Wednesday, December 19, 2007

CHINESE AUTOMAKERS POISED TO TAKE OVER U.S. MARKET

Published Dec. 4, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

The first Japanese cars on the U.S. market were tiny, ugly and poorly built, and their only redeeming quality was high gas mileage. During the oil crisis of the early 1970s, that feature resulted in an explosion of Japanese car sales that pushed these companies into a position of prominence in the U.S. market.

Thanks to improving cars and competitive pricing, they have never relinquished that position. A few years ago, Korean cars were largely the butt of car jokes — one word synonyms for cheap, ugly and unreliable cars.

The only customers for these rolling disasters were those who couldn’t afford anything better. The Korean automakers competed almost solely on price, offering feature-laden cars for thousands less than their contemporaries.

Since money is the bottom line for many car purchasers, the companies found many customers. Most of them never bought Hyundais or Kias again, but there were enough first-time buyers to keep the companies afloat.

In the late 1990s, the companies revamped manufacturing procedures and vehicle reliability improved tremendously. Public image improved considerably with the introduction of industry-leading warranties.

This past has largely faded away. Prices for these cars, however, while still comparatively low, have crept up far beyond their original attractive points.

This has created an enticing opening for low-priced volume manufacturers to make inroads into the U.S. market. Currently, no such manufacturer sells vehicles in the U.S.

That is about to change, as the Chinese are coming.

The Chinese automobile market is booming. With the increased wealth brought about by a skyrocketing economy, more people in China can afford to buy cars.

The successful buy only European and U.S. luxury vehicles. This has resulted in BMW selling more of its flagship Seven-series sedans in China than any other country except the U.S. Midpriced Japanese and U.S. cars are also popular, with lower-priced indigenous cars catering to the largest part of the market.

China’s massive industrial capacity and its already-established role as parts suppliers to most of the largest auto manufacturers around the world have made its entrance into the global auto market successful from a technical standpoint.

This owes largely to engineering and manufacturing partnerships with several foreign companies, including Honda and General Motors. These partnerships give Chinese makers valuable global-level automotive engineering experience, and foreign makers benefit from an increased presence in the very lucrative Chinese market and from extremely cheap Chinese labor costs.

Cheaper labor means a Chinese-made or manufactured car can be sold at a cheaper price and still turn a profit. This model works well, as Chinese cars are successfully sold all over Asia and in several African countries as well. Several Chinese manufacturers are also on the verge of selling in Europe.

The most profitable target remains the U.S. market, which will continue to be the largest market by volume for at least the next 15 years. High sales figures in the U.S. market has a cachet that is unmatched by any other market in the world. For these reasons, Chinese automakers want to enter the U.S. market, and they will do so in the next two to three years.

To be successful in the U.S. market, the Chinese will most likely rely on the model that has worked for them in other countries: More car for less money. Prices for new cars are creeping steadily upwards with each model year, as cars get bigger, more powerful and more sophisticated.

While this has led to arguably better cars, it has also led to new car prices at a record high — beyond the reach of many lower income consumers. Korean makers, formerly the value champions, are sacrificing price for quality.

This is why Chinese cars can do well in America. They will simply prove too good of a deal to pass up. Granted, the crash-test results and long-term reliability of these cars are a little dubious at the moment.

That likely won’t matter to the target audience of the Chinese makers — those who want a new car for the least amount of money possible.

If given the choice, most of those people will take a new car — however unknown or new its manufacturer — if the cost of ownership is low enough.

Doubters of this would do well to remember that this has actually happened in the U.S. market twice already with Japanese and Korean cars.

The difference this time is industrial might. China is capable of manufacturing far more cars today than 1960s Japan and 1990s Korea could. Therefore, if Chinese makers can get a toehold in the U.S. market, economies of scale will take over.

This will lead to one of two scenarios: Other car manufacturers will try to cut costs by outsourcing more manufacturing to countries with cheap labor — like China. This will lead to lower prices, which is good for consumers.

The more frightening and unlikely (but still possible) scenario is that the low-priced competition will drive other manufacturers from business, at least in the mainstream car market.

If that ever happens, our cars will carry a “Made in China” label, just like most everything else we use.

HYBRIDS OVERVALUED

Published Nov. 20, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Nov. 27, 2007 on BYU NewsNet Online
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Jan. 4, 2008)
Note: Title of column on above website taken out of context of original article below

Linked Nov 28, 2007 by hybrid vehicles forum hybridsmarts.com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Apr. 2, 2008)

Discussed Dec 11, 2007 on auto industry blog automotive.com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the hybrid vehicle. In the decade since the first Japan-only Toyota Prius, hybrids have overcome initial skepticism and scorn to become prolific fixtures on American roads.

Hybrids have become popular not because of their lessened impact on the environment, but because of their long-term affordability.

Because of their increased gas mileage — and proven reliability — more people are driving hybrids, and that trend seems set to continue.

When hybrids were first introduced, cost was definitely a deal-breaker for most. For example, the first Prius — and its competitor the Honda Insight — was a compact car that cost as much as most full-size cars.

To make matters worse, it was also relatively slow and underpowered.

Therefore, its buyers were generally only dedicated greenies and a few well-heeled poseurs.

Enough of these early cars were sold, however, to catapult Toyota and Honda into the forefront of automotive and eco-friendly technology.

This led to an explosion in hybrid sales that has continued for third-generation Toyota and Honda hybrids.

More importantly, it convinced technologically-lagging American and European automakers that hybrids could be profitable as an image-booster and a sales-booster.

Thus, Ford and Chevy got into the hybrid game. The technology the American automakers use is slightly different, but the concept is similar.

By augmenting a normal gasoline engine with an electric motor during high-drain driving situations — accelerating, starting-up, etc. — gasoline consumption could be lessened and gas mileage increased.

Somewhat paradoxically, most of the American hybrids are Canyonero-sized trucks.

Even with hybrid technology, their gas mileage does not move past the high teens. What good does that do for the environment and alleviating oil consumption?

When gas is more than $3 a gallon, 21 miles per gallon looks much better than 18 mpg. Even at a $2000 premium, a hybrid car can seem more economical.

In this way, hybrids have become more than a buzzword. By packaging hybrid technology with huge, four-wheel-drive mammoths, car companies can go to the bank.

Consumers pounce on these vehicles, enticed by increased gas mileage.

Hybrids continue to sell well each year, and more models are introduced.

Although it’s admirable that a whole generation used to normal gasoline engines has accepted a new technology, such as hybrid cars, so thoroughly, it has done so for the wrong reasons.

In the long run, three or four more miles per gallon is no better for the environment or the nation’s dependency on foreign oil. Because of public demand for hybrids, however, automakers continue to bring them to market.

PROGRAM DEVOTED TO SOUTH ASIAN STUDIES NEEDED

Published Nov. 6, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

OU’s School of International and Area Studies offers minors and majors focused on Russia and Eastern Europe, Western Europe, East Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

But one area of the world is missing from this list: South Asia.

There is no South Asian Studies program at OU, not even a minor. Given South Asia’s potentially massive impact on global affairs — largely due to its huge population and skyrocketing economies — this is a shame.

The discipline of international studies analyzes economics, culture and politics on a global level.

Throughout history, its interdisciplinary focus has shifted from one area of the world to another. In the height of the Cold War, Russia and Eastern Europe were the most popular fields of study.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, that focus shifted to the Middle East.

The increasing economic power of China and the other “Asian Tigers” made study of East Asia popular and important.

In coming years, South Asia will become the focus. It’s not a question of if, but when.

South Asia is comprised of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka — nations tied together by similar cultures and shared history that culminated British colonial subjugation.

Following full independence from Britain, these countries have pursued self-determined policies at home and abroad, and several have reached global prominence in a number of areas.

India’s population of more than 1.1 billion is second only to China, and it is the largest democracy in the world.

Bangladesh, one of the most densely populated nations of the world, boasts over 150 million people.

Therefore, excluding South Asia from a program of international study automatically excludes 20 percent of the world’s population.

This alone would make any program of international program incomplete.

The most important reason OU should have a South Asian studies program is the area’s growing economic importance.

South Asia’s huge population boasts a large and well-educated workforce.

This, in addition to low labor costs, has made South Asia a prime location for companies seeking to cheaply expand their global presence.

South Asia’s economic synergy with the rest of the world will only increase in the coming decade. The national economies of South Asia are experiencing massive growth owing to industrialization, large-scale foreign investment and its massive workforce.

The countries of the region are transforming themselves from primarily service-dominated to manufacturing and technology-based economies.

The image of South Asia as a monsoon-battered, malaria-ridden backwater is fading away.

Soon, it will disappear — as it will have been eclipsed by the reality of strong economies closely tied to Western companies and consumers.

This close relationship is not lost on academics.

“There have been several proposals for a South Asian studies program,” according to Dr. Robert Cox, director of the School of International and Area Studies.

“Many of them have been made by students,” Cox said.

SIAS has been around since 2001, and it boasts large enrollment.

It’s logical to think a South Asian studies program will be just as popular as the school’s other programs.

A problem, however, is the lack of faculty qualified in South Asian disciplines. To make matters worse, there are currently no plans to hire such faculty.

This is not the fault of either the SIAS or of OU.

“We can always request more faculty of any type,” Cox said, “but the budget from the state is the determining factor.”

There is not enough money to hire new faculty, especially to form a brand-new program.

This is unfortunate because OU is missing a chance to be on the true cutting edge of international and area studies.

Presently, only a handful of universities nationwide have programs focused on South Asia. By building such a program here, OU would demonstrate that it is conscious of global affairs.

By not awarding money for such a program, the Legislature risks doing great harm to OU’s image as a flagship institute of higher education.

South Asia’s size and economic activity reverberate throughout the world.

How can any institution that completely omits the study of such an integral part of the world claim to be a leading university?

OU is known as an educational innovator and a good place to spend four years getting a solid education.

If a South Asian studies program is not created, however, OU will gradually lose its currently enviable status.

The education offered here will be missing a program crucial to a balanced, globally-relevant education.

Students whose interests or future careers include working in a global arena will not choose a school that does not satisfy the demands of their occupational fields.

Without a South Asian studies program, OU will diminish in stature as a quality educational institution and — more importantly — its global relevance.

U.S.-SYRIA DIALOGUE NEEDED FOR MID-EAST PEACE

Published Oct. 23, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

When a country recalls an ambassador, it’s a sure sign of disagreement between nations and often a precursor for war.

Conspicuously missing from the American embassy in Damascus, Syria is the U.S. ambassador. There hasn’t been one there since 2005.

The U.S. and Syria maintain diplomatic relations, however, with an American charge d’affairs heading the embassy in the Syrian capital.

This is less than ideal and reflects the dysfunctional diplomatic relations between the two countries — a situation adding to an already unstable Middle East.

There have been breaks in formal relations throughout the 20th century.

Fast forward to 2005, when Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated by a car bomb in Beirut.

Hariri was a known critic of the Syrian presence in Lebanon, and this led many to point an accusing finger at Damascus after he was killed.

An independent United Nations investigation is still ongoing, and nothing has been determined.

The U.S. ambassador was recalled to Washington in the days following the assassination and has not been sent back.

The recall of the ambassador was preceded by the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which sought to punish Syria for its continued presence in Lebanon. President George W. Bush signed the bill.

That presence, was agreed to by then President George H.W. Bush “in return for Syrian support of the United States in the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein,” according to Joshua Landis, internationally-recognized Syria expert and co-director of the OU Center for Peace Studies.

“Starting in 1987, there were already sanctions in place against Syria for its support of Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups.”

“So letting Syria maintain its presence in Lebanon didn’t really affect anything overall. But, since Syria didn’t support the 2003 Iraq War, the current administration decided to diplomatically isolate Syria,” Landis said.

That move seemed illogical, as Syria had been aiding the U.S. fight against al-Qaeda by sharing valuable intelligence after 2001. “The Syrian government is very much anti-Qaeda,” Landis said. “They were more than happy to work with the United States on that front.”

Clearly, that cooperation ended after the aforementioned law and the recall of the ambassador.

Currently, the U.S. State Department mandates a ban on official dialogue between its employees and Syrian officials. As with all such wide-ranging directives, this is not always followed but is in place nonetheless.

The vast majority of American diplomatic dialogue with Syria is thusly muzzled. Seeking a statement from the State Department proved fruitless, as its press department duly informed the author that they only work “with major news sources. No college papers.”

The ramifications of maintaining this virtual diplomatic silence with Syria are apparent, given Syria’s potential as a stabilizing force in the three biggest challenges facing America in the Middle East: al-Qaeda-linked terrorism, the Iraq insurgency and a lasting peace.

Syria has actively rooted out al-Qaeda, and Syrian-supplied intelligence greatly aided the American fight against terrorism from 2001 to the 2003 end of intelligence cooperation.

Even the State Department acknowledges Syria “has taken some steps to tighten controls along the Syria-Iraq border.”

The border is still not completely under control, partly because Syria has no reason or incentive to do so. The fighters allegedly crossing the border do not threaten Syria’s interests. Why should Syrian officials take extra steps to aid the U.S. when it is seeking to isolate Syria?

Syria exerts strong influence on Hezbollah, one of the most active militant forces in the Middle East.

Consequently, Syria has the power to curb Hezbollah attacks on Israeli territory, which, in turn, would make Israeli-Arab relations that much closer to a complete peace.

Syria has already shown a willingness to not escalate conflicts by withholding its forces from combat during the most recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Furthermore, Syria is the only nation that has continued accepting Iraqi refugees, even after more than a million have already entered.

Syria arguably has the most to offer to the U.S. in terms of bettering the overall situation in the Middle East.

It is true Syria is not a democratic country, but countries equally lacking in democracy, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have full diplomatic relations with the U.S.

It has ties with Hezbollah, which is classified as a terrorist group by the U.S. But Syria’s connection with Hezbollah is currently the only sure way to exert some control over that group’s activities.

Given the current situation, not maintaining extensive dialogue is “childish,” according to Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S.

In his recent lecture at OU, he reflected, “if you have a problem with what someone is doing, you talk with them more, not less.”

ORU SCANDAL HIGHLIGHTS HYPOCRISY OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS

Published Oct. 9, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Native son Richard Roberts may soon join the list of religious hypocrites. Roberts is the son of prolific evangelist Oral Roberts. He is also president and CEO of Oral Roberts University.

Three dismissed ORU professors have filed a lawsuit, alleging Roberts and his wife misused ministry and university funds.

The alleged abuses include his daughter’s senior trip, in which the university jet was used to fly to Florida and the Bahamas. The trip cost $29,411 and was billed to the ministry.

The professors also accuse Roberts of ordering university and ministry employees to do his daughters’ homework.

Robert’s transgressions are matched by those of his wife, Lindsay.

She is accused of spending $39,000 of university and ministry funds at a Chico’s clothing store.

She is also accused of racking up $800 monthly phone bills using university-owned cell phones
to exchange hundreds of text messages with underage males late at night.

She probably wasn’t trading pot roast recipes.

Furthermore, she is accused of awarding scholarships to her children’s friends and firing long-time university employees and replacing them with male acquaintances.

This is not appropriate behavior for religious leaders.

No God, religion or good-hearted human can condone stealing money, particularly when the funds are meant to further the word of God.

The fact that Roberts is defending himself and his wife by saying — more or less — God has told him the lawsuit is baseless is disheartening.

Unfortunately, this flagrant hypocrisy — exemplified here by Protestant leaders — occurs in virtually every religion.

From the priests of the Inquisition to the mullahs of the Taliban, religious leaders have long exploited their positions of leadership.

In the process, the guilty often perverted the religion until it suited their agendas. This was the basic premise behind the Crusades.

The clergy called for Christian warriors to fight the Muslim invasion of the Holy Land. Priests throughout Europe told their parishioners they would receive salvation if they fought, regardless of their conduct before or after that crusade.

In an eerie reversal, misguided Muslim leaders are calling for war against Christian infidels using much of the same reasoning. They call it a jihad — or holy war — and claim Allah will grant eternal salvation to those who die in his name fighting his enemies.

First, these sheiks have no authority to declare a jihad, especially on innocent people who have done nothing wrong.

Islam views the killing of innocents as a grave offense and — like other faiths — reserves a special place in the afterlife for those guilty of it.

Unfortunately, the way outsiders perceive Islam often overlooks this fact, instead focusing on the rhetoric of hate-mongering clerics.

The reason such hypocrisy finds a lasting place in many religions is that they often shift allegiance and loyalty from God to a person.

That person, whether he or she is a legitimate religious leader, is a barrier to forming a personal relationship with God.

Worse still, the leader gradually convinces his followers the only way to experience religion is through him.

The follower drifts farther from scripture and the “true” religion and closer toward the leader’s agenda.

This holds true for the legions of mega-church attendees and followers of flamboyant televangelists. On a more dangerous level, it also is an accurate portrayal of those who follow radical clerics, such as Moqtada al-Sadr and Mullah Mohammed Omar.

With adherence to a man — rather than to a higher power — comes real trouble. God or Allah or Yahweh never commands the faithful to kill.

Clearly, not all religious leaders are misguided. The majority of them are learned, pious and decent individuals who care about their fellow man.

Nevertheless, virtually all instances of religious conflicts and faith-based militancy come from religions that stress the importance of designated leaders, be they priests, imams or rabbis.

I am not aware of Buddhist crusades or Baha’i suicide bombers.

The designated leader systems of the Abrahamic religions have been in place for thousands of years.

By combating the hypocrisy of some of the theological middlemen — and perhaps even removing them completely — adherents of all Abrahamic faiths can gain greater understanding of their relationship with God.

Unfortunately, I don’t see it happening, at least not for another 1,000 years.

STATE FAIR DRAWS CROSS-SECTION OF OKLAHOMA GROUPS

Published Sep. 25, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Oklahoma has been a state for one hundred years.

For many of those years, one institution has dominated central Oklahoma every September: the State Fair.

This year’s iteration — like all those before it — was visible, audible and even smellable from far beyond the boundaries of the fairgrounds.

Also like the fairs before it, this year’s centennial special edition drew all sorts of people from across the state.

The official attendance hovers around one million annually, according to the Oklahoma State Fair Web site. A pretty decent cross-section of Oklahoma could be gleaned from the attendees, who make up almost one-sixth of Oklahoma’s total population.

Evidence of the first category of fair patron is seen before one enters the spectacle. These folks prefer huge pickups. The vast majority of these real-life Tonkas carry “farm truck” plates.

Equally conspicuous — at least to my urban-dwelling eyes — are the drivers of these vehicles.

They dress to ride horses, bulls, tractors or all three. Their Wranglers are seen in especially great numbers around the livestock and rodeo areas, as one would expect.

They drive Oklahoma’s farming and ranching-dominated economy forward. They are the ones that have outlasted numerous oil booms and busts through countless rounds of sowing and harvesting.

Their mastery of the land and command of its bounty not only ensure a prosperous Oklahoma economy, but also food for people in this state and many others.

In many ways, the agrarian-heavy Oklahoma State Fair is a celebration of their continued work and the integral part they play in Oklahoma.

The second category of fair patron is the opposite of the aforementioned farmer. These sandal-clad, cell-phone-toting people are the ones mouthing curses in their cars while waiting in
line for a parking spot.

They don’t want to deal with vehicular madness on their days off. They get enough of it on their commutes to work.

These occupants of corporate ladders represent the reapers and sowers of the growing business, corporate and service sectors of this state’s economy.

Each year, they contribute to an increasingly robust economy. Their endeavors bring more buying power to Oklahoma and help give the state a more flattering overall image.

That image is underscored by more modern technology, such as concept cars and alternative energy systems, exhibited at the fair every year.

That these two very disparate groups mix freely and enjoy the spectacle of the fair together is a testament to what I see as one of Oklahoma’s greatest assets — its position as a crossroads.

Geographically, Oklahoma can be divided into four quadrants that differ from each other in resources, ecology and climate.

Furthermore, the state is home to scores of different groups.

With the possible exception of wide-ranging political conservatism, the positions and traditions maintained by these groups are quite different.

Regardless, major disagreements are rare.

Although many of us may scoff at our state Department of Tourism’s proclamations of Oklahoma as a friendly place, it is, especially compared to other places in the country.

No matter how friendly it is, Oklahoma has its share of problems, of course.

Oklahomans lead unhealthy lifestyles and many struggle with obesity.

Unfortunately, you can see this at the State Fair as well.

The vast majority of people who go to the fair go for the food.

It’s understandable.

The food is delicious.

It’s also extremely unhealthy.

Probably three-quarters of all food available at the fair is deep-fried.

It has become a contest to see who can sell the most outrageous deep-fried “treat.”

Fried Twinkies and fried Snickers candy bars are just two of the recent cardiology nightmares.

It wouldn’t be so bad if these artery cloggers weren’t so popular.

It seems the unhealthier a food item is, the longer the line is to obtain it. You could argue indulging in batter-encrusted goodness is just something done on festive occasions.

This is sadly not the case.

As evidenced by increasing waistlines and decreasing lifespans, Oklahoma clearly has a chronic problem with obesity, and much of it is due to poor eating habits.

This is definitely one of the problems we must attack in our second century of statehood.

This year’s state fair and the crazy carnival atmosphere is gone.

Also gone is that particular brand of cuisine only available at the fair.

The behemoth farm trucks and hybrid cars jostling for space on crowded grass parking lots are a rare sight. Scores of independent farmers and ranchers will likely not fraternize with corporate soldiers until next September.

When the 2008 State Fair does begin, however, that spirit of community that echoes throughout the state will again be on display.

The friendliness and decency that sets Oklahoma apart from many other places will be embodied once more by the all people of the State Fair, except maybe the carnies.

THOMPSON A FORMIDABLE CANDIDATE IN GOP PRIMARY

Published Sep. 11, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Former U.S. Senator Fred Thompson recently announced his 2008 presidential candidacy on “The Tonight Show,” directing viewers to his Web site for a more comprehensive video message.

Given the positive buzz his potential candidacy has generated, the announcement was not surprising.

The particular arena and method of the declaration was also unsurprising, as Thompson is a silver-screen veteran of over twenty years, with more than a dozen major films to his credit.

Despite entering the race later than any other candidate thus far, Thompson has easily had the most media exposure.

Most people know Thompson from his roles in “Die Hard 2” and “Law and Order” rather than his stint in Washington.

The notion that Thompson was hurt because of his late announcement strikes me as wrong-headed.

If Thompson is not elected, it won’t be because his campaign did not last long enough — it’s been going on for over twenty years.

In the last two decades, the former Senator from Tennessee has racked up a diverse array of movies and television shows that have garnered critical acclaim.

More importantly, they still remain popular with viewing audiences.

Many of the movies and television shows featuring Thompson, such as “Law and Order”, are still shown on T.V.

Those repeat showings guarantee that Thompson will enjoy continued exposure.

That free advertising exposure gives Thompson a formidable advantage over virtually every other candidate. It also makes Thompson very much a wild card in the election.

It is a foregone conclusion that in today’s political climate, media exposure is often the deciding factor in elections.

Being media-savvy can serve as an important catalyst in launching a candidate into the national limelight.

It was his electrifying and much-rebroadcast speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that launched Senator Barack Obama’s transformation from a mere state senator to a national presidential contender.

In addition, Rudy Giuliani earned his often quoted “America’s Mayor” moniker from frequent media appearances during the days following 9/11.

The more media exposure a candidate gets, the more recognition and support he garners. That’s it, plain and simple.

Obama, Giuliani, Senator Hillary Clinton and all the other top-tier candidates understand this and continue to chase down every media outlet they can use.

In Thompson’s case, the media exposure comes with an unusual twist. Much of his media face time has come in the form of popular entertainment rather than news or politically-oriented programs.

This means that he can reach audiences that generally avoid or are not reached by traditional, politically-oriented media.

As a result Thompson has access to a potential support base his opponents have little chance of reaching.

The unique kind and frequency of his media exposure gives Thompson a lethal one-two punch.

Much like Arnold Schwarzenegger did in the California gubernatorial race, the Thompson campaign can leverage non-political popularity and fame to overcome much more established political figures.

Thompson also boasts several other qualities that appeal to both Republican and undecided voters.

He has had no major official position in the government since 2003. While he remains supportive of the Iraq invasion, that detachment distances him from the day-to-day events in Iraq and the surge.

Given the steadily increasing number of Americans dead and with no end in sight, his absence from the government may prove to be an advantage.

Thompson’s other attractive traits include his loyalty to traditionally conservative principles, such as states’ rights.

Deferring to the states’ rights platform will be an effective way for Thompson’s campaign to deflect potentially explosive discussion of hot-button issues.

Thompson has also overcome much adversity in his life. He recently beat cancer.

His self-made image, combined with his familiar, down-home appearance, may do much to woo disaffected voters from across the political spectrum.

Many others may vote for him simply because of name and face recognition, as Thompson’s media exposure over the last two decades stands unsurpassed, even in the company of media darlings such as Giuliani, Obama and Clinton.

Thompson is being touted as the GOP’s savior in 2008. This is hardly surprising given his widespread recognition, his distance from the current administration and his hard core conservative positions.

If they are to take back the White House, Democrats would do well to pay special attention to the former senator from Tennessee whose name seems to resonate on the screens of Hollywood as well as in the corridors of Washington.

NEW SERVICE PREVENTS ABUSE OF ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA

Published Aug. 27, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Online Aug. 27, 2007 by newser. com
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, has enjoyed tremendous popularity and success. Its success owes to the immense number of articles on virtually every subject in over a dozen different languages found on its servers.

People, particularly college students, use Wikipedia to such an extent that “wiki-ing” has become an accepted verb, much like “googling.” Part of the allure of Wikipedia is that anyone can create new articles and edit virtually any existing article.

Thus, the strength and appeal of this groundbreaking encyclopedia lies in its pool of user-editors, who create new articles about previously unreported subjects and edit existing articles to a higher degree of accuracy.

By preparing and disseminating information to the masses, these users are anonymous, benevolent, tech-savvy Big Brothers for the whole of the Wikipedia community.

Unfortunately, a darker version of the Big Brothers has recently been exposed. In the past, there was no reliable way of knowing just who edited what. A new tool called Wikiscanner lists every edit made to any article, along with the IP address of the computer from which the edit was made.

A computer’s IP address is unique to that computer. Thus, knowing the IP address of a computer reveals its exact physical location and the organization that administers it.

The vast lists of edits and IP addresses are searchable by organization and physical location of the editing computer. This newfound insight had led to some interesting findings.

As reported on “The Colbert Report,” and confirmed by this columnist’s independent findings using Wikiscanner, computers from the Exxon company (now ExxonMobil) edited the article about the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

An article covering what remains one of worst environmental disasters in history was edited to read “that there has been no long-term severe impact to the Prince William Sound ecosystem.”

This is highly inaccurate.

According to a 2001 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report, 58 percent of test sites still had significant oil residue, and several species had very low recovery rates in oil-affected areas. Other companies have also been shown to edit articles related to them and their products. Edits to the Wikipedia “Pepsi” article from IP addresses registered to PepsiCo removed an entire section related to the health risks posed by Pepsi.

While both these heinous and misleading edits have since been corrected by other users, they raise important questions regarding corporate responsibility and the accuracy of information presented as factual.

Wikipedia has transcended the mantle and stigma of a mere encyclopedia. Wikipedia received over 46 million visitors in May of this year alone, according to a July 2007 Reuters article.

That makes it the most popular news site on the internet. Even Wikipedia’s harshest critics, who condemn what they see as insufficient regulation of content and a lack of accuracy controls, have to agree that Wikipedia is one of this generation’s most widely-read sources of information.

In the age of internet-based mass communications, Wikipedia is the premier vehicle; it is the new flagship broadsheet.

Given this, it’s lamentable that corporations would resort to underhanded ploys to boost their public images. This kind of deliberate misinformation is more difficult in other forms of mass media, such as newspapers or magazines, because the culprit can be quickly identified.

Exposure would lead to a public relations nightmare, which is exactly the opposite of what corporations intend to happen when they engage in propaganda activities.

The threat of exposure alone serves as an effective deterrent. In internet-based operations, particularly open ones such as Wikipedia, it is a different story.

Companies and other entities can easily conceive of and execute deception with relative impunity. Organizations and corporations can and do publish egregiously incorrect claims within Wikipedia’s framework of trust and openness.

Furthermore, they capitalize on Wikipedia’s popular image to pass those claims off as facts. The relative success of Wikiscanner seems to suggest that these malicious practices will decline significantly.

Since its first appearance, Wikiscanner has received wide-ranging coverage in numerous media outlets, and public awareness of its existence appears on the rise. It has the full support of Wikipedia’s creators, who see it as a very useful tool to make Wikipedia as fair and accurate as possible, particularly for controversial topics.

Given the violations that Wikiscanner has already uncovered in a relatively short time, it would appear that a very powerful deterrent to malicious Wikipedia-editing has finally arrived and is here to stay.

While it is shameful that a relatively benign and helpful site such as Wikipedia would be tainted by a few entities wishing to improve their public images, it is human nature to make oneself look as good as possible to the world.

Many see an unflattering Wikipedia article as something that must be tweaked in order to give a more favorable portrayal.

Into the arena has stepped Wikiscanner as the standard bearer of another unique facet of human nature: to catch offenders red-handed and hang them out to dry for the whole world to see.

GOOD SPEAKERS TRUMP MODERN MEDIA EXPERIENCE

Published Apr. 26, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

The use of the spoken word is diminishing every day.

Don't believe me? Take a look, or rather a listen, around. Radio, once the sole method of electronic entertainment, has been left in the dust by television. It has been reduced to a diversion used by most only when driving.

Mesmerizing speeches by gifted orators that once were the main vehicles of popular knowledge about most anything have been replaced by sound bites barely a few seconds long. And the focus of those bites really is on their accompanying video.

Things taken for granted even just a few years ago have been drastically changed.

Consider the phone call: It was a universal truth just a few years back that a phone conversation required listening and speaking, that the comfort and pleasure of hearing a friend's voice was guaranteed when using the phone to communicate. Even that has been breached by the thumb-happy world of text messaging.

There are benefits of text messages.

They're great for communicating in classes and meetings, they're very inexpensive and they don't use up cell-phone plan minutes. However, for some, they have replaced calls altogether.

This is strange to me. I won't go so far as to call this a bad thing, as those who practice it likely have many valid reasons for doing so.

It has taken root, however, to the extent that many cell phones on the market are designed to be texting machines first and voice machines second. This hyper-texting behavior is on the rise, and is also rewarded. Just recently, a teenage girl from Pennsylvania won $25,000 as America's new text-messaging champion.

In this increasingly speech-free climate, the sheer power of human speech and the spoken word ought to be remembered. A major milestone in any baby's development is his or her first word.

This is because speech is one of the hallmarks of humanity. The spoken word has communicated great discoveries, incited nations to war, brought comfort to the suffering, consoled millions during times of sorrow and passed traditions and knowledge through generation after generation.

Given this, the recent decline in the emphasis and use of the spoken word is definitely a weird phenomenon. It seems that not only should this misguided slide into silly silence be halted, but that it must be reversed.

That is particularly true on college campuses, which are the most vibrant crossroads of ideas and collaborative work.

Because much of those ideas and collaboration occur by voice, campuses seem like the last place that the specter of silence would take hold.

This, combined with the sheer educational prestige of college makes campuses ideal places for the aforementioned reversal to occur.

That reversal, no matter how successful on a particular college campus, must quickly travel out to other facets of community and society for it to truly be effective. This is quite a daunting task, but it can be achieved relatively easily with a series of engaging and accomplished speakers on campus.

When such speakers come to campuses, they bring a particular message.

Their audience is made up not only of college students, but more importantly of people from the surrounding area. While the speaker's message alone is quite valuable to this audience, what is more important is the particular vehicle of delivery.

And what vehicle does a speaker use to deliver his or her message? Why, the spoken word, of course.

That spoken word is presented completely by itself.

There is no accompanying video, no analysis, no background dancers, nothing. Just the spoken word.

These speakers provide disparate, thought-provoking messages, but they do so in a manner that reminds us all of the awesome power of the spoken word and how crucial it is to everyone.

We are lucky enough to attend a college that is very well-frequented by notable and gifted speakers.

In this one school year, speakers have included Vicente Fox, Al Gore, George H.W. Bush, Patch Adams, Paul Rusesabagina and Samantha Power.

Each of these speakers is an amazingly successful person and genuinely gifted orator. Their presence, their message and their delivery has done much to highlight the strength and importance of the spoken word in our world today and the world yet to come.

A LOOK FOWARD: THE FUTURE OF OU’S E-MAIL ARCHITECTURE

Published Apr. 12, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

NOTE: This is a follow-up to the column below

You may remember reading of my less-than-wonderful experiences with and resulting mediocre opinion of the current OU mail system.

Since then, the good folks of OU Information Technology offices have contacted me, discussed the issues facing the current mail system and have presented potential future systems.

My opinion of the current system is still the same as before, but I am optimistic about the improvements that loom on our campus’ digital horizon.

My enthusiasm stems largely from a test-drive of the new system OU IT is hoping to implement for all students. Believe me, it is a vast improvement. At its core is the Microsoft Exchange system, which will replace the current Java-based system.

The Exchange system works on a protocol called IMAP, which essentially provides an “always-on” connection to the OU mail server.

The current POP protocol does not provide this “live e-mail” feature. Exchange uses the latest web version of Microsoft Outlook as its e-mail client. The exact technical aspects require much specialized jargon to properly explain, which will not be done here.

“There are many technical differences,” says OU IT specialist Ashish Pai, “but more important is how those differences translate to improved functionality.” In this arena, the new system blows the current one away.

To begin, the new Outlook system simply looks better than the current one.

The industrial, blocky appearance of the current system pales in comparison to the modern, streamlined and colorful interface of the new system.

Users of newer versions of Outlook or other third-party e-mail software will find the interface familiar.

The new system works a lot better, too. The improvements include being able to see all mail folders at the same time, even when reading messages individually.

Furthermore, messages can be organized and searched for much more efficiently.

There are also an integrated address book and calendar. Both are presented well. An added advantage of the calendar is that it can be made public, should the user decide to do so. This allows everyone else to view said calendar, make appointments and set up meetings, all through the Exchange system. That holds particular promise for student employees, such as teaching assistants.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the junk mail filter is much more effective. Instead of simply having two settings (“on” and “off”), the new Outlook filter can be further fine-tuned to individual users’ requirements. This alone would almost make the new system worth making the switch to.

And when might students be making that switch?

“Our goal is to have the new student e-mail system in place before the 2007 Fall semester starts,” said OU IT administrator Nicholas Key. Actually, starting later this month, student mail users would have a chance to start using the new system.

The only catch to this is that students’ old messages would not transfer over. Their new inboxes would, in effect, be a blank slate.

Transferring the old messages from the current mail system to the new mail system is projected to be the biggest hurdle to fully implementing the switch. It follows that the more messages there are to transfer, the more time this will take. Regardless, the switch to the new system can be done.

And it should be done, particularly when all these improvements will come with absolutely no increase in fees of any kind. The switch to the new system has been in planning stages, and its implementation has been factored into current fee schemes.

There is only one possibility for a fee increase. That is if the decision is made to upgrade the future student mail system from the light version to the full version currently used by faculty and staff. All the improvements described thus far are fully available in the light version; the full version, however, is even more capable.

Right now, IT has only faculty and staff licenses for the full version.

Since every user who would use the full version needs to have a license purchased, implementing the full version for all students means buying about 30,000 licenses. However, since the light version contains virtually everything most students would need, it seems unnecessary to spend so much on buying licenses.

Down the road, after the student mail system has been implemented, IT foresees integrating the student and faculty/staff systems, or at least bringing them closer together. Regardless of whether this happens, implementation of the new student mail system alone will be a great accomplishment that will likely alleviate the concerns and problems faced by so many in using the current system.

As much as many students complain about the current system, it should be noted that OU IT is working actively to solve its problems.

It is, in fact, coming very close to implementing a working solution, and it’s only a matter of time before many of the woes of the current mail system are gone forever.

STUDENTS PAY FEES AND DESERVE A FUNCTIONAL E-MAIL SYSTEM

Published Mar. 15, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

NOTE: Follow-up to this column is above

Think back to your senior year of high school. Bad memories for some of you. Sorry. Specifically, think about the time that you enrolled at OU for the first time.

There was the obligatory adviser meeting, the gallery-worthy Sooner OneCard picture, and your new yourname-1@ou.edu e-mail address. This was likely followed by confusion, since your inbox was probably already home to several university-wide listserv messages. From then on, if you’re like most people on campus, you signed in to OU’s e-mail server in some form at least once day.

You’re more or less forced to. Most professors require, or at least prefer, communicating through OU mail. All university-related correspondence is delivered to your OU e-mail address. This means messages from the bursar’s office, academic services, the athletic ticket office and virtually every other campus office. Even if your mail is forwarded to another account at Yahoo or Gmail, for example, your mail still goes through the OU server.

Generally, that’s not a bad thing. OU mail is usually stable, reliable and quick. It’s simple to use, and gets your mail where it needs to be.

That’s only when it’s working properly.

Periodically, OU mail is reduced to the default “page cannot be found” screen. When this happens, it’s usually out of commission for the better part of a day. A highly nonscientific record seems to indicate that my OU mail has been down much more often lately than say last semester or last school year.

This can have significant consequences for students, particularly those dealing with graduate or medical school admission requirements this time of year. Given the busy life of a graduating senior, and most any student, often one block of time is set aside to answer e-mails and to send out materials before a looming deadline.

If OU mail just happens to be down during that time, you can sense what trouble that might bring to the student.
Even when it is working properly, OU mail has some irritating functionality issues.

Mail “sent” through OU mail sometimes doesn’t get delivered. At times, clicking on the “send” button in the message window produces no response. I have had firsthand knowledge of this on many occasions. The best fix is to save the message as a draft, and try to send it out again later. This isn’t a bad plan for casual e-mail contact, but can be a nightmare for time-sensitive communication.

Then there is the junk-mail filter, which doesn’t work that well.

I have mine turned on, like most students on campus. However, I still get hocked cheap Rolex watches, insider stock tips and Canadian male enhancement drugs via e-mail on an almost daily basis.

Turning off the junk-mail filter does not mean the end of troubles.

Consider the case of Ephraim Jobickson, a graduating senior wading through the pharmacy school admissions process. Many schools send out supplemental applications to those who have already submitted their main applications. One such school sent him an application on Jan. 1. It was never delivered to his OU mail inbox. “I could have interviewed at that school in early January,” he said. “But then because I did not receive the e-mail I had to resubmit a supplemental application in the middle of February.”

Punctuality is certainly of the essence in health-related graduate school admissions processes. An earlier interview often means a higher chance of getting in or better access to scholarship funds.

The university’s e-mail system should not cause problems for hopeful students. This is especially true because students are required to pay several Internet, e-mail and technology-related fees each semester. Much of that money is put to great use, seen by the expansion of wireless Internet all across campus.

But some of that attention should be given to the OU mail system.

Periodic slowdowns and overhauls are necessary. However, those slowdowns and periods of inoperability should come with prior warning. This would allow students time to complete important or time-sensitive communications before or after the period of inoperability.

The OU IT department advises deleting old messages to maintain optimum e-mail service, and cites the sheer amount of mail as a cause for its service hiccups. Couldn’t messages left on the server be automatically deleted by the IT department? If mail left at a post office is disposed of after so many days, why can’t that same practice be adopted for e-mails? This would likely make the mail system more reliable and very few would complain about not being able to find old e-mails from several months ago in their inboxes.

An overload of messages is not the only problem, and fixing that is not a miracle fix for OU mail’s problems. Our mail system is one that is made to use to maintain timely communication with many different entities on campus and off. We pay much in terms of technology-related fees to this university.

That entitles us to a stable, functional e-mail system that works like it’s supposed to.

If you disagree with me, feel free to send your comments to dailyopinion@ou.edu. Given the state of OU mail, they might not arrive.

OBAMA/CLINTON JOUST ONLY BEGINNING OF INFIGHTING

Published Mar. 1, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

The 2008 presidential elections are over a year away. The New Hampshire primary is still just a gleam in the eyes of the big wheels in Concord, N.H. But the infighting between presidential hopefuls has already started. This time, it's the firstround of the super-heavyweight title match between Democratic front-runners Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama.

It started — as does much of this country's popular drama — in Hollywood. Successful producer David Geffen of DreamWorks SKG organized an invitation-only, star-studded fundraiser for presidential hopeful Obama. The fundraiser raised over $1 million, unsurprising given the support Obama enjoys from the deep-pocketed glitterati of America's movie capital.

Hollywood supporting a popular, charismatic Democratic presidential hopeful is not exactly earth-shattering, and is really not the major issue. You see, Geffen and the Clintons were pretty close back in the early nineties. Then came Monicagate, along with some other issues, and Geffen distanced himself from the Clintons. So no one was that surprised when Geffen openly supported Obama and not Hillary. What really got people's attention is what he had to say about Arkansas' presidential couple.

Essentially, Geffen called all politicians liars, and he further voiced his true unease at how he believed the former first couple of Little Rock, Ark., had lied. He then ran through a series of somewhat unflattering adjectives for Hillary, and verbally drop-kicked the Clinton political team. For more on this, see Howard Fineman's Feb. 21 column in Newsweek.

Hillary was not going to stand for this. Her team fired back almost immediately, calling on Obama to denounce the offending remarks, and also to give back the money.

Obama, certainly not one to be cowed, responded equally forcefully. His team highlighted Geffen's once-close relationship with the Clintons, and Hillary's coziness with a supporter who had publicly insulted Obama and his race.

Later, Obama also stated that he shouldn't be the one to apologize for someone else's comments.

After the initial volleys earlier this month, both sides have backed down from escalating the issue. Both Obama and Hillary are back to speaking, shaking hands, seeking face time and raising money. They both have better things to do than focus on some stray comments at one fundraiser, no matter how glitzy.

Even the initial broadsides from both campaigns were in a sense obligatory. High-profile Geffen is unabashedly Democratic. If a fellow Democrat's attack on Hillary couldn't be defended against, how would they fare against the precision attacks of Republicans come election season?

Obama's camp was certainly not unjustified in defending their candidate and his actions.

But then again, these were virtually automatic reactions to actions that were themselves pre-ordained by our political atmosphere, particularly when it comes to elections.

No candidate can afford to look weak in the eyes of the other party. Pacifying, satiating and neutralizing the fire of the opposing party is the driving force behind most actions of candidates, including the little bout mentioned above.

Did most people really care what one left-wing Hollywood firebrand had to say about a particular candidate? Not really.

Are his words really going to seriously change most people's opinions about Obama, Hillary or politicians in general? Not likely.

Do the camps of Hillary, Obama and virtually all candidates from both parties know this? Probably. Will this in any way stop them from verbally attacking, parrying and defending one another over relatively asinine comments? Not a chance.

Much of the verbose battles that are given so much focus during elections are really waged not for the benefit and attention of the general public but to guard against fire from opponents. The idea is to deny one's opponent any advantage in any area, which is a principle of war called security.

Inherently, there's nothing wrong with it.

Violation of this security would grant an opponent an opportunity to capitalize on a weak point and potentially destroy a particular candidate. That is something all candidates have the right to guard against.

A major downside to this is the deluge of political tiffs between virtually all candidates.

A new argument appears almost every day, and most of these are over some comment made by someone about something.

Granted some comments are genuinely misunderstood or misspoken, most of them are about such minute details or so blatantly incorrect that most people need no assistance to determine that said comments have no value.

However, politicians still respond to these comments because they must. They have to do so to make sure there is no chink in their political armor, no unprotected heel for their rhetorical Achilles. If they didn't, you can bet that their opponents would try their best to flay them alive. Again, the consequence is a deluge of endless debates, disagreement and discourse over virtually everything.

Who really pays the price for this? That's hard to say. One might conclude that the politicians themselves suffer the most. That's a fair assessment. But they're also in effect protecting themselves from themselves. I don't know if that qualifies as suffering. One might also say that it's the general public who bear the brunt of the pain, since they have to bear witness to these endless chains of rhetorical attack and counterattack. But then again, a large portion of the public is apathetic, either by nature or by sheer desensitization. They simply don't care to listen to these mini-arguments.

It's unclear who, if anyone, really suffers from these election-time verbal cluster bombs. It's also unclear what benefit, if any, they have for the general public. What is pretty clear is that they'll continue dropping.

Everywhere.

MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT “ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD” PROGRAM

Published Feb. 15, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Starting this week, the famed “One Laptop per Child” project will start sending its first batch of ultra-inexpensive laptops to several poor nations around the globe. This groundbreaking project seeks to revolutionize education in developing countries by distributing durable, kid-friendly laptop computers to impoverished schoolchildren. The cornerstone of this program is the revolutionary $150 laptop.

The project is the brainchild of a group of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their vision is to reach 150 million of the neediest children of the world by 2010. By then, according to Reuters news agency, the price of the laptop is expected to fall below $100.

That price is a mere fraction of those of even basic consumer models sold in the United States.

The innovative technology inside the MIT laptops, however, belies the cheap price. They boast Linux open-source operating systems, hand-cranked battery chargers, multilingual keyboards and displays that can switch between color and monochrome. They also are equipped with wireless connectivity, pen-input capability and built-in video cameras.

The idea behind the project is for schoolchildren in developing countries to bridge the digital divide and use these computers to read e-books, shoot videos and otherwise exploit the power of the computer. Several nations are already slated to host pilot programs with this visionary idea before full-scale introduction in developing nations around the globe.

On the surface, this seems like a great idea.

A group of learned people from a very wealthy and computer-savvy country are using their knowledge and industrial might to help the children of poor nations enter the world of computers. Supplying quality machines appears to be a worthy effort to help those in need

The problem, however, lies not in the computers themselves, but in the manner in which they are to be implemented. In fact, that exact manner is vague at best. The laptops are designed to be used to perform a host of electronic educational tasks — making videos, researching on the Internet, etc. — that are commonplace in most any American school.

But the true strength of the American school system does not lie in its advanced use of technology. No, the true strength of our school system lies in things decidedly more low-tech.

It lies in didactic elements like trained teachers, solid school buildings, surplus school supplies and books.

As shocking as it is, most of the children who are slated to receive the laptops in question are lacking much of the above in their schooling. Virtually every nation on the list to participate in this program has a shortage of trained teachers.

Many of these countries' school buildings are decrepit, if existent at all. In some cases, there are not even books for these children.

The shortage of these very basic educational necessities is something no single piece of technology can overcome.

Therefore, these laptops become little more than toys for children who would still need a good education.

And expensive toys, at that.

It is estimated by the “Room to Read” charitable organization that a school serving 500 pupils can be built and maintained for only $25 per child. A library that can serve 400 children can be had for only $5 per child. That library can bring a large number of local-language texts for the benefit of its patrons. Given this, $150 for one laptop for only one child does not seem like such a sound investment.

All the more so because the concept is unproven. It took schools in the developed countries the better part of three decades to integrate technology with a well-established curriculum and stable school system.

The laptop project is trying to force that same integration almost overnight in areas where even school buildings may not exist, let alone curricula and supplies.

That's a pretty big risk.

But, like any big risk, it has the potential to be a runaway success — a true global revolution in educational technology. If successful, this project and its patrons will be bona fide heroes for underprivileged children everywhere. Children all across the world would have new educational doors opened to them and would benefit from technology like never before. The digital divide will have been spanned by some pretty big bridges.
It also has the potential, however, to fail miserably. The educational goals of the project may well never be met.

The thousands of laptops may end up being sold on the black market and gutted for parts for who knows what kind of device. It may very well leave the project in shambles and its patrons with no credibility. Poor nations already struggling with debt will be left reeling from millions of dollars of new debt, all from an essentially fruitless venture.

Still, the prize is too significant to not at least try this project out. To end it at its current state would be doing a great disservice. I say keep with it and hope for the first scenario.

Just don't be too surprised if the second scenario results instead.

WII REVOLUTION A BENEFIT FOR PLAYERS’ HEALTH

Published Feb. 1, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Kids play video games. This has been true since video games first came about, 30-some-odd years ago. Systems have come a long way from the monochromatic Pong era to the HD-capable, powerhouse consoles of today that wield more computing power than most computers. Likewise, games have improved from two schizophrenic dots chasing each other to today’s intricately plotted sagas whose graphics quality approaches that of movies or television.

All through this exponential explosion of technology, one thing had remained constant in the world of video games, how the games were played. It involved one to four players sitting, slouching, or at the most, standing with a controller in hand. Pressing the numerous buttons on said controller was the only way to get anything to happen in the course of the game.

All that changed forever on Nov. 19, 2006, the day the Nintendo Wii was released.

More than two months have since passed, which in the world of electronics is tantamount to about 2.1 years, give or take. That means that most of you have played Wii, or at the very least, have touched one.

You know, then, the key to the Wii’s runaway success is its revolutionary approach to game-controlling. The ubiquitous controller is now completely unattached to the console, and most of the functions once only available via buttons have now been replaced by simple motions.

Yes, motion. Just that.

Let’s say you want to, say, return a computer-generated serve in Wii tennis. Gone are the days of pushing one button for backhand and another for forehand. Hold the controller and swing it like a tennis racket, fore or back.

That’s all.

Wowza.

This revolution in gaming aside, the Wii is the opening chapter in a renewed row between gamers and game critics. Of the latter, there has always been a vocal faction. Granted, some of the rhetoric of these critics is ludicrous and just wrong. Video games do not, in fact, poison minds, kill brain cells or cause blindness, as some have claimed.

That said, staring at a screen for long periods of time moving only the fingers and the occasional wrist does not foreshadow glad tidings for one’s body mass index and cholesterol, among other things.

About that, there is no dispute.

This isn’t limited to just video games. People who spend long hours in front of computer screens are equally susceptible. The one crucial difference between these desk jobs and video games is that the holders of the jobs are adults. They’ve had many years to, potentially, live a more active life.

If, the argument goes, kids are exposed to the obvious pleasures of video games from an early age with no cap on playing time, they will develop unhealthy habits and a sedentary lifestyle. This couch-potato syndrome is much harder to shake off during the early years and can cause much more damage to little bodies than bigger ones.

Thus, health proponents of all shades faced off against video gamers and companies for many years. Although this has died down in the last few years due to the sheer popularity of video games, the Wii’s motion-sensitive controllers represent a definitive nail in the coffin of this battle.

That’s because Nintendo has hit the sweet spot between fun-loving kids of all ages and their more health-conscious parents. One has to seriously move around to play most Wii games for any length of time. And while this may not be on the level of, say, the Ironman Triathlon, it’s actually decent exercise.

And miles removed from sitting on a couch pushing buttons.

What prevents people from exercising more is the perception of pain and work. If one finds fun in exercising, it immediately becomes a more desirable activity. So while kids are busy chasing down stray ground shots in Wii tennis or sword-fighting in Zelda, they are actually having fun. That’s what they care about the most, not that they’re burning calories and (somewhat) increasing stamina.

Is this the ideal form of exercise for today’s digital generation of ankle-biters? Pretty darn close.

Granted, not every child has a Wii, and it is still possible to play the Wii sitting down.

But those who fully equate video games with sedentary obesity are steadily running out of steam in their argument. It used to be a tag line of sorts to “stop playing the game and go move around.”

Well, guess what? Now the only way to play the game is to move around.

I have nothing against the proponents of health and healthy practices. Their ideal is admirable. They must, however, be able to reach out to people better than the allure of video games. They were losing this battle already in the past few years.

In the form of the Wii, Nintendo has made sure the health promoters keep losing this battle while paradoxically advancing the very cause they champion. So a whole generation of video-game-loving kids will grow up not only happier, but a little healthier too. All thanks to Nintendo.

Now, if only Sony and Microsoft would get a move on, too.

CUBA EMBARGO CONTINUES TO SERVE LITTLE PURPOSE

Published Jan. 18, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

For close to 50 years, Fidel Castro has been the face of the Cuban government. Even after transferring responsibilities to his younger brother Raúl, the elder Castro remains an iconic and authoritative figure. He led the transformation of Cuba to a one-party socialist regime after overthrowing U.S. ally Fulgencio Batista in 1959.

Since then, while maintaining a stranglehold censorship of the press and a tight grip on power, his government oversaw skyrocketing literacy rates, now at 97 percent, and health care.

Its infant mortality rate, shockingly, is lower than that of the U.S.

During that time, his government also nationalized all industry and commerce on the island, including the former holdings of American sugar and fruit companies.

This, as it so happens, is the root of the American trade embargo against Cuba, in place since 1961. Initially, it was intended as temporary retaliation against the seizure of American interests.

It continued to escalate until it reached the full embargo that was in place until 2000, when the U.S. Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of medicine and food to Cuba, to be used for humanitarian aid only.

This is one of the longest embargoes ever put in place by the United States, and it has numerous critics from disparate groups who claim the embargo has little justification, if any.

There are only a few nations with socialist governments left in the world. With the exception of Cuba ¬¬— and nuclear-happy North Korea — the United States maintains normal trade relations with all of them.

One of them, China, continues to be one of America’s most important trading partners, in terms of goods and revenue exchanged.

Even nations ruled by governments that the United States was openly at war with, such as Vietnam, now have normal trade relations with America. Cuba has never attacked the United States nor violated its territorial integrity. Indeed, it was the other way around, as shown by the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of 1962.

Therefore, there is little basis for the embargo on the grounds of Cuba’s socialist, one-party government, as other such-governed countries have normal relations with the U.S.

Secondly, the embargo actually does not prevent the enrichment of Cuba from U.S. sources.

Many Cuban expatriates, particularly those with family still living in Cuba, regularly send remittances to their loved ones. It was so regularly done that the Cuban government legalized the U.S. dollar as a parallel currency to the Cuban peso. The dollar remained legal until 2004, when the Cuban government banned it to combat tighter U.S. restrictions.

Regardless of the embargo, thousands of Americans visit Cuba, many for business reasons. Their dollars, converted to pesos, continue to enrich the Cuban economy, effectively counteracting the embargo.

The embargo is lifted, temporarily, when U.S. humanitarian aid is sent to Cuba in return for Cuban agricultural products.

The embargo faces unending and almost unanimous international criticism.

The United Nations General Assembly regularly passes resolutions by calling on the United States to end the embargo. International ire is directed toward the embargo because parts of the statutes authorizing it also attempt to impact other nations’ interests.

Foreign ships, for instance, are banned from docking at U.S. ports within six months of docking in Cuba.

Furthermore, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which aims to penalize foreign companies that do business in Cuba, is considered contrary to international law as national legislation that aims to meddle in the dealings of two other sovereign nations.

Several of the United States’ closest allies and trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, have taken steps to combat this law and protect the rights of companies headquartered in those nations. Critics of U.S. foreign policy continue to point to this embargo as evidence of American bully tactics and attempts to literally try to regulate the world.

The embargo, then, has little justification on account of past history or Cuba’s system of government.

It attracts a never-ending stream of criticism from the United Nations, religious figures and even America’s closest allies. Last, the embargo really hasn’t done what it was meant to do. The Cuban government has never been brought to its economic knees.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union readily stepped in to fill the trade void created by the embargo. After a few very desperate years immediately following the collapse of the USSR, the Cuban economy has stayed afloat thanks to a combination of economic flexibility and innovation. For example, thousands of Cuban doctors were sent to serve in Venezuela in return for Venezuelan oil.

The primary reason for the embargo surviving this long is strong lobbying from Cuban-Americans in the electoral-vote-rich and politically important state of Florida. Doing away with this embargo would remove one of the most glaring blemishes on America’s record of international cooperation and trade. U.S.-Cuba trade would likely remain as it does during the periodic lifting of the embargo — American food and medicines in return for Cuban agricultural products. A new market would be opened to American businesses which, according to numerous feasibility studies, stand to make huge gains from the potential Cuban market. Getting rid of a flawed embargo that’s not that effective seems a small price to pay to silence widespread international criticisms and to open up a vast new market for American businesses.

It ought to be done. American cigar aficionados would be the first to rejoice.

BOND REFLECTS GENERATIONAL VIEWS ON GENDER

Published Nov. 16, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Published Online Nov. 18, 2006 by Youth500
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)

As you read this, you are less than 24 hours away from a smorgasbord of males of various ages (and some females, too) drooling over fast cars, faster women, perfectly cut dinner jackets, gun battles and ridiculous innuendo-laced one-liners.

This could be Singles Night at the Palms Las Vegas, any night in Atlantic City or, heaven forbid, your date this weekend. But no, I speak of the latest James Bond flick, to be released nationwide Friday.

This latest baby of MGM, called “Casino Royale,” promises to revitalize and renew the venerable 007 franchise. A new plot, revised action sequences and even a brand-new Bond actor have been introduced.

There has been much controversy regarding the actor, blonde-haired Daniel Craig, who is said to be too far removed from author Ian Fleming's original image of Bond. Even so, many longtime Bond fans argue that any change would be a welcome one, given that many feel the quality of films had dipped to abysmal levels.

Although the Walther-wielding super-spy continued to generate box-office dollars into the late 80s and early 90s, the acclaim and popularity of the movies were a far cry from the 60s and 70s.

A number of factors likely caused this. The concept of a suave, debonair secret agent risking all for queen and country, and washing it down with a vodka martini, does not get old: It's almost timeless in entertainment value.

Other aspects of the movies, however, were, and to some extent, are dated. Prominent among these is the portrayal of women.

The proverbial Bond girl (such as Ursula Andress as Honey Rider — pictured) is the personification of ideal femininity, or at least the circa-1965 misogynistic idea of femininity. In the movies, she was expected to not think for herself, to always need a strong man for her protection and to always look good in very little clothing.

This image was reinforced in repeated screen adaptations of the admittedly dark novels. Women that tried to follow their own path or tried and act independently almost always somehow found themselves in great peril, and thus needed the male presence of Bond to help them solve the problems they had caused.

The idea was that a woman simply could not exist intellectually and powerfully for her own sake. Everything about her was somehow tied to male figures.

It's difficult to lay blame solely on the writers and directors of the films, or even Fleming.

In the pre-feminism days of 007's genesis, the prevailing view of society was that a woman was a delicate creature best suited to stay at home and cede control to the men in her life. The first Bond movies were released at a time when feminism still hadn't taken root; it was still lumped together with other so-called radical movements.

Any movie seeking to profit on sheer entertainment value could not hope to do so by embracing a philosophy so far removed from mainstream society as gender equality. This is just as true for a movie centered on an alpha male type of character.

There is nothing wrong with movies reflecting society, as long as they do so accurately. What was normal and accepted conduct 40 years ago is very out of place, and even downright offensive, in today's world. Women have made great strides and are in almost every way equal to their male counterparts in all facets of society.

To the credit of the minds behind the Bond films, attempts have been made to reflect this on the silver screen. The last Bond movie saw, for the first time, an equally efficient female counterpart acting independently and, for a time, against Bond in her own extensive counter-espionage activities.

Unfortunately, that portrayal was within a royally bad effort that was the target of a plethora of complaints regarding production and presentation. The negative aspects of the film became tied to the portrayal of such an independent and prominent female character within the 007 universe, which was a very unjustified and unfair connection to make.

The brains behind Bond probably know that change in certain aspects of popular films is necessary if the films are to remain popular in the future. The persona and world of 007 are, however, so ingrained in the minds of the audience that major change would likely result in another complaint fiasco much like the last flick.

As paradoxical as it may sound, the thing to do is to reinvent the franchise completely, which is what has been planned for “Casino Royale.”

By removing the traces to the Bond of yore, all expectations and ideas regarding the old character are also removed.

Thus, female characters' behavior and ideas will not be readily compared by most moviegoers, as the older movies will seem different enough to be about a completely different main character. At least that seems to have been the idea.

It's commendable that a franchise as venerable and popular as James Bond has seen fit to introduce change to keep up with a more enlightened viewpoint. Before heaping praise too highly, however, the finished product must be seen.

If the movie is successful in presenting new viewpoints in a well-finished and engaging product, it will truly have succeeded in bringing the eternal Bond to a new generation of fans while reflecting the society that they call their own.

If it fails, the franchise will have begun the painful journey to eventually become nothing more than an anachronism in the years to come.

CHARITIES NEED MORE THAN CHECKS

Published Nov. 2, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

For probably as long as humans have walked the earth, some form of charity has existed. Early on, it was likely motivated by survival, with abler members of clans helping out those in need to ensure a stronger clan overall.

Later, as political, social and economic systems became more developed, distinct social classes also came about.

With these classes, the differences between those more fortunate and less fortunate grew more and more pronounced. Whether as genuine aid, social façade or political maneuver, the poor received aid periodically from the richer upper classes.

This was especially the case among the religious: Most religions required, and still require, almsgiving of its members. Examples of this include tithing in Christian denominations and zakat in Islam. The great majority of religious almsgiving was done and is done in terms of money.

For the majority of people, donations make up the bulk of non-religious charitable activities, as well. It’s hardly a surprise, since donating monetarily is a very easy thing to do, provided one has sufficient funds. These donations can range from pocket change in a jar next to a cash register to multimillion-dollar gifts given by high-profile celebrities and anonymous donors to numerous causes and groups.

Believe me when I say that no charitable organization will ever refuse money.

Why would they? Their very existence requires capital. Even for an organization run completely by volunteers, permits must be purchased, and often liability insurance must be maintained.

For organizations that provide food and other supplies, the amount of money required increases exponentially. Everything they provide — every article of clothing, every item of food — must be obtained somewhere. More often than not, it is purchased on the open market, albeit at reduced rates.

Monetary donations are essential to keep charities functioning and useful.

There is absolutely no problem with these donations or those that donate in this way. On the contrary — they are to be commended for helping by doing what they can do. This should not, however, be considered all they can do. By no means is simply donating money an acceptable substitute for physically working with a cause.

The basic reason why monetary donations don’t work as a substitute is that the human element cannot be replaced.

Consider the example of Habitat for Humanity, a group well known for building houses for deserving families that cannot afford them. Even if an unlimited amount were donated in cash and goods for the building of a particular house, it could not be completed without people to build it.

Human beings, obviously, are the crucial part of any human endeavor, charitable or not. In the arena of charitable groups and alms, people, through their time and efforts, are what drive the benevolence.

People also make that benevolence more significant and meaningful. As helpful and essential as monetary donations are, simply writing a check to go toward relief in a hurricane-devastated area is not the same as physically bringing supplies and aiding in rescue efforts. If you can only donate, then by all means, donate all that you can.

If you can, however, give not only your money, but your time and strength as well.

Not only will you yourself be closer to the situation and individuals that you are seeking to help, but because of your personal involvement, you will also derive a level of satisfaction from your work that is virtually unattainable by simply mailing in a check.

The sacrifices made in earning and writing the amount on the check simply pale in comparison to those made in the course of donating physical efforts.

Charity has evolved, keeping pace with human advancements in society, economy and, of course, prosperity.

Because of both the large amounts of disposable wealth among the wealthier social strata and the ease with which virtually any cause can be supported, charitable activity is more dominant now than ever before in history.

Unfortunately, it is also arguable that most of that activity in our fast-paced, online-banking-infused world is of the monetary type. Of course that money is being well-utilized, but something very important is being taken out of the picture — the crucial human element.

It is this that gives meaning to sacrificing of self to help others, to give with open arms to a total stranger, to the sheer joy of volunteering.

And that is something a donation of money, no matter how great, will never be able to truly emulate.

POINT/COUNTERPOINT: COAL-FUELED POWER PLANTS: THE RIGHT MOVE?

Published Oct. 19, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Point: Makes necessary power

As you read this, the government is considering plans to put more than one hundred coal-fueled power plants into place across 42 states.

Coal has been used since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century as a fuel in factories and for steam engines in ships, trains and even some cars. For many years, it was touted as one of Earth’s natural wonders, its gift to mankind.

Then environmentalism was born and coal was denounced as a vile, murderous pollutant. It burned dirty, smelly and covered its surroundings with a black layer of soot.

The drive to replace coal as the fuel of choice found plenty of support.
Many of the plants added to the grid in the 20th century, therefore, were designed to be fueled by petroleum, wind turbines and water-powered generators in dams. Yet now, nasty, dirty coal is once again being considered to power the nation’s electric grid.

I have no problem with it.

The main reason that new power plants are being considered in the first place is an explosion in electrical use and demand. The population of the U.S. has surpassed 300 million, and people are using more kilowatts of electricity per capita than ever before. There’s only so much stress that the existing system can take before breaking down.

This was demonstrated dramatically in 2003, when seven states in the northeast and the Canadian province of Quebec experienced a multi-day blackout.

Some of the busiest cities in America, including Detroit and New York City, were plunged into darkness and untempered summer heat. All electrical activity was literally at a standstill.

This massive outage was initially caused by an overload-induced shutdown at a single plant. The North American electrical grid is so interlinked that the shutdown soon spread.

In the current situation of exploding demand, how quickly the much-needed electricity is generated is also extremely important. Since the power grid is already strained, power plant designs that take much time to construct and put into operation are not prudent solutions to our current predicament. This includes nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams.

Environmentalists often tout wind farms as the energy method of the future, as it is powered by the natural, no-pollutant force of wind.

Wind farms, however, are notoriously expensive, and often require years of continuous operation just to recoup the costs of construction. And wind is an extremely variable force.

Even very windy areas will experience extended times of atmospheric calm.

This, of course, renders the wind-powered turbines inoperable.

Therefore, for maintaining a steady flow of efficiently generated electricity, wind turbines are of little use. This leaves power plants that rely on fuel oil to generate electricity.

Fuel oil is derived from petroleum, which is still relatively plentiful on the planet and inexpensive. The problem is that most of it is located in other parts of Earth — parts inhabited by countries with which the U.S. does not always enjoy the best of relations.

It is not the ideal source for a steady supply of energy-producing fuel. In times of actual or potential conflict, the supply of fuel oil should not be trusted to the very powers that the U.S. might be in conflict with.

Without this precious black gold of a fuel, the power stations in question cannot function, thereby bringing us back to the proverbial square one when it comes to alleviating the electricity supply dilemma.

So, where does that leave us with respect to coal?

Well, it leaves us with coal as our only viable option to fixing the problems that exist with current electricity delivery. Yes, I realize it’s a non-renewable fossil fuel. No, it doesn’t burn cleanly with water as its only byproduct. And no, it won’t make you feel warm and cuddly as a protector of the environment.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t advocate gas-guzzling SUVs, slash-and-burn farming, exotic hardwood dentures or any other form of wanton destruction of the environment.

It is important, however, to maintain a balance between environmentalism and common sense. The pollution that would be prevented by not using coal-powered plants would be more than made up for by the disruptions that the other types of power stations would cause.

For example, do you really think fish can swim through thick concrete walls in the middle of a lake to get to their breeding grounds?

Since virtually any power plant will have significant effects on the environment, we must choose the one fuel that will produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is coal.

It’s nasty and smelly, but it’s also cheap, reliable and not stored beneath the soil of a country ruled by a foreign autocrat.

So, let the coal fires burn.

Monday, October 22, 2007

IGNORE HOLLYWOOD: FOLLOW ONE PATH

Published Oct. 5, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here

Over the past two weeks, two movies employing actor Ashton Kutcher’s talents have been released. One is a drama/action flick with Kutcher playing one of the main roles. The second features the actor’s voice talents in a comedic animated feature.

While both films have performed respectably, the animated movie has easily outdone the live-action production.

Kutcher made his name in Hollywood as a solid comedic actor, the star of movies revolving around wondering where one’s car might be. In that vein, he was and remains successful, with numerous laugh-happy roles under his belt.

In the world of the small screen, he has gone on to produce several humorous television shows, in addition to his long-running sitcom work.

Kutcher is good at what he does.

As long as what he does is comedy.

As of late, he has forayed into dramatic roles, such as the aforementioned one. While name recognition and acting ability ensure that he does a decent job in these movies, they are generally nowhere near as successful as his comedic turns.

Without unduly insulting Kutcher or his career choices, this example can be said to be reflective of something more and more prevalent today — people trying to do too much.

This antithesis of specialization is most prominent in the entertainment field. It seems it is no longer profitable nor desirable to remain just an actor or just a singer.

Singers try to become actors, and actors try to sing. A modeling career is almost obligatory. Let’s not forget the clothing and fragrance lines. A personal restaurant is always good. And of course, there are the reality shows about, ironically, one’s life away from the spotlight.

In the process of pursuing these divergent ends, most entertainers’ resumes suffer greatly. This is due to a combination of overexposure and concentrating more on pursuits beyond their original one. Sadly, once glittering careers are often reduced to a shadow of their former selves, supported by a lifeline of celebrity endorsements and talk show appearances.

If this was a phenomenon limited to the arena of entertainment, it would not be so bad. This mantra of “do everything,” however, has trickled down to other areas of society as well. Particularly ominous is the infatuation and support this theory enjoys in the arena of education.

“Well-rounded” has transcended the label of buzzword and become something of a holy grail when it comes to college applications.

Each year, more and more high school students hear that it is not enough to simply have good grades. They must have musical talent, leadership experience, volunteer work, athletic skill and any number of other attributes.

While the pursuit of these multiple endeavors is beneficial and worthy, a very crucial point is missed by many in our multitask loving world — not all of these areas have to be mastered.

It is perfectly all right to specialize in one area, and maintain the others as hobbies or secondary pursuits.

In fact, this is a much closer model of the real world than one in which people are masters of all trades. True professional success is much more likely to come as a result of mastery of one skill rather than proficiency in many.

Let’s pretend that you’re about to undergo surgery to remove a tumor in your brain.

Would you even care whether your surgeon helped build an orphanage in Djibouti or could play the Brandenburg Concertos on three instruments while blindfolded?

No, you wouldn’t. As long as the surgeon was skilled with a scalpel and had thorough knowledge of neurosurgery, then it really wouldn’t matter what else he could or could not do.

This is just one example. In most any field, success and professional satisfaction are contingent not on wielding a plethora of skills all equally well, but on honing just the skills required for one’s particular arena.

By not focusing on other skills, one isn’t selling himself short, but rather is allowing himself to sharpen the skills that are truly important, the ones he cannot do without.

Take a lesson from the entertainers. Almost everyone that has tried to follow multiple career paths simultaneously has fallen into the trap and ended up with almost no career at all.

By all means, do anything and everything that interests you. But keep in mind that not all those things must be done to equally high standards.

Don’t let the pursuit of this facetious notion derail you from the path of your true niche, whatever that may be.

Let Hollywood be alone in its mistakes. Your true calling in life is much too great a prize to sacrifice.