Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Fallen Apple
Tonight we pause with heavy hearts to remember Steve Jobs. As the face of our digital revolution, he changed the lives of virtually everybody on the earth as consumer electronics change the way that we communicate, do business, study the universe, and entertain ourselves.
When the home computer revolution began during the mid-70's, three firms captured the nation's attention. Standing next to established industry giants Commodore and Tandy was an unlikely competitor: the plucky Apple computer, founded by college dropout Steve Jobs and his friend Steve Wozniak in his parents' garage. The Old Apple II, with its green-on-black monitor, crude graphics and lack of lower-case letters, was a far cry from anything we'd consider a usable computer today. Yet it blew people away in the 1970's thanks to a then-revolutionary spreadsheet program called VisiCalc.
Apple computer soldiered on, with Woz as the hardware guy and Jobs as the man with the vision to grow his Apples everywhere. Even after the arrival of giant IBM into the personal computer market and the flood of low-cost DOS boxes that followed, Apple pushed a graphical interface (first pioneered by Xerox before the PC revolution began) and made computing easy to use for the masses.
The growth of his company required solid leadership; Steve Jobs used his vision to successfully lure John Sculley away from Pepsi to be his firm's CEO. The Jobs-Sculley alliance was destined to end in disaster, as slow Mac sales and Jobs's often-erratic decision-making forced his ouster from Apple.
If the story ended there, Steve Jobs would have still been a widely-known personality. But his vision and faith in the power of electronics to change the way we live drove him to perservere at his new firm, NeXT Computer. NeXT was innovative technically but a commercial flop. It was the former attribute that convinced then-CEO Gil Amelio to bring back Steve Jobs by buying out NeXT and using its operating system to bring the outdated Macintosh platform into the new century.
Steve Jobs wasted little time after the NeXT merger in becoming Apple's CEO, killing the Macintosh clone program, eliminating most of the company's slow-selling product lines, and unveling the iMac to a skeptical public. During fall 1998, iMac became the computer that saved Apple from bankruptcy. A company that had lost $2 billion over two years was suddenly showing a profit. And yet again, Apple was unveiling a computer completely unlike anything the industry had ever seen. Under the hood, iMac wasn't very impressive. But most importantly it looked cool. Steve Jobs gambled the company on the prospect that people would be willing to pay for a computer that was easy on the eyes, instead of being just another bland beige box. After so many years of having to digest specs on CPU speed, RAM and hard drives, the public just ate up the iMac.
Apple's string of hits under the new Jobs regime just kept growing. The iPod in 2001, iPhone in 2007, and iPad in 2010 still continue to keep us entertained and informed in ways most people would have dared not dream of when the Apple II launched in 1977. Apple didn't invent the mp3 player, smart phone, or tablet computer. But Steve jobs had the market savvy to figure out when consumers were ready to embrace these technologies, as well as the marketing genius and aesthetic savvy to say that his company's electronics weren't nerdy, but the new cool. The spirit of Apple's cult-like popularity and hipster chic were born out in the hugely-popular "I'm a Mac" television spots with Justin Long. They were enough to make me say that Apple's new slogan should be "Electronics for Hipsters."
And along the way, Steve Jobs cultivated the personality and charisma of a rock star. It was on display as far back as the unveiling of the first Macintosh when he triumphantly boasted that his computer would be "insanely great." But during Steve Jobs's second act, consumers knew that the unveiling of Apple's top-secret new product would change the world again. He was a consummate showman and public face for a company that was always leading with innovation under his watch.
Steve Jobs had plenty of blunders along the way, and his often-abrasive personality and drive to succeed alienated many people along the way. For me, the most shameful instance was the way Steve Jobs repaid Gil Amelio for bringing him back to Apple--by undermining his leadership and persuading the board of directors to fire him, all in the course of six months. Yet history does vindicate the Jobs ascendancy as CEO, particularly because Jobs killed Gil Amelio's Mac clone program which contributed to the Apple turnaround.
Apple will continue to prosper for years to come, but nobody can fill the shows of its rockstar CEO who had the audacity to dream of ways that machines would make our lives easier and help us to achieve new heights. He will be sorely missed.
Monday, August 08, 2011
Warriors Without a Cause
When I heard about the crash of a Navy SEAL helicopter in Afghanistan that killed its crew of 38, my feelings of sadness were tempered with anger. Anger to kill every Taliban I should meet, of course, but also an anger at a president and an administration who are squandering the lives of our armed forces in Afghanistan without a clue as to what they are trying to accomplish.
To be fair, the Bush administration didn't have a clue about Afghanistan either. Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld described Afghanistan as a war that was won within a few months of the Taliban's fall from governance. The administration treated it like an "economy of force" operation while optimistically holding elections. But by 2005 the Taliban had regrouped in Pakistan and resumed their incessant offensive to return to power.
The Obama administration realized that the Taliban controlled the momentum of the war, but it was of two minds in prosecuting it. The Gates-Clinton camp wanted to ramp up the troop levels and take the fight to the Taliban. The Biden-Eikenberry-Holbrooke faction wanted to ramp down and abandon nation-building, focusing on negotiations with the Taliban and limited missions against al Qaeda leaders.
What we've ended up getting from the Obama White House is an 18-month surge, followed by a drawdown over the next year back to pre-surge levels (and a complete withdrawal by 2014.) But what goal are our troops fighting for in Afghanistan? What will the country look like when it's time to go home? And is that a goal that's worth dying for?
I think the Obama administration has pinned a lot of hope on "negotiations" with the Taliban but it's taking the attitude of "we'll take what we can get." President Obama has claimed that we're "negotiating from a position of strength." That's a bald-faced lie when we've already announced our exit date, the Taliban is able to wage attacks with impunity, and their leaders are sheltered in Pakistan. Truthfully we will need to hammer the Taliban for at least one more fighting season before they're ready to make any real concessions.
If America is truly negotiating with the Taliban, we'll either be negotiating the terms of the Taliban's surrender (the World War II approach,) or negotiating a way for the Taliban to return to power without making us look bad (the Vietnam approach.) President Obama should take the nuanced view that the Bush administration took towards the Iraqi insurgency: negotiating with nationalist and tribalist Sunni insurgents in exchange for their assistance against irreconcilable groups like al Qaeda. The core Taliban, those insurgents who want to restore hardline Islamic law, put the Afghan women back into burquas, and assert Pashtun dominance over the Tajiks and Uzbek minorities, cannot be reconciled or negotiated with. And the US military effort should be a merciless campaign against their leaders rather than negotiations.
The Afghan insurgency should not be a hard one to quell. 60% of the population consists of the Tjiks and Uzbeks in northern and western Afghanistan who hate the Taliban. And of the 40% Pashtun population in the south and east, there is little love for the Taliban either. But America has announced that it won't be sticking around, and the Pashtuns are being intimidated into supporting the Taliban. This is the consequence of the "war by timetable" strategy that the Democratic party has been promoting since Vietnam.
A responsible strategy in Afghanistan would realize that governance in the Pashtun areas will be corrupt for the forseeable future, and not pin its hopes on a shining example of democracy. But we need a "good enough" state in Afghanistan that can unite Pashtun, Uzbek and Tajik leaders against the Taliban, and field a competent army to protect the population centers. The Soviets actually left a competent Afghan army behind, in spite of their limited successes in nation-building. Post-Soviet Afghanistan fissured into civil war because the Soviets and Russians were not willing to spend the money on the military assistance funding that the Afghan communist government needed to fight off the mujahedeen.
On the homefront, the American people have grown weary of this war. They want to declare victory because Osama bin laden is dead, not realizing that the Afghan war is about denying sanctuary to the future bin Ladens. They want to spend money rebuilding America, even though continued funding will be a key factor in helping the Afghan National Army preventing the Taliban from rebuilding itself. And Americans need a president who can set a realistic goal for what America can achieve in Afghanistan, rather than playing to the populist sentiment. America's armed forces need somebody who will tell them why they are fighting and dying, instead of the lies about election-driven timetables and negotiating to save our reputation. We should hope that by January 2013 they will get a president who understands the nature of war. Until then we can only pray for their safety.
To be fair, the Bush administration didn't have a clue about Afghanistan either. Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld described Afghanistan as a war that was won within a few months of the Taliban's fall from governance. The administration treated it like an "economy of force" operation while optimistically holding elections. But by 2005 the Taliban had regrouped in Pakistan and resumed their incessant offensive to return to power.
The Obama administration realized that the Taliban controlled the momentum of the war, but it was of two minds in prosecuting it. The Gates-Clinton camp wanted to ramp up the troop levels and take the fight to the Taliban. The Biden-Eikenberry-Holbrooke faction wanted to ramp down and abandon nation-building, focusing on negotiations with the Taliban and limited missions against al Qaeda leaders.
What we've ended up getting from the Obama White House is an 18-month surge, followed by a drawdown over the next year back to pre-surge levels (and a complete withdrawal by 2014.) But what goal are our troops fighting for in Afghanistan? What will the country look like when it's time to go home? And is that a goal that's worth dying for?
I think the Obama administration has pinned a lot of hope on "negotiations" with the Taliban but it's taking the attitude of "we'll take what we can get." President Obama has claimed that we're "negotiating from a position of strength." That's a bald-faced lie when we've already announced our exit date, the Taliban is able to wage attacks with impunity, and their leaders are sheltered in Pakistan. Truthfully we will need to hammer the Taliban for at least one more fighting season before they're ready to make any real concessions.
If America is truly negotiating with the Taliban, we'll either be negotiating the terms of the Taliban's surrender (the World War II approach,) or negotiating a way for the Taliban to return to power without making us look bad (the Vietnam approach.) President Obama should take the nuanced view that the Bush administration took towards the Iraqi insurgency: negotiating with nationalist and tribalist Sunni insurgents in exchange for their assistance against irreconcilable groups like al Qaeda. The core Taliban, those insurgents who want to restore hardline Islamic law, put the Afghan women back into burquas, and assert Pashtun dominance over the Tajiks and Uzbek minorities, cannot be reconciled or negotiated with. And the US military effort should be a merciless campaign against their leaders rather than negotiations.
The Afghan insurgency should not be a hard one to quell. 60% of the population consists of the Tjiks and Uzbeks in northern and western Afghanistan who hate the Taliban. And of the 40% Pashtun population in the south and east, there is little love for the Taliban either. But America has announced that it won't be sticking around, and the Pashtuns are being intimidated into supporting the Taliban. This is the consequence of the "war by timetable" strategy that the Democratic party has been promoting since Vietnam.
A responsible strategy in Afghanistan would realize that governance in the Pashtun areas will be corrupt for the forseeable future, and not pin its hopes on a shining example of democracy. But we need a "good enough" state in Afghanistan that can unite Pashtun, Uzbek and Tajik leaders against the Taliban, and field a competent army to protect the population centers. The Soviets actually left a competent Afghan army behind, in spite of their limited successes in nation-building. Post-Soviet Afghanistan fissured into civil war because the Soviets and Russians were not willing to spend the money on the military assistance funding that the Afghan communist government needed to fight off the mujahedeen.
On the homefront, the American people have grown weary of this war. They want to declare victory because Osama bin laden is dead, not realizing that the Afghan war is about denying sanctuary to the future bin Ladens. They want to spend money rebuilding America, even though continued funding will be a key factor in helping the Afghan National Army preventing the Taliban from rebuilding itself. And Americans need a president who can set a realistic goal for what America can achieve in Afghanistan, rather than playing to the populist sentiment. America's armed forces need somebody who will tell them why they are fighting and dying, instead of the lies about election-driven timetables and negotiating to save our reputation. We should hope that by January 2013 they will get a president who understands the nature of war. Until then we can only pray for their safety.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Fixing a Ponzi Scheme
Economics columnist Robert Samuelson is calling for civility in the Medicare reform battle, casting Paul Ryan's controversial plan for Medicare in a sympathetic light. For being a Newsweek staffer, conservative Republicans will find him a voice of reason on this issue of eminent importance. Democrats might not want to hear him out, but the fate of the nation may very well hang in the balance.
Within American politics, the most toxic issue for any politician to openly discuss is reform of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. The American people were suckered into these Ponzi schemes with the promise of paying in now, and collecting during their retirement. And entitlement programs are truly Ponzi schemes on a scale that Bernie Madoff would only dream of; after all, they rely on having more people paying in than cashing out at any given time. The difference is that Bernie Madoff's victims made a choice to join his scam, while the American people have no say on whether they partake in Medicare of Social Security.
Any time a politician proposes the slightest threat to Medicare or Social Security benefits, Americans revolt into wild gyrations. When President Bush broached the subject of Social Security reform in Spring 2005, he saw a major dip in his polling which he never recovered from. Even modest changes like raising the age of retirement meet with fierce resistance. (The age of 65 was set during an era when the average life expectancy was 68. Is it so unreasonable to change this now?)
So far, Paul Ryan's taken a similar amount of heat for the Medicare voucher idea (even though his plan won't go into effect until 2022 at the earliest, if ever.) The Ryan plan works on the principal that if retirees get government vouchers to cover their medical care, the health care providers won't order unnecessary tests or charge exorbitant rates for services. As it stands, the government already caps the amount they will pay for services under Medicare, and that hasn't led to any reform of the system.
Within the auto repair industry, consumers are protected from being gouged by industry standards for how many hours can be charged for a job, based on the work that needs to be performed. Right now the medical industry does not have a similar system to prevent doctors from performing unneeded tests on patients.
In a larger sense, the issue of uncontrolled Medicare costs is tied to a bigger cancer that has spread throughout the healthcare industry. The risk of malpractice lawsuits increases the professional insurance premiums that doctors have to pay--and often motivates them to schedule excessive diagnostic testing. The American people, the taxpayers and the doctors are getting squeezed, while the trial lawyers and insurance providers are getting richer. We know that Obamacare has failed as a comprehensive answer to America's healthcare crisis because it sidesteps the pervasive problems that are driving up the cost of care. It will be impossible to control Medicare costs with any approach that steers clear of medical malpractice reform.
Monday, May 02, 2011
The Great Raid
Nearly ten years after the 9/11 attacks were carried out under his orders, Osama bin laden has been brought to infinite justice. Here's what we know so far:
--In 2007, detainees from the Afghanistan theater of operations identified a courier by nickname who had been personally involved with Osama bin Laden.
--By 2009, this courier had been identified by name.
--In August 2010, the intelligence community had enough information to link the courier to a high-security mansion in Abbottabad, Pakistan in high-level briefs to President Obama.
Between August 2010 and today, Navy SEALS extensively rehearsed the operation to successfully breach the mansion and kill Osama bin Laden. (Was there any doubt that US forces would spare his miserable, worthless life instead of shooting him on sight?)
President Obama authorized the assault today, utilizing a team of over 20 SEALS and two helicopters. After roughly 40 minutes, Osama bin Laden, an adult son, the courier and his brother, and a woman used as a human shield were dead. All American forces safely returned after destroying a helicopter that was damaged during the mission.
The mission was fraught with risk. The SEALS had no idea how much resistance to expect from bin Laden's security detail; there was no guarantee bin Laden would even be in the mansion when the choppers arrived.
I'll definitely give President Obama credit for taking the risk and pressing on with this mission. (I also question whether the death of Osama bin laden is a face-saving way to pull out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible.) But the mission to kill Osama bin Laden was the product of years of intelligence-gathering by our top spy agencies, plus the boundless courage, skill and professionalism of our armed forces. The world's worst criminals often find ways to hide for years at a time, but no scoundrel will ever escape justice forever.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The Least-Bad Way Out
President Obama told the nation on Monday that America's interest in Libya was the protection of Libyan civilians from Moammar Qadaffi's murderous regime. While that statement might ring with clarity, it's a commitment that's every bit as open-ended and nebulous as it is noble.
The current Libya mission will be put to a serious test in the days ahead now that the rebels have been pushed back to the territory they held when the bombing started. The rebels just don't have the firepower to repel rocket, mortar, and tank attacks from the Qadaffi loyalists. America would certainly be tempted to go the next step and start attacking Libyan army positions outside of rebel-held towns.
America's position in Libya is truly a no-win situation. If we go all-in with airpower to defeat the Libyan army and overthrow Moammar Qadaffi, the rebels begin the messy process of trying to rebuild (salvage?) a failed state. It's encouraging to see the State Department engaging in dialog with the rebel leadership, but they are unlikely to find common ground. This rebellion has more to do with tribal rivalries than any genuine desire to build true democracy.
The alternative, if we continue with our humanitarian mission of protecting the rebel strongholds, is a protracted and open-ended air war that will cost America billions, put our airmen at more risk, and lead to a Libyan stalemate between the warring parties. Europe, already dealing with the clash of cultures from waves of north African immigrants, will bear the brunt of the Libyan refugees from the ongoing conflict. The price of oil will be inflated across the world. Moammar Qadaffi could even resume the terrorist bombings of American airliners and European nightclubs. Nobody wins from a lengthy Libyan war.
The model of Operation Allied Force against Yugoslavia (Serbia) in 1999 may provide America, Europe, and the rebels the easiest of many challenging courses of action. By bombing Libyan military and leadership targets, the US and its allies could force Qadaffi to the negotiating table for a peace settlement. President Obama would have to abandon his goal of "Qadaffi must go," but it could result in a peace deal that gives the rebels self-rule in the teritories they currently hold. Islamic countries would need to step up and provide peacekeepers to enforce the terms of peace in the rebel enclaves. It might be a tough pill to swallow for the Islamic countries, but after all the military aid they've received from the US it's the least they can do to help us out of our predicament.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Great Health Insurance Swindle
I've realized for a while that Americans are getting swindled when it comes to health insurance. Dean Zarras has a great piece in Forbes laying out the case against the current insurance model. Hopefully more people will catch on to what a ripoff they've been subjected to for the past several decades, and Congress can get more serious about promoting medical savings accounts and rolling back the insurance mandate from ObamaCare.
A for-profit company like an insurance company must take ion more revenue than it pays out in claims; the insurance rates are designed to ensure that the average American, over the course of his or her lifetime, is paying more for insurance than they normally would for the out-of-pocket costs associated with their health care. It's important to note that while access to healthcare is a human right, access to health insurance should be anything but. In many ways, the health insurance industry embodies everything that's screwed up with healthcare in America.
The best point that Dean Zarras makes is that nobody expects auto insurance to cover routine maintenance like oil changes. But why do Americans expect routine medical services to be covered by their health insurance? A high-deductible, low-premium health insurance plan is the way to go for most Americans, to ensure that unexpected and catastrophic health problems are covered.
With ObamaCare, the last Congress controversially mandated that the vast majority of businesses provide insurance for their employees. Rather than making the bloated insurance companies even richer, why isn't Congress mandating that all employers give their employees the option of having contributions placed in a medical savings account?
Friday, March 25, 2011
Obama to Qadaffi: Let's Dance?
When America goes to war, presidents usually try to drum up as much public support as possible. Popular opinions of wars inevitably erode over the length of the conflict, but presidents arely go to war when the majority of the American public is opposed. One of the most unique things about the current military action in Libya is how weak the public support is. Only 51% of Americans in a recent survey approved of the president's handling of Libya, compared to 75% support for Operation Desert Storm and 70% support for the initial invasion of Iraq in March 2003 when those wars began.
The march to war with Libya has been muddled with mixed messages from the White House. While President Obama was clear in saying that Moammar Qadaffi needed to go because he had lost his legitimacy (if he ever had any,) he would not commit to military action unless it was requested by the Libyan rebels, the Arab League and the UN. Eventually his hand was tipped thanks to the intervention by advisors like Hillary Clinton & Samantha Power. A UN resolution was passed on March 18; by March 19th there were bombs over Benghazi.
A wise professor of mine once used the term "Washington War Dance" to describe the tradition of presidents stirring up popular support for war before committing their forces. George H.W. Bush's administration was able to work from August 1990 to January 1991 in villifying Saddam Hussein and casting their mission in the gulf as noble before going to war. President Clinton had Christiane Amanpour of CNN for weeks to put the atrocities in Kosovo on television so he could wage war against Serbia. George W. Bush had 10 months etween his 2002 West Point commencement address and the March 2003 invasion of Iraq to sell American on the imminent danger of Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, and Iraqi al Qaeda.
Admittedly, President Obama didn't have much time to work with in laying out his case for the Libyan war. The rebel victory he likely counted on never materialized. Indeed, the rebels were on the cusp of defeat before the bombs started falling. But the American people were never prepared for the possibility that their armed forces would have to directly intervene to save these ragtag rebels. The administration's spokespeople and media organs did little to convince Americans that this was a noble mission worthy of American blood or treasure.
Now Americans are left wondering how long this war will last or what we hope to achieve. President Obama wants to protect Libyan civilians, but how do we know when the mission is accomplished? Most of the airstrikes thus far seem to have been defensive in nature, protecting the rebel enclaves without helping them to break out or march on Tripoli. But Americans are left bewildered when they try to ask what the acceptable end-state looks like in Libya. Now that he's committed Americans to war, President Obama needs to be a leader and give us a reason why we should fight.
The march to war with Libya has been muddled with mixed messages from the White House. While President Obama was clear in saying that Moammar Qadaffi needed to go because he had lost his legitimacy (if he ever had any,) he would not commit to military action unless it was requested by the Libyan rebels, the Arab League and the UN. Eventually his hand was tipped thanks to the intervention by advisors like Hillary Clinton & Samantha Power. A UN resolution was passed on March 18; by March 19th there were bombs over Benghazi.
A wise professor of mine once used the term "Washington War Dance" to describe the tradition of presidents stirring up popular support for war before committing their forces. George H.W. Bush's administration was able to work from August 1990 to January 1991 in villifying Saddam Hussein and casting their mission in the gulf as noble before going to war. President Clinton had Christiane Amanpour of CNN for weeks to put the atrocities in Kosovo on television so he could wage war against Serbia. George W. Bush had 10 months etween his 2002 West Point commencement address and the March 2003 invasion of Iraq to sell American on the imminent danger of Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, and Iraqi al Qaeda.
Admittedly, President Obama didn't have much time to work with in laying out his case for the Libyan war. The rebel victory he likely counted on never materialized. Indeed, the rebels were on the cusp of defeat before the bombs started falling. But the American people were never prepared for the possibility that their armed forces would have to directly intervene to save these ragtag rebels. The administration's spokespeople and media organs did little to convince Americans that this was a noble mission worthy of American blood or treasure.
Now Americans are left wondering how long this war will last or what we hope to achieve. President Obama wants to protect Libyan civilians, but how do we know when the mission is accomplished? Most of the airstrikes thus far seem to have been defensive in nature, protecting the rebel enclaves without helping them to break out or march on Tripoli. But Americans are left bewildered when they try to ask what the acceptable end-state looks like in Libya. Now that he's committed Americans to war, President Obama needs to be a leader and give us a reason why we should fight.
