MoreThanCorn

Donate to defend Arizona's 1070

2010-09-03T01:48:00.000-07:00

Wyoming man donates $1.5 million to Gov. Jan Brewer's defense fund for the illegal immigration battle.

Masses Have Opinions on Arizona Immigration Law, But No One Has Read It

2010-05-13T20:34:00.000-07:00

My best friends, associates at work, Eric Holder, President Obama. These are some of the people who have admitted they have not read SB 1070, now the Arizona Immigration Bill, yet each of them have opinions of whether it is legal, has civil rights issues, the right or wrong thing for the country....

I read the law, first page to last page. It took just 20 minutes. Most of the law is in plain, easily understood English, and most ordinary people can make sense of the verbage.

Not one person who has debated with me on the merits or legality of the law have read the law. I am the only person I know who has read it. And would say this is in particular more embarrassing for my friends and associates. I have politically active friends, well educated friends, including one who is a professor and helps to shape policy. Lastly I am a patrol officer in the Valley of the Sun and have many officer friends who disagree with the law. But no one has read it. Not the politically connected and powerful among them, not the police officers, not my smartest of friends. This is embarrassing because with each of them I listened as they explained why the law is too expensive to enforce, or they said it is not the responsibility of city patrol officers to enforce immigration, there are civil rights issues, it's illegal. All these opinions were argued and others. But not one of them read the law. They could not even quote me a line nor paraphrase any portion of the law. How did they think this is objective, or to quote them fair?

Eric Holder has admitted he has not read it. Article - "Has anyone read it?"

All state laws are enforced by city patrol officers. All officers make judgement calls and look for reasonable suspicion and build their case for probable cause for an arrest. Officers make decisions based on their education, experience and opinions of their squad mates in a round table and maybe with their seargent included in the decision making.

There are rogue cops. They are vetted steadily by problems with their professionalism, performance, complaints by peers, aggression, civil rights violations and sometimes even whether they called someone an asshole. The above problems are investigated by their department, another department, private attorneys, prosecutors, and by their own moral compass. A bad apple will inevitably fall from the bunch.

But all laws are handled by the same officers. Whether they make the right decision or wrong. It is in the best interest of the individual officer to make the correct decisions. They want to stay clear of internal or external investigations and lawsuits. Because they want to keep their jobs.

This immigration law will likely be enforced fairly. When there is a problem, it will be dealt with have no doubt. There are plenty of attorneys, politicians and even other officers who want to make a name for themselves. They want to be the enforcers and get a pat on the back.

In the mean time, most of us patrol officers will do our jobs in good faith and enforce the laws, voting Arizonans, expected of us.

Most Who Voted Obama, Did Not Know Why

2008-11-08T10:45:00.000-08:00

Prior to the election I asked as many Obama supporters as I could find why they were voting for him? I had one friend give me a reasonable argument for an Obama presidency.

I had asked about ten others, including one of my roomates why they were voting for him. The only three answers I received from these individuals were the following (paraphrased):

1) He is going bring the troops home and end this war.
2) He is going to bring back US respect in the world. (However not one could explain to me how?)
3) He is going to be the first black president.

When asked what Barack had done to prove he would be a great president, I asked each person to name one thing he did. Barack voters were 0 for 10 with answers.

The following youtube clip is of a British journalist who recently made it to the online news. Good example of Obama supporters.

It is a new time. A story has been made.

2008-11-06T22:23:00.000-08:00

Read the text message I received at 11:08pm on November 4, 08 from my friend Brian. I replied back "I hope so." "Give him a chance for me," he said. And my last message said, "I plan to, for you as well."

Now Barack is our President elect. I will support him as our new commander in chief. He deserves all the respect the office demands and he will get the respect he deserves from me.

Not sure what to think of the media saying, "President Obama, president of the world." Maybe it is supposed to be poetry or symbolism? So far I do not get it. Perhaps it is in response from people like supposed entire countries wanting Obama to be our new president and individuals like Achmedinajad congradulating Barack?

Off come the McCain bumper stickers.

624787

2008-04-03T02:21:00.001-07:00

I support John McCain. "624787"

Benedict Undermining Peace by Demanding Peace?

2008-03-16T10:35:00.000-07:00

The Vatican has strongly opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and the article lists statements and subjects the Pontiff made to broadcast his disgust for the Iraq war. Or is he disgusted with the terrorist murderers?

The Associated Press article says, ...Benedict said Rahho's dedication to the Church and his death compelled him to "raise a strong and sorrowful cry" to denounce the violence in Iraq spawned by the war that he said had destroyed civilian life... The quotations surrounds just a small part of this sentence, so I call into question the end of the thought after the quotations, "to denounce the violence in Iraq spawned by the war..." Who said this? Because it is not in quotations, the Press seems to have taken the liberty to define what the Pontiff meant by his own words.

The Vatican strongly opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. In its aftermath, Benedict has frequently criticized attacks against Iraqi Christians by Islamic extremists. Last year, he urged U.S. President George W. Bush to keep the safety of Iraqi Christians in mind.. The previous may lead a reader to believe another untruth. The first sentence highlights the Vatican's opposition to the "U.S. led invasion. The next sentence he finds Islamic extremists attacks on Christians to be horrible, and then ask Pres Bush to protect Christians against extremists. This paragraph suggests the US invasion caused extremists to start attacking Christians and now the US must clean up it's own mess and protect Christians?

Finally the Popes homily was a speech about looking at everything including the war in Iraq through the eyes of a child or like a child. Perhaps the Press again took another quote of the Popes out of context because such idealism is hardly a strategy for peace.

I understand the Pope's position may not allow him to appear in anyway to promote or agree with the taking of lives of anyone, good or evil. Here in again lies the problem. Ideally there are no extremists Ideally all these murderers of Christians, Jews, other Muslims and American Troops could be reasoned with and negotiated. However those willing to blow themselves and 20 innocents are well beyond negotiating. Does he believe after this speech by him or any other, the terrorists will suddently realize they are wrong, the Pope is right and immediately stop killing?

I am glad the Pope is the leader of a church and not a general. Perhaps his position only allows him to speak from a vacuum which is the Vatican. But outside those walls there are people who want to kill even him. Thank you United States for fighting a war in which everyone would have been a target of terrorism and victims. Thank you President Bush for not deciding what is popular and staying with principal. The only ideal President Bush is guilty of, is the one he feels all people are created equal, and is willing to put his Presidency in historical jeopardy for winning a war and winning peace through strength.

Your Black World, Boyce Watkins wrote...

2007-10-05T04:09:00.000-07:00

ed Juan Williams a “Happy Negro” on CNN – And why He and Bill O’Reilly Are Not Happy About it

By Dr. Boyce D. Watkins

A friend (Valencia Roner) called me one night to ask if I watch “The O’Reilly Factor”. I said “No, I don’t watch stupid, racist television programs.” She then informed me that I might want to watch this particular episode.

Why? Because I was the topic of conversation….for the entire show. I set the DVR and went to sleep. I woke up the next morning to watch what had been recorded. Valencia was right. They were showing images of my CNN appearances, and playing my comments repeatedly, like Sports Center Highlights. I’ve never seen so many guests asked to comment about someone else’s comments.

The kicker was watching Juan Williams and Bill O’Reilly congratulate each other like brothers for winning the “smear campaign” placed upon them by CNN. I listened to O’Reilly tell the world that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Mediamatters.org and other news organizations were all corrupt, but not him. Williams even wrote a piece about me in Time Magazine. During the show, I honestly thought Williams was going to cry. This brought back memories, since I remember making a lot of conservatives cry in college. My mother said I shouldn’t make grown men cry, and I felt bad.

I was asked on CNN (and other shows) about Bill O’Reilly’s racist remarks about Sylvia’s, a black restaurant in Harlem. In his comments, O’Reilly said that he could not get over the fact that the people were civil and well-behaved. He commended black people for finally learning to “think for themselves” and was relieved that there was no one in the restaurant saying “mf-er I want more ice tea.” (Good thing no one was really thirsty!).

O’Reilly tried to argue that his comments were meant to compliment the black community. He said that they were meant to defy stereotypes. As humbly and naive as a school girl, he argued that he was only intending to shed light on how racial stereotypes are bad for our society. Suddenly, Bill O'Reilly was Martin Luther King Jr.

On CNN, I essentially explained that anyone who thought Bill O’Reilly was suddenly a reformed racist who’d seen the light has been getting high with Bobby and Whitney too long. I’ve been on this man’s show before, and he has consistently demeaned, degraded and devalued everything about black culture he could get his hands on. I also mentioned that I was unimpressed with Juan Williams’ agreement and defense of O’Reilly. Seeing Williams sitting there congratulating O’Reilly for his bigotry reminded me of the Negro in the white suit defending “massa” at all costs. His attitudes were consistent with his latest and most terrible book, which does nothing but blast black culture and black people, as if we are the sole causes of socioeconomic inequality.

Therefore, I could only use terms I felt appropriate. I defined Williams as “The Happy Negro”. On CNN, I compared O’Reilly’s use of Williams to Hugh Hefner hiring a stripper to tell him that he’s not a sexist. The “Happy Negro” was no longer happy when he heard what I had to say.

I am not sure how smart or dumb Williams is (I have 3 times more education than him, but I guess he is of at least average intelligence). I hope that he has enough sense to know that he is being used by a man who has consistently and reliably shown himself to be an enemy of black people.

I have, through my books “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about College” and “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” consistently attacked problems in the black community. I have spoken to millions of African-Americans about the value of getting an education and managing their money. I support the black family and even proposed to my future spouse in front of millions of people, in order to give black men the courage to express love for our beautiful black women. I wish I could tell you how many times I argued with CNN producers to cover the Jena 6 story long before it was popular to do so. So, everything that Juan Williams might say about advancing the community has been consistently on my radar screen.

But here is where we differ. I am very hard on the black community about improving our plight. But I am also man enough to challenge the white community for their role in creating racial inequality. Racism is a disease that lies within the fabric of nearly every American institution. So, any conversation about racial inequality that does not include White America’s flaws and roles in the process is ridiculous, misguided and counter productive.

If a young lady is sexually molested by her father and grows up to become a prostitute, any weak man can say “Miss, your life is in shambles because you’re choosing to be a whore.” This might even be an obvious point, but it will also continue to erode her self-esteem and ignore the critical half of the equation. It takes a stronger man to first challenge the young lady and then go inside the home and confront her father for what he has done to create the problem. There is no denying that her father should pay for his daughter’s counseling, apologize, get psychiatric help and face punishment for what he has done. He cannot expect that his family will be peaceful as long as he has not acknowledged his role in the creation of his family’s devastation. At that point, you also teach the daughter personal responsibility.

Why won’t many men do this? Because the daughter is an easy target, and her father might kick you in the ass. That is why many black conservatives won’t challenge white America to have personal responsibility for their role in racism, for this is biting the hand that feeds them (how long would Juan be on the Fox News payroll if he were to tell White America that their institutions and attitudes are a large cause of racial inequality? Contrary to O'Reilly's indication, I am not compensated by CNN or any other networks for what I say). It also feeds directly into white supremacy to say “The black community is in shambles because black people are making bad choices. The 400 years of oppression have nothing to do with the last 30 years of expression.” Hence, we have Bill O’Reilly getting his rear-end rubbed by Juan Williams, as they both agree that the little girl is nothing but a whore.

O’Reilly claimed that Rev. Jesse Jackson (another guest on the show) was appalled by what I said about Williams, but of course he could not validate his claims on camera. I got a call the very next morning from Jackson’s daughter Santita and received no indication of disapproval from the Jackson family. I am sure that if they had disagreed, they would have told me personally.

Williams, for some reason, thinks that he is contributing to the advancement of black people by teaming up with a proven racist who has KKK members and Neo-Nazis watching his show (you should see my hate mail). A man who has a problem with President Bush would not team up with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to go after Bush. No matter how valid his arguments might be, the fact is that such actions amount to TREASON and are ultimately destructive. Having a black face does not mean you care about the black race. Clarence Thomas taught us that.

Hence, at the end of the day, I still call Juan Williams the “Happy Negro”. I stand by my remarks and might even put it on a t-shirt. From the response I've gotten so far, I wouldn't be the only one wearing it.

Dr. Boyce Watkins is a Finance Professor at Syracuse University and author of “What if George Bush were a Black Man?” He does regular commentary in national media, including CNN, FOX, ESPN, and BET. For more information, please visit www.BoyceWatkins.com.

US Most Productive in World

2007-09-03T02:46:00.000-07:00

Can not remember when I last read a good news article from CNN about this country.

Country Music in Love With the Manifesto

2007-08-26T09:51:00.001-07:00

"Oh, everybody's dreamin big
Oh, everybody's just gettin by
That's how it goes in everyday america
A little town with a great big life"

These are the chorus lyrics of the song by country music band Sugarland. It is hard not to like Sugarland, a beautiful lead singer, Jennifer Nettle's Atlanta twang, everything she sings sounds great.

Read the lyrics of another favorite country singer of mine, Phil Vasser:
"Fat cats just getting fatter
Lining their pockets
What does it matter?
All I want is an honest wage
A piece of ground where my kids are safe

80 bucks to fill my truck
Old man telling me times are tough
Sticking it to the middle class
Well, they can kiss my price of gas...

Gonna get the attention of the man on top
Make it louder, shake and rock
It might just come tumbling down
Spread all that wealth around..."

I saw Phil Vasser in concert in Virginia at George Mason University in 2000. He had only been performing in front of large audiences for a handful of months and you could see he was a little nervous, but it made him more likable. He is likeable as Bruce Springstein, especially to the average folks. I am not sure if he necessarily appeals to the blue collar type of audience as Springsteen, but no doubt to average people.

Do the lyrics above of Sugarland and Phil Vasser inspire Americans? How ab out people who start businesses or run companies? The people who start companies are the ones who employ the rest of us.

Emotional charges are what I see in these songs. There is little doubt many Americans hear these songs and then pound there fist on there chest and it probably raises their blood pressure. They feel they are being taken advantage of or cheated.

Shame on wealthy business owners and CEOs? Should the lucky few who risk everything be apologetic for their success? I have written before class envy is only jealousy. Now I add a second source. It comes from a few who feel wealth of a few should be artificially "spread around". These same people may feel Castro and Hugo Chavez are more than trendy leaders, but actually have a workable formula to create a prosperous and healthy country. They believe the government is the answer to everything. Ronald Reagan once said the government "is the problem."

I am no historian, yet I have read in plain English, even Stalin rolled back the hand of a heavily controlled economy in the 1930's. He watched as bread lines in the Soviet Union disappeared after allowing small farms and some businesses employing 20 or less to trade on an open market. It is hard to understand how he still defended policies keeping larger firms under a Communist schedule.

It is not over simplifying a subject to say if everyone looked out for their own best interests, the greater good would be served. Those who would take this philosophy and become too self-serving or destructive will eventually be weeded out of business or they will self-destruct. Anecdotal examples of corporate greed are not the norm.

The US, Hong Kong, South Korea are examples of free-markets working. Cuba and the Soviet Union are examples of the miserable failures of Communism. Were these two countries run how Marx and Engels invisioned? I don't know, but probably real close. I have heard many educated people say to me two paraphrased ideas, "Communism is great in theory," and "If Communism had just been altered a little it would have worked." Anyone who says this knows little about capitalism and have read less about Communism. Whatever credentials they do have, I will guess they cannot include economist or historian. Maybe just looney-website believer.

If you have a Communist success story to tell, I would like to hear from you.

While he is not a country music songwriter or singer, he appears to have some communist tendencies. Regarding the current sub-prime mortgage problem in the economy a very wealthy man has some choice words. Read the lyrics of Bill Gross of PIMCO bonds. "If we can bail out Chrysler, why can’t we support the American homeowner?" His desire is to have the Federal Government absorb the bad debt of 2 million homeowners. Marx could not have said this better himself. It is amazing a man who became wealthy in this country would suggest such intervention. He must have something to gain from such a policy.

Communism was the first step toward organizing the everyday person into a union of class envyists. Pitting Bourgeois against proletarians. The worker against the owner. The less motivated against the type A go-getters. Poor against wealthy. How pathetic. Everyone owes their job to a rich person. We should be thanking them.

Ultimate Global Warming Challenge

2007-08-14T02:07:00.000-07:00

The number of people publicly challenging and criticizing Al Gore's opinion on Global Warming is still increasing. Very little media coverage yet... Bret Baier from Fox News made mention of it. The ultimateblogalwarmingchallenge, a contest for $100,000 to the winner of who can prove global warming is caused by humans.

President Bush' 9/11 Speeches

2007-08-09T03:15:00.000-07:00

If you ever want to remember what it felt like just after September 11, 01. Read the following speeches by President Bush in the 30 days following 9/11. Courtesy of IndyStar.com, a newspaper from Indianapolis, IN.

Wind and War

2007-08-09T03:10:00.001-07:00

Forewarning of change with weather’s arrival
Signal approach for lands wet revival
Potential for destruction in life and home
Allows us to anticipate while outcome unknown

A movement in mass from place of beginning
Battle with ground, wind often is winning
High pressure to low is a tempests desire
Latitude with land’s flow will conspire

Environment directs and shows change to wind
Or trees prostrate and the force will rescind
Outside force encourages a new path
Mountains will accelerate or shape winds wrath

One can anticipate the water will reach
Destruction of hill, down stream a new beach
From torrential rains and winds of destruction
The land will heal, new life under construction

Analagous to Weather and Wind, War can make misery
But if evil is punished innocent will reach victory
From origin is begun a march in direction
The end is the goal of evil’s suppression

Honest conclusions followed by an action
A tyrant’s grip would come under traction
Some facts retrospective were convaluded
What is best for a country self-interest included

Claims the war was poor presupposition
Low on the list were eventual peace, liberation
Ill-intentions accused of greed at the top
The tyrant a marked man we already planned to stop

Imperial war neither is honorable or righteous
Conquest will end when evil is not an axis
Each battle is one by dark army or white
With God’s invocation we may win this gun fight

But war fought by noble man with high power
Who have learned lessons of past failure of desire
Self-righteous it appears, believing God found favor
The moral compass we follow sheds first our anger

Victory can not be declared when terrorist is dead
Many family and child indoctrined with unclear head
The war is not only battlefield and street
Ideology can make minds deep poored concrete

We enter a nation where men had lowered knee
Their past oppression and treatment all could see
Thankful are people for years in the past
America’s mercy built on pity is vast

A doctrine we adopted promoting democracy
America is this ideal’s working foundry
The modern first, many inspired to plant seed
One hundred nations and counting of men freed

Men will die for the slaved and to no surprise
Liberation and freedom our safety relies
A war chest is filled because of a need
Soldiers will be shot, on foreign soil will bleed

Our fighting men die, another’s border protect
Sunni, Kurd, Shiite many Arabic in dialect
If we save these people from death by sword
A friend we may have and trust in our word

A country of their own, syncretist and sustaining
Our promotion of Sharansky, democracy attaining
Hope and faith is helping me to see
America does believe, “Let us die to make men free.*”

Anecdote of Canada's Health Care

2007-08-04T15:12:00.000-07:00

Here is an article to follow up "Canada in Crisis". While this could be anecdotal and inaccurate, it may appear Canada has stifling tax rates. It is difficult to understand why Are you kidding me? defends this system?

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/

2007-08-03T04:35:00.000-07:00

Well written newly-found blogger, The London Fog.

Canada in Crisis

2007-07-29T19:41:00.000-07:00

Found another blogger who has a lot of credentials but economy-killing ideas, Are you kidding me? It appears he has a laundry list of credentials including two degrees, an executive at a company and he teaches a business class as an instructor at the Univ. of Windsor. With all this stock, it appears he has not cracked a book with respect to free markets in his lifetime. And I quote from his post of February 13, 2007, titled "Industry In Crisis: Part II"

"...government needs to become more involved in helping the manufacturing sector."

"Likewise, the Ontario Liberal government has done its part in promoting and investing in growth, and in my opinion, has done it well."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

It has always seemed to me our neighbors to the North believe in a more socialized economy. Their taxes are high, medicine is government paid (duh, taxes), but they have been a good neighbor and our economies benefit tremendously from each other.

However the mutual benefits will decrease steadily if more well-educated, but wrongly educated folks such as this run the companies of the maple leaf.

What would Adam Smith or Milton Friedman say? "Read our books." And the students of our well-educated and well-placed blogger are learning rubbish.

What the Canadian economy needs is a little less government to save the manufacturing industry, the economy and the 1st world lifestyles of our friends to the North. They also need a lot less teachers who stopped learning when they left college.

Jon Voigt thinks like me.

2007-07-29T19:05:00.000-07:00

Jon Voigt believes the the left is hurting our fight on terrorism. The left believes the republicans have created terroristm as it is today. How could we be any different in our opinion? Read the posting by Newsbusters.org.

What Middle East Needs is Another Martin

2007-07-08T18:17:00.000-07:00

When religious extremism is the enemy, war is not the only answer, however gaining “understanding” of our enemy misdirects intended results, and negotiating may resolve nothing.

A western nation desiring negotiations with terrorist organizations will find their efforts fruitless. Picture a western representative sitting across a table from a jihadist. One side of the table is a reasonable person who would rather see nations live side by side in peace. While, the jihadist would take any presented opportunity to reach across the table and cut the westerner's throat. The West desires life and liberty, the jihadist desires death and theocracy. There is no room for negotiating and I propose there is no more to be learned about terrorists. What we know is all we need to know. They see all of us as the devil's soldiers and want nothing less than to kill who than can kill and intimidate the rest.

My second cousin, Carl Reasner, was a soldier in the Nazi Army during World War II. He was captured by the Americans and shipped to a POW camp in Ohio for two years. While in the POW camp he learned English. He moved back to Germany after the war, living there until his death in 2004. His wife Eleanor still lives in their family’s 5th generation farm house in a small town near Hanover.

When my family visited Carl and Eleanor in 1994, Carl told us many soldiers in the Nazi Army were well aware they were on the wrong side of the war. They knew the Americans, French and English were not being aggressive, but defending themselves through offense. The German soldiers and civilians had also heard reports of the atrocities the Nazis inflicted upon the Jews. He admitted they probably did not know the extent of the Jewish deaths, however a picture of enough detail had been painted even amongst the citizenry . Carl and his comrades in the German unit allowed themselves to be captured by the Americans. He did not fire a single bullet against “enemy” troops.

This white flag waving, benefitted the allies, lessening the German forces by about two dozen competent soldiers. But I will argue this may have been two dozen missed opportunities. Ideological moderates in Germany were likely against Naziism and is what many of these soldiers were or had become. They may have represented the views of hundreds of thousands more soldiers in Germany and many millions of their countrymen. The same may have held true for Italian and Japanese soldiers. I believe it was likely true.

The Nazi party led in part by installation of fear among the Germans. Carl said “many” German soldiers were against the Nazi party. I believe this “many” was actually a “majority”. Germans who spoke of their dissent of the party were sometimes killed or imprisoned along with their families. The desire to disagree was prevalent while overwhelming fear quietted the most dissenters. It is well documented the Nazi party was expert at war time propaganda. It is not unrealistic to think many if not the majority of Germans could have believed Germany was going to win the war, even if they knew the party was lying to them about the Jews, Pols and Gypsies. The news of impending victory of the Fatherland would further quiet the population. Everyone desires being on the side of an eventual winner, so the “band wagon” grows. While it is still hard to choke down the immorality of soldiering for an evil empire, it makes the choice easier when the lives of your family are part of the equation.

No doubt there were German soldiers and civilians working to topple the Nazis from within. However it is apparent the masses of “reasonable” and “morally awake” Germans were unable or chose not to rise up in numbers to voice disagreement, a coupe or revolution. No one dared allow the zeitgeist to be heard.

There were similarly minded people in America prior to the 1960’s. Voices of change were getting louder, however it took a leader from the masses to pull up the moderate majority by the boot straps. Prior to Dr. Martin Luther King’s leading of civil rights there were reasonable and moral people no doubt. I believe they were the majority. However for so many years, like cousin Carl and the Germans of the mid-1940’s, civil rights minded people were either intimidated to speak or they did not have the one person needed.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease and hateful people are by nature louder and more activist than loving and accepting people. These hatefilled people grabbed media attention and may have gave the perception of the entire nation did not support civil rights. This may have been yet another factor in delaying civil rights until the 1960's. It was not until the civil rights leaders set the example for gaining the attention of the microphone and camera and preaching their piece did the movement gain popularity. Dr. King nor his fellow leaders would never have succeeded if it were not for the inspiration of the morally awake yet quiet majority of America.

Five hundred years ago another Dr. Martin Luther came from the masses and demanded change. In this case, the citizenry of peasants were uneducated and could not read scripture as it was not in their language. When Martin Luther translated the Bible into German it allowed common people to begin reading for themselves what the Roman Catholic Church of the day had been teaching. Possibly many people of the day, educated or not, did not believe salvation of your soul would come through good works and the purchasing of indulgences, but the masses were either not able to read the truth for themselves or maybe those who were literate were afraid of being labeled a heretic, maybe they just had no platform where to voice their disagreement. Luther became their voice.

The 16th Century Europe, WWII Germans and American Civil Rights history may each share a parallel within the modern war against terrorism. As the American military defends by going on the offense, this may be America's only choice. But it is possible, changing of hearts and minds or even just the raising of moderate voices must come from Muslims only. The only people who may be successful at confronting terrorism peacefully are the moderate-majority in muslims living quietly out of fear or intimidation.

The jihadist is willing to kill and be killed. Many Americans, soldiers and police officers are also willing to kill and be killed. Of the Muslim population, the moderate majority could save lives and fight this war by their voice alone. They could bring an end to the preaching of hate and indoctrination by making it the popular movement to argue against jihad.

This idea will not lead to overnight victory against terrorism. The extreme evil which is our foe, will take decades to erase. Both a fist and a voice are needed. Martin Luther's Reformation is still at work, Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights are still on the march. The next Martin will come. History shows it must be a Muslim.

It may require being patient for many new generations as the older generations of indoctrined extremists grow old and die. Their hate will hopefully be buried with their bodies.

2006-09-28T19:15:00.000-07:00

October 2, 2006 issue of of Time magazine contains an article written by Tim Padgett. As I mentioned in a previous post of Time, the picture of Hugo Chavez is one which is favorable to Chavez. It makes him appear strong and real for lack of better adjectives. See the capture below.

This article was written from of the attention garnered by Chavez when he called President Bush "the devil" during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last week. The calm firestorm which came from the many Americans was one of disgust as Mr. Padgett informs Hugo Chavez in the interview. "He seemed genuinely surprised when I informed him that rebukes were pouring in from liberals in the US Congress over the way he insulted Bush on US soil," writes Padgett. "Bush has called me worse," Chavez said, with a shrug.. continues Padgett.

Chavez then refers to the names he accused Bush of using, "Tyrant, populist dictator, drug trafficker." I don't know whether Chavez are these are not. Regardless of these he has no inhabitions about socializing the economy. The government owns the oil, brings in all the revenue and distributes it somehow. Billions. Per the Time article it may be about $40 Billion this year. This figure has more than tripled in the last 10 years. All this wealth and Chavez has to show, medical clinics in the barrios, 7 Eleven canceling Citgo's contract and an economy which had promise when he took office and is now failing in true 3rd world standards.

7 Eleven, Citgo and Chavez

2006-09-28T11:07:00.000-07:00

After watching the speech at the UN General Assembly last week by Hugo Chavez, I was offended and angry. Then when I heard the news 7 Eleven would not be renewing it's contract with Citgo (Venezuelan government owned oil company) it made me proud enough to writ the following to 7 Eleven customer relations;

"I watched the speech at the UN General Assembly and in New York, when Hugo Chavez spoke negatively about the President. Because of the decision of 7Eleven to not renew contracts with CITGO, when needing gas or a gallon of milk I will now search out 7 Eleven stores to make my purchases. There is a store just 1 mile from my residence which I have used before. Now I will always use this station. Thank you for making this decision. You have just won another loyal customer. I will be sure to tell everyone I know what a positive thing your company has done for this country."

5th Anniversary of 9/11

2006-09-11T19:24:00.000-07:00

I have been watching C-Span2 for an hour as family members of those who died in the Towers are reading their loved ones names. The is real. I have respect. I am sad and angry all over again. If I always feel like this on September 11, then I still care.

"CNN.com to replay 9/11 attacks coverage"

2006-08-25T17:17:00.000-07:00

Posted on Yahoo News;

NEW YORK - CNN will mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks by replaying on the Internet the cable network's coverage of that day's events.

ADVERTISEMENT

Viewers can watch how events unfolded starting at 8:30 a.m., minutes before the first reports of an airplane hitting the World Trade Center. The feed will run in real time, as the network showed it five years ago, until midnight.

For the day, CNN will make its online video service, CNN Pipeline, available for free. Normally, viewers pay $2.95 a month or $24.95 a year for four separate video feeds.

Online viewers will be able to watch live reports of memorial services through one of the feeds. So that viewers won't accidentally stumble upon graphic footage from 2001, the replay feed will be covered with a notice instructing users to click only if they want to watch.

"Our users may choose to view the stream of coverage from Sept. 11, 2001, or live coverage of memorial services at Ground Zero, or they may click through the numerous interactive elements on the site," said David Payne, senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com. "They have the power to determine the best way for them to remember the anniversary."

CNN is a unit of Time Warner Inc.

Syria Angry at Plans for International Force

2006-08-23T14:26:00.000-07:00

The AP reported Syria is stating an international force on the border between Lebanon and Israel would be an aggressive act.

"Syria warns against deployment of troops
AP - 44 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israel's foreign minister said Wednesday the situation in Lebanon was "explosive" while Syria's president says the deployment of international troops along the Syria-Lebanon border would be a "hostile" act. The escalating rhetoric came as the 10-day cease-fire was shaken by the deaths of three Lebanese soldiers killed defusing a missile and an Israeli killed by a land mine in south Lebanon."

Syria appears to be in a temper-tantrum because because they are obviously not getting what they wanted. If Syria truly was not involved in Hezbollah, then it would not have made such a statement. Syria has something to gain and lose in the outcome of this conflict and they just showed part of their hand. It is time for the U.N. to "call" and "raise" Hezbollah.

Lou Dobbs and his contempt for Adam Smith

2006-08-17T09:15:00.000-07:00

He has become so cynical and pessimistic I have stopped reading and watching Lou Dobbs with regularity. While I was reading CNN today I saw Lou had an article linked titled “It’s good to be a Superpower”.

He not only shows again his cynicism, this article he adds a degree of hate capitalism and it appears to me contempt for the US. My assessment of him may not be accurate for I do not know the man personally. I suppose he could also simply be ignorant. He may have never read Wealth of Nations. Remember, he is a journalist, a master of none.

I have linked articles and EU charts which disagree with Lou’s article.
GERMAN IMPORTS RISE FROM CHINA

WORLD EXPORTS AND US IMPORTS

Per this article it appears the US buys roughly 23% of the world clothing output, while we have less than 5% of the world population. If it were not for the US purchasing products from other nations, their clothing industries everywhere would contract painfully or maybe collapse. If a company suffered a 23% loss in sales, what do you think would happen to the company? Mass layoffs, possible closure or sale to a another firm?

According to this article, clothing imports are up in Europe.

The real news is what the Dutch have done to their clothing import trade. The article appears to suggest the Dutch government has applied an import duty on textiles and clothing. The import market has fallen dramtically. This not only raises prices on imports, but it will inevitably raise the price per unit of clothing made in country. Artificially softening competition in a nation will always allow prices to rise.
“Prices go up
This big fall in the Netherlands was due mainly to a big price increase of 203 per cent to an average 15.89 euros per kg paid by Dutch importers in the first quarter.
EU importers on the whole in the first quarter also saw an increase in prices of 21.1 per cent in knitted clothing and 12.7 per cent in woven clothing.
The average cost for knitted clothing was 13.56 euros per kg and 17.21 euros per kg in woven clothing.”

But is not only Lou Dobbs who does not understand the world's market economy. The Washington Post also has a story, "China to Raise Tariffs On Clothing Exports". It is about China's textile exporting. If people are buying China's clothing, they must be satisfied with a) the quality, with relation to b)the price.

Regarding the possibility of China's export tax, The New York Times adds the most meaningful bit of information I have read from the media to date. Yes, the quality. China clothing manufacturers understand this... If all they make is inexpensive and lower quality clothing, they are limited in their market. However if some of China's clothes are of higher quality (and would still be relatively inexpensive versus US or EU produced clothing, then the China textile market will find new and more customers. The market always finds it's own way.

Greenpeace Co-Founder, "Grew Up"

2006-08-11T14:46:00.000-07:00

Moore on envrionmental extremism, Nuclear Energy, deforestation, global warming.

Civilians Will Suffer, Even in a Just War

2006-08-10T15:37:00.000-07:00

David Bernstein from the Washington Post.

2006 Hurrican Season & Global Warming

2006-08-07T20:55:00.000-07:00

One year ago I was still in denial. I did not believe the Earth was warming and I did not think "we" had anything to do with it. A year has seen change and some "digging in."

A record number of hurricanes and some fierce storms came off the Atlantic in 2005. It was a field (day) year for alarmists. There were those who made their predictions for 2006. As the previous is from Wikipedia, it has the potential to change. Below will be cut and paste as to never leave the corridors of history:

On May 22, 2006, NOAA released their forecasts for the 2006 season. They predict 13 to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, and 4 to 6 becoming major hurricanes.[5]

On May 31, 2006, Klotzbach's team released their final pre-season forecast for 2006, confirming their previous numbers.[6]

Midseason Outlook

On August 3, 2006, Klotzbach's team lowered their season estimate to 15 named storms, with 7 becoming hurricanes and 3 becoming major hurricanes. They noted that conditions have become less favorable than they were earlier in the year. The sea level pressure and trade wind strength in the tropical Atlantic are above normal, while sea surface temperatures are on a decreasing trend.[7]

It is important to note the table posted to the page:

Record high activity (2005): 28 15 8
CSU 5 December 2005 predicted; 17 9 5
CSU 3 August 2006, now the lowered prediction: 15 7 3
Activity to date: 3 - -

If there is so much need for alarm, then why has CSU reduced their own 2006 predictions? We are almost half way through the hurrican season. If the conditions we so ripe as they were in 2005, we should have had 8-10 hurricanes by now and at least 3 major. So far, 3 wimpy tropical storms; Alberto, Beryl and Chris.

I am trying to be open minded. But could someone throw me a bone?

Plus I have a bet with a young lady, there will be less than 5 hurricanes total this year. If she wins (more than 5 hurricanes) I drink tobasco sauce. If I win (5 or less), she will do something similar, She loves Tobasco and habaneros. Let us hope for less destruction and my win.

Law Enforcement Catch Serial Snipers

2006-08-04T11:15:00.000-07:00

Police announce the Serial Snipers are the two in custody.

Little did other Phoenix residents know, they are also linked to the recent arson at a Walmart which shut down the store for some time. No injuries from the Walmart fire.

They both deserve the death penalty.

Phoenix Serial Sniper, Two Suspects Questioned

2006-08-04T08:14:00.000-07:00

The below article is from AZCentral.com, a local news and entertainment publication. Do not believe the article's title when it says Phoenix was in the "grip" of fear... not true.

It may be some very good news coming from the Valley. A 10:00am press conference is scheduled to the Valley details.

Cuban Dictator Crisis

2006-08-03T19:11:00.000-07:00

What if Fidel Castro really died?

How long has it been? 1959 is when Fidel Castro and his guerillas militarily took control of Havana. Wteadily he gained more control of Cuba until the whole the nation was communist with a central economy, socialized medicine and zero free speech.

Per Wikipedia "June 1960...Cuba nationalized some $850 million worth of US property and businesses. The revolutionary government grabbed control of the nation by nationalizing industry, expropriating property owned by Cubans and non-Cubans alike, collectivizing agriculture, and enacting policies which it claimed would benefit the population. While popular among the poor, these policies alienated many former supporters of the revolution among the Cuban middle and upper-classes. Over one million Cubans later migrated to the US, forming a vocal anti-Castro community in Miami, Florida." The economic changes are still held today, and the country is poor. The people have very little.

The Cuban's and families in Cuba still hate Castro. This week they have been parading and celebrating Castro's ailment. I think they may wish he pass. What could this mean to Cuba and Cubans, once Fidel Castro dies?

Currently Fidel's brother Raul is in charge of the country's affairs. Who is Raul Castro?

1) Wikipedia "According to an August 1, 2006 article in Time, he was responsible for overseeing the summary execution of 'scores' of soldiers loyal to deposed Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista after Batista's downfall."
2) Miguel A Faria MD, NewsMax, 2001

Do Cubans desire change?
Yes says a woman I spoke with named Zalenia. She is of Cuban decent and still visits family in Cuba a couple times per year. While the national news of the US shows video of support for Fidel as he is sick, Zalenia describes a different Cuba. "The people of Cuba do not have a choice of speech, they are poor, they hate Castro. The millions of Cubans living in Miami, Florida hate Castro... He has done nothing but ruin the Cuban economy and has killed thousands of countrymen. His brother Raul has himself killed thousands over the years of Fidel's power. "Cubans in Miami and Los Angeles are celebrating." Many in Cuba are as well.

The communist government in Cuba still has complete control over the national broadcasts and news. They still have Soviet-like officers in the street keeping people from granting interviews to foreign journalists. "We've been asked to keep things normal here, and to make sure that the revolution continues," said Daniel, a young social worker." -courtesy breitbart.com

I do not know what Cuban's will want. It is not clear whether Raul Castro will have the iron fist of his brother. Supposedly Raul does not have the natural charisma of his brother. He has not the same respect of Fidel. To make up for this handicap for power, Raul may have to be brutal again, if he wants to maintain the communist control of Cuba.

The hope is there will be a bloodless Revolution. Young Cubans will begin organizing rallies in the Havana streets, demanding more freedom, maybe democracy. Cuban exiles in the streets of Miami and LA I hope do the same. Build the political clout and pressure for revolutionary change again. With the death of Fidel Castro, let the birth of Cuban freedom begin.

No more death in Cuba, no more starving masses, and maybe someone can import a new car or two.

Charles Krauthammer on "Disproportianate"

2006-07-28T17:35:00.000-07:00

Krauthammer

RofaSix - Threat of Islamic Facism

2006-07-28T17:17:00.000-07:00

New find, RofaSix has a link and his own commentary on the subject of Rick Santorum's speech to the Press Club, Islamic Facism.

Where would Al Queda be today?

2006-07-28T16:11:00.000-07:00

Interesting read from Arab News. Where would Al Queda be today if they had not attacked New York on 9/11?

BrightSurf.com

2006-07-24T17:23:00.000-07:00

Interesting sight for science news and articles, BrightSurf.com.

Why Are Jews Not Dummies?

2006-07-22T13:44:00.000-07:00

Often I have wondered why there seems to be so many successful Jews? It may be easy for many people to name name multiple successful Jews. Most historically have been democrats and a few Republicans. I see it daily in columnists in the media and radio. Voices of respect are three of my favorites; Charles Krauthammer - Washing Post columnist, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved - both syndicated radio hosts.

While Prager and Medved are conservative and I have little doubt Republican, Charles Krauthammer I do not believe professes himself to be Republican.

Let us get away from their political aisles and focus on their success.

I believe theie success comes from intelligence grown from years of living in "survival mode." Whether the Jewish person lives in Israel or elsewhere, they might feel this same survival mentality.

The ability to be intelligent may be largely inherited yet I think it is reasonable to ascertain how much someone learns is a) up to their motivation and b)environmental. I do not imagine there is any proof of one country's citizens have more inherintly intelligent people than another. Every nations bell curve of intlligence is likely similar. There are dummies, average folks and brilliance. The difference comes in when all members of the population are exposed to and compete for learning and use the knowledge productively. The raises the whole of a nation so even the dummies can become smarter dummies.

Adding the above theory to Israel's small size, small population (7 million in Israel) and their years of "surviving" with enemies at the front step and back porch, they have all learned to be a little more crafty, work harder, learn more... The nation has been pushed by outside pressures to succeed and keep up with the big boys. It is analogous to a small aluminum manufacturer competing with a titan manufacturer. The large Alcoa, for example, has competitive advantages in nearly all categories compared with a smaller company. If a small business wants to compete, I would think each employee must work harder, smarter and longer to develop the product and get awarded the contracts. A larger company nearly always has the advantage. But not everyone in the titan has to be intelligent or work hard. By and large the bigger company must have a good product, cost effective and a solid team. But there can be some laggerds who do not pull their wait and the company will still survive.

A small firm must have all employees firing on all cylinders. Their team is smaller, they each may do more than one specialized job and the impact felt by each employee is more easily seen and felt. The lead engineer may have to write contract proposals one day, an office manager take a sales call, while the President brews a new cup of coffee. A week link in the small firm is a more critical problem. So it is with the nation of Israel with few people, expected to wear many hats (each male must spend 2 years in the military). They must care for their families, be successful at business and all the other "normal" problems in a typical life. Add to this the constant pressure of knowing millions of people would like nothing more than to see you and your family dead with no rationale.

Pressure and stress motivates people to improve. Too much stress can be a bad thing, but too much stress is relative. Jewish folks have succeeded like any other nation, while living with higher levels of stress than most any nation.

Secretary Madeline Albright on Greta Blog

2006-07-22T12:28:00.000-07:00

On FoxNews, Greta had on Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a guest. Greta asked the Secretary for an opinion on the Hezbollah/Israel conflict.

Greta; What will happen if Israel steps over "the line" into Lebanon?
Sec; I think it makes whole situation more dangerous...
Israel is drawn into a conflict which they are not fighting from outside but from the inside. Israle wants very much not to be occupiers any longer, they have learned this from past experience. They [Israel] need to deal with hezbollah as military threat.

Greta; Does stepping over the line into lebanon invite Syria or Iran to play bigger role?
Sec; Well it depends on the spin which comes out of this...
Not every detail is palnned ageah... there could be an accidental bombing into a Syrian area.. so there are unintended consequences and that's the problem... We are at a cross roads time in all of this where this could go in a very bad direction into spreading into a regional conflict... We need to try to get a resolution not allowing Hezbollah to regroup, and allow to feel safe within their own borders.

Greta; UN Resolution 1559 did not disarm hebollah, why should we think another Resolution would work? (Greta/Sec clarified the Sec; was not actually thinking of another UN Resolution, but simply an answer to the problem.)
Sec; I think what needs to happen, this cannot be solved militarily in the long run, we need diplomatic action in the long run... There are a number of diplomats in the region.. I hope very much Secretary Rice takes a larger role in this.. I am sure Sec Rice is in New York right now trying to figure out a more diplomatic method ...
I don't think hezbollah can be disarmed completely with military action.. and I think Israel is just going to get more sucked in...

Greta; What kind of diplomatic solution with hezbollah?
Sec; Well what has to happen, lebanon needs to control it's own territory, Hezbollah needs to be surrounded with international forces of some kind..
and the thing that is so interesting, frankly what is happening in the Middle East
is some of Sunni leaders [Saudi and others] are very critical of Hezbollah, that particular aspect of it needs to be strengthened.. That is something we need to work with...

Greta; will Arab's opinion change if Israel takes too long or take, what would appear to be, excessive force?
Sec; I think that is one of the real dangers here. Some of leaders are critical of Hezbollah, but are people on the street are thinking of Hezbollah.
Israel is in their right to protect themselves... The Katyusha rockets are coming from Hezbollah.. but at what moment does this go in a different direction.. where they seem to be the aggressors and lose their support in Arab Nations?
Like the Sunni/Shia conflicts in Iraq... throughout region this is a billiard table, very dynamic... be carefull this does not spin out of control.

I believe Greta asked the right questions and was relatively hard hitting. I also think the former Secretary did some dancing with the questions. She spent much time just restating facts and not giving her opinion. When the opinion was given I agreed with some.

MoreThanCorn agrees with Sec;
1) Israel has right to defend herself
2) Sunni leaders (governmental and religious) are critical of Hezbollah and the rest of the world needs to work with this...
3) The Middle East is analogous of a billiards table, very dynamic.
4) The "spin" from this could change everything.

MoreThanCorn disagreements with Sec;
1) Military force will not disarm Hezbollah in the long run.
2) Hezbollah needs to be surrounded by international troops
3) Israel could accidentally bomb in a Syrian area?

There is one new point above which I have yet to hear, number 4, Spin playing a role in this defensive action by Israel. Sec Albright impressed me with this. The media's coverage of this could change the direction and outcome. It could assist or desist in the resolving of this conflict with eventual peace or it could draw other nations into the conflict and escalate. The media needs to be extremely ethical and conscious of their reports and pictures. I will not hold my breath.

The disagreements are beyond recognition. The Secretary is absolutely wrong with all three above. I believe she is downplaying the significant role this "offense makes the best defense" method Israel is taking. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with 200+ US soldiers deaths notched in their headboards and 60+ Jews in this conflict alone. The total Jews killed is I am sure in the thousands. These people are not those who would sit down with cup of warm Green Tea and negotiate or voluntarily give up their remaining 12,500 Katyusha rockets, even if the tea has a hint of Jasmine. Hezbollah are terrorist/civilians, as I have heard them defined. Civilians store rockets in their homes and aid and abet Hezbollah even if they do not participate in the conflict themselves. They want Jews exterminated again and it appears revel in the hopes of this coming to pass.

The only time Diplomatic means would assist is for continued work on above "agreement #2, continued critical speech toward Hezbollah. There is where a veteran cheerleader could do some good. The military is there for one reason, insure Israeli security. This is accomplished well (and in the long run) through extermination of terrorists and exploding their rocket caches. The Secretary says, then the Lebanese government can move in troops with possible help from international forces to take back control of Southern Lebanon and encircle remaining Hezbollah terrorists. Did the Secretary not just say military action is also the long term answer? Let us review; Militarily (Israel) weed out terrorists (Hezbollah), then regain control of South Lebanon with a military (Lebanese)?

And how are international (United Nations) troops any better than Israel for taking care of Hezbollah? Would UN troops be ineffective?

I never much liked Secretary Albright.

ABC News, Phoenix "Under Seige" from Sniper

2006-07-21T15:53:00.000-07:00

Just got off the phone with a friend in Indianapolis. He said ABC News headlines claim, "Community Under Seige", and then the report said, "...entire city is paralyzed with fear..."

This could not be further from the truth. ABC news is guilty of inflating the story.

I live and work in Phoenix. My employer is just a few blocks from a couple of the shootings. No one here in my office of 80 people have any life-changing fear of the sniper. We are all concerned, but not paralyzed.

Inflated Articles;
July 21 - ABC News

Charles Krauthammer on Israel and Hezbollah

2006-07-21T09:38:00.000-07:00

Krauthammer again is brilliant. Read full version below.

The MSM is sending mixed signals in their articles. Fox News, in my opinion, bumbles their article title today, "Arab World Stands Behind Hezbollah". Even when I read the stand alone article I still get the impression governments of Arab nations want Hezbollah out of the equation. They see the terror group as destabilizing. This really is a confusing mess of a region.

If Israel does as Krauthammer hopes, they will due the dirty work and give back the land to Lebanon, free of Hezbollah. Hopefully the "world" will give Israel enough time. The media could help, but I fear they will not.

Lebanon: The Only Exit Strategy

By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Page A19

"There is crisis and there is opportunity. Amid the general wringing of hands over the seemingly endless and escalating Israel-Hezbollah fighting, everyone asks: Where will it end?

The answer, blindingly clear, begins with understanding that this crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity.

Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East.

Which parties? Start with the great powers. In September 2004 they passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, demanding that Hezbollah disarm and allow the Lebanese army to take back control of south Lebanon.

The resolution enjoyed the sponsorship of the United States and, yes, France. As the former mandatory power in Lebanon, France was important in helping the Lebanese expel Syria during last year's Cedar Revolution, but it understands that Lebanon's independence and security are forfeit so long as Hezbollah -- a lawless, terrorist, private militia answering to Syria and Iran -- occupies south Lebanon as a rogue mini-state.

Then there are the Arabs, beginning with the Lebanese who want Hezbollah out. The majority of Lebanese -- Christian, Druze, Sunni Muslim and secular -- bitterly resent their country's being hijacked by Hezbollah and turned into a war zone. And in the name of what Lebanese interest? Israel evacuated every square inch of Lebanon six years ago.

The other Arabs have spoken, too. In a stunning development, the 22-member Arab League criticized Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis. It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel. But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on what is essentially Iran's timetable (to distract attention from Iran's pending referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged.

Fine. Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.

Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the Group of Eight summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south.

But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah's aggression.

The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.

It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Persian Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran's choosing.

Just as in Kuwait in 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.

Only two questions remain: Israel's will and America's wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West?"

No Guns Equal More Crime

2006-07-20T16:55:00.000-07:00

In 1995 was priviledged to be at a dinner where Jim Brady (Brady Bill, shot during President Reagan's attempted killing)and his wife were speaking. I remember little about the speech, but days later I read the Brady Bill as it stood never would have kept Jim Brady or Ronald Reagan from being shot. Up to this point I was more or less a gun control advocate. This was a tipping point in my move to pro-gun advocacy.

ToGetRichIsGlorious found an article showing the homicide crime rate in Washington DC as still being one of the fiercest in the US. It is also one of the few cities or towns in the country where guns are completely outlawed.

When I lived in DC in 2001 I remember taking the Metro on the Green line Southeast of town. I believe many of the murders adding up are happening in the neighborhoods near the Anacostia Metro stop. If the nations capital is going to be a "gun free zone" for law-abiding citizens, then they deserve a higher level of protection. It is apparent the criminals are getting and using guns in city where the law says one cannot have a gun. The law only keeps law abiding citizens, who would potentially lower the crime rate by carrying weapons for self-defense. If every criminal or would be murder knew each man over the age of 18 was carrying a weapon, would they not think twice or three times before attempting anything dumb?

This topics was discussed yesterday with a friend. I believe in Revolutionary times every household in some colonies were required to have a weapon. Obviously this was the time of the Minute Men and defense of the colonies against the British, however I doubt there is any way to find out how the related crime rate changed/no change during this time.

A law today stating every household must have a weapon self defense would be seen as horrific. The experts and moms would come out of the wood work pointing to all the accidental shootings to children when guns were at home. They would claim these statistics would rise. If the public was an educated public regarding weapons at home and this was part of our culture, yes I think accidental deaths at home would rise, however relative to the number of households it would not be nearly as significant as the drop in all crimes from breaking and entering, rape, homicide and others. I believe the net effect would be an unarguable savings of human life.

Hezbollah's Choice

2006-07-19T15:15:00.000-07:00

Dwarfed and cornered a nation defending
Offensive maneuver, North and South sending
Few other people will fight more resolute
Patience they showed, terror they now refute

A mouse surrounded by dozens of cats
This mouse does not cower under rocket attacks
Centuries of hate for only hates sake
Are Arab’s so blind, their lives are at stake?

Iran supports from the North Hezbelloh
Southern foe tunnels, mimicing tarantula
Springing from hole to kill and to snatch
Soldiers of Israel surprise is no match

International zone between bomb strapped Palestine
A wall was built, the terror Israel confined
The American President, convinced her to return
Ground she held, defending like giant burm

Arafat had said if land was given back
No Israeli would die, due to ball-bearing flack
The promise was denied by Ariel Sharon
He believed any softening, brings death alone

Give up they did, this buffering zone
Back to people, anger and death their tone
Electing Hamas to lead them forward
Nothing to gain through murder as coward

The suicide attackers ran bloody once more
Café coffee and blood splattered to floor
The rockets continue after Israel tried peace
Now their plan is diplomacy with digging teeth

Diplomacy against terror, is talking about talk
No more chances, Jews now walk the walk
It appears there is little the radicals understand
Except real consequences, military’s heavy hand

The world has agreed, Israel has the right
To defend herself, now an 8 day fight
It may continue for weeks, until terror is rid
When Israel will sleep with no missile overhead

Israel is fighting with one hand behind her back
If Iran begins to meddle, it’s audios jack
To avoid a larger war it is not too late
If Tehran keeps quiet, their demise will abate

Which do we want, Tehran as terrorist or free?
Their university students have marched and see
Tehran would have a chance at liberation and votes
We would read more speeches of Natan Sharansky quotes

Sharansky may be Jewish and Tehran’s students Arab
They are too smart to believe theirPresidents vocal scarab
His talk is tough and appears not concerned
But neither was Khadafi, then his house bombed he confirmed

Marching Democracy delivers peace to the world
Text books will show, liberty, freedom in word
There are a few who read history and reflect
They look no further than Reagan I would suspect

Peace through strength was his success
History if repeated, would show the same progress
Our strength has a cost, but conflict we avoid
Enemies will cower, their hate will grow devoid

Israel previously sees the benefits of strength
For years they had force muliplying breadth
Defending herself from a second extermination
By scaring those who would kill with little persuasion

They want Hamas and Hezbollah to see
This is what happens if they are not let be
Military might is their diplomatic discussion
Wrapped up tight in bomb shell explosion

Israel sees, all enemies as no different
Now hesitate not, for unleashing a deterrent
Provoked into position, action was taken
Hezbollah wants to fight, they are gravely mistaken

The choice theirs to release soldiers unmolested
Decimation has come, annihilation will be wretched
Their anticipation of Israel’s weakness mistook
Hezbollah will know peace, after rewriting their playbook

Israel War- Charles Krauthammer

2006-07-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

Charles Krauthammer's Op-Ed today is a must read. He brings up the historical events of Israel and the past conflicts with Palestinians, Yassar Arafat. Israel is fighting to insure their survival from extermination, again.

*********************************
Why They Fight

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 14, 2006; Page A21

"Next June will mark the 40th anniversary of the Six-Day War. For four decades we have been told that the cause of the anger, violence and terror against Israel is its occupation of the territories seized in that war. End the occupation and the "cycle of violence" ceases.

The problem with this claim was that before Israel came into possession of the West Bank and Gaza in the Six-Day War, every Arab state had rejected Israel's right to exist and declared Israel's pre-1967 borders -- now deemed sacred -- to be nothing more than the armistice lines suspending, and not ending, the 1948-49 war to exterminate Israel

But you don't have to be a historian to understand the intention of Israel's enemies. You only have to read today's newspapers.

Exhibit A: Gaza. Just last September, Israel evacuated Gaza completely. It declared the border between Israel and Gaza an international frontier, renouncing any claim to the territory. Gaza became the first independent Palestinian territory in history. Yet the Gazans continued the war. They turned Gaza into a base for launching rocket attacks against Israel and for digging tunnels under the border to conduct attacks such as the one that killed two Israeli soldiers on June 25 and yielded a wounded hostage brought back to Gaza. Israeli tanks have now had to return to Gaza to try to rescue the hostage and suppress the rocket fire.

Exhibit B: South Lebanon. Two weeks later, the Lebanese terror organization, Hezbollah, which has representation in the Lebanese parliament and in the cabinet, launched an attack into Israel on Wednesday that resulted in the deaths of eight soldiers and the wounding of two others, who were brought back to Lebanon as hostages.

What's the grievance here? Israel withdrew from Lebanon completely in 2000. It was so scrupulous in making sure that not one square inch of Lebanon was left inadvertently occupied that it asked the United Nations to verify the exact frontier defining Lebanon's southern border and retreated behind it. This "blue line" was approved by the Security Council, which declared that Israel had fully complied with resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Grievance satisfied. Yet what happens? Hezbollah has done to South Lebanon exactly what Hamas has done to Gaza: turned it into a military base and terrorist operations center from which to continue the war against Israel. South Lebanon bristles with Hezbollah's 10,000 Katyusha rockets that put northern Israel under the gun. Fired in the first hours of fighting, just 85 of these killed two Israelis and wounded 120 in Israel's northern towns.

Over the past six years, Hezbollah has launched periodic raids and rocket attacks into Israel. Israeli retaliation has led to the cessation of these provocations -- until the next time convenient for Hezbollah. Wednesday was such a time. One terror base located in fully unoccupied Arab territory (South Lebanon) attacks Israel in support of another terror base in another fully unoccupied Arab territory (Gaza).

Why? Because occupation was a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel. The issue is, and has always been, Israel's existence. That is what is at stake.

It was Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization that convinced the world that the issue was occupation. Yet, through all those years of pretense, Arafat's own group celebrated its annual Fatah Day on the anniversary of its first attack on Israel, the bombing of Israel's National Water Carrier -- on Jan. 1, 1965.

Note: 1965. Two years before the 1967 war. Two years before Gaza and the West Bank fell into Israeli hands. Two years before there were any "occupied territories."

But, again, who needs history? As the Palestinian excuses for continuing their war disappear one by one, the rhetoric is becoming more bold and honest. Just Tuesday, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, writing in The Post, referred to Israel as "a supposedly 'legitimate' state" ["Aggression Under False Pretenses," op-ed, July 11].

He made clear what he wants done with this bastard entity. "Contrary to popular depictions of the crisis in the American media," he writes, "the dispute is not only about Gaza and the West Bank." It is about "a wider national conflict" that requires the vindication of "Palestinian national rights."

That, of course, means the right to all of Palestine, with no Jewish state. In the end, the fighting is about "the core 1948 issues, rather than the secondary ones from 1967."

In 1967 Israel acquired the "occupied territories." In 1948 Israel acquired life. The fighting raging now in 2006 -- between Israel and the "genocidal Islamism" (to quote the writer Yossi Klein Halevi) of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran behind them -- is about whether that life should and will continue to exist."

Saudi Arabia Support, As Israel Backed into Corner

2006-07-13T20:19:00.000-07:00

Whille the battles continue or grow between Israel and Hizbullah, it is important to already read details.

Typical media channels are really stoking the Israel troop movements and IAF bombings in Beirut as all out war and "escallation" of a large magnitude. While I am not there, therefore this all could be accurate, I also am reading between the lines.

The Jerusalem Post has this article which states Saudi Arabia is not taking an on-the-fence position. While they are trying to promote more caution with the Israel military action (which is a fence sitter), they are also coming out and questioning and softly condemning the actions of the guerillas of Hizbullah. The following few paragraphs are in my mind a critical read;

"A Saudi official quoted by the state Saudi Press Agency said the Lebanese Hizbullah's brazen capture of two Israeli soldiers was not legitimate.

The kingdom "clearly announces that there has to be a differentiation between legitimate resistance (to Israel) and uncalculated adventures."

The Saudi official said Hizbullah's actions could lead to "an extremely serious situation which could subject all Arab nations and its achievements to destruction."

"The kingdom sees that it is time for those elements to alone shoulder the full responsibility for this irresponsible behavior and that the burden of ending the crisis falls on them alone."

Saudi Arabia's comments on the crisis came after most moderate Arab governments reacted with relative restraint to Israel's offensive in Lebanon, condemning attacks on civilians and infrastructure but also implicitly criticizing Hizbullah."

With just more than 48 hours since the Israeli shells began arching and bombs began falling, what appears to be a good many of the Arab nations are not only showing restraint but also saying the Hizbullah should be left out to dry. There are on their own with this near-sighted decision of kidnapping Israelis soldiers as bargaining chips. I do not see Hizbullah's attempt at strong arming any less futile than a man standing at the base of the Hoover Dam, striking it with a hammer. Yes damage will be done, but does he understand what is behind those walls. In this case not only is Israel's own restraint part of the dam's wall, but also contributing are other Arab nations.

I pray for a quick end to the fighting, yet I hope Hizbullah will get a clear message.

Phoenix Resident on Serial Rapist and Sniper

2006-07-13T10:20:00.000-07:00

Do not believe the ratings-inspired media.

The “Baseline Rapist” and yet to be named 'serial sniper' barely have the attention of many Phoenix residents. I live in Phoenix and I am concerned over what is happening. There is no doubt the media, locally and nationally, have hyped this story to glamorize it and win viewers and ratings.

I have spoken with a dozen friends and coworkers about this in the last 24 hours. More than half did not even know about the rapest or the sniper. The first time they had heard any word about it was when I started the conversation.

My father and mother called last weekend and asked questions and were quite concerned. However they too only know what the MSM has told them. Last night on local Phoenix news, the background music was this sinister elevator-like music while they commentated on a neighborhood meeting with residents and Phoenix Police at Loma Linda Middle School in Phoenix.

The residents who know about what is happening have concern, yet it is apparent there is no mass fear. I live in Phoenix, work in the down town area (near to where some of the murders have taken place) so I have a good bead Phoenix residents.

There is no city wide fear and panic as the MSM is portraying. The city is concerned, but many have not even heard of what is going on with the story. The city of 3 million is large and there is much going on each day. While the feeling of the city could change, it currently is business as usual for most of us.

MIT Professor Calls Global Warming a Scam

2006-07-13T06:49:00.000-07:00

Richard S Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT says those promoting global climate change are chasing research funds. Scientists who contest human effect on climate change do not receive funding and their reputations are compromised. There is a "climate" of fear within the atmospheric science community not to contest climate change.

News Busters has an article here.
Cato here.
FirstThings here.
Tom DeWeese here.

Cindy Sheehan's About Face

2006-07-11T19:34:00.000-07:00

When reading Bob Park's Black & Right I came accross an recent post with a link to the original Cindy Sheehan. Mrs Sheehan truly looks like a profiteer of her son's death and a flip-flopper.

Terrorists Hate Elections and Blue Jeans

2006-07-11T10:54:00.000-07:00

India now has their own deadly day to remember. Joining other countries;

US 9/11/01 -
England 07/07/05 - 52 killed, 700 injured
India 07/11/06 - 137 killed (as of 10:55am Pacific, hundreds injured

According to the AP/FoxNews article; "The force of the blasts ripped doors and windows off carriages, and luggage and debris were strewn about, splattered with blood. Survivors were seen clutching bloody bandages to their heads and faces. Some were able to walk from the station."

These attacks are similar to attacks in England, Spain and Indonesia.

The religions of the US, England, Spain, Indonesia and India are dissimilar. However two adjectives which describe all these areas are;

Democracy
Market Economy

These two are what radical Islam groups disdain, western democracy and the western economy. Why do they hate these? I do not know and it is possible they do not themsleves know.

I am not convinced Islamic extremists first hate people for their religious beliefs. It is possible they hate the "western" culture first and we all just happen to be Christian, Catholic, Jewish, etc...

India is by no means western in their culture as they are 80 or 90 percent Hindu. However their economy is very open and market driven. This is bringing western influences. This is bringing extremist' disdain.

This is why there are Muslims being killed and Mosques being bombed in Iraq. It matters to what religion one is devoted. Anyone can be the enemy if they vote in an election, wear blue jeans or a Reebok t-shirt. If you directly or indirectly support western ideas or culture you are now the enemy.

This is not about who is friends with the United States or who supports or does not support the war in Iraq. This is a war on democratic institutions and market economies (they happen to walk down the street hand-in-hand). The United States is simply the title of the largest democracy with a free market. England, Spain, India fall under our same category. With freedom of choice brings change. Extremists never read "Who Moved My Cheese" and they do not want their countries to morph away from dictatorships and brutal theocracies with little or no human rights and choices for their people.

Many a Christian prayer will be repeated for victims and families in India.

The Hardways

2006-07-09T13:16:00.000-07:00

Yesterday in Tempe, AZ went to the Yucca Tap Room at the advice of a friend. The Hardways were a band playing in the evening. They played a short but lively show.

The Absentee View - Liberals and their News

2006-07-09T10:55:00.000-07:00

Voice of reason, Absentee, writes a fresh dose of his witty opinion on where and why liberals choose comedians, actors and singers as their news and opinion sources.

Read post "Millions of people .. out there" from June 7, 2006.

Absentee is right on the money, in my opinion. But then, I just adopted my opinion from Absentee? Maybe he is crazy?

Wind and War

2006-07-08T13:54:00.000-07:00

Forewarning of change with weather’s arrival
Signals approach for lands wet revival
Potential for destruction in life and home
Allows us to anticipate while outcome unknown

High pressure to low is a tempests desire
Latitude with land contour conspire
Outside force encourages a new path
Mountains will accelerate or shape winds wrath

A movement in mass from place of beginning
Battle with ground, wind often is winning
Environment directs and shows change to wind
Or trees prostrate and the force will rescind

One can anticipate the water will soon reach
Destruction of hill, down stream a new beach
From torrential rains and winds of destruction
The land will heal, new life under construction

Analagous to Weather and Wind, War can make misery
But if evil is punished innocent will reach victory
From origin is begun a march in direction
The end is the goal of evil’s suppression

Honest conclusions followed by an action
A tyrant’s grip would come under traction
Some facts retrospective were convaluded
What is best for a country self-interest included

Claims the war was poor presupposition
Low on the list were eventual peace, liberation
Ill-intentions accused of greed at the top
The tyrant a marked man previous plans to stop

Imperial war neither is honorable nor righteous
Conquest will end when evil is not an axis
Each battle is won by dark army or white
With God’s invocation we may win this gun fight

But war fought by noble man with high power
Who have learned lessons of past failure or desire
Self-righteous it appears, believing God found favor
The moral compass we follow sheds first our anger

Victory declared not when terrorist is dead
Many family and child indoctrined, poisoned head
The war is not only battlefield and street
Ideology can make mind a deep poored concrete

We enter a nation where men had lowered knee
Their past oppression and treatment all could see
Thankful are people for years in the past
America’s mercy built on pity is vast

A doctrine we adopted promoting democracy
America is this ideal’s working foundry
The modern first, many inspired to plant seed
One hundred nations and counting of men freed

Men will die for the slaved and no surprise
Liberation and freedom our safety relies
A war chest is filled because of a need
Soldiers will be shot, on foreign soil will bleed

Our fighting men die, another’s border protect
Sunni, Kurd, Shiite many Arabic in dialect
If we save these people from death by sword
A friend we may have and trust in our word

A country of their own, syncretist and sustaining
Our promotion of Sharansky, democracy attaining
Hope and faith is helping me to see
America does believe, “Let us die to make men free.*”

Rick Monday Saves American Flag 1976

2006-07-07T19:27:00.000-07:00

I am a little behind the curve on this story. It was brought back to the attention of the public on Independence Day this year. I was still in mom's incubator when the Dodger's took the field this day...

In 1976 Dodger Rick Monday saved an American Flag from being burned on the field. Listen to Rick's Account at insidebaseball.net

A Tour Audience' Preemptive Strike

2006-07-03T17:28:00.000-07:00

For the nth time in recent memory, the Tour De France opens with talks of drug scandals. This year the anty is upped when one day prior to the prologue in England, 17 riders are not allowed to begin the tour, including two favorites Ivan Basso of CSC and Jan Ullrich. It appears the accused riders were pulled by their teams when information by the Spanish Police was handed to the world doping agency governing drug use in professional cycling. At this time the press has labeled everything as "allegations." What this means is some who are accused are either guilty and will be proven so or they will be cleared of any wrong doing (whether guilty or not). The damage to the individuall cyclists career has been damaged through the allegations alone. The Tour is again tarnished.

I am an amateur cyclist and participate in local (USCF) races and watch the Tour each year with religious like conviction. I have an affinity toward and an understanding of the Tour which is not unique inside competitive cycling circles. Training rides with local cyclists is always tough. This is just at an amateur level. The Tour is a once per year reminder for humbleness. It is apparent to me how hard it must be a world class cyclist, racing against others your caliber. What is difficult for most of us to understand is the pressure a professional cyclist is under to not only race well, but to win races.

Many cyclists race for years, working full time, training and racing nearly full time in order to make it onto a competitive team. Once they are on a local team, they can move up to a national team, the next step is an international team. There is a little money in cycling unless you win races consistently and are on a supported (sponsored) team. In order to achieve this level of performance, training mileage is probably 500+ miles per week for many of them. Cyclists sacrifice their social life and their careers in order to pursue racing. Most who take this risk to race as a professional will end their careers and have racing memories to show for it.

Pro cycling may be similar to football, where the quarter back garners most of the attention. In Tour level cycling the "GC" or team captain is nearly the only thing which matters. The supporting riders "domestiques" are simply cannon fodder.

All the other riders are "domestiques". The pressure to perform well as a domestique must also be extreme and in the end you will get little or no recognition. If you are lucky there will be a renewal your contract for next year.

A typical tour rider may have a short biography similar to this;

Jonathan Bender began racing bmx bikes at age 7. Moved into road cycling at age 14 and was winning local criteriums by age 16. Joined a junior development tam at 16 and by age 21 was picked up by a sposored-professional team based on Belgium. Age 23 was recruited to race on team Telephone of France. Currently age 30, rides first Lieutenant for the 27 year old team captain and Tour Champion hopeful Brent Jebeaux.

It is likely Johnathan Bender skipped college to race and may have been working full time through out his cycling career making minimum wage or little more. He probably has little or no social life outside of cycling. He races nearly every week for 30+ weeks a year. Sometimes his team may schedule 3 or 4 events in a week.

Like many who sacrifice so much to participate in what they excel or love, there is pressure to succeed. In comes the pressure to dope.

Team managers or doctors may pressure riders to begin a doping regimen. But other than the athlete, who is more responsible for dictating what can and cannot enter the cyclist's body?

I want to pre-empt the stories of the coming weeks all fueled by pity for the cyclist. "They are forced into doping by the pressure from sponsors." "The professional cyclist is a victim, caught between success in the sport they love and pressures for winning or an expectation.

Let none of us claim to know what pressure they are going through. However I will claim to have a concious and moral compass. I believe all have the same compass. I believe most of not all know whether there were drugs inserted into their bodies and cannot believe for a second any of them were naive to this.

A cyclist caught doping deserves the punishment they will receive. Articles which will speak any other opionion I believe will just be pandering and promoting the self pitty of cheaters.

Insurgent Demands Show Insurgent Dispair

2006-06-28T15:54:00.000-07:00

The US troops may have just seen another example of how they are winning the war in Iraq. It takes some critical thinking, but it is a logical conclusion.

CNN posted an article today where 11 insurgent groups in Iraq are asking for a 2 year timeline for US troops to exit Iraq. If this and a list of other requests are met, they would stop their terrorist activities immediately.

According to the article there are probably two dozen insurgent groups working in Iraq today. It is estimated these 11 insurgent groups account for up to 70% of the insurgent numbers in Iraq.

The insurgents are trying to establish a dialogue with the United States. They are interested in negotiating. Since when do people who cut off heads and kill innocents begin to negotiate? As sinister as these people are, they may have some human qualities about them. I believe they realize they are getting beat.

As financial means are cut-off or dry up, when it seems a nearly daily occurrence when 8, 11, 40 insurgents are killed, it becomes clear if the insurgents are fighting a war of attrition they will lose. American and coalition forces are still lost each week, however based on superior armament and plans, this gorilla warfare is still fairing well for the coalition. Deaths are meaningful, yet minimal relative to any past war.

The insurgency are steadily losing their brass. Zarqawi was yet another example of our troops lethality when hunting terrorist killers.

I support a “no-timeline” war on terrorism in Iraq. When receiving news like the insurgents wanting to talk or negotiate, I support increasing the iron fist. Terrorists may only understand strength. If we consistently respond to their showing of strength or weakness with increased military strength, I believe the terrorists will continue to get the hint the US is not going to leave. The only option for the terrorists will be die or give up.

President Reagan understood “Peace through Strength”. So does our President Bush.

Hard Questions for Carl Levin

2006-06-27T20:19:00.000-07:00

On Fox and Friends, Brian Kilmeade was in a professional yet heated question/answer session with Senator Carl Levin about troop reductions and when they should start or who should make the call.

I could not get a link, however the title of the video is "Stay the Course?" and is in the "Fox News 24/7" box at FoxNews. Bravo to Brian Kilmeade for his questions and not giving up to get an answer out of Senator Levin. Just so happens, Senator Levin never gave Brian a straight answer. But the good Senator sure knows how to dance.

Not Evil, Angry

2006-06-26T21:26:00.000-07:00

It has been a long time coming. Let me be honest, I wanted Ward Churchill to lose his position at CU Boulder since I first read his vommotous words. I knew nothing of his plagiarism at the time. We need to remember how he came to attention.

It was January 2005 when Professor Ward Churchill first made news when he described some who died in the towers on Sept 11, as "Little Eichmann's". This is where it started. You can read a general cronology of major events and statements by others involved at Political Gateway.

Here is FoxNews article.

Michelle Malkin was the only place I could find pics of both Churchill's plagarism of art; "Winter Attack" and "Little Big Man."

A response to the Churchill subject I think is worth reading, author Anthony Lappe.

If you have read enough articles and opinions, including Ward Churchill's interviews and explanations you can make your own conclusions. Maybe Professor Churchill was really just trying to write a philosophy essay? Maybe he was trying to portray himself as an inward looking person. However I just do not believe this explanation. Until I talk to him in person and get a different gut feeling, I would have to say Ward Churchill is maybe evil, definately angry.

The Living Wage Fallacy

2006-06-25T19:29:00.000-07:00

Who is living in more squalor, Craig (top photo) or Dave (bottom photo)?

The minimum wage law is again in the news. There is a new term in the country's vernacular, "living wage".

Time Magazine always appears to have a mixed bag of pro-market writers and those against the market. The cover story, India Inc., about India's free market explosion appears pro-market. It is a well written piece which celebrates the newness and energy of the working class and new wealthy citizens of India. The economy is being driven by people who are behind the steering wheel of their own lives. As they are pursuing their own, selfish means, they are actually growing the economy together and fewer are being "left behind."

However their are a couple articles in this week's issue which are not pro-market in any form.

The articles suggests Pittsburgh is an example of the benefits of paying higher wages for low skilled labor. In Pittsburgh it states low income neighborhoods are on the improve, janitor bought home ownership is up 37% in 15 years and there are fewer families living below the poverty line. Time interviewed a janitor in Pittsburgh who has union negotiated wage of over $12.60/hour!

The article does in fact come clean when it cites pro minimum wage ideas are promoted by "liberal-leaning" groups such as the Economic Policy Institute and the Fiscal Policy Institute." These orgs claim by raising minimum wage it will have no effect on the number of jobs available.

"Daniel Radford, who served as executive secretary of the Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council... laments that the standard of living for workers in his hometown has failed to keep pace with that of similar workers in Pittsburgh. "They've got high union density, politicians in their pocket and strong community support... But Cincinnati is completely different. It's a tough town for workers."

MoreThanCorn cheers Cincinnati for being a tough workers market. The tougher the market, the better the workers and the more inspiration for workers to educate, re-educate, start a business or get a second job until they find the better job.

The next paragraph states "Craig Jones knows that firsthand" (Cincy's tough worker market). He lives in Cincinnati and is a janitor. "It is 10pm and he is back home after another four-hour janitorial shift. He microwaves a Stouffer's dinner and grabs a Coke from his cabinet. He has been looking for a better-paying job during his off-hours but hasn't found one, so he is pinning his hopes on the Justice for Janitors campaign. 'I'm not looking for a handout,' he says. 'But I feel like I'm stuck.'"

From one Jones to another, I think Craig is looking for a handout. The photographs of him standing at work with trash bag in hand and him sitting on a mattress at home show a couple things to me. The jersey he is wearing may be $100+. He has watch on his wrist, possibly a gold chain on the neck and atleast a $10 dew rag on his head. It is difficult to tell what kind of brand name jeans he is may be wearing and the broom head is conveniently covering up identification of the shoes. Time magazine photo-shopped the jersey in the front. Why? It does make it more difficult to identify the team, brand and therefore the actual price tag of the jersey.

Craig's last quote "...but I feel like I'm stuck..." shows the his mental position. He has given up. He is age 27 and has no will to succeed. Time states "...so he is pinning his hopes on the Justice for Janitors campaign..." which is a organization of pro-living wage janitors who are trying to organize other janitors into unions. This is pathetic and unAmerican. Craig is waiting for someone else to do something about improving his situation. He only works 5 days a week and 4 hours a day according to the article. Why does he not go get another job for an additional 4 or 5 hours each day. He could double his monthly income.

After college I was working a job making $6.00/hour. I needed more money after working 40 hours so I found a second job delivering subs on a bike. I also did seasonal Christmas work folding t-shirts at local retailer. I worked 55-60 hours a week, but I made enough to cover bills and save a little. This was done until I figured out what I was going to do with my life. I did not want to make $6.00/hour for very long. The low wage and many hours was inspiration for me to make decisions, work smarter and not harder. It forced me to take risks. It was difficult but this process of making something of yourself, by yourself is just a repeat of what has happened millions of times before me.

Lou Dobbs of CNN wrote an article about the nixing an increase in the minimum wage law . He also talks about the "living wage". "Congress stiffs working Americans" He states the minimum wage should be raised because it has not been raised in years. Dobbs sights the Fiscal Policy Institute (TIME pointed out they are a liberal organization) as research supporting his article. Lou Dobbs seems to be a classic example of journalist trying to make an economic argument. He failed in my eyes, however he may be pandering to those who love taxation and social welfare spending.

Uncivil Rights also has a reasonable opinion on "Living Wages." He adds depth to this post by discussing the tierchary effects of artificially raising wages to unskilled workers. The costs of all products would no doubt rise as janitors all over the country demanded more pay.

The picture Time adds to the article for Craig makes him look like he is living in squalor. No furniture and no pictures or posters on the wall as he sits on his futon thinking.

Let's see what a picture is really worth;
Craig's photo above (see top of post), smoking, wishing someone would rescue him.

The second picture is a staged picture showing C. David Jones living in equal squalor as is Craig. The difference is C. David is reading about Minimum Wage Laws in Henry Hazlitt's, Economics In One Lesson. C. David does not make excuses and looks for new success. He is not waiting for anyone to give him a handout or even a break. Not everyone can be like Craig. Someone has to make a lot of money, to be taxed heavily and to pay for other's laziness and then pay the $12/hour a union wants for their janitors.

If Craig gets his $12/hour, he will be more likely to be content emptying trash cans and spraying windex on windows the rest of his life. Yes, someone has to do the work. Low wages for janitors are good for the individual janitor. In the short run they make less money and God forbid they have to work harder or get a second job. When I made $6.00/hour it motivated me to move on and find success. It will inspire us to make tough decisions which often leads to more prosperity.

One should be working hard and raising themself up to a higher paying job. They should not expect or hope for a job's pay to rise to meet their demands. A living wage can be attained through hard work, in whatever form it must take for Craig to succeed.

Craig, if you ever read this, send me your address. I will mail to you copies of two books I use for inspiration for my own successes;

Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt
Young Millionaires, Forbes Magazine

Response from Professor Wycliff of Notre Dame

2006-06-23T21:39:00.001-07:00

My email:
(June 22) "Please confirm the facts which O'Reilly is claiming.
Thank you
C Dave Jones
MoreThanCorn.blogspot"

Professor Wycliff response:
(June 23) "Thanks for writing.....dw"

No Mr Wycliff, thank you for clearing this up for me.

Notre Dame's Don Wycliff, Canceled spot on O'Reilly?

2006-06-22T22:02:00.000-07:00

On Bill O'Reilly;

Don Wycliff, Professor at Notre Dame in Media, wrote in the Chicago Tribune June 22, 2006 editorial, ...but if you put the blame where it really belongs (for the death of Menchaca and Tucker), you (O'Reilly) have to say bad things about some people for whom you have been a cheerleader. It's ok, Bill. Nobody who cares about the truth takes you seriously anyway."

Per O'Reilly on his show, states Wycliff agreed to come on the show and then canceled one hour prior to airing. O'Reilly advised Wycliff to not make personal attacks and then refuse to defend them, "Cowardice is not becoming."

Is this true Mr. Wycliff?

"500 WMD Munitions, Not Stockpiles"

2006-06-21T21:29:00.000-07:00

I remember reading about 12 munitions filled with Sarin gas which had been found in Iraq just after American troops arrived. If I remember correctly the delivery systems were found to have a stamp of a French company.

Listening to Hugh Hewitt this evening on the way home from work and dinner I heard the last segment of an interview with (R) Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. I learnt there had been found approximately 500 total munitions thus far since 2003 and more were likely to be found. Read the information released thus far on Rick Santorum's website.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200606/NAT20060621e.html

While this information appears to me as critical, I am anticipating the arguments now of their legitamcy. Two possible arguments;
1) "This information and the declassified report has been cooked up by the Bush Administration. It is awfully coincidental as President Bush's pole numbers have sunk to recent lows, he now brings this information out to prop himself up."
2) Yet the most anticipated argument is: "500 munitions is by no means "stock piles".
I anticipate Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi or Edward Kennedy to chant this fight song.

My argument is this; "How do you define weapons of mass destruction." How few or many munitions are needed to a nation to officially contain WMD? When the 12 munitions of Sarin gas was found in 2003, I agreed this was by no means stock piles of Sarin gas. But is it still not a WMD munition?

I argued with a friend over the definition of WMD. We discussed the definition of WMD and we agreed a quality definition for your everyday American may be; A weapon of non-conventional (gases, nuclear) means which has the ability to cause mass casualties. We then further defined mass casualties. It took some deal making but we agreed, if in one episode or instant, 1000+ people were killed by a non-conventional weapon, then this could be considered WMD.

Neither one of us knew whether one Sarin filled munition could kill 1000 people, however my gut feeling is it could. At minimum the use of 10 or 12 Sarin filled munitions in one attack would most definately meet the definition of the use of WMD.

Now apparently 500 have been found. Could any reasonable person still say, "there was no threat from Saddam... there were no WMD?" We shall see.

If the Democrats continue to circle the wagons around the "Bush lied, people died" camp. They will be slaughtered in the next elections and beyond.

Donations Increase in 2005

2006-06-19T18:43:00.000-07:00

Stephanie Strom from the New York Times wrote the article and I picked it up from the Arizona Republic. "Disasters fueled increase in 2005 donations, report says". Using the NYT search engine I was not able to find the article's link even though it was just published today. So I will type pieces without losing Mrs Strom's message:

"Charitable giving increased last year, propelled by a series of natural disasters hat home and abroad...

Individuals and institutions gave away an estimate $260.28 billion in 2005, a 2.7 percent increase on an inflation adjusted basis over the prior year." This date was collected American Association of Fundraising Counsel and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

"From December 2004- October 2005 an estimate $7.37 billion was donated to address the ravages of natural disasters.

Without disaster-related philanthropy, however, giving would have been flat. The stock market increased only moderately last year, and personal incomes fell for the second year in a row."

Richard Jolly, chairman of Giving USA stated "Instead, people gave over and above what we expected in response to the disasters.

The trend was echoed among corporations, whose giving jumped 18.5 perent, adjusted for inflation, to $13.77 billion. Many companies enjoyed record profits last year, which they shared with disaster victims and relief groups."

This should have been front page news if the NYT or the Arizona Republic wanted to be fair. As much corporation bashing and American-European comparing as I read from both papers, this shows Corporate America and Joe American are record setting givers.

I do not believe incomes went down for the second year in a row. My income went up. So did everyone I know whom I have asked. Increase in income (with consideration of inflation) is at 100% representation among my peers. And I work in tight-belted insurance.

I Surely Agree

2006-06-16T20:46:00.000-07:00

After the reading of the column by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne “A Shift Among the Evangelicals”, I had concerns over his ascertations.

Below in italicized-bold are important segments of the column;
“Mr Dionne suggests, ‘The mellowing of evangelical Christianity may well be the big American religious story of this decade.’”

But Page's upset victory could be very significant, both to the nation's religious life and to politics. He defeated candidates supported by the convention's staunchly conservative establishment, which has dominated the organization since the mid-1980s. His triumph is one of many signs that new breezes are blowing through the broader evangelical Christian world…. "I believe in the word of God," Page said. "I'm just not mad about it.”

The evangelical world is going through a quiet evolution as believers reflect on the perils of partisanship and ideology and their reasons for being Christian. This will probably affect the nation's political life, but it will certainly affect the country's spiritual direction. My hunch is that not only moderates and liberals but also many solid conservatives welcome the departure.
Mr Dionne’s writes, “But the evangelical political agenda is broadening as new voices insist on the urgency of issues such as Third World poverty and the fights against AIDS and human trafficking.”

I have not attended church every Sunday for last few years, and am not a church-hopping person. However I have attended numerous Lutheran, Baptist and Catholic churches in the last 10 years due to travel or with Catholic roomates. Like their diverse membership, the Lutheran and Catholic churches across the country do have dissimilar practices. The messages stressed within the service and sermon, are sometimes disparate. The sacraments (communion) is not consistent in meaning and this lack of consistency has been an ongoing debate since before Martin Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenburg, Germany. However there has been a number of consistent messages among all denominations. This consistency is the promotion of charity.

Growing up in Indianapolis my family attended Trinity Lutheran on 16th Street. In an average East side neighborhood in the 80’s and 90’s, I remember the 70+ year old pastor, the late Walter C. Maas standing in the pulpit and teaching us the importance of tithing and charity. Before going to college I remember attending a service at Trinity with the current minister, Pastor John Herfurth. Pastor Herfurth came to the church in the early 1990’s and also touted the benefits and economic efficiencies of the charities for which our church approved.

Pastor Maas had called Trinity his home church for better than 40 years and Pastor Herfurth was not yet himself 40 years old. Maas was without a doubt the old school Lutheran pastor. He preached at the same church for nearly his entire pastoral career. Pastor Herfurth was young and an excitable pastor. Different “school” however in the 40 years separating their schooling at the seminary, it was apparent the core was consistent. Tithing and charity, concern for the “down-trodden” was among the core. Frankly, the phrase “others less fortunate” was so often a topic of discussion at church, this phrase is a bite of sound which I find myself repeating to this day.

Trinity was not the only church with concern for others less fortunate. Just 2 weeks ago, when attending Mountain View Lutheran Church in Ahwatukee, Arizona, the children’s message was about non-other than tithing. The sermon, hungry and poor folks in Africa and and a segway into a video presentation at the end of the service. The Mountain View endorsed charity, Compassion International, was an adoptive program to feed, clothe, educate and buy a bible for a young person. There were about 100 children who needed sponsors.

After finding a child to adopt, I stepped away from the table displaying the other children. I looked at the line of people. Wealthy Christians stood impatiently in line, eagerly waiting their turn to read the biographies and pick a child to support.
I have seen this same spirit for at least the last 20 years. I am confident the church has been consistent in this for decades before.

However the picture Mr Dionne paints of an average "Evangelical" is not like the above desciption. From a reasonable conservative and Christian, I do not know who he writes about? Maybe Baptists are more “angry” than Lutherans. The answer could just as easily be maybe not. I am not naïve to think there are some churches and individuals who may fit the Mr Dionne column, I just do not know any of them. As for the “mellowing” of the evangelicals. No, I disagree. I surely agree if Mr Dionne had used “watered down”, regarding the endangered story of faith and the “good news”. I honestly hear fewer “John 3:16” messages than I used to hear. This is what is alarming and the decades biggest story. Maybe I will ask 7 year old Deric Wahome of Kenya what he thinks of Evangelicals and this salvation stuff.

Isaac Schrodinger's Response, "Pic of Zarqawi..."

2006-06-11T14:07:00.000-07:00

Read the June 10th post: "Pic of Dead Zarqawi, Against Muslim Religion?"
Below is Isaac Schrodginer's response date June 11.

« If It's Good, It's Haraam | Main | Natural Murderers »
Saturday, June 10, 2006

Here goes: I had always been nervous of going out and taking photos in Saudi Arabia. Why? From what I knew, that activity was not appreciated. Whether it was illegal or not, I didn't try to find out.
I have read various Pakistani publications in which it was repeatedly said that photography of any life is haraam. Of course, reality kicks in when people need photos for passports and IDs. Also, photos of the king and other top members of the Saudi royal family are displayed in the airports and photo shops in the kingdom.
However, if one has to be honest about Islamic rulings, then taking photos of men, women, and animals is strictly forbidden.
Here's the "logic" from Mufti Ebrahim Desai.
A devoted reader of the Mufti asks:
Dear Respected Mufti, Assalamu'alaikum, My husband and I have stopped taking pictures since reading your fatwa that it is impermissable. We still have pictures in albums that we took a long time ago -- Must we throw these out,...
The Mufti responds:
These pictures should be destroyed.
So, showcasing pictures of Zarqawi (or any other animal) is not permitted by Islam. One wonders why Saudi Arabia doesn't have a movie industry.
Oddly enough, in my previous post, I linked to a piece in which a "fake but accurate" and pesky Muslim notes:
After dinner, Suhaila and Mary clean up the dishes in the kitchen. Suhaila notices that Mary has random photos of Mo, family, and herself on the refrigerator held up with magnets that depict forest animals. Suhaila thinks posting pictures and anything with images representing life is haraam.
There you go. Under Islamic law, this innocuous website would be banned.

Zarqawi's Death & Long Term War on Terror

2006-06-10T13:36:00.000-07:00

I don't know about the long-term benefits of Zarqawi's death? It is reasonably arguable either way and none of us really know.

Here is my opinion; Place yourself as a member of a group peaceful OR criminal. Whether for justified reasons or not, if your President or Vice Pres had a bomb dropped on his head or a bullet went through his head. Later would heard it was a foreign nation's military or maybe the mob. Either way, does it not become apparent to you and your associates "someone wants to shut us up". This undoubtedly has an negative effect on group dynamics does it not?

Of the members in any group there are always those who would do anything for the cause, some on the fence and those who are on the way out the door. Adding the death of a member, let alone the leader, would likely embolden some and recruit through martyrdom, however it is just as likely for the "fencers" to call it quits and others who would be no-shows on their start day of Al Queda Training Academy.

Maybe it is a wash... But I would like to believe it is a net gain for the good guys. Murder rates in countries with capital punishment are typically low. The best example are Muslim nations.

Pic of Dead Zarqawi, Against Muslim Faith?

2006-06-10T12:30:00.000-07:00

Many Muslims have said their religion is one of peace. I believe this and I believe the vast majority of Muslims are pieceful people. There is a large minority of Muslims who show us they feel otherwise when they support or participate in the violence seen in Iraq and coffee shop bomings in Tel Aviv.

Shortly after the death of Zarqawi was announced, it was said the posting the picture of Zarqawi's corpse on the news and around the globe was against the Muslim religion.

The backlash of this did not build much past a dull roar and here is possibly why;

No one disputes Zarqawi personally is responsible directly for extinguishing of 1000+ lives. He personally beheaded a few innocents for a video. Zarqawi is also seen in some video plannning the next strategy with his lieutenants, obviously for maximizing Iraqi citizen and US soldier casualties. Then there are pictures and video of him praying. Because the Muslim religion is one of piece I argue Zarqawi is not Muslim but just your run-of-the-mill religious extremist, justifying his bloody actions in the name of other peoples Allah.

With text and statistics http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm from In the United States when the abortion clinic protests turned violent, especially in the middle 1990's there was a small, loud and media grabbing minority of "anti-abortion" radicals. The name anti-abortion may have grown from the large majority of "pro-life" folks who wanted to establish a definitive line between the two groups. The anti-abortionists resorted to obstruction through violence and murder, the pro-lifers also believe abortion was wrong, however their protests amounted to vocal condemnation and candle light vigils.

I will make the statement I believe a larger percentage of the pro-lifers in the US are Christian or believe in those values. Pro-lifers were peaceful people at the protests due to their moral guide, Jesus. Anti-abortionists may have invoked scripture or Jesus name in their defensive of their crimes and murder of clinic doctors. As a pro-life individual I would support the notion these anti-abortionists are not Christians at all. I don't know what they are and it is not relevant, just not Christian.

In this same argument I say Zarqawi as he stated "Allah is great" as he began cutting the neck of a fellow Muslim is not himself Muslim. 9 out of 10 Muslims I think or at least hope would agree. Therefore the displaying of Zarqawi's picture does not break any rules of the Muslim faith.

I will request the opinion of Isaac Shrodinger at isaacshrodinger.typepad.com, a former muslim.

Adult Stem Cells and Lupus

2006-06-09T13:08:00.000-07:00

Chip Bennet found an article about treatment of Lupus with adult stem cells. See his June 6, 2006 post at www.chipbennet.net.

Bill Clinton Secretary General, Hillary President?

2006-06-09T10:54:00.000-07:00

The is a growing buzz for who will replace Kofi Annan as UN Secretary General. Former President Bill Clinton has been mentioned as a possible candidate. Regardless of how one feels about him as a person or how he was as a President, for this issue let us turn our attention to a few ripples away from where the pebble strikes the pond. Look at effects of his entering this position.

The political strategists may be frothing at the mouth over this one, however I believe it is a simple If/Then statement: If Bill Clinton becomes UN Secretary General, then Hillary Clinton will not be President in 2008, 2012 or ever. Bill Clinton has denied he is searching for the post and according to the sometimes politically biased Wikpedia, the Secretary General position rotats amoung the 6 continentall regions. There has yet to be a North American and Oceania (Phillipines, New Guinea, Thialand, etc) UN Secretary General.

No reasonable person would simultaneously approve of a Hillary Clinton President of the US and Hill Clinton Secretary General of the UN. However, a reasonable political strategy would be Bill Clinton as Secretary General beginning 2007, serves just 1 year of his 5 year term and steps down as Hillary runs/is elected President starting January 2009.

The candidates for Secretary General are vetted and nominated by the Security Council. The UN body votes on the candidates to decide who is to become Secretary General. For matters of what appear to be balancing of power, the Secretary General post is not typically filled by a person who is a citizen of a Security Council member. Typically lesser powered countries have a representative filling the post. This makes it all the less likely the US willl have a Secretary General. It would more than likely be a Mexican, Canadian or Greenlander, or figure from a Central American country.

God References in Great American Speeches

2006-06-09T10:21:00.000-07:00

June 6, 1944, D-Day: Dwight Eisenhower - Speech to the Troops fighting Nazi Germany

Supreme Headquarters

Allied Expeditionary Forces
Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces:
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.
Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.
But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!
I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory!
Good luck! And let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Marriage Amendment

2006-06-09T10:07:00.000-07:00

As reasonable as one tries to be, sometimes it takes just one person to change a mind. Changing my mind in the time it took me to read a column is not something I allow myself to often do. However, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post did change my mind, in about 3 minutes time.

"A Ban We Don't (Yet) Need" discusses the ban of gay marriage. I am no longer for changing the US Constitution by adding an amendment for this.

Haditha - Too Little Information

2006-06-06T18:44:00.000-07:00

Based solely on what the media is reporting about Haditha, if the soldiers involved in the now imfamous Haditha incident were to go on trial today, no one would be court marshalled. There are no damning facts as of yet.

Read the Haditha article from Hawaii Press.

Fear and Jealousy - Reasons To Not Like US

2006-05-26T16:34:00.000-07:00

When I do not have an answer to a question I often will start with what Charles Krauthammer's discussion on a topic. In today's column, Mr. Krauthammer suggests Tehran is about to crack knowing economic sanctions are upon them.

I agree economic sanctions are feared, for reasons Mr. Krauthammer sights, as their shaky reign due to the folks in Iran feel the mullah's control of the country is not best for them. There have been protests in the recent past from namely Iranian students for a revolution.

Mr Krauthammer also says military action would be feared much more than economic sanctions. And why would it not?

If Iran is sweating over the idea the EU, UN or most importantly the US is serious about them not having nuclear capability on any level, this fear comes primarily from the fear of US decision making. Those who cheer loudly for their disdain for the US may or may not have a credible reason for their hatred. They may President Bush for equally as justifiable/unjustified reasons. President Bush has made a name for himself in the international community. He does what he says he is going to do. President Bush is not afraid to make decisions whether they turn out as planned or otherwise. Quoting Charles Krauthammer said, "Mark my words." Unilateralism in the face of arguable complacency may be reason to hate President Bush, but I think it is fear from Iran and jealousy from the EU.

Senate Passes Boarder Wall

2006-05-17T16:27:00.000-07:00

It was a great day for this country, the Senate passed a border wall bill for 370 miles of triple fence. It passed by more than a 5 to 1 ratio.

Dick Durban from New York said the wall would just hurt relations with Mexico. With this comment I believe he is pandering to a small group of his constituents or possibly just trying to look strong for them, when he has no ideas of his own.

I caught the middle to end of an interview yesterday on Hugh Hewitt's evening radio show... an individual who was being interviewed explained a 3 layer wall would consist of a combination of actual wall structure, long ditches (anti-vehicle crossing) and digital equipment for surveillance.

This individual stated there is not a need for a 2000 mile wall from California to Texas due to many parts of the southern US/Mexico border have geographic barriers such as the Rio Grande River and cliffs which in some places in Texas grow 200 feet just inside the US. Crossing at these points is nearly impossible for an illegal alien, therefore would rarely be attempted. The actual triple fence would be constructed inside and on the flanks of metro areas of border towns.

Three cheers for the Senate and the President!

Time Magazine and Image Picking

2006-05-15T06:34:00.000-07:00

Time Magazine published there 100 most influential people in the May 8, 2006 issue. Perhaps this not the first year Time has used other influential people to write about Time's chosen 100 influentials. An example is Laura Bush wrote the piece on the first Female President in Africa, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. Condoleeza Rice wrote in for Oprah Winfrey, and on the page previous to Oprah was Justice O'Connor on Chief Justice Roberts. I found most of the segments inspiring and not just a few paragraphs of canned ungenious.

One long critique of the May 8, 2005 issue;
George W Bush was front and center, covering the first two pages. James Carney was chosen to write on the President. Was his assessment balanced? A stretched... yes. The first 2/3 was a list of issues the President has handled. Mr Carney feels on all the issues he listed the president has mishandled. MoreThancorn could have written an article with similar content and painted a much different picture of the president. All the issues listed can be argued as current failures, successes or maybe there has not yet been enough time to decide.... these are truly up for debate. In order on page 52; "Hurricane Katrina, high gas prices, the Jack Abramoff scandal, the CIA leak investigation, the Dubai Ports deal, a bulging deficit and above all Iraq. An invasion the President sold as vital to national security is now seen by most Americans as a war of choice-and a bad choice."

The photo of the President is large and black and white. It shows detail which would have been lost in a color photo.

It is a face of a be-wildered President Bush. His photo shows up earlier on the cover, page 22, 31, and twice in the center fold. Bono comes close with possibly 4 pictures in this issue.

An observation could be made for marketing an image for which pictures are chosen to represent people in their articles. For the President capturing him in a whince, a sigh, upset or surprised would always project one image of the President.

Add the above pictures to an arguably negative article and you come away from reading the magazine with an awful feeling about our country and President.

If pictures of the president saluting troops in Iraq, shaking hands with the crowd, dinner with Mrs Bush, or a meeting with his friend Tony Blair were chosen, different image and feeling would have been invoked.

Compare these with three descenters of the president;

Hillary Clinton's segment. The picture, also black and white, softening the lines of a beautiful smile, showing calm and class.

This picture potrays what I see as expressions and emotions which are not often seen with the Senator from New York. The picture of a powerful Hillary Clinton is not donning the angry face I seen on C-Span. A face of condescending impatience, sometimes lightly filtered anger. The article about Senator Clinton was fare and right on the mark. Balanced, giving credit to her where credit is due; powerful due to her married name and a contender in 2008.

Al Gore is also an angry figure, with yelling and accusation filled speeches against the President. (Yelling) "He played on our fears!" Remembering a speech he gave about Iraq in which he was screaming.

He is being shown with a grin ear to ear. A greying and growing-wiser former Vice President. The article is everything one could hope; complimentary, endorsing, inspiring, bigger than himself "And in the meantime, Gore has decided, there's a planet to save" [global warming]. It appears the author of this article, Karen Tumulty, is not hiding her agenda.

Another glaring difference in image is of Hugo Chavez and his article written by a Tim Padgett... The artist draws a rendition of a Hugo rant, some weeks lasting 6-hours. The picture portrays power, aggression and anger to be respected. The article contains: "The rise of Venezuela's left wing President Hugo Chavez is a lesson in what can happen when the US disses an entire continent. After 9/11 when most Latin American nations refused to endorse the US invasion of Iraq, President Bush testily turned his back on the region....I sting those who rattle me."

A poor image was painted of the president with suttle picture choice. While those opposed to President Bush received flattoring pictures for their articles. It is my opinion the above pictures bring into question the objectivity of the Time editor.

It appears I have written about 2/3 of my post as negative this Time issue. Because it is not yet a balanced post, I will admit enjoyment in reading Time and would consider buying another issue in the future.

If there is another "got milk?" advertisement with Elizabeth Hurley, I will consider a subscription. Who's thirsty?

Losing Focus For A Lady

2006-05-06T11:24:00.000-07:00

My cycling teammates here in Arizona are 30 and 40 year old teenagers. There is an important race to which the team has planned to make a showing, here in 3 weeks. In the middle of our intensity our charismatic VP sees two young ladies we all know, cycling. They are possibly the best looking individuals to ever pull on a pair of spandex.

The team stops our training mid-stream and fakes two consecutive flat tires as to let Cleopatra (eligible) and Marilyn (married) catch up. As soon as they are within vocal range, we hear Cleo say to Mari "Did they just fake a flat so we would ride with them?"

We miss nothing, but they don't either.

Larry Summers - His Questions Are Unanswered

2006-05-03T17:53:00.000-07:00

Remember when Larry Summers, the former President of Harvard University, found himself in the middle of an uproar where he was being attacked by faculty at Harvard?

The speech which was the causation of the unwarranted turmoil can be read in it’s entirety at Underrepresented.

Wikpedia has included this in their information on Larry Summers:

Sex and Intelligence Controversy
In January 2005, Summers suggested at an economic conference that one of the causes of the fewer women than men in science and engineering professorships might be that fewer women than men had the very high levels of "intrinsic aptitude" that such jobs required.

Pressure from faculty and the media continued to where Larry Summers chose to step down from his post at the university.

This post is designed to provoke critical thought, and hopefully for opinions to be drawn, conclusions to be made.

Once the speech is read, below are excerpts which may be the most important parts of the speech which detail the dialogue and which lead to pressure by others on Summers and his eventually resignation.

“…It is after all not the case that the role of women in science is the only example of a group that is significantly underrepresented in an important activity and whose underrepresentation contributes to a shortage of role models for others who are considering being in that group. To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation….

There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities that this conference's papers document and have been documented before with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. One is what I would call the-I'll explain each of these in a few moments and comment on how important I think they are-the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search….

…And here, you can get a fair distance, it seems to me, looking at a relatively simple hypothesis. It does appear that on many, many different human attributes-height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability-there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means-which can be debated-there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top twenty-five research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it's not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it's talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out. I did a very crude calculation, which I'm sure was wrong and certainly was unsubtle, twenty different ways. I looked at the Xie and Shauman paper-looked at the book, rather-looked at the evidence on the sex ratios in the top 5% of twelfth graders. If you look at those-they're all over the map, depends on which test, whether it's math, or science, and so forth-but 50% women, one woman for every two men, would be a high-end estimate from their estimates….

Below are pieces taken from the Q&A after the speech.

LHS: ...My point was simply that the field of behavioral genetics had a revolution in the last fifteen years, and the principal thrust of that revolution was the discovery that a large number of things that people thought were due to socialization weren't, and were in fact due to more intrinsic human nature, and that set of discoveries, it seemed to me, ought to influence the way one thought about other areas where there was a perception of the importance of socialization. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers.

Q: Raising that particular issue, as a biologist, I neither believe in all genetic or all environment, that in fact behavior in any other country actually develops [unintelligible] interaction of those aspects. And I agree with you, in fact, that it is wrong-headed to just dismiss the biology. But to put too much weight to it is also incredibly wrong-headed, given the fact that had people actually had different kinds of opportunities, and different opportunities for socialization, there is good evidence to indicate in fact that it would have had different outcomes. I cite by way of research the [unintelligible] project in North Carolina, which essentially shows that, where every indicator with regard to mother's education, socioeconomic status, et cetera, would have left a kid in a particular place educationally, that, essentially, they are seeing totally different outcomes with regard to performance, being referred to special education, et cetera, so I think that there is some evidence on that particular side. The other issue is this whole question about objective versus subjective. I think that it is very difficult to have anything that is basically objective, and the work of [unintelligible] I think point out that in a case where you are actually trying to-this case from the Swedish Medical Council, where they were trying to identify very high-powered research opportunities for, I guess it was post-docs by that point, that indicated that essentially that it ended up with larger numbers of men than women. Two of the women who were basically in the affected group were able to utilize the transparency rules that were in place in Sweden, get access to the data, get access to the issues, and in fact, discovered that it was not as objective as everyone claimed, and that in fact, different standards were actually being used for the women as well as for the men, including the men's presence in sort of a central network, the kinds of journals that they had to publish in to be considered at the same level, so I think that there are pieces of research that begin to actually relate to this-yes, there is the need to look more carefully at a lot of these areas. I would-in addition looking at this whole question of the quality of marginal hires-I would also like to look at the quality of class one hires, in terms of seeing who disappoints, and what it was that they happened to be looking at and making judgments on, and then what the people could not deliver. So I think that there is a real great need on both sides to begin to talk about whether or not we can predict. I hate to use a sports metaphor, but I will. This is drawn basically from an example from Claude Steele, where he says, he starts by using free throws as a way of actually determining, who should-you've got to field a basketball team, and you clearly want the people who make ten out of ten, and you say, "Well, I may not want the people who make zero out of ten," but what about the people who make four out of ten. If you use that as the measure, Shaq will be left on the sidelines.

LHS: I understand. I think you're obviously right that there's no absolute objectivity, and you're-there's no question about that. My own instincts actually are that you could go wrong in a number of respects fetishizing objectivity for exactly the reasons that you suggest. There is a very simple and straightforward methodology that was used many years ago in the case of baseball. Somebody wrote a very powerful article about baseball, probably in the seventies, in which they basically said, "Look, it is true that if you look at people's salaries, and you control for their batting averages and their fielding averages and whatnot, whites and blacks are in the same salary once you control. It is also true that there are no black .240 hitters in the major leagues, that the only blacks who are in the major leagues are people who bat over .300-I'm exaggerating-and that is exactly what you'd predict on a model of discrimination, that because there's a natural bias against. And there's an absolute and clear prediction. The prediction is that if there's a discriminated-against group, that if you measure subsequent performance, their subsequent performance will be stronger than that of the non-discriminated-against group. And that's a simple prediction of a theory of discrimination. And it's a testable prediction of a theory of discrimination, and it would be a revolution, and it would be an enormously powerful finding in this field, to demonstrate, and I suspect there are contexts in which that can be demonstrated, but there's a straightforward methodology, it seems to me, for testing exactly that idea. I'm going to run out of time. But, let me take-if people ask very short questions, I will give very short answers.

It is important to point out, this reader believes the ideas presented by Larry Summers were designed solely for provoking critical thinking and then dialogue. The Q&A portion of the speech was fulfilling this, however based on the subsequent attacks by faculty and the media it brought an end to intelligent discussion.

When discussing the “Xie and Shauman paper”, Larry Summers invokes hard hitting questions and then proposes possible theories.

It is interesting to mention, while listening to the radio the last two weeks I was hearing radio commercials sponsored by the Girl Scouts. The first few times I heard these commercials I overlooked or more precisely did not overhear a related theme as to what Larry Summers had been proposing. Paraphrased, the Girl Scout commercial stated, “... by the 8th grade, girls lose interest in science...”

For argument sake and in defense of Mr Summers, this simple radio broadcast speaks volumes of the dialogue Mr Summers was attempting to begin and I feel the legitimacy of his ideas. For the question is still unanswered. Why are there fewer women than men in the top science positions?

Bolivia Bungles Oil

2006-05-02T18:20:00.000-07:00

Bolivian President, Evo Morales may be portrayed in this New York Times article as a "liberator". At least this is what the caption declares. However it would be interesting to know what all the folks on the street in front of him think. What does the average Bolivian feel is appropriate regarding their oil reserves. Keep the reserves open to (liberlization) foreign investment and development or nationalize (government control) the oil industry?

It is easy for the poor to look for a government fix. This is true for poor in any country including the US. Those who have either fell on hard times, or have learned to be helpless and hopeless may dream about either winning the lottery or receiving a check in the mail from their government. This may be exactly what the Bolivian people asked for en-masse.

A decision to nationalize an industry is the first step in wrecking an economy. Communist USSR did just this with every part of their economy. This contributed to some of the worst poverty the world has seen. The proletarians of Marxist ideals were hundreds of millions of peasant farmers and factory workers + millions of slave laborers. This system does not work. It breeds poverty. While a ruling class of elite beaucrats make all the decisions and live in wealth.

If I could send 1 million history books to Bolivian elementary and high schools, maybe we could save the country in 20 more years.

Bolivia may be doomed to go the same road as Hugo Chavez and his Argentina. A tanking economy and fleeing investors. These countries cannot make it on their own, or even just trading among themselves only.

Chinese President, Falun Gong

2006-04-20T17:59:00.000-07:00

While the President of China visited the White House, a member of the press and member of a Falun Gong, stated to President Hu "... you days are numbered..."

Need to research Falun Gong.

Alarmists and Global Warming

2006-04-13T16:30:00.000-07:00

An "alarmist" global warming article published by Reuters, April 11, 2006. The article says the study brings even more proof of the negative effects of global warming. Thousands and even tens of thousands of extinct plant and animal species. This would be due to many species not being able to "escape" to a closer proximity to the poles.

How many plant and animal species went extinct every 100 years prior to the 1940's (prior to massive industrialization globally)?

What if there was global cooling by 1 or 2 degrees over the next 100 years. Would this not cause similar extinctions. Plants and animals would have to cluster around the equators.

I believe animals will adapt quite well. The Armidillo, of which most people probably believe to be a warmer climate creature (Texas is the first state I think of when I think about Armidillos), has been adapting to cooler and cooler climates. Most recently it is adapting to Continental Climates, specifically Indiana. About 6 years ago, the first Armidillo was spotted in southern Indiana, near Evansville. About 5 years ago I saw my first Armidillo road kill in the suburbs of Indianapolis.

Granted, the summers in Indiana are hot and humid, so I believe the Armidillo would enjoy based on it's history, however the winters in Indiana are nothing less than brutal. Temps in the evenings consistently fall into the single digits and teens from typically December through Februrary. January will see a few weeks of negative single and double digits with windchill recorded in -20, -30 or colder.

Global Warming? Why then has Russia this past winter seen record colds country wide? Why has Phoenix, Arizona been unseasonably cool and rainy over the last 4 weeks? Why, when you take a tour of the Hoover Dam near Henderson, NV do the Rangers tell you, "We see typical 9 year drought, rain patterns. It has been the case since the dam was built. They anticipate the end of the southwest's drought in the next year or two.

Global Warming I surmize will be a topic only found in newspaper archives in the relatively near future.

EXXON Does Not Believe Global Warming

2006-04-12T17:49:00.000-07:00

June 2005, This article was published. Today an MIT professor wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal questioning the legitimacy of Global Warming. Will try to find and link.

The voices of dissent is rising toward man-made temperature rises.

Has Global Warming Cooled?

2006-04-11T16:41:00.000-07:00

According to an article written in the London Telegraph by Prof Bob Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Queensland. The temperature of the earth has been nearly stationary over the last 8 years. If measured with utmost accuracy, it has actually cooled slightly.

Quiet Lips Are Not Heard

2006-04-10T18:43:00.000-07:00

Are there just as many Americans of Latino and Hispanic descent who disagree with the current rally's?

Today’s Arizona Republic posted an article on the front page. The article’s subject was one of a much different picture painted of the marches around the nation for “immigrant rights.”

In a 180 degree turn from other mass media, the AZ Republic wrote an article “Migrant issue divides Latinos”.

The article states there are Latino’s who oppose amnesty or anything near to it for illegal immigrants.

The articles speaks to a gentleman from the Center for Immigration Studies and a local Phoenix resident. They state many current, legal US citizens who are Latino are having to compete for jobs and houses. This is not the important issue here.

Today’s march in Arizona was expected to be between 50,000-100,000. Like previous marches for these same causes, there would be some who know why they are there and others just wanting to be a part of something without rhyme or reason. The core issues here are;
1) These folks are here by illegal means
2) Two weeks ago they marched with Mexican flags. Then realized it really t’d off legal citizens of the country, so for today’s march, coincidentally every flag was The Stars and Stripes.
3) Many of the illegal aliens are using our health care systems, costing taxpayers billions, most notable in California yet it is without argument a national cost which tax payer Joe is writing the check.
4) Now they march down our city streets protesting, demanding “immigrant rights”.

This country already has immigrant rights. It is called legal citizenship.

These protests in Phoenix today, made traffic more than difficult from before 12 noon to after 6pm for the entire city. The businesses (including restaurants and offices) were effected by this march have lost probably hundreds of thousands of dollars in business and man hours. People trying to get home on the interstate today in Phoenix will be taking longer to do so, this means less time with family. If these 100,000 people were at the rally, then they definitely were not adding to the economic engine from which they have the audacity to demand benefit.

I spoke with my father just a few minutes ago. He coincidentally reinforced the AZ Republic article in his experience this evening with marches in Indianapolis. He was not able to leave work for a half hour due to the rally. He stated it was peaceful. It was just causing disruption.

The AZ Republic bungled the sub-title, "Dissenting voices drowned out by pro-immigrant rallies". What is this really about? Is it not about citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants?

Whatever your opinion thus far on this issue, read Charles Krauthammer’s opinion.

A Belgian Discussion

2006-04-03T17:06:00.000-07:00

On a weekly ride on Saturday morning, the route is always through the “Foothills” neighborhood in Phoenix. It is South of South Mountain. The ride includes a Pecos Road which is a straight, but rolling 7.5 mile road. Typically the group does repeated loops in this area for the Saturday training ride.

On the ride this past April 1 was a Belgian triathlete named Lucky. He was participating in the April 9 Ironman Arizona in Tempe, AZ.

He joined the group on about the second lap. It was apparent he was competing in the event due to his specific bike and he had on racing wheels. Typically a cyclist does not do a lot of training on a set of “Zipp” brand wheels, especially if the rear wheel is a “disc”.

After a couple more laps with the group, Lucky and I decided we would continue on for 2 additional hours. As we rode on, we talked about the US and Belgium, comparing and contrasting.

It was interesting to know Belgians like just about everything American; cars, clothes, beer (some), TV shows.

“Lost” and “Pimp My Ride” are popular shows. It was surprising to him to see Digital TV with 200+ stations… he said in Belgium they may have 37 or so.

Lucky also thought was surprised to see so many Hummers. “In Belgium there may be 1 you see in a month.” He said “In the US, you see 10 each day.”

I told him Americans then compare to Belgians regarding goods. Americans typically like most anything made in Europe, wines, clothes, cars... Americans like Belgian beer.

Lucky said it is well known in Belgium, the Americans are close to or already making better beer than Belgians. I told him it is likely America is just changing and using similar recipes as the Belgians and other Europeans… this may be where we learned.. Lucky said though, it is known the Americans are making the beer better now…

Lucky is 33 year old who lives in a more affluent area in Belgium. We were comparing costs of living, taxes etc… He said Belgians pay close to 50% of their income in taxes. He also said the cost of living is pretty high. An average 3 room apartment would probably cost about $600/month. This appeared to be reasonable until he said this is about half of his take home income each month. He works for the Belgian government in some fashion. He said he makes a pretty good living for Belgium.

Belgium has socialized health care. He pays $10/visit to any doctor. Also pays small amount for prescriptions. I told him I pay 28% in federal taxes and combine probably pay 33-35% taxes. We agreed Belgians probably are still paying for their health care through the high tax rate.

He said many Belgians want to go to the US. They believe they can do better here than they are in Belgium. They think if they did something similar in the US as they are in Belgium, they would be more wealthy in the US.

After thinking about this more today, I think the pay may or may not be better for similar work, however the most important difference is two-fold, lower taxes and more choices. Any Belgian who spoke English as well as Lucky could come to American and choose from a seemingly infinite number of jobs.

We also discussed terrorism and the War in Iraq. Lucky said after 9/11, Belgians were probably just as scare as Americans. They all saw how vulnerable any country could be. He said the terrorists are absolutely crazy people. You can not discuss anything with them. They want to die and go to heaven for their religion. He agreed most Muslims are not like this, however enough terrorists are causing all to suffer.

He said he agreed with the decision to go to War in Iraq. He thought it was the right thing to do. He said many Belgians also thought it was the right thing to do. He also brought up how important it was for Belgium and Europe when the US saved them in WWI and WWII. He said it would be such a different world if it were not for the Americans. He says he thinks some people forget this.

He also agreed the US has a good track record. They are not emperialists. The US wants what is best for the US and this just so happens to coincide with what is typically best for all nations.

The French Have It All Right?

2006-03-28T15:33:00.000-08:00

On each visit to the grocery store, a child seated in the cart, prods their parent to buy a piece of candy. By the time the child is 3 years old the parent may have heard the child's request for candy as many times as the child has been to the grocery store. Each time the child asks, he may do some whining, may play the "cute" card, or a number of other strategies to get the prize.

If the parent stays firm and does not buy the candy, the child will develop an understanding of the candy will not be purchased, this time or anytime.

If the parent decides to give in one day and buys a Lolly-pop for the child, the child wins their first little battle. The child may not understand it to be a battle, but they remember. They will again ask for candy at the next visit to the store. If the parent establishes a pattern of -trip to the grocery store = candy for child-, the habit is formed and the child will expect the candy. If the parent decides on no candy for the next visit, the child may throw a fit.

What is happening in Paris, France right now may be more than one issue coming to a head. However based on the current news stories on the riots; 1 million protestors hit the streets...some riotting and violence... police had to break up with tear gas, water cannon and rubber pellets.. fires are being set... it may or may not continue and worsen as the recent riots in Paris a short time ago.

1/3 of all teachers in France were on strike today. Nearly all transportation; bus, train, plane were shut down due to strikes. The economy may have come to a halt in France.

Why are these protestors angry? A new labor law allowing companies to fire an employee for any reason if the person is;
1) Less than 26 years old and
2) Has been with the company less than 2 years

The French have been spoiled like a child wanting candy, from laws for 35 hour work weeks. The country has seen little or no economic growth for a number of years. The population is stagnant or falling each year. The bill for French social welfare will eventually drive up taxes and drive away the businesses remaining.

Just just week I listened as an associate (we will name her Denise) stating how "Europe" does so many things better than the US. They are more "advanced" in their "thinking" and "socially" and their "health care." Denise also claims to be a champion of hatred toward minorities, bigotry and prejudice. Yet, she advised a small group of us in one discussion, "I don't date American men... they are all too worried about their money... who's going to take it from them... I only have dated foreign born men." So much for not being a champion.

I will make a generalization of her "kind". She supports France and Europes "ideals" blindly. When asked to explain the above: "Europe is more advanced" and "I don't date American men..." she had no defense and repeatedly chose either to ramble or change the subject. The conversation with Denise had no real meaning. It sounded like a sound-bite laden speech at a rally. Rhetoric only, with one person at the mic.

This I believe, is a typical example of the "progressive" supporter. Frankly it is often mindless repeating of monologue spoken by someone else.

Europe is beautiful with history. I have family just outside of Hanover, Germany. It is a great place to vacation. I would love to live there sometime. Only, I do not want to work 5 months of the year to pay my tax bill.

Perhaps they should start being reasonable like Americans. If we get fired, often times we deserved it. Pick yourself off the floor and find another way to feed yourself.

Does Moussai Want Martyrdom?

2006-03-27T11:49:00.000-08:00

Today Zacarias Moussaoui confessed to being prevy of the attacks of September 11, 2001 prior to their follow through. According to the FoxNews article this could give him the death penalty.

It is interesting to read, as the Moussaoui's defense attorney attempted to keep him from incriminating himself, Moussaoui confirmed prior facts and actually gave the prosecution additional evidence for their case.

Iran Requests Talks with US, Iraq is Focus

2006-03-16T13:28:00.001-08:00

The article by the AP is telling. It starts out possibly misleading, saying Iraq is slipping closer to civil war. It is hard to tell whether the writer of the article is in Iraq or spent any time there. I question the authority to make such a statement.

However the rest of the article is worth reading, twice. Iran has offered to begin talks with the US about Iraq. As the article quotes, this could lead to easing of tensions, and more talks later about Iran's nuclear program.

Let us hope the Iran offer is not a calculated, "give an inch and take it back" ploy as it was with Iraq prior to 2003.

What is even more impressive is Iran as asked to speak directly with the United States and China/Russia both encouraged Iran to do so!

This could be the most important event yet in this year's accumulating history.

2006-03-16T13:28:00.000-08:00

Dubai Ports World - Giving Up Contract

2006-03-10T17:13:00.000-08:00

The DP World issue may only be at best a sore spot between the UAE and the United States. I also doubt it will last long. Let us say bad feelings will be around for a few months or a year. Maybe. The UAE is apparently has a good many business savvy folks.

Oil has been the mid-East's bread/butter for some years. They know it will come to an end one day. The closer everyone else comes to using alternative fuels on every car sold, the closer they are to selling oil for $20/barrel.

They know this. We know this. The UAE is trying to "diversify" their portfolio. In the coming years, other mid-East nation governments and/or citizens will likely be doing the same... looking to the United States and other countries for investment opportunities. The UAE is already working on their smooth transition from a nation with most of it's eggs in the oil basket to eggs in a lot of baskets. Good on ya UAE.

OPEC will eventually run dry. The UAE is just leading the way for a changed mid-East.

Then changing economy of the mid-East will be a heavy influence on the democratization of the region. Freer trade may coincide with growing democratic influence.

Freed Up

2006-03-07T14:21:00.000-08:00

Sebastian Mallaby says, “Globalization scares people. Security threats scare people.”
Do we need to be “scared” of globalization?

Globalization brings many changes, however a core concern is the following: The company reaps higher profits by laying off all the American workers and hires cheap, overseas labor. Today this scare seems to be morphing into a Chinese flavor. Until now, the post-NAFTA “scare” has come with a Mexican flavor.

There are a number of issues which have risen from this topic. The debatable topics have been;
1) trade deficits
2) unfair competition
3) job cuts
4) trade wars
5) tarriffs
6) protectionism

Every person and nation seems to have an opinion of how to stop the flow of jobs out of the United States. One must pose the most important question? Which economy has been time-tested by providing for it’s citizenry? This economy must have the ability to invent new jobs when others are lost. By using nearly all economic indicators the US economy has proven itself well.

What is happening on the global stage is a “freeing up” of trade. This freeing up of trade is growing the economy and per capita incomes of all participatory nations. According to the American Enterprise Institute, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has brought growing wealth to the three countries involved; Canada, United States and Mexico.

There is always going to be a trade surplus or deficit between any two countries. A trade deficit for one is a surplus for the other. A trade deficit is looked upon in this country with such disdain. Why?

A more wealthy economy will naturally have more expendable income per person than a country which is less wealthy. Because the United States has 260+ million population and the 4th highest per capita income of all nations, this combination allows for the largest buying power of any nation. Are we then predisposed to having trade deficits with other nations?

All economies must start somewhere. Again I say look at the United States economy and how it has progressed. 100 years ago we were heavily agrarian. With the industrial revolution and the invention of internal combustion, this allowed for fewer farmers to care for more land. This freed up more farmers to go to the factories. Factory work is now moving to automation or to third world countries. Once factory workers must find new work. Their sons and daughters then moved into services, chemicals, research and computer related industries. As we vet the factory jobs to other nations we gain more available bodies for technology jobs. The United States will continue to pass some jobs to other nations to free up Americans for the next generation of industry. This vetting will continue no doubt.

With regard to the low-wage Chinese taking high paying American jobs, let us use an example;
The year is 2006. The Barker family lives in a modest home with an half-acre of yard in suburban Atlanta, Georgia. The Barkers have decided to pay landscapers to mow their lawn.. The first landscaper contacted by phone is Jake. Jake explains his business opened in 2003. They do small to medium sized jobs. Jake quotes $116 for a 2 man crew at 2 hours labor to complete the ½ acre lot. This includes mowing the entire yard, edging the sidewalks and streets. Jake has a list of current and past customers very happy with his work.

Then the Barkers call a competing landscape firm, owned by George George immediately attempts to win the Barkers business. After listening to his pitch, it sounds as though George has similar equipment and capabilities as does Jake’s firm. George also has a list of happy customers, past and present. George is starting his second summer as a landscaper. George quotes $100 for the 2 man, 2 hour, ½ acre job.

Which landscaper will be Barkers hire? I believe most folks would hire George at $100.

Background to above:
Jake is a college graduate. He started his landscape company with two college roommates in 2003. They pooled their funds and opened up their landscaping business. They each earn $14/hour for labor. They must take into account the labor wage + supplies, fuel, wear and tear on the equipment in calculating their job quotes.

George is actually Jorge. Pronounced Hor-hay. George is originally from Columbia. He moved here with his family and needed to find work. He did so until he raised enough money to cover for a few months of wages and expenses for a landscaping company. He found a bank which entrusted him with a small business loan to purchase the equipment. He opened his business last summer, 2005. George does not have a high school education. He hired high school and college students to man his mowers. He pays them $10/hour.

All else equal, if we assume George and his workers do an effective job of mowing lawns, then he will likely maintain their current customer base. If they continue to provide an effective work product they may win new bids in the future as their reputation grows.

In the long term, if Jake’s firm mows lawns equally as well as George, then Jake and his roommates will lose their current customers to George. The eventual demise will be caused directly with either George’s decision to pay lower his labor costs, then making his product less expensive relative to Jake. Jake must then justify to his current customers and future customers why his work is worth $16 more per half acre job. If Jake is unable to justify the high costs, the business will suffer through lost clients moving to George.

Jake and his roommates agree they cannot cut the lawn of their customers any better then George. They also agree they are not willing to accept less than $14/hour in order to make their quotes more competitive.

Jake ends his business venture, sells his equipment and customer leads to George for a modest sum.

George is better off, with double the equipment, more customers and therefore the demand for his work justifying the hiring of 3 more workers. George’s reputation continues to build in the community and his phone begins ringing off the hook

At first look, Jake and his college friends are worse off while George is better off. Jake’s firm was well educated and they understood the risks of starting a business. To their discredit they would not accept lower wages to make their product more competitive. To their credit they have college degrees. They have recouped some of their capital through the sale of their equipment.

They found work at new employers while more funds are accrued for a new venture. They left the landscaping business with a failed firm. However they have gained invaluable business knowledge and this failed venture may have motivated the three to try it again…Next time perhaps in a different industry, better prepared. They were all degreed in computer programming. Maybe it will be in the computer science industry.

Here in lies the battle between American and China. The United States workforce is represented in Jake and China in George. It is obvious landscaping jobs are not being sent to Asia. But this example runs parallels of many industries once wholly contained in the United States. Chip makers, automobile manufacturers, many factory type jobs have left the United States.

The jobs have left due to the ability for Chinese workers to make a product equally as well or with near enough quality to find acceptance with the buying public. The scale tipper is the cost of each product made in China could be a fraction of a similarly US made product. If a company makes an equal product for less, or if they make an adequate product for substantially less, customers will gravitate toward this new supplier.

The important piece to remember; George continues doing what he does well and is satisfied with the income level he is receiving for his work. George hires 3 new students to work for his firm (this replaces the three jobs lost in Jake and his roommates.). Jake and his roommates would not work for less, therefore they are pushed out of an industry of which they are over qualified. They have the education and hopefully the motivation to take another risk in the future. Jake and his roommates were actually “freed up” to do something else. Something which potentially would be more financially lucrative and may require the education and skills they already have attained.

An economy can not have all the scientists and engineers “mowing grass”. Jobs should be filled, and in a free market are filled, by those qualified or accepting of the wage they will earn in a specific job. If they are not happy with the pay or it is not enough of a challenge, then eventually they will free up the job and search for something new.

Of all the nations, the United States should be least “scared” of globalization. Globalization is the free market finding the best use for all workers and resources. Before railroads there were parts of the nation segmented by geography. They could not actively participate in trade and the free market. This isolation changed with transportation improvements. The improvements caused a smaller version of globalization with the United States. If this economy is good for a state and a nation of states, why would it not be good for a world of nations?

The “freeing up” of a workforce to do something else is what drives an economy forward. Globalization is an opportunity for wealth. Wealth for developed and fledgling economies alike. It is a shame the nation is even debating the “China Card”. It is inquisitive and a shame Mr. Mallaby felt he had to spend his research and writing talent on a topic we should already understand.

Desirable Reading
Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt
Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman
Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith
Google; “Austrian Economics” and “World Fact book”

Celestial Junk Blog: Patriot Guard Riders: Our Kinda People

2006-03-03T18:15:00.000-08:00

Celestial Junk Blog: Patriot Guard Riders: Our Kinda People

Patriot Guard Riders at Soldiers Funerals

2006-03-03T17:33:00.000-08:00

The following three articles are from The Indianapolis Star, PodcastingNews and MSNBC respectively. They help describe the details of a group picketing at the funerals of fallen US soldiers killed in Iraq. According to the reports they are chanting hateful slogans at the funerals and interrupting funerals.

This organization his housed under the roof of Westboro Baptist Church, however they appear to show no Christian traits. It needs to be made clear, this church has no affiliation with any larger orgnized Christian Church. Not even the Baptist church. Per an article on Beliefnet, the church is headed by Rev. Fred Phelps and members are mainly made up of Rev Phelps extended family.

The members of this church have also arrived at recent funerals of the Sago miners killed in West Virginia. There to the Westboro group yelled profanities, applauded the miners deaths and held up signs reading, "Thank God for Dead Miners." (from article 4 below)

Also in the Beliefnet article, there have been a group of motorcycle riders called the
Patriot Guard Riders (articles; 1, 2, 3, 4, PGR History) who have chapters in 49 states and number more then 5,000 nationally. They just need an Alaskan Chapter leader. Click here to see who the Chapter leader is in your state. These riders are traveling to soldier's funerals upon request or approval of the family to drown out the sinful cheers of Westboro and Mr. Phelps. The Patriot Guard Riders keep their bikes running during the funeral and cheer "U-S-A" and other supportive slogans alongside residence of the local communities.

Patriot Guard Riders are heroes! Member names mentioned in articles;
Don Woodrick
Bob Swanson -"The mission of the Patriot Guard Riders is twofold. One is to show respect for the fallen heroes and their families. The second is to shield the mourning family from any interruptions."

March 2006
Indianapolis Star
PodCastingNews.com

August 2005
MSNBC

Additionally, there have also been other activities just prior to the soldier’s funerals.

Coinciding with the funerals, typically a few days before the fallen soldier’s family is called by unknown parties and they say things such as “I am glad your son is dead.” “God makes IED’s.” The phone calls are also accompanied by vandalism to the family’s houses. Sometimes the houses are egged.

The phone calls and vandalism have not been proven to be the same group, however it is obvious either the members are doing the vandalism themselves or they are arranging/inspiring others to do the work for them.

The organization is part of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. Their website, GodHatesFags, is part of their formula to get their message heard. This church has been on watch lists of many states and are known to be a “hate” group.

The Westboro group has come to the conclusion all US Soldiers are homosexuals. Because the group hates homosexuals, they are apparently compelled to bring the above hate and sadness to funerals of US soldiers and their families.

The next funeral they are attending is Monday, March 6, 2005 in Kokomo Indiana for Sgt Jones.

Per sources in the Kokomo Police Department, there may be a number of Vietnam Veterans who are organizing to attend the funeral and interrupt the protests at the Sgt Jones funeral.

Legistlators in Indiana have also passed a law which does not allow these protests to occur within 500 feet of the funeral.

Motivations of Young Americans

2006-03-03T17:24:00.000-08:00

The date September 11, 2001 was not just the beginning of the War on Terror. It also was the beginning of changing allegiances between nation governments. It was the beginning of a continuing debate of how America should react to changes in everything from international travel, diplomatic/military force, and wiretaps. All these changes were immediate or at minimum quickly realized, relative to history.

The economic effects of 9/11 were also nearly immediate. Excaserbated by an already faltering economy in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2000, the terrorists attacks in New York added force to the brake pedal of quickly falling indicators.

As country singer, Alan Jackson, wrote in his song “Where were you…” some folks prayed, others cried, spent time with their families or went out to buy a gun, in an effort to protect what they could… their family. Many Americans began making decisions based on instinct… the ‘fight or flight’ reaction when someone is scared and may not know exactly what to do.

The US Congress approved the Patriot Act giving far reaching access to methods of finding and collecting terrorists, their cells, information and communication. This act was questioned by those who want to defend civil liberties.

The media has sifted through all which was happening from September 11 through today. They have been reporting on all the channels and newspapers; consumer sentiment, public opinion, decisions by those with authority, the ebb and flow of supposed anti-Americanism and patriotism. More recently the media has tried to make sense of violent protests of muslims 8k miles away due to the Dutch Newspaper Cartoon. As is their job, the media tries to cover it all. Yet, in their quest to cover ‘it all’ there have surely been uncountable newsworthy stories missed. Some of the stories are not glamorous. For this reason the media may have voluntarily passed many of these “missed” stories.

The scoop proposed is the growing body of young Americans who began a trend on September 11, 2001. This author believes this trend is of an age group which could be ages 10-27 on September 11, 2001. This age group is those spanning elementary school students through recent college graduates. The trend is for an explosion of interest and action, inspired by the attacks. These students were scared and inspired by the same event all Americans and others world wide. These young Americans may have no different a feeling or compelling drive then all other Americans. This age group of Americans have youth on their side. Their age is the very reason why they can and will change the path of their lives.

They may be further inspired by subsequent events such as the War in Afghanistan and Iraq and continued War on Terror. They are inspired to take up education and set themselves on a path for future protection of their homeland.

These events inspired young Americans to take up careers in public service. Be it local law enforcement branches, border patrol, military enlistment/Officer Candidates, politics, intelligence and Homeland Security. Many made their decision right away. A few made the career switch almost immediately (those out of school). Others who may have still been in school, changed their study focus. While the youngest of children, who were able to understand what was happening, watched planes hit the World Trade Center towers. They began picking up their cowboy guns. Instead of pretending to shoot Indians of the old west, they began to shoot imaginary terrorists.

During my grandfathers younger days, when fighting in New Guinea during WWII, the enemy children and parents feared were German and Japanese attackers. Then it became the communists and North Vietnamese. Then in 1991, Iraq and Saddam Hussein took their turn as the evil men, which children were shooting with their plastic cowboy guns. Now it is Al-Qaeda.

This quiet ground swell of inspired young Americans will come to fruition over the course of the next 10 or 15 years. As positions of defending our nation are increased in private, public and military sectors, I propose it will not nearly keep pace with demand for these positions by graduating high school seniors enlisting in the military, graduating college students moving into intelligence and current career folks molding their own futures for a career change into an “inspired” field.

This means two things, our security may continue to improve and competition for these positions will likely increase. The brightest or most capable will fill these roles in defending our nation. If this is true, our future security will improve directly proportional to the increased number of applicants for these fields. I suppose one could find answers by asking for data of the Homeland Security, Human Resources Department in the year 2020.

Larry Summers Speeches/Comments

2006-02-24T17:27:00.000-08:00

Freshman Orientation Day Address
President Lawrence H. Summers
September 2, 2001
If I may, welcome fellow members of the class of 2005. Having just returned to Harvard, I think of myself as a member of your class. I have been here since July enjoying an indoor orientation program of my own, not precisely the same as the orientation that you have enjoyed, but perhaps there have been some similarities in the experience.
Around the first week of July, I walked into the Coop, and I said that I was Mr. Summers, the new President of the University, and that I'd like to get a Coop number. The person behind the counter looked at me, and said, 'Well, that's very nice. Do you have a Harvard ID?' I said, no, I didn't. I went without a Coop number.
I'm sure we'll all get lost and confused more than once. And I'm equally sure that we will all enjoy this new beginning together.
Let me say a word about your class, a word about Harvard and what it means, a word about the great things we can do together, and finally, a final thought for your families.
This class is truly a remarkable group of people. Already you include professional level musicians and successful Internet entrepreneurs, published scientists and published poets, star athletes and dedicated social service providers, speakers of more than a dozen languages, and experts in countless areas. Every one of you has stood out, and every one of you has great potential.
Many of you must wonder -- I know I did when I went away to college -- what life would be like in a world so different from your high school, and in a world and living situation so different from that of your family home.
I know that when I was called on to respond to my appointment as President of Harvard, I found myself saying how exhilarated I was, but also, that I was a bit daunted to be here. And so are we all, given Harvard's history.
But to say that your classmates are impressive is not to say that anyone should ever be intimidated. You know, Harry Truman said of the United States Senate, that 'The first six months, I wondered why I was there. And ever after, I wondered why all my colleagues were there.'
That may be taking things a bit too far, but everyone here belongs, and everyone will find their place.
What about Harvard? You know, I must, at this point, confess that I did my undergraduate work at a small technical school located down Massachusetts Avenue, but also, along the Charles River. But I think I do know much about what is special about great universities, and especially about this one.
There will be many things, many traditions, that you will come to know. But you will come to understand what I believe is most important about this place -- that it is a center of new and original thought and ideas. And it is ideas that are ultimately most important in this world.
Isiaih Berlin remarked that governments fall because of ideas developed by a professor in the quiet of his study. At the beginning of this century, an American could expect to live only to the age that I now am, about 47. Today, you all -- students, anyway -- can expect to live until nearly the age of 80. And there's really only one fundamental reason, new ideas in the medical and biological sciences.
We think about the conceptions we have of ourselves, conceptions we have of our family, conceptions we have of relations between the sexes. They are the way they are today only because of the development of new ideas, new conceptions, new theories, new imaginations.
This University is, above all, founded on a core conviction that ideas, their development, and their transmission are what is ultimately most important.
Now, I've said that as President of Harvard, strengthening the undergraduate educational experience here is one of the most important priorities that I face. How can you get the most out of your time here?
As hard as it may be to imagine, in just 45 months, most of you will be Harvard alumni. And for 361 years, Harvard's alumni have been literate, opinionated, and vocal chroniclers of their Harvard experience and what it has meant.
I read this summer about how the great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes said that he had been -- and these are his words - "set on fire in his freshman year by reading the essays of Emerson." If I had but one wish for each of you, it is that in the years ahead you be set on fire, that your mind be captured by some set of external questions, by some area of human understanding; that you develop a passion for understanding, for progressing, that is so central to successful people everywhere.
This University and its faculty have no more important goal than helping you in this quest. How? It's hard to say. Fires can't be controlled. Passions can't be predicted or planned. You are all different.
But I give this advice:
First, follow your passion, not your calculation. What you will remember of your time here will be the special experiences, the things that really catch your imagination. Choose courses that cohere. Follow a program towards your objectives. But most importantly, do what catches your imagination. If there is something you really want to do, some curiosity that you want to pursue, make sure that you do it, and don't let anything stand in your way.
Second, the faculty is here for you. There is no more important responsibility for any of us as members of the faculty than teaching and working with you, the students of Harvard College.
One of the former young men -- I guess he's middle-aged now -- who's now one of the stars of our Economics Department, was at one time a sophomore at Harvard College. He approached me and said, 'Professor Summers, the paper you wrote is really quite good, but it has a few mistakes. I'd like a job as a research assistant.' That led to an enormously productive relationship for both of us. It may not be everyone's chosen approach to the faculty.
But I promise you -- I promise you that you will find faculty very willing to respond to your interests, to your curiosity, and to your invitations. Do not feel that you are ever wasting anyone's time pursuing your curiosity or your interest. That is what we are all here for.
The last thing I would say is focus on ideas. This is an extraordinary, rich, and diverse community. There are enormous opportunities of all kinds -- extracurricular, athletic, social. Those experiences will have a huge impact on many of you. But I hope that none of you will lose sight of how special this time in your life is. It's a time to learn. It's a time to expose yourself, as you likely will only do during this period in your lifetime, to ideas that are completely different from what you have done, what you have seen, perhaps even from what you will see.
I was very struck by the story in "Time Magazine" two weeks ago about a Harvard professor in the Medical School who had been named by "Time Magazine" as, at this point, a leading researcher in cardiology in the United States. He talked about how, during his undergraduate years, he had studied English and had studied furniture because he knew that for the rest of his life, he would be studying medicine and biology. And that was a curiosity that he wanted to satisfy. And so he did, and it didn't seem to have held him back.
You can focus on ideas. Remember that faculty is here for you, and pursue our passion. You, too, can be lighted on fire during your years here.
Let me conclude with one final thought, if I may. I remember very well, like it was yesterday, the day just about exactly 30 years ago today when I bid my own parents farewell after a similar ceremony at MIT. I remember the look in my parents' eyes that day, the pride in what I was going to do, the sadness that I would not be at the family breakfast table the next day, the excitement about their son's future, the apprehension about their son's future.
This day does, in some ways, mark the end of one stage in the relationship between parent and child. But it also represents the beginning of a different and equally fulfilling stage in a relationship between child and parent. Students call often. Parents call back. If I may presume myself, colleagues of the Class of 2005, good luck and Godspeed to us all.

HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES
September 19, 2001
Dear Members of the Harvard Community:
The shocking events of last week leave all of us with a profound and enduring sense of loss. We grieve together for the victims and their loved ones, and we contemplate a world altered by the unspeakable acts of September 11th, even as we do our best to resume our daily lives.
Especially at so trying a time, we must work to ensure that the diversity of our community remains a source of strength and mutual support, not a source of division or conflict. Each of us should be mindful in these difficult days to treat all other members of our community, from all backgrounds, with civility, decency, and respect. Maintaining such a spirit of tolerance will honor the victims of September 11th by affirming the ideals and values that lie at the heart of our university and our nation. It will also help us to sustain an environment in which all of us at Harvard can continue to feel secure and at home.
I also want you to know that, in light of the recent tragedy, the University intends to make a $1 million contribution toward scholarship assistance for the children and spouses of victims of last week’s events. These scholarships will be based on need and may be used to attend colleges and universities across the country. We are working with colleagues in the field of higher education to identify the most effective way to organize a scholarship fund to meet educational needs.
I know that many of you have already made individual contributions to various relief organizations, and I know that others wish to do so as well. The University is exploring a number of ways in which it may facilitate community giving, including providing information on various relief organizations and projects, facilitating payroll deductions, and designating convenient collection points for donations. Information will be posted on the Harvard home page in the near future.
We may well have a long road ahead. But I have been profoundly impressed over the last week by your generosity in helping our community and others understand and respond to the terrible events of last week.

Sincerely, Lawrence H. Summers

Transcript of address at Morning Prayers, Memorial Church
President Lawrence H. SummersSeptember 21, 2001
I expected, in the first month of the term, to visit many parts of the university. This pulpit was not one of them.
It was just ten days ago, just this moment right now, that the world was turned upside down. Ten days -- long enough to reflect but far too short to comprehend or understand. Ten days. Still time to grieve, and also time to ask 'how will we go on?' As individuals, we will come together, again and again, as we must, in settings like this, to reflect, to pray, to comfort one another, and to honor those who have died.
We remind ourselves, as I did this weekend in Washington, as I went to my children's soccer games, my children's baseball games, my children's dance concerts, birthday parties for my children's friends, that the time we spend with our loved ones is most precious. That we are each blessed to live lives of value, and we must take advantage of that opportunity to its fullest, every day.
But what of us as a university community? We have a special opportunity, and a special responsibility.
We can uphold civility and reason, the values for which we stand, in the face of terror and fanaticism.
We can -and we will - practice inclusiveness and understanding in stark repudiation of prejudice and hatred, and refuse in this community, to tolerate intolerance.
We can, and we have, offer our assistance and support to those directly touched by the terror and the violence.
We can, and we will, debate means and tactics, but all will share in the national and global commitment to victory in the struggle against terrorism.
And, in the fullness of time, we will strive to help ourselves and to help others understand the larger patterns, the meanings, and the future implications of the horrendous events still so fresh in our minds - from perspectives that range from religion to public policy, from history to technology, from psychology to public health, from sociology to law, and beyond. For that is, after all, what we do at a university: contribute in the way we think, in the way we teach, in the way we learn.
But beyond these widely shared sentiments, there is another question. A set of questions that is in the air for many. With what's going on in the world, does it matter if I do my calculus homework or go to field hockey practice? With all that is going on in the world, is it right to carry on with my work of managing accounts or teaching my small class?
These are important questions. They deserve a response. The answer is that yes it does matter, and it matters more than it ever did before. Our character as individuals and as a community is tested much more in bad times, in difficult times, than in good. We support our selves, our community, and our society every hour of every day when we carry forward the important work of learning and teaching, thinking and discussing -- that is what this community is about.
We win an important victory over those who perpetrate this heinous deed when we carry on with what is most important to us, and we do not allow them to divert us from our chosen tasks. We win an important victory when we continue to be an example of those human values -the desire to share with the world tolerance, a sense of community -- that are most important -- when we are a beacon to others and the nation.
We will prevail in the struggle in which we are now engaged because we will not succumb to the temptation of nihilism. We will carry on our work. We will make every day count.
In doing so, we will emerge shaken, but ultimately stronger in the face of what has happened. We will show that we have great hope for the future, despite what has happened. And despite what has happened, we will cherish the ideals on which this university and our nation were founded all the more.

Remarks to Yale TercentennialPresident Lawrence H. Summers New Haven, ConnecticutOctober 5, 2001
President Levin, members of the Corporation, members of the faculty, students, parents, and extended members of the university family,
I am honored to convey to this gathering the good wishes of the men and women of Harvard University. And I am gratified to share with President Tilghman the responsibility of representing the nation's institutions of higher learning at a ceremonial event of such importance.
Three hundred years ago, an epic chapter opened in the book of our national experience when the Puritan divines of Connecticut embarked on a lively new enterprise.
Tired of sending their children to Massachusetts Bay for schooling; tired in particular of the quarrelsome Cambridge institution erected for that purpose, they launched the Collegiate School, soon to be renamed for all eternity Yale College.
It was a decision of immense moment for New England, for education, and for the future growth of the United States of America.
And frankly, we have never forgiven you.
For three centuries, your very existence has been a gentle reminder of Harvard's imperfections. More than one observer recorded his opinion that it was not only Yale's potential, but also Harvard's deficiency that impelled Yale's founders to cross the Rubicon – or in this case, the Quinnipiac.
And then there's the whole business about mottoes. Harvard's is Veritas. Yale chose "Lux et Veritas." The message was unmistakeable: Harvard lacks Lux. We were judged, in other words, to be in the dark. Thank you. On the athletic fields, in the libraries, and the laboratories -- we shall see.
A certain ambivalence surrounds Harvard and Yale's connection.
In the spirit of Veritas, I should rely on your discretion not to pass the word back to Cambridge that I was born at the Yale New Haven hospital.
I must also say that I was initially struck to learn that of Yale's twelve founders, eleven earned their degree in Cambridge – a statistic that would seem more impressive were it not for the fact that there was nowhere else to go to college north of Williamsburg.
And finally, three years ago, when a member of the Harvard faculty was named to the Yale Corporation, President Levin's comments captured the nature of Yale's limited spirit of generosity by remarking that, "obviously you wouldn't want a Corporation composed of fourteen Harvard professors – but one shouldn't hurt."
We joke about our rivalry, without ever fully concealing our robust mutual admiration. In a real and deep sense, we are colleagues spurring each other forward and promoting values that we both share.
1701 is a long time ago, but it is not so long ago. We were allied then, and we have been allies since, as the world has changed around us and occasionally because of us. Harvard and Yale's audacious quest for truth quickened the quest for liberty that reached its full flowering in Philadelphia 75 years after Yale's founding. Harvard and Yale stood together inside Independence Hall, just as they have always stood together when freedom needed defenders, from Antietam to Guadalcanal to the World Trade Center.
Forty years ago, a Harvard alumnus, John F. Kennedy, reminded a Yale audience much like this one today of our common mission that "a great university is always enlisted against the spread of illusion and on the side of reality."
Now more than ever, the values we share - the commitment to truth, to tolerance, to the power of ideas - has great importance. We have been reminded these last days that there is dark as well as light in the world, courage as well as fright, and wrong as well as right.
Great universities connect us not just with our history and our values, but also with each other, and our future. Harvard today is proud to join in celebrating the greatness that is Yale University.

Address of Lawrence H. SummersPresident, Harvard University
October 12, 2001
I accept!
Members of the University community, friends of Harvard from far and wide: we celebrate today a ritual generations older than our nation -- a joyous ritual -- a solemn ritual -- that reinforces our sense of tradition and community.
To begin, we acknowledge all who have come before us, all of those who have built Harvard from a small school in a cow yard centuries ago to the vibrant university of today. We are truly blessed by their efforts.
I want especially to recognize one person's leadership. Neil Rudenstine stood in this place ten Octobers ago. His vision, his dedication, his care, have left Harvard far stronger than he found it. Neil, thank you!
Neil and I both know what President Edward Holyoke, who by the way was not an orthopedist, and lends his name to the chair on which the Harvard President sits, said in 1769: "If any man wishes to be humbled and mortified, let him become President of Harvard College."
Humbled, yes; mortified, I hope not; excited and exhilarated, for sure. I pledge my energy to Harvard's work.
Today's gathering is about more than any individual or any office. Harvard's distinction, and its promise, flow from all who are here. From this entire community, from all those who read books, who write books, who shelve books. From all who do their part in the constant quest to make a great university a greater one.
I will do my best to hear Harvard's many voices, and to respond. I admire President Eliot, but not for me his view that a Harvard president should be measured by, and I quote, "the capacity to inflict pain." Nor, I hasten to reassure you, his predilection for the hour and three-quarter inaugural address.
And much as I admire the movie Love Story, I do not believe that being president means never having to say you're sorry.
The Torch of Truth
We meet now in the shadow of the terrible and tragic events of September 11th. These events give fresh meaning to Franklin Roosevelt's words from this stage 65 years ago. Said Roosevelt: "It is the part of Harvard and America to stand for the freedom of the human mind and to carry the torch of truth."
And so, in our present struggle, we do our part, we carry that torch,
When we show support for the victims and their families;
When we honor those who defend our freedom and the calling of public service;
When we stand as an example of openness and tolerance to all of goodwill;
And, above all, when we promote understanding -- not the soft understanding that glides over questions of right and wrong, but the hard-won comprehension that the threat before us demands.
We will prevail in this struggle -- prevail by carrying on the ordinary acts of learning and playing, caring and loving -- the extraordinarily important acts that make up our daily lives. And we will prevail by recognizing anew that each of us owes it to all of us to be part of something larger than ourselves. And here we are.
Today we recommit ourselves to the university's enduring service to society -- through scholarship of the highest quality, and through the profound act of faith in the future that is teaching and learning.
A World of Ideas
Great universities like this one have become more worldly in recent years.
More and more of us directly engage with the problems of the day.
Whether whispering in the ear of a President or helping museums preserve great art;
whether establishing legal foundations for civil society in distant lands or advising on the ethics of life-and-death medical decisions;
whether planning cities of the future or finding better ways to teach children to read.
The people of the university make contributions every day.
This is good and it is important. That we serve in this way reflects the immediate and practical utility of the knowledge developed and taught here.
But the practical effectiveness of what we do must never obscure what is most special and distinctive about universities like this one: that they are communities in which truth -- Veritas -- is pursued first and last as an end in itself -- not for any tangible reward or worldly impact.
Whether reading great literature, or discovering new states of matter, or developing philosophies of ordered liberty, it is the pursuit of truth, insight, and understanding that most defines enlightened civilization.
Indeed, when the history of this time is written, it will be a history of ideas -- and of the educated women and men whose intellect, imagination, and humanity brought them forth and carried them to fruition.
It will, in large part, be a history of what has come forth from campuses like this one.
Creative Tensions
I will speak in a few minutes about some of the specific challenges that Harvard faces in coming years.
But I want to say a word first about the singular success of universities as social institutions. Though they are sometimes derided as remote or not relevant, universities, and Harvard in particular, have an extraordinary staying power -- as we are reminded by this ritual -- in a volatile and changing world.
Why?
The answer may lie in some of the creative tensions that are at the heart of the academic enterprise.
The university is open to all ideas, but it is committed to the skepticism that is the hallmark of education. All ideas are worthy of consideration here -- but not all perspectives are equally valid.
Openness means a willingness to listen to ideas -- but also the obligation to sift and test them -- to expose them to the critical judgments of disinterested scholars and a discerning public.
We must be neither slaves to dogma nor uncritical followers of fashion. We must exalt neither novelty nor orthodoxy for their own sake.
Our special obligation is to seek what is true -- not what is popular or easy, not what is conventionally believed, but what is right and in the deepest and most rigorous sense advances our understanding of the world.
Universities are places of ideas but also places of idealism. We owe allegiance to the dispassionate pursuit of truth. But universities -- and certainly this one -- have been and should always be places of passionate moral commitment.
We cultivate what is special and intellectual here, but we must also nurture the value of generous public service to society beyond these walls.
This takes on a special importance at a moment like this, when we have an opportunity to awaken a new generation to the satisfactions of serving society.
And not just as individuals do we serve, for as a university we serve. Most importantly, always through our teaching and our scholarship, we must avoid temptations to take on tasks beyond our scope and our capacity.
But we can -- and we will -- meet our obligations to members of our campus community and to the communities in which we reside.
Perhaps the most important creative tension in our university is this: we carry ancient traditions, but what is new is most important for us.
Our most enduring tradition is that we are forever young.
Our historic buildings always house new students. We venerate our past but we succeed and endure only when the university renews itself in each generation.
Renewal does not just mean doing new things and growing larger. It means moving beyond activities that have run their course, being selective and disciplined about the most critical paths to pursue, and nimbly and rapidly responding to the opportunities created by a changing world.
Harvard is strong today -- to keep it strong we will need to maintain that careful balance that has sustained us so long, between openness and skepticism, between the imperatives of thought and service, and between tradition and innovation.
Challenges Ahead
Now is the time to consider Harvard's challenges for a new century. We come here together at a moment when this university is fortunate in all that it possesses -- physically, financially, and most of all intellectually.
But we will -- and we should -- be judged not by what we have, but by what we do, not by what we accumulate, but by what we contribute.
Undergraduate Learning
First, we will need in the years ahead to ensure that teaching and learning are everything they can be here, especially at the very heart of the university -- Harvard College.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said late in his life that he was "set on fire" in his freshman year here by reading and discussing the essays of Emerson.
We are exceptionally fortunate in the students who choose to come here. To do them justice, it is our task to set their minds on fire.
We must help them to find what intrigues them most, press them to meet the highest standards of intellectual excellence and start them on a lifetime quest for knowledge and truth.
This has many aspects:
- It means assuring that the academic experience is at the center of the college experience.- It means strengthening and expanding our distinguished faculty to embrace new areas of learning.- It means thinking carefully about what we teach, and how we teach, recognizing that any curriculum, course of study, or form of pedagogy can always be improved.
And what is most crucial is this: Whether in the classroom or the common room, the library or the laboratory, we will assure more of what lies at the heart of the educational experience -- direct contact between teacher and student.
I speak from experience. A moment ago, Karen Kelly mentioned her freshman Ec 10 section -- the first class she took at Harvard and the first class I ever taught.
Karen, as we sat in my office talking about elasticity, I don't think either of us imagined that we would be here a quarter century later. I don't know if you and your classmates learned anything much in that class, but I do know that I learned very, very much.
Coming Together
Second, we need to come together as a university -- a community of scholars and students -- doing different things but united by common convictions and common objectives.
Every tub may rest on its own bottom, but all draw on the reservoir of knowledge and tradition that Harvard represents. And the strength and reputation of each depend upon the strength of all.
We will not sacrifice the flexibility and innovation that autonomy promotes. But we will assure that Harvard, as one university, exceeds -- by ever more -- the sum of its parts.
Discoveries are no longer confined by traditional academic boundaries. Many students no longer crave careers confined to a single profession or field. Specific programs and initiatives have had and will have an important place in responding to these realities.
But real and ultimate success will come only as our culture changes -- only when each of us in a single part of the University is genuinely part of Harvard University as a whole.
The University in this regard has a historic opportunity to create a new Harvard campus for centuries to come.
Think about how grateful we are right now for the vision of those who built the Business School's magnificent campus in what was once a Boston swamp, or helped create the Kennedy School from what was once a not-very-attractive train yard.
If we make the right choices -- if we take full advantage of a physical opportunity across the river in Allston -- an opportunity to create a campus that is several times as large as this whole yard -- we will have earned the gratitude of future generations.
Let us make these choices as a university, as a community, and let us choose well.
Ultimately we are a community though, more of people than of buildings. As we work to strengthen this community, let us reaffirm our common commitment to being ever more open and inclusive.
We have come a long way. A century ago this was an institution where New England gentlemen taught other New England gentlemen.
Today, Harvard is open to men and women of all faiths, all races, all classes, all states, all nations. As a result, we offer a better education to better students who make us a better university.
And yet, as proud as we all are that any student, as we so often stress, can attend Harvard College regardless of financial circumstance or need, I say to you that we should not rest until much the same is true of all this great university.
Inability to pay does not constrain students from coming to Harvard College and it should not constrain the most able students from coming here to Harvard to become scholars, or doctors, architects or teachers.
Revolution in Science
Third, the scientific revolution now in progress demands and compels all of our attention.
Steps from here, scholars, individuals, sitting in offices, are able to fathom what happened in detail in the first billionth of a second of the cosmos billions of years ago. They begin now to comprehend the deep structure of matter and the biological and chemical basis for life.
We are beginning to understand in a rigorous and clear way the inner workings of the human mind.
As a consequence of all of this, as a consequence of science, we have seen life expectancy come close to doubling in the last century, from the mid-forties to the long life expectancies that await the young people who are here today. And all of that was before what looks to be the century of biology and life science.
Still, we live in a society, and dare I say a university, where few would admit -- and none would admit proudly -- to not having read any plays by Shakespeare or to not knowing the meaning of the categorical imperative, but where it is all too common and all too acceptable not to know a gene from a chromosome or the meaning of exponential growth.
Part of our task will be to assure that all who graduate from this place are equipped to comprehend, to master, to work with, the scientific developments that are transforming the world in which we will all work and live.
In a time when multi-billion-dollar projects sequence the genome, at a time when scientific papers are written that have 300 authors, to discern how the university is able to adapt its traditional structures to most effectively engage the adventure of science will pose a closely related challenge.
Science does illuminate the human condition, but many of the most perplexing questions -- including some generated by science itself -- cannot be answered by science alone.
These questions will demand in the future, as they always have in the past, the kind of insight that can come only from philosophers, artists, historians, critics -- from creative works, and those who study them, that illuminate the essence of who we are as humans.
Extending Excellence
Finally, over time, the converging phenomena of globalization and new information technologies may well alter -- will alter -- the university in ways that we can now only dimly perceive.
The Internet and other innovations in information technology represent the most dramatic change in the way that we share and we pursue knowledge since the invention of the printing press. The rippling effects of that invention took centuries to play out and shaped universities and their structure for all our time. And I have no doubt, the same will be true of information technology.
As globalization continues, the opportunity to make a difference through our teaching and our scholarship becomes far more pervasive than ever before.
A century ago, Harvard was becoming a national university. Today, while strongly rooted in American traditions and values, it is becoming a global university.
We will, in the years ahead, need to think very carefully about technology, about globalization, and how we can enable us to contribute as much to as many as possible.
We will also need to assure that we do not compromise our high standards. Our goal will be to extend excellence without ever diluting it.
The Adventure of Our Times
In this new century, nothing will matter more than the education of future leaders and the development of new ideas.
Harvard has done its part in the past. But that past will be prologue only if all of us now do our part to make it so.
We will face difficult choices. We will take risks. Sometimes we will fail. Indeed, if we never fail, we will not have participated as fully as we can in the adventure of our times.
Like all great universities, Harvard has always been a work in progress, and it always will be. In the words of the song we are about to sing, let us together renew this great university for the age that is waiting before.

Statement on diversity at Harvard UniversityPresident Lawrence H. SummersJanuary 2, 2002
A number of questions have been asked in recent days about the University's position and my own views on diversity. I thought a brief statement might be helpful in this regard.
I take pride in Harvard's longstanding commitment to diversity. I believe it is essential for us to maintain that commitment, working to create an ever more open and inclusive environment that draws on the widest possible range of talents. Our approach to admissions, cited as a model in the nation's highest court, advances our compelling interest in racial and other forms of diversity. Diversity contributes to educational excellence by enabling outstanding students, faculty, and staff of all backgrounds to come together and learn from one another. I look forward to working with colleagues at Harvard and elsewhere to promote ever greater opportunity for all.
With regard to the Afro-American Studies program at Harvard, we are proud of this program collectively and of each of its individual members. We would very much like to see the current faculty stay at Harvard and will compete vigorously to make this an attractive environment.

Statement from President Lawrence H. Summers
Regarding Petition "for Divestment from Israel"
May 16, 2002
I have received various inquiries about the petition signed by a number of individuals at Harvard and MIT urging the universities to "divest from Israel." Let me state clearly that Harvard has no intention of doing so. Members of our community are free as individuals to express their diverse views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conduct of the parties involved. The university protects that freedom, and affirms its proper role, by resisting calls to issue institutional judgments on that conflict through the act of divestment. Harvard is first and foremost a center of learning, not an institutional organ for advocacy on such a complex and controversial international conflict. On that proposition I hope we can all come to agree.

Harvard University Statement of Values August, 2002
Dear Members of the Harvard Community:
The attached "Statement of Values," endorsed by the Academic Advisory Group, which includes the President, the Provost, and the Deans of the Faculties, represents an effort to articulate basic values that should be reflected in policy and practice throughout the University. Although we recognize that our various Schools and units have distinctive missions, cultures, and ways of doing business, it is important that we, as a community, embrace certain values as a means of creating and sustaining an environment of trust and mutual understanding.
We are guided in this undertaking by the positive experience of certain of our Schools that have developed values statements and established processes for implementing them, and by the work of the Harvard Committee on Employment and Contracting Policies, chaired by Lawrence Katz. The Committee articulated the significance of dignity and respect for all who work on this campus, and coupled its recommendations concerning tangible compensation for service workers with suggested measures to improve the quality of work life.
The attached statement identifies a set of basic values that should inform work at Harvard. I have asked each Dean and Vice President to initiate a process early in the Fall to make sure that members of their local communities are aware of and understand the shared workplace values stated here, as well as others they may choose to affirm. I have further requested that they identify individuals in their local communities to whom faculty, students, and staff may turn if they perceive a problem.
In addition, we plan to appoint a University ombudsperson whose services will be available to anyone in the University community concerned about workplace conditions. Many universities have found that an ombudsperson can serve as a useful resource on issues relating to the quality of work life. We have examined models for this kind of position, and we will work cooperatively with the schools to ensure an appropriate relation between the ombuds function and the existing mechanisms within Schools and departments.
All who work at Harvard, regardless of rank or position, contribute in vital ways to education and scholarship. The attached statement of values, and the processes to implement them, are designed to ensure that our policies and practices reflect this principle.
With all best wishes,
Sincerely,
Lawrence H. Summers

Harvard University Statement of Values
August 2002
Harvard University aspires to provide education and scholarship of the highest quality — to advance the frontiers of knowledge and to prepare individuals for life, work, and leadership. Achieving these aims depends on the efforts of thousands of faculty, students, and staff across the University. Some of us make our contribution by engaging directly in teaching, learning, and research, others of us, by supporting and enabling those core activities in essential ways. Whatever our individual roles, and wherever we work within Harvard, we owe it to one another to uphold certain basic values of the community. These include:
Respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others
Honesty and integrity in all dealings
Conscientious pursuit of excellence in one’s work
Accountability for actions and conduct in the workplace The more we embrace these values in our daily lives, the more we create and sustain an environment of trust, cooperation, lively inquiry, and mutual understanding — and advance a commitment to education and scholarship, which all of us share.

Remarks of Harvard University PresidentLawrence H. SummersHarvard YardCambridge, MassachusettsSeptember 11, 2002
A year ago on this day, we came together in this place to share our grief, to face our fear, to begin making sense of a world torn open.
We now come together again. We vowed then that we would remember and we have.
We remember where we were when we heard. We remember the shock as we watched planes hit symbols of our strength, the horror as we watched people jump to their deaths, the fear in the voices of our families and friends, the dread in our own hearts.
We remember, too, with respect and awe those who climbed stairs into fire risking all and those who searched the ruins for survivors, working past their own strength until all hope was exhausted.
We remember how we in this community supported each other through hours on the phone; braced each other through days of uncertainty, through the weeks when our usual fall business -- of teaching and learning, studying and playing -- seemed never more beside the point, and yet never more crucial.
We remember our fear of what would come next. For we value life and love on earth, and when they are lost, we suffer and we grieve.
Today we remember tenderly and fondly those who were lost. We remember the parents forced to mourn their children; the children suddenly without a parent; the lovers forever separated.
As we grieve for each innocent life lost, we cannot evade the truth that what we commemorate here today is more just than the tragedy of human lives lost multiplied thousands of times over. It is the result of a calculated plan to murder unsuspecting people, innocent people - not because of anything they did or even anything they stood for -- but because they were members of this national community enjoying the fruits of freedom.
Those who killed on September 11 and those who celebrate the killing remind us of the eternal existence of evil. And we regard the world with understanding and openness, but we must also face it with moral clarity. We may debate the nature of truth, but there are truths beyond debate. Pursuit of that truth is our particular objective.
On Sept 11th, our generation learned, as generations before us have had to learn, that the values of life and liberty we venerate cannot be taken for granted but must be the constant object of our common purpose. For we saw that there are no ivory towers or impregnable fortresses — we are bound together.
A renewed commitment to our common purpose in this university, this nation and this world -- let this be a lasting legacy of the terrible events of a year ago. Let us each in our own way make common purpose an objective of our very individual strivings.
Let us advance the common purpose by refusing to excuse or legitimate terror but, equally, by insisting that every person be seen fairly as an individual and not on their race or their creed.
Let us honor those who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom and show our support for those among us who have the courage to make that fateful choice.
Let us manifest our common purpose by renewing our commitment to this nation and, above all, to the values for which it stands.
Let us reflect -- carefully, courageously, drawing upon our accumulated knowledge and all our capacity to reason -- how we can best defend and advance the ideal of freedom. Let our moral clarity be translated not into reflexive revenge but into determination to prevail against terror and build a better world.
For ultimately, we will be judged not by what we oppose, but by what together we work towards. Privileged to be part of a great university, let us marshal all that we know and all that we can learn to strengthen the ties between the world’s peoples. Let our calling be to use our knowledge to build a world of deeper understanding, greater justice, and heightened respect for human life. For centuries, Harvard has been proud to serve the American nation; and now, increasingly, we are called to serve the world as well.
Together, on this somber day, in this green and tranquil yard, we think back with sadness, we draw strength from each other, we look ahead with hope. Our memory fortifies our resolve as we go forward in pursuit of truth -- our high and common purpose.

Address at morning prayersMemorial ChurchCambridge, MassachusettsSeptember 17, 2002
I speak with you today not as President of the University but as a concerned member of our community about something that I never thought I would become seriously worried about -- the issue of anti-Semitism.
I am Jewish, identified but hardly devout. In my lifetime, anti-Semitism has been remote from my experience. My family all left Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. The Holocaust is for me a matter of history, not personal memory. To be sure, there were country clubs where I grew up that had few if any Jewish members, but not ones that included people I knew. My experience in college and graduate school, as a faculty member, as a government official -- all involved little notice of my religion.
Indeed, I was struck during my years in the Clinton administration that the existence of an economic leadership team with people like Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Charlene Barshefsky and many others that was very heavily Jewish passed without comment or notice -- it was something that would have been inconceivable a generation or two ago, as indeed it would have been inconceivable a generation or two ago that Harvard could have a Jewish President.
Without thinking about it much, I attributed all of this to progress -- to an ascendancy of enlightenment and tolerance. A view that prejudice is increasingly put aside. A view that while the politics of the Middle East was enormously complex, and contentious, the question of the right of a Jewish state to exist had been settled in the affirmative by the world community.
But today, I am less complacent. Less complacent and comfortable because there is disturbing evidence of an upturn in anti-Semitism globally, and also because of some developments closer to home.
Consider some of the global events of the last year:
There have been synagogue burnings, physical assaults on Jews, or the painting of swastikas on Jewish memorials in every country in Europe. Observers in many countries have pointed to the worst outbreak of attacks against the Jews since the Second World War.
Candidates who denied the significance of the Holocaust reached the runoff stage of elections for the nation’s highest office in France and Denmark. State-sponsored television stations in many nations of the world spew anti-Zionist propaganda.
The United Nations-sponsored World Conference on Racism -- while failing to mention human rights abuses in China, Rwanda, or anyplace in the Arab world -- spoke of Israel’s policies prior to recent struggles under the Barak government as constituting ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The NGO declaration at the same conference was even more virulent.
I could go on. But I want to bring this closer to home. Of course academic communities should be and always will be places that allow any viewpoint to be expressed. And certainly there is much to be debated about the Middle East and much in Israel’s foreign and defense policy that can be and should be vigorously challenged.
But where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.
For example:
Hundreds of European academics have called for an end to support for Israeli researchers, though not for an end to support for researchers from any other nation.
Israeli scholars this past spring were forced off the board of an international literature journal.
At the same rallies where protesters, many of them university students, condemn the IMF and global capitalism and raise questions about globalization, it is becoming increasingly common to also lash out at Israel. Indeed, at the anti-IMF rallies last spring, chants were heard equating Hitler and Sharon.
Events to raise funds for organizations of questionable political provenance that in some cases were later found to support terrorism have been held by student organizations on this and other campuses with at least modest success and very little criticism.
And some here at Harvard and some at universities across the country have called for the University to single out Israel among all nations as the lone country where it is inappropriate for any part of the university’s endowment to be invested. I hasten to say the University has categorically rejected this suggestion.
We should always respect the academic freedom of everyone to take any position. We should also recall that academic freedom does not include freedom from criticism. The only antidote to dangerous ideas is strong alternatives vigorously advocated.
I have always throughout my life been put off by those who heard the sound of breaking glass, in every insult or slight, and conjured up images of Hitler’s Kristallnacht at any disagreement with Israel. Such views have always seemed to me alarmist if not slightly hysterical. But I have to say that while they still seem to me unwarranted, they seem rather less alarmist in the world of today than they did a year ago.
I would like nothing more than to be wrong. It is my greatest hope and prayer that the idea of a rise of anti-Semitism proves to be a self-denying prophecy -- a prediction that carries the seeds of its own falsification. But this depends on all of us.

Message about Martin Luther King Jr. DayJanuary 17, 2003
Dr. King’s voice was tragically silenced almost 35 years ago, but his message of tolerance, equality, and hope lives on. With each passing year, as the world draws closer together and the pressures faced by people everywhere to live peacefully with and learn from each other grow, the values that Dr. King stood for become ever more important.
Monday is a day to remember Dr. King’s life and to keep the spirit of his message alive. We remember a man who dedicated his life to the hope that one day people from around the world would be able to walk together as brothers and sisters. In this time of increasing global conflict, Dr. King’s life and pursuit of social change through non-violent means can serve as an example for us all.
Dr. King once said that, "Everybody can be great because anybody can serve." As a university, we can be proud so many of our students go on to serve their communities and their nations. Through their work, and through important days of remembrance like this one, we can keep Dr. King’s message and ideals alive. As a community we are committed to becoming ever-more open and inclusive because our diversity is a crucial aspect of our excellence.

Statement on the Patriot Act and academic freedomApril 8, 2003
This statement is drawn from remarks made at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences meeting on April 8.
I think we all, as members of this community, recognize that one of this community's proudest moments was the way in which it stood up for the rights of its members in the time of the McCarthy period. More generally, we recognize that academic freedom is a central and absolute value of this community, and I want to speak from the perspective of academic freedom.
The first issue that has been raised by members of this faculty is the treatment by this community of individuals based on the views that they express. I want to make clear in the strongest possible terms that it is antithetical to everything this community stands for, for individuals to be penalized on the basis of the political beliefs that they express on any question of controversy. For anyone to engage in such treatment would be wrong.
The broader set of issues that have been raised goes to the set of measures taken by the United States government and the appropriate response of the University to those measures. And it seems to me that it is useful to address those issues at four levels.
First, with respect to policy, the University has been in the recent past, and will continue to be, engaged in the policy dialogue in Washington on matters that affect the University's interests in academic freedom, whether with regard to its students, its teaching, or its research. We will use such influence as we have – in the future, as in the past – to work to create legislation that is protective of our interests.
Second, with respect to the implementation of legislation that has already been placed on the books, the University will – in the future, as in the past – seek to work with the government agencies charged with implementing legislation in order to assure that the regulations and procedures that they adopt are protective of our interest in academic freedom.
Third, with respect to any request that any member of the University receives that is potentially invasive of the privacy or the academic freedom of any other member of this academic community, I would request that the person consult immediately with the Office of the General Counsel before taking any action. I can assure you that the University's general counsel will provide advice that is maximally supportive, within the University's legal obligations, of the privacy of all the members of this community.
Fourth, with respect to any individuals within this community – students, staff, junior faculty, faculty – the University will uphold and defend their right of academic freedom and their right of free speech. We do these things because academic freedom is central to what the University is all about. It is central to our ability to disseminate knowledge, and to create knowledge.
Let me say, finally, that I would associate myself with the observations of Professor Sidney Verba on the spheres in which it is and is not appropriate for the University to take an institutional position, or for faculties within the University to take an institutional position. At times, where the direct interests of the University are involved, we have, as in the Michigan affirmative action case now before the Supreme Court, taken a public position on a political or a policy question. Yet generally, where those interests are not involved, the University would be poorly served, in my judgment, to take an institutional position.
This approach, which needs to be carefully considered and applied in light of circumstances, is important for at least two reasons.
First, any effort to take an institutional position, if an institutional position is arrived at, inevitably must have some impact on individuals within the community who wish to take a dissenting view, and must inevitably raise a caution in their minds about considering the expression of a dissenting view. And so the existence of an institutional view on political questions not directly related to the University's interests can work against our objective of promoting academic freedom.
Second, the compact with which we operate vis-à-vis the larger society is a complex one. The compact that enables us to resist pressures of the kind Harvard President Pusey resisted in the 1950s is one that depends on our being an institution that is committed to the freedom of individuals within our community. Equally it depends upon our exercising great care as an institution not to become a political actor in the larger society, with the exception of those issues that pertain directly to our interests.
And so it would be my pledge that the University will, in the future as in the past, uphold the commitment to academic freedom with all the vigor that we can. The University will take care to avoid adopting institutional positions on political matters outside of its direct interests. And it is my belief, as a member of this faculty, that it would be ill-advised for the faculty, as a faculty, to take such positions – valuable as it is, and will continue to be, for us to discuss matters of concern vital to us all.

Statement regarding Supreme Court decisions on university admissionsCambridgeJune 23, 2003
The United States Supreme Court today issued a pair of long-awaited decisions in cases involving admissions programs at the University of Michigan. While the two decisions reach different results, their paramount significance for our community is that the Court's pivotal opinion embraces the core principles that have long informed Harvard's approach to admissions.
A majority of the Court, in the Grutter case, unequivocally recognizes the essential educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. It recognizes that "the path to leadership" should be "visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity." And it confirms that universities are entitled to substantial deference on matters at the heart of their academic mission, such as the selection of their students.
Perhaps most important, the Court explicitly upholds the right of universities to pursue student diversity through carefully designed admissions programs that flexibly consider each applicant as an individual and that properly treat race as one among a broad array of factors that may be taken into account. As Justice Powell did in the Bakke case a quarter-century ago, Justice O'Connor cites Harvard College's careful and flexible approach to admissions as a model - an approach in which "all factors that may contribute to student body diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race in admissions decisions."
The affirmation of these principles is as heartening as it is important. We all share a vital stake in the education of citizens and leaders for a diverse society. I am pleased the Court has affirmed policies like ours that promote compelling educational interests in inclusiveness. We will continue to pursue those interests with energy and care, so we can provide our students with the best possible education and prepare them to contribute to society.
Note: The full text of the Supreme Court's decisions can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Morning Prayers address by President Lawrence H. Summers
Appleton Chapel, Memorial Church
September 15, 2003
Reverend Gomes' prayer put me in mind just now of an experience I had recently in listening to the remarkable eulogy he delivered in memory of the remarkable Archie Epps. The experience was, first, one of admiration for a speaker of such eloquence. Any time that Peter Gomes ascends the pulpit, the community assembled is fortunate. When I sit in my seat as part of that community, I share in that fortune. While it is best for the community that he continues to be as remarkable as he is, it makes it harder for me to speak after he does.
Some of you may recall that one year ago on the first day of classes in fall 2002, I spoke at Morning Prayers on the topic of anti-Semitism. Whatever their merits, I think it fair to say that my observations did not go unnoticed. I hope my remarks today will be cause for reflection but trust that that reflection will be rather more private and local than followed my remarks last year.
I want to reflect this morning on what the discipline that I am trained in -- economics -- can contribute to thinking about moral questions. Economics provides just one perspective, but one that I think is too rarely appreciated for its moral as well as practical significance.
Indeed, it is fair to say that economists like me rarely appear in places like this. Just why is not altogether clear. But when it comes to preaching economists, it strikes me that there is both a lack of demand and a lack of supply. A lack of demand because so many believe that any economic way of thinking is one that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. A lack of supply because many economists are instinctively uncomfortable with moral, let alone spiritual, discourse.
And yet, it seems to me there are some aspects of characteristic economic modes of reasoning that complement other modes of moral thought. One important thing that is distinctive about the way economists approach the world is their great emphasis on respect for individuals -- and the needs, tastes, choices and judgment they make for themselves. It is the basis of much economic analysis that the good is an aggregation of many individuals' assessments of their own well-being, and not something that can be assessed apart from individual judgments on the basis of some overarching or separate theory.
I was reminded of these issues as I had a chance over the weekend to engage with many students at the freshman barbecues on issues of moral concern to all of us. For example, many believe that it is wrong to buy imported products produced by workers who are paid less than a specified minimum wage of some sort. We all deplore the conditions in which so many on this planet work and the paltry compensation they receive. And yet there is surely some moral force to the concern that as long as the workers are voluntarily employed, they have chosen to work because they are working to their best alternative. Is narrowing an individual's set of choices an act of respect, of charity, even of concern? From this perspective the morality of restrictions on imports or boycotts advocated by many is less than entirely transparent.
In a similar vein, it is often suggested that the marketization or Westernization of indigenous cultures is doing great damage. And surely in some cases it is. But here too, the individual-based perspective may help us to see a different side of the moral question -- for an economist would attend first to those directly affected rather than to the judgments of those who are new to the situation. It disturbs the sensibilities of many of us to imagine the TV show "Survivor" being beamed to satellite dishes in rural villages or the pervasiveness of the Nike symbol, but if that is what people want, we need to be cautious about opposing their having it.
There is another observation that is closely related. There is much that is wrong with the market, but one of the things that most bothers many people of faith about market mechanisms is the idea that there is something wrong with a system where we are able to buy bread only because of the greed or profit motive of the people who make the bread. Here I would be very cautious. We all have only so much altruism in us. Economists like me think of altruism as a valuable and rare good that needs conserving. Far better to conserve it by designing a system in which people's wants will be satisfied by individuals being selfish, and saving that altruism for our families, our friends, and the many social problems in this world that markets cannot solve. This is not just an abstraction -- the far larger degree of private charity in this country than in Western Europe, and in Western Europe than in the socialist economies, is worth some reflection -- especially in institutions like this one that are made possible by acts of private altruism.
There is much to argue with what I have said. But I will have served my purpose if I have suggested that many of the viewpoints that are dismissed as selfish or "just economic" are motivated not by an unwillingness to grapple with moral issues but with an insistence that often the highest morality is respecting the choices and views of people who we all want to help.
And I hope also to have demonstrated in some tiny way, on this first day of classes, what we at Harvard are all about -- the continual search to come closer and closer to veritas through the juxtaposition and consideration of very different perspectives.

Remarks of President Lawrence H. Summers,Reception for Human Rights at HarvardCambridge, MassachusettsSeptember 29, 2003
This really is an overwhelming gathering. The number of people who are here, the range of topics represented, the extent of the range between those involved in immediate advocacy of issues of the day, and those involved in very fundamental philosophical thinking raised by human rights, is something that is very inspiring.
I would not claim to be an expert on your subject, but let me only share these three observations:
First, it seems to me this is a great example of what collaboration around the University is supposed to be like. We don’t have formal dictatorial structures; we have organic growth in which people come to things because they want to. And it turns out that there are a lot of things that they want to come to. We have regular faculty extensively involved, but much of the energy and creativity in what we do comes from those who are part of our community for only a year or less. We have programs that are anchored from within regular schools, but a great deal of energy comes from collaboration. It really is an example of the kinds of things that I wish the University were doing on more subjects of great social importance.
The second observation I would make is that I think the kind of work being done here will make a profound difference over time in the lives of millions and millions of people who, believe it or not, will never have heard of the Carr Center, or will never even have heard of Harvard University. Because ultimately, it actually is ideas that shape what happens in this world.
The longer I was in Washington, the more I came to recognize that while we all felt very important scrambling around, negotiating and planning and deciding and litigating and bargaining, the more we really were like wriggly snakes in a tunnel. And the position of that tunnel was set by a prevailing intellectual climate that was determined by what we all had studied when we were in college -- and what those with whom we were speaking in other countries had studied and absorbed in their formative years. And it is the product of enterprises like this one that form the basis for the education of those who are young today, and the education that future generations will receive.
You know, I thought two years ago that it was basically a silly idea to speak of AIDS as a human rights issue. A public health issue, yes. An issue of profound moral concern, yes. But not an issue that went to basic questions of rights and entitlement. And I’ve learned that I was wrong.
I’ve learned that, just as Amartya Sen discovered years ago that thinking about shortages of food was exactly the wrong way to think about famines, thinking about the continuation and perpetuation and failure to act with respect to AIDS as a question of resource allocation was to miss something that was very fundamental in understanding the moral dimension of that problem.
I may have been, I’m sure I was, slow on the uptake. I know there are people in this room who’ve found me frustratingly slow on the uptake with respect to that principle. But I was not so slow as to be completely unrepresentative of a world policy community that is inactive on this problem. And that is just an illustration of why the kind of work, and writing, and thinking that’s done here is so important.
The salience of gender in discussions of development today, while utterly absent 20 years ago, is yet another example of the power of hard and rigorous and careful thinking to really make differences of life and death for large numbers of people.
The third thing, and last thing, I want to say is that what is particularly impressive to me about the work in this area that goes on at Harvard, and where it seems to me that the work in which many of you are engaged is an example to others who work on issues of enormous moral import, is that you are not satisfied to claim the moral high ground and the megaphone that an affiliation with Harvard provides, to clamor in the advocacy community for the outcomes that you prefer.
You recognize that it is the role of scholars in a university, yes, to be morally concerned, but that being morally concerned does not relieve you of the obligation -- indeed, it imposes on you the greater obligation -- to be logical, careful, rigorous, thoughtful, and balanced with respect to the analyses that you perform.
As part of some preparation for being here, I read Michael Ignatieff’s lectures on human rights published a couple of years ago, and was reminded of that very powerfully as Michael spoke of the lives that had been lost and the damage that had been done in the name of the enormously attractive principle of self-determination.
And in that intellectual honesty, I was reminded of how very important it is -- and if universities don’t stand for this, no one else will -- that it is precisely when problems and issues are most morally urgent that it is most important to think carefully and rigorously and systematically about them.
And that is why the work in which you are all engaged is so profoundly important, and so terrific as an example to all of us in the University community. Thank you

Remarks of President Lawrence H. Summers,'Learning With Excitement' ConferenceHarvard Graduate School of EducationCambridge, MassachusettsOctober 3, 2003
I'm really glad to be here with the Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, and to welcome him to Harvard and to the City of Cambridge. You know, we are all very fortunate in the kind of Mayor we have.
I was very struck a couple of months ago. Tom and I were participants in an event around summer youth programs at a park in South Boston. And we got there and it was a few minutes before the event started and I was kind of standing there, waiting for it to start. You could see the Mayor. He was looking over. There was a shard of glass sitting somewhere in that park, and he mentioned it to somebody. Didn't look like things had quite been cleaned up in another area. And he was mentioning that. Another part of the park was really set up in a perfect way, and he commented on that.
It was obvious that the basic quality of the environment on every square foot of the City of Boston was of profound concern to him. And that attitude has a great deal to do with why people in Boston are living better than they were 10 years ago. It is a real example of an important aspect of leadership, Mr. Mayor. It's one that I've tried to learn from, and a lot of people who don't have a chance to see it don't appreciate how much of a difference you make. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Gil Noam, I'll say a little more about what you're involved in, in a few moments. But thank you very much for your leadership with respect to this conference. Without the generosity of the Kargmans, this event would not be possible. And we at Harvard are grateful for your vision and, yes, I don't shrink from saying we're grateful for your tangible support as well. Thank you very much to the Kargmans.
The Duke of Wellington famously observed that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. That was an elitist age. The battle for America's future will be won or lost in the next century in America's urban public schools. It will be won or lost in American public schools because they are the crucible in which the young people who will comprise the largest part of our population a quarter century from now will be formed.
If those schools succeed in their mission, ours will be a country of greater democracy, greater civility, greater prosperity, greater humaneness, and greater inclusion. It will truly be an even greater beacon to the world. If those schools do not succeed in their mission, our country risks being a country that is increasingly divided between rich and poor, between black and white. It risks being a country whose capacity to compete internationally and maintain our prosperity will be diminished. And it risks being a country whose values and civility will be less of a model to the world. There is, therefore, no more important issue than what happens in the schools.
There are many, many parts of that issue and of the challenges facing the schools. But I am convinced that, as central and as crucial as what happens in the school day during the regular school experience is, when somebody looks back at the history of American education and writes the definitive history 50 years from now, a significant part of it will be about the evolutionary changes that took place, not in what happened during the traditional 6 hours a day, 180 days a year, 13 years from kindergarten to 12th grade. It will be about the things we did or did not do before children went to school at the age of five. It will be about the things we did or did not do during the 180 days out of the year they are not in school, particularly in the summer, and will be about the things that they did or did not do with the other 10 hours a day outside of those 6 hours that children were not in school.
And if the battle for America's future is going to be won, it is not going to be won only within that 6-hour school day. And that is why the subject that we're discussing today is so profoundly important. That's why the Mayor's strategies for the schools and the strategies for the young people of Boston have put such emphasis on each of those margins: early childhood, the summer, and our subject today, afterschool education. Because those are the fronts on which this battle is going to be won or is going to be lost.
The stakes here are very, very high. And that's why, in addition to highlighting the importance of this, in addition to celebrating the fact that we are cooperating, in addition to the fact that I'm proud that Harvard has been able to make a significant resource contribution to the Mayor's efforts, in addition to the fact that we are pleased with the sense of partnership and well-being that is around this, there is another aspect that I want to highlight, and it comes out of something that the Mayor emphasized.
Tom, when you spoke powerfully, as you did, about the importance of evaluation, I am sure that you wrapped up the vote of every econometrician in the City of Boston in the next election. I'm not entirely sure that there are a lot of other people for whom that message is a political winner. But let me tell you something. If we had the same commitment, or lack of commitment, to evaluation in medicine that we have traditionally had in many spheres of education, we would still be leeching people to make them better.
If you look at the history of medicine over the last century, I would submit to you that the invention of the controlled experiment as a tool of rigorous evaluation was surely among the 10 most important medical innovations of that century. And it is madness to spend tens of billions of dollars in literally hundreds if not thousands of different school districts in different ways without devising methodologies that rigorously evaluate what works and what does not work, and growing what works and shrinking what does not.
The failure to evaluate what works and the allowance of children to continue year after year in programs that we don't know whether they do work or do not work, is leaving our children behind in every bit as real a way as leaving them in classrooms that are not fully painted, or not providing them with modern textbooks.
If the medical profession was prescribing drugs whose efficacy nobody had tested, the people who ran the FDA would be strung up. And there has been too much of that for too long in education. And that is why the evaluation of what we do - and the Mayor said something very important - he said sometimes when you evaluate things, you find that they do not work. And then you stop doing them and you do other things.
The adoption of that idea in education is something that is of profound importance. That is why I think the significance of this conference lies not just in the significance of afterschool education, not just in the importance of partnership, but in the idea that I think needs to be ever more central in the way we approach social problems in this country.
And that is this: The more morally important something is, the more important it is that we think rigorously, carefully, and logically about it. And we don't simply allow the fact that we care a lot, and the fact that we have compassion, to blind us to the need to evaluate with rigor. And if we are able to do that in this city, we will do better, and in this country we will do better.
And if Harvard is able to contribute in some small way to bringing about that approach in our country, we will have made an enormous contribution. Because, after all, it is the place of great institutions like this one, of great schools like the School of Education, of great new leaders, like your Dean, Ellen Lagemann, who can't be here today, to show the way towards ways of thinking that will make us that much more effective.
This will not be an easy challenge. It will not be an easy challenge for many reasons. There is much more enthusiasm for reporting success than for reporting failure. There are many who want to do what they are doing and want to believe that it works, but aren't fully willing to put the proposition to a test.
There is a great challenge also. And it is a challenge for the scholars in this room. And that is this: There are some things that are easy to measure. You can give a kid a math test. There are some things that are hard to measure. Does the kid have the self-confidence to go forward effectively in life? A question the Mayor raised.
The things that are hard to measure are every bit as important - in some cases they're more important - than things that are easy to measure. And if we're going to succeed, which I think we must, in finding ways to evaluate what we do, we're going to have to devise the means and the methods to assure that evaluation is about not just what is quantifiable, but also about what is important. And how we are going to evaluate in ways that get at what is important, and also maintain the kind of objectivity that is central for it to be real, is a very great question, that I hope you will all ponder today.
In this conference you are part of something that is very important to this University. But, much more significantly, very important to the future of our country. And I am very, very grateful to everyone who is here and is part of this conference, for what they have contributed and what they are going to contribute. And, Mr. Mayor, we look forward to working with you very closely on these questions for a very long time.
Thank you very much.
Related story: Joining 'the battle for America's future'
Read Mayor Menino's remarks: 'Learning with Excitement' Conference

Remarks at Celebration of Black Alumni
Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers Harvard Law School
September 16, 2005(As prepared for delivery)
Thank you, Professor Ogletree for that introduction and for bringing this group together. I am honored to be here.
I was also honored to play a part in yesterday's opening of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute. Professor Ogletree's persistence, his dedication, and his commitment to issues of equality and justice are what brought the Institute into being and will drive its commitment to excellence in the years ahead. Thank you, Professor Ogletree, for all that you have done and all that you will continue to do. I urge all of you to visit the Charles Hamilton Houston exhibit in the Caspersen Room in Langdell before the weekend is over.
I would also like to thank Professor David Wilkins for his remarks. I know the program says that today we are honoring Judge Leighton, but I think that is only partially true. I think we all recognize that Judge Leighton honors us with his presence, and I would very much like to thank him for being here.
Let me also thank Dean Elena Kagan, the Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law. Elena is doing an extraordinary job as Dean, and all of us are benefiting from her leadership.
I want to focus on three things today that I believe are central to the mission of our university: how graduates of this institution step up and serve; the diversity of our faculty, students and administration; and the knowledge we produce and the impact that knowledge can have on the world.
I. Leadership and Service
Since this law school was founded in 1817, far too few African Americans have been given the chance to attend. Yet those who did have that opportunity made the most of their time here. Anyone associated with Harvard Law School can take pride in their accomplishments - whether leading the nation's largest financial services or media companies, giving the keynote address at last year's Democratic National Convention, or serving as leading members of public and private organizations throughout the country.
We can also be proud of the role black alumni of the law school have played in reshaping the legal and social fabric of our nation. Charles Hamilton Houston's work with the NAACP fighting for civil rights was just the beginning. For the last 100 years, black alumni of this law school have been breaking down the barriers that have kept African Americans from fully participating in the life of our nation. To name just a few:
William Henry Hastie '30, who served as aide to the Secretary of War during World War II and was the first African American appointed to the Federal bench;
Lila Fenwick '56, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Law School, who went on to serve as Chief of the Human Rights Division at the United Nations;
Bill Coleman '46, first in his class at Harvard Law, served as the first African-American clerk on the Supreme Court for another illustrious graduate of this institution, Felix Frankfurter, and was one of the lawyers on the brief in Brown;
Barack Obama '91, who you will hear from tomorrow, was the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review and is currently the only African American in the United States Senate.
The list goes on. We can all be proud of them and the role Harvard played in encouraging them to step up and serve.
I want to thank one law school alumnus in particular: Conrad Harper. I want to thank Conrad for his service on the Harvard Corporation and for his service to our country. We are in the process of looking for his successor, and it is my hope that we will be able to find an equally outstanding individual to help guide Harvard in the years ahead.
II. Environment
This brings me to my next point - the success of our alumni is critically dependent on the environment that we create for them while they are students. Whether we are inclusive and welcoming - whether we create an environment that encourages students to learn not just from casebooks and in classrooms, but from other students who have had very different experiences than themselves - all of this plays a vital role in determining whether our students will have the skills and experiences needed to be effective leaders.
W.E.B. Du Bois wrote famously that, "The function of the university is not simply to teach breadwinning, or to furnish teachers for the public schools or to be a center of polite society; it is, above all, to be the organ of that fine adjustment between real life and the growing knowledge of life, an adjustment which forms the secret of civilization." If that adjustment is to be successful, it requires a commitment to diversity. Without it, we will not be as excellent as we can be, nor will we be as true to our mission as we can be.
The Law School led the way in this regard by awarding the first J.D. in our nation's history to an African American in 1869, but the University as a whole has often lagged behind. Harvard did not allow African Americans to live with white students in its dormitories until the 1920s. In the 1960s, despite enrolling over 1,000 undergraduates a year, Harvard admitted only 6 or 7 African-American students in each class. And here at the law school, you need look no farther back than 1965 to find a class with just one African-American student.
And yet, looking back on the last 50 years, while recognizing all the problems, we can take considerable pride in what Harvard has done to contribute to America's progress toward more equal opportunity. Whether it was:
Our programs of admission, which this year resulted in a law school class that was 13% African-American; or
The growing diversity of our faculty; or
The work our scholars have done to help us understand the nature of the prejudices within ourselves.
All have played an important part.
And even though we may have reached a point of understanding and fairly universal acceptance in the broader society of these basic moral principles, mere acceptance of these principles is not genuine equality and it is not genuine fairness.
That is why Harvard will continue to ensure that, as Justice O'Connor said, "the path to leadership" is "visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity." As she said, "nothing less than the nation's future," is at stake.
There are many ways we can contribute. It starts with the kind of community that we are. It starts with assuring that everyone can look around and see other students like themselves, professors like themselves, and portraits of people who look like themselves hanging on the walls.
That is why we continue to take race into account as a factor in the individualized review of an applicant's qualifications for admission to this law school. That is why we have eliminated the expected parental financial contribution for students entering Harvard College whose families make less than $40,000 a year.
That is why we appointed Evelynn Hammond earlier this year as Senior Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development, where she will have a broad mandate to look at our policies and procedures in every aspect of faculty hiring and retention to make sure that we are doing all we possibly can to have the most diverse faculty possible.
That is why it is essential that as we prepare our students for the world of legal practice, we must globalize not only our future, but our past as well. That means continuing the task of ensuring that our libraries, art collections, and course catalogues reflect the diversity and vibrancy of all mankind, and not just Western Europe. It means expanding, as we have done, the University's African Studies program. It means requiring, as I understand the Law School is moving toward, the study of international law as a critical component of every law student's education.
III. Knowledge
Finally, what can we hope will be said, when people look back at our university 50 years from now? Yes, the fraction of our faculty and students who are African-American will have increased. Yes, we will have embarked on major new initiatives to pursue the study of the African continent. Yes, our School of Public Health will have established a major presence in Africa for the treatment of AIDS as part of that. Yes, the African-American studies program will have experienced its most rapid years of expansion in its history.
But we will not have done our part if we have only strengthened our ivory tower. We will only do our part if we meet the central civil rights challenge of this day and go far beyond questions of access to institutions like this - by assuring not just de jure equality, but genuine equality of opportunity and genuinely equal participation in American society. Genuine equality of opportunity is not true today:
When those left behind to face the ravages of Hurricane Katrina without means of escape or assistance from the government were overwhelmingly African-American.
When a black male child born in Washington, D.C., has less of a chance of surviving to his first birthday than a child born in urban parts of Kerala, India, and when that child is twice as likely to die before reaching age 20 than a white child.
When one third of black males in their 20s are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole - when more African Americans are in prison than in higher education.
When a vote cast in an African-American precinct is nearly 10 times more likely to be rejected than a vote cast in a white precinct.
When an African American is almost 10 times more likely to die from homicide than a white person.
When the typical African-American family earns just 60% of what the typical white family does.
When African Americans are less likely to have health insurance, be vaccinated, or receive prenatal care. When a black man is 40% more likely to die of cancer than a similarly diagnosed white man. When the black-white health care gap costs the lives of more than 83,000 African Americans each year.
The only way in which we will be able to address the problems of the achievement gap and the health gap and all the other ways in which racial gaps persist in our society will be through the pooling of knowledge, of energy and of conviction to develop new ideas and strategies for tackling these problems. There is no place where these ingredients exist in more abundance than at our nation's leading research universities - and no university where there is more commitment to addressing these issues than Harvard University.
Indeed, the greatness of this university lies very importantly in the strength of its professional schools - it lies in the fact that while we venerate the ivory tower and the search of truth for its own sake, we also seek to make a contribution to our society.
We will not have met our obligation in medicine and public health if we have not made a positive contribution to assuring that the ability to get health care is open to every American. We must use the same kinds of powerful ingenuity that have led us to find solutions to complex diseases to address the complex social disease of lack of access to the most basic health care.
Our school of education, which is working to try and improve the way education is delivered to students around the country and around the world, will not have met its obligation if it does not devote a substantial amount of its energy and creativity to addressing the large gap in educational achievement between African-American and white children - (and we are already doing that through the Achievement Gap Initiative, under the leadership of Ron Ferguson and Charles Ogletree and others).
Our business school, which is committed to training those who will lead the institutions that will serve as engines of prosperity in our economy, will not have met its obligation if we do not work to ensure that these engines of prosperity are engines for all. President Clinton used to say that there are emerging markets outside our country, but there are also very important emerging markets inside of our country and we need to train the leaders who will assure that those markets are served.
And here, at the Law School, as we think about questions of crime and punishment - about the structure of government and the protection of the basic rights of the least among us - we must do everything possible to close the dramatic gap separating African-American and white children.
In a world where the very category of race is becoming less sharply defined as society evolves, there are large questions as to how we are to address these manifestations of continuing racial inequality. There are huge unanswered questions that I hope scholars at Harvard will be able to provide answers to.
If, as Du Bois recognized, the "color line" was the central problem of the 20th century, we were reminded by Hurricane Katrina - which held up a mirror to American society - that the "color line" and achieving social justice remain central challenges in the 21st. And I hope that 50 years from now a gathering very much like this one will be able to say Harvard did more than its part - by developing new knowledge, by educating a new generation of leaders, and by setting an example for our country and our world. Anything less is unacceptable.

Remarks of Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers,
Panel discussion: 'Public Health Crisis in Africa:How May Harvard Help?'
Harvard School of Public HealthBoston, Massachusetts
October 28, 2003
It is great to be at the Public Health School and it is great to have a chance to talk about a profoundly important issue. And I want to thank very much all of those who have been involved in organizing this program. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, for your moderating this program, Professor Akyeampong for his leadership of the University's efforts in African studies. You know, for the first time, we now have a department in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences that is in part a Department of African Studies and that is an important milestone in the history of the University. I want to thank Dean Bloom for his leadership of the Public Health School and I want to acknowledge especially Max Essex's work on AIDS. For a distinguished scientist to work on AIDS today, because it is a profoundly important problem, is something that can be quite easily anticipated and there are many who are doing it. When Max Essex started working on AIDS, when he focused his career on AIDS, when he began doing things in Africa, it was a courageous and it was an important choice. And there are many thousands of people who are alive today, who would not be alive today, if Max Essex had not made that choice. And Max's example is a very powerful one for all of us of the moral accomplishment that can come from the pursuit of knowledge. Max, thank you for your example.
I want to talk for a few minutes about why I think the study of health in Africa is at the center of what a university like this ought to be about. And then talk a little bit about some of the things that I hope we'll accomplish at the University over the next few years. And then I want to respond to your questions and comments because ultimately in a university what happens is not what administrators decide. It is what students and faculty accomplish.
I am convinced that the public health of the developing world and especially Africa is the single issue that has the greatest significance for humanity over the next half century. More people will live or die based on our success in addressing AIDS, malaria, and other diseases than will live or die based on our success in creating prosperity, based on our success in advancing freedom, or based on our success in keeping the world at peace.
There is no other issue of comparable significance for humanity.
I am also convinced that there is no other issue that is as amenable to Africa, that the challenge of protecting public health is amenable to effort, through increased resources and human commitment. There are literally millions of lives a year that could be saved with today's knowledge, today's resources, if we simply were able to make the requisite commitments in the countries. And there are yet millions of people whose lives could be saved each year with advances in knowledge that are within our reach, that do not involve miracle cures but involve the steady and sustained application of research protocols that we know. That is not true with respect to many of the world's other great problems. Someone may have an inspiration for how to promote peace. Someone may have an inspiration as to how to promote economic growth everywhere that hasn't been found yet. In public health we have the knowledge of today and we have the pathways to the knowledge of tomorrow. And when there is a situation in which the greatest problem and challenge facing humanity is also one of the more tractable challenges facing humanity, it behooves us to be seriously engaged. It behooves us to be seriously engaged all the more because in a way that is quite unique, this challenge of disease in the developing world and especially in Africa seems to me to engage all four of the things that I think are central to what the University is about in the years ahead.
You know, as Deborah said, I'm the 27th person to become President of Harvard since 1636. I'm also only the seventh person to become President since the end of America's Civil War, and that inclines one to take a long view.
And you know, if I think about what will be in history books about the time when we were alive 200 years from now, it won't be that many things. You know, you don't remember that much about 200 years ago and not that much will be in history books 200 years from now. But there will be a few things. The first will be how does the coming together of developing and developed countries work out? We're in an unprecedented period when the communication, the transportation, the extent of interaction between the developing world and the industrial world is far greater than it has ever been before in our history. That can work out splendidly. Look at the way in parts of East Asia standards of living have doubled in a decade, doubled in a decade and doubled in yet a third decade. Look at the fantastic emancipation of women that has taken place in parts of China where a generation-and-a-half ago women could expect to have their feet bound at birth. Look at the fact that in a city like Seoul, Korea, there were a million child prostitutes a generation ago and today there are almost none.
There are staggering opportunities for progress and if this progress is realized it has the potential to be an event that would rank in the history of the last millennium, in terms of really changing the conditions of mankind, only with the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.
But equally and in the same world within a 14-hour airplane flight, within the distance of a picture that can be transmitted in a matter of seconds, there is an entire continent in large parts of which a child is more likely to be malnourished than to learn to read, and more likely to die before the age of five than to enter secondary school. A continent where two teachers die of AIDS for each teacher who is trained. A continent where something is happening that has not happened, did not happen in Europe during World War I or in Europe during World War II, and that is the life expectancy is substantially declining. A continent in parts of which life expectancy is declining back to the Biblical norms of one score and ten years and it is part of the same planet. And that difference, that progress that is possible, and that disaster that is looming, will be part of how our generation is judged.
There's a second thing that is happening and it's happening right here. It's happening all over the world but the epicenter of what is happening is actually, probably within a few hundred yards of where we are right now and that is that there is a revolution underway in the life sciences.
For the first time in all of human history we are coming to a fundamental scientific understanding of human nature. And that fundamental scientific understanding is an operational understanding in which we can influence human beings, in which we can in scientific and planned ways interfere with disease processes. I'm told that it's not unreasonable to expect, given the progress that we are making, that my 12-year-old daughters, and if not my 12-year-old daughters, surely their daughters, will live to be a hundred.
But you know something? If you look at the American pharmaceutical industry it is spending more on pet disease than on tropical disease. Less than 1 percent of the patents that have been given in recent years have gone to address the diseases of tropical countries. And yet those diseases can be addressed by this scientific revolution, as well. We in the City of Boston have the highest fraction of concentrated talent in the life sciences that exists anywhere on the planet earth. You look at the five institutions in all the world who are able to attract the most peer reviewed scientific funding. Institution number one, institution number two, institution number three, institution number four, and institution number five are all here in Boston. And no small part of that funding through the City of Boston comes to people like Dyann Wirth for her very important research on malaria, to people like Michael Reich for his very important research on death due to accidents, his very important research on schistosomiasis. Surely, if we at Harvard are in possession of the most significant life science concentration of talent that there has ever been, we have an obligation to this problem.
There's a third thing that's important about this time and it's something that I believe in very strongly, perhaps reflecting my background as an economist, and it's something that's really at the center of a great deal of what goes on in the Public Health School and that is that a far wider range of human phenomena, of challenges and of problems, are becoming amenable to analysis, can be confronted using the data. People can have not just hunches and superstitions but they can actually have evidence and they can approach truth in ever-closer ways.
A facetious example comes from the book that some of you may have seen, Moneyball. That book shows how a very smart guy who hires some very smart statisticians was able to produce the best baseball team in the American League at a third of the payroll of the other teams by drafting the right players based on statistical analysis.
A different kind of example is provided by the people who advertise on television who don't just figure out what would be a fun advertisement but look very carefully and with very carefully controlled experiments at which advertisements work. None of this is new to the traditional medical field. If you wrote a history of medicine within the 20th century and you had to list all the important innovations, penicillin would be there, transplant surgery would be there, cancer chemotherapy would be there, but you know what is probably the equal of all three? The idea of the double blind clinical trials, which permitted us, actually, to know and not just to guess what worked and what didn't work.
Those same techniques of analysis are possible with respect to what types of interventions work to promote public health. What is the best way to interfere with sexually transmitted disease? Which regimens do and do not work with respect to AIDS? What are the optimal strategies in an environment where blasting a disease is important but where avoiding the creation of resistant strains is important? What are the optimal strategies for using drugs? These are questions we don't have to guess about any more. We have critiques of rigorous analysis for figuring out the answer and that is not just socially important. It is an enormous practical intellectual challenge and it one that is within our reach and it is one that is at the center of a great many people's research here at the Public Health School and in other parts of the world.
And finally, a university like this is very fortunate. All of us who have a chance to be part of this university community are very fortunate. I was reminded of that this morning when I was a visitor to a public school in Boston and spent time with many of the children, many of whom don't have a chance to grow up in a family background like the one I was fortunate enough to grow up in and the most disadvantaged of those children lives in an enormously fortunate environment, compared to most of the children who are alive on this planet today.
We are fortunate to spend our lives studying problems that we find fascinating, being compensated in a way that enables us to live comfortably, to do work that we love, surely we have an obligation to make a contribution in what we do to the broader mass of humanity. And make no mistake: the failure to address global disease in as effective a way as we can would be a moral failure. It would be failing to be a Good Samaritan. It would be walking past a sick person and not giving assistance. This is something that is truly important.
I've been reminded in recent weeks of a moral dimension of these problems that I didn't previously appreciate by the work of the only Center on Human Rights and Health that exists in the world, the Center here, and its counterpart centers at Harvard's Kennedy School that have emphasized that what is happening in South Africa, the denial of treatments, the misleading of people with respect to treatments that work, is a human rights violation. It is a human rights violation to not tell people the truth about what will work and will not work, in just the same way that it is a human rights violation to withhold their food or to withhold their education and as tragic as it is, there is no one among us who would not rather have the right to vote withheld than to have the right to an available treatment for AIDS withheld.
There is a moral dimension to all of this, as well. All of these are reasons why this work is so very important to the University and we're doing many, many things, many of which Barry will detail. I just want to comment on what the three broad areas are in which I hope we will substantially expand our efforts in the years ahead: the first is training of students for positions of leadership in this area. I hope that an increasing fraction of those who do research in the life sciences at Harvard will do research in the life sciences connected to the problems of the diseases of the developing world. I hope and I expect that we will provide instruction to our undergraduates in issues relating to global health that will bring together in an interdisciplinary way their thinking in the social sciences and in the sciences in much the same way that we do with issues like environmental science. I hope that we will succeed in making it possible for more of the very best students to come and study public health. You know, the "every tub on its own bottom" system that we have at Harvard has many virtues. But it is a grave mistake to ever suppose that the importance of a professional activity is measured by the average income of those who go into that profession. One of Barry's predecessors told him that public health was a distinctive field. It was the only post-graduate degree that you could earn that reduced your salary. Well, it may reduce your salary, but it sure increases your contribution to society and that's why people go into it.
But we have an obligation at the University to make it possible for the things we say about assuring that everyone can come who is excellent, to come. That needs to be true in every part of this University. That's why we started providing increased financial aid for public health education, other fields like it, and we need to do a great deal more to build on those efforts. And it would be my hope also that as we have our Program in African Studies that we will assure that not just those students who are going to specialize in the area but that a much wider range of our students become familiar with these basic ideas, the importance of what it is that is happening in the developing world.
The fundamental insight that Dean Bloom says so well, that not one person in 50 in America appreciates that with respect to many problems it is not about your behavior. It is about the way the society functions. We had American automobile accidents; the number of people who died from automobile accidents increased by 3 percent a year for five decades. And for all of those five decades, America had a plan with respect to automobile fatalities. It was to tell people to drive more safely. It was a plan and we talked about it and we talked about it, I don't know who did but really it was a plan and global automobile companies advocated it. It was a really very serious plan. And then we decided, well, people are kind of people and maybe what we should do is have safer cars and have safer roads and suggest systems like seatbelts that would make them safer and today we've got twice as many people driving as we did when I was a kid and we've got a third fewer fatalities. That is the fundamental lesson of public health — that the system matters — and we need to make sure that a larger fraction of educated people know it.
All of that is about education and training, which is a fundamental thing we do at Harvard. There's a second thing we do at Harvard and it's something that we are very fortunate to be able to do because of the standing of this university and that is the tremendous convening power that this university has. We're very lucky, people come to Harvard, people are invited to come to Harvard, they have a way of deciding if they want to come and discuss these issues. When the food industries wanted to discuss the set of questions having anything to do with people who are overweight and their contribution to the obesity epidemic in America, and they wanted to have the people who market foods get together with the other people who market foods, get together with the health experts, get together with the regulators, it could have happened in many places but, because there was a place called Harvard with the reputation that Harvard has, it happened to take place at Harvard.
We need to use that convening power to bring together people who are in a position to make decisions, people who are in a position to influence the global debate on public health. We've done it in important respects. There's a major project at the Kennedy School that's underway, in which I know people from the Public Health School are engaged, that is around the AIDS epidemic, that is around working with businesses to talk about how they can make a difference in reducing AIDS by working with their employees in Africa through the things that they do in their education. But there are many, many more groups that need to come together and need to be sensitized if we're going to do everything we can with respect to this problem.
Timing, convening power, and dissemination — development and dissemination of new knowledge. You know, a really tremendous thing happened in the last year that most people take for granted, or more accurately, a really tremendous thing was a thing that didn't happen in the last year. In 1918, about 3 percent of the people on planet Earth died of the flu. Think about that: 3 percent of the people on planet Earth. Today that would be 180 million people. SARS had some of the same kind of virulent potential that the flu had, and less than 1,000 people died. That is because of what we understand now that people didn't understand then.
The research that we do, sometimes in ways that are predictable what Dyann will discover with respect to malaria — sometimes in ways that are completely unpredictable — what a mathematician, now working in FAS, thinking about strains of mutations, discovered with respect to the nature of the AIDS process.
New knowledge makes a huge difference in our ability to prevent, to contain and to treat disease. And we need to make sure that we are bringing here to Harvard the people who have the greatest potential to contribute to this knowledge, to contribute to the scientific knowledge, to contribute to the social scientific knowledge that is necessary if the world is going to make the fullest possible effort. If we're able to bring more and more of the greatest scholars to join the remarkable community we now have, if we're able to use our convening power and our voice in the world with respect to this problem, and if we are able to train a yet larger and greater next generation of leaders, we will have done our part with respect to what is both the greatest and the most tractable moral problem facing humanity.
Thank you very much.
Related story: Summers: Will and knowledge can beat AIDS

Remarks of Harvard PresidentLawrence H. Summers:'Europe and America in the 21st century'London School of EconomicsLondon, EnglandNovember 13, 2003
I am honored to have this opportunity to return to the London School of Economics, especially with Howard Davies as its director. Howard, I hope the transition from government service to academia is proving enjoyable. One thing I know from my own transition is that I have not left behind politics.
I have spent many happy and enlightening hours here at the LSE - first as a child when my father was on sabbatical here in the 1960s and then on my own sabbatical from Harvard in 1987. The LSE - as I hope is Harvard - is committed to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. But it is also blessed with a faculty that is concerned with the relevance of its research to the pressing problems of the day.
Today, I want to reflect on an issue that I believe is of profound importance to the United States, to Britain, to Europe, and indeed to the world - the evolution of the transatlantic relationship in the 21st century. As co-chair along with Henry Kissinger of a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations on this subject, I have been involved for some months now in thinking about its past and its future. I should like to be very clear at the outset in saying that anything perceptive I share with you today was almost certainly someone else's idea first, and I am speaking here only for myself. The views I express should not be attributed to the U.S. government, to Harvard, to Henry Kissinger, to the CFR task force, or to any of its members. My objective is not to make immediate policy prescriptions - it is to try to understand the current situation and raise for discussion some thoughts as we all go forward.
I shall reflect on three issues.
First, I want to assess the current state of the relationship and to argue that for a variety of reasons we are in uncharted and very difficult territory - and without the possibility of return to the familiar and more congenial territory of the past.
Second, I will urge that the continued fracturing of the Atlantic Alliance, or even a failure to close the cleavages of the last two years, could have grave consequences for the United States, for Europe, and for the world as a whole.
Third, I will offer some suggestions as to the best way forward on both sides of the Atlantic.
Where are we?
Let me begin by taking the long view. The accomplishments of the transatlantic alliance in the period since the Second World War have far exceeded what even optimists could have hoped for in the late 1940s. Indeed, history records few, if any, alliances that have yielded such benefits for their members or for the broader international community. Lord Ismay's famous dictum - that NATO's purpose was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down - captures well the main dimensions of the alliance's success.
After centuries of recurrent conflict, war between the powers of Western Europe has become inconceivable. And an iron curtain no longer separates Central and Western Europe.
The Cold War has been won, and the side of freedom has prevailed. The 20th century threat of global nuclear conflict has receded; the totalitarian ideologies that supported the slaughter of over 100 million people by their own governments no longer pose a global threat.
Driven by technology, but permitted by politics, the global system of trade, travel and investment is far more open today than at any point in history. And the result of growing integration has been more progress in raising the living standards of humanity - in rich and poor countries alike - than in any half century in the history of the world.
It does not disparage the accomplishments of statesmen in any country to suggest that none of these achievements would have been possible without the Atlantic Alliance and its manifestations - NATO, American troops in Europe, the Marshall Plan, the U.N., and other international institutions. Supporting all of these is the habit of close consultation on all matters of profound importance that gradually developed over a half century.
To be sure, in admiring past accomplishments and worrying over current cleavages, it is easy to forget the transatlantic confrontation over Suez, the degree of anti-Americanism in Europe engendered by Vietnam, the strains on the alliance in the early Reagan years. Remembering these episodes, some are prepared to be relatively complacent about current tensions - arguing that in many ways the Iraq War, whatever its merits, is sui generis, and that with patience, this crisis too shall pass.
I confess that I am not so sure. In the last year, France and Germany did not just fail to support, but actively organized opposition, enlisting Russia and China in opposing what the U.S. administration had announced as a major U.S. national security initiative. Some political leaders in Europe sought to increase, and succeeded in increasing, their popular support by attacking the United States. At the same time, some American officials appeared to many to be disregarding Europe, or when they paid attention to it, appeared to be seeking to split the Union. And prominent Americans and Europeans began to wonder out loud about the death of the West.
Public opinion on both sides of the Atlantic has polarized to the point that an Euro-barometer survey released this week found that a majority of Europeans see the United States as a threat to world peace. Indeed, the fraction of Europeans seeing the United States as a threat equalled the fraction seeing Iran and North Korea as a threat and far exceeded the fraction alarmed by Syria, China or Pakistan. The only country seen as a greater threat to world peace than the United States was Israel.
It has seemed at some moments that the United States is the object of malign intent in at least some European quarters, and Europe is the object of malign neglect by the United States. The idea of the United States as a hyperpower that must be contained or at least constrained has become increasingly fashionable in Europe, whereas the notion of coalitions of the willing without great concern for who joins them has become increasingly fashionable in the United States.
Why and why now? There is much that can be questioned in the conduct of diplomacy on both sides of the Atlantic over the last year. Communications channels were not kept open. Negotiation on key points, at times, took place through the press. Statements were made more for domestic consumption than to promote international comity. Disagreements were not managed but allowed to escalate into confrontations. There was very little of what is necessary if an alliance is to have meaning - adjustment of national policies in response to the needs of allies.
This all has not been the norm in the Atlantic Alliance. During the Cuban missile crisis, Kruschev placed missiles in the Western Hemisphere, very close to American soil. President Kennedy sent Dean Acheson to Europe to consult with allies regarding the American policy response, including the possibility of pre-emption with respect to Soviet missiles in Cuba. President De Gaulle famously turned away Acheson's offer to present the photographic evidence, saying that he trusted the word of the President of the United States and that France would support the United States in whatever course it took.
As many misunderstandings as there have been made on both sides over the last 18 months, it would be a mistake to see the tensions besetting the alliance as dominantly matters of diplomacy or personality. Rather, much of the strain arises from the response over time on both sides of the Atlantic to events of two dates - 11/9, the date when the Berlin Wall fell, and 9/11, when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and killed 3,000 Americans.
Take, first, 11/9. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, the existential need for solidarity that drove agreements, and insured the careful management of disagreements, has been removed. The unification of Germany and the comfortable integration of a unified Germany into the European Union are historic achievements. But with the Soviets durably out, and the Germans durably integrated, the felt need on both sides of the Atlantic for the Americans to be in is attenuated. In important respects, the Atlantic Alliance risks becoming a victim of its own success.
There is another important aspect of 11/9 and all that followed. Existential threats concentrate national attentions. And with their removal, domestic political considerations inevitably loom larger in the decisions of national governments. Without the Soviet threat, the need for European and American leaders to present a common front is reduced while the attractiveness of criticizing allies for domestic political benefit is increased. The ability in the United States to respond to populist and isolationist sentiment is enhanced, and in Europe there is scope for the redirection of political energy from the Atlantic Alliance to the unification project. If 11/9 made the world safer for disagreement between the United States and Europe, 9/11 created the grounds for real disagreement.
One does not have to agree that the U.S. is from Mars and the EU from Venus to recognize that 9/11 led Americans to a greater feeling of vulnerability and insecurity. This, in turn, led to a very substantial reorientation of U.S. foreign policy towards the objective of confronting terrorists and the states that sponsor and comfort them. While French newspapers may have proclaimed solidarity with America on September 12, 9/11 has not had anything like the impact on the European approach to the world that it has had on the American view.
With the Soviet threat removed and the focus shifted to out-of-area issues, it is in retrospect unsurprising that transatlantic tensions have increased. And the nature of out-of-area preoccupations - their location in the Middle East, where there have long been profound disagreements between the United States and Europe, the fact that the U.S. was victim on its own soil for the first time in nearly two centuries, and salience of issues of pre-emptive attack where capacities are highly asymmetric - all contribute to the increase in tensions.
The continuing importance of the Atlantic alliance
Some look at all of this from a European perspective and propose that standing up to, or containing, the United States ought to become a major objective of European foreign policy. Others on the American side wonder out loud whether European integration continues to be in America's interest or whether it instead degrades the ability of the United States to assemble coalitions of the willing on an issue-by-issue basis. Less radical is the suggestion sometimes made explicitly but more often revealed implicitly: that an amiable divorce between the United States and Europe is desirable, inevitable, or both, given their divergent interests and philosophical approach.
These views seem to me dangerously misguided. While no one can predict how the future will evolve, I am convinced that it is enormously in the interests of the United States, Europe and the world that the transatlantic alliance continue to be a central element of the grand strategy of both the United States and the nations of Europe. This proposition is often defended with resort to clichés - the shared heritage of the West, the importance of a community of democracies, the traditions of close cooperation, and so forth. And indeed propositions often become clichés because they are so obviously correct. But the necessity of the transatlantic alliance can be given a much more concrete defence.
The central paradox confronting the United States is this: American power is at its zenith and American influence is at its nadir. U.S. military dominance has never been greater. After nearly five decades of convergence between the economic strength of other industrial nations and the United States, the United States has pulled ahead over the last decade. The best available demographic and productivity forecasts suggest that this divergence is likely to persist. And yet events in Iraq, in North Korea, in the Middle East - and the difficulty the United States had in generating support of even Latin American countries for Security Council resolutions in support of the Iraq War - suggest how little international influence we now have. And, no thoughtful American can be oblivious to the global backlash against the United States manifested in the public opinion polls I cited earlier and in similar polls around the world.
Surely if the United States is to succeed in achieving its primary objectives in the world, whether those objectives be the successful confrontation of terror, or the more ultimate ones of spreading democracy around the world, Americans must recognize that they cannot succeed alone. Without the leverage provided by protection from the communist threat, America must find other means of influence. It is often much easier to induce others to want what you want than to pressure them to do what you want and they don't. One nation may be able to win a war but it usually takes many to win a peace. Legitimacy matters over time and it depends on international support. And if international imperatives were not enough, there is this: As we are seeing today, the American political system is unlikely to provide enduring support for international ventures carried on without foreign support.
And without European support, it is not possible to imagine the United States assembling meaningful coalitions of other nations. The resources of Europe, the influence of Europe in international forums, and the common values shared by the United States and Europe, all mean that if as Americans like to believe, American influence is such as to make us an indispensable nation, then the nations of Europe are indispensable allies.
What about European interests? I cannot presume to speak for Europe but it would seem to me that its interest in the continuing strength of the transatlantic alliance is still very strong. The world remains a dangerous place, and the American capacity to project force is not likely to be matched in the next several decades. Closer to home, if the United States and Europe do not find an effective modus vivendi, there will inevitably be increasing tensions within Europe as different nations take different views on actions taken by the United States. The events of the last 18 months, I would suggest, have been not only unsettling across the Atlantic but also across the English Channel and across a variety of intra-European borders. Nor is the most visionary of European projects - the gradual extension of international law and institutions to the global community on the model of what has happened in Europe over the past half century - a viable concept without successful cooperation with the United States.
If these considerations of American interest and European interest were not sufficient to make the case for the importance of the alliance, there is the issue of how the global system will evolve if the United States and Europe were to go their separate ways. There will not be successful cooperation on issues like global warming and weapons of mass destruction, and yet these are issues where progress cannot be made except on a global basis. But there is a more ominous prospect. A quarter century from now, China and India will likely be great powers, and there will have been dramatic growth in the economic strength and political power of the other nations of Asia. If the United States and Europe seek to jockey for influence in this part of the world, without an alliance, as these nations seek to establish their place, we will see a return - this time on a global basis - to the kind of international system that prevailed in Europe before the First World War. Peace did prevail for a long time but ultimately was unsustainable.
All of these considerations point to a common conclusion. While the original objectives of the Atlantic Alliance - winning the Cold War, and assuring peace within Western Europe - have been achieved and are not now in jeopardy, it is no less true than it was a half century ago that the prospects for enduring security for the United States, for Europe, and for the world depend on the Atlantic Alliance.
The path forward
If this argument for the importance of the Atlantic Alliance is accepted on both sides of the Atlantic, what is to be done? In important respects, the challenge is philosophical - it's really in the attitudes of political leaders as they commit to act to lower the rhetorical temperature, to consultation and cooperation, to managing disagreements, to broad common purposes. The dangers I have highlighted will be avoided whatever precise arrangements are made for summits or particular initiatives. And without a genuine commitment on the part of political leaders, no set of recommended meetings, institutions or programs will make much difference.
This is a moment when political leaders are truly challenged - for in democracies, leaders both shape and respond to public opinion. There is the danger of a mutually reinforcing negative dynamic as leaders respond to, and in the process exacerbate, current trends in public opinion. And there is the very real prospect of a positive dynamic as trust is restored across the Atlantic.
An alliance only has meaning if countries do things because of the alliance that they would not otherwise have done out of their calculation of national self-interest. In recent years, the United States and Europe have increasingly had different primary areas of concern, with Americans identifying terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and the export of democracy as of the greatest concern, and Europeans placing more weight on issues like global warming, economic development, and the strengthening of international institutions. There has been too little willingness on both sides to allow allies to pursue their priority concerns. The common agenda has too often been the intersection rather than the union of national priorities.
I would submit if the transatlantic relationship is to be strengthened over the next several years, Europeans will need to understand and find ways to accommodate the security preoccupations of the United States, and Americans will need to be more cooperative than in the recent past in addressing problems of global concern even where they do not pose an imminent threat to our national security as conventionally defined.
If this is to suggest a complementarity between American and European priorities, there is also complementarity between American and European capacities. Whatever happens in European defense policy over the next decade, the United States capacity to project force will far exceed that of Europe. Equally, barring a sea change in the preferences of the U.S. policy, Europe's ability to contribute to peacekeeping efforts and more generally to the global development effort will far exceed that of the United States. Complementary capacities as well as complementary priorities provide a basis for cooperation.
Let me conclude by identifying three specific areas where I believe substantially more intense dialogue and cooperation between the United States and Europe will have substantial benefits in the years ahead.
First, the related issues raised by terrorism and rogue states. In both cases, there is reason to doubt the efficacy of conventional deterrence and the question of pre-emptive action arises. Whatever one's view on the Iraq War, it seems almost inevitable that questions of pre-emption are likely to loom larger in the future than they traditionally have. On the one hand, it is hard to imagine a stable world in which all nations claim the right to pre-empt based on their own threat assessments. On the other, it is difficult to believe that major nations will or should completely cede to the international community decisions that are fundamental to their security. Without judging specific cases, there is clearly a great need for some clarification of "rules of the road" in this area, and if those rules do not come from transatlantic dialogue, it is hard to see where they will come from.
Second, the future of the global trading system. Despite my background, I have said almost nothing about economics this afternoon because I don't think that economic issues are fundamental in thinking about the current situation. Political differences so far have had only mild impacts on business decisions on either side of the Atlantic and my years in government make me doubt that businesses will be a strong source of political pressure on issues that are not primarily commercial. On the other hand, as I look at the global economy going forward with all the uncertainties that lie ahead, one thing is clear - that the prospects for sustained global expansion and all the benefits it brings will be much greater if the project of increased international integration in trade and investment keeps moving forward. History teaches that the chances of the rising Asian powers being successfully accommodated by the international system also depends on what happens to the trading system. And the history of every past trade round suggests that here, too, successful cooperation between the United States and Europe is fairly close to being sufficient for success.
Third, the Middle East. Events in the Middle East over the next decade will be as, or more, consequential for both the United States and Europe than events in any other region. American and European approaches to the Middle East have in recent years not been well aligned, with real differences in view on Israeli-Palestinian issues, on how best to deal with Iran, and of course on Iraq. And yet in each of these spheres it is hard to see how either the United States or Europe will achieve its objectives alone. Indeed, the traditional differences in view between the U.S. and Europe mean that any meaningfully common approaches that can be forged will have that much more legitimacy and impact. Surely, without demonizing anyone in the Middle East, there is much to be gained from serious transatlantic cooperation in this crucial region.
Conclusion
So it is perhaps appropriate that I say all of this in Britain. For as your Prime Minister Tony Blair powerfully explained earlier this week, Britain's destiny lies both with the United States and with Europe. And so, as much or more than any nation, you have a great stake in the transatlantic alliance. So do we all. Let us join in the hope that in responding to a variety of very different threats and opportunities, it will make as great a contribution to Europe, the United States and the world in the first half of the 21st century as it did in the last half of the 20th.
Thank you.

President Lawrence H. Summers' remarks at ACE: 'Higher Education and the American Dream'American Council on Education86th Annual MeetingMiami, FloridaFebruary 29, 2004
As prepared for delivery
Introduction
Thank you, David [Ward, President of ACE] for that generous introduction. I am honored to be here today, representing Harvard before this assembly drawn from the most diverse, expansive, and excellent "system" of higher education in the world. I am grateful for the opportunity to address an issue that I believe is central both to our nation and to our colleges and universities -- the manifest inadequacy of higher education's current contribution to equality of opportunity in America and how we can do better.
I will frame my remarks by noting some of the important changes in our national economy over the last generation, and then discuss issues of access in higher education and their relationship to fundamental fairness. I will conclude by highlighting some initiatives we are taking at Harvard to promote access in the context of broader issues of national policy.
Our national economy has been transformed in recent years. Not quite 15 years ago it was a common joke that the Cold War was over, and Europe and Japan had won. Today, the United States is pulling away, and after two decades of stagnation, family incomes have risen significantly as the economy has been transformed by internationalization and information technology.
The gap in income for going to college has risen from 31 percent in 1979 to 66 percent in 1997. Accompanying this change has been substantial increase in inequality. In 1979, the top one percent of the population earned less than half the share received by the bottom 40 percent. The most recent data suggest that today the top one percent earn more than the bottom 40 percent. Or, to put the point differently, in the same period when the median family income was going up 18 percent, the top one percent of all families saw a 200 percent increase in their income.
Sharp increases in inequality and their relation to education are a serious concern. They are even more troubling when one examines changes in intergenerational mobility. Here the evidence is murky because of the difficulty of matching parents and their children over long periods of time. But the evidence suggests that intergenerational mobility in America is no longer increasing and may well be decreasing.
One recent study found that a child born in the bottom 10 percent of families by income has only one chance in three of getting out of the bottom 20 percent. [Thomas Hertz]. Others suggest that Andrew Carnegie's famous line -- "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" needs to be revised to five or six generations. [Alan Krueger, NY Times, November 14, 2002].
More inequality, and more persistence of inequality, mean just this: The gap between the children of different economic backgrounds has sharply increased in this country over the last generation.
Higher education and equal opportunity
Increasing disparity based on parental position has never been anyone's definition of the American dream.
Going back to the beginning of the Republic, and Jefferson's view that virtue and talent were sown as liberally among the poor as the rich, the contribution of education -- and especially higher education -- to equality of opportunity has been a central concern.
Indeed, 64 years ago, at the outset of World War II, one of my predecessors as president of Harvard, James Bryant Conant, delivered an address at the University of California entitled "Education for a Classless Society." In that speech, Conant cites Lincoln for the proposition that we have as a nation the duty "to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life." And he offered a manifesto for a more just society achieved through equal opportunity in education.
We in higher education and the nation have done much since the Second World War to promote equality of opportunity. We made genuine progress through the happy accident of the GI Bill. By 1947, one out of every two students in higher education was financed by the Bill, and the proportion of young people going to college had almost doubled.
Many feared that the influx of students from a broad cross-section of America would strain capacity and dilute quality, but in fact the opposite proved true. The veterans were particularly motivated and successful students, and the overall quality of higher education improved with expansion. Furthermore, the rising number of educated people ushered in a period of growth and prosperity unmatched in our history.
The success of the GI Bill, and the success of the students it brought into our nation's colleges and universities, had far-reaching impact. Harvard and many other universities substantially increased the resources for financial aid, and a number of leading institutions adopted need-based financial aid policies.
State and local governments invested on an unprecedented scale in constructing campuses that made college pervasively available. And with the passage of the Higher Education Act, the federal government made a major commitment to assure, in the words of President Johnson, that "a high school senior anywhere in this great land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor."
The civil rights movement added yet another dimension to equality of opportunity in higher education. In the Harvard classes of 1957 through 1961, there were seven or eight African Americans -- today that number is seven to eight percent. And every graduating class in America looks very different today from the way it did decades ago.
This evolution in the composition of our student bodies has not happened by accident, by coincidence, or by the invisible hand. It is the result of conscious choice in the public and private sectors, by people determined to bring us to this point. It reflects a choice that institutions make with an awareness of the profound importance of fairness to all -- and with the recognition that what is fair is also effective.
We in higher education can take some satisfaction in the Supreme Court's reaffirmation, in the Michigan case, of our efforts in this regard. That reaffirmation rested on constitutional law. It also rested on a broad coalition that saw the importance of our efforts.
We have a long way to go to make sure that we deliver, in the experience and academic success of minority students on our campuses, on the promise we make at the door. We have a long way to go to close the gap in academic achievement and standardized test scores separating black and Hispanic students from their white and Asian-American counterparts. And we have a long way to go in bringing to bear on the problems plaguing our public schools sufficient imagination, insight, and relentlessness to begin to make a dent.
The challenge ahead
Today, two-thirds of high school students go into some form of post-secondary education, far more than in most industrialized nations.
No doubt, without this progress in promoting access to higher education in the United States, inequality would be even greater. No doubt, without this progress, there would be an even stronger correlation between the socioeconomic status of parents and their children. But surely, given the changes in the United States over the last generation in inequality and its current magnitude, it behooves us to ask whether we in higher education are doing enough. I believe that we are not.
In the United States today, a student from the top income quartile is more than six times as likely as a student from the bottom quartile to graduate with a B.A. within five years of leaving high school. And in the most selective colleges and universities, only three percent of students come from the bottom income quartile and only 10 percent come from the bottom half of the income scale. Let me underscore what I just said. Children whose families are in the lower half of the American income distribution are underrepresented by 80 percent.
These differences cannot be fully accounted for by native ability or academic preparation. Indeed, a student from the highest income quartile and the lowest aptitude quartile is as likely to be enrolled in college as a student from the lowest income quartile and the highest aptitude quartile.
Why do these gaps in attendance and graduation persist? In part, because some students simply cannot afford to go to college. At all but the most well-endowed institutions, many students face high tuition and inadequate financial aid.
In part, because many students never consider applying to certain colleges or universities because they believe them to be out of reach. This past fall we held focus groups at Harvard with students with family incomes under $50,000. We learned that these students often work to make up the parental contribution because they do not want to subject their parents to additional financial stress.
There are also issues that are specific to highly selective institutions. The evidence is overwhelming that binding early decision programs of the kind that some colleges and universities use penalize students in need of financial aid by precluding them from comparing offers in choosing a college. Students fortunate enough to be able to be channeled toward prep courses for the SATs surely show up more favorably at any given level of ability than other students. I would venture a guess that the classrooms of Stanley Kaplan and the Princeton Review are among the least diverse in America.
Many very talented students from low and middle-income families cannot compete with their more affluent peers in the apparent level of cultural or athletic extra-curricular pursuits reflected in their college applications. Whatever the reasons, the degree of inequality in access to higher education is a problem that must be addressed:
It is more urgent than ever before because the economic impact of going to college in general, and going to a more selective college in particular, has never been greater, and some research suggests that this impact may be greatest for the poorest students.
It is more urgent than ever before because one in five American children now has a foreign-born parent, and the children of immigrants are twice as likely to be poor.
It is more urgent than ever before because our nation's competitiveness depends ever more on the quality of those who graduate from our nation's universities and colleges. And only by assuring access to everyone can we maximize the quality of our nation's college graduates.
And it is more urgent than ever before because excellence in education depends on diversity. If our college graduates are to learn all they can from each other, we must assure that they come from a truly wide range of backgrounds.
These are not just abstractions. I think of a young woman at Harvard who came from a refugee camp on the border between Cambodia and Laos when she was two, and whose parents worked in an L.A. laundry. In the summer before last, she went back to that refugee camp to help.
I think of a young man who came to Harvard last year from Hialeah High School, right near here. He came to this country when he was twelve not speaking a word of English, and came in third in the Florida debate championships just a few years later.
These stories are multiplied many times over. They could be multiplied many times more if we as a nation were fully redeeming our commitment to equality of educational opportunity.
A new initiative at Harvard
In this spirit, we are announcing at Harvard a new initiative to encourage talented students from families of low and moderate income to attend Harvard College. The program has four major components:
1) Financial aid: Beginning next year, parents in families with incomes of less than $40,000 will no longer be expected to contribute to the cost of attending Harvard for their children. In addition, Harvard will reduce the contributions expected of families with incomes between $40,000 and $60,000;
2) Recruiting: The College Admissions Office has intensified its efforts to reach out to talented students across the nation who might not think of Harvard as an option and make sure that they understand Harvard's long-standing commitment to enrolling students from a wide range of backgrounds and regardless of financial circumstances;
3) Admissions: Harvard is reemphasizing, in the context of its highly personalized process of admissions, the policy of taking note of applicants who have achieved a great deal despite limited resources at home or in their local schools and communities;
4) Pipeline: Harvard recently announced the establishment of the Crimson Summer Academy, an intensive summer program for academically talented high school students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds in the greater Boston area. Each student will participate for three successive summers, beginning after ninth grade, receiving encouragement and preparation to attend a challenging four-year college or university.
We want to send the strongest possible message that Harvard is open to talented students from all economic backgrounds. Too often, outstanding students from families of modest means do not believe that college is an option for them -- much less an Ivy League university. Our doors have long been open to talented students regardless of financial need, but many students simply do not know or believe this. We are determined to change both the perception and the reality.
We have also taken steps at the graduate level to assure that students who wish to pursue careers in public service are not deterred because of finances. Last year we established a $14 million Presidential Scholars program to fund top master's and doctoral students choosing careers in fields such as education, public health, and government service.
Harvard is fortunate to have the resources to undertake these programs. But as one institution, we are a very small piece of the puzzle.
The Higher Education Act is on the table for reauthorization this spring, and there is clearly much work to be done. The trends I have described today are not unrelated to the fact that we have allowed the purchasing power of the Pell Grant to decline for the last thirty years by 11 percent in real terms, relative to overall price increases at private institutions of 150 percent; that we have moved from grants to loans as the primary vehicle for federal financial aid; and that state legislatures have slashed operating support for universities, sending tuitions higher, while diverting scarce grant resources to merit aid.
It is not the work of one bill, or one administration, to restore higher education to its full force as an engine of equal opportunity. Plainly there are many new priorities on our national plate -- homeland security, the war in Iraq, nation building, to name a few.
But we need to understand, as we did after World War II, that education is not a discretionary expense; it is a necessary investment in the future of the next generation and, thus, in the future of the nation. We need to support programs that work with children from a very early age to make sure that they set their sights high and have the preparation to succeed in college and meet challenging goals. We need to reverse the questionable allocation of national resources that results in greater, not lesser, inequality.
In short, we need to recognize that the most serious domestic problem in the United States today is the widening gap between the children of the rich and the children of the poor, and education is the most powerful weapon we have to address that problem. Let us make sure that the American dream is a possible dream for every child in the nation.
Related stories:
Harvard announces new initiative aimed at economic barriers to college
Article and links from the American Council on Education