Francis Fukuyama on Charlie Rose

The End of History. Francis Fukuyama (1992)

Levitt & Dubner on Charlie Rose

Authors Steven D. Levitt, Economist and Stephen J. Dubner, Journlist discussed Freakonomics; make references to Larry Somers, Gary Becker, Roland Fryer (Harvard).

Fryer is brought up to demonstrate racial observations with respect to econimics. He is Junior Fellow, Harvard Society of Fellows, Department of Economics, Harvard University. Ph 617-495-9592, rfryer@fas.harvard.edu.

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner - William Morrow, 2005

Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times "Foreign Affairs" columnist and author of "The World Is Flat

Tom Friedman was a guest on Charlie Rose in April ('05) discussing a book he had begun in 1995.

He referred to Global Supply Chains and Geopolitics, explaining when a supply chin is disrupted by war, et. al., it's like puring cement down your oil well. Says Michael Dell can visualize his entire supply chain and he will adjust it as needed -- and not return to you for long time.

When you cn visualize your supply chain, it allows for demand shaping, when you see you're running low on 20 GB hard drives so you tell customer's "this is your lucky day, if you buy a 40 gb hdd, we'll throw in a printer or digital camera free".
Also suggested GWB read the book; needs an energy policy and we can't waste time.

Friedman refers to pivotal events, such as 11/9, when the Berlin Wall came down and Windows (MS) went up; 8/9/1999, when Netscape went public, fueling the "dot com" rush, fiber backbones were built.

Collaberative pivotal events, such as people beginning to connect with people; then pplications begin to connect with applications; outsourcing, off-shoring, open-sourcing; In-sourcing (UPS providing more than package delivery); Google; WiFi & VoIP. convergence: a) world became flat, b) adapted to flat world, c) 3 Billion new people now on the playing field.

Think in terms of the new global, horizontal process, where a dock builder in India is now on the same footing with IBM, subsequent to the above pivotal events.

Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times "Foreign Affairs" columnist and author of "The World Is Flat

Supposed breaking news is not necessarily

How's this for a tease? "We are following the breaking news out of Charles City. We have confirmed late tonight...Police blocking off a road near a river in Charles City and they say this is linked to missing Floyd County five-year-old Evelyn Miller."

Perhaps this sort of plastic drama reveals to the rest of us why Channel 13 is consistently a bridesmaid.

WHO TV - Des Moines: Home

A closer look at file sharing lawsuit

The Grokster case shed much needed light on the Betamax case, in which VCR makers were shielded from liability when users broke the law.

Grokster only lost that protection because there was compelling evidence that the software maker actually encouraged illegal sharing of protected materials. Authors of file sharing programs who practice a minimal amount of prudence appear to be unaffected by the ruling.

Betmax -- like the phone company before it -- claimed they could not be held responsible for content because it was up to the end users to obey intillectual property laws; or not, as the case may be. The government agrees.

USATODAY.com - Despite reports, Grokster decision is a win for file sharing

RSS / Podcast / Blog / Pings - Infrastructure Founder/CEO

The traditional broadcaster ought to be getting nervous, unless he or she has been living under a rock in the last two years.

As a veteral radio broadcaster for the past 22 years, I've always had a spcial passion for the business. At the same time, I've always been in touch with the technology of the future, and continue to envision "what will be" in the future of commercial radio. That notion is partly bourne out of laziness and partly of my innovative senses.

I've been Podcasting since 1995, but we called it something different back then (I say as if 1995 was a half century ago). We simply stuck an MP3 file out there and told people on the radio to go get it and listen to it. We even sold a small sponsorship for it and made it worth our efforts (for a while). Every broadcaster should be podcasting today because they're the ones best suited to produce the talent at the quality level needed to lure fans. No one enjoys listening to the muddy voice of Corey in Alta, Iowa ramble about his Anime DVD collection using his PC mic. People do, however, want a highly produced, commute-lengthed track of something entertaining or informative -- by professionals.

Yes, broadcasters have the tools and talent to produce Podcasts and the ability to sell their it to their audience, except for one small byte of information: they don't have a clue what Podcasting is. So we, the innovators, need to produce the tools they need to publish their poscasts.

How do we do it?

We begin by offering to take a radio station's current offerings (and a few podcast exclusives), edit them down to byte-sized chunks, and offer the 'casts to their listeners. That way they stay relevent and don't lose out to the indies vying for their marketshare.

Commercial announcements should be well place and imbedded into the content as a billboard and not a full-lengthed commercial no one will hear.

RSS / Podcast / Blog / Pings - Infrastructure Founder/CEO

Danny Bishop can be reached at Danny (the at symbol) Danny Bishop Media (dot) com or by calling five one five - seven oh seven - sixty-one fifteen.

# # #

Immigrants want driver's licenses too

I think an immigrant in good standing should be able to obtain an Iowa driver's license, as long as the same standards I have to follow apply to them. For instance, I have to have insurance. So should they. I have to pay taxes. So should they. You get my drift. Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, are separate issue. They should not only be barred from driving in Iowa, but should be arrested and deported post haste. If the standards for immigration into the US are unreasonable, then the we should fix the standards. Breaking the law needs to be punished, not rewarded.

DesMoinesRegister.com

Selling human rights with bombs

I know things are tough in the Middle East. The whole notion of a holy war seems to me oxymoronic, to over-simplify matters slightly.

But what seems really odd to me is watching efforts to convince peoples that we're a peaceful nation and have deep-seeded beliefs in human rights, liberty and democracy, yet the government uses bombs and bullets to negotiate or sponsor a "peace process". I don't blame people of other lands and cultures for questioning the motivation of our leaders here.

Taking advantage of the weak-minded

I usually just delete forwarded emails, but this caught my eye. I received and read some remarks
purportedly made by a televangelist's daughter today. It doesn't matter who made the remarks or what people were thinking when they forwarded it into cyberspace. People mostly know how I feel about cluttering other people's inboxes with politics and religion and offers of larger organs.

But this particular message caught my eye for another reason. It hits on a nerve. I think it's no wonder people are pissed at the media in general because the news isn't news anymore and advertisers and political action groups have been given a right-of-way over the interests of America.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show. 
[In reference to the September 11th attacks], Jane Clayson asked her, "How could God let something like this happen?"



Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.



And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

(add nauseam)

Profound?  Insightful?  If there were profound or insightful
elements in this dispatch, they were well camouflaged.

Let me get this straight.  God has now begun to withhold blessings and protection,
permitted terrorists to kill thousands of human beings because the majority of Americans simply don't trust its government to manage our religion (or lack thereof) for
us?  Really? Is God that mean-spirited a gentleman?

Never mind that one of the fundamental themes in the Constitution and
supporting writings is that the government should not be trusted. 
Religious persecution was one of the driving forces behind the formation of the
USA.  But that's not even the point here.

It is precisely this flavor of contrived propaganda that divides people. These comments, when read through, aren't thoughtful, logical or even intelligent
-- nor does the author use any level of reasoning ability.  The comments aren't persuasive to the thinking
person, but heartening only to the weak-minded who believes trusting the
government is a good thing. Political pundits and talking heads pile layer after layer of this non-information into the news cycle, not to share fact-based information, but to pray on perceptions of simple folks who don't really think about what is being said,
targeted really toward the sound-byte society that the so-called 24-hour "news" channels
perpetuate.

It equates to propaganda and it pisses me
off.  We, the general public, may well be complacent, but it's no reason to load us with this kind of stupid
crap and it is inexcusable by responsible citizens.

Can we please get a grip?

I've done my best to reserve judgment on President Bush after the Senate Intelligence Committee reported impairments in the intelligence he used to take the nation to war. I can bite my tongue no longer.

Tenet resigns "for personal reasons" one week, and the next, the Intelligence Committee releases a negative report (careful not to criticize Bush personally). We can set aside for a moment all of the irrefutable facts repeated in the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11”.

Hello!

I think people have to trust their instincts on this one. Sure, we want to believe we have a president that has integrity; that's a natural desire. But we also have to use the facts to come to some thoughtful judgment. After all, it's our job, as tax payers and citizens, to make judgments which have consequences on our elected officials. It is not our job to trust them, a fact our forefathers tried to spell out for us.

I know no one really wants war. There is nothing good about it, even though there can be times I believe you, as a sovereign nation, may have no choice in the matter. Such was the case when the Japanese government ordered the bombing of our bases on December 7th, 1941.

But the president used bad information to make the choice in Iraq, and that’s an established fact. There was no imminent threat to US soil. No one bombed our bases and the threat against our country was unclear at best.

I have a few thoughts...

The costs of taking preemptive measures were predictably high.

The activist world is largely venomous toward the US. The war didn't help.

To say, "The terrorists hate us", has no meaning to me. People hate what the US government did, and it's hard to find fault with that considering I also hate what the US government did.

The US government does not represent my values as a people, collectively, or as an individual.

Most of us can agree that Hussein had to be removed. The right answer, however, was to use a competent force to remove the Iraqi leader from power -- without catastrophic loss of life.

In bringing down the bully, there is no question in my mind that you have to identify Saudi-Americans or trained seem-alikes who have the ability to enter into sleeper-like cells in the region, gather usable intelligence and bring force to bear which has a high probability to terminate the dictator's ability to strike American soil, with as demonstrable minimal loss of life as possible. Failing that, if war occurs despite your best efforts, then you still have to take a similar course to squelch the threat -- with which we assisted in the creation -- on an even more monumental scale than would have otherwise been necessary.

Yes, an error in judgment was made. A bad choice resulted. Catastrophic human casualties ensued.

Both of the viable presidential candidates have to promise the American people that peace is a primary goal, and spell out the process by which they will ensure that peace. Send a clear message to the world that the US government is committed to the first goal, which is to live and let live; that we have no business interfering in affairs that do not have a direct impact on our mission as a country; and the second mission, to help in the world, where we can, through peaceful means, where ever we have reasonable assurances that catastrophic loss of life or critical human rights violations will not result.

Walk softly, but carry a big stick.

In the seventies, the DOD adopted the Air Land Battle doctrine. It is an outdated piece of work. If the last two national quagmires have taught us anything, it should be that we need to retire the battle dress uniform and the notion that ground troops can win a war. We have unmanned aircraft and amazing aerospace and airborne robotic technologies with pinpoint accuracy that should instead be utilized. We should recognize when a traditional "police action" doesn't work. Can you say Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran and Iraq?

I think that's important advice, but no more important that the step which must be taken before any other: secure the perimeters!

I'm having a difficult time swallowing the recent news reports that there are actually orders that prevent police from acting on illegal immigration, limitations placed on border patrol officers and rights being given to illegal aliens that supercede the safety of Americans on our own soil.

There are a dozen technologies that exist right now that can nearly guarantee the borders will not be penetrated. We have to develop and implement that technology beginning right now. We also have to use our law enforcement intelligence to identify people in our country that do not belong here legally.

How have we, for this long, been able to rationalize immigration without also expecting integration, assimilation into our society?

Let's get a grip!

Fahrenheit 9/11 --

Saw the movie Wednesday night and have been processing it last couple days. It didn't change my mind -- and from the movie I can draw no conclusions. I was against Bush in 2000 and against the war in 2003. I think Bush is a poor leader and his circle engages in questionable practices. Will Conservatives stay with Bush? Of course they will. Will the movie convert a few conservatives into independents? I hope so.