Sobering

The Boston Globe today has published on their website pictures and brief bios of all of Boston's 2005 victims of homicide. Seventy-five people in all (so far - two days to go). It's a ten year high for murders in Boston. Looking at the pictures on this page you'll find that murder victims in Boston are mostly young black men. Just eye-balling it from the pictures I would say close to 90%. Reading through the page you'll find that the most prevalent way to be killed is to be shot, with stabbings a distant second.

I'm a conservative and put a great deal of faith in the U.S. Constitution. As such, I really do believe in the Second Amednment right of citizens to legally own and bear arms. At the same time, looking at a page full of people murdered with guns can't help but give any reasonable person serious cause. If we were a country with out prevalent, easy access to firearms would most of these people be alive? Logic tells me the answer is "absolutely!" Sure, some of those people may have been killed otherwise with a knife or other method, but more likely handguns are just far too easy a way to kill people.

Even still, I do not believe gun control laws will put this genie back in the bottle. It is an assumption on my part, but I don't think I'm that crazy to guess that most of the guns used in these crimes were handguns, and that most of them were illegally obtained. I do subscribe to the theory that if you make guns illegal (or just harder) to own, only the criminals will have the guns. Perhaps that's an oversimplification, but I do believe it's the case.

Looking at a map of where most of the killings took place, combined with the listed occupation for most of the murder victims, it's probably fair to state that most of these killings happened to lower income individuals. Given that the there is a clear dominant trend of a single demographic being victims, there must be a single overall cause, either environmental or cultural or something for this. I absolutely don't believe in a direct correlation between being poor and proneness to violence. Obviously, if that were the case you'd see a larger distribution of other races and more women who are also poor committing these crimes.

There must be an answer. Given that no one can wave a magic wand and make gun disappear, what is it? More police? More after-school programs? More role models? More welfare? More job training? More opportunity? More scholarships? More busing? Is there even a government solution to this problem? It would appear that somehow young African American men need to be reached en mass somehow, but what is it?

A nobel cause

"In Iraq, more than 10.7 million votes were cast by about 69.9 percent of eligible voters, the commission reported. By comparison, 64 percent (or 126 million) of Americans eligible to vote reported casting ballots in 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau says...." (from CNN.com)

Hmmmm....well, those aren't American Idol numbers, but damn if that is not a major foreign policy success for the United States of America. Gee, could it be that the impatient, vision-less, naysayers of the left (and right) were wrong and that all people yearn to be free?
Those with a real vison for the Middle East see the potential for the Domino Theory, only a democratic one.

Dad

I’ve felt very uncertain about whether this post was something I wanted to publish on my blog. I’m worried that it may be far too personal to share and worry it might not be appropriate. It’s about my father. My dad died last week suddenly at the age of 74. I hate so much that he is gone and that perhaps I didn’t fully appreciate everything about him before he was gone.

My father disagreed with me most of the time on politics, but he really did love a good discussion. He was very enthusiastic about this little blog exercise I have going and was very supportive. I’ve found writing to be a very interesting experience these past two months “blogging,” and I think putting words down on (virtual) paper is going to be a core piece of learning to cope with our loss. I certainly don’t think it will stop at this post, but the words I wrote and spoke at his memorial were my best effort at a tribute to my dad. I’m not certain why I’m holding back on whether to share them. I spoke them to a room full of many strangers, and I put them on the blog here in hopes that someone might learn something about the great man that was my father. I post it here because I love him so much.

My talk (you’ll just have to imagine me choking up three or four times….)

Over the past few days I have been reflecting on my father’s life and the experiences that shaped it. What has occurred to me more and more is that while you might not be able to tell at first look he was actually a complex man with many sides to his personality.

One of my favorite sides of my father that I would like to share with you was who we always referred to as “Dr. Ditson.” If you asked him about how hospitals and doctors had affected his life, he probably would tell you story after story of how the times he had been in the hospital with one surgery or another and how incredibly miserable the places were. But I think this piece of my dad that I admired so much was also shaped by hospitals.

If you were ever in the hospital and were confused about the things being done to you by poking and prodding by the medical profession, you could not have any stronger a set of advocates than Bob and Joan Ditson. If there is anything I’ve learned from my parents about medicine over the years it is that just because someone is a doctor, (my dad’s words) it sure as hell doesn’t make him smarter than you. Doctors and nurses are good people that are there to be a resource for you- but as my father would say, you need to “watch them like a hawk.” Your good health is yours and your family’s responsibility.

I’m pretty sure I have never seen my father be more on a mission than when he was taking care of my mother after her stroke. In the fall of 1989 my mother had a pretty severe stroke. She has been a strong woman my entire life but I am positive she could not have pushed through and gotten to where she is today with out the absolute singular focus of my father. Outside activities were dropped, friends were appreciated, but secondary, and the sole focus of his life became my mother’s welfare.

Everyone loved the image of my father with his shorts, chamois cloth shirt, his wool hat, and wool socks, and his collection of utility belt items clipped to his hip. But when something important needed to be done or a doctor needed to be pulled into line, my dad would assume his Dr. Ditson persona – dark blue suit, his red “power” tie, and his ever-present clipboard full of questions.

My father spent three years in the hospital in the early 1950s, mostly alone, with no similar advocate of his own. His mother lived far away, and could not visit often because of money. There is no question that those difficult years shaped the rest of his life. With my mother in the hospital, this time was different. She had a champion. With my dad on the job, doctors returned calls, they answered questions, and she received the right medications and treatments on time.

If there was anything that my father’s hospital experience built in him it was a deep and profound understanding of pain and hurt. Because of that my father built the gift of compassion and of empathy. Over the 13 plus years my parents ran the motel there is story after story after story after story….of complete strangers sitting in that motel office with my father and my mother—pouring their hearts out about their struggles and their pain for hours at a time. People just don’t do that with strangers unless they detect real compassion and caring in a person. And my father had that.

My dad was really supposed to die in back in the 1950s. He had Ulcerative Colitis, which lead to three major surgeries which were at the time still not considered to be routine. When he was leaving the hospital the doctor basically told him that the results of the disease meant he should limit his hopes for life, he said that his highest aspiration might be as a hospital orderly. The doctor told him this. If that probably well-intentioned, but short-sighted doctor were here today I’d ask him to take a look at the pictures of my dad we have here today. They’re pictures of a successful 30-year professional, a second-career business proprietor, and a loving husband, father, and grandfather.

My mother and my daughter and I are all very thankful that Bob Ditson decided to endure for fifty plus more years. We are very thankful for the time we had with him and want to thank you all for being here as our friends.

On Message, finally!!!

I don't know if it's the Brain or if it's Karen Hughs back on the job, but "W" is finally getting on message! President Bush, from the same Brian "Barbie" Williams interview mentioned in the last post:

"My strategy and my plans are these. I will listen to the commanders. I understand that war is objective based, not time table based, and we will complete this mission for the good of the country."

YES! "Objective based." They're reframing the discussion to be about how to WIN, not when we're going to exit. This is positive.

I'm Chris Matthews, and you're not

Ugh, Chris Matthews is such a bore. Tonight on Hardball they keep showing and totally HARPING on the Brian Williams interview on "does the President read?"

So the questions from Williams went like this... (paraphrasing) " Here is Time and Newsweek, do you read these magazines." Answer, "no I really don't." Then "How much of the network news do you watch?"

First of all - Time and Newsweek are pretty much crap! These are MASS market magazines that have some fine articles, but are really just People Magazine level consumption of the news. Sure, they have some good articles, but other times it's "McNews magazine-ed down." The same goes for the Nightly News on any of the networks! It is produced for mass consumption. If you want to be a truly informed person in this country, you MUST read from multiple sources (I'd say three or more a day- probably more). And at least five or six different sources a week- probably more.

Then Matthews asked something totally asinine of Brian Williams, "Did you get the feeling Brian that he really wanted to do this interview or his uh, public relations people said you have to get out there and kill the idea that you're isolated." Then followed a very serious reply by Brian Williams to this silly question. UGH! I like Hardball, I watch it all the time, but oh my God! Chris Matthews is such an arrogant ass! Just come out and say you hate the President! Having these totally random, unimportant, and completely pointless conversations about whether the President felt like having an interview with Brian Williams - a male Barbie doll - is ridiculous. Of course he didn't! Who wants to talk to an overly-biased thick head who is paid to basically try and trip you into saying something dumb?

I am SO SICK of the insuation that the President of the United States is uninformed or stupid. It is way too hard to become the President of the United States of America - one in 300 million people each election (well, less considering the number of elegible candidates) to be a STUPID person and get elected. Just get over it. Stop the silly media machine.

When the President answers Barbie Williams that yes in fact he does read the papers, what Paper do they show in the produced-by-a-liberal-member-of-the-media news story. USA TODAY -- the nation's "McPaper." Give me a break.

Only in America

I love the Arnold Schwarzenegger story. You need go no further than his speech to the Republican National Convention in 2004 to understand why this is a great American story. This is a man who grew up in the shadow of communism and made himself into a world class athlete, a powerful movie star, and finally a voice of the people in the form of the Governor of “Kali-FORN-ya!” What a perfect example to the rest of the world – in America, anything is possible, anyone can make themselves a success. Only in America.

My admiration and love for the story aside, I will admit to just a little bit of a surreal feeling to see Arnold Schwarzenegger deciding the fate of inmates on death row. Today the governor denied clemency for Stanley Tookie Williams. Mr. Williams is one of the founders of the Crips street gang, and the convicted murderer of four people. Mr. Williams cause has been taken up by several Hollywood movie stars, as well as many anti-death penalty advocates.

It would seem that Mr. Williams has worked tirelessly since his incarceration in the late 70s to reform himself. He has written multiple children books warning of the dangers of street gangs. He has even been nominated by a Swiss legislator and some college professors for a Nobel Peace Prize (only in America!)

I am not surprised by Governor Schwarzenegger’s decision to deny clemency. Only in America would a death sentence be drawn out for twenty-four years while the condemned is allowed to exhaust every single avenue in his or her defense. I think that’s a good thing for our system, and actually shows our humanity. At the same time, that’s twenty-four years that the four people Stanley Tookie Williams murdered never will have.

See, I told you so ;-)

"By the way, Governers get elected president I’ve noticed the pattern, Governor Romney. "

-Chris Matthews on Hardball tonight. Interviewing your next President, Mitt Romney.

Predators serve a purpose

Chances are as an individual investor, you don’t have much say in the management direction of your favorite publicly listed company. Sure, you may be a billionaire, or even an “A” list hedge fund manager, but chances are (given my small readership) your biggest equity investment doesn’t include much in the way of voting rights. I bring this up because of the latest in Wall Street dramas to hit the business press.

Every so often a story comes up that is worth reading every episode. Eighteen months or so back it was Oracle’s fight to acquire Peoplesoft. Today the most interesting soap opera of the business world is Carl Icahn versus Time Warner. This is a story that promises to play out for a good portion of the New Year. Essentially, Carl Icahn is a corporate raider who is angling for the ouster of Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, as well as for the break up and sell off its cable assets.

Ever since Barbarians at the Gate, I’ve loved a good buyout story. Partly I enjoy them for the drama, but I also appreciate how some of them are illustrative of how free markets and the “profit motive” benefit the greater good. It’s almost cliché that any time Hollywood wants to portray a businessman as “evil” it reaches for the a fat cat CEO or for the stock “Corporate Raider” persona. Gordon Gecko, as portrayed by Michael Douglass, in the movie Wall Street was a Corporate Raider, as was the “bad” Richard in the movie Pretty Woman. (Don’t get me wrong, as portrayed in the movie, Gordon Gecko was a cheater—not part of a positive free market). I wonder if Hollywood understands that corporate raiders are the bane of the “fat cat” CEO’s existence.

In reality, corporate raiders serve a purpose. Motivated by financial gain for themselves and their investors, corporate raiders cull the herd of the weakest competitors. In doing so, they weed out bad management teams, they add transparency into the finances of public companies, and unlock unrealized market value. It was profiteer short-sellers, among others, that brought the Enron house of cards crashing down. It is buyout artists that find companies that are being abused by their management teams.

Let’s go back to my starting premise. Say you’re an individual investor that is approaching retirement and have held Time Warner stock in your 401k account since 1995. Basically, you got screwed. Time Warner made what is widely called, the worst business deal ever, by overpaying for America Online. Your stock lost a considerable amount of its inherent value in this transaction. If you stuck in there and are still holding the stock you may in fact get some of that value back. One way that might happen is that the company may actually deliver on what it says it’s going to do. Another way is to have Carl Icahn or someone like him come along.

Carl Icahn is smarter than you (probably – certainly smarter than me). He’s also a pretty powerful guy, able to control billions of dollars. Mr. Icahn has made his fortune opportunistically. When he finds a company that he believes is not managing its assets properly, he steps in. He does that by taking a position in a companies publicly traded securities (either stocks or bonds). In effect he becomes a large owner or holder of the company’s debt. Then he becomes and “agitator” for change. Rightly or wrongly, he pushes for changes in the company that he believes will increase the value of the company.

In the current situation, Mr. Icahn believes Time Warner investors should have the choice of owning either cable assets or content assets (both currently owned by Time Warner in a single entity). He thinks the parts are worth greater than the whole, and a part owner of the company is pushing to split them up. Furthermore, he thinks management is overpaid. He points out, “At Time Warner they spend $500 million a year for the top layer of executives, and it’s unnecessary.” Maybe that is a reasonable number, but it does sound like a lot, doesn’t it?

I doubt very much that Carl Icahn is thinking much about your little Time Warner position in your 401k. I could be totally wrong. Maybe he is motivated by helping the little guy. The point is, it doesn’t matter. “Corporate Raiders” have just as much influence on keeping the management of public companies honest as does the SEC. This isn’t to say that corporate raiders have a monopoly on the right way to run businesses. Mr. Icahn could be completely wrong. This could be a play for “greenmail,” essentially an agitator financier’s way of getting paid off to go away – not positive for the company or your 401k.

I don’t want to give the impression that I think everything that results from the break up of a poorly run company is positive. Individual lives are often affected. People get laid off sometimes. Pension funds get raided sometimes. (Both of these happen through management teams sometimes as well). Sometimes the buyout artists are overleveraged, or incorrect in their estimates of unrealized value.

My point is not to paint corporate raiders in a good light as wonderful people. The point is that it doesn’t matter. Their self interest acts as one of many driving forces in an overall free market, and some of those affects have a decidedly positive affect. How will the Carl Icahn versus Time Warner drama end? Only time will tell.

Guilty Pleasure

Since my own personal political “inflection point,” somewhere around 1993, I’ve done my best to expose myself to various forms of conservative thought. From Rush Limbaugh to William F. Buckley, to the Conservative Chronicle, Newt, National Review, Sean Hannity, Jay Severin, Laura Ingraham, Weekly Standard, Dinesh Desouza, George Will, and the ever present wisdom of Ronald Reagan – I’ve covered a whole lot of the landscape. Living in Massachusetts, there have certainly been times (especially early on) when I felt the need to “cover up” my reading material, if only to avoid the occasional shocked look. (Note to self, when your boss ‘tsk tsks” your copy of The Fountainhead, you need a new boss).

Well, I’m way over that now. At work I’ll keep it under wraps, but in ‘real’ life I’m much more likely to overtly champion what I believe is the better way. Of course, even conservatives have their guilty pleasures and for a great deal of us that pleasure is the writing of Ann Coulter.

I’m certainly not afraid to tell people I love her books and her column, but I’m sure I’m not the only conservative that gets just a little bit uneasy admitting that. The reason is that Ann Coulter is the conservative equivalent of a buzz saw. She is just a little bit over the top, just a little bit past the limits of propriety that it at times gives you pause. At the same time she is so smart, and her writing is so….wickedly funny, that you can’t help but reading more. The best way I can describe it is that she has an uncanny knack for eviscerating liberalism’s sacred cows. She pulls no punches, has no fear, and damns the consequences.

Of course, this boldness makes her a lightning rod for left-wingers who try to stop her from speaking at every turn- most recently in Connecticut, as described in an article from the Associated Press. I always think it’s ironic that liberalism, a word that means tolerance for new ideas, has been hijacked by a group that attempts to squash speech that they do not agree with at every turn (look no further than “political correctness.”)

As might be expected, many liberals never take the time to listen to what you say. Once they hear you’re a conservative they just lump you all together as “Bible thumpers” or the “great Satan,” or in a dashing bit of liberal logic, both. But what liberals never bother to realize about Ann Coulter is that she is a bit of a pariah to Conservatives as well. Politicians can’t get near her. Because politics is the way it is, to have your picture taken with her, it would align you with her over-the-top comments across the board. Some of her comments are so brash (even if true) that I can’t really blame them. The people that I can call gutless when it comes to Coulter are the conservative press. Ann Coulter sells copy – she has four best selling books, and millions of readers of her weekly column on Townhall.com. But still, publications like National Review, Weekly Standard, WSJ, Washington Times, etc. all shy away from publishing her column.

The best mainstream exposure in a popular periodical she got from the other side of the aisle – JFK Jr. hired her to write a column in George Magazine years ago. She wrote a great tribute to him in her book “How to talk to a Liberal – if you must;” a great read. Today you can read her columns at Townhall.com or on her web site, Anncoulter.org. Also, there’s a great documentary about her on DVD entitled, “Is it true what they say about Ann?”

“Lead” to win or “Manage” to Defeat

A perennial favorite topic of the business press is that of the difference between “leadership” and “management.” Typically both are attributed as absolutely necessary to an organization’s success, but requiring very different sets of talents. I was reminded of this debate by the prevailing democratic talking point of the past few weeks which seems to be “Bush mismanaged the war!”

The “mismanaged” slogan I think highlights a profound difference between the way different groups in this country approach the difficult and grueling task of actually winning a war. History would teach us; it seems to me, that victories are “lead,” while defeats are the result of an attempt to “manage.” Sure it’s a total bastardization of the leadership vs. management debate, and perhaps an over simplified view of warfare, but I think it’s an interesting view of how our various “leaders” approach this issue.

One thing that I continually fault the Bush administration on is allowing the Democrats to set the stage for the debate around the war in Iraq. Instead of a political establishment that is arguing constructively how to win the war and build Iraq, the topic of the most argument is exactly when U.S. forces will leave. Essentially you’ve got the “get out now crowd,” the “give us a timetable to withdraw ‘honorably’” crowd, and then everyone else. People arguing that we should withdraw with “honor,” are basically arguing that we can’t win and that we should find a way to get out without the bad news footage equivalent of the last helicopter leaving Saigon in 1973. The only honorable course is to do what we say we’re going to do no matter how long it takes.

The loudest opposition voices out there today are the voices of defeat. Democratic national Chairman Howard Dean was quoted yesterday as saying, “(the) idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.” What he’s really saying is that he doesn’t believe in the United States ability (or will) to win. Of course, that didn’t stop him from going on to say,

“I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years. Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.”

Wow, when I think of someone who will “mange” the war correctly, I think of a M.D. from Vermont! Not. Sarcasm aside, serious Democrats’ stomachs must turn somersaults when they hear their bomb-throwing Chairman speak. Every other thing out of his mouth is a “Bush lied” conspiracy.

When you think of unsuccessful U.S. military conflicts like Vietnam or Korea (okay, that was a tie), what do you think of? Many people think of major interference (i.e. “management”) from Washington D.C. Truman fired McArthur for trying to win the Korean war. Most criticism of Robert McNamara was that he micromanaged the fighting of the Vietnam war. Nixon had his fingers all over the bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia as if he were a field commander.

In contrast, successful undertakings by the United States in the last century were the result of great acts of leadership. FDR and Winston Churchill led us to victory in World War II. Ronald Reagan led us to victory in the cold war. (I’m leaving out WWI, yes it was a big deal, but direct U.S. involvement was much shorter than even our current stint in Iraq). In each of these victories, these leaders made their primary role one leadership. The first job of “leadership” is to set the vision of a successful outcome. FDR, Churchill and Reagan all called out the enemy for what they were, they defined success, and they harped on it over and over again. They all took part in the management piece of these efforts, but each delegated the real “management” of war efforts to their military leaders. Very “Lincolnesqe.”

I’m left to wonder what an appropriate battle cry might be for “mismanaged war” crowd. Perhaps, “Remember _We Lost_ at the Alamo!” The fact that as a country we’re spending so much time arguing about when to get out is completely the wrong focus. The United States is the single super power in the world. It _should_ go without saying that we have the will to complete efforts we take on. The Bush Administration should continually reframe the debate around “what’s the best way to win?”

She's no Bill

I’m continually baffled as to why Hillary Clinton is referred to as the far-and-away frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008. Yes, I understand her celebrity and, sure I appreciate the novelty of having a candidate who used to be the first lady. But really…are Democrats really thinking through what they’re getting when they anoint her as their favorite-son (daughter)?

It wouldn’t be the first time a candidate road the coattails of a popular President to win their party’s nomination (you listening Bush 41?), but I wonder if the “Clinton” mystique is getting ready to hit a brick wall. By all accounts Bill Clinton has an uncanny ability to connect with virtually anyone he meets. It is said that in a conversation with President Clinton he makes you feel as if the whole world is about you. Honestly, pudgy, middle-aged white guys do not get the title “America’s first black President,” without "mad" interpersonal skills.

Other than the celebrity, I just don’t see what it is about Hillary Clinton’s candidacy that makes Democrats swoon. Okay, yes, I’m biased. Based on her stated beliefs I think her policies would be a total disaster for the United States. But trying to be objective, and looking at just the basics, just exactly what kind of candidate do they have.

She’s Polarizing – Hillary Clinton is possibly one of the most polarizing political figures in America today. Hillary is to conservatives what “W” is to Moveon.org. You either love her or you hate her. Bill Clinton was able to bring out the moderate votes, in fact, he based much of his first campaign on being a pro-business moderate Democrat. Heck, I voted for him (the first time).

She’s a New York Liberal - She may hail from Arkansas, but she wasted no time in knocking the dust off those boots as soon as Bill was out of office. To get elected as a Democrat way back to LBJ you needed some Southern “street cred,” and she forfeited that when she moved to New York state to run for Senate. People with that liberal tag don’t do well in the presidential election. Sure, she’d win New York state in a landslide (provided Rudy doesn’t run), California, and of course Minnesota, among others, but everywhere else she is a “New Yawk Liberal,” with all the connotations that come with it.

She’s a Senator - I always bring this one up. We don’t hire too many Senators in this country to be the Commander-in-Chief. The last President who was a Senator was Lyndon B. Johnson, but of course the last one we actually elected was John F. Kennedy. I think John Kerry was the perfect example of why we reject congressman as Presidential candidates. Who ever knew what the guy was talking about? The Senate is an old boys club that is run by obscure rules of order known mostly to themselves. If you don’t believe me, read the great book on LBJ called Master of the Senate. Senators “do” less and “argue in circles” more. We’re Americans and we want a “doer!”

She’s a woman – In my opinion the United States absolutely IS ready for a female commander in chief. I’m not just being egalitarian by saying so either. And certainly no one thinks of Hillary as a soft, “Holly Hobby” homemaker type. However, I do question whether her “toughness” will play in Peoria. I can see soccer moms coming out to vote for her (despite the “I could have stayed home and baked cookies” comment), but I do have a hard time seeing “NASCAR dads” coming out to vote for her. Despite her recent attempts to look tough and be strong supporter of the Military , I think she’ll have a perception of softness hurdle to get over – which I honestly think would unfairly be put against any woman candidate. I do think of Hillary as tough (if misguided), and I do think she would apply military force as commander in chief. I just always think of our first woman president as more an Iron Lady type.

She’s not Bill – As I mentioned up above, Hillary doesn’t have the magic touch the way Bill does. They call him “The Natural” after all. I’m not suggesting that you have to be overly gifted in this way to get elected, but I wonder if there’s some transference going on here where all her admirers think they’re going to get the Bill Clinton touch.

She stands for what?– To be a leader you have to stand for something. For the life of me I don’t know what Hillary stands for yet. I’m certain she’ll put something together as part of a formal campaign, but so far all I get is…“because she’s Hillary!” That might work to her advantage in far-left circles, but last time I checked you had to appeal to the middle to win the Electoral College. I’m just looking forward to hear what she stands for. Is it the same as Bill Clinton or does she have her own philosophy, and if so, how are they different?

Doesn’t anyone else just want “new blood” in the White House? I’ve said the same thing about the Bushes as the Clintons – In a country of 300 million citizens; can we really not find a few candidates who are NOT a direct relation of a former President? I’m sure some will argue (again) that it’s a two-for-one deal – elect Hillary and get Bill to boot! You know what, I’ll pass.

My personal bet this early in the nomination race is Joe Biden . The guy never fails to drive me nuts when he’s on the talking head shows, but he’s smart, he’s tough, and I think he’d make a formidable opponent to the open Republican field (and yes, I know he's a Senator). John Kerry will run again, but to steal a Dennis Miller line, he’s going to get “stomped like a Narc at a biker rally!”

'Cut and run' would be the wrong answer

I was asked to respond to an article in The Atlantic magazine entitled “Why Iraq has No Army,” by James Fallows. (FYI- I’m linking to it, but the link may only be good to non-subscribers for a few days). Incidentally, this article was also sited on Meet the Press this morning when Tim Russert asked for a response to the article from Senator John McCain.

I love Tim Russert, but he seems to harp incessantly on mistakes made in the execution of the war. Certainly one of the primary purposes of the fourth estate is to do juts that, but he seems to revisit it over and over with every guest. This morning he asked Senator McCain (I’m paraphrasing), “One of the misjudgments made was that we would be greeted as liberators. Then the cost of the war, --- and then required troop levels – three fundamental misjudgments by the administration, is that fair? ”

McCain’s answer was that it was fair. Sometimes I feel like the there’s this opinion out there that says to the administration “you should have planned for everything. You should have anticipated everything that might have happened and planned for it.” Never mind that we were confronting what we believed to be a clear and present danger that needed to be addressed immediately. Has there ever been a war plan that worked out exactly as planned…ever? Where are these “perfect world” standards coming from that a war is the equivalent of a math proof that can just be worked out with enough elbow grease?

Earlier in the interview Russert asked Senator McCain for a reaction to the following quote from the Article in the Atlantic:

“In short, if American troops disappeared tomorrow, Iraq would have essentially no independent security force. Half its policemen would be considered worthless, and the other half would depend on external help for organization, direction, support. Two thirds of the army would be in the same dependent position, and even the better-prepared one third would suffer significant limitations without foreign help."

“The moment when Iraqis can lift much of the burden from American troops is not yet in sight. --- Measured against what it would take to leave Iraqis fully in charge of their own security, the United States and the Iraqi government are losing ground. Absent a dramatic change—in the insurgency, in American efforts, in resolving political differences in Iraq—America's options will grow worse, not better, as time goes on.”

I think this was a good summary quote from what James Fallows advocates in this long twenty page article, but I’m not sure it tells all of Fallows' story. Senator McCain, probably hearing the quote for the first time, felt obligated to take it as an estimation that there was little or no progress happening, and to respectfully disagree with Fallows.

I found Fallows article to be a well told list of the mistakes made and the many the challenges to succeeding in Iraq, but also a description of the beginnings of progress in training Iraqi security forces. Clearly there have been plenty of mistakes and clearly there are many things the U.S. can improve and recommit to in order to ensure success.

At the same time, I think Fallows touches on what’s really important when he quotes General Petraeus on the importance of training Iraqi forces:

“The enemy recognizes that if Iraqi security forces ever really get traction, they are in trouble. So all of this (training) is done in the most challenging environment imaginable."

And later Fallows makes a conclusion similar to what I said the other day (that we’re not leaving anytime soon):

“Based on these interviews, I have come to this sobering conclusion: the United States can best train Iraqis, and therefore best help itself leave Iraq, only by making certain very long-term commitments to stay.”

In the end it is difficult to know who to believe on the current progress of training for Iraqi defense forces. I was listening to Rush this past week and he replayed Mary Matalin dressing down John Kerry on the Today show about this very topic. Her pronouncements of Iraqi security force readiness make it sound like massive progress is being made—and certainly echoed the end of the Fallows article (in spots). With nothing but partisan assessments one way or the other as inputs, how is average Joe citizen supposed to form an opinion?

For me it comes down to which side is doing a better job at confronting reality. We can’t just leave. We have to stay. In this morning’s interview Tim Russert asked Senator McCain if the situation is the same in six months as it is today, would he advocate a timeline for our pullout from Iraq. McCain responded with the following (good thing Tivo let’s me rewind!)

“I would say that we would have to evaluate our strategy, but We would also have to consider the consequences of failure. If we fail….don’t take my word for it, take Zarqowi’s-- Zarqawi and Bin Laden’s version of history is, we were driven out of Vietnam, we were driven out of Lebanon, we were driven out of Somalia , and they’re going to go after us and the United States of America, ---now that’s not my saying, that’s what they’re saying, this is why so much is at stake here. This is why I made the controversial statement that this is more important than Vietnam. The Vietnamese weren’t going to come after us, these people are dedicated to our extinction.”

I think that McCain’s response was the right one. It is imperative that we stand our ground and build a democratic Iraq. The insurgents know what is at stake, and are showing that in the way they’re fighting. I think those, like McCain, which are proponents of making Iraq a real victory, and not prematurely pulling out of that country, also understand what is really at stake.

Maybe we should just say that the U.S. will never leave

I’m starting to wonder if the right approach in Iraq would be to just openly say that the U.S. doesn’t ever plan to leave. Sixty years after World War II, the United States is just over the past few years ratcheting down its military presence in Germany. What’s the rush to get out of Iraq?

Democrats who continually harp that we “must know when” troops are coming home are guilty of playing politics with human lives. These people cannot possibly really believe that publishing a time table for U.S. troop withdrawals is anything other than conceding defeat. Instead they are yelling this from the rooftops because they know the American electorate is feeling unsure about the efforts in Iraq. They are doing nothing more than trying to weaken the power of a President from an opposing party, and in doing so they’re sending a message that the Unites States is weak.

Defeatists on both sides of the aisle openly doubt whether a free democratic state in the Middle East is even possible. To doubt that all humans yearn to be free is short-sighted, foolish, and its base, frankly, racist. The freedom of thought, movement, and self-expression that we enjoy in the United States is the exact source of this country's political, economic, and moral power. Every human heart yearns for respect and appreciation of one’s unique persona. Achieving that feeling is simply not possible for the citizens of authoritarian or totalitarian controlled countries. The United States should always stand for freedom and liberty, and for elected officials to actually discredit the existence of a people’s potential to be free is…well, un-American.

A democratic state in the Middle East is a just cause. Argue all you like whether the argument for this war was right in the first place, what we are now working to accomplish is a noble effort. Saddam Hussein is one of the world’s most notorious murderers, responsible for close to two million deaths. How is it that the world is not a better place with this butcher taken from power? How is it that a free state in the heart of the oppressed Middle East would not be a victory for the entire human race?

In an uncertain world filled with new dangers, it is clear that all eyes are on the actions of the United States. The United States congressmen nipping at the President’s Iraq policy based on the American public’s current lack of confidence are nothing more than political opportunists. They would better serve their constituents, and the world, by showing the patience, the resolve, and the backbone that George W. Bush has. It is through continued actions that the U.S. proves to the world that we stand for freedom, and that we will always be prepared to defend it.

The Gipper would blog…

People always call out Ronald Reagan’s abilities as the “Great Communicator” as the source of his effectiveness in office. This is certainly one of the qualities that enabled him to accomplish the many things that he did, but I think what is more important was that Ronald Reagan knew unequivocally what it was that he stood for. Unlike most all other politicians, Reagan worked tirelessly to research, think, and record his thoughts on virtually all topics in the public eye, from world peace, to nuclear energy, to the economy, social security, as well as numerous personal stories.

The thing I like about blogging (so far) is that as the author you do it for yourself as much as you do for anyone else. Writing things down helps you think through issues and crystallize your thinking. The fact that someone out there (admittedly few) might read it makes you think that much more about what you're writing. Given the volume of written material by President Reagan that has been published since his passing, it is clear that a regular forum for expressing his ideas was something he appreciated. Which is why I hypothesize that if he were alive and active today, the Gipper would blog.

In 1975, and then again from 1976 until he ran for President a second time in 1979, Ronald Reagan wrote and presented a daily radio commentary on all of the topics I mentioned above and more (the first pause was to challenge Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination in 1975). Each commentary had a one sentence teaser, and was followed by a three minute monologue which Reagan would write out long hand on a legal pad.

Many of these commentaries are collected in the book Reagan, In his Own Hand; however, if you really want the best experience, I strongly suggest listening to the collection in audio form, which includes Reagan’s actual recordings, entitled Reagan, In his Own Voice. (They are the same thing, just one has the actual recordings. I own both…of course!)

Whether read or listened to, these commentaries are sheer gold. Critics of Reagan long chided him as a simple minded actor. Diplomat Clark Clifford famously quipped after meeting Reagan that he was, “an amiable dunce.” Since Clifford isn’t really notable for much else other than this comment, it goes a long way towards showing who was the lesser of the two men.

What astounds me is that through listening to these commentaries and reading his biweekly newspaper columns, Ronald Reagan told the American people exactly what it was he believed. It was estimated that through the radio show and the columns Reagan was able to reach close to 20 million Americans each week. Moreover, if you look at his administration you’ll see that this man took on a course to do exactly the things he stood up for in his writings.

When else in American history, or world history for that matter, has a leader written so profusely in his own hand exactly the things he stood for and then made them so widely known? Ronald Reagan shaped his beliefs over years and years of writing out his thoughts on paper, either in letters, for publication, or for personal use. He literally created his political self on paper and then changed the course of human history because he wrote down what he thought. These radio commentaries are a treasure trove of his thinking right up until he became the leader of the free world.

I’ll sign off using Reagan’s tagline (but with my name of course).

“This is Mike Ditson, thanks for listening.”

Classic Crackberry Story

A classic "government first" story.

A commentary in today's Wall Street Journal illustrate just another way you can always count on your government at work. The article is about the potential pending black out of service for Research in Motion (RIM). RIM is the company that markets, sells, and operates the "Blackberry," a combined email and cell phone device. The devices are so addictive that users nickname them the "crackberry!" I'm a crackberry addict myself.

A company named NTP is suing RIM for patent infringement and has actually won the initial case. The suit has been tied up in the courts for some time. On Monday, RIM lost another piece of the case and there is a slim chance that Blackberry service will actually be turned off across the United States until RIM can license the proper technology from NTP.

The joke is that if and when service gets shut down, it won't actually be shut down for everyone. Over 300,000 government users of the Blackberry will be safe because the Justice Department filed an injunction to exclude government users from the shut down.

If RIM violated the patents in question, it would seem that NTP is dues some payments. Either way, how is it that the U.S. government gets extra, special status protection against shut downs? There may be actual public safety reasons for this exclusion, but does anyone really believe that? Come on, just another case of government taking special status for itself.

I’m Mike Wallace, and….you’re not!

Watching Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight I couldn’t help but getting infuriated with Mike Wallace (and Chris Matthews). Who doesn’t love a good Mike Wallace story on 60 Minutes? I know I do, but why do these guys have to be so arrogant?

The segment started out like this (I’m paraphrasing):

Chris Matthews: “Mike Wallace jokes that he’s interviewed every president since Abraham Lincoln save one, ‘W.’ So why is the man in the Oval office afraid of the man from 60 Minutes? Mike, why is George W. the man in the White house afraid to interview you? (Chris misspoke) Why haven’t you interviewed George W.?”

Mike Wallace: “Because he pays attention to Karl Rove and from the very beginning it’s been very apparent that Karl Rove will not permit him to sit down with me.”

something about Mike Wallace doing a story on judges in Texas when W. was Governor and Karl Rove not wanting him to speak to George W.

Mike Wallace: (indignantly – my interpretation) “I’ve never even met the man. I’ve never even shook hands with him. For some reason Karl Rove and Karen Hughes say ‘uh-uh forget it, you’re not going to talk to this guy.’ Why? You’ve got me.”

This is wrong on so many levels. The implication here is that “I’m Mike Wallace, I’ve interviewed President after President and W. wont’ talk to _ME.” What exactly is the sense of entitlement going on here? Karl Rove is George W. Bush’s political advisor. Shouldn’t he be allowed to advise the President as best he sees fit?

Let’s face it, as much as I admire “W” for his vision (among other things), speaking extemporaneously is not his strongest suit. Mike Wallace is an ATTACK DOG? If Karl Rove lets W. just sit down with Mike Wallace isn’t that borderline professional negligence? It is not the President’s job (or even a good idea) to mold to media. A President needs to find the best method for his “voice” and to communicate that way as much as possible. Karl Rove is paid to do a job and he’s doing it…well, much to the consternation of the left.

What bothers me is this total soft-ball (on a show called "Hardball") t-up of a question from Chris Wallace. Chris says, "why is W afraid of you Mike," and we're supposed to think the Presdient of the United States, arguably the most powerful man in the world, is afraid of an octogenarian from CBS? Yes, I KNOW it's "tounge-in-cheek," but almost all of the main stream meeting is just like this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but being a member of the news media, even a respected one, does not automatically make you "right."

Throw away the key!

Today representative Randy Cunningham (Republican from California) pleaded guilty to accepting over $2 million in bribes to steer defense contracts to specific places. "I can't undo what I have done but I can atone," he said. I'm not so sure. In reading this article I was astounded by the sentence, "He could face up to ten years in prison." My immediate reaction to that was, THAT'S IT???

Serving in congress of the United States is a scared trust. I'm not so naive to think that corruption doesn't exist at all levels of government, but when something as blatant as this comes up, we shouldn't hesitate to lock him up and throw away the key. Taken at face value, this guy deserves hard time.

Free idea....to a good home

They say that "an idea not acted upon is worthless." Well, what if someone else acts on it?

Ever had a great idea but lacked the resources...or motivation to act upon it? Well don't throw that great idea away...donate it! Authors Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff have written a book called "Why Not?" which among other things discusses "open source" ideas. They've put together a companion website which acts as marketplace for free ideas. As of today the catalog of donated ideas contains 249 categories and 2,089 ideas.

My own humble submission to the catalog can be found here, but I like the idea so much I've included the text here as well (it IS my blog :-) :

This is something 3M should team up with Dell or HP to produce (IMHO). An office computer printer that uses a "yellow sticky" notes as the page separator. The networked printers in most offices are usually set up to have a cover sheet that separates different user's print outs. The problem is that if there are several printed documents or a large document, you spend several minutes sifting through a pile looking for the separator. With this idea you could have a sticky note that separates different print outs off to the side. To get fancy, the printer could print "John Doe's print out" on the sticky note before placing it as a separator. It could go on to place the notes so that they were staggered between print outs, to let you read all the notes in a large pile at once. This would save people time, and a nice added bonus would be all the paper that is saved from all those full size cover sheets.
-mditson, Aug 23 2005

And to the person who left the comment asking "don't all good printers collate?" the answer is no, absolutely not-- you're just lucky in your office I'm afraid.

This brings up another point about good ideas and getting them into the hands of people who can use them. Why is it so hard to contact the right people at a company? Why doesn't 3M, Dell, or HP have a big old "suggestion box" button on their web sites? Too busy to listen? It's too bad. As a product marketer myself I would love direct, unprompted access to ideas from prospects in my target segment.

Weblogistan

From Wired Magazine’s Sidebar called “Jargon Watch”

“Weblogistan: n. The Iranian blogosphere, where activists go to vent anonymously in the face of Iran's oppressive regime. Weblogistan is now so vast that Persian is the fourth most widely used language on blogs.”

I love this! In the 1980s the Reagan administration fought the psychological war of ideas through the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. These institutions passed messages of hope and liberty to the trapped and the enslaved behind the Iron Curtain. When I say messages of “hope” and “liberty,” I mean it literally. The Voice of America would pipe recordings of Mass being held by Pope John II behind the borders of the U.S.S.R. where people had to worship secretly. News of the world unfiltered by “Pravda” provided Soviet citizens with alternative sources of information.

In his book on Reagan, Dinesh D’Souza calls out the importance of these messages to the people inside the U.S.S.R. “…several former dissidents told Reagan that when they heard he had called the Soviets an “evil empire,” it gave them home, and they said to each other that America finally had a leader who clearly understood the nature of communism.”

Clearly, the Internet is the new medium of choice for the message of freedom. Now instead of just broadcasting messages into an oppressed country, the message can come from within, from the people themselves. Can you imagine the type of courage it must take to post an anti-establishment blog message inside Iran? Check out the Cartside blog for a further write up of the Weblogistan phenomenon. “A young man who calls himself Hoder has started nothing short of a media revolution in Iran. In the 'islamic republic', which human rights reporters label the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East, a new form of publicity is budding. Here of all places.”

The significance of this type of communication can not be emphasized enough. How does the saying go, “the first rule after you conquer a new country – take over the airways.” Controlling information is a way of keeping people down, of keeping them under control. Well, that’s no longer possible, is it? The emergence of the Internet means oppressed people can communicate with the rest of the world still.

The United States should adopt a policy of doing everything it can to nurture Internet communications between people in oppressive regimes. In Iran, this may not even be necessary. The country already has over 100,000 blogs (see a directory of many English/Farsi blogs at http://blogsbyiranians.com/). It is possible that one day Axis of Evil countries such as Iran and North Korea will stumble and fall—eaten out from within by the free flow of messages of hope and liberty.

How many stamps to send to Tuva?

I once read a set of personality test questions on the Internet. One of the questions was, "if you could meet any three people in the world alive or dead, who would they be, and why?" (Or something like that). One of the people I chose was Richard Feynman.

Feynman was one of many young physicist that worked on the Manhattan project. Later in life he won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum electrodynamics (no, I’m not exactly sure what that is-- something to do with quantum mechanics and particles taking every path at the same time rather than any of the infinite options). His 1959 lecture, "There's Plenty of room at the bottom," is also widely credited as the start of the science of nanotechnology. In addition, he was also the person who (among others I would guess) who figured out that the space shuttle Challenger exploded because of the faulty O-rings.

All of that is only half of why I chose him as one of the three I would like to meet. The other half was that he was just an extraordinarily interesting character. Feynman wrote several books about his adventures. Ever read about how a Nobel physist approaches meeting women? How about his experiments in sensory deprivation chambers? Better yet is his "hacker" past as a guy who made a hobby in the down time at Los Alamos cracking safes.

The U.S. Postal service has recently commissioned a new stamp of Feynman, and I just thought I'd take the opportunity to talk about him.

Exi-stencill-ism

Finally, all those frequent flier miles are paying off. In my house, unused FF miles go to free magazine subscriptions. I've been getting Esquire this way for a year or so, but the most recent issue has paid off in spades. An article, titled "I am Banksy," in the most recent issue details the author's search for what is now my new favorite artist, Robin Banksy. Apparently I am very late to the party, but who cares, this is good stuff.

His work has popped up in the form of graffiti all across London. Beyond the article, I've found two great places to view his stencils: His web site, here, and another site that actually shows many more pictures of his work around London, here (click on galleries on the right).

From my admittedly sub-half-day fandom state, I can tell you honestly in my now "expert" opinion that his work has a running subversive theme most often based on hope. Graffiti is a form of subversion in and of itself, but the actual content of his work seems to address authority and "state" rule in many ways. One picture is a of a large tank surrounded by soldiers looking very initiating with assault rifles and and all in black. What leaps out is that all of the soldiers have the yellow "have a nice day" smiley faces. Another cool one is on a brick wall facing a busy roadway. The picture is of two soldiers. One is down in a defensive stance, covering the other with his assault rifle while the second is shown bent over spray painting a large Peace symbol on the wall.

The pictures of hope are even more inspiring. They show worlds full of grey and sadness, but with subjects that have suddenly opened windows into different worlds of hope and possibility. According to the article, in July Banksy actually created nine pieces on the Palestinian side of the West Bank wall. One picture in the article shows a huge piece of the actual wall with a cracked and broken "hole" as if pushed through the wall. the actual fence looks like what it is, water-stained concrete, through the hole we see a boy at the beach with a bucket and shovel, framed by blue skies and puffy white clouds (similar but different than the one I've included above).

Past that, several of these works are just plain fun. My favorite shows a large UPC barcode symbol with bent "bars" in one section, and a leopard that has just "escaped" coming toward you.

Banksy has an interesting manifesto (read it here) on his site that captures the goal of his work much better than I have. It's the story of Lieutenant Colonel Mervin Willett Gonin, a British soldier who was one of the first to liberate the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945. It's haunting.

The Life Guard

“We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. And it’s been said if we lose that war and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours. History will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers.”
-Ronald Reagan, Rendezvous with Destiny speech, 1964

Today I finished re-watching “In the Face of Evil- Reagan’s War in Word and Deed.” This documentary, based on the book Regan’s War, is a fantastic review of Ronald Reagan’s crusade against defeat Communism. The movie reviews the different forms evil took in the twentieth century, Bolshevisms, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, and collectively refers to this evil as the “beast.”

In each of its forms, the beast exploits the dark side of humankind to enlist followers to gain power. Once in power the beast removes the basic forms of freedom from those under its control, freedom of religion, a free press, the power to express ones self, as well as anything representing the individual. In turn the movie reviews how time and again free society hopes the “wolf will pass the door” and leave it alone. Again and again mankind tries to negotiate with and to appease the beast, while at the same time vilifying as “war mongers” anyone who stands up and calls the beast what it is, evil.

Ronald Reagan, along with Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher were the modern day crusaders against the beast represented by the U.S.S.R. Ronald Reagan called Soviet Communism what it was, an evil “insanity” that murdered over 100 million people over the course of its history, and enslaved millions more in its Gulags.

Today, both liberals and conservatives (okay mostly liberals) assume that Ronald Reagan was a typical conservative Republican. This couldn’t be farther than from the truth. As the movie points out, Reagan was the only “true outsider” elected to the Presidency in the twentieth century. He was a radical. Reagan rejected the Nixon/Kissinger policy of Détente that sought peaceful co-existence with the Soviets. Gerald Ford’s almost total denial of the dangers of Communism in Eastern Europe pushed Reagan to run against him, a sitting President, for the Republican nomination in 1976.

Once in the White House, Reagan unleashed an all out war with the soul aim of destroying the Soviet Union. The documentary reviews the economic, political, and psychological attacks the U.S. launched against the Soviet Union (and the U.S.S.R’s fight back). Along with a close band of fellow crusaders, Bill Casey, Casper Weinberger, Ed Meese, Jean Kirkpatrick, and others, Regan’s agenda took root around the world in myriad forms.

This movie should be required viewing for every school child in America, both as an example of true courage in the face of evil, and as a warning against the beast. To my liberal friends who (hilariously) insist the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, watch this movie. To those who snicker at Reagan’s vision of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars), watch this movie and understand how critical that one program was, and why we may all be alive today because of "Star Wars."

Ronald Reagan, with the help of many others saved the world from a heinous form of the beast that murdered millions upon millions of human beings. I find it amazing that we can so clearly trace so much good and so many saved lives to the actions and faith of a single, great man.
Alas, the movie ends with images of September 11th, and points out that the beast lives on, just in a different form today. The beast reemerges in the guise of Radical Fundamentalism. Funny how even today they call those that call the beast what it is, “warmongers,” “Neo-cons,” “paranoids.” Someone (W?) must call it what it is, and never let up. Never surrender.

“Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid”
– Ronald Reagan 1981

Whither Russia?

There's an interesting and at the same time terrifying op-ed in the WSJ today by Garry Kasparov (yes, that Garry Kasparov). Mr. Kasparov has contributed to the WSJ a number of times about the state of post-communist Russia.

I'm as guilty as most Americans in forgetting about Russia now that the cold war is over. Mr. Kasparov's editorials give me pause and make me wonder if we're all in the midst of a colossal international blunder. Whether you subscribe to Margaret Thatcher's view that "Ronald Reagan won the cold war without firing a shot," (okay, guilty :-), or the view some of my liberal minded friends take that the U.S.S.R simply collapsed under its own weight (yeah right), no one can deny that the cold war was an undertaking that pulled in the entire world. Ronald Reagan dismissed Detente and pushed through his vision that communism could be beaten. He won us the war, but have we now failed him by not properly nurturing and protecting the "win?"

The United States and the world failed to learn its lesson after World War I and punished Germany by extracting reparations from that country-- virtually tee-ing up the rise of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler. The U.S. learned from that, and in the aftermath of the second World War constructed the Marshall Plan to prevent a repeat of the Nazis. That was largely a success. Germany, as well as Japan went on to become two of the most productive economies in the world.

However, because the cold war wasn't a "hot" war with a defined front line (admittedly unfairly discounting the pain and anguish of Afghanistan, El Salvador, etc.) I think most Americans tend to think the job is over. Certainly we've put billions of dollars into Russia in the form of aid since the break up of the U.S.S.R., but did we drop the ball along the way? It's not as straight forward as imposing our form of democracy on that country (now countries) , but did we pass up a chance to give them a the full "bear hug" of capitalism and democracy (pun intended ;-).

Mr. Kasparov's warning should be heeded by the U.S. immediately. One of the pillars of democracy, the rule of law, is almost non-existent in Russia. According to Mr. Kasparov, " the Russian court system currently boasts a conviction rate of over 99%." That can't be right.

Certainly September 11th has shifted the U.S. and the world's focus to radical fundamentalism. This is a real and present danger and needs to be confronted. At the same time, as the world's lone super power, the U.S. has a responsibility to engage Russia as a topic that is "very important, not yet urgent" before it becomes that way. As Mr. Kasparov points out, " The consequences of this transformation may only seem relevant to Russians today, but a Russia with a disintegrating economy and no respect for the rule of law will soon make our problems yours. "

Relentless

I watched Walter Payton, Beyond the Glory the other night and it’s a good thing that I was the only one home, because I balled my eyes out.

Walter Payton was my first sports hero. It was 1985, I lived in Northern Virginia, I was just getting into sports, and my friends, two brothers, Mark and Scott, used to live in Chicago. It happened to be the year that the Bears stomped everyone. The year of Refrigerator Perry. Jim McMahon. Mike Singletary. Willie Gault. Richard Dent. But the heart and soul of the Chicago Bears that year, and many before that, was Walter Payton.

The Beyond the Glory was a retrospective. It moved you to see just how many people absolutely loved this man. This guy from Mississippi who just showed up, and played SO hard. Someone in the show described him as “relentless,” and that is what stuck with me. He fought and he fought and he fought and just would not stop. Who wouldn’t love this man on his team? Who wouldn’t be inspired.

I had a book on tape that I got a year or two after that. It was Walter Payton on being successful in life. It was a series of thoughts and interviews, and I ate it all up. What a total inspiration this man was. What a horrible loss at such a young age. It’s been a few years since he passed on, but any time there’s ever a mention or a highlight reel on TV, stop and watch Walter Payton run.

The Columbine Drill

Very matter-of-factly my seventh grader informed me that her school was going to have a “lock down” drill this week. “What’s a lock down drill,” I asked. I always thought “lock down” was what they talked about during a riot in a prison movie. Well, it turns out that it is pretty much the same thing here. “It’s where we practice what to do if something really really bad was happening in the school.”

Welcome to 2005. Kids practice “lock down” techniques in the case of a crazy person (student or otherwise) should enter the school with guns a blazing. As a parent, this is totally petrifying to even ponder. School is out of your grasp and out of your protection. On the one hand you’re thankful they’re prepared (sort of), on the other you damn the fact that they need to be.

I suppose this is the 2005 equivalent of “the Russian’s are coming” bomb drills you see in 1950’s education films. Those must have been an ever present scare in some minds as well. In the late 1970’s in Michigan, all of our drills were for tornados. The only thing you needed to remember in a tornado drill, save keeping your head between your knees and a textbook over your head was to…open the window. You see a tornado could cause a sudden change in air pressure outside, and if the window were not open could cause the large plate glass windows to shatter all over the place. At least at Winans’ Elementary.

Angry Columbine kids seem so much more real, more regular, and more dangerous than those nuclear bomb films.

Celebrate Record Profits!

"And there's always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes,
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks.
But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell!!!!!!!!"
-Billy Joel

For the love of GOD! Can we please get some sense in our politicians and news media in this country! Is it possible that so many people were asleep in class when they taught the basic premise of the “American Way?” Folks the "profit motive" *IS* the American Way! It is profits that protect the United States of America! It is profits that enable us to do all of the good around the world that we do. As former GE CEO Jack Welch says, “Industry is the engine of Democracy!”

Exxon Mobile recently announce it’s largest single quarter profit in history, $9.9 Billion dollars. Talk is rampant in the media and in congress (both sides of the aisle – unbelievable!) that these profits are some sort of an outrage. Proposals for special taxes on these profits are running amuck. Lunacy! Does America not understand that profits pay for all new growth in this country?

Our country has myriad ways to raise money, but the primary two ways are both based on profits. The first way is to tax company profits or to tax individual’s income (i.e. personal profit ) or capital gains (i.e. profit) on realized appreciated value on property (never mind that that gets taxed twice). The second way our country raises funds to run itself is to borrow money based on its ability to pay the borrowed funds back (which it can do by taxing…profits).

This issue is a feeding frenzy of politicization in both the media and in congress. These are the same people with bees in their bonnets over America’s dependence on foreign oil. The same people that cried foul when hurricane Katrina wiped out much of the South’s oil drilling and distribution facilities. The same people who are against oil companies building new refineries in the U.S. (which incidentally could only be paid for with profits or borrowing backed up by earnings (profits))!

As an aside, ExxonMobile is a public company. Anyoney can purchase ExxonMobile stock and share in the same profits as the company does. In fact, anyone with a 401k or pension plan likely has some amount of money in large cap equity funds which because of Exxon's size almost inevitibly own stock in the company, and profit from the company's profits!

I worry that Joe Sixpack hears “10 billion dollars” and doesn’t place this number in perspective. This is such an astronomical sounding number that I worry most people say, “yeah, stick it to the man, tax his ass!” Typically when I get worked up about something like this I take a deep breath and say to myself, “trust the people.” They get it right in the end, but the “Angry Young Man” in me wants to rail against this insanity!

Hewlett Packard was famous for a new way of treating its employees. Values that placed respect on the individual and valued innovation and treating people right. For decades the “HP Way” as it came to be called has been heralded as the right way to treat employees, the right way to treat humans. An interesting and vital tenant of the HP Way that David Packard pointed out on more than one occasion made all the other good stuff possible, “run profitably.”

Who is Lying about Iraq?

There is a must read article in yesterday's Opinion Journal by Norman Podhoretz entitled, "Who is Lying About Iraq." Totally debunks the democrats claim that they were somehow "hoodwinked" into voting to give "W" the power to remove Sadaam Hussein. Also illustrates the lunacy of the whole Joe Wilson charade.

"He's Halfway There," according to Steve Forbes

So I've been anxiously waiting for the Steve Forbes "Fact and Comment," where he gives us his take on Ben Bernanke. Mr. Forbes, Editor-In-Chief of Forbes Magazine (best Magazine ever), provides a symposium on pragmatic economics in his Nov. 28th column. Given my "gut" feeling that Ben Bernanke's predisposition to inflation targets, I have been looking forward to Mr. Forbes take.

According to Mr. Forbes, Bernanke is at least progress, but not all the way there:

"He (Bernanke) has advocated adopting formal infaltion targets. This is progress-of a sort. The problem, of course, in targeting inflation is in deciding whitch indexes and market indicators (such as inflation-adjusted Treasury bods) to use. Indexes tell us what happened in the past. Monetary errors don't show up in indexes for at least a year. think of the proverbial tanker and how long it takes for the vessel to change direction after the captain has made the decision to do so."

Mr. Forbes points to the commodity markets - specifically gold - to give a real time indication of whether a set monetary policy is correct. The rest of the column on Bernanke is a great read.

The Elegant Universe

I just finished Brian Greene’s “The Elegant Universe – Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory.” This is a great read for a “non-scientist.” The book is the right mix of basics on Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory, plus a good dose of information that requires stretching your comprehension skills. I don’t pretend to understand most of it to the point that I could re-explain it to someone else, but Mr. Greene’s descriptions do pull you in and give you some insight into the type of work top physicists and mathematicians are involved with.

The primary subject of the book is Superstring theory and it’s potential for finally uniting the theories both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a Unified Theory.

“According to sting theory, the elementary ingredients of the universe are not point particles. Rather, they are tiny, one-dimensional filaments somewhat like infinitely thing rubber bands, vibrating to and fro.”

One of the most challenging aspects of the book (and in String Theory in general) is the need to think in more than the four dimensions we are so familiar with (length, width, height, and time). Different versions of string theory actually propose that our universe is made up of ten and eleven dimensions. Many of the diagrams in this book are particularly useful in helping your mind “stretch” to imagine what this might be like. In addition, I found many of the descriptions and diagrams in the book explaining “just” relativity and quantum mechanics to be better than those found in some other popular physics books I’ve read. I found the picture showing how the sun “warps” the fabric of space time through gravity was particularly useful.

Go "W!"

Finally! President Bush has come out swinging in defense of the bold path he has set us on in the Middle East. He has presented a strong argument explaining why reshaping the Middle East is critical to both the U.S. and all humanity. He points out that the terrorists see Iraq for what it is,

“…Zawahiri writes that al Qaeda views Iraq as, quote, "the place of the greatest battle." The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists.”

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and the President’s message is that the United States needs to show resolve and finish the job. I am reminded of a Ronald Reagan radio commentary (p. 58) discussing red China’s view of the United States in the late 1970’s. First he quotes their Foreign Minister:

“Go read American history, we have not seen such an instance in which the U.S. has had such resolve and courage to sacrifice for others. That is why we dare to conclude that the U.S. is a paper tiger.”
-Former China Foreign Minister Huang Hua, delivered in secret July 30 1977

And then comments himself:

“Now that isn’t the picture we have of ourselves and history (overall) does not support Huangs, image of us. But we should note the examples from recent history he used to support his view; the firing of McArthur in Korea because he wanted to win the war and our failure to be decisive in Vietnam… There is great danger to us in this false image making. It is more often than not the road to war.”
-Ronald Reagan, “China.” From his syndicated radio show April 3, 1978

Is there any doubt that the message being sent by today’s Democratic party and the antiwar left is that the U.S. lacks resolve? What message do they want to present to the world in their attempt to rewrite their post Sept. 11th views? The point has not been lost on Al Qaeda as the President notes from a letter from Zawahiri, “he points to the Vietnam War as a model for al Qaeda. This is what he said. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy."

The President is absolutely right to call out these critics on their hypocrisy on the decision to invade Iraq. He notes that over 100 Democrats in the House and Senate voted to give him the power to go to war based on the same intelligence the administration had. Dissent is fine and healthy, but especially in the total vacuum from the left on alternatives to the current course, Democrats need to seriously consider what message they are sending to the outside world with their revisionist version of the decision to go to war.

Markets want stability...and predictability

Ben Bernanke, President Bush's nominee to be chairman of the Federal Reserve, is an outspoken proponent for "inflation targeting (subscription required)." I'm no interest rate or monetary policy expert, but the basic tenants of the concept resonate with me.

Inflation targeting is essentially the concept that the Fed would publicly announce a monetary policy that targets a specific rate for inflation growth (most talked about is somewhere between 1 and 2%) or at least a range that they want it to fall in to. For the past eighteen years, under Alan Greenspan, the Fed has successfully fought inflation through the use of calculated rate increases and decreases, but has done so behind closed doors. "Fed watching," the process of guessing "what they'll do next" has become nothing less than a sport.

As mentioned in the article, the need for predictability has been known for a long time. "Economists came to realize in the 1970s that to contain inflation in the present, they needed to control the expectations of individuals and businesses about where inflation was going in the future."

The reason Inflation targeting is gaining so many proponents is that it provides much more predictability. Financial markets, while moved by hard numbers over the long term, are moved in the short-term with a heavy dose of psychology (Ben Graham's proverbial "Mr. Market"). Is it healthy for the market to change what it does in anticipation of a Fed move, and then immediately correct after new policy has been announced?

Markets crave stability. This is why in equity markets companies smooth their results by managing their earnings. Everyone knows that during the boom Cisco Systems was brining in cash hand over fist each quarter, but strangely, quarter after quarter their results would come in exactly .01 over the analyst expectations. Everyone is aware this earnings management is going on and no one cares because they know actual results are even better. It's seen as good financial management to chalk up nice predictable numbers like that.

This kind of predictability is why an inflation targeting Fed policy sits well with me. Steve Forbes has been arguing for years in his column Fact and Comment that the U.S. economy would be better served by tying monetary policy to a predictable underlying metric (in his argument, the price of Gold). While Mr. Greenspan has in many respects provided the stability the market needed by being himself, what the U.S. (and the world) needs going forward is a policy that provides the predictability and stability the market needs no matter who sits in that seat.

(Disclaimer: I've left out a discussion of the flexibility in time of crisis that the Fed would "give up" by following an inflation targeting policy. It is a valid issue/point of view. There's a good discussion of that in the article I've linked to in the WSJ at the top of this post.)

Peter Druker RIP

WSJ News flash - Peter Druker, 95 dies Full Story.

A loss, but what a fantastic contribution to the world.

Darth Venter – Competition focuses innovation

Out with friends last night I had a conversation with a friend of a friend that struck me as interesting in regard to the concept of competition in science and technology. This guy works on a genetics research project that is run by Harvard and MIT. Of course, I read just enough popular science books and articles to be dangerous, so I immediately asked him about Craig Venter. His reply was a bark of laughter and an acknowledgement, “yes, we call him Darth Venter!”

If you don’t know who J. Craig Venter is, he is one of the people who is at the forefront of mapping the Human Genome using “shotgun sequencing technology (on the right in the picture). His Wikipedia entry mentions that he became “infamous for running a Human genome Project for its own commercial purposes,” (GASP!) From various articles you read about him he sounds like a brilliant, egotistical, and incredibly arrogant person. That’s how he’s described, but bull-headedness is a prerequisite for innovation. In my mind he sounds like an incredibly interesting person.

So I thought it was funny to find out that his competition calls him “Darth,” and it occurred to me how incredibly healthy that is. At the same time he gave him all the attributes of Lord Vader, he also acknowledged that Venter has moved the entire industry forward. Competition is what drives many a new discovery. I just finish reading “The Double Helix” in which James Watson describes the competition to discover and fully explain DNA (incidentally, it’s also credited as one of the first real written works of “popular science”). The book is the description of the multiple teams who are all working on the project in competition (and “co-opetition”), and all of the science department and grant politics that go into controlling who can work on what.

Rich Karlgaard, the Publisher of Forbes (greatest magazine ever) also had a great column last week called, “Why We Need Goofy Contests.” From railroads to rocketry, many advances have come from crazy competitions. Karlgaard points to the success of Burt Rutan and the X-prize, and asks why NASA doesn’t raise it’s paltry $20 million in annual prize/reward money to something more like $2 Billion. It’s a great question. Competition clearly pushes innovation, and what are “token” or “paltry” sums to our government (and arguably wasted they way it’s spent today) could prove to be tremendous motivators for the scientists and engineers of tomorrow.

Just look at the Pentagon sponsored Robot Races in the desert, and the absolute drive and energy it has focused on the robotics industry. Congress has mandated that one third of all military ground vehicles be “unmanned” by the year 2015. One option would be for DARPA to contract a single defense contractor to build robotic vehicles (through a competitive RFP of course). But how much faster will they get there, and how much better will the final solution be because many teams scrapped through a contest that emulates the real-world problem? Faster, better, cheaper. Foster Competition, and you’ll foster innovation.