The final day of the best of Mr. Blogger from June 22nd.
This post epitomizes what Mr. Blogger does best - a brief statement of the point or issue followed by excerpts from a trusted source illuminating his points. A great approach for the person who wants to be informed but doesn't have the time to read everything on the subject.
TW: One does not hear an extraordinary amount about Hillary Clinton. She is in the news about as often as most secretaries of state but not as much as an almost POTUS nominee and a controversial former First Lady might be. The same thing happened when she became a first-term Senator from NY, she quietly went about her business in an effective manner.
Merely restoring the State Department to its traditional role as the primary diplomatic in place of the Pentagon is a huge and positive step. It is very early but so far she and Obama have made a pretty strong team.
From Economist:
"...Mischief-makers have been trying to discover tensions between the two former rivals ever since Mrs Clinton moved to Foggy Bottom in January. So far they have been frustrated...
Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have hewed to the same line over the current uproar in Iran—expressing worries about the violence but avoiding raising the spectre of “American interference”. Mrs Clinton has followed Mr Obama’s lead in holding out a welcoming hand to assorted anti-American strongmen. “President Obama won the election. He beat me in a primary in which he put forth a different approach,” was her sharp response to a Republican congressman who reminded her of her former hawkishness when Mr Obama shook Hugo Chávez’s hand. Mrs Clinton now enjoys the highest popularity rating of any of Mr Obama’s cabinet; she also enjoys the admiration of some Republicans...
Mrs Clinton’s success has partly been a matter of good fortune. The State Department is delighted to see the arrival of an administration that does not regard Foggy Bottom as enemy-occupied territory. It also has better relations with the Pentagon than it has had for years. If Donald Rumsfeld went out of his way to antagonise State, Robert Gates, who replaced him in 2006, has bent over backwards to woo it, publicly agonising over the “creeping militarisation” of foreign policy and calling for a “dramatic increase” in the “civilian instruments” of national security, such as diplomacy and foreign aid.
...She has struck a balance between deploying her star power and deferring to the president. She is routinely greeted as a rock star wherever she goes, and has enjoyed mixing with ordinary people: holding a spirited discussion with the teenage audience of an Indonesian television show, “Awesome”, for example. But she has always known when to defer to Mr Obama or other cabinet secretaries, such as Tim Geithner.
...Mrs Clinton has also seemed content to delegate the day-to-day management of some of the world’s most volatile regions to special envoys: the Afghanistan-Pakistan region to Mr Holbrooke; the Middle East peace process to George Mitchell...But in general Mrs Clinton has disentangled herself enough from the daily demands of these regions to focus on strategic questions that are too often given short shrift: overhauling the management of foreign aid, improving the United States’ relations with Latin America and managing the rise of Asia, which is arguably the most important strategic issue facing the country..."
~ The Economist
Showing posts with label classic posts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic posts. Show all posts
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Classic Post: Odds And Ends 2009
TW: So the final "Best Of 2009" Odds And Ends this time. Buildings that are nice to see but for most part I would not want to have to see too often...
From Ms. Blogger circa October 2009:
There’s been a LOT of construction in the River North area since we moved into the White House – I guess after almost 10 years, that’s not so unusual. Most of the new building has been residential and most of that has been pretty basic.
Sometimes basic is good…interesting as the buildings below might be, I’m not sure I would want to see them every time I looked out the window.
Kansas City Public Library
Kansas City, MO (source: 3)
Dancing House
Prague, Czech Republic (source: 4)
Krzywy Dom - Crooked House
Sopot, Poland (source: 2)
Longaberger Basket
Longeberger Basket Company headquarters - Newark, OH
(source: 4)
Forest Spiral
Hundertwasser Building - Darmstadt, Germany (source: 1)
Hang Nga Guesthouse
Vietnam (source: 1)
Sources:
1. ArtHistoryArchive.com - Bizarre Architecture
2. Quazen.com - Crazy and Bizarre Architecture
3. toptenz.net - Top 10 Bizarre Feats of Architecture
4. toptenz.net - Top 10 Eccentric Buildings
From Ms. Blogger circa October 2009:
There’s been a LOT of construction in the River North area since we moved into the White House – I guess after almost 10 years, that’s not so unusual. Most of the new building has been residential and most of that has been pretty basic.
Sometimes basic is good…interesting as the buildings below might be, I’m not sure I would want to see them every time I looked out the window.
Kansas City Public Library
Kansas City, MO (source: 3)Dancing House
Prague, Czech Republic (source: 4)Krzywy Dom - Crooked House
Sopot, Poland (source: 2)Longaberger Basket
Longeberger Basket Company headquarters - Newark, OH(source: 4)
Forest Spiral
Hundertwasser Building - Darmstadt, Germany (source: 1)Hang Nga Guesthouse
Vietnam (source: 1)Sources:
1. ArtHistoryArchive.com - Bizarre Architecture
2. Quazen.com - Crazy and Bizarre Architecture
3. toptenz.net - Top 10 Bizarre Feats of Architecture
4. toptenz.net - Top 10 Eccentric Buildings
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Abe Lincoln, Bi-Partisanship and Barack Obama
Day 6 of the best of Mr. Blogger - January 16th
One of the many excellent political posts that Mr. Blogger has done - this one briefly summarizes a great book and ties it in to our current political environment.
TW: "Team of Rivals" is a great book but not because of any tenuous parallels to Obama and Hillary Clinton. The book is really two books. The first one tracked the lives of four contenders for the 1860 Republican nomination (Lincoln, Will Seward, Salmon Chase and Ed Bates), providing interesting insight into pre-Civil War American history. The second provided great insight into how Abe Lincoln actually thought as he worked his way through his Presidency.
Once the South seceded, Lincoln's primary foes in government were the Radical Republicans whose primary concern was the abolition of slavery. Lincoln's primary legacy is as the Great Emancipator. But had the Radical Republicans in his own party had their way, Lincoln would have had to move toward abolition prematurely putting the viability of the Union at great risk, perhaps mortal risk.
Lincoln handled emancipation brilliantly, it was his handling of that challenge and innumerable others which transformed his many skeptics into devoted followers by the end of his life.
Countless times the left-wing of the Democratic party will get frustrated with Obama. There was a kerfuffle when Obama made Rick Warren part of the inauguration, some on the left are fretting about the speed by which Guantanamo will be closed. There will be other far more serious flaps. But for those interested in moving American forward in general and making America more progressive in general, lets hope Obama like Lincoln can push when needed but pullback as well.
One of the many excellent political posts that Mr. Blogger has done - this one briefly summarizes a great book and ties it in to our current political environment.
TW: "Team of Rivals" is a great book but not because of any tenuous parallels to Obama and Hillary Clinton. The book is really two books. The first one tracked the lives of four contenders for the 1860 Republican nomination (Lincoln, Will Seward, Salmon Chase and Ed Bates), providing interesting insight into pre-Civil War American history. The second provided great insight into how Abe Lincoln actually thought as he worked his way through his Presidency.
Once the South seceded, Lincoln's primary foes in government were the Radical Republicans whose primary concern was the abolition of slavery. Lincoln's primary legacy is as the Great Emancipator. But had the Radical Republicans in his own party had their way, Lincoln would have had to move toward abolition prematurely putting the viability of the Union at great risk, perhaps mortal risk.
Lincoln handled emancipation brilliantly, it was his handling of that challenge and innumerable others which transformed his many skeptics into devoted followers by the end of his life.
Countless times the left-wing of the Democratic party will get frustrated with Obama. There was a kerfuffle when Obama made Rick Warren part of the inauguration, some on the left are fretting about the speed by which Guantanamo will be closed. There will be other far more serious flaps. But for those interested in moving American forward in general and making America more progressive in general, lets hope Obama like Lincoln can push when needed but pullback as well.
Classic Post: Chicago 2009
TW: Choosing a Chicago post is challenging as there is so much good about Chicago that limiting it to one is tough. So I headed in a bit of a different direction. This post is not as relevant as some to the general public, but I can attest Ms. Blogger was thrilled with the new water taxi service which initiated this year from a dock a block from our place. Hence in her honor we go with this classic post from August of last year...
I went in to the office on Wednesday. Although this is unusual in itself because I only work on a project basis and don't go in to the office all that often, the truly unusual aspect of this event is that I commuted by water taxi!
Yep, the Erie / Larrabee stop of the Shoreline Water Taxi commuter route opened this week. Aside from being a MONSTER bargain ($1 in the morning, $3 in the afternoon), it was also a delightful way to make my way in to the loop.
click to enlarge.
The route couldn’t be more perfect for my commuting needs – one dock is 2 blocks from my house, the other is 1 block from my office. Almost makes me wish I was working full time again…
Photos from my ride - taken with a pretty low tech cell phone so not all that high def
I went in to the office on Wednesday. Although this is unusual in itself because I only work on a project basis and don't go in to the office all that often, the truly unusual aspect of this event is that I commuted by water taxi!
Yep, the Erie / Larrabee stop of the Shoreline Water Taxi commuter route opened this week. Aside from being a MONSTER bargain ($1 in the morning, $3 in the afternoon), it was also a delightful way to make my way in to the loop.
click to enlarge.The route couldn’t be more perfect for my commuting needs – one dock is 2 blocks from my house, the other is 1 block from my office. Almost makes me wish I was working full time again…
Photos from my ride - taken with a pretty low tech cell phone so not all that high def
Friday, January 8, 2010
An Ode To Wrigley Field
Day 5 of the best of Mr. Blogger - September 15th
I love baseball. It means that Spring is here and good weather is on the way. It's also the only professional sport I really enjoy watching - whether on television or at the park. And Wrigley Field is one of the best places to see a game, no question. Wrigely might also hold some special memories for me...
TW: Was at the game Sunday with my brother, we were talking about how we hoped the new Cubs owners would not screw up Wrigley Field. Sunday was also the beat writer for the Reds, Hal McCoy's last game at Wrigley on the job. He summarized his thoughts on his blog:
"As I sit in the press box high above Wrigley, scanning the horizon to see the high rise buildings and Lake Michigan, I think of 37 years of coming to these hallowed grounds. They can talk all they want about Fenway Park, this is THE place to watch baseball. This is what baseball is all about.
Amazingly, the place has changed very little over 37 years - a few new seats crowded into the corners and a while bunch of grandstands atop the brownstone buildings on Waveland and Sheffield. The old-time scoreboard remains the same and the boisterous and belligerent Bleacher Bums remain the same.
But they’re gone now and I’m left here with my memories, of great times, of mostly day baseball, the way it was meant to be played. I love this park when it is empty and I love it when it is full.
...I could sit here and gape for hours, watch the elevated trains beyond the center field bleachers, watch the fans hitting all the bars in Wrigleyville, listen to the sirens from the firehouse behind the left field wall - a firehouse that has to be one of the busiest in Chicago because sirens are constant.
I can look at the ivy on the brick outfield walls and remember outfielder after outfielder getting tangled in the branches and searching frantically for lodged baseballs.
But I have a plane to catch home, so I’ll take my last look around this baseball pasture, this REAL Field of Dreams, and with a tear or two at the corner of my eyes, I’ll walk to the left field corner, take one last glance very close to the left field foul pole, then walk down a portal to the elevator and leave by the gate across from the firehouse. I’ll hail a cab and watch another dream fade over my shoulders."
I love baseball. It means that Spring is here and good weather is on the way. It's also the only professional sport I really enjoy watching - whether on television or at the park. And Wrigley Field is one of the best places to see a game, no question. Wrigely might also hold some special memories for me...
TW: Was at the game Sunday with my brother, we were talking about how we hoped the new Cubs owners would not screw up Wrigley Field. Sunday was also the beat writer for the Reds, Hal McCoy's last game at Wrigley on the job. He summarized his thoughts on his blog:
"As I sit in the press box high above Wrigley, scanning the horizon to see the high rise buildings and Lake Michigan, I think of 37 years of coming to these hallowed grounds. They can talk all they want about Fenway Park, this is THE place to watch baseball. This is what baseball is all about.
Amazingly, the place has changed very little over 37 years - a few new seats crowded into the corners and a while bunch of grandstands atop the brownstone buildings on Waveland and Sheffield. The old-time scoreboard remains the same and the boisterous and belligerent Bleacher Bums remain the same.
But they’re gone now and I’m left here with my memories, of great times, of mostly day baseball, the way it was meant to be played. I love this park when it is empty and I love it when it is full.
...I could sit here and gape for hours, watch the elevated trains beyond the center field bleachers, watch the fans hitting all the bars in Wrigleyville, listen to the sirens from the firehouse behind the left field wall - a firehouse that has to be one of the busiest in Chicago because sirens are constant.
I can look at the ivy on the brick outfield walls and remember outfielder after outfielder getting tangled in the branches and searching frantically for lodged baseballs.
But I have a plane to catch home, so I’ll take my last look around this baseball pasture, this REAL Field of Dreams, and with a tear or two at the corner of my eyes, I’ll walk to the left field corner, take one last glance very close to the left field foul pole, then walk down a portal to the elevator and leave by the gate across from the firehouse. I’ll hail a cab and watch another dream fade over my shoulders."
Classic Posts: Science 2009
TW: Continuing the best of 2009 with Sciences. Ms. Blogger put me onto Feynman, he was brilliant but more importantly able and willing to articulate complexity for us mere mortals, a true gift.
I mentioned the physicist Richard Feynman a couple weeks ago - his 1959 lecture at CalTech
"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" was the first to describe the possibility of molecular engineering, the science we now know as nanotechnology.
Feynman had an amazing career - at 25 he was recruited to work on the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos New Mexico, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics (with 2 others) for his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics in 1965, and he participated on the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986.
The man was brilliant and held in very high regard in the scientific community.
- apparently, the opportunity to work in sunny California was of higher priority than working at an institution that counted Albert Einstein amongst its faculty.
He had a passion and a special skill for teaching - called "The Great Explainer", Feynman was able to communicate complex ideas in a way that made students compete to get into his classes.
In addition to teaching and doing physicist stuff (development of the Feynman diagrams used to conceptualize and predict interactions between particles, research into superconductivity, assisting in the development of the first massively parallel computer, that kind of stuff), Feynman also did some writing. I highly recommend Surely You Must be Joking, Mr. Feynman, a recounting of some of his efforts and exploits and The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, a posthumous publication of some of his best pieces. Both are very entertaining and you'll likely learn something too.
From March, 2009:
The audio clip below is a perfect example of his 'explaining' skills - see the sites below for more on the amazing Mr. Feynman.
The Universe in a Glass of Wine
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/feynman.html
http://www.feynmanonline.com/
You can also type 'Richard Feynman' into YouTube and see plenty of video clips from interviews and presentations.
I mentioned the physicist Richard Feynman a couple weeks ago - his 1959 lecture at CalTech"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" was the first to describe the possibility of molecular engineering, the science we now know as nanotechnology.
Feynman had an amazing career - at 25 he was recruited to work on the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos New Mexico, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics (with 2 others) for his contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics in 1965, and he participated on the panel that investigated the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986.
The man was brilliant and held in very high regard in the scientific community.
"There are two kinds of geniuses: the 'ordinary' and theBut what Feynman was best known for, and most proud of, was his role as a teacher. He taught first at Cornell (1945 - 1950) and then at Cal Tech (from 1950 until his death in 1988) although he was offered a position at the Institue for Advanced Study at Princeton
'magicians'. An ordinary genius is a fellow whom you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what they've done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. Even after we understand what they have done it is completely dark. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest calibre."
~ Mark Kac, Mathematician
- apparently, the opportunity to work in sunny California was of higher priority than working at an institution that counted Albert Einstein amongst its faculty.
He had a passion and a special skill for teaching - called "The Great Explainer", Feynman was able to communicate complex ideas in a way that made students compete to get into his classes.
In addition to teaching and doing physicist stuff (development of the Feynman diagrams used to conceptualize and predict interactions between particles, research into superconductivity, assisting in the development of the first massively parallel computer, that kind of stuff), Feynman also did some writing. I highly recommend Surely You Must be Joking, Mr. Feynman, a recounting of some of his efforts and exploits and The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, a posthumous publication of some of his best pieces. Both are very entertaining and you'll likely learn something too.
From March, 2009:
The audio clip below is a perfect example of his 'explaining' skills - see the sites below for more on the amazing Mr. Feynman.
The Universe in a Glass of Wine
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/feynman.html
http://www.feynmanonline.com/
You can also type 'Richard Feynman' into YouTube and see plenty of video clips from interviews and presentations.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Visit Omaha Beach If You Ever Have a Chance
Day 4 of the best of Mr. Blogger - June 6th
I've been to Omaha Beach once - with Mr. Blogger. It is truly an awe inspiring place.
Omaha Beach is the living reminder of those ideals. It is a beautiful and placid locale, which if at possible all Americans should visit, it is after all American territory.
I've been to Omaha Beach once - with Mr. Blogger. It is truly an awe inspiring place.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
TW: D-Day is passing from living memory to historical etchings. D-Day retains its resonance due to its metaphorical role for Americans and others throughout the world. D-Day represents (accurately or otherwise) some of the best bits of America- self-sacrifice in the pursuit of liberty, performed primarily by the unheralded members of our society embodied by the G.I. Joes deployed on June 6th, 1944. Ultimately the impact of D-Day is not really the direct impact that battle had on World War II or even France, but rather those metaphorical implications which frame the views Americans have of themselves and outsiders of Americans.Omaha Beach is the living reminder of those ideals. It is a beautiful and placid locale, which if at possible all Americans should visit, it is after all American territory.
Classic Post: Books 2009
TW: The Best of 2009 "Books" from April, 2009
From Laura:
Book stores are special places. No matter where I might be traveling, I can walk into a bookstore and immediately be at home. And while I'm not above ordering from Amazon every now and then, there is something about wandering up and down the aisles of a bookstore -seeing old friends, finding something new from an author you've read before or discovering a completely new voice, that you just don't get from the on-line experience.
Anyone who reads a lot likely has a favorite bookstore, maybe even more than one. The three below often show up on current lists of best bookstores and for good reason. Although the big chains like Borders and Barnes & Noble will have bigger inventories of current titles, I have never walked out of one of these three without having found something of interest that I am pretty sure would be hard to find at one of the chains. If you ever have the opportunity, I highly recommend stopping in to browse.
City Lights in San Francisco
Almost more interesting than what you'll find in the store is the store's history. Check out their website to learn more about this historical place founded in 1953 by poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Peter D. Martin. http://www.citylights.com/
The Strand in NYC
The Strand is a used bookstore. Let me re-phrase, the Strand is a used bookstore of unequaled size and selection.
Inside the Strand - 18 miles of books...
It's easy to get lost in this place, I've only made it up to the top floor once in the many times I've been here. There's just too much on the ground floor and in the basement (where they keep the review copies of new titles) to explore. And although I am not a big fan of the makeover they did a couple years ago - I much preferred the books packed in so tight that you could hardly walk down the aisles - they still have the feel of an old school hardware store, one where you're not sure what treasure is waiting for you in the next bin. Their website is just as fun - check it out to see what they've got in stock now as well as for info on some of their special services like 'Books by the Foot' for decorating and design needs. http://www.strandbooks.com/
Kramer Books in D.C.
Kramer Books is probably my favorite of the three. I found this perfect bookstore in 1989 when I lived in D.C. for 9 months. In addition to a great place for brunch or lunch as well as live music on weekend evenings, Kramer Books has the best selection of fiction and non-fiction I have ever run across. While not as large as the chains, their selection of popular science, history and political titles is so well put together that all but the most esoteric interests are covered. On the fiction side of the house, they have all the expected authors and titles plus options that you don't find in the chains, at least not until they hit the best seller list. A great place for finding something new and interesting plus you can take your purchase to the cafe and get started reading immediately!
http://www.kramers.com/
So what's missing from my list? I don't have a favorite bookstore in Chicago. I used to love Aspidistra, the used bookstore on north Clark that closed years ago but I haven't found anything to take its place. Powell's Books has been recommended and I'll check out the Wabash location next time I'm downtown but I don't see myself taking the train down to Hyde Park for the original location. And given the current economy, new independent bookstores are not likely any time soon. I have a feeling that I'm going to need another trip to DC soon.
From Laura:
Book stores are special places. No matter where I might be traveling, I can walk into a bookstore and immediately be at home. And while I'm not above ordering from Amazon every now and then, there is something about wandering up and down the aisles of a bookstore -seeing old friends, finding something new from an author you've read before or discovering a completely new voice, that you just don't get from the on-line experience.
Anyone who reads a lot likely has a favorite bookstore, maybe even more than one. The three below often show up on current lists of best bookstores and for good reason. Although the big chains like Borders and Barnes & Noble will have bigger inventories of current titles, I have never walked out of one of these three without having found something of interest that I am pretty sure would be hard to find at one of the chains. If you ever have the opportunity, I highly recommend stopping in to browse.
City Lights in San Francisco
Almost more interesting than what you'll find in the store is the store's history. Check out their website to learn more about this historical place founded in 1953 by poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti and Peter D. Martin. http://www.citylights.com/
The Strand in NYC
The Strand is a used bookstore. Let me re-phrase, the Strand is a used bookstore of unequaled size and selection.Inside the Strand - 18 miles of books...
It's easy to get lost in this place, I've only made it up to the top floor once in the many times I've been here. There's just too much on the ground floor and in the basement (where they keep the review copies of new titles) to explore. And although I am not a big fan of the makeover they did a couple years ago - I much preferred the books packed in so tight that you could hardly walk down the aisles - they still have the feel of an old school hardware store, one where you're not sure what treasure is waiting for you in the next bin. Their website is just as fun - check it out to see what they've got in stock now as well as for info on some of their special services like 'Books by the Foot' for decorating and design needs. http://www.strandbooks.com/Kramer Books in D.C.
Kramer Books is probably my favorite of the three. I found this perfect bookstore in 1989 when I lived in D.C. for 9 months. In addition to a great place for brunch or lunch as well as live music on weekend evenings, Kramer Books has the best selection of fiction and non-fiction I have ever run across. While not as large as the chains, their selection of popular science, history and political titles is so well put together that all but the most esoteric interests are covered. On the fiction side of the house, they have all the expected authors and titles plus options that you don't find in the chains, at least not until they hit the best seller list. A great place for finding something new and interesting plus you can take your purchase to the cafe and get started reading immediately!http://www.kramers.com/
So what's missing from my list? I don't have a favorite bookstore in Chicago. I used to love Aspidistra, the used bookstore on north Clark that closed years ago but I haven't found anything to take its place. Powell's Books has been recommended and I'll check out the Wabash location next time I'm downtown but I don't see myself taking the train down to Hyde Park for the original location. And given the current economy, new independent bookstores are not likely any time soon. I have a feeling that I'm going to need another trip to DC soon.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The Death Of Books...Or At Least the Evolution Of Reading
Day 3 of the best of Mr. Blogger - March 13th
Every once in a while, Mr. Blogger and I agree about books
TW: One silver lining (at least I hope) to this mini-depression period will be waking up next year and beyond to some hot new technologies. Typically technologies are so hyped that they seem to be advancing at an almost snail's pace since we hear about them long before they are commercializable. In this environment, we are so focused on the mess that the technological troops are advancing somewhat below the radar screen.
One such technology maybe how we read books and magazines. I am an avowed cro-magnon in this area. I like the tactile feel of books and magazines. I am sure there are specific physical and psychological reasons but I am too lazy to discern them. Yet I suspect that by doing so I am now showing my age.
I suspect within the next decade physical book and magazine sales will plummet although digital book and magazine will skyrocket. In twenty years college kids may look back at folks like me and wonder how we could possibly be so retro as to yearn for a deadwood reading instrument.
The technology to deliver books and magazines in a form as readable as the physical version yet down loadable at a click is nearing fruition. The Amazon Kindle is merely the first of what will be many devices delivering information digitally. The remaining obstacle is the revenue model. How to create system whereby the user can pay sufficiently to support the suppliers with viable profitability.
From Fortune:
"...Today the Kindle and the Sony Reader are mostly suited to books because their six-inch-diagonal, black-and-white displays simply don't provide a good enough reading experience and advertising environment for magazines and newspapers. But at least a half-dozen companies, including giants like Hewlett-Packard...and Fujitsu and startups such as Polymer Vision, FirstPaper, and Plastic Logic, are developing a new crop of readers, some of which will start hitting the market later this year. Designed with the requirements of newspapers and magazines in mind, they will feature larger screens (to make it easier to navigate through stories), wireless updating (something the Kindle has made a requirement), better image resolution, and eventually color and video.
These gadgets could be pulled straight out of the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. Imagine wirelessly downloading an issue of your favorite magazine onto an 8- by 11-inch plastic screen that is light and durable enough to throw into your briefcase, to take to the beach, or to read in your easy chair on a Sunday morning. The resolution of each page is as clear as what you find in today's magazines, and the photographs appear in striking color. Flip the page with a touch of your finger, and an ad for, say, BMW appears. Touch the image of that navy-blue 3 Series, and a video shows the car slicing through the hills of Bavaria.
...The Kindle might be the salvation of books, but magazines and newspapers have a different business model. They rely on revenue from reader subscriptions and from advertising, and those trends are not encouraging. The industry's contraction is happening at a time when paper prices are high and postal costs are rising. E-readers could dramatically reduce those costs. Buying paper and ink, printing, and delivering a newspaper or magazine can account for more than 50% of the overall cost of producing the periodical. E-readers also turn out to be good for the environment - fewer trees are cut down to make paper
...On a sunny winter day at Plastic Logic's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, CEO Archuleta pulls out an 8- by 11-inch white plastic sheet about an eighth-inch thick. He touches a button in the upper left corner, and a menu appears listing documents, spreadsheets, newspapers, and magazines. Less than a pound in weight, the Plastic Logic reader, which the company says it will start selling early next year, has the feel of a clipboard. A slim lithium ion battery powers it for several days' worth of reading on a single charge. Like the Kindle, the Plastic Logic reader permits uploading documents from a PC..."
~ CNN
Every once in a while, Mr. Blogger and I agree about books
TW: One silver lining (at least I hope) to this mini-depression period will be waking up next year and beyond to some hot new technologies. Typically technologies are so hyped that they seem to be advancing at an almost snail's pace since we hear about them long before they are commercializable. In this environment, we are so focused on the mess that the technological troops are advancing somewhat below the radar screen.
One such technology maybe how we read books and magazines. I am an avowed cro-magnon in this area. I like the tactile feel of books and magazines. I am sure there are specific physical and psychological reasons but I am too lazy to discern them. Yet I suspect that by doing so I am now showing my age.
I suspect within the next decade physical book and magazine sales will plummet although digital book and magazine will skyrocket. In twenty years college kids may look back at folks like me and wonder how we could possibly be so retro as to yearn for a deadwood reading instrument.
The technology to deliver books and magazines in a form as readable as the physical version yet down loadable at a click is nearing fruition. The Amazon Kindle is merely the first of what will be many devices delivering information digitally. The remaining obstacle is the revenue model. How to create system whereby the user can pay sufficiently to support the suppliers with viable profitability.
From Fortune:
"...Today the Kindle and the Sony Reader are mostly suited to books because their six-inch-diagonal, black-and-white displays simply don't provide a good enough reading experience and advertising environment for magazines and newspapers. But at least a half-dozen companies, including giants like Hewlett-Packard...and Fujitsu and startups such as Polymer Vision, FirstPaper, and Plastic Logic, are developing a new crop of readers, some of which will start hitting the market later this year. Designed with the requirements of newspapers and magazines in mind, they will feature larger screens (to make it easier to navigate through stories), wireless updating (something the Kindle has made a requirement), better image resolution, and eventually color and video.
These gadgets could be pulled straight out of the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report. Imagine wirelessly downloading an issue of your favorite magazine onto an 8- by 11-inch plastic screen that is light and durable enough to throw into your briefcase, to take to the beach, or to read in your easy chair on a Sunday morning. The resolution of each page is as clear as what you find in today's magazines, and the photographs appear in striking color. Flip the page with a touch of your finger, and an ad for, say, BMW appears. Touch the image of that navy-blue 3 Series, and a video shows the car slicing through the hills of Bavaria.
...The Kindle might be the salvation of books, but magazines and newspapers have a different business model. They rely on revenue from reader subscriptions and from advertising, and those trends are not encouraging. The industry's contraction is happening at a time when paper prices are high and postal costs are rising. E-readers could dramatically reduce those costs. Buying paper and ink, printing, and delivering a newspaper or magazine can account for more than 50% of the overall cost of producing the periodical. E-readers also turn out to be good for the environment - fewer trees are cut down to make paper
...On a sunny winter day at Plastic Logic's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, CEO Archuleta pulls out an 8- by 11-inch white plastic sheet about an eighth-inch thick. He touches a button in the upper left corner, and a menu appears listing documents, spreadsheets, newspapers, and magazines. Less than a pound in weight, the Plastic Logic reader, which the company says it will start selling early next year, has the feel of a clipboard. A slim lithium ion battery powers it for several days' worth of reading on a single charge. Like the Kindle, the Plastic Logic reader permits uploading documents from a PC..."
~ CNN
Classic Posts: Food 2009
TW: For Ms. Blogger's best "Food" of 2009 we go back to a February, 2009 post:
From This is why you're fat a site where people submit photos of 'food'. It doesn't say whether or not anyone has actually eaten any of these items but given that the US has the highest obesity rate of any nation in the world, I wouldn't be suprised.
The Double Bacon Hamburger Fatty Melt
Three bacon-stuffed grilled cheese sandwichs for buns, cheese, bacon and two four-ounce beef patties.
Now that I take another look, the sloppy joe on a krispy kreme here looks kind of tasty...
From This is why you're fat a site where people submit photos of 'food'. It doesn't say whether or not anyone has actually eaten any of these items but given that the US has the highest obesity rate of any nation in the world, I wouldn't be suprised.
The Double Bacon Hamburger Fatty MeltThree bacon-stuffed grilled cheese sandwichs for buns, cheese, bacon and two four-ounce beef patties.
Now that I take another look, the sloppy joe on a krispy kreme here looks kind of tasty...
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
World without Apollo
Day 2 of the best of Mr. Blogger - this one from July 20th.
He's a huge fan of the space program, such that it is.
TW: So today is the 40th anniversary of the landing on the moon. Many will ignore it, I suspect some of those younger than me do not particularly appreciate it. The rationale for going to the moon was always a bit precarious and certainly economically dubious. But for the Cold War mentality pushing us to one up the Soviets, there is no way the mission would have occurred.
Today folks still struggle to rationalize our continued investment in manned space flight. My guy, our POTUS, is not a spacenik, somehow despite being the right age he missed the space virus that swept those of his generation. He initiated a review our manned space program with the report due out in August. I strongly suspect the current Ares and Constellation programs (the ones that would take us back to the moon) will be curtailed in favor of less ambitious goals. A HUGE mistake.
The period from November 1963 until through especially the mid 1970's and to a certain degree the early 1980's was a series of negatives for the U.S. Numerous assassinations (oh how history could have been different), social unrest as we went through a series of racial, sexual and youth molting stages, the Vietnam War, Watergate and economic malaise (not to mention several fashion disasters). But there was one American achievement that helped buck up the nation and cement, despite all of the above, America's pre-eminent role in the world. The unique and seminal program to place a man on the moon.
The symbolism of that achievement to this day goes under-appreciated. No one could have done it. And for that reason folks were in awe.
Someone will go back to the moon and then to Mars. Whoever does so will achieve global primacy as the country that can do things no one else can. I suspect the next person on the moon will be Chinese or Indian. When that happens there will be hell to pay in the U.S. as a final nail on the notion of U.S. supremacy will have been delivered. When that happens, I just hope the folks unwilling to pay to retain our space programs (this is a bi-partisan thing, liberals want to solve poverty first-impossible- and conservatives have little vision and would rather build bigger bombers and stuff) keep there mouths shut (but of course they will not, I can see the Drudge headlines already...).
He's a huge fan of the space program, such that it is.
TW: So today is the 40th anniversary of the landing on the moon. Many will ignore it, I suspect some of those younger than me do not particularly appreciate it. The rationale for going to the moon was always a bit precarious and certainly economically dubious. But for the Cold War mentality pushing us to one up the Soviets, there is no way the mission would have occurred.Today folks still struggle to rationalize our continued investment in manned space flight. My guy, our POTUS, is not a spacenik, somehow despite being the right age he missed the space virus that swept those of his generation. He initiated a review our manned space program with the report due out in August. I strongly suspect the current Ares and Constellation programs (the ones that would take us back to the moon) will be curtailed in favor of less ambitious goals. A HUGE mistake.
The period from November 1963 until through especially the mid 1970's and to a certain degree the early 1980's was a series of negatives for the U.S. Numerous assassinations (oh how history could have been different), social unrest as we went through a series of racial, sexual and youth molting stages, the Vietnam War, Watergate and economic malaise (not to mention several fashion disasters). But there was one American achievement that helped buck up the nation and cement, despite all of the above, America's pre-eminent role in the world. The unique and seminal program to place a man on the moon.
The symbolism of that achievement to this day goes under-appreciated. No one could have done it. And for that reason folks were in awe.
Someone will go back to the moon and then to Mars. Whoever does so will achieve global primacy as the country that can do things no one else can. I suspect the next person on the moon will be Chinese or Indian. When that happens there will be hell to pay in the U.S. as a final nail on the notion of U.S. supremacy will have been delivered. When that happens, I just hope the folks unwilling to pay to retain our space programs (this is a bi-partisan thing, liberals want to solve poverty first-impossible- and conservatives have little vision and would rather build bigger bombers and stuff) keep there mouths shut (but of course they will not, I can see the Drudge headlines already...).
Classic Posts: Art 2009
TW: Continuing with favorite posts from 2009, today "Art"
Ms. Blogger from June, 2009
Storm Drain Art from Brazil - the 6emeia project by Anderson Augusto and Leonardo Delafuente was created to brighten up the streets of São Paulo, Brazil. Over the years, their painted storm drains have turned into popular tourist attractions.
see more at Toxel
Ms. Blogger from June, 2009
Storm Drain Art from Brazil - the 6emeia project by Anderson Augusto and Leonardo Delafuente was created to brighten up the streets of São Paulo, Brazil. Over the years, their painted storm drains have turned into popular tourist attractions.
see more at Toxel
Monday, January 4, 2010
Oscar Rogers Knows What Needs to be Done
This week, I'll be posting my favorites from 2009 as posted by Mr. Blogger.
My all time favorite post follows - nobody tells it better than Oscar
ok - this post was from October 2008 but it's still my favorite...
My all time favorite post follows - nobody tells it better than Oscar
ok - this post was from October 2008 but it's still my favorite...
Classic Posts: Humor 2009
TW: Ms. Blogger and Mr. Blogger are picking our favorites from each other's posts over the coming week. I will pick a post from each of Ms. Blogger's daily themes. Today is "Humor". Ms. Blogger posted many humorous photos over the year, I have selected several of my favorites.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Classic Posts: How Big Is This Iran Thing?
From September 2009
TW: BIG. Very big.
The world is witnessing an organic push for democracy, not imposed by the West, an internal organic push by its own citizens. This would be a first in that part of the world. Mind you this is not a push for liberalized Western democracy with codified individual liberties, strong judiciary etc. so the resulting regime, should it ever assume power, would be a different animal than say a Vaclav Havel Czech republic. Yet it would be a massive improvement compared to the status quo.
Two pivotal events occurred in 1978-1979, the overthrow of the Shah with an installation of the Shiite theocracy in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both events have led to a spiraling series of negative impacts on the West.
An agitating Iran seeking to foment problems for the West at many turns (i.e. Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, indirect terrorist acts in the 1980's etc.). While the Afghani Soviet freedom fighters originally strongly supported by the West morphed directly into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (two related but very different entities).
Imagine an Iranian regime less outward focused on causing distracting mischief and more inwardly focused on addressing its own population's needs and desires. The Iranian economy has never come close to its potential under the clumsy leadership of the theocracy and the populist Ahmadinejad. The economic sanctions imposed by the West while by no means 100% effective could if reduced greatly help the economic development of a nation under more enlightened leadership.
An Iranian pluralistic revolution would also create a template which could have serious implications for the balance of the Middle East and South Asia. The Islamic Revolution of Khomeini launched the strident, radicalized Islam with which the West has wrestled for thirty years. Radicalized Islam replaced the nationalistic but secular movements of Nassar in Egypt and Assad in Syria as the leading anti-Western alternative.
A less theocratic, more pluralistic Iranian revolution could provide (especially combined with the evolving Iraqi nation) a means by the people of the region could engage with the West in a far more constructive manner.
Will this happen? who knows. Even if it does the challenges will be considerable- the Iranian nuclear program will not go away and a less theocratic and pluralistic Iran would still have no interest in being the West's lackey. That said should this revolution occur, and perhaps even it does not, this revolution unlike the last may make the world a less dangerous place.
TW: BIG. Very big.
The world is witnessing an organic push for democracy, not imposed by the West, an internal organic push by its own citizens. This would be a first in that part of the world. Mind you this is not a push for liberalized Western democracy with codified individual liberties, strong judiciary etc. so the resulting regime, should it ever assume power, would be a different animal than say a Vaclav Havel Czech republic. Yet it would be a massive improvement compared to the status quo.
Two pivotal events occurred in 1978-1979, the overthrow of the Shah with an installation of the Shiite theocracy in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both events have led to a spiraling series of negative impacts on the West.
An agitating Iran seeking to foment problems for the West at many turns (i.e. Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, indirect terrorist acts in the 1980's etc.). While the Afghani Soviet freedom fighters originally strongly supported by the West morphed directly into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (two related but very different entities).
Imagine an Iranian regime less outward focused on causing distracting mischief and more inwardly focused on addressing its own population's needs and desires. The Iranian economy has never come close to its potential under the clumsy leadership of the theocracy and the populist Ahmadinejad. The economic sanctions imposed by the West while by no means 100% effective could if reduced greatly help the economic development of a nation under more enlightened leadership.
An Iranian pluralistic revolution would also create a template which could have serious implications for the balance of the Middle East and South Asia. The Islamic Revolution of Khomeini launched the strident, radicalized Islam with which the West has wrestled for thirty years. Radicalized Islam replaced the nationalistic but secular movements of Nassar in Egypt and Assad in Syria as the leading anti-Western alternative.
A less theocratic, more pluralistic Iranian revolution could provide (especially combined with the evolving Iraqi nation) a means by the people of the region could engage with the West in a far more constructive manner.
Will this happen? who knows. Even if it does the challenges will be considerable- the Iranian nuclear program will not go away and a less theocratic and pluralistic Iran would still have no interest in being the West's lackey. That said should this revolution occur, and perhaps even it does not, this revolution unlike the last may make the world a less dangerous place.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Best Of 2009: Yum, Yum, Yum
TW: This really should have been part of a Laura "food" post but she refused...I have always been more or less impervious to the occasional hair etc. in my food, this piece validates my cynicism...
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...insects and mold in our food are not new. The FDA actually condones a certain percentage of "natural contaminants" in our food supply - meaning, among other things, bugs, mold, rodent hairs and maggots.
In its (falsely) reassuringly subtitled booklet "The Food Defect Action Levels: Levels of Natural or Unavoidable Defects in Foods That Present No Health Hazards for Humans," the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition establishes acceptable levels of such "defects" for a range of foods products, from allspice to peanut butter.
Among the booklet's list of allowable defects are "insect filth," "rodent filth" (both hair and excreta pellets), "mold," "insects," "mammalian excreta," "rot," "insects and larvae" (which is to say, maggots), "insects and mites," "insects and insect eggs," "drosophila fly," "sand and grit," "parasites," "mildew" and "foreign matter" (which includes "objectionable" items like "sticks, stones, burlap bagging, cigarette butts, etc.").
Tomato juice, for example, may average "10 or more fly eggs per 100 grams - the equivalent of a small juice glass - or five or more fly eggs and one or more maggots." Tomato paste and other pizza sauces are allowed a denser infestation - 30 or more fly eggs per 100 grams or 15 or more fly eggs and one or more maggots per 100 grams.
Canned mushrooms may have "over 20 or more maggots of any size per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or "five or more maggots two millimeters or longer per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or an "average of 75 mites" before provoking action by the FDA.
The sauerkraut on your hot dog may average up to 50 thrips. And when washing down those tiny, slender, winged bugs with a sip of beer, you might consider that just 10 grams of hops could have as many as 2,500 plant lice. Yum.
Giving new meaning to the idea of spicing up one's food, curry powder is allowed 100 or more bug bits per 25 grams; ground thyme up to 925 insect fragments per 10 grams; ground pepper up to 475 insect parts per 50 grams. One small shaker of cinnamon could have more than 20 rodent hairs before being considered defective.
Peanut butter - that culinary cause célèbre - may contain approximately 145 bug parts for an 18-ounce jar; or five or more rodent hairs for that same jar; or more than 125 milligrams of grit.
In case you're curious: You're probably ingesting one to two pounds of flies, maggots and mites each year without knowing it, a quantity of insects that clearly does not cut the mustard, even as insects may well be in the mustard.
The FDA considers the significance of these defects to be "aesthetic" or "offensive to the senses," which is to say, merely icky as opposed to the "mouth/tooth injury" one risks with, for example, insufficiently pitted prunes. This policy is justified on economic grounds, stating that it is "impractical to grow, harvest or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects."
The most recent edition of the booklet (it has been revised and edited six times since first being issued in May 1995) reassuringly states that "the defect levels do not represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products - the averages are actually much lower." Instead, it says, "The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product 'adulterated' and subject to enforcement action."
...But the unsettling reality is that despite food's reassuring packaging and nutritional labeling, we don't really know what we're putting into our mouths...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/news/edlevy.php
From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...insects and mold in our food are not new. The FDA actually condones a certain percentage of "natural contaminants" in our food supply - meaning, among other things, bugs, mold, rodent hairs and maggots.
In its (falsely) reassuringly subtitled booklet "The Food Defect Action Levels: Levels of Natural or Unavoidable Defects in Foods That Present No Health Hazards for Humans," the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition establishes acceptable levels of such "defects" for a range of foods products, from allspice to peanut butter.
Among the booklet's list of allowable defects are "insect filth," "rodent filth" (both hair and excreta pellets), "mold," "insects," "mammalian excreta," "rot," "insects and larvae" (which is to say, maggots), "insects and mites," "insects and insect eggs," "drosophila fly," "sand and grit," "parasites," "mildew" and "foreign matter" (which includes "objectionable" items like "sticks, stones, burlap bagging, cigarette butts, etc.").
Tomato juice, for example, may average "10 or more fly eggs per 100 grams - the equivalent of a small juice glass - or five or more fly eggs and one or more maggots." Tomato paste and other pizza sauces are allowed a denser infestation - 30 or more fly eggs per 100 grams or 15 or more fly eggs and one or more maggots per 100 grams.
Canned mushrooms may have "over 20 or more maggots of any size per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or "five or more maggots two millimeters or longer per 100 grams of drained mushrooms and proportionate liquid" or an "average of 75 mites" before provoking action by the FDA.
The sauerkraut on your hot dog may average up to 50 thrips. And when washing down those tiny, slender, winged bugs with a sip of beer, you might consider that just 10 grams of hops could have as many as 2,500 plant lice. Yum.
Giving new meaning to the idea of spicing up one's food, curry powder is allowed 100 or more bug bits per 25 grams; ground thyme up to 925 insect fragments per 10 grams; ground pepper up to 475 insect parts per 50 grams. One small shaker of cinnamon could have more than 20 rodent hairs before being considered defective.
Peanut butter - that culinary cause célèbre - may contain approximately 145 bug parts for an 18-ounce jar; or five or more rodent hairs for that same jar; or more than 125 milligrams of grit.
In case you're curious: You're probably ingesting one to two pounds of flies, maggots and mites each year without knowing it, a quantity of insects that clearly does not cut the mustard, even as insects may well be in the mustard.
The FDA considers the significance of these defects to be "aesthetic" or "offensive to the senses," which is to say, merely icky as opposed to the "mouth/tooth injury" one risks with, for example, insufficiently pitted prunes. This policy is justified on economic grounds, stating that it is "impractical to grow, harvest or process raw products that are totally free of non-hazardous, naturally occurring, unavoidable defects."
The most recent edition of the booklet (it has been revised and edited six times since first being issued in May 1995) reassuringly states that "the defect levels do not represent an average of the defects that occur in any of the products - the averages are actually much lower." Instead, it says, "The levels represent limits at which FDA will regard the food product 'adulterated' and subject to enforcement action."
...But the unsettling reality is that despite food's reassuring packaging and nutritional labeling, we don't really know what we're putting into our mouths...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/news/edlevy.php
Best Of 2009: Laura Misses Her Flight
TW: She has been taking language lessons which came out spontaneously
Best Of 2009: Every Mummy Needs a Spritz
TW: As you many know the Soviets mummified Lenin 90 or so years ago when he took the down card. But like any mummy he apparently needs a tune-up once a year or so, a bath to refresh.
TW: The interesting thing about this post which originally went up last March is that it still garners hits generally from international surfers.
TW: The interesting thing about this post which originally went up last March is that it still garners hits generally from international surfers.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Classic Posts: My Gratuitous Opinion On an AfPak Escalation Part 3
TW: The final re-post on AfPak
From October 21, 2009:
"TW: Why is AfPak different than other contemporary U.S. quagmires?
Simply put unlike Vietnam or Iraq, we should be there. In Iraq our engagement was controversial before, during and after its start. Ultimately it was clear within months of the initial invasion that our basis for invading had been dubious at best. In Vietnam our engagement had been incremental from day one and evolved into a classic case of our continuing involvement feeding ever increasing escalation in order to avoid defeat. The further we looked back in either Iraq or Vietnam the less clear it became why we had engaged in the first place.
Why were Iraq and Vietnam the wrong wars at the wrong time? In Iraq it remains unclear what precisely motivated the Bush administration's casus belli. Was it a legitimate intelligence failure? Imperialist overstretch in pursuit of "democracy" and "regional game-changers"? Political opportunism? Whatever it was, in hindsight it was insufficient.
In Vietnam we fundamentally mistook nationalist Vietnamese agitation for a world-wide communist conspiracy. We engaged haphazardly into an war where our national interests paled in comparison to the costs of our engagement.
This dynamic is fatal. War is immensely costly most of all in human terms. It inevitably becomes controversial. If the basis for our involvement is dubious at best and wrong at worst, our collective energies are sapped and moral clarity decisively obscured. These type wars gnaw at the fabric of our nation. They result in our politicians emitting piles of bullshit to justify our involvement. Justifications of sufficient cynicism as to make reasonable citizens questions nearly any use of our armed forces. Political polarization results as partisans take sides based less on the merits of the situation and more on the derivative political impacts.
These type wars should never be started and if started ended ASAP.
But for Afghanistan few, if any, questioned why we initiated the war. More importantly, eight years into this war few question the imperative to seek a stable AfPak region and minimize the risks from radical jihadists. What folks do legitimately debate is how best to prosecute this war. And nearly everyone laments and is chastened by the human and economic costs of a war conducted amidst very challenging circumstances. Or in other words can we succeed?
Questioning how we can succeed is crucially different than questioning why we started or are continuing a war in the first place. One must recall few mainstream leaders (I do not consider Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich mainstream) are calling for a withdrawal from AfPak. The debate is between a smaller footprint counter-terrorism (CT) or a larger footprint counter-insurgency (COIN) focus. This is not a binary choice as sometimes portrayed in the media between "all-in" or "all-out" or even "largely out". There are degrees and nuance.
It should also be remembered that, unlike say the Viet Cong who were a unitary force more or less as legitimate (or illegitimate) as any other Vietnamese political group, the Taliban are a tribal minority with attributes (misogynism, radical Islamism) inimical to a majority of Afghans (and Pakistanis). There are groups in AfPak very motivated to defeat the Taliban (Shiites, Uzbeks, Tajiks, secularists etc.). While these groups may be weak, dispersed and ill-led; they very much exist and in time can provide the framework for an alternative governance structure. Furthermore, even our frenemies in the region (e.g. Iran, Russia) have interests more aligned with us than the Taliban (unlike say the Iranians in Iraq or Russians in Vietnam).
In my view a clear national security imperative exists in AfPak. Our nation, in conjunction with our allies and frenemies, should exert maximum effort to stabilize the region. There are times when nations must step up militarily and economically to protect their interests, this is one of those times. An integrated military, economic and diplomatic program using the vast resources of the ourselves, allies and frenemies should be sufficient to accomplish the goal.
Obama should not hedge on the human and economic costs of this endeavor, nor should he avoid making the necessary diplomatic moves (Iran, Russia etc.) in order to optimize our chances of success. AfPak is hard and will continue to be so, that does not mean we should not face up to the challenges.
This is the final installment of this particular gratuitous thought stream. Feel free to share any comments."
From October 21, 2009:
"TW: Why is AfPak different than other contemporary U.S. quagmires?
Simply put unlike Vietnam or Iraq, we should be there. In Iraq our engagement was controversial before, during and after its start. Ultimately it was clear within months of the initial invasion that our basis for invading had been dubious at best. In Vietnam our engagement had been incremental from day one and evolved into a classic case of our continuing involvement feeding ever increasing escalation in order to avoid defeat. The further we looked back in either Iraq or Vietnam the less clear it became why we had engaged in the first place.
Why were Iraq and Vietnam the wrong wars at the wrong time? In Iraq it remains unclear what precisely motivated the Bush administration's casus belli. Was it a legitimate intelligence failure? Imperialist overstretch in pursuit of "democracy" and "regional game-changers"? Political opportunism? Whatever it was, in hindsight it was insufficient.
In Vietnam we fundamentally mistook nationalist Vietnamese agitation for a world-wide communist conspiracy. We engaged haphazardly into an war where our national interests paled in comparison to the costs of our engagement.
This dynamic is fatal. War is immensely costly most of all in human terms. It inevitably becomes controversial. If the basis for our involvement is dubious at best and wrong at worst, our collective energies are sapped and moral clarity decisively obscured. These type wars gnaw at the fabric of our nation. They result in our politicians emitting piles of bullshit to justify our involvement. Justifications of sufficient cynicism as to make reasonable citizens questions nearly any use of our armed forces. Political polarization results as partisans take sides based less on the merits of the situation and more on the derivative political impacts.
These type wars should never be started and if started ended ASAP.
But for Afghanistan few, if any, questioned why we initiated the war. More importantly, eight years into this war few question the imperative to seek a stable AfPak region and minimize the risks from radical jihadists. What folks do legitimately debate is how best to prosecute this war. And nearly everyone laments and is chastened by the human and economic costs of a war conducted amidst very challenging circumstances. Or in other words can we succeed?
Questioning how we can succeed is crucially different than questioning why we started or are continuing a war in the first place. One must recall few mainstream leaders (I do not consider Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich mainstream) are calling for a withdrawal from AfPak. The debate is between a smaller footprint counter-terrorism (CT) or a larger footprint counter-insurgency (COIN) focus. This is not a binary choice as sometimes portrayed in the media between "all-in" or "all-out" or even "largely out". There are degrees and nuance.
It should also be remembered that, unlike say the Viet Cong who were a unitary force more or less as legitimate (or illegitimate) as any other Vietnamese political group, the Taliban are a tribal minority with attributes (misogynism, radical Islamism) inimical to a majority of Afghans (and Pakistanis). There are groups in AfPak very motivated to defeat the Taliban (Shiites, Uzbeks, Tajiks, secularists etc.). While these groups may be weak, dispersed and ill-led; they very much exist and in time can provide the framework for an alternative governance structure. Furthermore, even our frenemies in the region (e.g. Iran, Russia) have interests more aligned with us than the Taliban (unlike say the Iranians in Iraq or Russians in Vietnam).
In my view a clear national security imperative exists in AfPak. Our nation, in conjunction with our allies and frenemies, should exert maximum effort to stabilize the region. There are times when nations must step up militarily and economically to protect their interests, this is one of those times. An integrated military, economic and diplomatic program using the vast resources of the ourselves, allies and frenemies should be sufficient to accomplish the goal.
Obama should not hedge on the human and economic costs of this endeavor, nor should he avoid making the necessary diplomatic moves (Iran, Russia etc.) in order to optimize our chances of success. AfPak is hard and will continue to be so, that does not mean we should not face up to the challenges.
This is the final installment of this particular gratuitous thought stream. Feel free to share any comments."
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Classic Posts: My Gratuitous Opinion On an AfPak Escalation Part 2
TW: Re-post number 2 from October on AfPak
From October 20, 2009:
"TW: Why and how do I think the U.S. can achieve a successful escalation in AfPak?
1) Everything I read about Gen. McChrystal is that he is the right person to formulate and execute an effective COIN strategy (I know there is some blow back on his involvement in the Pat Tillman fiasco but not anywhere enough to diminish his other credentials and accomplishments) One cannot forget the neglect with which the U.S. treated the AfPak theater after the overthrow of the Taliban. Resources of all kinds were severely restricted partially due to the small footprint strategy (which has been a dismal failure) and partly as special forces, satellite intel and other resources were re-deployed to Iraq.
The U.S. left a huge void in AfPak hoping friendly indigenous forces would assume full control. This strategy failed miserably creating a void into which the Taliban gradually back-filled. For the first time in AfPak we may finally have a strategy and resources to re-build Afghanistan.
2) From Economist: "The coalition, however, lacks three essential components of a successful strategy. It needs a credible, legitimate government to work with, the resources to do the job and the belief that America’s president is behind this war."
All good points and not at all slam dunks. Credible partner governments have been the bane of COIN throughout history. Any partner government starts out at a severe disadvantage as they at some level are subservient to the outside power involved. Immediately the insurgents can claim a certain legitimacy as the more "true" nationalist representative.
The U.S. made a further mistake in Afghanistan by attempting to impose democracy where none had existed and where centralized government in general has always been weak. We now see many observers twisted in knots about the recent fraudulent election. To me the elections are a distraction. The key will be the U.S. and others working with Afghani to de-centralize governance through various tribal entities regardless of who occupies executive power in Kabul.
3) From Economist: "The coalition, however, lacks three essential components of a successful strategy. It needs a credible, legitimate government to work with, the resources to do the job and the belief that America’s president is behind this war."
AfPak has been under-resourced from day one. Obama must define the stakes and ask for commitment from Americans, from Europeans and from others. W. Bush said many things as POTUS but one thing he never articulated was how the so-called "war on terror" was existential yet did not require significant sacrifice on the part of average Americans. No extra taxes, no national service, no spending cuts in other areas and no clear delineation of the price Americans must pay in order to address our strategic challenges.
If the U.S. is to have a legitimate chance at success in AfPak. very significant human and financial costs will be necessary. These costs cannot be defined precisely but they will be significant. If Americans are unable or unwilling to absorb these costs, then Americans should be prepared to live in a world where the risk of instability will be much higher with the commensurate risks to American national interests.
4) America is not and should not be alone in AfPak. We tend as always to focus on our ourselves but AfPak impacts nearly everyone throughout the world. The strategic imperatives in AfPak are not American only, they are relevant to any nation seeking to minimize terrorism risks, minimize the negative impacts of radical Islam and minimize the risks of the regional powers in the area (Pakistan, Iran, India, the Stans, China, Russia) coming to blows over instability in the AfPak area.
Unlike Iraq where allied support (for good reason it turns out) but for the Brits was largely either brief (e.g. Spain), motivated by secondary political considerations (e.g. the Georgians, Poles) or extremely limited (about all others); many nations have contributed forces in AfPak. While these forces have been limited and frequently restricted in capability and aggressiveness, they are substantial (roughly 40,000). Few Americans realize for instance that several nations in particular the Brits, the Dutch, the Danes and the Canadians have fought expensive, disproportionate and deadly battles in Afghanistan.
Understand we broke the Taliban (while excluding almost all allied involvement in the actual initial fights, everyone wanted to pitch in post 9/11 but we said no thanks we will kill them ourselves), then we largely left Afgahnistan (we had fewer than 20,000 troops for the first several years). We sold NATO on AfPak being a peacekeeping mission not an actual war. Sending one's soldiers off to serve under someone else's leadership is never an easy task (imagine Americans being asked to send significant troops to serve under say French leadership in Africa). All the while with our strategies in AfPak meandering between "small footprint", counter-terror and partial COIN.
But now with a new American commitment and strategy it is imperative that our allies and near allies commit as well. Otherwise they will be guilty of free-riding. The U.S. as the leader will always bear a disproportionate share that goes with making the decisions and driving policy. We cannot expect others to merely follow lemming like behind us. But we can expect folks to pitch in.
Part of the new strategy will be to work with the nearby regional powers including Iran to engage their help stabilizing the AfPak area. But if the Brazilians, Japanese, South Koreans, Indonesians etc. want to enjoy the benefits of globalization then they need to step up to help ensure global stability is enhanced as well.
To be continued tomorrow with a final piece on why AfPak is not Vietnam, Iraq or any other prior benchmark. "
From October 20, 2009:
"TW: Why and how do I think the U.S. can achieve a successful escalation in AfPak?
1) Everything I read about Gen. McChrystal is that he is the right person to formulate and execute an effective COIN strategy (I know there is some blow back on his involvement in the Pat Tillman fiasco but not anywhere enough to diminish his other credentials and accomplishments) One cannot forget the neglect with which the U.S. treated the AfPak theater after the overthrow of the Taliban. Resources of all kinds were severely restricted partially due to the small footprint strategy (which has been a dismal failure) and partly as special forces, satellite intel and other resources were re-deployed to Iraq.
The U.S. left a huge void in AfPak hoping friendly indigenous forces would assume full control. This strategy failed miserably creating a void into which the Taliban gradually back-filled. For the first time in AfPak we may finally have a strategy and resources to re-build Afghanistan.
2) From Economist: "The coalition, however, lacks three essential components of a successful strategy. It needs a credible, legitimate government to work with, the resources to do the job and the belief that America’s president is behind this war."
All good points and not at all slam dunks. Credible partner governments have been the bane of COIN throughout history. Any partner government starts out at a severe disadvantage as they at some level are subservient to the outside power involved. Immediately the insurgents can claim a certain legitimacy as the more "true" nationalist representative.
The U.S. made a further mistake in Afghanistan by attempting to impose democracy where none had existed and where centralized government in general has always been weak. We now see many observers twisted in knots about the recent fraudulent election. To me the elections are a distraction. The key will be the U.S. and others working with Afghani to de-centralize governance through various tribal entities regardless of who occupies executive power in Kabul.
3) From Economist: "The coalition, however, lacks three essential components of a successful strategy. It needs a credible, legitimate government to work with, the resources to do the job and the belief that America’s president is behind this war."
AfPak has been under-resourced from day one. Obama must define the stakes and ask for commitment from Americans, from Europeans and from others. W. Bush said many things as POTUS but one thing he never articulated was how the so-called "war on terror" was existential yet did not require significant sacrifice on the part of average Americans. No extra taxes, no national service, no spending cuts in other areas and no clear delineation of the price Americans must pay in order to address our strategic challenges.
If the U.S. is to have a legitimate chance at success in AfPak. very significant human and financial costs will be necessary. These costs cannot be defined precisely but they will be significant. If Americans are unable or unwilling to absorb these costs, then Americans should be prepared to live in a world where the risk of instability will be much higher with the commensurate risks to American national interests.
4) America is not and should not be alone in AfPak. We tend as always to focus on our ourselves but AfPak impacts nearly everyone throughout the world. The strategic imperatives in AfPak are not American only, they are relevant to any nation seeking to minimize terrorism risks, minimize the negative impacts of radical Islam and minimize the risks of the regional powers in the area (Pakistan, Iran, India, the Stans, China, Russia) coming to blows over instability in the AfPak area.
Unlike Iraq where allied support (for good reason it turns out) but for the Brits was largely either brief (e.g. Spain), motivated by secondary political considerations (e.g. the Georgians, Poles) or extremely limited (about all others); many nations have contributed forces in AfPak. While these forces have been limited and frequently restricted in capability and aggressiveness, they are substantial (roughly 40,000). Few Americans realize for instance that several nations in particular the Brits, the Dutch, the Danes and the Canadians have fought expensive, disproportionate and deadly battles in Afghanistan.
Understand we broke the Taliban (while excluding almost all allied involvement in the actual initial fights, everyone wanted to pitch in post 9/11 but we said no thanks we will kill them ourselves), then we largely left Afgahnistan (we had fewer than 20,000 troops for the first several years). We sold NATO on AfPak being a peacekeeping mission not an actual war. Sending one's soldiers off to serve under someone else's leadership is never an easy task (imagine Americans being asked to send significant troops to serve under say French leadership in Africa). All the while with our strategies in AfPak meandering between "small footprint", counter-terror and partial COIN.
But now with a new American commitment and strategy it is imperative that our allies and near allies commit as well. Otherwise they will be guilty of free-riding. The U.S. as the leader will always bear a disproportionate share that goes with making the decisions and driving policy. We cannot expect others to merely follow lemming like behind us. But we can expect folks to pitch in.
Part of the new strategy will be to work with the nearby regional powers including Iran to engage their help stabilizing the AfPak area. But if the Brazilians, Japanese, South Koreans, Indonesians etc. want to enjoy the benefits of globalization then they need to step up to help ensure global stability is enhanced as well.
To be continued tomorrow with a final piece on why AfPak is not Vietnam, Iraq or any other prior benchmark. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)