A cellphone may be just a cellphone

In The Economist magazine's Technology Quarterly nearly a month ago, the magazine gave instincts a healthy dose of reality. Without taking sides, the magazine simply observes that there exists the chance that the cell phone of the future won't necessarily be your planner, GPS tracker, credit card, car keys and internet browser all in one. It may just still be a cell phone.

Have you ever heard someone talk about the future of technology with devout certainty? Most likely you have heard it in the form of a computer doing some marvelous task, or a cell phone coming equip with a host of features not yet standard with today's Nokias and Samsungs. However, here's the important part that these people forget: the most important factor in a technology's success is not in the development of the technology, but rather how that technology is adopted by the masses.

It is a fair guess to assume that technology will accomplish tasks in 20 years that we can't do well now. There's also the likely probability that our lives will be simplified (or complicated, perhaps?) by the continual merging of new technologies and consumer goods. Yet the "guarantee" that one technology will become a standard in the future is certainly an extravagant claim. Who knows how humans will react and use new technology?

An interesting case is presented with both video conferencing and text messaging. Video conferencing technology, a sure "guarantee" to take-off over 20 years ago, fell flat. Text messaging, an tool offered by the communications industry with lowly expectations both in the industry and outside, became a worldwide force. The Economist speculates that cell phones may become small devices with extra add-on components, like an add-on piece to enable GPS, or an add-on screen to manage credit-card purchases or extra, unforeseen things. Or maybe people will simply settle for different cell phones to do different tasks, with the magazine making the analogy with people having different cars for different purposes.

This New York Times article discusses its picks for the top 10 technology goods on the market for 2006. Interestingly, one of those picks is the "Jitterbug" cell phone, a simplified cell phone for people who don't want the internet, a calendar, contact list, etc. Its only buttons are numbers plus a "yes" and "no" button. It even makes a fake dial-tone when you open phone to make a call. The super-simplified Jitterbug doesn't even have buttons to dial numbers - you can only make calls to 911, one pre-programmed number or the operator, who will connect your call for free to a list of numbers you give the Jitterbug operator beforehand. Indeed, this phone does a bit of oversimplifying, and it seems their market may be a niche of older, less technology-savvy customers. But it's an interesting product that brings up an interesting point: Technology doesn't necessarily need to move in predictable ways to make progress.

One thing I know is for certain: I prefer my songs on my iPod, my calls on my cell phone, and internet on my (future) Blackberry. Time will tell if others do too.

Education

The "A-Team" is the status my friend, a high school math teacher in Washington DC, gives to students who achieve an 80% or higher on their tests in his class. Members of the "A-Team" have their tests posted in the room for all to marvel at. Yet visiting his classroom a few weeks ago, I noticed that there were fewer than eight tests posted under the "A-Team" sign despite him having over 90 students spread between three classes. This does not seem like a good average.

My friend teaches high school math at one of the poorest-achieving high schools in the country. Some of the stats from his school are outlandish: 7% of the high school are "proficient" in math (based on national, rather low, standards) and less than 15% are proficient in reading. As of a month ago, 60% of the 90+ students in my friend's geometry and alegebra 2 class were failing the course (although recently, that number has dropped to 45%). Only 30% of the senior class graduates. According to the school, 99.9% of the students are black. There are only 800 students in the school, so I'm not even sure where the other .1% comes from.

My friend hasn't met some of his students (he has been teaching since September), some students miss school because they're in jail, other students because they're pregnant. There are other oddities that certainly don't help the students learn: unnecessary announcements over the school-wide PA system that interrupt class, no repercussions when students walk into class 15 minutes late (those who arrive on-time to class are in a very small minority), fellow teachers who themselves show up 15 minutes late to class, gang-related fights in the halls, a shooting in the campus parking lot, a principal who seems oblivious to the cyclical plight of his students and parents, etc. etc. My friend has a mental storybook full of eyebrow-raising incidents, which he must repeat over and over again to the scores of incredulous suburbanites back home in California, where we are both from.

These stats and incidents do not address the problems, they merely touch on the symptoms. My friend has aptly noted that many of his students' parents, and their parents, have always lived in the same tired part of Washington that is awash in ramshackle houses, carry-out food restaurants, check cashing booths and metal-bar-covered windows. Recently, three students at the high school were gunned down at the "Good Hope Carry-Out," serving as a reminder to my friend's students just how much hope society really gave them. These students are far beyond being failed by society; they completely lack opportunity. Growing up in a neighborhood that was left behind long ago, these students are isolated by a cycle that failed their parents and will fail them too.

Oddly, both the school's website and a not-for-profit website called "ExploreDC" fail to see a problem. The school's website has the wrong principle pictured. The ExploreDC site, when writing about my friend's school, says that new changes are benefiting the school where my friend teaches. "This change in our approach to education has been very successful in helping to raise student performance on standardized tests, in addition to providing students vital information required for making wise career choice." Even odder, at the bottom of the page the site writes "Attendance: 90% or better". I think it fair to say my friend would disagree. A simple walk through the metal detectors, past the corridor displaying the students' national testing statistics and into any class would probably make the author of the ExploreDC website wince on both his points.

It is but a 5 minute drive to traverse DC's roads from my friend's high school to the Capitol Building, that fine building where politicians heatedly debate what's in our national interest while making deals to secure Americans' better future. Yet for my friend's students, the Capitol Building may as well be another world away. These students isolated without opportunity, it is up to people like my friend to make the difference.

Frank Stanton

Frank Stanton, a pioneer of network television, a champion of the press' rights to oversee government, and a businessman who sometimes got in the way of the newsmen under him, passed away on Christmas Eve at 98 years old. Like the old guard of diverse, albeit opinionated and sometimes wrong newsmen, Stanton refused to depart life in the 80s and 90s despite the evolution of television into a more specialized and personalized form of entertainment. Now in 2006, the 6 o'clock news is dead.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because the internet provides more accurate information (via the ability to check multiple sources instantly) and because not all stories interest all people. With the internet, podcasts, specialized TV/radio channels and a plethora of other information vehicles, we can pay attention to the stories that interests us, and not waste time watching overconfident newsmen tell us their spin (or more accurately, their network's spin) on that same story. But the quest for personally gratifying information can also be problematic.

The one time I met Mr. Stanton, a lunch in Boston with him and my mom, he asked me what newspapers I read. I thought it a funny question; at that time, my newspaper was the sports section and the rest was recycling. I stuttered out a smattering of newspapers and magazines I figured were important (but didn't read), recognizing that I didn't read enough to meet his standards but not realizing why it mattered. Now I think I know why this question is important.

The question had nothing to do with newspapers; the question had to do with interests and information. By only reading the San Francisco Chronicle sports section, I was educating myself plenty about the Oakland A's, San Francisco 49ers and college sports, but I was narrowing my focus so that everything else was a blur. I knew nothing about business news (I found the topic boring), cared little about international affairs (except for what my teachers at school told me), had a scant knowledge of art (despite playing classical piano for over 14 years), etc. etc. Why? Because I wasn't interested. I was more interested in whether Jason Giambi would win the MVP for my beloved Oakland A's, and so I read about it.

There is something to be gained from having knowledge of other fields besides our "interests." First, we can't really know what else interests us if we never try. I cared little about Latin American politics, and never read about them - until one day this summer in China, exhausted from studying and no-one I could speak English with, I opened my crumpled Economist magazine and grudgingly read my final two unread articles about Latin America because it was better than another four hours of writing Chinese characters. Now, I look forward to the "Americas" section.

However, more importantly there is good to be gained when a lot of people know a little about a lot of things. In passing, conversations can be more fun and it's easier to learn faster. Most importantly, however, it helps people understand other people better. It's easy to simplify without knowledge; it's hard to have knowledge and be simpleminded. The marvel of ignorance is helped along by the boring cliche about bliss (yet contradicted by knowledge and power); however, it's my opinion that stupidity is not a prudent life-choice nor an achievement to be admired.

Unfortunately, there is little knowledge to be gleaned nowadays from watching network or cable news. It is narrow-minded, safe and boring - an ironic kudos to Fox News notwithstanding, not for good coverage, but for giving the downward spiral of news a sideways kick in the knees - with predictable stories and solemn, robotic anchors (juxtaposed with eccentric, loud and crooked statistics-wielding "news" pundits). Network and cable news resembles an old, unrefreshed page of AP or Reuters news that has been stuck on your web browser for half a day: World coverage of gruesome death tolls, outbreaks, disasters; national news of politicos and their scripted statements to the press; local news of the recent shootings, robberies, and girl scouts. No analysis, superficial facts. Pundits resemble the opposite; screaming caricatures with obvious agendas, who will predictably rant about whatever news was on earlier seen through the lens of their political leaning.

There is an audience waiting for the return of real news. The explosion of NPR is an ironic return to broad-based news coverage with ample analysis and opinionated, yet scholarly, discussion. It's ironic because NPR itself is a niche existing with thousands of others; it's a return because as it grows it will leave behind the title "niche."

What we choose read/watch/listen to/whatever beyond our envelope doesn't really matter; as long as we remind ourselves that we put ourselves at a disadvantage by only caring about what we're "interested" in, and tuning the rest out. Because "interests" are often used as a rationalization and excuse for a single course of action that is a zero-sum game. Knowledge is not. Frank Stanton saw that the "interests" of news subscribed to this theory of knowledge, a theory that hasn't disappeared but has long since departed the television box.

See: Frank Stanton, in the New York Times article about his passing

A Christmas lottery windfall

What a better holiday present than winning one of the country's largest lotteries: the Powerball lottery (currently at $75 million), the Megamillions lottery (currently at $60 million) or the California lottery (currently at $30 million). Even wimpy sums of $5 or $1 million would do for most people, propelling them into the financial stratosphere for a life of exotic villas, Italian cars, servants and. . .bankruptcy?



It's probably not surprising that lotto winners, usually not filthy-rich beforehand, can blow their winnings quickly after getting a windfall of cash. This New York Times article from 2005 comically yet sadly details how two lotto winners, a blue-collar Kentucky resident who shared a $65 million Powerball winning ticket (a cash value of $34 million) with his estranged wife, didn't fare too well. After the husband bought a "Mount Vernon-sized estate," horses and plenty of cars, his wife stocked up on Mercedes cars and bought an equally enormous house that she filled with cats (they lived separately). The husband, when shopping for groceries, would pay in $100 bills and pass the change, sometimes upwards of $80, to the customer standing behind him. He was also swindled out of $500,000 drunk one night at a bar, and two years after winning the lotto died from complications due to alcoholism at age 45. His wife's body was found some weeks later decomposing in her own home, apparently dead from a drug overdose.

Yes, these stories may be the epitome of lottery disaster. But instant wealth doesn't seem to provide instant gratification, and it may be best to take a deep breath if faced with an influx like a Hummer-sized pile of cash. A column in the New York times this morning discussed this intelligent waiting approach, and used the recent Survivor: Cook Islands winner Yul Kwon as a positive example. Mr. Kwon said to the New York Times: "I have tried very consciously not to get too ahead of my self on what to do, I plan on sitting on the money for a while so I can get my feet on the ground. I don't want to be rash about it." The article is the antithesis of the article about the Powerball winners; this time, it seems the winner is making the smart choice.

In the California lottery's "Winner Handbook" (here in .pdf form), they recommended speaking with Boston Globe columnist Charles Jaffe, who advises recent winners to spend 10% of the initial payment on ridiculous purchases to get it out of their system, and then to not spent anymore until taking a long peaceful vacation to think about what's important in life. Mr. Jaffe tries to impart the idea that free time, not material goods, are most important to people. If you play your cards right, you can use that lottery money not to buy Aston-Martins and 12 ranch-houses, but to buy yourself the freedom from a job you don't like or the flexibility to visit your parents and kids whenever you want. Yes, it seems that controlling your own time is a handy way to raise your own level of happiness.

An article on October 8, 2006 in the Wall Street Journal also explains this idea ("Nine tips for investing in happiness"). The Journal - which relishes the role of playing Wall Street cheerleader - makes the un-Journal-like opening claim that "If you want to be happier, forget spending dollars -- and focus on how you spend your time." Among the things that can genuinely increase happiness, according to the journal: volunteering, spending more time with friends, challenging yourself (by not watching TV after work, and instead doing things like projects or working after personal goals), not trading up to a more expensive lifestyle (it can seem desirable to move to a better neighborhood, but once there you realize your neighbors have lots of fancy cars, extra houses, and a lifestyle that you still can't afford), and reducing your commute (according to the Journal, a commute is universally seen as one of life's least pleasurable activities).

Great lottery thoughts: If you created a chain of people holding hands at earth's equator, and if those people stretched all the way around the world more than twice, and if you gave each person in that long chain a different Megamillions ticket, you still wouldn't be guaranteed to have a winner. Alas, people are not deferred from playing - not even yours truly.

(odds of winning Megamillions are slightly more than 175,000,000, people standing around the world assuming 2 feet of space for each person front and back, based on 25,000 miles around the world at the equator).

Coal for your stockings

There's a lot of coal to go around in China, lots and lots of it. In 2005, China topped the world in coal mining, digging up more than double the amount of coal than the U.S. did (China mined 2226 megatons of coal, the U.S. 951, while 3rd place India mined 398. . .check the World Coal Institute online for more coal stats)

It's possible that China and the world are paying a price for this. In China, human lives are wasted and economies slogged down in a lightly-regulated industry that relies heavily on corruption to boost provincial GDP, especially in particularly poor regions of China like the Chinese northeast. The world may be paying a price thanks to the huge Co2 emissions from China's gluttony of coal-burning power plants. These problems are not quickly overcome, but they seem paramount to both China's development and solving the world's energy crisis.

China is already second behind the United States in greenhouse-gas emissions. Burning raw coal, like what is mined from the above mentioned notorious coal mines, is possibly the very worst of all polluting activities (see this article in the NYTimes, here). Fortunately, this problem is more easily alleviated in the short term via nuclear energy. A solution to the total problem, though, will take more than authoritarian decision-making.

China's coal-mine deaths each year are appalling. The official number given by the Chinese government (via the People's Daily newspaper, the official government mouthpiece) is 6,000 deaths per year in coal mines. That is over 16 deaths per day, 365 days per year. Even more unsettling is that 6,000 is undoubtedly much lower than the actual number of coal deaths, given the CCP's habit of understating or blatantly covering up domestic problems. Maybe there are 10,000 deaths a year. Maybe 20,000. It's impossible to get the exact number. Still, the fact that the government is addressing the problem speaks to the frank absurdity of the number of deaths. Compare this to America: the Sago Mine explosion, which killed 12 Virginia miners in 2006, was the third-worst mining disaster in the US since 1968 and subsequently has a 13,000 word Wikipedia page dedicated to it. In China, more than 12 people on average die in coal mines every day.


Off to work we go. . .

According to an article in the People's Daily, "death contracts" are a common occurrence in Chinese coal mines. Workers sign a deal that guarantees their family compensation should they be killed in the mines; workers cannot work for the mine unless they sign this contract (the article is available here in Chinese from Xinhua, the CCP media company/regulatory commission/spy agency. Translated the title is "Cheap labor does not mean a cheap life"). The idea of compensation is reasonable; the compensation figures, however, are not. Workers are generally given 40,000-60,000 RMB life contracts: the equivalent of $5,000 - $8,000USD. In some cases, according to the Shanghai Star, compensation is less than 10,000RMB; $1,250USD.

If you type in "China coal mine death" into the New York Times search engine, the results from the past few years read like an obtuse joke: "33 Dead in Chinese Mine," "166 still missing from Chinese mine blast," "Blast kills at least 20 children in Chinese mine," "Chinese mine toll reaches 151." These articles don't even go back two years, and no special effort was exerted during this search.

Some would argue these morbid numbers, and the corresponding "death contract" compensation amounts, are merely the real prices of life based on local market conditions, and the market should be obeyed even if it's unsettling. But what these free-market rationalizers happily overlook is the gross lack of a free market everywhere else in the system. Coal is subsidized by the government to encourage coal production, which is a byproduct of bribes given to national agencies by provincial officials and coal owners (often one and the same). Worse, simple humane regulations governing mining are overlooked due to political clout and new legislation is hindered due to a backwards political system. In addition, provinces are pressured to keep up with China's whopping 10%+ GDP growth per year, and laggard provincial leaders eager for promotion don't want to fall behind. Worse still, there lacks a real check on political power on China - the press isn't free, and there is no opposition party to point out the rulers' mishaps - which benefits short-term GDP, but ultimately may hinder sustainable growth (output per unit of input).

Neither of these problems (emissions and deaths) are easily solved. However, progress is probably quicker improved on the emissions front via nuclear power. To my delight, China recently approved a bid by a U.S. consortium led by Westinghouse to build four new nuclear reactors to be used for energy (NYTimes article here). To my chagrin, Hu Jintao (the current undisputed leader of China) is cracking down on journalists and human rights activists in China, signaling that my desire for reform of the Chinese political system (and the plights of those in China's mines) are still off in the distance.

Pensions or benefits? Read this

Those of us who just graduated from college now have jobs (or maybe not). With a job, chances are we'll also encounter benefits. What are some ways to maximize wealth given to us from those benefits? I'm not expert, so I can't tell you what stocks to invest in, but if you utilize a few common sense points when dealing with direct monetary benefits (like a pension, 401k, any other retirement package, matching, etc), you can have your money work harder for you.

A.)
At the minimum put in as much to your pension/401k that your company will match. That's free money, and a surprisingly small amount of Americans take advantage of this incentive to help themselves in the future because they spend so much money (at a local trucking company in the Bay Area, just ONE employee out of over 50, including both truck drivers and office staff, take advantage of a corporate 25%-100% match given to them up to 8%, the tax-free amount, of their salary). It's understandable that bills/rent/utilities whatever are expensive, and maybe you don't want to put a full 8% into your 401k. But you really should take advantage of the free money if you can, and cut down on spending now. Monthly subscriptions are especially costly - see what you pay for (cable, magazines, movie rentals etc.) and try to cut down on them so you can meet your employer's maximum match.

B.)
A better strategy, "Dollar-Cost Averaging"
This is a great investing strategy, and it will guarantee you generous income accrual over a long period of time (aka, 30 years). How to do it:
1.) Decide upon a set amount each set period (like each pay period, each month, etc.) that you want to invest in a long-term investment account (401k, pension, personal account, etc.).
2.) Then, select a fluctuating but historically stable market to invest in that historically gives more generous returns (like the NYSE, NASDAQ, S&P 500, DJIA, etc.)
3.) Invest a set amount (not a set number of shares) each period. Regardless of market fluctuations, invest the exact same amount each time period.
4.) ***Only utilize this strategy if you don't pay commission or fees every month for investing. Paying commission each month or fees will take a great chunk of your principle, and hence will greatly diminish expected returns***

What does this do? It enables you to invest in more shares when the market is down, and invest in less shares when the market is up. This way you buy stocks when they're cheaper, and fewer when they're more expensive. It sounds blindingly simple, and possibly because it's so easy Wall-Street analysts poo-poo this idea as being simple minded and boring. People who use this strategy are even dubbed "turtles." But the funny thing is, dollar-cost averaging works out better than many mutual funds because there are no fees involved, meaning you don't have to pay for the fund manager's Mercedes and house in Cabo.

T.S.A. and no I.D.

Have you ever known anyone who had a fake ID when they were under 21 so they could buy booze? Have you ever used Photoshop to doctor something to make it look like something it isn't supposed to be? Chances are you have done one of the two things above, or at least know someone who has. And since it's relatively easy to pay for or make a decent-looking fake ID, and it's even easier to use Photoshop (to make things like, say a fake boarding pass), these questions lead me to a third question:

Why exactly do people check IDs when we get on the airplane?

First, you may not know it, but you don't actually have to show ID if you want to get on a plane. In a ruling on December 8, 2005, the US Ninth Court of Appeals (San Francisco) determined that a passenger must either show ID or be subject to a more thorough search, including "walking through a magnetometer (*metal detector, in layman's terms), being subject to a handheld magnetometer scan, having a light body patdown, removing one's shoes, and having one's carry-on baggage searched by hand and a CAT-scan machine" (see the whole ruling here). The TSA website for air travel now confirms this.




This was spawned by a rather aggressive activist, Jim Harper, who last challenged his friends to mail their licenses home to Boston and then fly from San Francisco (where they were attending a conference) back home. Mr. Harper and his friends all got home eventually (after missing a few flights), and successfully boarded without ID, but the ruling last year was actually a ruling against Mr. Harper; he was hoping to both board without ID and also not be subjected to the more rigorous search (the entire story about Mr. Harper, which is quite comical, is here).

These things said, a second comical story was published in today's Sunday New York Times (found here), about a graduate student named Chris Soghoian who is under investigation for creating a website that generated fake Northwest Airlines boarding passes. The website wasn't very original or secretive in name: it was called "Chris' Northwest Airlines Boarding Pass Generator." The boarding passes obviously couldn't get you on the plane - the boarding pass would've been checked with the roster of people who actually paid for tickets - but Mr. Soghoian said it was a convenient way to meet grandma or gramps on the jetway instead of at the curb.




Mr. Soghoian is under investigation by the T.S.A., however doesn't this seem a little pointless? Some people cry that we're teaching the terrorists the holes in our system. But I don't think this gives terrorists enough credit. As the New York Times points out, "Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more than we can teach them."

Crossroads

A year ago, I was asked to write an international relations article about China, a country I had lived in for a year and had taken a serious interest in. I wrote about China's human rights abuses and relative gains, about China's one-party government that had done so much bad and recently so much good for its people, about China's crackdown on internet usage, about jailings and abuse of dissidents, and I came to the conclusion that the paradoxical country was at a crossroads. I don't rescind that idea. But I've been thinking lately, and I think I was missing the point to even write about China's crossroads in the first place. China is the hype now, but oftentimes hype supersedes substance. My point isn't to belittle or deny China's, India's or any other country's rise or issues. My point is to say that the ball still rests firmly in America's court, and I think it is America who is at a crossroads.

It's simple human nature to assume the future will be similar to today, yesterday and for as long as we can remember from looking at pictures in our photo albums and from hearing stories that our grandparents told. Many things we've faced as a nation and as a world, we have overcome. Accomplishments like winning the Cold War and landing men on the moon, and conflicts like World War II helped us get to where we are today, propelling hope for this still imperfect world that there is room for opportunity, awareness and maturity. Yet success from these accomplishments; walking on the moon, defeating Communism, halting Nazi Germany and imperial Japan of the notable many, these successes serve more today as drying leaves on a majestic ivy that once grew much fuller. Like the caretaker who himself grows old after tending the ivy for so many years, America has forgotten what fortitude it took to accomplish such great things, and how commitment, determination and responsibility should be more than campaign speech punch-lines.

This is not a "good ol' times" article. I believe the future will be better than it is now. Society is not in decay; the world is not in decline; humans have similar values as they did 100 years ago, just with different jargon and manner of expression. Family and friends are still dear to most. However, it is up to Americans as to who will lead this better future, and this rests on Americans' abilities to realize that not all good things come easily.

In the vacuum of power after the Cold War, America was and still is the world's sole superpower. Yet without a legitimate check on its ability to wage war or mediate conflict, America has been a free spirit, especially in the years since 9/11 when the president was afforded much political capital to use as he saw fit. Before 9/11, during the massive boom (and eventual bust) of the 1990s stock market and economy, pessimism was defined as not making as much profit as the guy next door. Yet since 9/11, America has been grounded in a bulge of genuine pessimism; about terrorism, the replacement of America as a superpower, Iraq, illegal immigrants, gays and culture. While troublesome some of these topics may be (and how unnerving it is that some even made the list), they are not America's greatest challenge today. Terrorism and Iraq can be overcome. The real challenge is the challenge of finding good leaders once again.

It is America's responsibility to lead the world. Yet in America, we can't find leaders to lead ourselves. What do I mean by that? I mean that many leaders are gone, replaced by politicians. The consummate "politician" has always been a favorite insult by pundits from both the left and the right, but it's important to make a distinction because today a legitimate one can be made. A politician, if we are to judge politicians by the last six years of congress, is someone who engages in politics not to lead but to win. A leader is someone who ignores partisanship in the name of his people and country. Democrats gave a big hoorah when they won the recent congressional elections, but that hoorah wasn't because they actually had done anything; it was because they had won an election. This gerrymandering, CNN-watching "sportsification" (yes, I made that word up) of politics is embarrassing. Karl Rove may not be as evil as a man as he is made out to be; instead, he filled a terrible role (and did his job well), a role that had been created by a system hell-bent on winning elections instead of actually leading people.

Politicians have forgotten that America is an idea. It is an idea that encourages hard work and innovation, while simultaneously taking in those who need help the most. America is not a nanny state, but we must accept immigrants who work hard to make their children's lives better. Not bothering with arguments to the contrary, it is simply in America's benefit to accept people who will live a lifetime of indebtedness to a country that didn't care who they were, what they looked like or how they lived their lives as long as they worked hard and improved their own lives while allowing others to do the same. It is also in America's benefit to tackle global warming - which could dramatically change in unknown ways the only place we live - and to solve the Palestine/Israel crisis, an excuse for terrorists worldwide and an open wound that can bridge the gap between the West and the Middle East. These are the real issues of today and tomorrow.

If we as Americans are to solve the real problems of tomorrow; global warming, Palestine and Israel and immigration; we need real leaders. No more partisans, no more "left-wingers" or "right-wingers." Liberals who have little understanding of economic issues, and who either fail to realize or blatantly ignore the serious environmental and social consequences of their radical ideas on points like immediately pulling troops from Iraq or massive taxes on corporations are both a distraction and a danger. I am equally terrified of those on the other end; hypocritical conservatives who cannot compromise, who rationalize fuzzy economics and see the political sphere as a winners' circle (see Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Randy Cunningham, Grover Norquist et al), and even more hypocritical religious folk (Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Rick Santorum) who care more about regulating my life and raising money for the hypocritical conservatives than they do about addressing poverty.

We can only hope that the democrats now running both arms of congress will stop cheering for themselves and address real issues. Don't follow Republicans by pandering to voters, and start leading the voters. Address the real issues like global warming, Israel and Palestine and immigration. Continue to combat terrorism, but acknowledge you can't defeat a strategy. These tenets are they keys to success in the future.

Coming full-circle, Americans should stop worrying so much about China and start worrying about America. China will specialize in what it's good at and the hype won't be for naught. China's government recently declared its goals were to have a harmonious society and civil stability. China will have that, China's economy will be prosperous and stable, and China will be successful. But America needs to re-specialize in what it's good at. Inspiring hope and creativity, innovation and adaptiveness. Americans must continue to work hard, but also must acknowledge that as our fathers and grandfathers worked for us, we must work hard for our children. Nothing can be taken for granted, and certainly nothing is owed to us. In short, America needs to re-specialize in being a leader. The ball is in America's court.

Skype (and unlimited calling to the US and Canada)

It's simple: everyone should have Skype (a company owned by eBay). And I'm not just talking about college students with copious amounts of time to chat with friends in the other dorm to see where the party is. Travelers and businessmen could benefit from knowing how to use Skype.

Why is this? Because international phones and international travel are a rip-off. I recently paid US$36.00 for a 3-minute phone call from the Beijing airport to home in California. My dad has an international phone based in Hong Kong that he pays USD$40 per month to keep active, plus US$0.40 per minute for any call he makes when he's abroad. Cingular and Verizon charge exorbitant rates for use of their (internationally-compatible) phones when in other countries.

How Skype helps: Skype is only US$0.021 per minute to call most countries in the world. That includes places like China, France, Chile, Australia and many many other countries. Some places are a bit more, but there just aren't other rates out there that can top Skype (all the Skype rates are available here). Even better, you only have to pay if you're calling a real (land or cell) phone. If someone you know happens to have Skype installed on their computer, you can "call" their computer directly from yours for free, and talk as long as you want.

For the business traveler who wants to receive calls when he's abroad, Skype has a solution. For a US$38 annual plan, the traveler can purchase a phone number from one of 12 different countries (including the US, Hong Kong, Germany, etc.) and anyone around the world can call that number and be connected to that user's computer, provided he's online (the service is called SkypeIn). There are thousands of phone numbers to choose from, and the user can even choose what area-code his wants (this can be useful for his friends who are calling him). Then, it just looks like a local call to whoever is calling the Skype user. Free voicemail is included with this service.

Unlimited calling to the US and Canada
In addition, Skype is offering a new service (brought to my attention by this Wall Street Journal article). After running a trial version of free phone calls, Skype is offering one-year plans that give the user unlimited calls to Canada and the US for $14.95 (offer is available through January 31, 2006). Starting February 1, 2007 the regular price is $29.95 for a year of unlimited calling to those two countries. Since Skype runs over the internet, it doesn't matter where you are in the world to receive this rate: you can be in Ghana, and still call the US for free if you have this plan. For someone living abroad, or even for the savvy cell user who might consider cutting down on one of those expensive monthly plans, this can save a good chunk of change.




What you need to use Skype: The internet and a Skype (and spyware-free) download (available here at the Skype homepage). You probably want to buy a headset and microphone to make your talking experience a little better, but even that's optional. If only I had remembered all that when I was in the Beijing airport a few months back, complete with a wireless internet signal.

Amusing perversion

MSNBC is rounding up would-be sex offenders by the boatload.

In an entertaining prime-time show about kids, instant messages, older men and sex (subtly named "To Catch a Predator"), MSNBC (pretending to be young girls) talks to older men online, invites these older men to a house rented by the network, the subjects are harangued by Chris Hansen (an MSNBC host) as they are videotaped (by hidden cameras), and then are promptly arrested by authorities after being sufficiently humiliated (here's the To Catch a Predator Website. . .many episodes are available for free here)


Hansen (white guy) with a disappointed 'predator'


The show does some good things. One, it highlights how many weird men there are out there who completely lack a conscience. The men are only invited to the home if the initiated online contact with what they think is an underage girl (in reality, a decoy from a not-for-profit organization hired by MSNBC that specializes in online sex. . .cough cough catching predators). A decoy then talks to the older men, and after sex comes up the decoy eventually invites the predator (victim?) over to for a rowdy and wild time. Of course the sex never happens. A hired actress calls the man into the rented home when he arrives, but she never reappears - the next thing the men see is Chris Hansen and his sometimes witty but redundant commentary on how perverted they are. Indeed, the only wild time being had is by the viewer sitting on his couch at home, grimacing and howling with laughter simultaneously as would-be sex perverts offer up lame excuses rapid-fire.

The show might also stop some would-be perverts from acting, considering how stupid they look on TV, $15,000 bail, jail-time, a fine and a ruined life. However, this also may not be as obvious as it seems; recently, MSNBC had a repeat 'pervert,' and many of the grown men caught on camera admit to having watched MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator," only later to become stars on the same show.

The New York Times ran an article on it (found here), an article that seemed more an advertisement for MSNBC and their partner "Perverted Justice" (the group that lures the men in with their online sex skills) than it does reporting on such an interesting story. The Times article glorified the positives of the MSNBC show, but overlooked some serious questions that should've been posed about the show in the first place (no matter how absolutely captivating it is, and trust me, it is). For starters, how many real 13 year old girls are actually inviting men over to their house? Aka, is the crime that the grown men commit (traveling to an underage girl's house to engage in sex with a minor) actually committed outside of the show's confines? Also, how aggressive are the decoys pursuing their male predator-victims? Are these acts comitted primarily with the encouragement of volunteers eager for more air-time? Hopefully the courts will clear some of this up when the men have proper hearings, but they are valid questions.

One thing remains clear about the show: it's morbidly funny, creepy and captivating all at the same time.

Muslims, the Pope and Asia

Intolerant religious states such as Iran exploit the line between, and seek to make semantics of, imperfect universal acceptance and blunt repression. Make no mistake: the two are completely different.

Muslims are, and should be along with other religions, permitted to practice their faith in all states around the world. The same right should be extended to all religions in places such as Iran where Muslim governments are the majority voice. Belligerent non-democratic religious governments interpret the imperfections and sometimes mud-slinging (thought-provoking?) aspects of democracy to be an attack on their own religion. However, what these governments conveniently ignore is that they not only routinely belittle other religions besides Islam, within their borders they openly persecute, discriminate against and harass those who aren't Muslim (for more, see The Economist magazine, "Muslims and the Pope" in the Leaders section, December 2 2006).

As Iran (including non-state actors like Hezbollah, Shi'ite and Sunni groups in Iraq and Hamas) denounce what they consider international degradation of Islam, they pull a hood over a gullible international audience. Valid it is that degradation and lack of equality of opportunity are serious issues with negative social and economic consequences. However; aggressive and intolerant Muslim leaders, by finger-pointing at western governments whose open policies allow political and social problems to be public issues, engage in misdirection by forcing a blind eye to these belligerent states' (see Iran, Saudi Arabia et al) very real, and far more severe, persecution of minority religious views. Being subject to sharia law is the epitome of an embarrassing, demeaning and barbaric example of religious intolerance.

The same week The Economist wrote the editorial about Muslims and intolerance (triggered by the Pope's visit to Turkey), Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote an equally important editorial about Islam. Its message was different than The Economists', but just as valid.

Kristof made the painfully obvious but frequently overlooked observation that the western perception of Muslims are grossly simplistic and are inflamed by a radical selection of Arab Muslims. Kristof reminds his readers that not only does this gang account for less than 20% of all Muslims, but that most Muslims don't even live in the Middle East; rather, they live in Asia. True, Kristof concedes, there are radical iterations of Islam within Indonesia, and the religion there isn't without its faults. But Kristof also points out virtues and peaceful trends within Islam and the Koran, as well as the potential for violence within Christian texts. Islam, Kristof wants us to understand, is not equal to intolerance, hypocrisy and violence .

So what does this mean? In a nutshell, it means that western views of Islam are blighted towards negativity and simplicity. (It's embarrassing to ask, but how many westerners in 2003 do you think even knew that a Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim weren't chums? How many even knew that such a distinction among Muslims existed?) This is easy for non-Muslims to do: usually only the hotheads, criminals and loudmouth Muslims from Iraq toting grenade launchers and AKs are the ones seen in headlines and on telecasts. Part of this is negativity towards Islam is justified: murder, beheadings, blatant disregard for human property and life - always somehow rationalized - should never be condoned or accepted as it is in radical Islamic circles now. In politically open countries this behavior is not accepted, and there is (and should be) an outlet in these countries when their forces commit atrocities, and outrage is (and should be) the public response. However, a chilling silence is heard in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia thanks to the acceptance of persecution in these and other intolerant Muslim (and non-Muslim) countries. This is disturbing and hypocritical.

However, we must remember what Mr. Kristof points out. That this hypocritical Muslim minority does not represent Islam, a religion that spreads far beyond Arabs and far beyond the Middle East. Nor is it fair to say that Islam itself is the reason for this hypocritical and archaic minority. What is the cause then? That's the $1 million question. But as westerners, we'll never see this problem solved if we can't be willing to look a little deeper ourselves.

A Hummer for every kid

Not that kids can afford one, but companies are realizing that kids influence their parents, who probably can afford the monstrous sports-utility vehicle and other expensive-ticket items. That's why GM has created www.hummerkids.com, a website where kids can play online games like "See the World" and "No Roads Needed." The games are a little lame, and GM's lack of basic trivia knowledge is a bit worrying, (take note, GM: the Great Wall of China is not actually visible from space,) but alas. . .even the webmasters take hits after GM's US$10 billion in net losses for the 2005 fiscal year.

Beyond vehicles, however: Does it come as a shock that Nickelodeon (owned by Viacom) commands high advertising fees, oftentimes much more than mainstream adult-channels, and that car ads and prescription medicine is advertised alongside GI Joe and Barbie during Saturday-morning cartoons and "Nick at Night?" The Economist magazine, in an article in their December 2 issue, doesn't see this as a strange phenomenon. And neither should anyone else.

Think of how much persuasion power kids have over their parents, in either what The Economist calls "direct-influence" ("Mom, I want an Apple computer) and what they call "indirect-influence" (quoting the magazine "Little Timmy would prefer it if we bought the Lexus"). Either way, kids have sway. . .and as an added bonus, the companies then have a little customer from the beginning to the very end.

No more work! Only from BestBuy

Best Buy corporate workers don't have set hours. Aka, 2:00pm on a Tuesday afternoon is hunting time, or 11am on a Thursday morning might be a good time to take in a matinée. Workers are encouraged to work when they want, where they want, and to determine the best way to do it. Best Buy is moving to a results-only worker model, which Best Buy explains is helping them cut down on inefficiencies involved with requiring employees to be in the office when, frankly, they don't need to be. This is all according to a Business Week puff story that appeared in the December 11 issue (and can be found here online) No meetings, no corporate lunches, no real office hours. . .just get results.

Maybe this will work, maybe it won't. Efficiency is always a good thing, and results are too. Ignoring the fact that brain-storming and interaction is great, and how companies like BMW thrive thanks to brainpower working collectively (ironically, Business Week in November ran a story about BMW praising their close-knit corporate culture and production facilities, where workers from different departments work near each other, hence more prone to interact with each other and come up with great ideas. (Part of that series is here). Maybe Best Buy will be a revolutionary march towards a greater bottom line and employee satisfaction. Or maybe not.


The article about Best Buy smells like a little less journalism and a little more of riding the wave. The economy hasn't flat-lined like many doom-sayers have predicted, and the Dow has risen substantially from the end of the summer through now. It's very probable that this change has exacted results, but are they permanent, and to what extent are they only a result of the changes? Business Week fails to investigate this important aspect.

Also, although profits are up big at Best Buy, recent articles in other publications have noted how Target and Wal-Mart are looking for a piece of the pie of Best Buy's extended-care warranties (cash cows), and that the flat-screen TV craze may not have hit its peak, but it too will pass eventually. Besides, have you ever been in Best Buy lately? It's fun to look, but it's not the world's greatest place to shop. Ever try to find something hard-to-find at Best Buy? It doesn't exist. Or have you checked out www.bestbuy.com? Their website and interface is stuck in 8-years ago mode, with bad search functions and clunky inputs.

But here's the stranger part: Best Buy wants to extend this culture to their retail stores. Huh? I fail to see how this corporate "results-only" culture can be extended to an environment where someone has to open the store doors at 8am, no matter how early that seems. Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe it's just Best Buy.

What terrorist threat?

A recent article in the September/October edition of Foreign Affairs magazine posits an interesting hypothesis: that there are, in fact, no terrorists in the United States. Our safety, this argument would conclude, is not thanks to extraordinary security measures, the war in Iraq, etc. Instead, it is because terrorists aren't in America. The author is John Mueller (not to be confused with Robert Mueller, the 6th Director of the FBI), a political scientist See the article here

What Mueller says is interesting food for thought, but Mueller fails to define what constitutes a "terrorist," and for that I think the article could be expanded. He gives roughly 6 arguments for why it's possible a terrorist attack hasn't occurred since 9/11, and then cleverly debunks them. They are:

1.)It is more difficult for potential terrorists to enter the US since 9/11 (Mueller counters that with 300 million legal entries into the US each year, coupled with 1,000 - 3,000 illegal ones, it's impossible that bad eggs don't slip through)

2.)Homeland defense precautions and government programs have thwarted potential threats in the five years since 9/11 (Mueller counters that there were no major terrorist attacks in the US in the five years prior to 9/11 either, without the programs)

3.)The overthrow of the Taliban and destruction of al Qaeda networks in Afghanistan hindered terrorist capabilities worldwide (Madrid 2004, London 2005)

4.)Global terrorists are all being drawn to Iraq, allowing US forces to fight them "over there" (Mueller documents numerous other terrorist activities that have occurred outside Iraq since the Iraq war started. One could also point to the recent CIA report which indicated America is less safe from terrorism, not more safe, since Iraq)



Only in Iraq?


5.)The Muslim community is better integrated in America, and the American social and economic fabric doesn't leave room for "radicalization." (Then why haven't there been terrorist attacks in more homogeneous countries with less integration of minorities, like France and Norway? And why did the 2004 bombings occur in the UK?)

6.)That al Qaeda is planning another attack, biding its time (9/11 only took two years to plan and execute, Tim McVeigh planned the bombing in Oklahoma City for less than a year, Madrid 2004 took less than six months).

So why no plots since 9/11? Are there really no terrorists here? Why haven't they attacked using simpler means, like the Beltway Sniper(s) did in Washington in 2002?

It's important to identify what Mueller means by a "terrorist." It seems likely that he is referring to large-scale foreign-influenced fighters attacking civilian or military targets, and not to the equally despicable but differently motivated "home-grown" terrorist like Tim McVeigh. Today (12/8/06), a US citizen was arrested suspected of plotting to murder civilians in a mall north of Chicago during this holiday season. He was arrested trying to buy grenades from government agents; certainly, he had the will to take the plot past the planning stage (See this article in the San Francisco Chronicle) However, it seems that this individual wouldn't count in Mueller's definition of a terrorist because, although potentially deadly, this person was self-motivated, didn't visit al Qaeda bases for training, and the scope wouldn't have been as wide as a 9/11-style attack.

I had an interesting discussion with my friend Scott the other night, and he made a legitimate point: international terrorism needs to be on a spectacular scale. 9/11 set a morbidly and visually high bar; modern terrorism has a need to be beyond outrageous. Simultaneous attacks, biological and chemical weapons as well as massive attacks on landmarks make impressions in the media, and likewise on the mindset of the public. Small-scale, less logistically complicated attacks using simpler methods isn't as psychologically effective. Terrorist forces lack the resources of a state, and thus they must maximize their perverse output by not wasting efforts on operations they consider too trivial.





Definitely not in America


So maybe everyone can be right. For starters, it seems that there aren't too many al Qaeda cells operating in the United States, which seems to align itself to Mueller's hypothesis. Indeed, true-and-true terrorists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late al Qaeda-in-Iraq leader, are probably not in America. However, what about those "terrorists" who aren't aligned with al Qaeda, but who sympathize with the murder of innocents, regardless of their ideological motivation? This is where I think the article misses the point. Individuals like the one arrested today keep the possibility alive that misguided individuals with no goals other than murder and little to lose could conduct smaller-scale attacks.

Airplanes vs. Airplanes

Everyone has heard of the Airbus A380 - you know, the "Superjumbo" - which is supposed to revolutionize air travel with its double-decker frame that will accommodate between 555 and 853 passengers (555 is based on a standard 3-class configuration). You may also know that the plane has been plagued by massive production delays, thanks to a complicated and political production process whereby parts of the wiring for the plane were produced in Germany, and the frame in France. When the two parts (frame and wiring) were connected, they didn't line up. Not that simple, but that's the gist. . .all because the German plant was using a different version of modeling software.



Anyway, Boeing has had the 787 "Dreamliner" in the works for a while. It's Boeing's big-project version of Airbus' A380, but it's based on a different view of the future. The 787 is a wide-body aircraft but can't nearly hold the passenger load of the A380 - the 787 will hold between 210 and 330 passengers. Recently, thanks to Airbus' production problems, analysts and writers think Boeing is poised to strike.




However, the real long-term story probably isn’t with Airbus’ manufacturing problems but rather whether clients (aka airlines) will opt for hub-and-spoke operations or point-to-point service (or maybe the two can coexist). Regardless, it seems like a more interesting story not to focus on Airbus' production problems, which should eventually be fixed, but whether or not they made the right decision to go with the Superjumbo A380 in the first place.

I was opposed to the A380 idea from the start, simply because I dread pulling into an airport along with a few other A380s, with all of us 2,000+ passengers rushing customs at the same time. I can’t wait to wait in line at the food court before taking off. . .

It also seems a little archaic to fly to San Francisco from Mexico when your final destination is Phoenix, or to Chicago from Frankfurt when you’re trying to go to Boston. The A380 reinforces the hub-and-spoke concept, not only because of the volume of passengers but because of necessary runway and gate accommodations. Runways will have to be reinforced and gates need capabilities to load and unload from the A380’s two levels simultaneously (the 747, the only other double-decker passenger aircraft, only loads and unloads from the first level). Thus, the number of airports economically capable of affording the upgrades for the A380 are few – in the US, probably fewer than 10 airports will ever see the A380 thanks to both the necessary passenger demand and airport costs associated with upgrading.

However, there are obvious benefits to the A380. First, it assists airlines in simplifying their route networks by funneling passengers through theoretically efficient airports (although ironically, large airports can often be the most complicated to navigate). Second, it allows airlines to cut costs by lowering the per-mile cost per passenger compared to the current version of the 747, the 747-400. Third, it’s an innovation; the completely double-decker aircraft excites airlines, passengers and enthusiasts alike. It actually looks different than a normal airplane, and people and companies are curious. Change can be a great thing, although there are always risk.

The argument for the 787 is indeed different because it seems the 787 is a new strategy in long-distance travel. The 787 can connect mid-sized airports with locations overseas. Although smaller, the 787 has a range farther than the A380 (up to 8,800 nautical miles, compared to the A380’s 8,000 nm). Thus, instead of flying from Houston to Manila, stopping in L.A. to board an A380, customers in Houston could fly directly to Manila aboard the 787. The 787 also allows airlines to cut costs by being the most fuel efficient airline made, and Boeing touts its new composite (instead of metal) frame will cost less to maintain and repair.

A new option

Boeing, smelling blood from Airbus (whose first A380 is delayed at least two years) recently introduced its newest 747, the 747-800 (first delivery not for a few years). By incorporating the new engine design engineered for the 787 and by making the plane larger, the 747-800 now is more fuel efficient, emits fewer emissions, has a range equal to the A380 (8,000 nm), and can carry 467 passengers (assuming a 3-class configuration), more passengers than any of its previous versions. 467 is a significant number: it is only 83 passengers less than the A380’s capacity. This newest 747 was originally thought only to attract freighter orders, but Lufthansa recently put in an order for 20 passenger versions and it's thought other airlines, troubled by Airbus’ delays, may switch some of their orders. Over 70 orders have been placed for the 747-800 in 2006, the most orders for any 747 since 1990.

Final thoughts

The A380 will be put in service and tested, and will certainly coexist for some time with the 787. But Airbus may have staked too many eggs in one basket: while the A380 will be great at hauling massive amounts of passengers halfway around the globe, Boeing’s 747-800 will be there to compete in a market it has been familiar with since 1969. In addition, Boeing’s 787 will be flying around the globe with fewer passengers to more specific destinations that asymmetrically competes to the A380. Further, the 787-3, set to be released in 2010, is a shorter-range version that directly competes with Airbus’ shorter-range aircraft. The new efficiency and technology of the 787 makes both Boeing’s and Airbus’ mid-distance planes (like the Boeing 767) look like (albeit reliable) dinosaurs.

Boeing has the upper-hand now thanks to an Airbus production problem. But they may have the upper-hand for the next decade because Airbus has a vision problem. Hopefully Airbus can regain that vision, because when only one company dominates a market everyone (save that company’s employees) loses.

See the New York Times, “Far From Extinct” by Leslie Wayne on 12/7/06
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/business/worldbusiness/07boeing.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A messy choice

I woke up two days ago with a realization so obvious it probably shouldn't be called a realization. To invade Iraq was a choice, not a necessity. Try to understand what I'm saying here: I'm not saying everything would be peachy, it just means that Iraq was a conscious choice and that, had the winds blown another direction three and a half years ago, today would somehow be very different. That such a difficult and wrenching situation was avoidable gave me a knot in my stomach the other night.

Everyone has an opinion on Iraq, including one of my former professors. I saw him two days ago and remembered a comment he made to me two years ago: He had told me (in winter 2004/2005) that the U.S. should "cut and run." I didn't say so at the time, but that idea made me uncomfortable. With so many U.S. deaths already, with countless more Iraqi victims of violence, how could he propose such a coldly calculated withdrawal?

I realize now he thinks like the gambler, Wall Street analyst and political realist all should: they recognize that money in the pot is no longer your money, no matter if it was you who put it there in the first place. Consider a game of poker: the only money that's yours is the stack of chips in front of you. Should you decide to place a bet - say $100 - that money, once in the pot, is no longer yours. . .you now must win the hand to win that $100. This sounds obvious, but psychological ties to the money already in the pot inevitably lead the average gambler to blindly chase the money he already threw away. If there are other players at the table, you have to acknowledge that no matter what you do, there exists a good chance that someone else at the table may outplay you or simply have better cards.

I think to Iraq and the region in general, and of how great it would be to have a shining star in the Middle East, a country that didn't need oil wealth for its rulers to rationalize they had done well. A country that had the true support of a productive, successful and integrated public whose members took part of a vibrant economy with low unemployment, high literacy rates and low poverty. Without hypothesizing on how to do that, I simply say it would be great not only for the Middle East, but for the world. Maybe it's this idealism that gave me a squimish feeling when the professor told me the U.S. should "cut and run."

The professor continued on. He stated that even if adequate ground forces had been introduced (500,000) into Iraq in 2003 instead of 150,000, even if there was a plan for reconstruction after the fall of Baghdad, even if Donald Rumsfeld had been replaced earlier, the whole idea was "foredoomed" to failure. This was the most difficult thing for me to swallow; that despite opposition to the war, nobody, including potential democratic presidential candidates (Obama, Clinton et al), has come to the conclusion that no matter how many "what if's" there are about the conduct and strategy of the war - aka the decision to invade, occupy and change the political system in Iraq, a country with an oddball mixture of ethnicities, oil, simmering religious conflicts, recent war, long ago smashed together by the British Foreign Office and now wedged in between Iran and Syria both with strong political agendas of their own, which had been held together only due to the sheer brutality of Saddam Hussein - these "what if's" completely miss the point. To invade Iraq was simply a strategic blunder, no matter how it was carried out.

Smarter money

Getting results without much time or effort seems like a hallmark of human emotion. I always think of health ads on TV, usually promising results as fast as possible while making the work seem minimal. Or those "work at home" advertisements, showing people making huge $$ every week (yea, you can tell the type of TV I watch by the great advertisements I'm exposed to). I think (hope?) deep down, everyone knows these "get rich quick" schemes or "too good to be true" promotions are just that. We just wish they weren't. A recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle in the business section, not really having anything to do with this topic, made me decide to write down more sensible possibilities.

I think some people may overlook the fact that they can get modest results - in this case, financial ones - without doing anything at all and without taking on any risk. All it takes is to reorganize their finances, and put their money on autopilot. How?

In a nutshell, there are many risk-free bank accounts that offer considerably higher interest rates than your current bank. Here are a few (rates as of 12/4/06):
*ING Direct (4.5% APY)
*Citi e-Savings (5.0% APY)
*Emigrant Direct (5.05% APY)
*eTrade Complete Checking Account (5.05% APY)

Make sure you read all account details (including fee and rate schedules) before signing up. Also know that some of these accounts (like ING) give you $25 for signing up if a friend refers you, so take advantage of that if you can. These accounts have no annual fees (the Citi one will if you sign up after December 31, 2006), they are all 100% backed by the FDIC up to $100,000 (which means if the bank goes bankrupt, highly unlikely as it is, the US government will give you the amount in your account up to $100,000) and offer a lot more bang for your buck. Why? Simple middle-school math should be able to explain this. Say you have $5,000 in a no-fee free checking account, and for some weird reason, decide not to spend any money for an entire year. At the end of the year, you have $5,000, and thanks to inflation at roughly .8-2%, you've actually lost money thanks to the depreciating value of the money in your account. However, imagine you kept $500 in your checking account and transferred $4,500 to an ING Direct online account (which offers unlimited free electronic transfers in and out of the ING account). Suddenly you're $202.50 richer by the end of the year ($4,500 * .045, the interest rate of the account), and have not only beaten inflation but have a little extra on the side as well. You're always free to transfer the money back into your main checking account at any time from your ING account.

Remember this statement: free checking isn't free. That checking account you're paying no fees on but is giving you 0.0% interest? That's costing you income. It's not advisable to pay fees on accounts, especially if you have a rather low balance (like me, say under $50,000) where fees can eat up remarkably large percentages of your total net worth, but it is best to maximize the opportunities afforded you by other banks and use their offers that allow for unlimited free electronic transfers of funds.

Don't be afraid to try something new! I know many people who are fickle with their resources, but keep their finances in shambles. Consider not having decently organized finances (aka not earning appropriate amounts of interest) like gleefully burning up multiple $100 bills with a lighter. Not exactly a good idea, right? This isn't exactly rocket science here, and don't be afraid! This is simply reorganizing to take advantage of people offering you more money for the exact same product. Everything I list on this page, with the exception of index funds below, guarantee your return of principle and interest.

Another thing to check in to (shorter term, easier liquidity):
*Treasury bills (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/) You can purchase T-Bills online from the US Government, the going rate as of 12/4/06 was 5.21% for a 14 day bill. Again, guaranteed income.

For someone looking for a little more, check out:
*Index funds ("stocks" that are really a small piece of every stock on that exchange. The NYSE has the Wilshire 500 (wfivx), the Nasdaq has the Nasdaq 100 (qqqq). Unlike the other possibilities I listed on here, with index funds you are not guaranteed returns nor even the return of your principle investment.

More on this later. . .

No more downloads?

As companies rush to offer pay-for-download services (see Microsoft, Apple, Sony, et al), I've always been thinking about the potential for downloadable movies for your TV, home entertainment systems where you could download popular albums before hosting a big party, video games that you purchase online and download to your system, pushing aside CD and DVD games. But maybe I'm thinking the wrong way?

The most recent Economist published their "Technology Quarterly," and I couldn't help but read an article about the phone of the future. The magazine concedes predicting the future of gadgets is easiest for the next year, harder when the time-frame is a few years, and nearly impossible for a decade from now. But that didn't stop them from dreaming. . .

. . .about storage space that is so small, lightweight, and yet with so much capacity that every song ever created could be embedded on a chip, put in every phone/PDA/whatever, and then shipped from the factory. Then, when users wanted to purchase a song, their phone would simply "unlock" the song when the user paid, presumably electronically also over his phone. Or users could pay per every time they listened, as the chip could track how many times the song was listened to. Movies could be the same way. So could any digital content. As long as the gadget they're using (phone, computer, game console) was purchased relatively recently, the average consumer will probably have most of what he needs already stored inside, just not "activated."

Obviously, new songs/movies/games etc. would have to be downloaded, but this system would eliminate a lot of downloading it seems. I think now, what do I download? Some new stuff, but mainly movies, songs and games that have been out for over a year or so. Maybe the phone of the future will already come with them on it. Or maybe not.

Or maybe this is completely the wrong way to think, and downloads are here to stay. Besides, if I assume that broadband capacity speeds up in the next decade, maybe it will take just as long to "download" something as it will to unlock it.

My first

I'm tired of saying to myself "I should have written that down." Now it's time. I read multiple publications (six, to be exact) , and I want to write about what I read. That's it.

Here's what I read:
1.) The New York Times
2.) The Wall Street Journal
3.) The Economist
4.) Foreign Affairs
5.) Business Week
6.) The San Francisco Chronicle

Here goes.