SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: marginmike who wrote (5942)3/8/2003 11:21:20 PM
From: waitwatchwander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 12231
 
Blix Must Now Bow Out; It’s Time for Blitzkrieg

arabnews.com

Fergal Keane, The Indepenent

Hans Blix came and said his piece. As ever it was a calm assessment. From the outset it was clear that this wasn’t going to provide a manifesto for war. The Iraqis were cooperating. Not perfect, of course, but real cooperation all the same. Substantial disarmament was taking place. Sure, he said there hadn’t been “immediate” disarmament as 1441 demanded. But if the US and Britain were looking for something dramatic to swing the wavering Security Council voters it wasn’t there. Hans Blix spoke, almost forlornly, of what might be achieved in the future. “How long would it take to resolve the remaining disarmament tasks?” he asked. Not years. Not weeks. Months.

But Hans Blix knew and we knew that whatever he said it wouldn’t stop the advance to war. Mohamed Al-Baradei was even more positive. No conclusive evidence of a nuclear program being re-started and Iraq was forthcoming in its cooperation. Worse than that, he said, intelligence documents on Iraq’s attempts to import nuclear material were forgeries. You could almost hear US Secretary of State Colin Powell grinding his teeth. In the UN council chamber we watched political theater while several hundred miles down the interstate in Washington the real business of the hour was being finalized.

Because the inspections are now the least part of this affair. Any day now the UN teams will be pulling out of Baghdad, following the Russian diplomats who left two days ago. The inspections process is dead. Soon there will be airstrikes and then a massive land invasion. The hawks in Washington are already saying, “I told you so”.

Blair knew the real power brokers in the White House never believed in the process. But he persuaded them to take a risk. Get the Americans into the process and hope it delivers what the Americans want (i.e. a justification for removing Saddam from power with UN support). It hasn’t worked out like that. Not least because inspections in a place like Iraq are bound to be slow and, initially at least, unlikely to produce smoking guns. And because Saddam Hussein has played a very typical and clever strategy of concession, divide and delay.

None of this would necessarily been fatal to the hopes of a UN resolution authorizing war if there hadn’t been a bedrock of anti-American feeling across the United Nations, and a fierce determination by the French and Germans to fight America all the way on the Security Council. Short of the most blatant defiance and obstruction, the French, Germans and Russians were going to resist a second resolution. Blix came to talk about weapons but he was addressing an audience preoccupied with a much bigger game, nothing less than the balance of power in the 21st century. The Americans and their former allies — for how else could we now describe France and Germany — have understood this from the outset. So has Saddam Hussein.

Yet Washington and London are confident. This confidence is based largely on a conviction (based on reports from inside Iraq) that the regime will collapse swiftly. A quick win and cheering crowds and retrospective justification. That, at any rate, is the strategy now. Yet even as late as this week, I met journalists who persisted in believing that war might still be avoided. My response was to ask them whether they were listening to their hearts or heads. They simply didn’t believe that Blair will embark on a cause which they viscerally oppose or that he will fight with so much of the world opposed. They still hope that Blair will change his mind and then restrain the White House. Forget it. Can America and Britain go to war with so much of the world opposed? Yes.

The American belief has always been that if Saddam Hussein stays in power he will sooner or later start to rebuild his arsenal. So, for “disarming Iraq”, we should have always read “getting rid of Saddam Hussein”. Two years ago when writing my preview for the year 2001, I said that America would ensure the downfall of Saddam Hussein in the coming 12 months. I was wrong on the timing, but I am as sure then as I am now that only the overthrow of the Iraqi president will satisfy the White House. The US is laying down the biggest of markers for the future world order. Any state that it believes holds weapons of mass destruction and might conceivably become unstable or cooperate with terrorists will be disarmed. By force if needs be.

So now the long wait is nearly over. The months of argument and obfuscation and diplomatic grandstanding are drawing to a close. The next seven days will decide the fate of millions of Iraqis, and the terms on which the world will be run for the rest of my life and probably that of my child. Yet it doesn’t feel like an epochal moment. Trapped in the rain and traffic on Friday, I scanned the faces of the people around me. Not like the ones I saw in those days after Sept. 11, or on the day of the big march against the war.

I was rushing home to watch Hans Blix on television; they were heading back from lunch to the office. The Iraq crisis brought a million-plus people on to the streets a few weeks ago but that energy and concern have become strangely muted. The anti-war movement has seemed quiet in this past tumultuous week. In fact since the Hyde Park rally its leaders have been notably low key.

Perhaps this is a function of the movement’s size and scope. It includes everybody from the hard left to Tories, radical Islamists, liberals and human rights campaigners. Agreeing on anything as concrete as a plan of action is difficult within such a broad coalition. I suspect that when Tony Blair stuck to his guns after the rally and the Commons rebellion, a large mass of people resigned themselves to the inevitable. War was going to happen.

They had made their views known. If it was going to be done at least it would not be in their name. That is not to say that the rebellion among the people or in Parliament is over. Rather it will depend on how the war unfolds. If the war is swift with minimal civilian casualties, Blair will be safe. But if civilian casualties are high and there is widespread destruction, there will be not only mass demonstrations but also probably Cabinet resignations and the campaign of civil disobedience threatened some weeks back. We are then into truly uncharted territory. A high civilian death count would bruise George Bush. It could destroy Tony Blair. Blair is convinced that the threat of the future lies — as a seminal American strategy document has put it — in the intersection of fundamentalism and technology. This is the real meaning of the Iraq war: The opening shot in a campaign for a world in which terrorism and any threat to the West is vanquished. It is a risky venture and a great deal more complex than Bush has ever allowed. Yet I am not yet sure that the breach between the US and Europe is eternal, if only because of so many shared values and cultural ties. Like Blair’s own future, the future of that relationship will depend heavily on what happens when the bombs start to fall. Any day now.

(The writer is a BBC Special Correspondent)

Opinion 9 March 2003



To: marginmike who wrote (5942)3/16/2003 1:52:09 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Respond to of 12231
 
Farewell, [New York City] Subway Token

March 15, 2003
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA

The New York City subway token, tool and talisman of city
life since Vincent R. Impellitteri was mayor, is dead at
age 50, transit officials said yesterday.

The causes of death were technology and economics.

Tokens
will be sold for the last time on Saturday, April 12, said
Lawrence G. Reuter, president of New York City Transit.
After 12:01 a.m. on Sunday, May 4 - the moment at which
fares will rise, with the price of a single trip jumping to
$2 from $1.50 - any token plinked into a turnstile will be
spit back out. Bus fareboxes will still accept the token -
along with 50 cents cash, thank you - through the end of
the year.

The death of the token has been a planned, gradual demise,
conceived in the 1980's and set in motion in 1994, when the
first electronic turnstile was installed and the first
MetroCard sold. Handling all those tokens - emptying them
from turnstiles, delivering bags of them to token booths,
counting them out to riders - is cumbersome and expensive,
and transit officials have long looked forward to the day
when most of their business with riders would involve
exchanges of electrons, not metal and paper.

"In this time of dwindling resources, the shift away from
tokens will allow us to be more efficient," Mr. Reuter
said.

The token can look forward to an afterlife as a nostalgia
fetish, a cherished little piece of a bygone New York, like
Brooklyn Dodgers gear, Automats and Checker cabs. "Tokens
will become cuff links and buttons and watches and who
knows what else," said Kenneth T. Jackson, president of the
New-York Historical Society. But for now, there is little
lament for the token's passing. "All that rummaging through
your change, all that standing in line at the booth - who
needs it?" Mr. Jackson asked.

Tokens are used for only about 8 percent of transit rides.
When the Metropolitan Transportation Authority held public
hearings on the fare increase, no more than a handful of
people stood up to protest the elimination of the token.

"We're not in mourning," said Gene Russianoff, staff lawyer
for the Straphangers Campaign, the riders' advocacy group.
"The MetroCard is a better deal for riders. I have such
powerful associations with the token from most of my life,
so yeah, there's some emotional attachment, but it's no
more than nostalgia."

The agency will not say what will become of the remains, 60
million of them, except that it has no plans for disposing
of them.

The system has kept older tokens in storage, occasionally
dangling the prospect of bringing them back into
circulation, but that never happened.

The token was born in 1953, and then, too, the reasons were
technology and economics.

For 44 years, until 1948, the subway fare was a nickel. Not
five cents, but a nickel, the only coin that would open the
turnstile. For five years after that, it was a dime (not
two nickels or 10 pennies).

Then, with the fare set to rise to 15 cents, engineers
could not design a turnstile that would accept two
different coins. Thus, the token.

In fact, there have been five tokens over the half-century,
not counting commemorative ones issued in 1979, to mark the
75th anniversary of the subway system, and 1988, for the
opening of a set of new stations in Queens. The original, a
small disc with the letters "NYC" in the middle and the "Y"
cut out, lasted the longest, 17 years, through multiple
fare increases. A larger "Y" cutout token followed in 1970,
and it was retired in 1980 in favor of the solid brass
token. The "bulls-eye" token, with a lighter-colored
center, was introduced in 1986, and finally, in 1995, came
the last incarnation, with a pentagonal cutout in the
center.

Each fare increase over the last five decades has been
accompanied by a bluffing game by the transit system as it
sought to prevent hoarding of tokens at the pre-increase
price. Each time, officials said they would either
introduce a new token or bring back a former one, but just
as often, they announced at the last moment that the token
would not change.

New York's was one of the last major transit systems to
adopt an electronic fare system, and it is hard now to
remember that just six years ago, transit officials were
still complaining about how reluctant New Yorkers were to
use the MetroCard. Not until the card was sweetened in the
late 1990's with volume discounts, free transfers and
weekly and monthly passes did it really catch on.

"I don't know if New Yorkers are any more resistant to
change than anyone else, but obviously, for a lot of
people, being forced to move to the MetroCard was like my
84-year-old mother being forced to learn to use the
computer," said John Mollenkopf, director of the Center for
Urban Research at the City University of New York Graduate
Center.

"It's not as though the token was a cherished part of life,
though I think it will become a cherished relic," he said.
"It was just what people were used to."

The token is survived by the turnstile and the farebox, as
well as Fun Pass and other members of the MetroCard family.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company.