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.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15590)11/8/2003 5:23:40 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793656
 
A "New York Times" Op-Ed I missed. The most amazing thing about it is that it was published in the "Times."
_______________________________________________

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Great Job Machine
By W. MICHAEL COX and RICHARD ALM
W. Michael Cox, chief economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Richard Alm are co-authors of "Myths of Rich and Poor."

Apparently unconvinced by last week's eye-popping growth figures, economic pessimists remain fixated on the labor market. Today's release of the Labor Department's latest employment figures, we are told, will give a true picture of the pace of economic recovery.

But the monthly statistics, while relevant within the larger context of all economic indicators, don't tell the whole story of what is happening with Americans' jobs. Focusing on net employment gains or losses misses the real show, the long-running drama that drives the economy forward.

While it may seem that little progress is being made on the jobs front, beneath the surface the economy is doing what it's done for decades: orchestrating a relentless and enormous recycling of jobs and workers.

Large-scale upheaval in jobs is part of the economy; the impetus for it comes from technology, changing trading patterns and shifting consumer demand. History tells us that the result will be even more jobs, greater productivity and higher incomes for American workers in general.

New Bureau of Labor Statistics data covering the past decade show that job losses seem as common as sport utility vehicles on the highways. Annual job loss ranged from a low of 27 million in 1993 to a high of 35.4 million in 2001. Even in 2000, when the unemployment rate hit its lowest point of the 1990's expansion, 33 million jobs were eliminated.

The flip side is that, according to the labor bureau's figures, annual job gains ranged from 29.6 million in 1993 to 35.6 million in 1999. Day in and day out, workers quit their jobs or get fired, then move on to new positions. Companies start up, fail, downsize, upsize and fill the vacancies of those who left. It is workers' migration to new and existing jobs that keeps the country from sinking into some Depression-like swamp.

Yes, this disruption can be very hard on some workers who lose their employment and have trouble adapting. But in the larger sense, the turmoil in the labor market is vital to economic progress. A good part of the turnover takes place in a handful of industries, like restaurants and retailing, but to greater or lesser extent the churning grinds on across the board, in bad times and good. Tallies of net jobs lost or gained capture only a fraction of the flux in the job market. As this plays out, most workers end up better off.

Societies grow richer when new products emerge that better meet consumers' needs, and when producers adopt new technologies that reduce costs by making workers more productive. In a dynamic, innovative economy, these forces unleash waves upon waves of change. Some industries and companies prosper while others wither. Some companies find themselves with too many workers while others struggle with too few. A free-enterprise system responds by moving resources — in this case workers — to where they're more valuable.

For example, e-mail, word processors, answering machines and other modern office technologies are cutting jobs for secretaries but increasing the ranks of programmers. The Internet opened jobs for hundreds of thousands of Webmasters, an occupation that didn't exist as recently as 1990. Digital cameras translate to fewer photo clerks.

A century ago, 40 of every 100 Americans worked on farms to feed a nation of 90 million. Today, after one of history's most brutal downsizings, it takes just two agricultural workers out of 100 workers to supply an abundance of food to a nation more than three times as large. Suppose we'd kept 40 percent of our labor on the farm. Absurd, yes, but if we had, we wouldn't have had enough workers to produce the new homes, computers, movies, medicines and the myriad other goods and services of our modern economy.

Likewise, the telecommunications industry employed 421,000 switchboard operators in 1970, when Americans made 9.8 billion long-distance calls. Thanks to advances in switching technology, telecommunications companies have reduced the number of operators to 78,000, but consumers ring up 98 billion calls. Let's face it: Americans are better off with more efficient long-distance service. To handle today's volume of calls with 1970's technology, telephone companies would need 4.2 million operators, or 3 percent of the labor force. Without the productivity gains, a long-distance call would probably cost 40 times what it now does.

Microeconomic failure is not macroeconomic failure. Quite the opposite, "failure" is the way the macro economy transfers resources to where they belong. It is the paradox of progress: a society can't reap the rewards of economic progress without accepting the constant change in work that comes with it. Efforts to soften the blows, by devising policies or laws to preserve jobs or protect industries, will lead to stagnation and decline, the biggest threat to American workers.

Job losses for farm hands and telephone operators came so long ago that they don't sting anymore. Today we see the benefits clearly and forget the costs. That's harder to do in the short term — it rightly distresses us to see newspaper photographs of laid-off industrial workers. But these are the economic forces that raise living standards.

Since 1980, Americans have filed 106 million initial claims for unemployment benefits, each representing a lost job. Facing unemployment and rebuilding a life can be hard on families, but the United States today is better off for allowing it to happen. Even with the net decline in jobs over the past three years, during the past decade total United States employment has risen to 130 million from 91 million since 1980, a net gain of nearly 40 million jobs. Productivity, measured by output per worker, increased a staggering 56.2 percent.

Some people tend to forget this. The almost daily drumbeat of reports and "expert commentary" about a so-called jobless recovery prompts the question, "What's gone wrong with the labor market?"

The surprising answer: nothing.

Job growth will come, as it always has in the past. The economy, meanwhile, is as busy as ever in shifting labor from one use to another to make the country richer and more productive.

nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15590)11/8/2003 6:50:31 AM
From: D. Long  Respond to of 793656
 
I involuntarily gave out a "duh!" when I first saw the story tonight. Still have nothing to say but duh. Long road to get to the party, BBC.

Derek



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15590)11/8/2003 7:53:42 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793656
 
Power to the Posters!

CBS officials acknowledged a sense of awe, if not shock, at the fury of the conservative response through cable news shows, radio talk shows and, most notably, the Internet. The network, they said, received about 80,000 angry e-mail notes, protesting the mini-series.
________________________________________________

NEW YORK TIMES
The Man Who Would Save Reagan From a TV History
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

BETHESDA, Md., Nov. 6 — Growing up in a conservative family outside Philadelphia, he came of age politically when Ronald Reagan was president and never lost his reverence for him.

Now, after years of anonymous admiration, Michael Paranzino is playing a major role in preserving Mr. Reagan's image. A former Congressional aide who is now a political consultant and work-at-home dad, Mr. Paranzino spurred an Internet revolt against CBS that altered its plans to broadcast a mini-series on Mr. Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

Through a Web site name he bought for $8.95, BoycottCBS.com, and a blur of appearances on radio and television talk shows, Mr. Paranzino helped arouse so much opposition to the mini-series that CBS declared on Tuesday that the show was too flawed for mass consumption, and handed it off to a another division of Viacom, the Showtime cable unit, where it would have a much smaller audience.

Mr. Paranzino, 37, is too modest to take all the credit, but he can scarcely believe the mountain he has moved from the cluttered downstairs den of his suburban Washington home, where he and his son, Cameron, 2, click away on side-by-side desktop computers. Each computer is now choked with the hundreds of thousands of e-mail messages that became a critical part of the campaign against CBS, and hundreds more pour in by the hour.

"I'm happy. I'm excited. But there's still a problem that it's on Showtime," Mr. Paranzino said on Thursday as Cameron connected numbered dots on a Sesame Street software program. "I'm grateful that it's not going into 110 million homes as it would have on CBS. But it's still a smear of a great American leader on a network that'll reach 15 million homes, and I'm still getting hundreds of e-mails telling me, `Don't stop, keep the movement alive.' "

The official line from CBS is that the network did not buckle under pressure from Mr. Paranzino or anybody else and that its chairman, Leslie Moonves, simply made a principled decision.

But CBS officials acknowledged a sense of awe, if not shock, at the fury of the conservative response through cable news shows, radio talk shows and, most notably, the Internet. The network, they said, received about 80,000 angry e-mail notes, protesting the mini-series.

"If it was just on its own, I don't think anyone would have paid attention," one person close to the production said, referring to Mr. Paranzino's one-man stand. "I think it was a collection of everything together, and that had a cumulative effect."

Mr. Paranzino said he never imagined getting so immersed in defending Mr. Reagan until he read in the online Drudge Report about an article that appeared in The New York Times on Oct. 21 that included excerpts from the mini-series. He was infuriated, he said, to learn that a line attributed to Mr. Reagan, discussing AIDS — "They that live in sin shall die in sin" — was invented as a dramatic device.

"It set me off," he said. "It set a lot of people off, especially when the author acknowledged that he invented the quote. Then, more excerpts came out. That weekend I was still angry."

Armed with his new Web site, he embarked on a plan to encourage people to boycott the mini-series and any company that would buy commercial time during its broadcast. He did not mean for the boycott to include all of CBS, he noted, "because people like `Everybody Loves Raymond' and football games, and I didn't want people to change their lives over the issue even if they felt strongly about it."

Soon, the campaign ballooned beyond his imagination. The glut of e-mail responses crashed his computer. His phone rang constantly with invitations to appear on talk shows, large and small. For a while, he was a staple on the Fox News Channel.

"A lot of factors coincided," he said, playing down his role. "But they all worked out with the same impact — stories in print, on the Web, on radio, on cable. I don't want to overstate the role of the Web, but I believe it had an impact."

Mr. Paranzino said one of his favorite recollections of President Reagan was his 1987 speech in Berlin, where he implored his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, to tear down the wall. "I still get goose bumps," he said.

But he always fashioned himself more a soldier of the right than a leader, and little in his past suggests otherwise.

With a bachelor's degree from Yale and a law degree from New York University, he set off for Phoenix to practice law and take advantage of constant sunshine for his psoriasis.

Slowly drawn to politics, he quit his law practice in 1994 and for the next five years worked for two Arizona Republican lawmakers, Senator Jon Kyl and Representative Matt Salmon, a conservative from Mesa. Mr. Salmon became best known in Congress for leading the campaign to oust Newt Gingrich as House speaker on the ground that he had abandoned his conservative positions; Mr. Salmon also promoted an effort to have Mr. Reagan's likeness carved into Mount Rushmore.

In 1999, Mr. Paranzino left Arizona to join Elizabeth Dole's presidential exploratory committee. After Mrs. Dole decided not to run, he and his wife, Heather, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health, moved to the Washington suburbs. Once Cameron was born, Mr. Paranzino began consulting so he could stay home while his wife worked in the laboratory.

His wife has been supportive of his efforts to drive the Reagan mini-series into oblivion, he said. But she has been anything but an active partner. For one thing, Mr. Paranzino said, she is too busy with her research. For another, he said, "she's a Democrat."
nytimes.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (15590)11/8/2003 8:05:33 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793656
 
Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble! Syria is a Witches' Brew.
____________________________________


REVIEW & OUTLOOK WALL STREET JOURNAL

'Unhelpful' Syria
It's time to get tough on the world's remaining Baathist dictatorship.

Saturday, November 8, 2003 12:01 a.m.

President Bush's war on terror promised a radical repudiation of the pre-9/11 attempts to make peace with the gangster states of the Middle East. But when it comes to Syria, American diplomacy has been stuck in the accommodationist past.
Secretary of State Colin Powell made Damascus one of his first stops after the fall of Baghdad, in spite of Pentagon opposition. But six months later the country remains a primary source and transit point for the foreign terrorists working to destabilize Iraq. The failed Yemeni truck bomber detained last month in Baghdad holding a Syrian passport is hardly the first of his kind.

Syria's apologists in the State Department and elsewhere argue that we can't demand control of the country's borders, which have long been ignored by local Bedouins. They argue further that it is unrealistic to expect too much from President Bashar Assad, whose grip on power depends on maintaining the support of his hard-line ministers and generals. They point to Syria's support for the latest United Nations resolution on Iraq, as well as some intelligence help against al Qaeda.

But the overall picture suggests a regime deeply hostile to U.S. interests in the Middle East. Cooperation will be offered to the extent necessary to deter U.S. or U.S.-backed Israeli military action. But Syria's strategy appears to be keeping the region on the boil, hoping that American voters will remove the Bush Administration next November.

That would explain the latest escalation in Syria's proxy war against Israel. We're guessing it was no accident that Hezbollah, which never moves without a green light from Damascus, chose last Monday for the renewed shelling of northern Israel. The previous weekend President Assad received a parliamentary delegation from Hezbollah's other sponsor, Iran, with both countries pledging mutual support against what they characterized as conspiracies of foreign powers.
The Syria-Iran-Hezbollah axis, by the way, has long provided proof of what many at Langley and Foggy Bottom still regard as improbable--terror cooperation between Sunnis and Shiites, and the secular and religious. It would hardly be surprising to learn that Hezbollah operatives have been at work in Iraq. The tactics of the terrorists and the resistance--including truck bombings, and the sophisticated explosive device that destroyed an Abrams tank last week--bear a striking resemblance to methods deployed by the group against the U.S., and later Israel, in Lebanon.

Another issue has been Baathist Syria's cooperation with its Iraqi comrades. Last Tuesday, General James R. Clapper Jr., who heads up satellite intelligence for the Pentagon, said imagery suggested an unusual amount of traffic--including possibly weapons of mass destruction--between Iraq and Syria in the lead-up to war.

This certainly squares with reports that Syria offered sanctuary to senior figures from the Iraqi regime--including perhaps Saddam himself, as well as Uday and Qusay--until U.S. pressure made Damascus think better of the move. Now Syria is stalling on Iraqi Baathist funds. In violation of U.N. resolutions, Damascus has so far refused to disgorge a reported $3 billion stashed in its banks, which could be used to support the anti-U.S. resistance. Sooner or later the Bush Administration is going to have to go beyond its characterization of the Syrian role in the war on terror as merely "unhelpful."

A little shock and awe can't be ruled out, but with U.S. forces stretched in Iraq direct military action is not the solution of first resort. On the border issue, Damascus needs to be pressed to control entry as well as exit. Its denials notwithstanding, Syria is a police state that knows all about control. A deployment of Turkish troops in the Syrian border region would also help. Unfortunately, American officials have so far been unwilling to confront Kurdish objections and make the deployment happen.
On the diplomatic front, the Senate should pass the Syria Accountability Act, which would give the President the authority to impose sanctions on the country. Another way to get Syria's attention would be to introduce a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Syria end its long occupation of Lebanon.

Syria entered that country in 1976 with the ostensible aim of settling its civil war. But the Syrians quickly became an obstacle to attempts, especially by the U.S., to do so. Syria began backing Hezbollah, which 20 years ago last month killed 298 in the Beirut Marine barracks bombing. The U.S. subsequently pulled out, Syria stayed, and Hezbollah vastly extended its power and influence, becoming the de facto government in the south of the country and a power in the Lebanese parliament.

This state of affairs remains a black eye for U.S. foreign policy and a source of encouragement to Islamic radicals everywhere. Southern Lebanon continues to provide them with training grounds and a safe haven. The war on terror will not be won until Lebanon has a legitimate government that reasserts control.

The old policy of winking at Syrian support for terrorism was perhaps tolerable before September 11. But with U.S. troops at risk in Iraq, and the cost of failure there so high, that status quo is damaging U.S. interests. President Bush has to convince Damascus there will be consequences for its actions.

opinionjournal.com