President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have led increasingly successful efforts to pit Americans against one another through the politics of hate and envy. Attacking CEO salaries, the president — last year during his Midwest tour — said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Let’s look at CEO salaries, but before doing so, let’s look at other salary disparities between those at the bottom and those at the top. According to Forbes’ Celebrity 100 list for 2010, Oprah Winfrey earned $290 million. Even if her makeup person or cameraman earned $100,000, she earned thousands of times more than that. Is that fair? Among other celebrities earning hundreds or thousands of times more than the people who work with them are Tyler Perry ($130 million), Jerry Bruckheimer ($113 million), Lady Gaga ($90 million) and Howard Stern ($76 million). According to Forbes, the top 10 celebrities, excluding athletes, earned an average salary of a little more than $100 million in 2010.

According to The Wall Street Journal Survey of CEO Compensation (November 2010), Gregory Maffei, CEO of Liberty Media, earned $87 million, Oracle’s Lawrence Ellison ($68 million) and rounding out the top 10 CEOs was McKesson’s John Hammergren, earning $24 million. It turns out that the top 10 CEOs have an average salary of $43 million, which pales in comparison with America’s top 10 celebrities, who earn an average salary of $100 million.

When you recognize that celebrities earn salaries that are some multiples of CEO salaries, you have to ask: Why is it that rich CEOs are demonized and not celebrities? A clue might be found if you asked: Who’s doing the demonizing? It turns out that the demonizing is led by politicians and leftists with the help of the news media, and like sheep, the public often goes along. Why demonize CEOs? My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell explained it in his brand-new book, “The Thomas Sowell Reader.” One of his readings, titled “Ivan and Boris — and Us,” starts off with a fable of two poor Russian peasants.

Ivan finds a magic lamp and rubs it, and the jinni grants him one wish. As it turns out, Boris has a goat, but Ivan doesn’t. Ivan’s wish is for Boris’ goat to die. That vision reflects the feelings of too many Americans. If all CEOs worked for nothing, it would mean absolutely little or nothing to the average American’s bottom line.

For politicians, it’s another story: Demonize people whose power you want to usurp. That’s the typical way totalitarians gain power. They give the masses someone to hate. In 18th-century France, it was Maximilien Robespierre’s promoting hatred of the aristocracy that was the key to his acquiring more dictatorial power than the aristocracy had ever had. In the 20th century, the communists gained power by promoting public hatred of the czars and capitalists. In Germany, Adolf Hitler gained power by promoting hatred of Jews and Bolsheviks. In each case, the power gained led to greater misery and bloodshed than anything the old regime could have done.

Let me be clear: I’m not equating America’s liberals with Robespierre, Josef Stalin and Hitler. I am saying that promoting jealousy, fear and hate is an effective strategy for politicians and their liberal followers to control and micromanage businesses. It’s not about the amount of money people earn. If it were, politicians and leftists would be promoting jealousy, fear and hate toward multimillionaire Hollywood and celebrities and sports stars, such as LeBron James ($48 million), Tiger Woods ($75 million) and Peyton Manning ($38 million). But there is no way that politicians could take over the roles of Oprah Winfrey, Lady Gaga and LeBron James. That means celebrities can make any amount of money they want and it matters not one iota politically.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd shouldn’t focus its anger at wealthy CEOs. A far more appropriate target would be the U.S. Congress.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

The haunting images of Japan’s damaged nuclear power stations and the growing concern over rising radiation levels has left me thinking about how the world will power itself in a sustainable, safe way in the future, and how entrepreneurs can develop solutions.

For many involved in the process, the construction of modern nuclear reactors was a step that was already agreed upon in the effort to build a new system powered by sustainable energy. New reactors built around the world would supply part of the energy needed to meet the future needs of rapidly developing countries such as India and China. This, combined with projected advances in technology drawing on solar, wind and tidal power, formed the beginnings of a plan.

A delay in building those plants would force many nations to increase their use of coal before carbon capture and storage technologies are viable — a serious setback in the global battle to halve carbon emissions by 2050. This is the target that some scientists believe that we need to meet in order to stabilize global warming at 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.

But what does “sustainable” actually mean? I use the word “sustainable” to describe ways of supplying energy that will remain productive over time and protect ecological diversity; technologies that we can envisage our grandchildren and their grandchildren relying on. “Sustainable” describes methods of power generation that help to preserve the Earth’s natural systems.

This is where entrepreneurs come in — most of the technologies will be created by startups that become small businesses. I don’t want to use soaring language here; no one is asking you to save the planet. Just look at the opportunities, dream up a couple of ideas and work on them. The debate about climate change has taught us that no one is going to solve global warming by edict, but local solutions and small initiatives tend to punch well above their weight. In the business of sustainable energy, small is beautiful.

Virgin’s research in this field shows that there are many technologies in development that directly or indirectly harness the power of the sun, and their potential is limitless. After all, in just one hour, the Earth receives more energy from the sun than is consumed by the whole of our society in one year.

The 84.2-megawatt Montalto di Castro Photovoltaic Power Station near Rome became Europe’s largest solar farm in December 2010. In Spain, the Planta Solar 20 concentrates solar heat in a tower 165 meters high, turning water into steam that powers an electricity turbine, generating 20 megawatts. Solar energy technologies are also rapidly advancing, with companies like Odersun producing thin-film solar cells — our own Virgin Green Fund is an investor.

Wind energy is developing especially fast in the United States, where wind farms are starting to match the output of big power stations — the Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas produces 780 megawatts, exceeding the amount of energy generated in a typical coal-fired plant, about 550 megawatts. In the United Kingdom, a consortium of companies is building the London Array, an enormous wind farm on the Thames Estuary that will generate enough electricity to power 750,000 homes when finished.

We must use the global challenges of early 2011 to shape the debate around the opportunities for investing in our future. Governments around the world must support the building of additions to the infrastructure that will allow the large-scale distribution of energy from renewable sources. Only then will these start-up businesses become profitable and thrive.

If your business and interests as an entrepreneur are not in the area of sustainable energy, then look instead at what your business can do to reduce emissions. Examine every aspect of your operation for ways that you can reduce, reuse and recycle. Changing your processes probably won’t be easy, but since the business sector has been partly responsible for creating the problem in the first place, we must also be part of the solution. At Virgin, all of our businesses are continually looking at how they can minimize the impact they have on the environment.

In the next 10 years, we will all head into unknown territory as we face a vast increase in our demand for energy, yet remain worryingly over-dependent on oil. If entrepreneurs go into the field of renewable energy for the right reasons, along the way they are likely to create some very exciting new technologies and successful new businesses.

Article source: Entrepreneur.com

 

Recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated the power of mass movements and the emergence of new media tools in the digital age. Now more than ever, social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr can bring people together with astounding consequences.

Beyond the headlines, digital marketers here in the U.S. have much to learn from the rapid and fundamental shifts in power in Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries throughout the region, especially in regard to branding. From my creative and strategic branding perspective, here are a few takeaways.

Create a Movement

All social movements have their origins in real, tangible needs, such as freedom from autocratic leaders, true opportunity to provide a better future for children, and the ability to freely express opinions without going to jail. As marketers, we share a similar yet less political goal of creating movements centered on brands. However, too often we see examples of brands that try to create social movements solely by talking about themselves. Some use social media as a billboard to slap messages on. But this is a flawed strategy. Technology’s importance resides in its effectiveness in addressing needs. It’s really about connecting, about focusing on consumers’ interests, passions, and concerns and creating conversations that become movements that create real value for consumers and brands.

Use Social Media to Establish Relationships

Social media is an extremely powerful tool, which is why the Egyptian government cut access to Facebook when it realized the impact it was having. Brands seeking to leverage these platforms can look to the protesters in Egypt, who successfully used social media to quickly communicate their thoughts to large audiences, share ideas and opinions, and most importantly, galvanize their supporters to action. This dynamic conversation spoke to the power of relationships, not messaging.

By communicating clearly and directly, and providing unexpectedly fresh stories and experiences, brands can engage and establish strong bonds with their customers. Until that happens, no one really cares what you say.

Never Underestimate the Power of Youth

During my travels to the Middle East, and particularly to the Siegel+Gale office in Dubai, I have learned that Arab youth are every bit as digitally savvy as their counterparts in the United States. Almost 65 percent of the population is under of the age of 30, and they are using new media tools to connect and be heard, in more ways than one. A recent example is Anayou, a first-of-its-kind online space built for Arabs and by Arabs that incorporates the best elements of social networking and e-commerce.

In the United States, marketers are keenly aware that the Internet is a uniting factor for younger people. But brands must understand that in the online world everything moves very rapidly, and it’s very difficult to remain hip and cool for very long. The best digital campaigns are those that can recognize changing situations and adapt quickly to what’s happening in the market. Companies must be willing to take advantage of new online opportunities as they arise, and not be afraid to fail.

Utilize Multiple Tools and Channels

What is clear from the Middle East uprisings is that one way or another, important messages will find their way through a community – if one channel is blocked or unavailable, messages with power will flow freely to others.

Similarly, consumers will access information they want in whatever way is readily available. In our increasingly interconnected world, there are many channels of communication, including social media, traditional media, advertising, and whatever comes next. The bottom line is that brands must reach their customers on their own terms and time. Creating a broad digital footprint by integrating with various touch-points and channels generates traction and allows brands to stand out among the clutter.

The protests in the Middle East have broad implications, none more important than the ability of a determined group of people to connect with each other and effect real change. Marketers should take careful note.

Meet up with top voices in search, social, display, and email marketing during ClickZ’s Connected Marketing Week, Aug. 15-19, in San Francisco.

Article source: ClickZ

 

The media have recently been so preoccupied with a Congressman’s photograph of himself in his underwear that there has been scant attention paid to the fact that Iran continues advancing toward creating a nuclear bomb, and nobody is doing anything that is likely to stop them.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism might seem to be something that would sober up even the most giddy members of the chattering class. But that chilling prospect cannot seem to compete for attention with cheap behavior by an immature Congressman, infatuated with himself.

A society that cannot or will not focus on matters of life and death is a society whose survival as a free nation is at least questionable. Hard as it may be to conceive how the kind of world that one has been used to, and taken for granted, can come to an end, it can happen in the lifetime of today’s generation.

Those who founded the United States of America were keenly aware that they were making a radical departure in the kinds of governments under which human beings had lived over the centuries — and that its success was by no means guaranteed. Monarchies in Europe had lasted for centuries and the Chinese dynasties for thousands of years. But a democratic republic was something else.

While the convention that was writing the Constitution of the United States was still in session, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what the delegation was creating. “A republic, madam,” he said, “if you can keep it.”

In the middle of the next century, Abraham Lincoln still posed it as a question whether “government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Years earlier, Lincoln had warned of the dangers to a free society from its own designing power-seekers — and how only the vigilance, wisdom and dedication of the public could preserve their freedom.

But, today, few people seem to see such dangers, either internally or internationally.

A recent poll showed that nearly half the American public believes that the government should redistribute wealth.

That so many people are so willing to blithely put such an enormous and dangerous arbitrary power in the hands of politicians — risking their own freedom, in hopes of getting what someone else has — is a painful sign of how far many citizens and voters fall short of what is needed to preserve a democratic republic.

The ease with which people with wealth can ship it overseas electronically, or put it in tax shelters at home, means that raising the tax rate on wealthy people is not going to bring in the kind of tax revenue that would enable wealth redistribution to provide the bonanza that some people are expecting.

In other words, people who are willing to give government more arbitrary power can give up their birthright of freedom without even getting the mess of pottage. Worse yet, they can give up their children’s and their grandchildren’s birthright of freedom.

Free and democratic societies have existed for a relatively short time, as history is measured — and their staying power has always been open to question. So much depends on the wisdom of the voters that the franchise was always limited, in one way or another, so that voting would be confined to those with a stake in the viability and progress of the country, and the knowledge to cast their vote intelligently.

In our own times, however, voting has been seen as just one of the many “rights” to which everyone is supposed to be entitled. The emphasis has been on the voter, rather than on the momentous consequences of elections for the nation today and for generations yet unborn.

To those who see voting as more or less just a matter of self-expression, almost a recreational activity, there is no need to inform themselves on both sides of the issues before voting, much less sit down and think beyond the rhetoric to the realities that the rhetoric conceals.

Careless voters may be easily swayed by charisma and rhetoric, oblivious to the monumental disasters created around the world by 20th century leaders with charisma and rhetoric, such as Hitler.

Voters like this represent a danger of terminal frivolity for freedom and democracy.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

In the midst of persistent economic turmoil, there is a growing sentiment that somebody should do something about all of these problems.  This is a natural reaction to what feels like an opaque and impersonal market.  The actions of Washington and Wall Street show no semblance of connection with that of the regular people who drive the economy forward.  In light of this clear lack of interest to do anything that is not oriented toward special interests, there is a persistent feeling that ‘somebody’ should do something.  Unfortunately, nobody seems to really know who that person is, since the governing institutions are pervasively corrupt.

This has become a key point of concern for an increasing population of citizens.  These ‘regular people’ are working hard to build a life for themselves and a legacy for their posterity.  As election cycles come and go with repeated broken promises of reform devolving into ever greater levels of corruption, there seems to be nobody that is going to ‘do something’ about the current situation.

At this point of apparent hopelessness, there is a fundamental insight that has the power to set you free from the shackles of dependence and create a life of power and prosperity.  This insight is that the key question is not one of what ‘they’ need to do; it is one of what ‘you’ need to do.  The future of each individual person is the aggregated total of the decisions that they make over an extended period of time.  While the actions of others (or lack thereof) may be eternally frustrating, they are not the determinant of our future.  It is what we decide to do and decide not to do that creates our future wellbeing.

This is the fundamental reason why it is so important to build a personal portfolio of success.  This can take the form of passive investments such as income properties, a small business, multi-level marketing opportunities, or any of the many ways that are available to earn income and create wealth.  By taking personal control of your financial future, it will create the freedom to pursue your dreams and live your priorities.  Many people will have their future dictated by the actions of Washington and the machinations of Wall Street, but you have the power to write your own destiny.  Using this power wisely is one of the greatest legacies that you can create for posterity.

 

Knowledge and power are both deep and influential topics.  There is a popular sentiment that knowledge is power.  This sentiment stems from the fact that people who are educated and skilled have much greater opportunities to influence the shape and direction of their lives.  As time has moved forward, knowledge has become increasingly specialized and increasingly dispersed among a larger number of people.  In short, the power of knowledge comes from specialization and that specialization is no longer concentrated in a handful of metropolitan areas.

This is where the impact of politics creates problems.  Political solutions are frequently created and implemented by a central authority.  This can be a city council, county agency, state, or the federal government.  In each case, a council of experts are gathered by the political authority to study the situation and make recommendations.  In some cases, public agencies become hotbeds for corruption and influence by corporate interests or unions.  These circumstances make for popular news stories and special reports. However, there is a deeper problem that is largely unknown and frequently unreported.  With the world becoming increasingly complex, knowledge becoming more specialized and the people possessing that knowledge becoming more dispersed, it is literally impossible for any central agency to possess enough knowledge to create an optimal solution.

Over time, this problem has grown in scope and impact since the number of government representatives has stayed the same while the population and size of government has grown.  Consider that the the US legislature currently has 100 Senators and 435 Representatives.  This total has not changed for a very long time, so with each passing year the number of people represented by each person in congress increases.  Similarly, the political power of each person in congress increases.  With this trend of more power becoming concentrated in the hands of government, the impact of mistakes becomes increasingly stark.

It is important to consider that when the number of people represented by an individual increases, it becomes impossible to individually know a significant number of the people you represent.  This means that elections become an exercise in marketing and messaging instead of campaigning to people whom you personally know.  This means that large amounts of money are required to spread a message to many people whom you need to influence in order to win the next election.  This phenomenon results in shifting influence away from individuals, toward large contributors such as special interest groups, corporations, and unions.  Even in an environment that is absent of overt corruption, the influence of large organizations will necessarily trump that of individuals.  In most elections, there is a small field of candidates and none of the candidates completely represents the interests of any voter … people simply vote in favor of the person who they believe are likely represent their interests the most closely.  Even then, most elections result in between 1/3 and 1/2 of the electorate (i.e. people who voted for the opposing candidate) are unrepresented.

Thus, the question becomes one of the best way to create results in a world where knowledge is specialized, that specialization is widely dispersed, and decision power is becoming concentrated.  The current situation is one where people in power have far too much power, and create initiatives that are (supposedly) well intentioned, but fail to produce results.  One way to address this issue is to increase the number of representatives in government.  Another option is to decrease the size and scope of government so that market-based solutions emerge.

The notion of increased representation in government is appealing to many, due to the intellectual appeal of legislators who are members of our community.  This is most certainly preferable to the current situation, but still carries the implicit problem of trying to make centralized decisions in a world where knowledge is specialized and dispersed.  It is possible that this these centralized decisions will be incrementally beneficial to those who are currently under-represented, but will not address the fundamental problem of centrally planned solutions.

The idea of market based solutions is appealing to many in the business community, because it allows them more freedom to create products and services that can profitably benefit their customers.  The unique power of markets is that the dynamic process of trial and error allows for ideas and solutions to emerge from the specialized knowledge people possess, and is not constrained to a particular geographic area.  The aspect of markets that many people find unappealing is that the outcomes they create are not always the same ones that they personally desire.  Competition necessarily means that some people will be more successful than others.  Relying on voluntary charitable donations necessarily means less funding than would be available through a government agency that is financed with tax revenues.

The fundamental question that individuals must answer is not one of whether markets are ‘good’ or ‘bad’ … those descriptions are highly subjective, and lack intellectual depth.  The question is whether we prefer to pursue centrally planned solutions that we know to be sub-optimally effective, but are able to be directed.  In contrast to this is markets, where more products, services, and solutions emerge but results are produced that many people do not find desirable.  Fundamentally, the choice is between a sub-optimal solution that we can direct and a more optimal solution that we must allow to emerge.  The question of knowledge, power, and politics ultimately comes down to whether you value the ability to direct outcomes over the generation of greater output and opportunity.  The result of this choice is ultimately less important that the understanding that a choice must be made.

The great fallacy of utopia is quickly becoming revealed.  There is no perfection … only varying degrees of trade-off decisions.  We make these trade-off decisions as individuals, and as an electorate.  As each of us go throughout our lives, it is important to understand these decisions, and their extended implications on our personal, professional, financial (and political) lives.

 

There is a lot of talk from many people about bullying in school. The problem is that it is all talk. There is no sign that anybody is going to do anything that is likely to reduce bullying.

When politicians want to do nothing, and yet look like they are doing something, they appoint a blue ribbon committee or go to the U.N. or assign some Cabinet member to look into the problem and report back to the President — hoping that the issue will be forgotten by the time he reports back.

When educators are going to do nothing, they express great concern and make pious public pronouncements. They may even hold conferences, write op-ed pieces or declare a “no tolerance” policy. But they are still not going to do anything that is likely to stop bullying.

In some rough schools, they can’t even stop the bullying of teachers by the hooligans in their classes, much less stop the bullying of students.

Not all of this is the educators’ fault. The courts have created a legal climate where any swift and decisive action against bullies can lead to lawsuits. The net results are indecision, half-hearted gestures and pious public pronouncements by school officials, none of which is going to stop bullies.

When judges create new “rights” for bullies out of thin air, just as they do for criminals, and prescribe “due process” for school discipline, just as if schools were little courtrooms, then nothing is likely to happen promptly or decisively.

If there is anything worse than doing nothing, it is doing nothing spiced with empty rhetoric about what behavior is “unacceptable” — while in fact accepting it.

Might educators abuse their power, if the courts did not step in? Of course they could. Any power exercised by human beings can be abused. But, without the ability to exercise power, there is anarchy.

When responsible officials are prevented from exercising power, then bullies exercise power.

President Barack Obama has joined the chorus of those deploring bullying.

But his own administration is pushing the notion that a disproportionate number of suspensions or other punishments for members of particular racial or ethnic groups is discriminatory.

In other words, if a school suspends more black males than Asian females, that is taken as a sign of discrimination. No one in his right mind really believes that, but it is part of the grand make-believe that pervades our politics and even our courts.

For years, there have been stories in New York and Philadelphia newspapers about black kids beating up Asian classmates. But do not expect anybody to do anything that is likely to put a stop to it.

If these were white kids beating up Hispanic kids, cries of outrage would ring out across the land from the media, the politicians, the churches and civic groups. But it is not politically correct to make a fuss when black kids beat up Asian kids.

None of this is unique to the United States, by the way. The same mushy-minded attitudes have been carried even further in Britain, both as regards criminals and as regards bullies in the schools.

Britain was once one of the most law-abiding nations on earth. But the reluctance of the left to put some serious punishment on criminals has been carried so far there that only 7 percent of convicted criminals actually spend any time behind bars. Britain has now overtaken the United States in various crime rates.

Years ago, there was a book published in Britain titled “Murder in The Playground.” The boy who ended up killing a fellow student on the school playground had previously committed crimes ranging from motorcycle theft to arson that created more than $50,000 worth of damage in school. For the latter, he was given 24 hours’ detention.

People who say that we should learn from other countries almost always mean that we should imitate what other countries do. But one of the most important things we can learn from other countries is to avoid the mistakes they have made.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Article source: Creators.com

 

One of the logical fallacies that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the contemporary world is that of the false dichotomy.  This is also referred to as the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.  Unfortunately, the false dichotomy has become a dangerous tool for pushing public policies that are not necessarily in the public interests by presenting them as the only alternative to prevent a catastrophic scenario.

The reason why this logical fallacy has become so problematic is that it is frequently used as a means of creating artificial emergencies and rushing decisions that are typically optimal for connected parties and sub-optimal for everybody else.  By and large, the harder somebody pushes for a decision right now, and the more they try to get you to act out of fear, the worse off you will be from the deal.  As we go throughout business and life, it is very important to avoid falling into the trap of these false dichotomies, as they frequently lead to very bad decisions.  Some of the more famous false dichotomy’s in the contemporary world:

We need to do a bailout now or the whole economy will collapse

This was the (in)famous plea from Hank Paulson when he was Treasury Secretary during the financial crisis of 2008 when an unprecedented level of power was shifted to the Treasury and Federal Reserve.  What was left unsaid in his dire plea for “emergency powers” is what would happen if the firms in trouble simply went bankrupt and were sold off at a discount to other players in the marketplace.  As it turns out, the financial markets still froze up after the so-called “solution” to the financial crisis, since nobody wanted to trade in the impaired debt instruments due to uncertainty about whether the value(s) would be supported by the government.

With all of the players waiting to see if they could get a better deal from Uncle Sam, nobody had any incentives to play by the (normal) rules.  What ultimately resulted was an unbelievable concentration of power in the hands of the Federal Reserve and Treasury without much (if any) real discernible benefit to the greater economy.  The justification typically cited is that if the actions weren’t taken, the economy would have collapse.  Of course, this is another logical fallacy since it is impossible to prove a negative.  Naturally the people making these claims are aware of this fallacy, but still persist with using it to justify destructive policies and further concentration of power.

If you’re not with us, you’re against us

This was the famous phrase uttered by President George W Bush in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.  It drew great ire from the media, and is another example of a clear logical fallacy.  It is most certainly true that the United States has an interest in stopping terrorism.  However, it does not necessarily follow that you should target people who do not act against terrorism with the same aggressiveness as yourself.  It is quite possible that a group (or nation) could be quite opposed to terrorism, but unable to commit resources for the purposes of actively fighting against it.  Of course, this rhetoric is not only used by George W Bush.  Politicians of all stripes and colors regularly depict any opposition to their policies as “extremism” or paints any opponents as the enemy.  When attempting to curry public favor for his stimulus project, President Obama regularly stated that the spending was absolutely necessary to create jobs and avoid an economic catastrophe.  It turns out that the expected job growth didn’t occur, and the only sector to significantly benefit was government.  Of course, (as usual) “Things would have been catastrophic if the measure hadn’t been approved.”

If cap and trade isn’t adopted, global warming will destroy the planet

The full extent to which mankind has the ability to create or stop global warming is still a matter of considerable disagreement and doubt.  There is convincing evidence in favor of the conclusion that our contributions to total global greenhouse gases are not sufficient to change whatever climactic events are in motion.  Nevertheless, a consistent drumbeat of fear-based rhetoric over the environment and global warming has steered a large amount of public policy over the past few decades.  This is not to say that the environment should be ignored … simply that positioning anybody who opposes a policy or initiative as being against clean air or clean water is intellectually bankrupt.  Logical fallacies such as this are typically the province of those who either lack the mental capacity for rational discussion or seek to shut down the process of rational discussion for the purpose of passing rules that are favorable to their political allies.

Ultimately, the false dichotomy serves as a highly dangerous rhetorical tool that has been used to influence many destructive decisions.  By using fear to force a quick decision with incomplete information, the people in power can acquire favorable decisions that would not otherwise be possible under the full scrutiny of a logical examination.  As individuals, we cannot stop this tide of destructive decisions in the public arena, but we can ensure that our own decisions do not fall prey to this fallacious reasoning.

 

Intel is getting ready to make a long-belated entry into the smartphone market with a new-and-improved chip. But the usual questions linger.

The most obvious questions are: Will it appear in a phone that is groundbreaking enough to entice buyers? And will this finally usher the world’s largest chipmaker into one of the world’s largest chip markets?

The answers are hard to come by–Intel is saying little about the chip, due later this year, or about customers at this point–though the trends are clear. Market researcher IDC said in February that vendors shipped about 101 million smartphones during the fourth quarter of 2010, surpassing, for the first time, the 92 million PCs shipped during the same period.

But Intel’s reticence is understandable: it doesn’t want to announce the chip without real phones in tow. Its current version of a chip slated for smartphones (“Moorestown”) never found any top-tier takers in the phone industry, despite promises in 2009 that devices were in the works.

Remember the LG phone that was preannounced two years ago? And that never appeared? Most people don’t, but Intel and its rivals do. And that’s a mistake Intel doesn’t want to repeat. And that may also have been one of the contributing factors to this week’s departure of the executive who headed up Intel’s smartphone chip business.

“They understand the boy-who-cried-wolf reputation [they've incurred], so they are really trying to coordinate chip announcements and [phone maker] announcements so they’ll be taken seriously,” said Mike Feibus, principal analyst at TechKnowledge Strategies, a marketing research firm.

The description Intel currently provides of the chip is only about 30 words. “Medfield is Intel’s smartphone chip manufactured on the company’s leading-edge 32 [nanometer manufacturing] technology. It will deliver high performance and competitive low power.”

That vague description could imply a lot, however. Though Intel has not yet succeeded in making the kind of ultra-power-efficient chips required for smartphones, the company is arguably the world’s premier chip manufacturer and building a low-power but very powerful processor is certainly a feat it’s capable of. Competitors like Nvidia–whose chips currently power high-end smartphones from LG and Motorola–and Qualcomm do not make their own silicon and must compete to get silicon from the same manufacturing source.

Important aspects of the silicon are the same, too. For example, the core of Nvidia’s chip–based on a design from U.K.-based ARM–is essentially identical to ARM designs now being offered by rivals like Texas Instruments or Qualcomm.

While this provides standardization for Android phone makers, it provides little wiggle room for chip differentiation. That’s not the case for Intel’s chip, which uses a proprietary in-house design built with in-house manufacturing facilities.

“Moving the smartphone lineup to their leading-edge process plays a big role in making Medfield competitive,” said Feibus.

But others have doubts about how serious Intel is about chip designs in this area and how willing it is to tap into the meat of its most cutting-edge manufacturing tech, which is allocated mostly to its much more lucrative laptop PC silicon–a market it comfortably dominates with little competition.

“In order to be competitive, Medfield should be 22 nanometer,” said Linley Gwennap, principal analyst at chip consulting firm The Linley Group, referring to Intel’s most advanced manufacturing tech, which is due later this year.

“Intel’s going to be doing 22 nanometer PC products at the end of this year [but] they’re not using their leading edge technology on the [Medfield] stuff,” said Gwennap.

Another question is whether Intel will immediately crank out a dual-core processor–a specification that has become de rigeur for high-end smartphones from Motorola and is expected for upcoming Apple iPhones. “They’re focusing on cutting power in this release (Medfield). So it’s going to be hard for them to do anything that increases power,” added Gwennap, who thinks it will be single core initially.

And Intel is still a long way from becoming a well-rounded phone chip supplier like Qualcomm, which supplies the entire gamut of phone chips, from the most pedestrian feature phones to the slickest smartphones and
tablets. Though the wireless tech Intel acquired this year from Infineon should help it compete against cell phone chip stalwarts, it provides little more than parity.

Finally, let’s not forget that Intel doesn’t make the end product. Companies like LG–which is rumored to have a Medfield product in the works–do. And they are the final arbiters of the phone’s design and interface, the two features that consumers key in on.

Medfield-based phones are expected midyear. Which means by the end of this year we should know whether Intel is in the running to be a major manufacturer of mobile phone chips or will remain for the foreseeable future what it has always been: PC processor supplier to the world.

Article source: CNET

 

Robin Hood is a popular figure in contemporary culture.  In the story of Robin Hood, the King of England had left the country to fight in a war and his brother Prince John usurped the throne in his absence.  During this time, Prince John increased taxes prodigiously and used his power to seize the property of many people in England.  As the jails began to fill up with people who failed to pay their taxes, a cadre of outlaws exiled themselves to the Sherwood Forest.  From there, “Robin Hood and his band of merry men” staged ambushes and raids to take back the money that had been looted by the government and returned it to the people whom it had been extorted from.

To many people, Robin Hood is much more then a story or a legend.  The actions of Robin Hood are frequently described by the phrase: “He robbed from the rich to feed the poor”.  Unfortunately, this understanding misses a small, but critically important point.  Robin Hood did not rob the rich because they were rich . . . he robbed the rich because the sole source of their wealth was looting the legitimate efforts of others.  Furthermore, Robin Hood did not distribute these funds to the poor because they were poor.  He gave the proceeds of his raids back to the people from whom it was originally extorted.

The difference between these two paradigms is both subtle and epic.  The former advocates taking that which people have rightfully earned for the express purpose of distributing it to people who have earned less.  The latter advocates a belief that every person has a right to what they have produced and that no other person possesses the right to tell them how their resources should be used.  Thus, in the contemporary context, Robin Hood could rightly be understood to have delivered a tax rebate to those whose resources were plundered by the government to finance the desires of the people who were in power.

In our current world, there are all too many people in power who profess to take the supposed mantle of Robin Hood onto themselves as self-proclaimed arbiters of how much should be taken from the “rich” and how much should be distributed to the “poor”.  In this capacity, the power of government is used to pursue the same ends as Prince John in the Robin Hood Story.  The resources of people who produce are looted by the government to serve their own ends.  In the case of Prince John, the resources went to finance castles, banquets and foreign wars.  In the case of our current government, the resources go to finance additional public employees, pensions, and social programs that support the re-election of politicians that depend on popular favor to perpetuate their base of power.

In the end, we must re-visit the idea of Robin Hood and understand that the essence of virtue is not to plunder the resources of others for the purpose of distribution to those deemed needy by a government committee, but to produce things that are of value to others.  The focus on “need” is subjective and nebulous.  If the needs of today are satisfied, more needs can be generated tomorrow as a pretext for seizing the resources of others.  If a product or service of value is produced today, it will improve the life of another person tomorrow.  A focus on “value” promotes the virtue that serves both self and others.