-- C.A. Beard
Steve Langer sglanger@oakland.edu
anon ftp site ri-exp.beaumont.edu
News Archives News Archives
On last month's Fix;
the answer to last month's Fix,
"if you believe that human activity is responsible for global warming, what kind of agreements do you think should have come out of last month's global warming conference?"
is
Its all about verification - or should be. One of the stated goals was to reduce the output of greenhouse gasses of the industrialized world to 1990 levels. However, the outputs of 3'rd world countries would be allowed to increase in order to get those countries into better economic (and living standard) shape. Now those nations who could not get their levels to 1990 would be allowed to "purchase" pollution credits from nations with low emissions.
So think about this. Much is made of the fact that the US and Canada combined make up about 6% of the world's population, yet we supposedly use 40% of the energy (course no one mentions that our agriculture surpluses feed about 40% of the world too). The U.S. would have to make enormous cuts in fossil fuel use, whereas most of Africa, the Middle East and former Soviet block countries would actually be encouraged to increase their pollutant output to "grow" their industrial and economic base. At the same time, the evil US would have to buy "pollution credits" from these very same countries to apologise for our emissions.
The upshot of all this? Global greenhouse emissions would increase, and the US would be transfering the taxes of its citizens to the nations responsible. This whole treaty is just thinly veiled socialism.
If you really believe that global warming is human caused (and I don't), then the goal should be to disseminate the knowledge and resources to lower global emissions. And UN inspection teams shuld be assembled to inspect participating countries, and monitor that the effort is indeed having a measurable effect on the Earth. The current global warming treaty does none of these things, because the authors don't really believe in what they are doing, they just want money.
On Global Warming;
While it's true that the earth's average temp has increased about 0.7 deg C this century one of the most dire predictions related to that warming, namely arctic melting, is not ocurring. In fact that opposite appears to be the case. In the January 1998 Physics Today, page 18 recounts some findings that first appeared in the November 1997 Geophysical letter. Everyone has heard about the "hole" in the ozone layer over Antarctica. But in the past 2-3 years a similar one has been found over the Arctic pole. And CFCs cannot be blamed for it - measurements show they've declined. Rather, record cold temperatures in the Actic stratosphere are causing a decline in the rate of ozone production. Investigators can't seem to explain how the poles are getting colder given the current climate models.
On the Wager;
For those new readers out there, on the eve of Clinton's election I made a bet with the readership of this rag that the misery index, computed by adding up all the changes in the figures listed below, would be worse after Clinton's first term. The wager was that if the Misery Index (MI) got worse by x %, I would collect that portion of income from the admitted Clinton voters and divvy it up among the rest of us as an apology. If the MI was lower after Clinton, I would take that percentage of my personal income and spread it among the admitted Clinton voters. Oddly, not one Clinton voter had the courage to risk their own money as they did the nation's, but I track the MI anyway.
---- Clinton budgets* -------- | | | 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 --------------|---------------------------------------------- Unemployment | 7.2% 6.6% 5.6% 5.7 5.5 5.3 | Inflation | 4.7% 2.8% 2.9% 3.3 3.3 3.4 | Interest | 7.7% 8.3% 9.1 7.9 8.0 8.9 | Fed. Inc. Tax | 28% 48% 48% 48 48 48 (top margin) | | FICA | 15% 15% 15% 15 15 15 | Cap Gains | 28% 28% 28% 28 15 15 | Gasoline | $0.15 $0.20 $0.20 $.20 $.20 $.20 (per gallon) | (0) (+33%) (+33%) ------------------------------------------------------------ MI (totl) 90.6 141.4 141.6 140.9 127.8 128.6 *The astute reader will notice that Clinton is assigned 5, not four, budgets. Why? Because while Bush assembled most of the 93 budget, Clinton made his tax changes retroactive to before he was President. Nice huh?
On the Legacy of Bill CLinton;
Let me say this straight off, I'm going to miss Clinton. Sure, he was an incredible liar, with no foreign policy experience, who has drawn down the US Defenses to century lows. Sure he's had sex, investment, campaign finance, and murder scandals. But he sure has been good entertainment. And he and Al Gore are at least smart enough to take credit for the good ideas of Reps. For the first time since Eisenhower, the US is on the verge of having a balanced budget. Not that other Presidents didn't submit balanced budgets. Ford, Reagen and Bush all did, but with a Democratic Congress, those bills had the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell. With Clinton smart enough to present a balanced budget to a Republican Congress, he knows it will get passed and in 2000 the Dem. candidate for Pres. will be able to say with a straight face, "See we're fiscally responsible _and_ caring."
So what's up with this Lewinsky thing? We were happily going along with the progression to trial of the Paula Jones case (which Jones has been doggedly persuing since Clinton's election in 1994). But the press response seems to have been pretty ho-hum. In fact, the public and press reaction has been pretty ho-hum throughout Clinton's life in the national spotlight. Sure he was a dope smoking, Vietnam protesting, wife cheating, tax evading politican. But so what? The country reelected him anyway. So why act suprised about yet another Bimbo Eruption? If you don't care about CLinton selling out the Lincoln bedroom to the highest bidder, or giving up US demands on human rights in China becuase a few Chinese dollars find their way into the DNC warchest, why should just another affair bother us? I swear this almost all looks like a setup.
I don't get it. And I don't get why the press is _finally_ paying attention to his evasive answers to questions. When asked if he had smoked marijauana he said, "I never broke any state or federal laws." Later we find out that he did smoke, but in England (thus not breaking any US laws). When asked about a 12 year affair with Gennefer FLowers, he said the accusation was false (but later admitted there was an affair, just not 12 years). Well finally, maybe, the press is figuring this guy out. At a press conference on Friday Jan 24, when the White House spokesperson said the President had no improper relations with Lewinsky, reporters jumped up and asked, "What do you mean by improper?" The reply from the White House was that the statement stands.
Now let's think about this. The president denies any "improper" relations with the girl. Does that mean he didn't touch her, or that the act was not forced (i.e.that she was a consenting partner)? In another interview, CLinton said he has not been praticed any infidelity in the White House. But Clinton is a lawyer, and lawyers (as do doctors and scientists) choose their words with great care. According to Black's Law Dictionary, infidelity is defined as consensual vaginal intercourse. Petting, oral sex and sodomy are _not_ defined as acts of infidelity. CLinton, as always, is not answering the substance of the question, but rather the question that he can manufacture a non-incriminating answer to. But he's always done this, which is why I and others have called him Slick Willy from day one (see the title of the rag from Jan 1994).
Bill Clinton wanted to be the education president, the health care president, the anti-drug president, in short - the People's president. I think that history will record him a little differently. He'll go down as the President who brought back fiscal responsibility at the dawn of the next millenimum, and the first to have a Bimbo Eruption Unit standing by during the State of the Union Address.
from http://www.pathfinder.com/fortune/digitalwatch/0202als.html
An Open Letter to Bill Gates
Stewart Alsop
Reporter Associate: Rajiv M. Rao
Dear Bill:
You are being completely random. I never thought I'd have to say this to you, of all people! But your recent response to the Department of Justice is a disaster. It's randomness at its worst.
As you know, I've been a student of Microsoft ever since you and I first met in 1983. I have enormous respect for the company's competitive approach to product development, marketing, and even innovation. (Your interface design needs work, but we'll leave that alone just now.) I've watched Microsoft take on one competitor after another and, by focusing on the essential technologies that affect customers, defeat nearly every single one--Digital Research, Lotus, IBM, Novell, and a host of others.
So I've learned how Microsoft competes. That's why I consider your response to the Justice Department so disappointing: It's the first time you've let your ego get in front of the interests of the company. Hence, you are being random.
(For the benefit of my loyal readers, I need to step aside here and explain "randomness," as defined by Bill Gates. Gates is the ultimate programming machine. He believes everything can be defined, examined, reduced to essentials, and rearranged into a logical sequence that will achieve a particular goal. Anything that doesn't work this way, anything illogical, is "random." In the world of Bill Gates, being illogical is the most serious sin.)
Here's why you are being random: The United States is arguably the most powerful entity on this planet. You might be able to make a case for China, given how many people live there, but the U.S. still has an edge on your basic wealth and energy. And yet you decide to treat the U.S. as just another competitor. You are acting as if the Department of Justice is only the latest in a long string of companies that have tried to unseat Microsoft in one business or another.
This is the essence of the randomness! Bill, the United States is not a company. It is a country. It has all the perquisites that come with being a country: the right to exercise eminent domain; the ability to organize armies of well-armed and well-trained soldiers; the ability to levy taxes, print money, and regulate banks. In other words, the U.S. can do what it damn well pleases, as long as a reasonable number of its citizens want it to do what it pleases to do, and as long as no other entity is powerful enough to stop it.
It now pleases the U.S. government to challenge Microsoft's right to tell personal computer manufacturers exactly how much software must be installed with the operating system. It chooses to do this because it thinks there are enough people in the country who want it to challenge Microsoft. Ergo, Microsoft should walk very carefully as it responds to this challenge.
What amazes me is that you have decided not just to disagree with the U.S. but to give it the finger in public, to embarrass and demean the individuals leading the government's efforts. Why, for instance, did your spokesman need to dismiss the government as "poorly informed" on this issue? Why?
Your executives claim Microsoft can't obey Judge Jackson's order--to offer computer makers a version of Windows 95 that does not include Internet Explorer--without crippling the operating system. The judge then uninstalls Explorer without harming the operating system. Petulantly, your executives say that isn't what he told them to do. Why is this necessary?
I haven't met one person who agrees with you on this issue. Whatever the general public may think, it's easy for me to sum up opinions of knowledgeable industry types: Microsoft is a bully. Microsoft is trying to hoodwink nontechnical people. Microsoft is showing disrespect to the judge and to the federal government. At the very least, Microsoft is splitting hairs, when in the past it has always focused on core issues. Not surprisingly, your every move leads more people to want the government to challenge Microsoft!
You've stepped way out of bounds, Bill. It is outrageous for you to claim that Internet Explorer is fully integrated with Windows 95. As you have made clear repeatedly in public and in private, it is crucial to you that Microsoft integrate Web browsing into the next operating system--Windows 98. In fact, many industry experts believe that your effort to do just that is the reason Windows 98 isn't Windows 97 and already in the marketplace.
What is so outrageous now is that you are claiming that, to comply with the judge's order, you must remove from Windows 95 any software related to connecting to the Internet. That's as arrogant and out of touch as deciding to name the Windows 95 desktop icon for Internet Explorer "The Internet," as if you want to trick people into thinking that your software is the only way to represent the amazing diversity and complexity of the entire Internet.
I'm sure you don't want to deceive people, but it certainly makes me wonder what's at stake. Why would you intentionally piss off the world's most powerful entity? Why would you risk Microsoft's credibility with consumers? Sure, you want to establish the principle that Microsoft controls how the operating system is designed and what does and does not get included in the next version of Windows.
But you don't need to raise your middle finger to the Justice Department to establish that principle. So there must be something else at stake. I remember when we had dinner a couple of years ago, shortly after you withdrew from the proposed acquisition of Intuit, the software company that makes Quicken. In that case, the Justice Department decided to object to the acquisition, so you called it off rather than go to court. During our conversation on how Microsoft should respond to antitrust actions initiated by the Justice Department, you told me that you'd let them have Intuit--and that you wouldn't give them anything else.
Finally, for the first time in more than 20 years of running Microsoft, you've tripped over your ego. I think you've just decided that you are powerful enough and important enough to take on the Justice Department and the U.S. government. Here's what I hear echoing through all Microsoft's responses to Judge Jackson and the Justice Department: You damned well aren't going to get anything else from Microsoft. As a result, the company has adopted a scorched-earth policy. You have decided not just to argue the case on its merits but to go for the jugular and try to discredit the opposition.
Pretty random, I think. And disastrous for Microsoft. You're going to lose popular support for Microsoft as a paragon of American free enterprise and technological superiority. And you can now expect the Justice Department to look for every possible opportunity to challenge your actions and assert control over your business, for years and maybe decades to come. Indeed, your response to the Justice Department could not be better designed to accomplish precisely what you want to avoid.
Warm regards, Stewart
1. Texas Tom write;