla are much less interesting and important than thinking about the company’s long-term prospects. In the months and years to come, Google will have to devise ways to generate more revenue without alienating its legions of loyal users around the world.
Few Internet start-ups (eBay and Yahoo! come to mind) have achieved the level of success of Google, whose business is based on patented software called PageRank, a system that employs an algorithm to allow Internet users to search the vast expanse of cyberspace and quickly find websites with information about almost anything. “There is no other company with this kind of vision,” says marketing professor Peter S. Fader.
Unusual Company, Unusual Letter
The company’s Valley-style quirkiness was evident in the tone – at times folksy, at times preachy – of its Form S-1 registration statement, filed with the SEC on April 29. Google’s financial clout was also on clear display in the numbers that laid out, for the first time for public consumption, its robust revenue and profitability. In 2003, Google had net income of $106 million on revenues of $962 million. In 2001, its first year of profitability, Google earned just $7 million on revenues of $86 million. The company, based in Mountain View, Calif., was founded in 1998 when Brin and Page were graduate students at Stanford University. The filing disclosed that the patent for Google’s core search-engine technology, which belongs to Stanford, is to expire in 2011.
The filing contains a letter written by Page and signed by both co-founders. The letter tries to position Google on the side of the small investor while at the same time stating that its executives do not want their disciplined, long-term-oriented management style to be hamstrung by undue investor meddling.
The filing makes clear that Google was eager to bypass Wall Street’s investment banking middlemen by deciding to conduct a so-called “Dutch auction” over the Internet to disseminate and price its shares, thus making more stock available to more people and avoiding the hefty 7% fee that investment banks typically charge to take a company public. By announcing that it would issue two classes of stock and forego quarterly earnings guidance, Google also attempted to stress that it would adhere to the close-knit, collaborative management approach that had made it successful so far.
What do Brin, 30, Page, 31, and CEO Eric Schmidt, the 48-year-old management veteran hired to assist the young co-founders, do now to top what they already have done? Has Google, by deciding to go public, relinquished two elements vital to its already considerable success – its independence and its desire to play things close to the vest? The IPO raises other issues, too. Does the public interest in Google presage a resurgence of the kind of dot-com stock frenzy that went down in flames in 2000? Following Google’s lead, will auctions be used by an increasing number of start-ups that want to raise money from equity offerings?
Faculty members say Google is a superbly managed, highly profitable company run by talented people that has so far done just about everything right. Google has the world’s most popular search engine, a global brand name and legions of devoted customers. It also has a quirky, corporate milieu that emphasizes altruism – one section of the SEC filing is headed, “Don’t Be Evil,” while another is headed, “Making the World a Better Place ” – along with honesty, integrity, informality, playfulness and secretiveness. In addition, it has demonstrated a commitment to old-fashioned hard work and a yearning for profitability to which any 70-something CEO would tip his hat.
“Eric, Sergey and I intend to operate Google differently, applying the values it has developed as a private company to its future as a public company,” the SEC filing reads. It adds: “We will live up to our ‘don’t be evil’ principle by keeping user trust and not accepting payment for search results. We have a dual-class structure that is biased toward stability and independence and that requires investors to bet on the team, especially Sergey and me.”
“This is a company that’s always marched to its own beat in an incredibly wonderful way. I can’t say anything cynical about them at all,” says Fader. “At the height of the dot-com craze, they went into a crowded sector – search engines and portals – and did something difficult without varying from that start one tiny little bit. It’s really tremendous.
“Neither I nor anyone else you talk to have the right to second guess Google,” Fader adds. “They’re smarter than all of us. And you don’t hear me say that about too many companies. Their credo is, ‘Do No Evil.’ It’s hard to imagine a bigger source of evil than the IPOs of five years ago when only the rich got richer. Google has to set itself apart from that process where the little guy was left high and dry. I think the whole auction system is not only another way of thumbing their nose at Wall Street but another way to [put their principles into practice].”
Pros and Cons of the IPO
The registration statement says Google wants to raise $2.7 billion by selling two classes of stock but does not specify a per-share price. It is not known when the IPO will take place.
Under a Dutch auction (named after a method of selling flowers in the Netherlands), individual and institutional investors alike can bid for Google shares, with the first-day price being set by the level of demand by many bidders. With traditional IPOs, Wall Street underwriters determine the number of shares to be sold and set the price. Typically, favored customers of investment houses have benefited from the traditional arrangement. During the Internet stock bubble of the 1990s, many IPO stocks soared on the first day of trading, resulting in big profits for lucky early buyers.
The Wharton experts say there are pros and cons to the decision to do an IPO. Management professor Raphael (Raffi) Amit, academic director of the Goergen Entrepreneurial Management Programs at Wharton, calls the auction “a clever move” on Google’s part. “Underwriters have an incentive to lowball the value of the firm,” he explains. “Underwriters want to satisfy their customers who buy large blocks of IPOs. They want to make sure these investors make money right away and that they come back to buy future IPOs. The underwriters get paid by the issuing firms, but they’re really looking after themselves.”
Finance professor Franklin Allen says fledgling firms in the United States (but not necessarily companies elsewhere in the world) traditionally have avoided Dutch auctions because it has been felt that investment banks were needed to conduct road shows to drum up interest in a new stock. But that was not an issue with Google, which has a recognizable name and is used by 100 million people each month. “The fees investment banks charge for IPOs are enormous, on the order of 7%,” Allen says. “Google thinks they’ll get enough publicity that they won’t have a problem reaching investors. And they’ll save a fair amount of money.”
David Croson, a Wharton faculty member currently serving as visiting professor of information strategy at MIT, says he and Wharton colleague Lorin Hitt have been advocating auction-style IPOs for years. “Especially for companies where nobody knows what their shares are worth and where different investors might have vastly different opinions of what shares should trade at, a Dutch auction allows companies to raise more money for a given amount of shares because the people [willing to bid the most] for these shares end up getting them the first day,” Croson says. As a result, he adds, “People who buy the Google IPO thinking there will be a first-day pop [in the stock price] will be really disappointed and they might even lose money in the first week or two as speculation gets taken out of [the price of the shares].”
Amit and Allen agree that Google could pave the way for other young companies to go the auction route in years to come. “[Google] may just break the mold and change the way things are done,” Allen says, “but it won’t happen overnight.”
For his part, Fader thinks the media frenzy over the IPO is way out of proportion, saying “I can’t imagine a bigger non-story than this. An IPO by itself means nothing.” People like to speculate on what the stock price may turn out to be, but he says “those questions have no bearing on the conduct or performance of the company. It’s one of those things to talk about around the water cooler. To its great credit, Google has stayed private so long. The company has disclosed the minimal amount of information.”
Dual-class of Stock
Although the auction would appear to put Google on the side of small investors, the company’s decision to create Class A and Class B shares puts the lion’s share of the voting rights squarely in the hands of Google management. The dual-class structure tends to raise eyebrows these days among experts in corporate governance, many of whom believe concentrating too much power in the hands of management can lead to corporate misdeeds.
In its SEC filing, however, Google defends the two-stock approach. “While this structure is unusual for technology companies, it is common in the media business and has had a profound importance there,” Page writes in his letter. “The New York Times Company, the Washington Post Company and Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, all have similar dual class ownership structures. Media observers frequently point out that dual class ownership has allowed these companies to concentrate on their core, long-term interest in serious news coverage, despite fluctuations in quarterly results. The Berkshire Hathaway company [headed by investor Warren Buffett] has applied the same structure, with similar beneficial effects.”
The filing goes on to say that academic studies have found that, “purely from an economic point of view, dual class structures have not harmed the share price of companies. The shares of each of our classes have identical economic rights and differ only as to voting rights.”
Hunter, who specializes in research relating to Internet law, believes that going public will actually harm Google because the company has relied on a secretive, offbeat culture to become profitable. “I think it hurts them, but [an IPO] is inevitable,” Hunter explains. “It was something they couldn’t do anything about. Having taken the venture capital money early on, it was almost impossible for them not to go public because the venture capitalists were pushing them. The only way was to buy them out. Google became so valuable so quickly. Neither Larry nor Sergey could find a billion bucks and buy out the venture capitalists.”
Hunter says the language in the filing shows that Brin and Page were reluctant to do an IPO. “They’re clearly indicating to the market they’re doing this [because they have to]. But it doesn’t conform to how they think companies ought to be run … I’m not sure to what degree they can keep their autonomy even with this two-class structure.”
Hunter says it also is possible that Google engineers and other employees who will become millionaires from the IPO will quit the firm to pursue other interests because being publicly traded may alter the company’s culture. “This is one reason they didn’t want to do an IPO,” Hunter suggests.
Preparing for Competition
Fader is optimistic that Google will continue to muster the continued creativity to withstand competitive pressure from Microsoft, Yahoo! and others. “Google has not only established technical superiority but customer trust,” Fader says. “Even if Microsoft could come up with something better, why bother? If Google gives you everything you need, there is no reason for people to go elsewhere. That’s more important than the quality of the search. This company understands its customers better than any other company I can identify.”
Fader notes that Google has already built upon its core search-engine foundations to expand its business. It offers Froogle, a way to shop for goods online, and the recently announced Gmail, a free, search-based service that includes one gigabyte of storage. What makes Gmail different from other e-mail offerings is a search engine that allows users to get any message they have ever sent or received, eliminating the need to file messages away to locate them in the future. Privacy questions have been raised about Gmail because Google would review the content of people’s messages to determine how to target ads to their interests, but several faculty members say they think Google’s integrity would outweigh privacy worries.
Fader is certain that Brin and Page have other ideas in the works to grow the company. “It’s hard to imagine the things they’ll be doing [in the future to stay ahead of competition], but I think they’ll do it. Their outlook is extremely bright.” Fader does suggest, though, that Google consider charging users a fee, perhaps $10 a month, for some kind of premium service that adds value beyond what users get now. “People might grumble about it but they’ll pay it,” he says. Some 95% of Google’s revenue comes from advertising.
Croson echoes Fader’s suggestion, noting that Google for too long has undervalued the service it provides. He says the company should think about charging fees to professors, business people and others who use the search engine for serious research.
“Google’s main risk has always been the challenge of collecting the value they’ve created,” Croson says. “I’ve been a Google user for years. Instead of going to a library, I use Google to find [academic] citations because it’s [much faster]. I had lunch with Larry Page at a conference in 2000 and I offered him $1,000 a year to use Google if I was the only person at Wharton allowed to use it. I was serious. He said, ‘Why in the world would you want that?’ I don’t think they know how to harness 1% of the value they’re creating for customers. What they need to do is figure out a way to charge people who are searching for deep, relevant searches. This is the path they have not gone down yet.”
Croson admits that such a move would carry its own risks – the potential for alienating users. “I don’t know what it would take for them to implement this plan without causing disruption to their business model.”
Amit is less sanguine about Google’s ability to fend off the likes of Microsoft and Yahoo! “The Google story reminds me too much of the Netscape story,” Amit warns. “They had a browser but were eaten alive by Microsoft, which developed Explorer, and Netscape was later sold to AOL. Google has a fantastic algorithm and it is synonymous with search engines today, but at the same time it is extremely vulnerable. Strategically, it is very vulnerable.”
Amit says that Google’s IPO is big by any standard but especially large for an Internet company. According to Thomson Financial, raising $2.7 billion would make Google’s IPO the sixth largest in history, excluding spin-offs of existing companies. Google would follow UPS’s $5.5 billion IPO, the $3.2 billion raised by both Charter Communications and Goldman Sachs, and the $3 billion and $2.9 billion raised by Prudential Financial and MetLife, respectively. (The largest IPO ever, $10.6 billion, was that of AT&T Wireless, a spin-off of AT&T Corp.)
“The remarkable thing about the Google offering is it is so big and it’s an Internet company,” says Amit. “The frightening thing is this may be the beginning of a new bubble. We’ve learned some hard and costly lessons about bubbles. Many other companies are in the process of filing for IPOs. I think chances are we will see more tech offerings coming our way following this offering. That will set up new pricing metrics or structures for stocks. Prices have been depressed for a broad range of tech companies but they’ve come back, not to levels we used to see them at but there is more stability now. Investors are getting more comfortable with the stocks. After all, tech companies are responsible for the productivity gains in the U.S.”
Amit praises the accomplishments of Brin, Page and Schmidt, but says Google’s culture is the kind of “loose environment” that can be problematic as well as beneficial. “You run a publicly held company a lot differently than a privately held company,” he notes. In addition, he says, Google users do not spend as much time on Google’s website as on the sites of Yahoo! and Microsoft. And then there is the question of whether Google’s search technology will some day be superseded by that of another company.
The SEC filing left unstated the number of shares Google will sell to raise its $2.7 billion. But Wall Street analysts have estimated that the company could be worth anywhere from $20 billion to more than $40 billion, according to various news reports. By comparison, eBay is valued at about $54 billion and Yahoo! at about $35 billion. At such lofty valuations, Amit says he would not invest in Google. “You can take that to the bank.”
APPLE PARTNERS WITH FOUNDER PC IN CHINA
Founder PC To Bundle Apple's iTunes
China's second largest PC maker Founder Technology announced a partnership with Apple on Tuesday. The Beijing Star Daily reports that Founder will preinstall Apple's iTunes digital player on every Founder PC from June. Founder Technology executive president Qi Dongfeng said Founder is the first Chinese PC maker to bundle Apple's iTunes player with its PCs, and the software will enable Founder PC users to manage their music libraries, create play lists and burn discs.
|
Founder PC To Bundle Apple's iTunes
China's second largest PC maker Founder Technology announced a partnership with Apple on Tuesday. The Beijing Star Daily reports that Founder will preinstall Apple's iTunes digital player on every Founder PC from June. Founder Technology executive president Qi Dongfeng said Founder is the first Chinese PC maker to bundle Apple's iTunes player with its PCs, and the software will enable Founder PC users to manage their music libraries, create play lists and burn discs.
E-VOTING ON HOLD... SECURITY CONCERNS AMONG THE ISSUES
There is always a danger with integrating technology into our daily lives and areas of critical importance in our society. Of course technology is not evil, but the people behind it might be. People with the access and control of a technology can manipulate it for their direct or indirect gain. I can see a movie coming soon with a villain trying to control the presidency in 2040 when all voting systems are electronic. Naturally, Hollywood will have it be some Republican and probably the National Security Advisor since that White House position is always a favorite target of screenwriters.
Fight over e-voting leaves election plans as casualties
By Robert Lemos and Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 20, 2004, 5:26 AM PDT
Riverside County, Calif., has bet millions of dollars on high technology to secure the future of its elections, but officials are now discovering that there won't necessarily be a payoff anytime soon.
The county, in Southern California northeast of San Diego, signed on early to adopt touch-screen voting machines, known officially as direct recording electronic, or DRE, systems. But despite using them in 29 elections over four years, Riverside County may not be able to use them the next time around, because of objections from state election officials.
Riverside County is not alone. Across the country, election overseers are now asking tough questions about electronic voting systems, which were sold on the promise of delivering more-accurate results than earlier methods, such as the punch-card approach that led to the hanging-chad controversy during the 2000 presidential election. (full article)
|
There is always a danger with integrating technology into our daily lives and areas of critical importance in our society. Of course technology is not evil, but the people behind it might be. People with the access and control of a technology can manipulate it for their direct or indirect gain. I can see a movie coming soon with a villain trying to control the presidency in 2040 when all voting systems are electronic. Naturally, Hollywood will have it be some Republican and probably the National Security Advisor since that White House position is always a favorite target of screenwriters.
Fight over e-voting leaves election plans as casualties
By Robert Lemos and Paul Festa
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 20, 2004, 5:26 AM PDT
Riverside County, Calif., has bet millions of dollars on high technology to secure the future of its elections, but officials are now discovering that there won't necessarily be a payoff anytime soon.
The county, in Southern California northeast of San Diego, signed on early to adopt touch-screen voting machines, known officially as direct recording electronic, or DRE, systems. But despite using them in 29 elections over four years, Riverside County may not be able to use them the next time around, because of objections from state election officials.
Riverside County is not alone. Across the country, election overseers are now asking tough questions about electronic voting systems, which were sold on the promise of delivering more-accurate results than earlier methods, such as the punch-card approach that led to the hanging-chad controversy during the 2000 presidential election. (full article)
GMAIL ON EBAY... DIDN'T KNOW
Just got back from playing bball outside in San Fran with my friend. I sucked today. Not aggressive enough and I was sucking wind for the first game. A couple weeks off from running ball and I seemed like a fifty year old man on the court. My defense was good, but that's consistent even if I'm older, slower, and have a vertical now of 20 inches. I'm just frustrated when I don't get my offense going.
Anyway, it is amusing and weird that people want Google's new email service in beta. I will say it's a great service, so my AOL account has a short shelf-life now.
My Left Arm for a Gmail Account
An e-mail account on Google's upcoming Gmail service is so coveted that people are willing to trade the darndest things for one. Check out the gmail swap site to see what's up for offer. By Daniel Terdiman.
|
Just got back from playing bball outside in San Fran with my friend. I sucked today. Not aggressive enough and I was sucking wind for the first game. A couple weeks off from running ball and I seemed like a fifty year old man on the court. My defense was good, but that's consistent even if I'm older, slower, and have a vertical now of 20 inches. I'm just frustrated when I don't get my offense going.
Anyway, it is amusing and weird that people want Google's new email service in beta. I will say it's a great service, so my AOL account has a short shelf-life now.
My Left Arm for a Gmail Account
An e-mail account on Google's upcoming Gmail service is so coveted that people are willing to trade the darndest things for one. Check out the gmail swap site to see what's up for offer. By Daniel Terdiman.
Friday, May 21, 2004
MAJOR MEDIA OUT OF TOUCH WITH AMERICA
Michael Moore Film Trailer
Instapundit with poll information from FoxNews and some good related articles.
And link to a funny trailer about Michael Moore.
|
|
Michael Moore Film Trailer
Instapundit with poll information from FoxNews and some good related articles.
And link to a funny trailer about Michael Moore.
KOREA LEADING IN WIRELESS AGAIN... WI-FI HOTSPOTS
Nokia Tests Mobile TV System... A Little Late
Have some freetime today in San Franciso. Came across these blurbs in FierceWireless. First one is on KT's WiFi network, which is the largest in the world. I'm not surprise by that but by the 375,000 subscribers it has signed up. Korea is not the land of laptops and professionals on the go like the U.S., so I didn't think there would be great traction with Wi-Fi. After reading more details from News.com, it understandable that most of the subscribers are students. The second article is about Nokia establishing its mobile TV service with a launch date of 2007. 2007?? Korea starting this service over a year ago... not really Korean pride, but just surprised how late the leading mobile company is on this service.
Korea Telecom to claim 23,000 hotspots by year's end
Korea Telecom (KT) is aggressively expanding its WiFi hotspot business. The company currently claims 12,000 hotspots in South Korea and said it plans to have 23,000 by the end of 2004. KT currently claims 375,000 WiFi subscribers. Analysts claim that KT is by far the world's leading hotspot operator. T-Mobile, by comparison, only claims 5,600 hotspots. Industry insiders claim that the relative cheap cost of broadband in South Korea, coupled with the country's small geographic size and dense urban centers, make WiFi hotspots more economically viable in this market than in many others. (sourced from News.com)
Nokia tests mobile TV system
Nokia and Dutch digital TV service provider Digitenne are testing a system for broadcasting television signals on mobile handsets. Under the terms of the trial, Nokia is equipping select handsets with digital TV receivers and Digitenne is broadcasting the signal of 24 channels. The system is expected to eventually go commercial by 2007.
|
Nokia Tests Mobile TV System... A Little Late
Have some freetime today in San Franciso. Came across these blurbs in FierceWireless. First one is on KT's WiFi network, which is the largest in the world. I'm not surprise by that but by the 375,000 subscribers it has signed up. Korea is not the land of laptops and professionals on the go like the U.S., so I didn't think there would be great traction with Wi-Fi. After reading more details from News.com, it understandable that most of the subscribers are students. The second article is about Nokia establishing its mobile TV service with a launch date of 2007. 2007?? Korea starting this service over a year ago... not really Korean pride, but just surprised how late the leading mobile company is on this service.
Korea Telecom to claim 23,000 hotspots by year's end
Korea Telecom (KT) is aggressively expanding its WiFi hotspot business. The company currently claims 12,000 hotspots in South Korea and said it plans to have 23,000 by the end of 2004. KT currently claims 375,000 WiFi subscribers. Analysts claim that KT is by far the world's leading hotspot operator. T-Mobile, by comparison, only claims 5,600 hotspots. Industry insiders claim that the relative cheap cost of broadband in South Korea, coupled with the country's small geographic size and dense urban centers, make WiFi hotspots more economically viable in this market than in many others. (sourced from News.com)
Nokia tests mobile TV system
Nokia and Dutch digital TV service provider Digitenne are testing a system for broadcasting television signals on mobile handsets. Under the terms of the trial, Nokia is equipping select handsets with digital TV receivers and Digitenne is broadcasting the signal of 24 channels. The system is expected to eventually go commercial by 2007.
FUTURE OF RADIO?... SERENADE SYSTEMS
Check out Serenade Systems if you are a radio junkie or have an MP3 player. Pretty cool service that's coming out later this year, but you can sign up for their beta. They allow you to listen to your NPR or a DJ track on demand on your PC or MP3 player.
I met one of the founders, Murgesh, a few years ago. Good guy and an experienced entrepreneur. We both were in the interactive TV space, but he was a big gun at Liberate while Jimmy, Peter, and I were the puppies waiting for the scraps to fall on the floor. :)
|
Check out Serenade Systems if you are a radio junkie or have an MP3 player. Pretty cool service that's coming out later this year, but you can sign up for their beta. They allow you to listen to your NPR or a DJ track on demand on your PC or MP3 player.
I met one of the founders, Murgesh, a few years ago. Good guy and an experienced entrepreneur. We both were in the interactive TV space, but he was a big gun at Liberate while Jimmy, Peter, and I were the puppies waiting for the scraps to fall on the floor. :)
Monday, May 17, 2004
LEAVING FOR SAN FRANCISCO... FUTURE HOME?
Going to San Francisco for some interviews and a Coro National Alumni Association's annual board meeting, so I'll sparsely blog during the next week.
|
Going to San Francisco for some interviews and a Coro National Alumni Association's annual board meeting, so I'll sparsely blog during the next week.
SEYMOUR HERSH = JAYSON BLAIR
The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh should double-check his drafts and sources before he tries to attack Bush and Rumsfeld... from Power Line.
|
|
The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh should double-check his drafts and sources before he tries to attack Bush and Rumsfeld... from Power Line.
FIFTY YEARS AFTER BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION
Some good articles and information about this historic day.
A Proposal to Fight Cultural Segregation
Tech Central Station
By Arnold Kling
May, 17 2004
"The growing insularity of the elites means, among other things, that political ideologies lose touch with the concerns of ordinary citizens...
Both left- and right-wing ideologies, in any case, are now so rigid that new ideas make little impression on their adherents. The faithful, having sealed themselves off from arguments and events that might call their own convictions into question, no longer attempt to engage their adversaries in debate."
-- Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites, p. 80-81
Fifty years ago this month, the Supreme Court struck a blow against segregated schools by handing down its decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. In spite of this and other achievements of the civil rights movement, there remains a disturbing tendency for Americans to segregate, particularly along cultural lines.
Pundits have coined many names for this cultural segregation. Coverage of the 2000 election gave us Red America vs. Blue America. George Lakoff would describe it as Strict-father America vs. Nurturant-parent America. Michael Barone writes of Hard America vs. Soft America, a divide that Walter Russell Mead would probably label as Jacksonian America vs. Jeffersonian America. In a political context, Democrats and Republicans are more gridlocked and mutually antagonistic than at any time in memory. (full article)
Civil rights pioneer uses pain of past to send message today
One of Little Rock Nine speaks out against silent witnesses
By Kevin Drew
CNN
Monday, May 17, 2004
Tucked away on the fourth floor of a building downtown, Elizabeth Eckford is busy tracking the daily progress of people on probation in her role as a public servant for the Pulaski County courts.
Diminutive and quiet -- especially so on this spring day because she's hoarse -- Eckford doesn't appear extraordinary or obvious as a pioneering soldier in the American civil rights movement.
But then what would such a person look like?
"We were ordinary people," Eckford says of herself and the eight other African-Americans selected to desegregate Little Rock's Central High School in the 1957-58 school year. (full article)
|
Some good articles and information about this historic day.
A Proposal to Fight Cultural Segregation
Tech Central Station
By Arnold Kling
May, 17 2004
"The growing insularity of the elites means, among other things, that political ideologies lose touch with the concerns of ordinary citizens...
Both left- and right-wing ideologies, in any case, are now so rigid that new ideas make little impression on their adherents. The faithful, having sealed themselves off from arguments and events that might call their own convictions into question, no longer attempt to engage their adversaries in debate."
-- Christopher Lasch, The Revolt of the Elites, p. 80-81
Fifty years ago this month, the Supreme Court struck a blow against segregated schools by handing down its decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. In spite of this and other achievements of the civil rights movement, there remains a disturbing tendency for Americans to segregate, particularly along cultural lines.
Pundits have coined many names for this cultural segregation. Coverage of the 2000 election gave us Red America vs. Blue America. George Lakoff would describe it as Strict-father America vs. Nurturant-parent America. Michael Barone writes of Hard America vs. Soft America, a divide that Walter Russell Mead would probably label as Jacksonian America vs. Jeffersonian America. In a political context, Democrats and Republicans are more gridlocked and mutually antagonistic than at any time in memory. (full article)
Civil rights pioneer uses pain of past to send message today
One of Little Rock Nine speaks out against silent witnesses
By Kevin Drew
CNN
Monday, May 17, 2004
Tucked away on the fourth floor of a building downtown, Elizabeth Eckford is busy tracking the daily progress of people on probation in her role as a public servant for the Pulaski County courts.
Diminutive and quiet -- especially so on this spring day because she's hoarse -- Eckford doesn't appear extraordinary or obvious as a pioneering soldier in the American civil rights movement.
But then what would such a person look like?
"We were ordinary people," Eckford says of herself and the eight other African-Americans selected to desegregate Little Rock's Central High School in the 1957-58 school year. (full article)
NIGHTMARE BOSSES
Slightly bland article on "Dealing With A Nightmare Boss" and could be made better with personal anecdotes for each category. Anyone?
|
Slightly bland article on "Dealing With A Nightmare Boss" and could be made better with personal anecdotes for each category. Anyone?
EVIL EMPIRE WARMING UP TO SEARCH
Microsoft's effort into search technology is well known. More on their attack at Google.
|
Microsoft's effort into search technology is well known. More on their attack at Google.
SURPRISE, SURPRISE... SARIN GAS FOUND IN IRAQI
No surprise for me, but maybe this is the start of a trail of WMD.
|
No surprise for me, but maybe this is the start of a trail of WMD.
SOUTH KOREA CRACKING DOWN ON SOFTWARE PIRACY
Interesting that News.com picked this story up. South Korean Government began to crack down on fake Coach bags and other items in Itaewon, Seoul's main tourist shopping district, about five years which led to a dramatic decline of illegal copies. Let's see what happens with software.
South Korea's cat-and-mouse with piracy
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 17, 2004, 6:57 AM PDT
SEOUL, South Korea--Koreans with pirated software have resorted to an old-fashioned method for skirting Microsoft and the authorities. They scram.
Recently in a city near Seoul called Incheon, police investigators empowered to audit software on PCs snuck in through an office building's back exit, according to a source who worked for an ISP inside the facility at the time. A receptionist immediately began to call all the businesses in the building.
"Everyone closed their doors," the former ISP employee said. The ISP wasn't so lucky. Its employees didn't get out in time, and the company had to pay $42,000 (50 million won) in software licenses and fines.
The cat-and-mouse game among the police, the U.S. software giant and businesses here is fairly common, according to several sources. The situation is in some ways reminiscent of the U.S. experience with Prohibition, where the government is simply trying to enforce the law but many people sympathize with the violators.
With a piracy rate of 40 percent to 50 percent, according to various estimates, Korea has become one of its hot spots for cracking down on illegal software. The government, concerned about the potential effect on exports and its own software industry, has responded by passing a number of reforms.
The Computer Program Protection Act, for instance, strengthened existing copyright laws, Eun Hyun Kim, senior legal manager for Microsoft Korea, said in an interview here. Last October, the government also passed a law that allows the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC), which governs the IT industry, to conduct piracy investigations. Before that, he said, only the prosecutor's office and the police could do so. (full article)
|
Interesting that News.com picked this story up. South Korean Government began to crack down on fake Coach bags and other items in Itaewon, Seoul's main tourist shopping district, about five years which led to a dramatic decline of illegal copies. Let's see what happens with software.
South Korea's cat-and-mouse with piracy
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
May 17, 2004, 6:57 AM PDT
SEOUL, South Korea--Koreans with pirated software have resorted to an old-fashioned method for skirting Microsoft and the authorities. They scram.
Recently in a city near Seoul called Incheon, police investigators empowered to audit software on PCs snuck in through an office building's back exit, according to a source who worked for an ISP inside the facility at the time. A receptionist immediately began to call all the businesses in the building.
"Everyone closed their doors," the former ISP employee said. The ISP wasn't so lucky. Its employees didn't get out in time, and the company had to pay $42,000 (50 million won) in software licenses and fines.
The cat-and-mouse game among the police, the U.S. software giant and businesses here is fairly common, according to several sources. The situation is in some ways reminiscent of the U.S. experience with Prohibition, where the government is simply trying to enforce the law but many people sympathize with the violators.
With a piracy rate of 40 percent to 50 percent, according to various estimates, Korea has become one of its hot spots for cracking down on illegal software. The government, concerned about the potential effect on exports and its own software industry, has responded by passing a number of reforms.
The Computer Program Protection Act, for instance, strengthened existing copyright laws, Eun Hyun Kim, senior legal manager for Microsoft Korea, said in an interview here. Last October, the government also passed a law that allows the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC), which governs the IT industry, to conduct piracy investigations. Before that, he said, only the prosecutor's office and the police could do so. (full article)
Sunday, May 16, 2004
GENERALIZATIONS OF EAST ASIANS... CHINESE, JAPANESE, KOREANS
Parable of the Dragon and Ten Pigs... Are Japanese The Model?
A few weeks ago I read a column by an attorney in a Korean newspaper on his recent travels to Shanghai. I tried to find the article online but could not obtain it so the details will not be accurate. He was a Korean working at an international law firm in Hong Kong whose work had taken him often this year to the mainland. His article focused on the parable of the dragon and ten pigs that he learned from his friends in the mainland. The lesson in this Chinese parable was comparing the skills and characteristics of the Chinese with the Japanese. The Chinese are like a dragon, which they described as strong and skillfull individually, but within a group they become like ten pigs squealing and running aimlessly in the pen. The Japanese are like ten pigs, who are weaker individually, but come together to become a dragon. The lesson is the work and sweat needed to get things done is in groups not by individuals, and a self-criticism by the Chinese.
I found this interesting because Koreans recognize and sometimes discuss the strength of the Japanese in their teamwork skills and ability to support each other, but it isn't often they are reflective on their weaknesses as much as I hear from the Chinese. I remember listening to various criticisms and comments from Japanese and others about Koreans when the topic of reunification of North and South first came into the forefront about a decade ago. The great potential of reunification would be discussed, but soon dismissed after noting that Koreans would eventually backstab each other and its maximum potential would never be attained.
Though disappointing to hear as a person of Korean descent, I see some of these characteristics. One example is when I first moved to Korea four years ago for work, I learned about a phrase in Korean that people state when good fortune happens for their friend or colleague: "my stomach hurts." This phrase means that you feel a sense of envy for your friend or colleague that receives a promotion at work, windfall of money, etc. It is also disheartening when you see and hear stories of backstabbing and jealousy in Korean corporate environments. I hope this generalized characteristic fades from Korean and Korean American culture.
It's interesting though to hear in the U.S. how Koreans were considered the "Asian Jews." Primarily in a positive spin, this comparison stems from the perception that Koreans are hard-working, intelligent, and very driven to succeed. Also there is a more tangible fact in that many businesses Koreans obtained when they immigrated during the 1960s and 1970s were from Jewish Americans, such as dry cleaners and various retail operations in Chicago and New York.
I grew up in a suburb with a large percentage of Jewish Americans, and some of my friends' parents acknowledged this perceived similarity. A few of them would say that they would allow their daughters "to marry either a Jewish or Korean boy" because they believed Koreans to have "similar values." I would state that one difference I recognize is the formal and informal support system that Jews have which Koreans do not in the U.S. This might originate from all those hurt stomachs in Korea.
It's interesting to hear while living in Asia that the Chinese are considered the "Asian Jews." Not always in these words, but Chinese are considered by most Asians to be the best "money makers" or the smartest with money. Even my native Korean friends and family state or agree on this stereotype of the Chinese. So I assume many of the Chinese in the U.S., being in there several generations longer than Koreans, are diluted too much by American culture. :) Anyway, my mother is one of those Koreans that believes once China has the infrastructure and economic and cultural maturity that they will dominate Asia and much of the world.
|
Parable of the Dragon and Ten Pigs... Are Japanese The Model?
A few weeks ago I read a column by an attorney in a Korean newspaper on his recent travels to Shanghai. I tried to find the article online but could not obtain it so the details will not be accurate. He was a Korean working at an international law firm in Hong Kong whose work had taken him often this year to the mainland. His article focused on the parable of the dragon and ten pigs that he learned from his friends in the mainland. The lesson in this Chinese parable was comparing the skills and characteristics of the Chinese with the Japanese. The Chinese are like a dragon, which they described as strong and skillfull individually, but within a group they become like ten pigs squealing and running aimlessly in the pen. The Japanese are like ten pigs, who are weaker individually, but come together to become a dragon. The lesson is the work and sweat needed to get things done is in groups not by individuals, and a self-criticism by the Chinese.
I found this interesting because Koreans recognize and sometimes discuss the strength of the Japanese in their teamwork skills and ability to support each other, but it isn't often they are reflective on their weaknesses as much as I hear from the Chinese. I remember listening to various criticisms and comments from Japanese and others about Koreans when the topic of reunification of North and South first came into the forefront about a decade ago. The great potential of reunification would be discussed, but soon dismissed after noting that Koreans would eventually backstab each other and its maximum potential would never be attained.
Though disappointing to hear as a person of Korean descent, I see some of these characteristics. One example is when I first moved to Korea four years ago for work, I learned about a phrase in Korean that people state when good fortune happens for their friend or colleague: "my stomach hurts." This phrase means that you feel a sense of envy for your friend or colleague that receives a promotion at work, windfall of money, etc. It is also disheartening when you see and hear stories of backstabbing and jealousy in Korean corporate environments. I hope this generalized characteristic fades from Korean and Korean American culture.
It's interesting though to hear in the U.S. how Koreans were considered the "Asian Jews." Primarily in a positive spin, this comparison stems from the perception that Koreans are hard-working, intelligent, and very driven to succeed. Also there is a more tangible fact in that many businesses Koreans obtained when they immigrated during the 1960s and 1970s were from Jewish Americans, such as dry cleaners and various retail operations in Chicago and New York.
I grew up in a suburb with a large percentage of Jewish Americans, and some of my friends' parents acknowledged this perceived similarity. A few of them would say that they would allow their daughters "to marry either a Jewish or Korean boy" because they believed Koreans to have "similar values." I would state that one difference I recognize is the formal and informal support system that Jews have which Koreans do not in the U.S. This might originate from all those hurt stomachs in Korea.
It's interesting to hear while living in Asia that the Chinese are considered the "Asian Jews." Not always in these words, but Chinese are considered by most Asians to be the best "money makers" or the smartest with money. Even my native Korean friends and family state or agree on this stereotype of the Chinese. So I assume many of the Chinese in the U.S., being in there several generations longer than Koreans, are diluted too much by American culture. :) Anyway, my mother is one of those Koreans that believes once China has the infrastructure and economic and cultural maturity that they will dominate Asia and much of the world.
REVIEW OF E3... 'THE' CONVENTION OF THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY
This past week was the video game industry's leading expo. A couple of my friends attended, so I guess I'll get their scoop later. Here's Newsweek's article on E3.
Technology: Your Next Videogame
By N'Gai Croal
Newsweek
May 24, 2004
The buzz at last week's Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles was more electronic than entertainment, thanks to a pair of dueling handheld videogame systems from industry giants Sony and Nintendo. First, Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) unveiled its movie-, music- and game-playing PlayStation Portable—and it was nothing short of stunning. The PSP's 4.3-inch widescreen display showcases both video and games nicely, and its built-in Wi-Fi offers cool possibilities for online interactivity. Not to be outdone, reigning handheld champ Nintendo unveiled the DS, which has two screens along with Wi-Fi and a separate short-range wireless radio for chat and instant messaging. Demos showed that the bland-looking DS is loaded with high-tech innovations. One game involved navigating a falling baby Mario to safety by using the stylus to trace out a line of virtual clouds to guide his descent; another was a first-person shooter that lets users look around by dragging the stylus left or right, then tapping on the screen to fire. Is the new Nintendo a game machine or a tween lifestyle device? Maybe both. (full article)
|
This past week was the video game industry's leading expo. A couple of my friends attended, so I guess I'll get their scoop later. Here's Newsweek's article on E3.
Technology: Your Next Videogame
By N'Gai Croal
Newsweek
May 24, 2004
The buzz at last week's Electronic Entertainment Expo in Los Angeles was more electronic than entertainment, thanks to a pair of dueling handheld videogame systems from industry giants Sony and Nintendo. First, Sony Computer Entertainment America (SCEA) unveiled its movie-, music- and game-playing PlayStation Portable—and it was nothing short of stunning. The PSP's 4.3-inch widescreen display showcases both video and games nicely, and its built-in Wi-Fi offers cool possibilities for online interactivity. Not to be outdone, reigning handheld champ Nintendo unveiled the DS, which has two screens along with Wi-Fi and a separate short-range wireless radio for chat and instant messaging. Demos showed that the bland-looking DS is loaded with high-tech innovations. One game involved navigating a falling baby Mario to safety by using the stylus to trace out a line of virtual clouds to guide his descent; another was a first-person shooter that lets users look around by dragging the stylus left or right, then tapping on the screen to fire. Is the new Nintendo a game machine or a tween lifestyle device? Maybe both. (full article)
BIG BLUE SWINGS AT MICROSOFT
From Business 2.0's Future Boy:
IBM's Microsoft End Run
Big Blue hopes to make mini-servers out of your laptop, cell phone, and PDA -- and turn Microsoft Office into just another plug-in.
Business 2.0
By Erick Schonfeld
May 14, 2004
"This is not about a competitive battle," insisted IBM (IBM) software chief Steve Mills to a small ballroom full of reporters Monday. "Our intent here is not to displace Microsoft Office." But despite such protestations, IBM's "new software model," which revolves around its Workplace family of products, is a direct jab at Redmond.
While it may be true that Mills is not trying to displace Office per se, what he is trying to do may be even more damaging. He wants to reduce Microsoft's (MSFT) productivity software (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) to nothing more than a series of plug-ins for Workplace. Today, Workplace consists of IBM's popular Lotus Notes and Domino e-mail software, as well as other collaborative applications, including calendars and shared-document handlers. What IBM announced Monday is that companies will be able to customize Workplace by mixing and matching different applications -- such as e-mail, calendars, word processors, and Web browsers -- all on the same screen. In IBM's vision, each application becomes just another component, just another plug-in.
Try to visualize your desktop applications all running in different segments of one computer window, with the main application in a bigger segment in the middle and the other applications in smaller segments all around. Workplace can call up Microsoft Word or one of IBM's "document editors" (scrubbed-up versions of programs from the OpenOffice suite of free productivity software) or even enterprise software from Siebel Systems (SEBL) or SAP (SAP). Each application is just a plug-in for Workplace, and most can be updated and managed from a central Web server.
IBM wants to make this happen by putting a miniature version of some of its server software on your desktop or handheld computer. That is, IBM has designed a mini-database, a mini-application server, an agent for downloading and setting up new software, and an agent for synchronizing the software with a central server. By bringing all of this so-called middleware to client computers, IBM is hoping to replicate its success on server computers. Its WebSphere application-server software and DB2 database software are called middleware because they sit between the operating system and the applications that run businesses and websites. In fact, it hardly matters what operating system a server runs -- whether it's Windows, Unix, or Linux -- because programmers write applications to the middleware.
Now IBM is trying to do the same thing on the client side, the seat of Microsoft's monopoly power. As client devices proliferate -- Windows laptops, Palm Treos, Nokia (NOK) phones -- IBM is trying to entice software developers and corporate customers with an easy way to extend applications to all devices, no matter what the underlying operating system is. IBM is effectively saying, "Write to our middleware; we'll take care of the rest."
Why would anyone do this? It is not yet clear that anyone will. But IBM is trying to sell the idea as a lower-cost way for corporate IT departments to manage the proliferation of computing devices. For software developers, it would be an easier way to take software code written to run on a server and make it run on any device (because IBM's client middleware is designed to run smaller components of the same server code). And, unlike Web-based software, these applications could run even when the client is disconnected from the Internet.
IBM's real bet here is that computer software is ready to take its next evolutionary step. With help from the Internet, stand-alone client software tied to a PC was able to become centrally managed Web software accessed through a browser. The browser, though, is reaching its limits. What IBM is proposing is a way to combine the richness of client applications with all the benefits of a networked approach. Instead of using the old client-server model, IBM wants to turn client computers into mini-servers complete with middleware. This will allow client devices to constantly download and share applications with more powerful servers, and to be controlled by them (that mainframe mentality never dies). IBM, of course, makes a lot of money on server hardware and software, so it is a logical place from which to try to dislodge Microsoft's hold on client computers.
In the 1990s, Oracle (ORCL) and Sun (SUNW) tried a similar server-based approach, with "thin client" computing, and failed miserably. This time, IBM is taking more of a "thick client" approach. Its success will hinge on both its ability to lower corporate IT costs and its ability to create a new class of applications that improve worker productivity. On top of that, IBM will have to convince customers that going down this path is not simply trading one computing dependency for another.
|
From Business 2.0's Future Boy:
IBM's Microsoft End Run
Big Blue hopes to make mini-servers out of your laptop, cell phone, and PDA -- and turn Microsoft Office into just another plug-in.
Business 2.0
By Erick Schonfeld
May 14, 2004
"This is not about a competitive battle," insisted IBM (IBM) software chief Steve Mills to a small ballroom full of reporters Monday. "Our intent here is not to displace Microsoft Office." But despite such protestations, IBM's "new software model," which revolves around its Workplace family of products, is a direct jab at Redmond.
While it may be true that Mills is not trying to displace Office per se, what he is trying to do may be even more damaging. He wants to reduce Microsoft's (MSFT) productivity software (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) to nothing more than a series of plug-ins for Workplace. Today, Workplace consists of IBM's popular Lotus Notes and Domino e-mail software, as well as other collaborative applications, including calendars and shared-document handlers. What IBM announced Monday is that companies will be able to customize Workplace by mixing and matching different applications -- such as e-mail, calendars, word processors, and Web browsers -- all on the same screen. In IBM's vision, each application becomes just another component, just another plug-in.
Try to visualize your desktop applications all running in different segments of one computer window, with the main application in a bigger segment in the middle and the other applications in smaller segments all around. Workplace can call up Microsoft Word or one of IBM's "document editors" (scrubbed-up versions of programs from the OpenOffice suite of free productivity software) or even enterprise software from Siebel Systems (SEBL) or SAP (SAP). Each application is just a plug-in for Workplace, and most can be updated and managed from a central Web server.
IBM wants to make this happen by putting a miniature version of some of its server software on your desktop or handheld computer. That is, IBM has designed a mini-database, a mini-application server, an agent for downloading and setting up new software, and an agent for synchronizing the software with a central server. By bringing all of this so-called middleware to client computers, IBM is hoping to replicate its success on server computers. Its WebSphere application-server software and DB2 database software are called middleware because they sit between the operating system and the applications that run businesses and websites. In fact, it hardly matters what operating system a server runs -- whether it's Windows, Unix, or Linux -- because programmers write applications to the middleware.
Now IBM is trying to do the same thing on the client side, the seat of Microsoft's monopoly power. As client devices proliferate -- Windows laptops, Palm Treos, Nokia (NOK) phones -- IBM is trying to entice software developers and corporate customers with an easy way to extend applications to all devices, no matter what the underlying operating system is. IBM is effectively saying, "Write to our middleware; we'll take care of the rest."
Why would anyone do this? It is not yet clear that anyone will. But IBM is trying to sell the idea as a lower-cost way for corporate IT departments to manage the proliferation of computing devices. For software developers, it would be an easier way to take software code written to run on a server and make it run on any device (because IBM's client middleware is designed to run smaller components of the same server code). And, unlike Web-based software, these applications could run even when the client is disconnected from the Internet.
IBM's real bet here is that computer software is ready to take its next evolutionary step. With help from the Internet, stand-alone client software tied to a PC was able to become centrally managed Web software accessed through a browser. The browser, though, is reaching its limits. What IBM is proposing is a way to combine the richness of client applications with all the benefits of a networked approach. Instead of using the old client-server model, IBM wants to turn client computers into mini-servers complete with middleware. This will allow client devices to constantly download and share applications with more powerful servers, and to be controlled by them (that mainframe mentality never dies). IBM, of course, makes a lot of money on server hardware and software, so it is a logical place from which to try to dislodge Microsoft's hold on client computers.
In the 1990s, Oracle (ORCL) and Sun (SUNW) tried a similar server-based approach, with "thin client" computing, and failed miserably. This time, IBM is taking more of a "thick client" approach. Its success will hinge on both its ability to lower corporate IT costs and its ability to create a new class of applications that improve worker productivity. On top of that, IBM will have to convince customers that going down this path is not simply trading one computing dependency for another.
Friday, May 14, 2004
CASE FOR WAR... READ IT
For the most part, I believe soft tactics and diplomacy are ineffective against dictators and rebel nations. It simply doesn't work and the best chance you hope for in such situations is turnover of the regime (e.g. natural death and chance succession of a better ruler, coup d'état, natural disaster that wipes out the ruling party). Anyways, I posted the whole article since I thought everyone should get a chance to read it (respects to WSJ).
Sometimes, a War Saves People
We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
Thursday, May 13, 2004
The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run.
No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.
As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.
Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe, the junta in Myanmar, or Syria? But while Mugabe is a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam--a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars against his Muslim neighbors, and defied the U.N.
Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes--from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.
If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today denounce the "evils" of Western imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously.
Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.
Iraq's Shiite majority has acted with restraint in the face of provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shiite clerics more closely and ensure that their legitimate concerns are met. While a Shiite-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return of Saddam's thugs. The U.S. must reiterate that building democracy will not marginalize Islam. Democracy and Islam coexist in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq, too, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but the U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.
The U.S. also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can restore U.S. standing in Iraq.
Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.
In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.
Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.
Mr. Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation.
|
For the most part, I believe soft tactics and diplomacy are ineffective against dictators and rebel nations. It simply doesn't work and the best chance you hope for in such situations is turnover of the regime (e.g. natural death and chance succession of a better ruler, coup d'état, natural disaster that wipes out the ruling party). Anyways, I posted the whole article since I thought everyone should get a chance to read it (respects to WSJ).
Sometimes, a War Saves People
We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
Thursday, May 13, 2004
The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run.
No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.
As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so.
Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.
So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.
Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe, the junta in Myanmar, or Syria? But while Mugabe is a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam--a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars against his Muslim neighbors, and defied the U.N.
Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes--from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.
If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today denounce the "evils" of Western imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously.
Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.
Iraq's Shiite majority has acted with restraint in the face of provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shiite clerics more closely and ensure that their legitimate concerns are met. While a Shiite-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return of Saddam's thugs. The U.S. must reiterate that building democracy will not marginalize Islam. Democracy and Islam coexist in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq, too, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but the U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.
The U.S. also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can restore U.S. standing in Iraq.
Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.
In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.
Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.
Mr. Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation.
VIEWPOINT ON THE PATRIOT ACT
Informative article.
'The Spirit of Liberty'
Before attacking the Patriot Act, try reading it.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
Monday, May 10, 2004
Learned Hand, among the last century's greatest judges, defined the spirit of liberty 60 years ago as "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." We must consider what message we can take from those words today.
We are now in a struggle with an extremism that expresses itself in the form of terror attacks, and in that we face what is probably the gravest threat to this country's institutions, if not to its physical welfare, since the Civil War. When one tries to assess people who can find it in themselves to fly airplanes into buildings and murder 3,000 of us in a single morning, whatever else you can say about such people, they are very sure that they are right; and wouldn't it be music to their ears to hear that our spirit says we're not too sure that we are right?
.....
As we participate in this debate on what is the right course to pursue, I think it is important to remember an interesting structural feature of the Constitution we all revere. When we speak of constitutional rights, we generally speak of rights that appear not in the original Constitution itself, but rather in amendments to the Constitution--principally the first 10. Those amendments are a noble work, but it is the rest of the Constitution--the boring part--the part that sets up a bicameral legislature and separation of powers, and so on, the part you will never see mentioned in any flyer or hear at any rally, that guarantees that the rights referred to in those 10 amendments are worth something more than the paper they are written on.
A bill of rights was omitted from the original Constitution over the objections of Patrick Henry and others. It may well be that those who drafted the original Constitution understood that if you give equal prominence to the provisions creating the government and the provisions guaranteeing rights against the government--God-given rights, no less, according to the Declaration of Independence--then citizens will feel that much less inclined to sacrifice in behalf of their government, and that much more inclined simply to go where their rights and their interests seem to take them.
So, as the historian Walter Berns has argued, the built-in message--the hidden message in the structure of the Constitution--is that the government it establishes is entitled, at least in the first instance, to receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt. If we keep that in mind, then the spirit of liberty will be the spirit which, if it is not too sure that it is right, is at least sure enough to keep itself--and us--alive. (full article)
Mr. Mukasey is chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. This is adapted from a speech he gave last Wednesday, on his acceptance of the Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence.
|
Informative article.
'The Spirit of Liberty'
Before attacking the Patriot Act, try reading it.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
Monday, May 10, 2004
Learned Hand, among the last century's greatest judges, defined the spirit of liberty 60 years ago as "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." We must consider what message we can take from those words today.
We are now in a struggle with an extremism that expresses itself in the form of terror attacks, and in that we face what is probably the gravest threat to this country's institutions, if not to its physical welfare, since the Civil War. When one tries to assess people who can find it in themselves to fly airplanes into buildings and murder 3,000 of us in a single morning, whatever else you can say about such people, they are very sure that they are right; and wouldn't it be music to their ears to hear that our spirit says we're not too sure that we are right?
.....
As we participate in this debate on what is the right course to pursue, I think it is important to remember an interesting structural feature of the Constitution we all revere. When we speak of constitutional rights, we generally speak of rights that appear not in the original Constitution itself, but rather in amendments to the Constitution--principally the first 10. Those amendments are a noble work, but it is the rest of the Constitution--the boring part--the part that sets up a bicameral legislature and separation of powers, and so on, the part you will never see mentioned in any flyer or hear at any rally, that guarantees that the rights referred to in those 10 amendments are worth something more than the paper they are written on.
A bill of rights was omitted from the original Constitution over the objections of Patrick Henry and others. It may well be that those who drafted the original Constitution understood that if you give equal prominence to the provisions creating the government and the provisions guaranteeing rights against the government--God-given rights, no less, according to the Declaration of Independence--then citizens will feel that much less inclined to sacrifice in behalf of their government, and that much more inclined simply to go where their rights and their interests seem to take them.
So, as the historian Walter Berns has argued, the built-in message--the hidden message in the structure of the Constitution--is that the government it establishes is entitled, at least in the first instance, to receive from its citizens the benefit of the doubt. If we keep that in mind, then the spirit of liberty will be the spirit which, if it is not too sure that it is right, is at least sure enough to keep itself--and us--alive. (full article)
Mr. Mukasey is chief judge of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. This is adapted from a speech he gave last Wednesday, on his acceptance of the Learned Hand Medal for Excellence in Federal Jurisprudence.
KERRY FUNNIES
"Kerry was here in Los Angeles. He was courting the Spanish vote by speaking Spanish. And he showed people he could be boring in two languages." -Jay Leno (The Tonight Show).
Hat Tip to James Taranto:
Meanwhile, the Onion (warning: some off-color content) has a list of proposed Kerry slogans that fit right into this "theory":
* "Kerry: You'd Probably Like Him if You Got to Know Him."
* "Vote Kerry in 2004, because life is a miasma of confusion, pain, and loneliness."
* "Kerry: A voice of reason who's killed, like, 20 dudes."
* "The election is still a long way off, so go about the business of living your lives until a week or so before voting day, at which point you should really give some thought to John Kerry."
* "John Kerry: Certainly not worse."
|
"Kerry was here in Los Angeles. He was courting the Spanish vote by speaking Spanish. And he showed people he could be boring in two languages." -Jay Leno (The Tonight Show).
Hat Tip to James Taranto:
Meanwhile, the Onion (warning: some off-color content) has a list of proposed Kerry slogans that fit right into this "theory":
* "Kerry: You'd Probably Like Him if You Got to Know Him."
* "Vote Kerry in 2004, because life is a miasma of confusion, pain, and loneliness."
* "Kerry: A voice of reason who's killed, like, 20 dudes."
* "The election is still a long way off, so go about the business of living your lives until a week or so before voting day, at which point you should really give some thought to John Kerry."
* "John Kerry: Certainly not worse."
WIMAX LOSING STEAM?
Nokia recently pulled out of WiMax Forum, an industry standards body, citing concerns that the technology is overhyped. Are they posturing for something more? Are they creating their own standards? Anyone have insider info on this situation?
|
Nokia recently pulled out of WiMax Forum, an industry standards body, citing concerns that the technology is overhyped. Are they posturing for something more? Are they creating their own standards? Anyone have insider info on this situation?
PUSH-TO-TALK IS THE NEXT BIG THING IN WIRELESS
Blip on Nextel's growing Push-To-Talk (PTT) service. This service has driven Nextel's success in generating the highest average revenues per user per month (ARPUs) and the lowest churn rates in the wireless industry. Every wireless carrier in the world is planning to implement this "walkie-talkie" service in the coming year.
Nextel's Walkie-Talkie Service Goes International
Dow Jones Newswires
Nextel Communications Inc. is expanding its walkie-talkie feature to let users in Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Peru direct connect with its U.S. subscribers. Nextel's International Direct Connect service will allow its customers to direct connect between the U.S. and those countries. Customers in Latin American countries can already talk across borders with each other, and Nextel expects to expand the service to allow Latin American and Canadian users to connect by the end of the year. Nextel's Latin American service is run by NII Holdings Inc. and Canada's service is provided by Telus Corp.
|
Blip on Nextel's growing Push-To-Talk (PTT) service. This service has driven Nextel's success in generating the highest average revenues per user per month (ARPUs) and the lowest churn rates in the wireless industry. Every wireless carrier in the world is planning to implement this "walkie-talkie" service in the coming year.
Nextel's Walkie-Talkie Service Goes International
Dow Jones Newswires
Nextel Communications Inc. is expanding its walkie-talkie feature to let users in Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Peru direct connect with its U.S. subscribers. Nextel's International Direct Connect service will allow its customers to direct connect between the U.S. and those countries. Customers in Latin American countries can already talk across borders with each other, and Nextel expects to expand the service to allow Latin American and Canadian users to connect by the end of the year. Nextel's Latin American service is run by NII Holdings Inc. and Canada's service is provided by Telus Corp.
MEDIA MATTERS... MONITORING THE RIGHT
Whatever... Hope Brock Does Better Than Air America
Old article that sat in my inbox. I'm just starting to clear it out after being a little more settled in the U.S. Yo! Max! This site, Media Matters, is for you!
New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right
THE NEW YORK TIMES
By JIM RUTENBERG
May 3, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 2 — David Brock, the former right-wing journalist turned liberal, describes himself as once having been a rather large cog in the machinery of the conservative media.
Now Mr. Brock is starting a new endeavor built to combat the very sector of journalism that spawned him, with support from the same sorts of people (Democrats) about whom he once wrote so critically.
With more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals, Mr. Brock will start a new Internet site this week that he says will monitor the conservative media and correct erroneous assertions in real time.
The site, called Media Matters, was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress, the policy group headed by John D. Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff. And Mr. Brock said he hoped it could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio talk shows being started across the country, including those of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo.
For Mr. Brock, 41, the project is yet another considerable step in his public evolution from conservative muckraker to liberal activist. That evolution began after Mr. Brock began publicly apologizing in the late 1990's for reporting that brutally criticized Anita F. Hill and a report that Arkansas state troopers had helped Bill Clinton procure paramours when he was the governor of Arkansas, the veracity of which he is no longer sure.
Mr. Brock has also said that he knowingly lied in an article he wrote for The American Spectator in 1992 that raised doubts about the credibility of Ms. Hill. The article formed the basis for a later book about Ms. Hill, whose charges of harassment almost derailed Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Brock said he hoped his new project could be as influential as the Media Research Center, a conservative media monitoring group run by L. Brent Bozell III that frequently calls attention to what it calls examples of liberal bias in the news media. Its findings often become subjects for conservative radio and cable talk shows.
Mr. Brock argued that such monitoring groups have helped build the conservative media's influence, in part by making mainstream journalists toe a more conservative line by convincing them that they are liberally biased.
"The right wing in this country has dominated the debate over liberal bias," Mr. Brock said during an interview Friday. "By dominating that debate, my belief is they've moved the media itself to the right and therefore they've moved American politics to the right."
He added, "I wanted to create an institution to combat what they're doing."
Since his conversion to the left, Mr. Brock has argued that he was representative of many in conservative journalism, an assertion some of his former colleagues angrily deny. Still, Mr. Brock said the central thrust of his group would be to closely monitor conservative commentators and journalists and, when they make erroneous or misleading claims, to point them out and set the record straight on the Media Matters Web site (www.mediamatters.org).
In Mr. Brock's new K Street offices on Friday morning, a team of nearly a half-dozen researchers, overseen by Katie Barge, who last worked for the opposition research arm of Senator John Edwards's presidential campaign, sat before a bank of computers and televisions in a room that was otherwise dark.
Some of the researchers wore headphones as they scanned episodes of cable news programs stored on digital recording devices, among them "Hannity & Colmes" on Fox News Channel, "Dennis Miller" on CNBC and "Scarborough Country" on MSNBC. Two researchers have been assigned to cover Mr. Limbaugh, whose program they will regularly transcribe.
Mr. Scarborough, a former Republican representative from Florida, said he did not mind being monitored by the site, so long as it stuck to monitoring accuracy and did not grind too hard a political ax.
"Everybody should welcome fact-checkers if guests, or especially hosts, say things that aren't accurate," Mr. Scarborough said.
While Mr. Bozell did not argue with Mr. Brock's assertion that his group opened the door to greater influence for more conservative outlets, he did not agree with his central premise that conservative commentators had made the mainstream media more conservative.
"I don't think we have pushed the mainstream media to the right," Mr. Bozell said. "I think what we have done is to neutralize their credibility, and every survey in the world shows that the public doesn't believe that these reporters are objective."
But, he said, Mr. Brock's new venture would have greater problems than that. "The problem is that David Brock is a certified liar," he said. "He will forever have a credibility problem. One doesn't know what to believe in David Brock." (full article)
|
Whatever... Hope Brock Does Better Than Air America
Old article that sat in my inbox. I'm just starting to clear it out after being a little more settled in the U.S. Yo! Max! This site, Media Matters, is for you!
New Internet Site Turns Critical Eyes and Ears to the Right
THE NEW YORK TIMES
By JIM RUTENBERG
May 3, 2004
WASHINGTON, May 2 — David Brock, the former right-wing journalist turned liberal, describes himself as once having been a rather large cog in the machinery of the conservative media.
Now Mr. Brock is starting a new endeavor built to combat the very sector of journalism that spawned him, with support from the same sorts of people (Democrats) about whom he once wrote so critically.
With more than $2 million in donations from wealthy liberals, Mr. Brock will start a new Internet site this week that he says will monitor the conservative media and correct erroneous assertions in real time.
The site, called Media Matters, was devised as part of a larger media apparatus being built by liberals to combat what they say is the overwhelming influence of conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.
Mr. Brock's project was developed with help from the newly formed Center for American Progress, the policy group headed by John D. Podesta, the former Clinton chief of staff. And Mr. Brock said he hoped it could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio talk shows being started across the country, including those of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo.
For Mr. Brock, 41, the project is yet another considerable step in his public evolution from conservative muckraker to liberal activist. That evolution began after Mr. Brock began publicly apologizing in the late 1990's for reporting that brutally criticized Anita F. Hill and a report that Arkansas state troopers had helped Bill Clinton procure paramours when he was the governor of Arkansas, the veracity of which he is no longer sure.
Mr. Brock has also said that he knowingly lied in an article he wrote for The American Spectator in 1992 that raised doubts about the credibility of Ms. Hill. The article formed the basis for a later book about Ms. Hill, whose charges of harassment almost derailed Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Brock said he hoped his new project could be as influential as the Media Research Center, a conservative media monitoring group run by L. Brent Bozell III that frequently calls attention to what it calls examples of liberal bias in the news media. Its findings often become subjects for conservative radio and cable talk shows.
Mr. Brock argued that such monitoring groups have helped build the conservative media's influence, in part by making mainstream journalists toe a more conservative line by convincing them that they are liberally biased.
"The right wing in this country has dominated the debate over liberal bias," Mr. Brock said during an interview Friday. "By dominating that debate, my belief is they've moved the media itself to the right and therefore they've moved American politics to the right."
He added, "I wanted to create an institution to combat what they're doing."
Since his conversion to the left, Mr. Brock has argued that he was representative of many in conservative journalism, an assertion some of his former colleagues angrily deny. Still, Mr. Brock said the central thrust of his group would be to closely monitor conservative commentators and journalists and, when they make erroneous or misleading claims, to point them out and set the record straight on the Media Matters Web site (www.mediamatters.org).
In Mr. Brock's new K Street offices on Friday morning, a team of nearly a half-dozen researchers, overseen by Katie Barge, who last worked for the opposition research arm of Senator John Edwards's presidential campaign, sat before a bank of computers and televisions in a room that was otherwise dark.
Some of the researchers wore headphones as they scanned episodes of cable news programs stored on digital recording devices, among them "Hannity & Colmes" on Fox News Channel, "Dennis Miller" on CNBC and "Scarborough Country" on MSNBC. Two researchers have been assigned to cover Mr. Limbaugh, whose program they will regularly transcribe.
Mr. Scarborough, a former Republican representative from Florida, said he did not mind being monitored by the site, so long as it stuck to monitoring accuracy and did not grind too hard a political ax.
"Everybody should welcome fact-checkers if guests, or especially hosts, say things that aren't accurate," Mr. Scarborough said.
While Mr. Bozell did not argue with Mr. Brock's assertion that his group opened the door to greater influence for more conservative outlets, he did not agree with his central premise that conservative commentators had made the mainstream media more conservative.
"I don't think we have pushed the mainstream media to the right," Mr. Bozell said. "I think what we have done is to neutralize their credibility, and every survey in the world shows that the public doesn't believe that these reporters are objective."
But, he said, Mr. Brock's new venture would have greater problems than that. "The problem is that David Brock is a certified liar," he said. "He will forever have a credibility problem. One doesn't know what to believe in David Brock." (full article)
YAHOO AND GOOGLE TRADE PUNCHES
Yahoo recently increased its free email storage from 4MB to 100MB. A good grouping of articles at News.com.
|
Yahoo recently increased its free email storage from 4MB to 100MB. A good grouping of articles at News.com.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
DISNEY EXPANDING MOVIEBEAM SERVICE
Disney's video-on-demand service grows, but I still think they should get rid of Eisner.
|
Disney's video-on-demand service grows, but I still think they should get rid of Eisner.
KLEINER PERKINS KICKING ASS AGAIN
Sequoia Capital too... Moritz Must Be Loving It
As Google prepares to go public, two of Silicon Valley's most storied and successful firms stand to reap incredible returns again... after the bust times. Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia each invested $12.5 million into Google back in 1999. I forgot the stake they each hold, but I believe it's about 20% so they stand to gain hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars from their early investment into Google.
Good article on Mike Mortiz in a recent Fortune issue (subscription required), which I pasted below. Totally reflects what I remember from a Garage.com Startup Bootcamp I attended back in 1999. It was a seminar with a panel of four venture capitalists talking about what they look for in early-stage companies. Moritz in a smug manner proclaimed,"Sequoia's investments have created approximately a third of the value on NASDAQ today... We only invest in companies with five letters, such as Cisco, Apple, Yahoo..."
I remember a few people moaning and the other VCs on the panel rolling their eyes. After the seminar was done, Guy Kawasaki came out laughing and said a few words about Moritz and joked about how well liked he was by the other panelists. I always wondered how serious Moritz was with his words and how seriously he takes himself. Either way, he does kick ass. He definitely is at or near the level of VCs like John Doerr now.
From Googles to Giggles, KP Closes Fund
Private Equity Week
Lawrence Aragon
May 10, 2004
As it prepares for a windfall from the highly anticipated public offering of Google Inc., Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has bulked up for future deals that it can only hope will be as successful.
As anticipated, the Menlo Park, Calif.-based firm held a final close in the last week of April on $400 million for its 11th fund, says John Denniston, the firm's chief operating officer. That total amount includes a side fund, according to a source close to the firm. (full article)
Google's Banker
As money pours into venture capital, some of the biggest in the industry are starting to worry. Just ask Google's banker.
Fortune
By Adam Lashinsky
April 19, 2004
The all-time greats of Silicon Valley venture capital can pretty much be counted on one hand. There's Arthur Rock, who was present, checkbook in hand, at the creation of Intel. Don Valentine seeded Oracle, Apple, and Cisco—a VC trifecta for the ages. John Doerr made a fortune with early bets on Sun, Netscape, and Amazon.com. And when search star Google goes public—the waiting on that one should end shortly—sculptors will need to get busy on one more bust for Sand Hill Road's Mount Rushmore: Michael Moritz, the wily investor whose previous grand slams include early stakes in Yahoo and PayPal.
In 1999, Moritz led his firm, Sequoia Capital, to invest $12.5 million in Google. If Google goes public at the $8-billion-and-up valuation that investment bankers expect, Moritz and his partners will likely reap hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of payday around the corner, it is easy to understand the giddy mood in the ballroom of San Francisco's Fairmont hotel in late March. There, 100 or so fund managers for university endowments, charitable foundations, and the like have gathered for updates on their investments in Sequoia Capital. Among other activities, they are dazzled by a Q&A session with Google co-founder Larry Page, pitched on the virtues of conducting IPOs as auctions by investment-banking legend Bill Hambrecht, and enthralled by a peek into Sequoia's latest bets.
But leave it to Moritz to pour cold water on the merriment. His narrow face and high forehead make him look like a bird of prey sporting oversized round spectacles, and Moritz stands in the front of the room to deliver a sobering message: Audience members are wasting their time—and, more important, the money they manage—on venture capital. He amplifies his point with a simple image projected on a screen behind him. It shows a billfold below four boldfaced words: sit on it (please!).(full article)
|
Sequoia Capital too... Moritz Must Be Loving It
As Google prepares to go public, two of Silicon Valley's most storied and successful firms stand to reap incredible returns again... after the bust times. Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia each invested $12.5 million into Google back in 1999. I forgot the stake they each hold, but I believe it's about 20% so they stand to gain hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars from their early investment into Google.
Good article on Mike Mortiz in a recent Fortune issue (subscription required), which I pasted below. Totally reflects what I remember from a Garage.com Startup Bootcamp I attended back in 1999. It was a seminar with a panel of four venture capitalists talking about what they look for in early-stage companies. Moritz in a smug manner proclaimed,"Sequoia's investments have created approximately a third of the value on NASDAQ today... We only invest in companies with five letters, such as Cisco, Apple, Yahoo..."
I remember a few people moaning and the other VCs on the panel rolling their eyes. After the seminar was done, Guy Kawasaki came out laughing and said a few words about Moritz and joked about how well liked he was by the other panelists. I always wondered how serious Moritz was with his words and how seriously he takes himself. Either way, he does kick ass. He definitely is at or near the level of VCs like John Doerr now.
From Googles to Giggles, KP Closes Fund
Private Equity Week
Lawrence Aragon
May 10, 2004
As it prepares for a windfall from the highly anticipated public offering of Google Inc., Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has bulked up for future deals that it can only hope will be as successful.
As anticipated, the Menlo Park, Calif.-based firm held a final close in the last week of April on $400 million for its 11th fund, says John Denniston, the firm's chief operating officer. That total amount includes a side fund, according to a source close to the firm. (full article)
Google's Banker
As money pours into venture capital, some of the biggest in the industry are starting to worry. Just ask Google's banker.
Fortune
By Adam Lashinsky
April 19, 2004
The all-time greats of Silicon Valley venture capital can pretty much be counted on one hand. There's Arthur Rock, who was present, checkbook in hand, at the creation of Intel. Don Valentine seeded Oracle, Apple, and Cisco—a VC trifecta for the ages. John Doerr made a fortune with early bets on Sun, Netscape, and Amazon.com. And when search star Google goes public—the waiting on that one should end shortly—sculptors will need to get busy on one more bust for Sand Hill Road's Mount Rushmore: Michael Moritz, the wily investor whose previous grand slams include early stakes in Yahoo and PayPal.
In 1999, Moritz led his firm, Sequoia Capital, to invest $12.5 million in Google. If Google goes public at the $8-billion-and-up valuation that investment bankers expect, Moritz and his partners will likely reap hundreds of millions of dollars. With that kind of payday around the corner, it is easy to understand the giddy mood in the ballroom of San Francisco's Fairmont hotel in late March. There, 100 or so fund managers for university endowments, charitable foundations, and the like have gathered for updates on their investments in Sequoia Capital. Among other activities, they are dazzled by a Q&A session with Google co-founder Larry Page, pitched on the virtues of conducting IPOs as auctions by investment-banking legend Bill Hambrecht, and enthralled by a peek into Sequoia's latest bets.
But leave it to Moritz to pour cold water on the merriment. His narrow face and high forehead make him look like a bird of prey sporting oversized round spectacles, and Moritz stands in the front of the room to deliver a sobering message: Audience members are wasting their time—and, more important, the money they manage—on venture capital. He amplifies his point with a simple image projected on a screen behind him. It shows a billfold below four boldfaced words: sit on it (please!).(full article)
CBS NEWS' DOUBLE STANDARD... THREATENING AMERICANS OVERSEAS?
"The Skewed Ethics of CBS News"... Who Are You Mike Wallace?
Great post over at The Evangelical Outpost:
The brutal execution of Nick Berg has raised the question of whether the media, particularly CBS News, is partially culpable for his death. Numerous critics, including Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly, believe the prison abuse story could have been covered without releasing the photos of the prisoners. Jonah Goldberg even goes so far as to claim, “The revelation of those humiliating pictures and the political opportunities they created lead to Berg's beheading.”
Although CBS News was the first to break the story and show the photos, the network made the surprising decision not to air the video of Berg’s death.* The official explanation given by corporate officials for not broadcasting the clip in its entirety was that it would violate FCC regulations against indecency. But this excuse rings hollow considering what CBS has shown in the past. (full article)
|
"The Skewed Ethics of CBS News"... Who Are You Mike Wallace?
Great post over at The Evangelical Outpost:
The brutal execution of Nick Berg has raised the question of whether the media, particularly CBS News, is partially culpable for his death. Numerous critics, including Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly, believe the prison abuse story could have been covered without releasing the photos of the prisoners. Jonah Goldberg even goes so far as to claim, “The revelation of those humiliating pictures and the political opportunities they created lead to Berg's beheading.”
Although CBS News was the first to break the story and show the photos, the network made the surprising decision not to air the video of Berg’s death.* The official explanation given by corporate officials for not broadcasting the clip in its entirety was that it would violate FCC regulations against indecency. But this excuse rings hollow considering what CBS has shown in the past. (full article)
MICHAEL GOODWIN ON AIR AMERICA
In "Liberal radio is airing bad jokes and worst taste," Goodwin examines Air America's efforts in countering right-wing whacko radio. No matter how much you disagree with Limbaugh and other radio hosts, I hope most of you will agree that they are at least intelligible and thought-provoking. Many liberals still haven't learn that a bitter tongue and obnoxious humor doesn't last long with most people. It gets tiring and old. Wit and sarcasm appeal more. Just look at David Letterman versus obnoxious entertainers in the same category. Their shelf-life is no more than a few years while Letterman has lasted decades. Also some liberals are afraid of decent discussion and debates. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with others, just don't get bent out of shape when disagreement happens and especially don't start spazing out with the hate and vile venom. Take a breath or two and think happy thoughts. :)
|
In "Liberal radio is airing bad jokes and worst taste," Goodwin examines Air America's efforts in countering right-wing whacko radio. No matter how much you disagree with Limbaugh and other radio hosts, I hope most of you will agree that they are at least intelligible and thought-provoking. Many liberals still haven't learn that a bitter tongue and obnoxious humor doesn't last long with most people. It gets tiring and old. Wit and sarcasm appeal more. Just look at David Letterman versus obnoxious entertainers in the same category. Their shelf-life is no more than a few years while Letterman has lasted decades. Also some liberals are afraid of decent discussion and debates. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with others, just don't get bent out of shape when disagreement happens and especially don't start spazing out with the hate and vile venom. Take a breath or two and think happy thoughts. :)
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
|
U.N. IS A FAILED ORGANIZATION... THE AMERICAN THINKER
The U.N. recently passed another blatantly anti-Israel resolution in support of extremist Arab Palestinian claims. There is no longer any point in entering into any serious dialogue with this organization. In countless ways, over many years, the U.N. has proven to be a discredited organization, with lawless elements, which can no longer claim to have any moral standing. Very few of its 191 members can be counted upon to put principle ahead of crass expediency. (full article)
|
The U.N. recently passed another blatantly anti-Israel resolution in support of extremist Arab Palestinian claims. There is no longer any point in entering into any serious dialogue with this organization. In countless ways, over many years, the U.N. has proven to be a discredited organization, with lawless elements, which can no longer claim to have any moral standing. Very few of its 191 members can be counted upon to put principle ahead of crass expediency. (full article)
INSANE SPIN... FROM ANDREW SULLIVAN
More on the Berg Tragedy... Media Bias is Amazing
Sullivan has some good points here and here.
|
More on the Berg Tragedy... Media Bias is Amazing
Sullivan has some good points here and here.
SWEET HOME CHICAGO... CAN'T WAIT TO EAT!
Last night I got into Chicago after a couple days in the Bay Area for interviews. Finally my move from Korea to the U.S. is complete. I'm looking forward to my next stage of life. San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. all seem like viable options at this point.
I can't wait to go to my favorite restaurants and pig out. I can't wait until I go grocery shopping.
UPDATE:
Today I got up around 8am because I couldn't sleep more than 4 hours due to my jet-lag. I crawled into the kitchen since my stomach was calling for food and I opened the 'fridge to see if I should go to Walker Brothers Pancake House or not. To my delight and comfort, there was a full slab of hearty-cut bacon. I missed American bacon while in Korea. This might sound funny to some of you, but bacon in Korea is not the same and unless I take the trek to Costco I would usually avoid eating the saltless, fatless, turkey bacon-like Korean cousin.
I got too excited. I fried up 8 healthy strips of bacon, and left some bacon grease to soak up and cook three eggs over-easy. It was heavenly, but I felt heavy and sleepy which I wanted to avoid. To my disappointment, I was knocked out by the bacon grease at 11am and didn't wake up until 5pm. Now I have at least an extra day of adjustment to go through with my jet-lag. Sucks.
|
Last night I got into Chicago after a couple days in the Bay Area for interviews. Finally my move from Korea to the U.S. is complete. I'm looking forward to my next stage of life. San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C. all seem like viable options at this point.
I can't wait to go to my favorite restaurants and pig out. I can't wait until I go grocery shopping.
UPDATE:
Today I got up around 8am because I couldn't sleep more than 4 hours due to my jet-lag. I crawled into the kitchen since my stomach was calling for food and I opened the 'fridge to see if I should go to Walker Brothers Pancake House or not. To my delight and comfort, there was a full slab of hearty-cut bacon. I missed American bacon while in Korea. This might sound funny to some of you, but bacon in Korea is not the same and unless I take the trek to Costco I would usually avoid eating the saltless, fatless, turkey bacon-like Korean cousin.
I got too excited. I fried up 8 healthy strips of bacon, and left some bacon grease to soak up and cook three eggs over-easy. It was heavenly, but I felt heavy and sleepy which I wanted to avoid. To my disappointment, I was knocked out by the bacon grease at 11am and didn't wake up until 5pm. Now I have at least an extra day of adjustment to go through with my jet-lag. Sucks.
WRONGFUL RETRIBUTION... LAME EXCUSE BY TERRORISTS
They were going to kill Nick Berg anyway. If they really cared about prisoner abuse, they should have bombed Saddam endlessly. I hope U.S. intelligence tracks them down soon.
Iraq Killers Claim Anger Over Prison Abuse
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a grisly video posted on an al-Qaida-linked Web site, a group of masked men claiming to be angered by coalition abuses of Iraqi prisoners grab an American civilian captive, push him to the floor and cut his head off. (full article)
Update article: "Berg Remembered As Generous, Adventurous"
|
They were going to kill Nick Berg anyway. If they really cared about prisoner abuse, they should have bombed Saddam endlessly. I hope U.S. intelligence tracks them down soon.
Iraq Killers Claim Anger Over Prison Abuse
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a grisly video posted on an al-Qaida-linked Web site, a group of masked men claiming to be angered by coalition abuses of Iraqi prisoners grab an American civilian captive, push him to the floor and cut his head off. (full article)
Update article: "Berg Remembered As Generous, Adventurous"
Sunday, May 09, 2004
KILLING TIME AT THE AIRPORT... GOODBYE SEOUL
Goodbye Asia... For Now At Least
I'm killing time at Incheon International Airport in South Korea an hour before my flight. I stayed up until 6:30am packing my bags, setting aside stuff for my parents to ship back, and throwing away junk I accumulated over the past four years. I'm looking forward to moving back to the U.S. and starting my next position. Before I came out to Asia, I planned to build HeyAnita for about three years and then go back to the public sector. I've been looking at both public and private sector opportunities, and I'll will choose the position that will challenge me the most, allow me to develop new skills and refine old ones, and provide the opportunity to work and learn from excellent people. Nice soft and fuzzy qualities I've set out to fill. :)
Anyway, I'll see where the next month or so leads. I few interesting opportunities have already popped up in both sectors, so I have to decide how they fit into the greater picture of my future and long-term goals I've set for myself. I'm also excited because my girlfriend is also at a nexus point in her career, so we're both in an exploratory period of our lives.
Looking back at my four years in Korea, I truly enjoyed the work, friends, and family that have made my life fun and fulfilling. I will miss the friendships I've developed here and all the people I got to know, learn from, poke fun at, and laugh with over the years. I truly thank God for all of them. More later... I got to get on my flight.
|
Goodbye Asia... For Now At Least
I'm killing time at Incheon International Airport in South Korea an hour before my flight. I stayed up until 6:30am packing my bags, setting aside stuff for my parents to ship back, and throwing away junk I accumulated over the past four years. I'm looking forward to moving back to the U.S. and starting my next position. Before I came out to Asia, I planned to build HeyAnita for about three years and then go back to the public sector. I've been looking at both public and private sector opportunities, and I'll will choose the position that will challenge me the most, allow me to develop new skills and refine old ones, and provide the opportunity to work and learn from excellent people. Nice soft and fuzzy qualities I've set out to fill. :)
Anyway, I'll see where the next month or so leads. I few interesting opportunities have already popped up in both sectors, so I have to decide how they fit into the greater picture of my future and long-term goals I've set for myself. I'm also excited because my girlfriend is also at a nexus point in her career, so we're both in an exploratory period of our lives.
Looking back at my four years in Korea, I truly enjoyed the work, friends, and family that have made my life fun and fulfilling. I will miss the friendships I've developed here and all the people I got to know, learn from, poke fun at, and laugh with over the years. I truly thank God for all of them. More later... I got to get on my flight.
JAPAN LEADING AGAIN IN WIRELESS SERVICES... I THINK
I'm not sure exactly what GPS services this writer was referring to and if they are generating a significant amount of revenue for the Japanese wireless carriers or if they are at least experiencing a high volume of usage. I know in Korea there was some traction in GPS-based services, but not a significant amount over the past couple years. There are some very practical uses that I've seen in Korea. One former colleague's wife had him put on a GPS tracking service for his phone so that she would know where he was late at night. He said he felt like a prisoner, but I think his behavior put him in his jail in the first place. :) Pretty funny. Maybe this technology will lead to a higher number of disputes between couples, higher divorce rates, or happier homes with more and more men staying at home, especially in Asia.
|
I'm not sure exactly what GPS services this writer was referring to and if they are generating a significant amount of revenue for the Japanese wireless carriers or if they are at least experiencing a high volume of usage. I know in Korea there was some traction in GPS-based services, but not a significant amount over the past couple years. There are some very practical uses that I've seen in Korea. One former colleague's wife had him put on a GPS tracking service for his phone so that she would know where he was late at night. He said he felt like a prisoner, but I think his behavior put him in his jail in the first place. :) Pretty funny. Maybe this technology will lead to a higher number of disputes between couples, higher divorce rates, or happier homes with more and more men staying at home, especially in Asia.
Friday, May 07, 2004
EIGHT GREAT FINALISTS FROM WHARTON'S BIZPLAN CONTEST
Times are changing. No Internet finalists for 2004's contest.
This Year’s ‘Eight Great’ Business Plans: You Pick the Winner
Knowledge@Wharton
Space Tourism. Renewable energy. Computer animation. And not a single dot-com. As the great Bob Dylan once sang, the times, they are a-changin’. The “Eight Great” finalists in the 2003-2004 Wharton Business Plan Competition – the Great Eight, as the organizers call them – want to save the world with solar energy or cutting-edge medical devices, or see it from afar via a reusable space capsule, to name a few of the business plans presented.
Unlike past years, when the bursting of the Internet bubble cast a pall over the world of startups, even those that had nothing to do with the ’net, this year’s Great Eight emerge in an economy that’s showing signs of vitality. Plans for a stock offering by Internet-search company Google have given a much-needed boost to the tech sector. Employment is on the upswing and economic growth has begun to accelerate, suggesting that investors might once again be interested in backing promising early-stage ventures such as those that were presented at Wharton’s Venture Fair, held April 26.
This year’s competition involved almost 700 students from the University of Pennsylvania, including students in 10 of Penn’s 12 professional schools. The eight finalists were chosen from a field of nearly 200 teams; any team that included a Penn student could participate. In addition, the Venture Fair scored a number of firsts this year. For the first time, two undergraduate teams made it to the finals. Likewise, a team from Wharton West, the school’s California campus, appeared for the first time.
The Great Eight made their 20-minute presentations to a panel of venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and even a journalist. The judges included representatives of St. Paul Venture Capital, Goldman Sachs, Canaan Partners, JK&B Partners, Sienna Ventures, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson. More than 300 professionals were involved as either judges or mentors.
This year’s winner received $20,000 in cash, a trip to make a presentation at the Global Start-up @ Singapore business plan competition and entry into the Wharton Venture Initiation Program – Wharton Entrepreneurial Programs’ mentoring program for student entrepreneurs. The second-place team received $10,000, and the third-place team, $5,000. Each team also received $5,000 worth of legal services and $5,000 worth of accounting and strategy-consulting services.
Here are the eight finalists in alphabetical order. Try to guess who the judges picked, and don’t peek.
BioSpectrum. This biotech company aims to accelerate the search for new drugs. It has devised a faster means of screening proteins that have a role in diseases. As with conventional screens, its technology would test the proteins’ responses to large libraries of chemical compounds. “Understanding proteins enables drug researchers to target more effectively the root causes of disease earlier in the drug-development process, thus saving time and money in a process that currently requires on average 15 years and $800 million,” the team explained in a summary of its plan. BioSpectrum’s technology allows it to miniaturize the chemical reactions required to run screens. That lets it run more screens on the standard-sized plates that drug companies use for the tests and thus reduce waste. Rather than licensing its technology, BioSpectrum would perform screens for drug companies and contract-research companies.
CelfCure. Can the body’s neurological tissues rebuild themselves? With a little help from CelfCure, they may. The biotech company wants to harness what’s called manipulated autologus stem cell therapy, or MAST. In MAST, physicians take cells from a patient’s body, culture them in a lab, load them with drugs, then put them back in the patient. The technology, which has shown promise in research labs, can be used to treat neurological problems such as head and spinal-cord injuries and stroke. So far, it isn’t available for practicing doctors. The problem, said Ajay Bakshi, a neurosurgeon and one of the CelfCure team members, is that “biotech companies don’t have access to patients, and hospitals don’t know how to grow cells.” CelfCure would act as a bridge, providing the cultured cells and techniques for transplantation. “Our business proposition rests on developing MAST technologies for various diseases and making them available for medical use by establishing a centralized laboratory,” the team explains in its summary.
Distributed Resource Imagery. This company wants to use your personal computer when you’re not, borrowing it to make cartoons. DRI, devised by an undergrad team, is as close as any of this year’s finalists comes to being an Internet company. It would use its software and know-how to tie together internet-linked PCs and then lease their combined power to Hollywood animation companies. These days, movie animation is rendered by computers – lots of them. An animator such as Pixar, famous for such hits as Toy Story and Finding Nemo, typically spends tens of millions of dollars a year on an in-house “render farm” of high-powered computers. DRI would let animators outsource their rendering and get rid of their machines. It would pay the PC owners for the right to use their machines when they weren’t.
Greenhands. If this company’s business model is simple – it’s a retailer – its goal is profound. It wants to clean the air, one car at a time. Greenhands would sell environmentally friendly automotive fuels such as propane and natural gas. It would start in the United Kingdom and later move to the rest of Europe and the United States. Initially, it would focus on high-mileage drivers such as cabbies. “These are safe, tried and tested fuels,” said team member Gbenga Kogbe. “They’re also cleaner and cheaper, and our target market – high-mileage drivers – really cares about cheaper.” These fuels haven’t caught on because the big oil companies have so large an investment in producing gasoline and diesel fuel that they are loath to promote them. That indifference equals opportunity for Greenhands, Kogbe said. “The market’s still too small for the big companies,” so they wouldn’t respond to Greenhands’ entry, he argued. Greenhands would start operating in Glasgow, Scotland, which is small enough to be manageable but large enough to show the viability of its business.
IL Aerospace Technologies. ILAT’s target customers would be people who view climbing Mount Everest as passé. The company has developed a means of sending tourists to space, if only briefly. Its “reusable launch vehicle” would carry three people more than 60 miles above the earth, allowing them four minutes of weightlessness before their capsule fell, slowed by a parachute, back to earth. “It’s an experience that can’t be simulated on earth,” said team member Oded Loebl, a pilot who has worked at Israel’s military aircraft test center. ILAT, the Wharton West entry, can build its vehicle for $3.7 million using off-the-shelf technologies, Loebl said. When one judge questioned whether people would be willing to risk their lives for four minutes in space, he had a ready answer: “It costs $60,000 to climb Everest. There’s a five-year waiting list and a one-in-five chance that you won’t make it back alive.”
InfraScan. In much of the world, technologies that detect brain bleeding such as CT scans and MRIs are scarce. That scarcity represents an opportunity for InfraScan. It has developed a handheld device that it calls the HematoScope to detect brain bleeding. The device, about the size of a personal-digital assistant, would allow emergency-room doctors to do quick, cheap scans of patients with head injuries. If a scan came back negative, the physician wouldn’t need to send that patient for a CT or MRI. And that, in turn, would reduce the wait for patients who really needed those far-more-costly technologies. The device could also be used in battlefield triage. “This isn’t just a concept,” said team member Sandeep Naik. “We have a working prototype and have conducted human clinical studies.” The HematoScope grew from a patent filed by Britton Chance, an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a pioneer in the field of medical optics. It’s able to detect brain bleeding thanks to the light-absorbing properties of hemoglobin.
Integrated Biometric Solutions. Ever lose your key card when staying at a hotel? Or have you accidentally left it behind when you went for a jog and then had to trudge to the front desk in your shorts and plead for a new one? Integrated Biometric Solution’s fingerprint recognition system would make these sorts of hassles disappear. Instead of using a keycard to enter your room, you’d simply press your fingertip against a scanner. “This technology would also allow you to charge things anywhere in a hotel with your fingertip,” said team member Ian Framson. IBS’ system would cost about $300,000 for a hotel to install, so the company, created by an undergrad team, initially would target luxury chains. If the scanners worked in hotels, they could be rolled out on cruise ships and in commercial buildings.
Solestia. Like the sun, solar-electric technology keeps rising. It may seem like a relic of the 1970s oil crisis, but in the last decade, it has taken off again, with the number of solar installations in the United States increasing by 300%. It would probably grow faster if not for its high upfront cost, said team member Sandra Caruba. Solestia would spur the process by providing lease financing for solar systems. It would offer the financing through existing solar-system installers, piggybacking on their marketing. “Banks look at solar systems and see small-ticket consumer goods that are hard to repossess and redeploy,” Caruba said. “We see good reuse potential.” The underlying technology is stable, which means rooftop panels don’t quickly become obsolete. Several states, including California and New Jersey, offer tax rebates for installation. That represents another source of revenue, in addition to lease payments, for Solestia, Caruba said.
And the winner is … InfraScan, maker of the Hematoscope. Second prize went to CelfCure, and third to BioSpectrum. Distributed Resource Imagery won the Frederick H. Gloeckner Award in Entrepreneurial Studies, which goes to the best undergraduate team.
First prize gives InfraScan a big boost, said team member and founder Baruch Ben Dor. “For the purpose of raising funds, this is extraordinary PR.” Ben Dor had tried raising funds on his own and come away frustrated. “My problem was to get through the first five seconds with a venture capitalist. Winning the competition gives me the first five minutes of his attention. It doesn’t give me his money. But it does give me his attention.”
For the competition, Ben Dor, who has a doctorate in physics, teamed up with Naik and Samonnoi Banerjee, both Wharton MBA candidates. They brought business skills that he lacked. Ben Dor had posted a note at a Wharton website saying he was looking for a chief financial officer. Naik responded, and Ben Dor told him he wanted someone to rewrite his business plan and help him with his pitch to venture capitalists. “Sandeep proposed doing it free of charge and said, ‘We’ll do it as an entry in the Wharton Business Plan Competition.’”
For Naik, it was an opportunity to polish his presentation skills and work on a branch of technology – medical devices – that he already knew well. Before coming to Wharton, he had worked for Medtronic, a Minneapolis medical-device maker. “I’ve always thought that you can have a ground-breaking technology, but if you can’t make it easy to market, it’s never going to take off. I asked Baruch tons of questions. The more I questioned him, the more I found out that the technology is very simple and low cost. It’s mobile. And there’s a huge unmet need.”
The technology also had a personal appeal for Naik, who grew up and attended college in India. “My dad had a stroke about 12 years ago. I remember the day. I was an undergrad, and I got the first glimpse of the healthcare system in a developing country. It took forever for the EMS to get there. My father was partly paralyzed, and the responsiveness of the EMS was a big factor. That’s had a big impact on me. The earlier you can get medical attention, the better.”
If all goes as planned, InfraScan may give future patients in developing countries a better chance of getting early access to an MRI and, perhaps, a better outcome.
|
Times are changing. No Internet finalists for 2004's contest.
This Year’s ‘Eight Great’ Business Plans: You Pick the Winner
Knowledge@Wharton
Space Tourism. Renewable energy. Computer animation. And not a single dot-com. As the great Bob Dylan once sang, the times, they are a-changin’. The “Eight Great” finalists in the 2003-2004 Wharton Business Plan Competition – the Great Eight, as the organizers call them – want to save the world with solar energy or cutting-edge medical devices, or see it from afar via a reusable space capsule, to name a few of the business plans presented.
Unlike past years, when the bursting of the Internet bubble cast a pall over the world of startups, even those that had nothing to do with the ’net, this year’s Great Eight emerge in an economy that’s showing signs of vitality. Plans for a stock offering by Internet-search company Google have given a much-needed boost to the tech sector. Employment is on the upswing and economic growth has begun to accelerate, suggesting that investors might once again be interested in backing promising early-stage ventures such as those that were presented at Wharton’s Venture Fair, held April 26.
This year’s competition involved almost 700 students from the University of Pennsylvania, including students in 10 of Penn’s 12 professional schools. The eight finalists were chosen from a field of nearly 200 teams; any team that included a Penn student could participate. In addition, the Venture Fair scored a number of firsts this year. For the first time, two undergraduate teams made it to the finals. Likewise, a team from Wharton West, the school’s California campus, appeared for the first time.
The Great Eight made their 20-minute presentations to a panel of venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and even a journalist. The judges included representatives of St. Paul Venture Capital, Goldman Sachs, Canaan Partners, JK&B Partners, Sienna Ventures, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson. More than 300 professionals were involved as either judges or mentors.
This year’s winner received $20,000 in cash, a trip to make a presentation at the Global Start-up @ Singapore business plan competition and entry into the Wharton Venture Initiation Program – Wharton Entrepreneurial Programs’ mentoring program for student entrepreneurs. The second-place team received $10,000, and the third-place team, $5,000. Each team also received $5,000 worth of legal services and $5,000 worth of accounting and strategy-consulting services.
Here are the eight finalists in alphabetical order. Try to guess who the judges picked, and don’t peek.
BioSpectrum. This biotech company aims to accelerate the search for new drugs. It has devised a faster means of screening proteins that have a role in diseases. As with conventional screens, its technology would test the proteins’ responses to large libraries of chemical compounds. “Understanding proteins enables drug researchers to target more effectively the root causes of disease earlier in the drug-development process, thus saving time and money in a process that currently requires on average 15 years and $800 million,” the team explained in a summary of its plan. BioSpectrum’s technology allows it to miniaturize the chemical reactions required to run screens. That lets it run more screens on the standard-sized plates that drug companies use for the tests and thus reduce waste. Rather than licensing its technology, BioSpectrum would perform screens for drug companies and contract-research companies.
CelfCure. Can the body’s neurological tissues rebuild themselves? With a little help from CelfCure, they may. The biotech company wants to harness what’s called manipulated autologus stem cell therapy, or MAST. In MAST, physicians take cells from a patient’s body, culture them in a lab, load them with drugs, then put them back in the patient. The technology, which has shown promise in research labs, can be used to treat neurological problems such as head and spinal-cord injuries and stroke. So far, it isn’t available for practicing doctors. The problem, said Ajay Bakshi, a neurosurgeon and one of the CelfCure team members, is that “biotech companies don’t have access to patients, and hospitals don’t know how to grow cells.” CelfCure would act as a bridge, providing the cultured cells and techniques for transplantation. “Our business proposition rests on developing MAST technologies for various diseases and making them available for medical use by establishing a centralized laboratory,” the team explains in its summary.
Distributed Resource Imagery. This company wants to use your personal computer when you’re not, borrowing it to make cartoons. DRI, devised by an undergrad team, is as close as any of this year’s finalists comes to being an Internet company. It would use its software and know-how to tie together internet-linked PCs and then lease their combined power to Hollywood animation companies. These days, movie animation is rendered by computers – lots of them. An animator such as Pixar, famous for such hits as Toy Story and Finding Nemo, typically spends tens of millions of dollars a year on an in-house “render farm” of high-powered computers. DRI would let animators outsource their rendering and get rid of their machines. It would pay the PC owners for the right to use their machines when they weren’t.
Greenhands. If this company’s business model is simple – it’s a retailer – its goal is profound. It wants to clean the air, one car at a time. Greenhands would sell environmentally friendly automotive fuels such as propane and natural gas. It would start in the United Kingdom and later move to the rest of Europe and the United States. Initially, it would focus on high-mileage drivers such as cabbies. “These are safe, tried and tested fuels,” said team member Gbenga Kogbe. “They’re also cleaner and cheaper, and our target market – high-mileage drivers – really cares about cheaper.” These fuels haven’t caught on because the big oil companies have so large an investment in producing gasoline and diesel fuel that they are loath to promote them. That indifference equals opportunity for Greenhands, Kogbe said. “The market’s still too small for the big companies,” so they wouldn’t respond to Greenhands’ entry, he argued. Greenhands would start operating in Glasgow, Scotland, which is small enough to be manageable but large enough to show the viability of its business.
IL Aerospace Technologies. ILAT’s target customers would be people who view climbing Mount Everest as passé. The company has developed a means of sending tourists to space, if only briefly. Its “reusable launch vehicle” would carry three people more than 60 miles above the earth, allowing them four minutes of weightlessness before their capsule fell, slowed by a parachute, back to earth. “It’s an experience that can’t be simulated on earth,” said team member Oded Loebl, a pilot who has worked at Israel’s military aircraft test center. ILAT, the Wharton West entry, can build its vehicle for $3.7 million using off-the-shelf technologies, Loebl said. When one judge questioned whether people would be willing to risk their lives for four minutes in space, he had a ready answer: “It costs $60,000 to climb Everest. There’s a five-year waiting list and a one-in-five chance that you won’t make it back alive.”
InfraScan. In much of the world, technologies that detect brain bleeding such as CT scans and MRIs are scarce. That scarcity represents an opportunity for InfraScan. It has developed a handheld device that it calls the HematoScope to detect brain bleeding. The device, about the size of a personal-digital assistant, would allow emergency-room doctors to do quick, cheap scans of patients with head injuries. If a scan came back negative, the physician wouldn’t need to send that patient for a CT or MRI. And that, in turn, would reduce the wait for patients who really needed those far-more-costly technologies. The device could also be used in battlefield triage. “This isn’t just a concept,” said team member Sandeep Naik. “We have a working prototype and have conducted human clinical studies.” The HematoScope grew from a patent filed by Britton Chance, an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a pioneer in the field of medical optics. It’s able to detect brain bleeding thanks to the light-absorbing properties of hemoglobin.
Integrated Biometric Solutions. Ever lose your key card when staying at a hotel? Or have you accidentally left it behind when you went for a jog and then had to trudge to the front desk in your shorts and plead for a new one? Integrated Biometric Solution’s fingerprint recognition system would make these sorts of hassles disappear. Instead of using a keycard to enter your room, you’d simply press your fingertip against a scanner. “This technology would also allow you to charge things anywhere in a hotel with your fingertip,” said team member Ian Framson. IBS’ system would cost about $300,000 for a hotel to install, so the company, created by an undergrad team, initially would target luxury chains. If the scanners worked in hotels, they could be rolled out on cruise ships and in commercial buildings.
Solestia. Like the sun, solar-electric technology keeps rising. It may seem like a relic of the 1970s oil crisis, but in the last decade, it has taken off again, with the number of solar installations in the United States increasing by 300%. It would probably grow faster if not for its high upfront cost, said team member Sandra Caruba. Solestia would spur the process by providing lease financing for solar systems. It would offer the financing through existing solar-system installers, piggybacking on their marketing. “Banks look at solar systems and see small-ticket consumer goods that are hard to repossess and redeploy,” Caruba said. “We see good reuse potential.” The underlying technology is stable, which means rooftop panels don’t quickly become obsolete. Several states, including California and New Jersey, offer tax rebates for installation. That represents another source of revenue, in addition to lease payments, for Solestia, Caruba said.
And the winner is … InfraScan, maker of the Hematoscope. Second prize went to CelfCure, and third to BioSpectrum. Distributed Resource Imagery won the Frederick H. Gloeckner Award in Entrepreneurial Studies, which goes to the best undergraduate team.
First prize gives InfraScan a big boost, said team member and founder Baruch Ben Dor. “For the purpose of raising funds, this is extraordinary PR.” Ben Dor had tried raising funds on his own and come away frustrated. “My problem was to get through the first five seconds with a venture capitalist. Winning the competition gives me the first five minutes of his attention. It doesn’t give me his money. But it does give me his attention.”
For the competition, Ben Dor, who has a doctorate in physics, teamed up with Naik and Samonnoi Banerjee, both Wharton MBA candidates. They brought business skills that he lacked. Ben Dor had posted a note at a Wharton website saying he was looking for a chief financial officer. Naik responded, and Ben Dor told him he wanted someone to rewrite his business plan and help him with his pitch to venture capitalists. “Sandeep proposed doing it free of charge and said, ‘We’ll do it as an entry in the Wharton Business Plan Competition.’”
For Naik, it was an opportunity to polish his presentation skills and work on a branch of technology – medical devices – that he already knew well. Before coming to Wharton, he had worked for Medtronic, a Minneapolis medical-device maker. “I’ve always thought that you can have a ground-breaking technology, but if you can’t make it easy to market, it’s never going to take off. I asked Baruch tons of questions. The more I questioned him, the more I found out that the technology is very simple and low cost. It’s mobile. And there’s a huge unmet need.”
The technology also had a personal appeal for Naik, who grew up and attended college in India. “My dad had a stroke about 12 years ago. I remember the day. I was an undergrad, and I got the first glimpse of the healthcare system in a developing country. It took forever for the EMS to get there. My father was partly paralyzed, and the responsiveness of the EMS was a big factor. That’s had a big impact on me. The earlier you can get medical attention, the better.”
If all goes as planned, InfraScan may give future patients in developing countries a better chance of getting early access to an MRI and, perhaps, a better outcome.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
KERRY'S FELLOW SWIFT BOAT COMMANDER SPEAKOUTS
Unfit for Office
I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JOHN O'NEILL
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
HOUSTON--In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.
Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago--that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.
Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there.
During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment.
John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform--a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America.
Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.
John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?
Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.
Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.
Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.
|
Unfit for Office
I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander in chief.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JOHN O'NEILL
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
HOUSTON--In 1971, I debated John Kerry, then a national spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for 90 minutes on "The Dick Cavett Show." The key issue in that debate was Mr. Kerry's claim that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Now, as Sen. Kerry emerges as the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've chosen to re-enter the fray.
Like John Kerry, I served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat commander. Ironically, John Kerry and I served much of our time, a full 12 months in my case and a controversial four months in his, commanding the exact same six-man boat, PCF-94, which I took over after he requested early departure. Despite our shared experience, I still believe what I believed 33 years ago--that John Kerry slandered America's military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist. His misrepresentations played a significant role in creating the negative and false image of Vietnam vets that has persisted for over three decades.
Neither I, nor any man I served with, ever committed any atrocity or war crime in Vietnam. The opposite was the truth. Rather than use excessive force, we suffered casualty after casualty because we chose to refrain from firing rather than risk injuring civilians. More than once, I saw friends die in areas we entered with loudspeakers rather than guns. John Kerry's accusations then and now were an injustice that struck at the soul of anyone who served there.
During my 1971 televised debate with John Kerry, I accused him of lying. I urged him to come forth with affidavits from the soldiers who had claimed to have committed or witnessed atrocities. To date no such affidavits have been filed. Recently, Sen. Kerry has attempted to reframe his comments as youthful or "over the top." Yet always there has been a calculated coolness to the way he has sought to destroy the record of our honorable service in the interest of promoting his political ambitions of the moment.
John Kennedy's book, "Profiles in Courage," and Dwight Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe" inspired generations. Not so John Kerry, who has suppressed his book, "The New Soldier," prohibiting its reprinting. There is a clear reason for this. The book repeats John Kerry's insults to the American military, beginning with its front-cover image of the American flag being carried upside down by a band of bearded renegades in uniform--a clear slap at the brave Marines in their combat gear who raised our flag at Iwo Jima. Allow me the reprint rights to your book, Sen. Kerry, and I will make sure copies of "The New Soldier" are available in bookstores throughout America.
Vietnam was a long time ago. Why does it matter today? Since the days of the Roman Empire, the concept of military loyalty up and down the chain of command has been indispensable. The commander's loyalty to the troops is the price a commander pays for the loyalty of the troops in return. How can a man be commander in chief who for over 30 years has accused his "Band of Brothers," as well as himself, of being war criminals? On a practical basis, John Kerry's breach of loyalty is a prescription of disaster for our armed forces.
John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?
Since 1971, I have refused many offers from John Kerry's political opponents to speak out against him. My reluctance to become involved once again in politics is outweighed now by my profound conviction that John Kerry is simply not fit to be America's commander in chief. Nobody has recruited me to come forward. My decision is the inevitable result of my own personal beliefs and life experience.
Today, America is engaged in a new war, against the militant Islamist terrorists who attacked us on our own soil. Reasonable people may differ about how best to proceed, but I'm sure of one thing--John Kerry is the wrong man to put in charge.
Mr. O'Neill served in Coastal Division 11 in 1969-70, winning two Bronze Stars and additional decorations for his service in Vietnam.
MORE ON ABU GHRAIB... FROM JAMES TARANTO
Why Abu Ghraib Matters
Since word surfaced last week that U.S. soldiers are under investigation for allegedly beating and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility, a lot of people have analyzed the incident in public relations terms. "As news of the disgraceful mistreatment of prisoners by American soldiers sweeps the world, our enemies celebrate a major propaganda gift," writes Ralph Peters in the New York Post. "Even our friends cannot defend the indefensible."
This complaint is somewhat beside the point. If indeed the allegations turn out to be true--and these photos certainly suggest that's likely--then America's enemies will be able to say one bad thing about us that's true. But from the standpoint of their propaganda, what difference does that make? They will say bad things about us whether true or not, and indeed they're already making preposterous statements about Abu Ghraib.
The Associated Press manages to produce an ex-prisoner, Dhia al-Shweiri, a supporter of renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who claims the abuse he suffered at the hands of his American captors was worse than what Saddam's henchmen meted out in the same prison. Here are the horrors to which America subjected him:
During his stay at Abu Ghraib, he said [he] was asked to take off his clothes only once and for about 15 minutes.
"I thought they wanted me to change into the red prison uniform, so I took off my clothes, down to my underwear. Then he asked me to take off my underwear. I started arguing with him, but in the end he made me take off my underwear," al-Shweiri said.
He said he and six other prisoners--all hooded--had to face the wall and bend over a little as they put their hands on the wall.
"They made us stand in a way that I am ashamed to describe. They came to look at us as we stood there. They knew this would humiliate us," he said, adding that he was not sodomized.
During Saddam's regime, in contrast, "he said he was given electric shocks, beaten and hung from the ceiling with his hands tied behind his back." According to him, "that's better than the humiliation of being stripped naked."
The Washington Post, meanwhile, quotes a former prisoner who says the exercise routine was too demanding and the music was unpleasant:
The black sack the troops placed over his head was removed only briefly during the next nine days of interrogation, conducted by U.S. officials in civilian and military clothes, he said. He was forced to do knee bends until he collapsed, he recalled, and black marks still ring his wrists from the pinch of plastic handcuffs. Rest was made impossible by loudspeakers blaring, over and over, the Beastie Boys' rap anthem, "No Sleep Till Brooklyn."
That some ex-prisoners are bellyaching about trivia does not, of course, mean that all was well in Abu Ghraib. If real abuses are proved, then it's entirely appropriate, as Dan Senor, a spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, puts it, that "careers will be ended and criminal charges are going to be leveled."
Enemy propaganda notwithstanding, this underscores the fundamental difference between America and totalitarian regimes like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Evil is part of human nature, and Americans are as susceptible to it as anyone else. But in a civilized country like ours, the state uses its power to prevent and punish brutality. In a regime like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the state uses its power to inflict brutality. Those who seek to blur this distinction are acting in the defense of institutionalized evil.
|
Why Abu Ghraib Matters
Since word surfaced last week that U.S. soldiers are under investigation for allegedly beating and sexually abusing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility, a lot of people have analyzed the incident in public relations terms. "As news of the disgraceful mistreatment of prisoners by American soldiers sweeps the world, our enemies celebrate a major propaganda gift," writes Ralph Peters in the New York Post. "Even our friends cannot defend the indefensible."
This complaint is somewhat beside the point. If indeed the allegations turn out to be true--and these photos certainly suggest that's likely--then America's enemies will be able to say one bad thing about us that's true. But from the standpoint of their propaganda, what difference does that make? They will say bad things about us whether true or not, and indeed they're already making preposterous statements about Abu Ghraib.
The Associated Press manages to produce an ex-prisoner, Dhia al-Shweiri, a supporter of renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who claims the abuse he suffered at the hands of his American captors was worse than what Saddam's henchmen meted out in the same prison. Here are the horrors to which America subjected him:
During his stay at Abu Ghraib, he said [he] was asked to take off his clothes only once and for about 15 minutes.
"I thought they wanted me to change into the red prison uniform, so I took off my clothes, down to my underwear. Then he asked me to take off my underwear. I started arguing with him, but in the end he made me take off my underwear," al-Shweiri said.
He said he and six other prisoners--all hooded--had to face the wall and bend over a little as they put their hands on the wall.
"They made us stand in a way that I am ashamed to describe. They came to look at us as we stood there. They knew this would humiliate us," he said, adding that he was not sodomized.
During Saddam's regime, in contrast, "he said he was given electric shocks, beaten and hung from the ceiling with his hands tied behind his back." According to him, "that's better than the humiliation of being stripped naked."
The Washington Post, meanwhile, quotes a former prisoner who says the exercise routine was too demanding and the music was unpleasant:
The black sack the troops placed over his head was removed only briefly during the next nine days of interrogation, conducted by U.S. officials in civilian and military clothes, he said. He was forced to do knee bends until he collapsed, he recalled, and black marks still ring his wrists from the pinch of plastic handcuffs. Rest was made impossible by loudspeakers blaring, over and over, the Beastie Boys' rap anthem, "No Sleep Till Brooklyn."
That some ex-prisoners are bellyaching about trivia does not, of course, mean that all was well in Abu Ghraib. If real abuses are proved, then it's entirely appropriate, as Dan Senor, a spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, puts it, that "careers will be ended and criminal charges are going to be leveled."
Enemy propaganda notwithstanding, this underscores the fundamental difference between America and totalitarian regimes like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Evil is part of human nature, and Americans are as susceptible to it as anyone else. But in a civilized country like ours, the state uses its power to prevent and punish brutality. In a regime like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the state uses its power to inflict brutality. Those who seek to blur this distinction are acting in the defense of institutionalized evil.
ASIAN TECH SNOB... PHONE CAMERA ISSUES?
I think I read a similar article in a Korean newspaper about two years ago.
Smile, You're on Candid Phone Camera
The Internet has made lapses in behavior more embarrassing
By Philipp Harper
Special to MSN
... Enter the cell phone camera, a device that not so long ago could have existed only in the fecund imagination of Q, supreme gadgeteer and outfitter of James Bond and other denizens of Her Majesty's Secret Service. Easily concealed, innocuous looking — it's main purpose is not as a camera, after all — the cell phone camera is becoming known more for its misuse than use.
On the market for just a couple of years, the camera phone promises to be ubiquitous. Acceptance of the technology so far has been most rapid in Asia, which by one reckoning accounted for 80 percent of camera phone sales in the final quarter of 2002. Western Europe followed with 13 percent, while North America lagged far behind at 2.3 percent. (full article)
|
I think I read a similar article in a Korean newspaper about two years ago.
Smile, You're on Candid Phone Camera
The Internet has made lapses in behavior more embarrassing
By Philipp Harper
Special to MSN
... Enter the cell phone camera, a device that not so long ago could have existed only in the fecund imagination of Q, supreme gadgeteer and outfitter of James Bond and other denizens of Her Majesty's Secret Service. Easily concealed, innocuous looking — it's main purpose is not as a camera, after all — the cell phone camera is becoming known more for its misuse than use.
On the market for just a couple of years, the camera phone promises to be ubiquitous. Acceptance of the technology so far has been most rapid in Asia, which by one reckoning accounted for 80 percent of camera phone sales in the final quarter of 2002. Western Europe followed with 13 percent, while North America lagged far behind at 2.3 percent. (full article)
FROM FUTURE BOY... BUSINESS 2.0
Rethinking the Lightbulb
GE, the company that brought you the lightbulb, is working on its replacement.
By Erick Schonfeld
April 30, 2004
Up near Schenectady, N.Y., in the main lobby of General Electric's (GE) research center, sits one of Thomas Edison's original desks. On its surface, under glass, are copies of the original lined notebook papers with Edison's sketches for his greatest invention, the lightbulb. That creation has enjoyed a century-long reign matched only by the fluorescent tube. But down in a laboratory two floors below, GE researcher Anil Duggal is working on something that he hopes will replace them both.
In his cramped, darkened lab, Duggal holds a 6-inch-square plate of glass that glows bright-white, illuminating his face. Inside the glass is a thin layer of plastic circuits, no more than 100 nanometers thick, that convert electricity into light. These organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) "have the potential to displace conventional lighting," Duggal informs me. (They also may be the future of computer and cell-phone screens, as OLED displays are already making their way into products developed by IBM (IBM), Kodak (EK), and Samsung.)
But GE's interest is in lighting. Duggal has already matched the performance of the incandescent bulb. Just last March, he produced a 2-foot-square OLED panel that creates 1,200 lumens of light, with an efficiency of about 15 lumens per watt, or the equivalent of an 80-watt bulb. What he is really aiming for, though, is the fluorescent tube, which burns with an efficiency of 100 lumens per watt. He still has a long way to go, but if he succeeds, it could change the way we light our lives.
The reason is cost. Since OLEDs are made out of polymers, they can be squirted out into circuit designs using ink-jet or other printing techniques. This could one day compete with the cost of making and using incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. And unlike other digital-lighting technologies, such as conventional LEDs and liquid-crystal displays, OLEDs can be made without sinking billions of dollars into expensive semiconductor manufacturing processes.
The key to making them cheaply, though, is to get rid of the glass entirely. While Duggal is currently printing his prototypes onto glass, he's working on ways to print OLEDs onto rolls of plastic. "The idea," he says, "is to use newspaper-like processes to manufacture these things. Newspapers are so cheap, we throw them away." GE Plastics would love that. But plastic sheets of light could also open up new design possibilities. Imagine wallpaper that acts as a light source or lampshades that don't need bulbs.
The problem with Duggal's OLEDs is that they're sensitive to moisture and oxygen. These can cause shorts or degrade the OLED material, resulting in dark spots on the panel. So Duggal is working with GE Plastics to develop a coating that protects the OLEDs from oxygen and water but remains flexible and still lets light through.
Getting the OLEDs to work and bringing the manufacturing costs down could also have implications for another technology: solar energy. It turns out that the function of OLEDs can also be reversed to convert light into energy, just like a solar panel. But, as Duggal notes, "solar energy has never been cost-effective." Before I leave his lab, he shows me an OLED solar panel connected to a small fan. He flicks on a light, and the fan starts to whirl. "This is running at 6 percent or 7 percent efficiency," he says. He'd like to get it to 10 percent efficiency. Silicon-based solar panels run at about 20 percent efficiency, but they are much more expensive to make.
Both of Duggal's projects are long-term, 10-year bets. But if he works out the kinks -- and GE commercializes the technology -- we could one day have OLED solar panels on our roofs turning light into electricity, and then OLED lighting panels in our ceilings turning that electricity back into light. Edison would have liked the symmetry of that.
|
Rethinking the Lightbulb
GE, the company that brought you the lightbulb, is working on its replacement.
By Erick Schonfeld
April 30, 2004
Up near Schenectady, N.Y., in the main lobby of General Electric's (GE) research center, sits one of Thomas Edison's original desks. On its surface, under glass, are copies of the original lined notebook papers with Edison's sketches for his greatest invention, the lightbulb. That creation has enjoyed a century-long reign matched only by the fluorescent tube. But down in a laboratory two floors below, GE researcher Anil Duggal is working on something that he hopes will replace them both.
In his cramped, darkened lab, Duggal holds a 6-inch-square plate of glass that glows bright-white, illuminating his face. Inside the glass is a thin layer of plastic circuits, no more than 100 nanometers thick, that convert electricity into light. These organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) "have the potential to displace conventional lighting," Duggal informs me. (They also may be the future of computer and cell-phone screens, as OLED displays are already making their way into products developed by IBM (IBM), Kodak (EK), and Samsung.)
But GE's interest is in lighting. Duggal has already matched the performance of the incandescent bulb. Just last March, he produced a 2-foot-square OLED panel that creates 1,200 lumens of light, with an efficiency of about 15 lumens per watt, or the equivalent of an 80-watt bulb. What he is really aiming for, though, is the fluorescent tube, which burns with an efficiency of 100 lumens per watt. He still has a long way to go, but if he succeeds, it could change the way we light our lives.
The reason is cost. Since OLEDs are made out of polymers, they can be squirted out into circuit designs using ink-jet or other printing techniques. This could one day compete with the cost of making and using incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. And unlike other digital-lighting technologies, such as conventional LEDs and liquid-crystal displays, OLEDs can be made without sinking billions of dollars into expensive semiconductor manufacturing processes.
The key to making them cheaply, though, is to get rid of the glass entirely. While Duggal is currently printing his prototypes onto glass, he's working on ways to print OLEDs onto rolls of plastic. "The idea," he says, "is to use newspaper-like processes to manufacture these things. Newspapers are so cheap, we throw them away." GE Plastics would love that. But plastic sheets of light could also open up new design possibilities. Imagine wallpaper that acts as a light source or lampshades that don't need bulbs.
The problem with Duggal's OLEDs is that they're sensitive to moisture and oxygen. These can cause shorts or degrade the OLED material, resulting in dark spots on the panel. So Duggal is working with GE Plastics to develop a coating that protects the OLEDs from oxygen and water but remains flexible and still lets light through.
Getting the OLEDs to work and bringing the manufacturing costs down could also have implications for another technology: solar energy. It turns out that the function of OLEDs can also be reversed to convert light into energy, just like a solar panel. But, as Duggal notes, "solar energy has never been cost-effective." Before I leave his lab, he shows me an OLED solar panel connected to a small fan. He flicks on a light, and the fan starts to whirl. "This is running at 6 percent or 7 percent efficiency," he says. He'd like to get it to 10 percent efficiency. Silicon-based solar panels run at about 20 percent efficiency, but they are much more expensive to make.
Both of Duggal's projects are long-term, 10-year bets. But if he works out the kinks -- and GE commercializes the technology -- we could one day have OLED solar panels on our roofs turning light into electricity, and then OLED lighting panels in our ceilings turning that electricity back into light. Edison would have liked the symmetry of that.
ANOTHER VIEW ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Forget the Break... I'm blogging
It's almost 1am, and I'm done with my errands for the day so I decided to quickly put up some articles I've been meaning to post. Probably no commentary or short essays. Just posts, which some friends have complained about lately since I don't write my random essays on life lately. Oh well.
These United States
Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JULIA GORIN
Monday, April 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Proponents of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions dismiss as alarmist the concern that it will set a precedent for incest and polygamy. But progressives and traditionalists alike should see the social advantage of the not-too-distant eventuality of all such unions--and mandate them.
For example, the number of single-mother homes could be greatly reduced if a woman were simply allowed to marry her son (a Jewish mother's dream!). Otherwise, we might suffer the fate of Sweden and Norway, where gay unions have been legal for a decade and today out-of-wedlock births are at 60% and single motherhood, with its accompanying poverty, has risen. If our society doesn't take the social experiment to its logical conclusion, then women and children, whom marriage protects, will become victims.
Same-family and multispousal unions (but please, don't ignorantly equate one with the other) can play a key role even in traditional family configurations, as when the man of the house dies and leaves an inheritance to a widow who eventually dies herself, leaving the kids to pay taxes on the estate. If, however, a widow were allowed to marry her son upon her husband's death, the death tax could be avoided, since spouses are immune. And if there is no son but only a daughter, same difference. In fact, there would be nothing to keep a widow from marrying all her kids.
Meanwhile, with the gap in the ratio of women to men ever on the rise, especially with more and more American couples adopting unwanted female babies from China, the redefinition of marriage will enable women to have enough kids of both sexes to be able to pair them up with one another, ensuring that every girl gets her man. Not that the uneven female-to-male ratio would have any ramifications for this brave new world. Perhaps the greatest societal benefit will be a decrease in the divorce rate. It's a lot harder to leave your wife when she's your sister. Blood is thicker than water.
Polygamy will be further instrumental in solving the phenomenon of the noncommittal male--an extravagance that a female-dominated populace can ill afford. Polygamy will encourage the confirmed bachelor to commit at last, leaving him no excuse not to tie the knot with all the women he's keeping on a string.
In India, polygamy has already spared one woman from a very lonely life. The Associated Press reported late last year that an Indian man married two sisters, one of whom is in a wheelchair. He had asked the father of the brides for the healthy sister's hand in marriage, and the patriarch insisted that he also marry the handicapped sister so that she could be guaranteed lifelong care.
It may all seem far-fetched, but last week the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Unitarians from Boston to Berkeley," acting under the aegis of the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, "have opened another front in the . . crusade to expand the definition of marriage and family in America," insisting that "their relationships are at least as ethical as other marriages--gay or straight." And consider the following from Reuters in Paris last January:
A man who had an incestuous relationship with his half-sister may not adopt the child they had together, France's highest appeals court has ruled.
The 13-year-old daughter, Marie, lives with the couple and knows they are siblings. . . . Marie's father wanted to adopt her to 'regularise the situation.' He got the backing of a lower court in 2001, but the ruling [by the appeals court] overturned that decision. The court . . . followed a request by public prosecutor Jerry Saint-Rose to uphold "the universal ban on incest, which has always been a fundamental pillar of society."
What makes this case freakish, aside from a Frenchman intimating that there is actually such a thing as a "fundamental pillar of society," is that another Frenchman is trying to do the right and socially responsible thing by normalizing "the situation," but is being prevented from doing so. Even though everyone knows that kids do better psychologically and emotionally when their parents are married.
We mustn't be as wrongheaded as France. The usual argument that even the most progressive-minded folks offer against incestuous unions is that the children who result have a higher risk of birth defects. Yet the child in question already exists and is reportedly healthy, thereby negating that argument--a discriminatory argument that, no one ever points out, implies that the handicapped, deformed and mentally disabled are undesirable. Besides, if handicap is the issue, it must be stated that the law does not restrict retarded or genetically handicapped citizens from marrying and having children.
Indeed, the law doesn't even restrict citizens from purposely breeding handicapped children, as two deaf lesbians living in Bethesda, Md., did. According to a 2002 BBC report, Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough went to several sperm banks, looking for a donor who suffers from congenital deafness. After being turned down by all, the couple came to a friend who had five generations of deafness in his family and who himself had no hearing but did have sperm. He had already been a donor for the couple's daughter, born five years earlier, who is "profoundly deaf and able to communicate only through sign language."
Echoing sentiments by gay-rights activists that being gay is the same as being black, McCullough compared being handicapped to being black: "You know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't people be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want?"
Meanwhile, the practice of sperm donation has already crossed incest lines. Two women, one British and one French, gave birth to their brothers' babies in 2001. Being infertile themselves but wanting to continue their genetic lineage, the women were implanted with zygotes composed of their brothers' sperm and eggs from outside donors.
Further, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper, the phenomenon of sperm donating contributes to "genetic sexual attraction," a force society mustn't underestimate:
You're 40, happily married--and then you meet your long-lost brother and fall passionately in love. This isn't fiction; in the age of the sperm donor, it's a growing reality: 50% of reunions between siblings, or parents and offspring, separated at birth result in obsessive emotions. Last [April], a former police officer was convicted of incest with his half-sister--but should we criminalise a bond hardwired into our psychology?
So to ensure that redefining marriage solves as many problems as it may create, it must be an all-or-nothing proposition. Why leave it to a slippery slope to decide? Lawmakers should rewrite the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to mandate every kind of union imaginable. We've already come such a long way since the scandalous days of Florence Henderson dating her TV stepson. Why stop now?
Ms. Gorin is a comedian touring with The Right Stuff and performing in Republican Riot, a monthly stand-up show in New York. She is also an Election 2004 comedy correspondent for America Online's ElectionGuide04.com and a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com.
|
Forget the Break... I'm blogging
It's almost 1am, and I'm done with my errands for the day so I decided to quickly put up some articles I've been meaning to post. Probably no commentary or short essays. Just posts, which some friends have complained about lately since I don't write my random essays on life lately. Oh well.
These United States
Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BY JULIA GORIN
Monday, April 26, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Proponents of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions dismiss as alarmist the concern that it will set a precedent for incest and polygamy. But progressives and traditionalists alike should see the social advantage of the not-too-distant eventuality of all such unions--and mandate them.
For example, the number of single-mother homes could be greatly reduced if a woman were simply allowed to marry her son (a Jewish mother's dream!). Otherwise, we might suffer the fate of Sweden and Norway, where gay unions have been legal for a decade and today out-of-wedlock births are at 60% and single motherhood, with its accompanying poverty, has risen. If our society doesn't take the social experiment to its logical conclusion, then women and children, whom marriage protects, will become victims.
Same-family and multispousal unions (but please, don't ignorantly equate one with the other) can play a key role even in traditional family configurations, as when the man of the house dies and leaves an inheritance to a widow who eventually dies herself, leaving the kids to pay taxes on the estate. If, however, a widow were allowed to marry her son upon her husband's death, the death tax could be avoided, since spouses are immune. And if there is no son but only a daughter, same difference. In fact, there would be nothing to keep a widow from marrying all her kids.
Meanwhile, with the gap in the ratio of women to men ever on the rise, especially with more and more American couples adopting unwanted female babies from China, the redefinition of marriage will enable women to have enough kids of both sexes to be able to pair them up with one another, ensuring that every girl gets her man. Not that the uneven female-to-male ratio would have any ramifications for this brave new world. Perhaps the greatest societal benefit will be a decrease in the divorce rate. It's a lot harder to leave your wife when she's your sister. Blood is thicker than water.
Polygamy will be further instrumental in solving the phenomenon of the noncommittal male--an extravagance that a female-dominated populace can ill afford. Polygamy will encourage the confirmed bachelor to commit at last, leaving him no excuse not to tie the knot with all the women he's keeping on a string.
In India, polygamy has already spared one woman from a very lonely life. The Associated Press reported late last year that an Indian man married two sisters, one of whom is in a wheelchair. He had asked the father of the brides for the healthy sister's hand in marriage, and the patriarch insisted that he also marry the handicapped sister so that she could be guaranteed lifelong care.
It may all seem far-fetched, but last week the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Unitarians from Boston to Berkeley," acting under the aegis of the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, "have opened another front in the . . crusade to expand the definition of marriage and family in America," insisting that "their relationships are at least as ethical as other marriages--gay or straight." And consider the following from Reuters in Paris last January:
A man who had an incestuous relationship with his half-sister may not adopt the child they had together, France's highest appeals court has ruled.
The 13-year-old daughter, Marie, lives with the couple and knows they are siblings. . . . Marie's father wanted to adopt her to 'regularise the situation.' He got the backing of a lower court in 2001, but the ruling [by the appeals court] overturned that decision. The court . . . followed a request by public prosecutor Jerry Saint-Rose to uphold "the universal ban on incest, which has always been a fundamental pillar of society."
What makes this case freakish, aside from a Frenchman intimating that there is actually such a thing as a "fundamental pillar of society," is that another Frenchman is trying to do the right and socially responsible thing by normalizing "the situation," but is being prevented from doing so. Even though everyone knows that kids do better psychologically and emotionally when their parents are married.
We mustn't be as wrongheaded as France. The usual argument that even the most progressive-minded folks offer against incestuous unions is that the children who result have a higher risk of birth defects. Yet the child in question already exists and is reportedly healthy, thereby negating that argument--a discriminatory argument that, no one ever points out, implies that the handicapped, deformed and mentally disabled are undesirable. Besides, if handicap is the issue, it must be stated that the law does not restrict retarded or genetically handicapped citizens from marrying and having children.
Indeed, the law doesn't even restrict citizens from purposely breeding handicapped children, as two deaf lesbians living in Bethesda, Md., did. According to a 2002 BBC report, Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough went to several sperm banks, looking for a donor who suffers from congenital deafness. After being turned down by all, the couple came to a friend who had five generations of deafness in his family and who himself had no hearing but did have sperm. He had already been a donor for the couple's daughter, born five years earlier, who is "profoundly deaf and able to communicate only through sign language."
Echoing sentiments by gay-rights activists that being gay is the same as being black, McCullough compared being handicapped to being black: "You know, black people have harder lives. Why shouldn't people be able to go ahead and pick a black donor if that's what they want?"
Meanwhile, the practice of sperm donation has already crossed incest lines. Two women, one British and one French, gave birth to their brothers' babies in 2001. Being infertile themselves but wanting to continue their genetic lineage, the women were implanted with zygotes composed of their brothers' sperm and eggs from outside donors.
Further, according to Britain's Guardian newspaper, the phenomenon of sperm donating contributes to "genetic sexual attraction," a force society mustn't underestimate:
You're 40, happily married--and then you meet your long-lost brother and fall passionately in love. This isn't fiction; in the age of the sperm donor, it's a growing reality: 50% of reunions between siblings, or parents and offspring, separated at birth result in obsessive emotions. Last [April], a former police officer was convicted of incest with his half-sister--but should we criminalise a bond hardwired into our psychology?
So to ensure that redefining marriage solves as many problems as it may create, it must be an all-or-nothing proposition. Why leave it to a slippery slope to decide? Lawmakers should rewrite the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to mandate every kind of union imaginable. We've already come such a long way since the scandalous days of Florence Henderson dating her TV stepson. Why stop now?
Ms. Gorin is a comedian touring with The Right Stuff and performing in Republican Riot, a monthly stand-up show in New York. She is also an Election 2004 comedy correspondent for America Online's ElectionGuide04.com and a contributing editor of JewishWorldReview.com.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
TRANSITION BACK HOME... NEXT STAGE IN LIFE
Back to the U.S... Yeah!
This week I'm running around saying my final goodbyes and doing errands as I prepare to close this chapter of my life. These past four years in Asia have been an awesome, fun, and a fullfilling experience. I have learned a lot about myself, human nature, business, technology, and a greater appreciation for the cultural and societal differences between nations. I have made great friends, built stronger ties with my family and extended family, and found a wonderful woman to share my life with.
I'll stop right here since I have to run around some more, and I probably won't blog much during the next four days so things will pick up here again next week. Max has been crazy busy too with some deal he's been working on this past year, so I still don't know when he's actually going to blog his first post. Hurry up, Max! Anyways, have a great day and I'll write more later on.
|
Back to the U.S... Yeah!
This week I'm running around saying my final goodbyes and doing errands as I prepare to close this chapter of my life. These past four years in Asia have been an awesome, fun, and a fullfilling experience. I have learned a lot about myself, human nature, business, technology, and a greater appreciation for the cultural and societal differences between nations. I have made great friends, built stronger ties with my family and extended family, and found a wonderful woman to share my life with.
I'll stop right here since I have to run around some more, and I probably won't blog much during the next four days so things will pick up here again next week. Max has been crazy busy too with some deal he's been working on this past year, so I still don't know when he's actually going to blog his first post. Hurry up, Max! Anyways, have a great day and I'll write more later on.
Sunday, May 02, 2004
ROGER SIMON ON KOFI ANNAN & STUPID U.S. SOLIDERS
Annan Stumbles on "Meet the Press"... What Were They Thinking??
Simon has a good post and links and some recent disturbing events. I saw some of the coverage on CNN about the soliders' abuse of Iraqi POWs... lewd pictures and obscene positions. What were they thinking? Retribution? Letting off some steam? No excuse... More from AP wires.
|
Annan Stumbles on "Meet the Press"... What Were They Thinking??
Simon has a good post and links and some recent disturbing events. I saw some of the coverage on CNN about the soliders' abuse of Iraqi POWs... lewd pictures and obscene positions. What were they thinking? Retribution? Letting off some steam? No excuse... More from AP wires.
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
