Follow Live: Brazil vs. Chile
Posted in: Today's ChiliFollow live: Brazil vs. Chile.
300 years ago, during the Age of Enlightenment, the Coffee House became the center of innovation.
Back then, most people went from drinking beer to consuming coffee (i.e. from being tipsy to being wired) and ideas started exploding.
The details of this story are important (and fun) one for anyone passionate about innovation…
I wrote about this very phenomenon in Abundance, and offer the excerpt below.
Read, enjoy and pass it on to all the coffee-lovers (and innovators) in your life.
Please send your friends and family to AbundanceHub.com to sign up for these blogs — this is all about surrounding yourself with abundance-minded thinkers. And if you want my personal coaching on these topics, consider joining my Abundance 360 membership program for entrepreneurs.
In his excellent book Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation, author Steven Johnson explores the impact of coffeehouses on the Enlightenment culture of the eighteenth century. “It’s no accident,” he says, “that the age of reason accompanies the rise of caffeinated beverages.” There are two main drivers at work here. The first is that before the discovery of coffee, much of the world was intoxicated much of the day. This was mostly a health issue. Water was too polluted to drink, so beer was the beverage of choice. In his New Yorker essay “Java Man,” Malcolm Gladwell explains it this way: “Until the eighteenth century, it must be remembered, many Westerners drank beer almost continuously, even beginning their day with something called ‘beer soup.’ Now they begin each day with a strong cup of coffee. One way to explain the industrial revolution is as the inevitable consequence of a world where people suddenly preferred being jittery to being drunk.”
But equally important to the Enlightenment was the coffeehouse as a hub for information sharing. These new establishments drew people from all walks of life. Suddenly the rabble could party alongside the royals, and this allowed all sorts of novel notions to begin to meet and mingle and, as Matt Ridley says, “have sex.” In his book London Coffee Houses, Bryant Lillywhite explains it this way:
The London coffee-houses provided a gathering place where, for a penny admission charge, any man who was reasonably dressed could smoke his long, clay pipe, sip a dish of coffee, read the newsletters of the day, or enter into conversation with other patrons. At the period when journalism was in its infancy and the postal system was unorganized and irregular, the coffee-house provided a centre of communication for news and information . . . Naturally, this dissemination of news led to the dissemination of ideas, and the coffee-house served as a forum for their discussion.
But researchers in recent years have recognized that the coffeeshop phenomenon is actually just a mirror of what occurs within cities. Two-thirds of all growth takes place in cities because, by simple fact of population density, our urban spaces are perfect innovation labs. The modern metropolis is jam-packed. People are living atop one another; their ideas are as well. So notions bump into hunches bump into offhanded comments bump into concrete theories bump into absolute madness, and the results pave the way forward. And the more complicated, multilingual, multicultural, wildly diverse the city, the greater its output of new ideas. “What drives a city’s innovation engine, then — and thus its wealth engine — is its multitude of differences,” says Stewart Brand. In fact, Santa Fe Institute, physicist Geoffrey West found that when a city’s population doubles, there is a 15 percent increase in income, wealth, and innovation. (He measured innovation by counting the number of new patents.)
But just as the coffeehouse is a pale comparison to the city; the city is a pale comparison to the World Wide Web. The net is allowing us to turn ourselves into a giant, collective meta-intelligence. And this meta-intelligence continues to grow as more and more people come online. Think about this for a moment: by 2020, nearly three billion people will be added to the Internet’s community. That’s three billion new minds about to join the global brain. The world is going to gain access to intelligence, wisdom, creativity, insight, and experiences that have, until very recently, been permanently out of reach.
The upside of this surge is immeasurable. Never before in history has the global marketplace touched so many consumers and provided access to so many producers. The opportunities for collaborative thinking are also growing exponentially, and since progress is cumulative, the resulting innovations are going to grow exponentially as well. For the first time ever, the rising billion will have the remarkable power to identify, solve, and implement their own abundance solutions. And thanks to the net, those solutions aren’t going to stay balkanized in the developing world.
Perhaps most importantly, the developing world is the perfect incubator for the technologies that are the keys to sustainable growth. “Indeed,” writes Stuart Hart, “new technologies — including renewable energy, distributed generation, biomaterials, point-of-use water purification, wireless information technologies, sustainable agriculture, and nanotechnology — could hold the keys to addressing environmental challenges from the top to the base of the economic pyramid.”
However, he adds, “Because green technologies are frequently ‘disruptive’ in character (that is, they threaten incumbents in existing markets), the BoP may be the most appropriate socioeconomic segment upon which to focus initial commercialization attention . . . If such a strategy were widely embraced, the developing economies of the world become the breeding ground for tomorrow’s sustainable industries and companies, with the benefits — both economic and environmental — ultimately ‘trickling up’ to the wealthy at the top of the pyramid.”
Thus this influx of intellect from the rising billion may turn out to be the saving grace of the entire planet. Please, please, please, let the bootstrapping begin.
The “50 Shades Of Grey” movie has a lot of people hot and bothered, but for one “Fifty Shades Of Grey” cast member, it just has her parents, well, bothered.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, unseen footage of Michael Jackson has triggered a lawsuit. The company behind “Michael Jackson: The Last Photo Shoot” is suing Jackson’s estate for rights to a 2007 video of what would be Jackson’s final interview.
The film’s director, Craig Williams, says the footage in question was taken by Ebony magazine at the Brooklyn Museum of Art for part of Jackson’s first magazine feature in over a decade. The production company claims it legally acquired rights after Jackson’s estate passed on purchase rights in 2011, but the estate asserts that Jackson counts as the author and that the shoot was considered “work for hire.”
“The makers of the documentary are attempting to exploit footage and photographs of Michael Jackson, which we believe are owned by his Estate,” Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Jackson estate, told THR. “The documentary contains footage of Michael during private moments that he never agreed could be publicly and commercially exploited without his consent and/or involvement. Michael never authorized or approved the use of this material in the film.”
This dispute comes on the heels of Jackson’s death anniversary (June 25). As the story of his final years unfolded, it became clear that the singer was struggling with lawsuits and debt.
Since his death, Jackson’s estate and likeness have similarly been surrounded by legal battles. In June alone there was a $10 million case over the hologram of Jackson seen at the Billboard Music Awards as well as a class action suit against Jackson’s record label, challenging the authenticity of his vocals on a recently released album.
For more details on Jackson’s latest posthumous reappearance in court head over to THR.
Harriette Rose Katz, Founder and President of Gourmet Advisory Services, has been one of the country’s leading wedding and event planners for 36 years. Founded in 1978 as a solo endeavor, and the only one of its kind, over the past three decades Harriette’s Gourmet Advisory Services has grown into a significant, award-winning business with senior partners, a full-time staff, and non-stop extraordinary events. Celebrated not only as a trendsetter but also as one of the most respected event designers in the country today, Harriette has an impeccable reputation for creating signature events that translate into unforgettable memories.
Passionate about the event industry as a whole, her dedication to promoting excellence, cultivating artistry, and maintaining the highest standards of professionalism inspired Harriette to create The Chosen Few, an elite society for New York event professionals. As the original professional event planner who has since inspired thousands to follow in her well-heeled footsteps, Harriette is much more than an entertaining and party planning legend. She’s a food and beverage expert with the credentials to prove it. For almost 20 years, Harriette served as President and Chief Operating Officer of the New York chapter of the Confrerie de la Chaine Des Rotisseurs, one of the world’s most prestigious food and wine organizations, and was a recipient of its coveted Gold Star of Excellence.
How has your life experience made you the leader you are today?
This is a weird thing, but I was born in an era where young women were brought up to go to high school, graduate college, then go to work until they got married. Then that was it, you were mother and wife. I worked for a long time. I was older when I got married for the first time at 25 years old. It sounds young now but at that time it was like getting married at 40 years old today. By that time I had established myself in my industry, the interior design industry. Then I got married and I quit working when I was four months pregnant. And I loved it, it was like a vacation being pregnant and not working! But then I had a baby and my husband passed away when she was eight months old. But even in those eight months I knew I didn’t want to be a housewife.
Shortly after my husband died, I got a phone call. I was offered a position at an interior design firm where I later worked for seven years. Then after seven years, I started managing a furniture show and started throwing parties for them. Actually the company become more well known for their parties than for the furniture! Then one day they were bought by a big company and I decided to leave. My new boss told me one day that we had to be open on Yom Kippur. I saw the writing on the wall. I didn’t want to go through my life knowing I should’ve done something different at that moment. So my husband and I built Gourmet Advisory. He was a nutritionist and cardiologist, but also very food and wine oriented, so it worked. We worked on it for a year and my husband said to me, “you’re at the dawn of a new industry.” From there, I never looked back.
A few years later my second husband passed away, and I was alone again and scared to death of how I was going to make a living. But you know what? I worked by butt off and I never stopped working. And it turned out to be a good thing. I always mentor people. I try to guide them as much as I can because I know how it works in this industry.
What have the highlights and challenges been during your tenure at Gourmet Advisory Services?
In 1988 (I started in 1978), I saw the writing on the wall again that this was going to be a tough business environment. The economy wasn’t doing as well. So I started another company called Liaison Unlimited. It was a referral fee from vendor rather than from the client. We started that back then because we knew at least one company would be alive if the other was struggling. I remember having one client in the 80s. We were planning a bar mitzvah for his son and he called me from his golf club to tell me five of his friends have just lost everything they owned. He wanted a nice party, but it couldn’t look ostentatious. We made it work and everyone was happy despite the time.
In terms of the challenges I faced, it was important to learn how to handle a dying economy and how to change things so that everybody got what they wanted for less money. Not to mention that, you know, I was a single woman with a child in business. It was not easy. There’s still that old boys society, not as much today as it was 35 years ago, but still it exists.
When you walk into a room and a client is happy, and people are on the dance floor, that is the highlight. I’ve done some major events in my life, but I want every event to be perfect. We strive for that. It may kill me eventually but we strive for that. The challenges are always there because I’m a woman, I’m Jewish, I have a child, but we get through it. We’ve had some of the most glorious, beautiful events in history. Those are all highlights for me.
Tell us about The Chosen Few and how you think it will change the events industry.
I think it will motivate people to strive to be better. It’s because now there’s criteria to make them better. A lot of these vendors are hoping to get on my list next year. And we’re going to be rigorous because anyone we haven’t worked with has to be vetted.
What advice can you offer women who want to start their own business?
It’s hard. It is not easy. If you don’t think you want to work hard and long hours, don’t do it. You have to be totally committed and surround yourself with really good people who you trust.
How do you maintain a work/life balance?
That’s hard because my work is my life!
For me, it’s easy to balance. I work with my family and play with the family. For most people, maybe not because they don’t have the relationship of “boss and employees” that I have. It’s an unusual and shocking relationship. People ask me, ‘how do you work with your family?’ And I say back, ‘how could I not? They’re the best!’ We see each other all the time, and they’re fabulous. It’s true, how lucky am I?
What do you think is the biggest issue for women in the workplace?
I think there’s still some discrimination against women. I found when I first started in business 36 years ago there was discrimination against women in business. There was also discrimination against Jews. But we’ve come a long way from that. For most women now, it’s maintaining a family and home life while heading to the top. That’s a huge issue. That’s why it’s great when these big companies provide daycare and things like that. How many times did I have my grandchildren or my niece’s children here? All the time. That’s what we had to do.
How has mentorship made a difference in your professional and personal life?
Well, I mentor a lot of people. I love doing it. So many people call me and say, ‘I want to be in the party planning business.’ And clients will say, ‘I have a niece who wants to the be in the business,’ and they send them over. And I try to pave the way for them in various appointments at hotels, and it makes me feel good that I’m teaching them.
Dana, who was our last hire, came to me, she was my client’s daughter’s best friend and her aunt was one of my clients. And I had hesitancy because I didn’t want my clients to know anything about my home life or business life, but what happened is that I said I would interview her and lead her down the right path. Then I saw her and I thought she was fabulous. I sent her to The Plaza but that night I thought about it and decided I would hire her. But I’ll tell you, for me mentoring is one of the best experiences because it makes me feel accomplished. I’m helping create the industry.
Which other female leaders do you admire and why?
I have always admired women who not only are at the top of what they do, but are also nice. Especially because there are so many are real problems. I don’t know her personally, but I understand that Arianna Huffington is a doll. She has certainly made it to the top and is an exemplary woman. I also admire Hillary Clinton.
What do you want The Chosen Few to accomplish in the next year?
I have personally worked with each and every one of the companies and individuals selected to join The Chosen Few and believe they are a true asset to the event industry in New York City. With the stellar reputation of Gourmet Advisory and the hundreds of events we have created over the past 35 years, we are in a unique position to highlight the finest vendors in the field. The Chosen Few is my Michelin Guide for the New York City area event industry and I hope it will become a coveted and recognizable honor within the industry for years to come.
NEW DELHI (AP) — A dilapidated building and another under construction collapsed in India on Saturday, killing at least 12 people as rescuers searched for dozens of others feared trapped, police and fire officials said.
In New Delhi, a four-story 50-year-old structure toppled in an area inhabited by the poor. The collapse killed at least 11 people and one survivor was being treated in a hospital, said fire service officer Praveer Haldiar. Hours later, a 12-story building under construction collapsed on the outskirts of Chennai, the capital of southern Tamil Nadu state, as heavy rains pounded the area.
Police said 12 construction workers had been rescued so far and the search was continuing for dozens of others. One worker who was pulled out from the rubble died in the hospital, said police officer Dharmalingam, who uses one name.
Nearly 300 policemen and fire service workers were scouring the debris for survivors.
Most homes in the New Delhi area where the first building collapsed had been built without permission and using substandard materials, police officer Madhur Verma said.
The Press Trust of India news agency said the New Delhi collapse was triggered by construction work on an adjacent plot.
Building collapses are common in India, where high demand for housing and lax regulations have encouraged some builders to cut corners, use substandard materials or add unauthorized extra floors.
In the early days of the space program, NASA used capsules atop powerful rockets to fling astronauts and gear into space. We replaced those early capsules with the space shuttle fleet. With the shuttles retired, U.S. astronauts are having to catch a ride with Russia to get to the ISS. That will all change when the Orion space capsule is ready to take astronauts into space.
The Orion has completed a successful and important test on its path to taking Americans to the ISS and beyond. The USAF loaded its capsule into the back of a C-17 aircraft, took it to 35,000 feet, and kicked it out of the back of the plane.
The test was designed to put stress on the parachute system used to safely get astronauts back on the ground. The capsule was allowed to freefall for 10 seconds to put additional stress on the parachute and the test went off without a problem.
An unmanned space test for the capsule is set for December.
[via BBC]
Get ready to officially meet the Twelfth Doctor.
When “Doctor Who” returns for its eighth season on August 23, Peter Capaldi will step in to the Doctor’s shoes for his first full episode. Capaldi was first briefly introduced in last year’s Christmas special, but he’ll officially take over for Matt Smith in the upcoming season.
The 56-year-old actor will be joined by Jenna Coleman, who is returning to the series as the Doctor’s companion Clara Oswald. Check out the short teaser above.
[h/t Mashable]
“Doctor Who” Season 8 premieres on August 23 at 8 p.m. ET on BBC America.
When you take up the cause of the so-called pit bull, you make a lot of charming friends. Particularly fetching is the person on Twitter who calls herself “Eradicate Pits.” Ms. Eradicate has targeted me, in particular, because I suggested that people like her are — and I used the word in its precise sense — ignorant. Nobody likes to be called ignorant. Even if I pointed out that ignorance is easily cured.
Worse: I am collaborating on a children’s book aimed at curing this ignorance on a mass scale. We are encouraging families to consider adopting bully types from shelters, since these dogs are being slaughtered at an appalling rate. Dogs, like humans, are individuals. We have the gall to suggest that a friendly, socialized dog of the so-called “pit bull” type is perfectly safe around your children, whereas an aggressive dog that happens to be a Lab, or a Poodle, or a Golden Retriever is definitely not.
(The other part of the “we” is Dula Yavne, an artist from Tel Aviv, whose illustrations are being used here to decorate an otherwise bland article.)
Full disclosure: Ms. Eradicate and I are not really friends. And I don’t foresee a toasty friendship in our future. In fact, I’m not entirely sure she’s a woman — let’s face it: “Eradicate” is a name equally popular for both girls and boys.
At any rate, this person referred me to YouTube, where I would see something (no doubt gruesome) that would convince me that the pit bull was uniquely dangerous in the canine world.
This is the quality of argument I’m up against: why trust rigorous scientific studies, when I could be consulting YouTube?
I considered her advice, for a small fraction of a nanosecond, and then — instead of YouTube (that peerless fount of truth) — I decided to contact a genuine expert.
Brad Griggs, based in Australia, is renowned internationally as an authority in canine behavior. He trains dogs to do extraordinary things. They then proceed to do those things all around the world: he raised and developed a dog, for instance, used by the Saudis to detect arson.
I spoke to Brad because one of his specialties is aggressive behavior. And he comes at this from an interesting angle: Brad started out by training dogs to be aggressive.
That’s how you prepare dogs for the military and law enforcement. The point, however, is controlled aggression: you have to take their natural instinct to bite and hold, and refine it so that it’s available on command. The flip side of this is you don’t want to see that aggression when it’s not welcome: you have to be able to turn it off.
If you truly understand what drives a dog to do something, you gain unique insight: you know what compels it not to do that same thing.
These days Brad’s putting that knowledge towards the prevention of dog bites.
As in America, the Australian media isn’t shy about covering canine incidents. To put it mildly. And Brad’s the guy the national media often turns to when they’re trying to understand these situations.
I figure I’d rather listen to him than watch a distressing (and predictable) video on YouTube. So I ask him about the science behind eradicating pit bulls. The polite term for how this is accomplished — eradication — is BSL: Breed Specific Legislation.
He’s refreshingly blunt: “There is no peer-reviewed study available that supports Breed Specific Legislation. All studies categorically refute BSL: they reject it outright; they reject its components; they reject its underlying premise.”
Brad doesn’t like talking about “pit bulls” — the whole point of rejecting this discredited stuff is not to concentrate on individual breeds. “A dog is a dog is a dog. There’s nothing mystical about a pit bull, other than the press release.”
Still, I thought I’d ask him about some of the arguments made against pit bulls, specifically, to see whether he could put these in perspective.
Perhaps the most notorious and ubiquitous argument is this: pit bulls are said to have an abnormally fierce prey drive, and an abnormally high tolerance of pain.
You occasionally find this thesis in respectable places. People on the eradication side of the fence are especially fond of quoting from an article in The Economist, which asserts — among other things — that “pit bulls are incredibly tenacious. Once they are fixed on a target, they are all but impossible to distract.” The Economist suggests that “this is due to the dogs’ insensitivity to pain.”
Brad has an interesting take on this. First, it’s not especially true of pit bull types, but if it were, it would be a good thing. Intense prey drive, far from making a dog dangerous, is what makes it controllable: “The more driven a dog is to do things like chase — the better its hunger — the easier it is to teach.” Pain is irrelevant: “We don’t have to rely on pain to teach a dog something. In fact, that is rarely helpful.”
So, if that formidable prey drive were somehow unique to pit bulls, it would make them less dangerous: it would make them easier to train.
Hence, The Economist isn’t just wrong here. It’s wrong about its own wrong conclusions. It’s wrongness squared.
In defense of The Economist: they published this article in 1991. But the damage is done. People who want to eradicate pit bulls still haul out this decades-old article, triumphantly, again and again — it’s a posh source, and the argument sounds nicely scientific.
Brad reiterates that it really is unhelpful to separate dogs into categories this way: it generally won’t tell you anything useful about an individual dog. “‘Pit bull’ is a term that says nothing about temperament; just about looks.”
(It’s not even a breed: the dogs usually designated as “pit bulls” fall into a poorly defined category, involving a number of breeds, and all sorts of mutts.)
Still, if you’re dying to make this argument — that a type stands out, based upon these specific characteristics — then you might want to concentrate on a somewhat different dog.
America’s most maligned dog may be the so-called pit bull, but the nation’s most beloved dog is beyond question: the Labrador Retriever. For years it has topped the list of dogs registered with the American Kennel Club.
Now, what precisely is a Labrador retriever? Not many people bother to think about this.
Labrador is the northernmost part of the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It’s on the mainland, separated from the island of Newfoundland by the narrow Strait of Belle Isle.
It’s really cold.
I mean cold. Most of Labrador sits at the same latitude as Siberia. It’s not uncommon to see winter temperatures of 40 below (which is where Celsius and Fahrenheit meet, to share a bottle of cheap vodka).
Right. The Labrador Retriever was bred to dive into the sea here: waters technically designated as “sub-arctic.” If you don’t think that requires an extraordinary tolerance for pain, I suggest you don your Speedo and give it a go.
Oh, and why do they subject their canine bodies to this kind of excruciating experience? Simple: prey drive. A Labrador retriever has to retrieve. And the way you get a dog to do that is to instill it with an iron will to pursue its prey. Here the prey is a bit peculiar: the floats attached to fishermen’s nets.
So, America’s favorite dog was bred, over the course of generations, to exhibit these qualities, amongst others: an uncanny tolerance of pain, and an ability to remain committed to an activity under extreme duress.
Note how nobody is calling for the eradication of the Labrador Retriever.
That would be not simply evil, but foolish. First, we’ve just demonstrated that these qualities do not make a dog dangerous: they make a dog trainable. Second, these desirable qualities very quickly diminish when a dog isn’t specifically bred to work. This is why you find all sorts of pet Labs that would be comically useless in Labrador. They don’t even want to play fetch.
(Full disclosure: I love Labrador Retrievers. I find them no more frightening than “pit bulls.” Please don’t eradicate them. Thanks in advance.)
Ms. Eradicate Pits seems to be focused on another detail, which you hear often in discussions of the so-called pit bull: their jaws are said to be different, in some special and scary way.
Here I’ll refer you to an academic: Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin of the University of Georgia. “The studies which have been conducted of the structure of the skulls, mandibles and teeth of pit bulls show that, in proportion to their size, their jaw structure, and thus its inferred functional morphology, is no different than that of any other breed of dog of comparable size and build.”
Okay, but surely we can prove that those jaws are unnaturally powerful, no? Well, no. The science here is a bit soft — the only study of canine jaw strength is not very rigorous — but it does yield a credible conclusion: Dr. Brady Barr of National Graphic determined that the pit bull’s jaw exerts a force, in pounds per square inch, just slightly less than the force of America’s second favorite dog: the German Shepherd. (And, sorry: German Shepherds are pretty average in this regard. Please don’t eradicate them.)
Finally, I ask Brad — since he has spent years training dogs to excel for the police and the military — why he never seems to choose some variety of pit bull. He has told me that he prefers Belgian Malinois, Dutch Shepherds, German Shepherds, sometimes Rottweilers. His response? “Typically speaking, pit types don’t have the characteristics that lend themselves to biting people.”
Uh, that’s kind of scandalous. These demon dogs aren’t good at biting humans? Brad apologizes on their behalf: “Most dogs are no good at it. ”
This has nothing to do with physical attributes: “It’s not a question of how the jaws work — that’s purely mechanical. If sheer mechanical aptitude were the issue, then we’d really need to look at banning all dogs over about 15 kg. Even small dogs like Pomeranians and Jack Russells have killed infants.
“It’s not about the engineering that a breed brings to a confrontation; it’s about the willingness of the dog to apply that engineering. You have to remember that pits were bred selectively to be non-aggressive to humans, even under severe duress and pain.”
I’m sure that Ms. Eradicate will discern some conspiracy here: surely Brad Griggs has some terrible reason for saying such terrible things about pit bulls? Not good at biting people?
The issue, regrettably, is this. Brad makes his living training dogs for specific tasks. If pit bull types were the best at this task, he’d be lousy at his job if he did not choose them over other breeds. You’re really going to offer your client a lesser alternative?
Unfortunately for Ms. Eradicate, Brad Griggs is not lousy at his job. Nobody calls me when they need a dog trained to sniff out arson, or to track and apprehend bad guys. My guess is that Ms. Eradicate is rarely first in line for this gig either. (For what it’s worth, Brad doesn’t find so-called pit bulls completely unimpressive. “They may make a great detection dog. They’re just not typically good for offender work.”)
Now there are those out there — lots of them — who will defer to Ms. Eradicate and YouTube. Who speak sneeringly about “experts.” Who murmur darkly about “the pit bull lobby” — a cabal of conspirators who bury the truth, presumably because there’s big money in lying about pit bulls. You’re welcome to listen to these people. Like most conspiracy theorists, they’re depressingly easy to find.
What drives people to this stance is not always comical. The most virulent enemies of the so-called pit bull are often the victims of serious dog bites. Sadly, these are the people least likely to bring reason to the debate.
If your first experience of the sea is near-drowning, then you will be terrified of the open water. Drowning anecdotes aren’t rare; they will reinforce your terror. It may take the kind of objectivity you simply cannot muster when your child wants to take a ride in a boat. Even a boat that experts deem overwhelmingly safe if handled correctly.
And you are not the sort of person who should be determining marine legislation.
In the same way there are those who, as a result of personal trauma, will never be able to see the truth about these perfectly ordinary dogs. They will not listen to experts, because they cannot listen to experts.
It’s in their interest, ironically, if we do not listen to them: we owe it to victims to prevent future dog bites the best way we know how. Of course we have to respect their suffering, but it would be a terrible mistake to let them hijack policy, and to legislate the slaughter of these good animals.
(All illustrations by Dula Yavne. If you have been following the Galunker project, and wish to pledge, please note that the Kickstarter Campaign ends in three days.)
After long-simmering sectarian tensions exploded in Iraq a few weeks back, critics from the right and left have had field day taking their shots at the Obama Administration’s Iraq policy, or lack thereof.
Recognizing that the situation is fraught with dangers, I appreciate this debate, wishing only that we had the same intense exchange of views eleven years ago when it might have prompted more caution — when caution was needed. What I haven’t appreciated are the criticisms coming from those who have based their case on a fabricated reality they have invented to suit their purposes.
A case in point is the commentary written by former George W. Bush aide, Elliott Abrams which appeared earlier this week in Politico. Criticism is one thing, but making up history is something quite different — and that is exactly what Abram’s has done. The piece is entitled “The Man Who Broke the Middle East” and begins with the truly outlandish claim that “The Middle East that Obama inherited in 2009 was largely at peace.” Iraq, Abrams continues, had been stabilized; Iran was contained; and US relations with our regional allies “were very good.”
This near-idyllic situation, Abrams argues, was squandered by Obama because of the new president’s “hubris” and his failure to understand the role of American power as the key factor that can promote stability, and “defend our allies our friends and our interests.”
In creating this fictional history Abrams ignores the fact that the stage set by his Administration was in reality quite different from the one he imagines. In 2009, Iraq’s peace was a faux peace. Lives had been shattered by the war, as had the social fabric of the country. Years of ethnic/sect cleansing had taken a toll. One-fifth of Iraq’s population was either refugees or internally displaced. The US had imposed a Lebanon-like sectarian apportionment model on Iraqi politics, but inter-communal relations were too deeply strained. Iraq had been fractured, with the US playing the roles of the agent responsible for having broken the country, as well as the party who was now trying, in vain, to hold it together. To Abrams, Iraq may have appeared calm in 2009, but the appearance was deceiving.
If Iraq was teetering from the damage done during the Bush era, so too was the position of the US. By unilaterally engaging in two failed wars designed to project American power and secure American dominance, the Bush Administration had accomplished exactly the opposite. They strained the capacity of our volunteer military. The costs in lives and treasure are still being tabulated with hundreds of thousands of returning veterans suffering from both physical and psychological wounds of war. The recent scandal that rocked our Veteran’s Administration and revelations that we are losing over 20 veterans a day to suicide are testimony to the damage done.
The wars and our behaviors in them also had a devastating impact on our credibility, our values and our standing in the world. Far from having “good relations” everywhere, our polls show that during the Bush Administration, attitudes toward the US were at all-time lows and foreign leaders who relied on US support did so at great risk given their public’s growing hostility to President Bush and the US, itself.
Instead of securing American hegemony, our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had weakened us, while emboldening regional powers like Iran and Turkey, and others like Russia and China.
In making the delusional claim that the Middle East was at peace in 2009, Abrams also conveniently ignores the December 2008/January 2009 war between Israel and Gaza. It was this devastating conflict that welcomed Obama to Washington. During Bush’s tenure, when Abrams was in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian portfolio, Washington made a miserable mess of the Israeli-Palestinian arena. They ignored the Mitchell Report and repeatedly disregarded the efforts of their own peace envoys. They insisted on the elections that brought Hamas to power and then, after the Hamas victory, set out to destroy that movement. They backed Ariel Sharon’s every move, becoming enablers of and cheerleaders for Israeli bad behavior: its settlement expansion; its unilateral evacuation and then blockade of Gaza; and its wars in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza in 2006 and 2008/2009.
The toll taken by eight years of Bush Administration policies had left the US reviled across much of the Arab World. And so it was in an effort to heal the deep wounds that the Bush crowd had inflicted on the US-Arab relationship that led Obama to Cairo in 2009. Abrams calls Obama’s outreach “hubris.” But the president’s “new beginning” initiative based, as it was, on mutual understanding, shared responsibility and partnership was actually exactly “what the doctor ordered.”
Looking back over the past five years it is possible to note how in its conduct of Middle East policy the Obama Administration: was stymied by conservatives as they sought to make needed change; missed opportunities to exercise leadership when it might have made a difference; under-valued the importance of consulting with friends and allies, at home and abroad; or often appeared to be meandering, lacking a clear direction.
All these criticisms are fair and are worthy of debate. What Abrams has done, on the other hand, is not fair. It’s downright strange.