My kids' Dad

Insider Information

Tom Koulopoulos is traveling to traveling to Bangalore to look at globalization and innovation keeping blog of his experiences. This should be good!

The Bulldozer and a variety of books

Michael Oren offered a concise and lucid background of Ariel Sharon in his WSJ piece called The End of the Beginning last Friday. This single sentence of his captures the essence of the article:

The blond and handsome commando and severely overweight politico, the "bulldozer" who pushed thousands of Israelis in and out of settlements, the lover of Hebrew culture whose first language was Russian, the secularist who revered Jewish faith, the fighter of many wars and the champion, ultimately, of peace--Ariel Sharon has had multiple identities.

I love "...the secularist who revered Jewish faith", doesn't that describe a man of wisdom and respect? Great men throughout history have displayed such respect especially when dealing with something as personal as faith and religion.

On other fronts:

Yossi Sheffi discussed Enterprise Resilience on BookTV where among other corporate disasters he reveals how Cantor Fitzgerald survived the September 11 attacks. Whereas Tom Barnett focused on their losses and how the technology helped Cantor Fitzgerald, Sheffi highlights how it was their customers that kept them from going under because their customers valued (among other things) the relationships that had developed and wanted to resurrect those relationships.
Sheffi is profound is his statements about the businesses that don't fail require leaders that come up through the business. Real leaders know their business and inspire their people - notice that he recognizes leaders that focus on the staff and not the customers.

Alan Sears gave a clear background of the ACLU in his book discussion on The ACLU vs America on BookTV. He documents the campaign against democracy the ACLU has waged since its foundation and reveals the thin veneer of duplicity behind which they stand. I have long ago noticed their selective causes (supporting NAMBLA while attacking the Boy Scouts) but this book or DVD presents solid evidence for those seeking detail.

On the other hand not everything on BookTV is credible. On our vacation last week in Florida, I couldn't resist watching BookTV (they normally run the shows on the weekends and over holidays) where I stumbled upon Richard Florida's talk about his book called The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. Now I figured he would offer another perspective upon Globalization which for the most part is in agreement with my own. Florida has plenty of statistical data about the impact of designers upon economies as well as successful geographic areas. I agree with him about the importance of creativity, but he loses me in some of his definitions (such as where he can't see creativity within the manufacturing industry). He also launches into a weird Red State/Blue State thesis that basically sees creativity as being the solely centered in large urban centers. I would argue that technology allows creative individuals and youth to be able to tap into the collective creativity in remote locations where quality of life can be balanced by a vibrant social interaction. I suppose he simply is a victim of an elitist attitude that views most parts of the country as filled with dullards although I shall buy his book to get a clearer understanding of his views and research.

I also received some very nice books from the family getting me started on Gladwell's Tipping Point. So far the characterization some people as connectors, mavens and salesmen is brilliant.

Watch Your Affiliation

Just finished listening to John Tierney's discussion on C-SPAN about the Anti-War Movement and have determined to buy his book The Politics of Peace: What's Behind the Anti-War Movement even though his delivery was modest.

Tierney went to some length to separate those who are pacifists from being lumped in with the Anti-War Movement. He defines a "Movement" as being highly organized with its members taking orders like an army. Perhaps the greatest source of controversy is his position that if you affiliate with a Movement then you endorse its principles, although some might claim that marching in a parade organized by ANSWER does not mean that they endorse all of their positions, Tierney counters that if the KKK organized a parade against the war most anti-war advocates would never dream of donning a hood and participating:

In looking at the activist strategies and radical backgrounds of anti-war organizers, Tierney concludes that the movement’s leaders are anti-American rather than anti-war. Indeed, the anti-war movement wants war and violence, not peace—if it will lead to the overthrow of American institutions and government. That a militantly secular anti-war Left def ends and justifies the violent actions of Islamic religious extremists is only one of the many strange alliances created by those whose ulterior motives are to oppose the broader War on Terror.

...But the radical and subversive links detailed in The Politics of Peace have been obscured in false media depictions of a grassroots and idealistic anti-war movement.

Tierney offers that his book details the historic connections between the Anti-War Movement and its members and anti capitalism organizations such as the WWP. He states that these Anti-War groups are in essence those that espouse revolution of the Che Guevara stripe (the Soviet model having fallen out of favor in the 60's and 70's) and hide behind any banner that suits their purpose - Anti-War during the first Gulf War - then once that goal disappeared resurfaced as Anti-Globalization ala Seattle WTO protests. The common traits of these organizing groups is that they are anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-free speech and anti-democratic - John Tierney's sage advice for those with a principle against a war is to consider your 'bed fellows' very seriously  lest you find ourself endorsing an organization that does not at all represent your position.

As I suspected, Tierney's work complements the positions of former "Liberals" such as Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz. George Galloway is unmasked by such knowledge.

UPDATE:
Marc Cooper validates Tierney's assertions - from the Left. No one seems to be able to tolerate them - now if only the Democratic party could get its act together the nation would benefit... sometimes I think the only viable option is for the Republican party to split into conservative and moderate halves to get a rational national debate in gear.

Don't lose these!

A collection of fine posts that I don't want to lose track of:

Sage advice rarely comes from the corner office except in this blog at BigPictureSmallOffice:

Look to yourself, not to others, for happiness and happiness will come to you. Look to yourself, not to others, for sustenance and sustenance will surely appear.

Some say that corporations suck the life out of us - this 'suit' proves that some people are missing great wisdom. The rest of the advice is equally good.

Drs. Fernette and Brock Eide post on the pitfalls of focusing on interdisciplinary teams instead of interdisciplinary people:

In the name of democratic classrooms, sometimes the emphasis is more on equal treatment than diversity of thinking and problem solving styles. This is unfortunate, though, because it may be that an individual's greatest contribution to a group will be found in their differences - ideas, fund of knowledge, personal history or associations, and thinking style - rather than their traits in common.

This seems to be a general problem in society... diversity is often considered conforming to the definition of those who say so - often what I see is intolerance preached by those who claim to love diversity.

ZenPundit continues to tie together concepts from system resilience to the impact of types of thinking.

What would be the advantages of building "Consilience" in to a network's structure, system and culture? [Survivability - Influence - Compatibility - Adaptability]

Keep reading to see the importance of not getting trapped in narrow expert knowledge and missing the larger picture.

Different River links to What al-Qaida Really Wants found at Der Spiegel (English version)

I admit to getting annoyed when someone writes that terrorists are actually justified in their actions because of our foreign policy.

A Jordanian journalist describes the seven planned phases for al-Qaeda's grand strategy for the next two decades.

1. 2001-2003 Stirring the Muslim world to understand that the west had declared war on Islam
2. 2003-2006 Recruitment of young men into a global movement run by al-Qaeda with Iraq as its center  <--- YOU ARE HERE --- let's make sure we disrupt them here
3. 2007-2010 Syria falls to al-Qaeda carries out direct assaults on Israel and Turkey
4. 2010-2013 More Arab governments are overrun by al-Qaeda which also conducts cyber attacks on the west (globalization and the global economy is directly attacked)
5. 2013-2016 Caliphate is established over the Islamic world
6. 2016+ Caliphate declares war upon the world
7. 2020+ Caliphate rules the world (Finally the Left rejoices!)

I wish I could say that we shouldn't take this threat seriously and all go back to our hobbies.

Lest we forget al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization around - the larger set of terrorists and rogue regimes do share in common the intermediate desire of global disconnectedness in order to incubate their regimes until they reach a level that they could eventually challenge the free world.

Different River also reminds us of the incredible good we have done in Iraq by describing a few of the horrors women and children faced under Saddam where Howard Dean is rebuked for saying:

...as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq.

(Which is kind of like saying that Jewish women have it worse off today than when the Nazis were in power...)

Cindy Sheehan should know that some Iraqis are eternally grateful for our sacrifices (that is the men and women who freely offered to risk their lives for others freedom):

Ma'am, we asked for your nation's help ...
Our request is justified, death was our daily bread and a million Iraqi mothers were expecting death to knock on their doors at any second to claim someone from their families.

Our fellow country men and women were buried alive, cut to pieces and thrown in acid pools and some were fed to the wild dogs while those who were lucky enough ran away to live like strangers and the Iraqi mother was left to grieve...

Thank God for our freedom and for those who have volunteered to risk their own lives so we and others can live in freedom. Let us not squander all of their sacrifice let us prepare for the future.

Debunking Globalization and Global Warming

I recently came across two articles that struck me as being exceptionally lucid on two topics that are often the victims of shallow journalism and group think.

Our local paper recently printed this piece by local Acton Institute Research Fellow Anthony Bradley:

In a world of scarcity, the most advanced societies have the most internationally connected economies. This has always been true. In ancient northern African nations, the Greco-Roman world, and later in the Netherlands, Britain, Spain, and the United States, nations that traded widely were nations that prospered.

...Trading societies also tend to be open societies.

But the assumption that societies in isolation from the world promote human dignity and increase human freedom better than internationally connected ones is historically fallacious. Isolationist nations lag behind the rest of the world in terms of both human freedom and standards of living. It is no accident that the developed nations of the West offer more freedom and protection for women and non-elite citizens. Connecting weak economies to stronger ones, overall, is mutually beneficial and empowers developing countries toward true independence for its citizenry.

The whole article nicely debunks the nonsense that anti-Globalization camps attempt to foist upon people and also nicely ties in the aspect of connectedness that is so appealing in Thomas Barnett's work. I simply find that globalization delivers what people want at the price they will pay - denying (whether through anti-WTO tirades or good old labor union support for trade protectionism) it is simply to disavow the principles of freedom and choice.

The second article is an opinion piece in last week's Wall Street Journal by James Schlesinger, the first secretary of energy in his piece called The Theology of Global Warming:

Much has been made of the assertion, repeated regularly in the media, that "the science is settled," based upon a supposed "scientific consensus." Yet, some years ago in the "Oregon Petition" between 17,000 and 18,000 signatories, almost all scientists, made manifest that the science was not settled, declaring:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Second, science is not a matter of consensus, as the histories of Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Einstein and others will attest. Science depends not on speculation but on conclusions verified through experiment. Verification is more than computer simulations -- whose conclusions mirror the assumptions built in the model.

Mr. Schlesinger also cites the Guardian (which is a supporter of the 'theology') as evidence of the weakness of the positions:

• The science of climate change leaves "considerable uncertainty" about the future.
• There are concerns about the objectivity of the international panel of scientists that has led research into climate change.
• The Kyoto agreement to limit carbon emissions will make little difference and is likely to fail.
• The U.K.'s energy and climate policy contains "dubious assumptions" about renewable energy and energy efficiency.

He expertly shows the fragile science has been co-opted by those with political motivations as a tool for their own purposes.

In a completely different vein - we watched three DVDs this weekend with a couple surprises.
Meet the Fockers although humorous was a pretty big let down - too much silly left wing posturing taking itself too seriously - but what do you expect from a cast including Barbara Streisand? Good comedy exaggerates reality on both sides of an issue -otherwise it is just propaganda.
The Jacket is a wholly different affair - sometimes reviewed as a Memento in reverse, it is a most unusual 'who-done-it'. We found it oddly touching and compelling.
Constantine is another 'R' rated piece was also an unusual surprise providing a violent vehicle for a fantasy style good versus evil story with Keanu Reeves. The film is very interesting in a disturbing way.
Since we subscribe to a mail in DVD service - we get to see some films we normally wouldn't waste our money on - still - giving something a few hours of your time needs to be considered.

Fortune's America - The 97 lb weakling?

Sorry for the lapse in posts... I am on vacation and it's been difficult to find the time to compose a post. Being on vacation, I am also relatively unplugged from things, which is the way it should be, a good time to appreciate family and get out of regular patterns.

Fortune has a well written article about the relationship between technology and future prosperity. A key section is:

The No. 1 policy prescription, almost regardless of whom you ask, comes down to one word: education. In an economy where technology leadership determines the winners, education trumps everything. That’s a problem for America. Our fourth-graders are among the world’s best in math and science, but by ninth grade they’ve fallen way behind.

Although some reference is made to private schools with 'better' education the real issue is the parents' involvement. Parents used to sacrifice for the sake of their children's education. Parents demonstrate their appreciation of education by their own commitment to reading and continual learning. If we want to maintain our leadership in the world we can't get lazy and expect others to pull the weight for us. You don't inspire your kids by telling them to get educated or just footing a large tuition bill - you inspire them by participating in their education.

Perhaps this is a problem of the feminization of our educational system. As I wrote in an earlier post, our synagogue is losing membership and the most dire indicator is the lack of a committed future generation. The synagogue has a variety of popular programs but the most important, IMHO, is a strong educational program that involves the youngest. I have heard for instance that young children don't need to be taught Hebrew. I consider that a death wish. When our kids are young they are most receptive to learning. Not wanting them to miss this opportunity, my wife and I are teaching them Hebrew and Jewish heritage (in home school fashion) since our synagogue is either unable or unwilling to provide the appropriate education. Some parents lament that they don't possess the necessary background to teach this material but I don't buy this excuse. The material is readily available to teach children and the parent learns in the process. (We also experienced this with teaching our son chess.) A phrase that is similar in evincing this reaction is "you are so lucky to know Hebrew", actually it wasn't luck it was simply some hard work. As I mentioned in my previous post, there are attributes that may be considered feminine or masculine, one may be a relativist versus an absolutist perspective. The same mind set which is driving men out of churches may be driving men out of education. An aggressive approach to developing technology that encourages a feminine as well as a masculine mind set is essential.

Go Tom, go!

Thomas Barnett takes on The Atlantic Monthly and Newsweek in one fell* blog:

What Newsweek recently did in its story on interrogations was the journalistic equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowed theater. People died as a result, and they should answer for this professionally.

What Kaplan does in the Atlantic Monthly piece is, in my opinion, basically the same thing--only in slow motion, so to speak. Fear-mongering and war-mongering is reprehensible and morally wrong. If you believe a legitimate case for war exists, like enforcing the global community's emerging rule sets against certain forms of very bad behavior (e.g., Saddam, Kim, Mugabe, etc.), that's one thing. But there's no such argument with China along these lines, and Kaplan does not even seek to make such arguments. Instead, he's just pushing the inevitability argument and trying to plant that seed in the minds of Americans: Get used to thinking about war with China!

I like seeing some of this righteous indignation!

I ordered mine!

Thomas Barnett's new book Blue Print for Action: A Future Worth Creating is available for pre-order now on Amazon and expected to ship October 2005. This book promises to be a great sequel to his The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century and will focus on the next steps in shrinking the gap in a win-win fashion.

I always buy the hardback edition of works I know will endure.

Friedman v Barnett

The just published May issue of Wired has an interview with Thomas Friedman. Friedman wrote From Beirut to Jerusalem and The Lexus and the Olive Tree (his seminal work on globalization and the cultural ramifications) and recently published The World is Flat which is his updated views on globalization in which supply chains figure prominently. What is remarkable is how similar Friedman is now to Thomas Barnett's work. While it is easy to quibble about the differences, the similarities overwhelm the differences:

Thomas L. Friedman                                    Thomas P.M. Barnett
The World is Flat                                         The world is connected
Can't understand 9/11 without flattening         Disconnectedness defines danger
Nations won't fight when part of supply chain Global transaction strategy
Anti-globalization forces have role to play       Ditto
Key events:
Fall of Berlin Wall                                        Fall of Soviet Union
Netscape IPO                                              Internet flows
Prominence of India and China                     Ditto

Whereas Barnett excels in policy and military analysis, Friedman has a closer view of the personal issues people are concerned about such as outsourcing, job security and education. Friedman has a wealth of foreign contacts that give him a lot of credibility as well as personal contacts within the high tech industry.

The only problem I really find in this interview is that Friedman declares "the entitlement we need to get rid of is our sense of entitlement" (I'm all for that) but then goes on to talk about creating a whole series of government entitlements such as wage insurance and portable benefits. Friedman doesn't quite seem to get that capitalism is the engine of globalization and various types of protectionism will only make us less competitive. I'll withhold judgment until I get to read his new book.

Barnett and Friedman are natural allies and should realize that they fight the forces of disconnectedness - whether internal like protectionism [remember  Kerry sniping about outsourcing?] or external like Al Qaeda.

Update:

H/T - Saar Drimer for the NPR link of a Friedman interview

Friedman continues to walk the fine line - still he slips up with some pretty silly ideas like mandatory fuel pricing $4 gallon gas to force conservation (see Peter Huber link) but all-in-all he has an important message - the value of globalization, the importance of education for Americans, the value of interdependency with trading partners and democratization.

It is obvious that globalization is being viewed from various perspectives, Barnett sees it from on high within a wide and historical context, Friedman sees it coming head-on, and despots see it bearing down to crush them.

Tyrants offer no hope, Friedman perceives it and Barnett plans for it.

Richard Bennett finds Friedman's choice of words preposterous.

Perimeter Security

With all of the recent focus on locking down our national borders and the Minutemen, I am given pause to consider the parallels with perimeter security on corporate (and other organizations') data networks.

Amidst all of the partisan accusations of racism and protecting our national security lies the truth somewhere in the middle. We need to restrict criminals' access to our territory and we need the vital flow of immigrants and others into our nation. We also need to protect cornerstone ideals of our nation such as freedom and privacy rights.

We realize that our border checkpoints are unable to identify every criminal that attempts to enter or exit this country, but once we identify someone who is intent on criminal behavior we should expect that they be ejected and then identified and prevented in future attempts to enter this country or to avail themselves of our resources. Since we expect some criminal behavior (domestic or foreign) within our borders we need suitable defenses within (this is called 'defense-in-depth). For high profile 'targets', such as airports, we would do better to have a secure and trustworthy identification system that allows known users to suffer minimal disruption whereas unknown or new users to endure a more rigorous screening process until their trust has been established over time. For lower profile sites, such as retail stores, the silent alarm is adequate for bringing adequate force to bear on bad behavior. However financial systems which are increasingly hampered by fraud will see new mechanisms brought to bear, the aforementioned strong identification system would be helpful in this regard.

So too, in the electronic realm of network firewalls we see the dispute over perimeter security continue. Just as in the physical world, locking down the rules of network firewalls gives a false illusion of security. Bad guys find a variety of ways to circumvent firewalls, usually by simply going around them by finding a weak spot in the rest of the perimeter. Internal systems (PCs and servers) are loosely protected due to reliance on the protective illusion the firewall provides. At the same time tightly locked firewalls hamper legitimate business operations which are increasingly done in electronic form. The solution here is to add more layers of internal defense around critical servers that hold sensitive data (harden the OS, keep patched, anti-virus, use strong identity management systems/PKI with encryption, application level firewalls and logging and monitoring). PCs need to be capable of operating in hostile environments and capable of providing users with friendly and strong identity credential handling. The perimeter security model is often compared to an egg (or candy) which is 'hard and crunchy on the outside, but soft and chewy on the inside'. We know from experience the danger this model presents, once a 'bad element' has gained entry into the internal network the damage potential is extremely high. At one time networks were closed, but the reality is that organizations are opening their networks to outsiders; suppliers, consultants, outsourced service providers, partners, contractors, customers and visitors - at the same time employees are often traveling and expected to use their company laptops and handhelds on the Internet and remote networks as part of their work.

So too, our national border as well as our electronic borders must be protect us within reason and yet not hamper legitimate and desirable flows of people, commerce and ideas.

Let's agree that we welcome law abiding travelers, visitors, immigrants, students, workers and guests. Let's agree that we have a duty to prevent criminals from entering our nation. Our border checkpoints need to be smart in stopping known threats and our borders need to stop unidentified entry.

We can take this a step further using Barnett's model where we extend our perimeter to the borders of our allies. Each territory between us and the perimeter of the 'core' becomes a security buffer zone. I tried to articulate this in my presentation to the ISSA.

The Jericho Forum calls this deperimeterization although Mr. Pescatore dislikes the term.