Displaying posts published in

January 2018

Defense Department-Amazon Deal Risks Chinese Espionage By Andrew E. Harrod

Recent Department of Defense (DoD) actions indicate that the DoD is considering making Amazon the DoD’s sole online cloud provider, the Washington Examiner notes. Such a deal entails numerous disadvantages, not least of which is threats of espionage arising from Amazon’s compromising relationship with China.

On October 30, the DoD made a “Request for Information” (RFI) soliciting private-sector advice about modernizing DoD cloud services. The RFI specifications suggest that the DoD is seeking a single global cloud-provider. Amazon would most likely be the contract recipient, given several past multimillion-dollar cloud contracts with multiple national security agencies.

I.T. contractors and several trade groups have made “stern warnings about the potential effects of choosing just one cloud provider.” The “[DoD]’s diverse needs and mission requirements” argue against an “approach that could eliminate the potential for multiple cloud services providers.” As one trade group analogizes, “almost all Fortune 500 counterparts have established multi-cloud architectures because no singular cloud solution meets all of their mission and business application requirements.”

Innovation and cost-cutting also favor multiple suppliers, the trade groups and contractors note. “A Department cloud [comprising] multiple interoperable offerings would ensure that the Department obtains the benefits of competition to achieve best value.” The “diversified solutions from the commercial market will facilitate a culture of experimentation, adaption, and risk-taking and increase the speed of technology development and procurement.” By contrast, “selecting only one cloud[-]provider drastically impairs competition in the future, effectively leaving [DoD] captive to one provider.”

Benjamin Franklin’s Retirement and Reinvention by William N. Thorndike Jr.

Two hundred and seventy years ago this month, aged 42 and weeks from the midpoint of his long life, Benjamin Franklin did something highly unusual. He retired. Specifically, he sat down at a perennially cluttered desk in his cramped Philadelphia print shop and signed an innovative “Co-Partnership” agreement with his foreman, David Hall. The document was a scant two pages in length, but it immediately changed the trajectory of Franklin’s life and career. Not coincidentally, later that year Franklin hired the distinguished Colonial artist Robert Feke to paint his portrait (now held in the Portrait Collection of the Harvard Art Museums) and record this pivotal moment for posterity.

Franklin’s retirement (memorialized in his best-selling autobiography) helped establish the modern concept of a multi-career life and ranks among his great inventions. The transaction gave 50 percent ownership of his firm to Hall. Franklin’s printing business was unlike any other in the Colonies: in the eighteenth century, printing was an inherently local trade focused on small business and government customers, and staple products like stationery, legal notices, currency, invoices, and invitations. Franklin cracked this parochial model open along two dimensions: as publisher of the Pennsylvania Gazette newspaper and the wildly popular Poor Richard’s Almanac, he was a substantial owner of copyrights. He was also a sort of pioneering venture capitalist, providing custom-designed presses to aspiring printers in far-flung places (New York, Newport, Charleston, even Antigua) in return for a share in the profits.

Franklin was anxious to move on to other activities, but in the embryonic economy of mid-eighteenth century Philadelphia, the option of selling his firm did not exist. There were no investment bankers, no Googles or Amazons voraciously looking for acquisitions. The outline of the deal with Hall was based on the template created in his earlier printing investments and was designed to solve this problem by guaranteeing Franklin the next best thing to an outright sale: a long-term passive income.

There is an elegant simplicity about the entire arrangement with Hall. (Two pages! Today’s equivalent would be at least 25 times that length.) In return for the contracts, copyrights, type, and presses, Franklin received 50 percent of the profits for an 18-year period.

Less-Educated Workers See Biggest Weekly Pay Bumps By Sarah Chaney

Year-over-year wage growth for high-school graduates outpaced wage growth for college graduates in each quarter of 2017

Americans with only a high-school diploma are seeing faster earnings growth than their highly educated counterparts, as employers in low-wage industries hungrily search for workers to fill job openings.

In the fourth quarter of 2017, median weekly earnings for workers 25 years and older with only a high-school diploma rose 2.3% from the same period a year earlier, new Labor Department data show. Meanwhile, pay for Americans carrying a bachelor’s degree edged up just 0.8% from the fourth quarter of 2016.

The trend has been ongoing, with year-over-year wage growth for high-school graduates outpacing wage growth for college graduates in each quarter of 2017.

Jed Kolko, chief economist at job site Indeed, said the outsize pay growth for the least educated workers underscores the impact of a tight labor market on workers who largely hadn’t shared in the gains.

“As the labor market has tightened, more opportunities are opening for people with less education, less experience, and firms are competing more to hire people who they would not have fought as hard for a couple years ago,” Mr. Kolko said.

Those wage gains also at least partially reflect rising minimum wages, which increased in 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, in 2017.

Though quarterly earnings data are volatile, the longer-term trend for the least educated workers shows swift gains over the course of the economic expansion. Earnings growth for Americans without a high-school diploma was weak early in the recovery, which began in mid-2009. In the third quarter of 2017, earnings growth since the end of the recession for this less-educated group rose above growth for those with a bachelor’s degree and higher.
CONTINUE AT SITE

Climate Change Is the Liberal Non-Agenda For New York’s Bill de Blasio, suing big oil is a placeholder for the purpose he hasn’t found. By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.

Fulfilling every stereotype of the phoney-baloney politician, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio last week sued the oil industry.

His argument, that oil companies cause a public nuisance in the form of greenhouse gases, has already been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The five companies he wishes to blame for rising seas and unpleasant storms account for a tiny share of global CO2 output. Most of the world’s energy reserves are government-owned. The oil performed exactly as advertised. The public got exactly the benefit it expected. Where is the fraud?

“The City . . . does not seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in their business operations,” the lawsuit says. The city isn’t trying to stop climate change but to share in the booty. If New York and other locales that have launched or contemplated such lawsuits want to tax energy, why don’t they just tax energy?

Never mind. Not 10 members of Congress or most other elected officials could, within an order of magnitude, describe the CO2 component of the atmosphere. They couldn’t explain the misnamed greenhouse effect or what climate sensitivity is.

And for good reason: Learning anything about the subject would be a waste of their time when their positions were long ago pre-determined by which party they belong to and who their constituents are.

Those who find the Donald Trump Show some awful tragedy rather than a satirical extravaganza perhaps suffer a mistaken belief that he interrupted a political discourse that was operating on a high level.

Mr. de Blasio is an unusually lanky case in point. “It’s up to the fossil fuel companies whose greed put us in this position to shoulder the cost of making New York safer and more resilient,” he explained. So residents can go on enjoying their energy-rich, fossil fuel-enabled lifestyles, he didn’t add.

As a New York Times headline put it, “Battling Climate Change from the Back Seat of an S.U.V.”

The Sierra Club’s Michael Brune, with unintended irony, said, “This is what climate leadership looks like.”

Uh huh. This is exactly what climate leadership looks like nowadays. Under a whole range of likely future climate scenarios, the cost-benefit trade-off of meaningful action has become an impossible sell to voters and even in terms of payoff for distant generations.

But a meme is a terrible thing to waste. Keep the climate panic fluffed in the minds of receptive voters to promote careers like Mr. de Blasio’s, or to extract political rents for the green-energy impresarios who increasingly nestle in both parties. CONTINUE AT SITE

Charles Is in Charge Schumer previews life for Trump if Democrats retake Congress.

Donald Trump spent 90 minutes talking to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer at the White House on Friday trying to avoid a government shutdown, and after he left Mr. Schumer vouchsafed that “we made some progress.” But apparently not enough to stop him and his fellow Democrats from threatening to filibuster a government funding bill as we reached our Friday deadline. This is what Mr. Trump’s life will be like, times about 10, if Democrats retake the House and Senate in November. They’re going to torture him like a dancing bear.

The most important political fact of this latest shutdown melodrama is that Democrats feel they can get away with it. Democrats are essentially doing what GOP Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee tried in 2013 over repealing ObamaCare: Refuse to fund the government over an unrelated policy issue.

Democrats pilloried Republicans for that one, and Nancy Pelosi called them “legislative arsonists.” But now Mr. Schumer has rallied Democrats, or perhaps they’ve rallied him, to shut down the government over an immigration deadline that is still six weeks away and has nothing to do with funding the government. The audacity is impressive.

The House has passed its funding bill for 30 days along with some policy priorities Democrats profess to want, such as a six-year extension of the CHIP program for children’s health care. Mr. Trump says he’s waiting to sign it. But Mr. Schumer still wants to hold Mr. Trump and the government hostage to the minority’s political priority on immigration.

Democrats are insisting on their timetable for a deal to legalize the so-called Dreamers even though the two sides have only begun to negotiate in earnest and even though Mr. Trump has said he wants to work something out. Mr. Schumer is showing Mr. Trump who’s really in charge.

Be Skeptical of Those Who Treat Science as an Ideology Scientific knowledge is always provisional. The point is to produce evidence, not doctrine. By Sue Desmond-Hellmann

Skepticism is the lifeblood of scientific progress. By constantly asking whether there is a different answer, a better approach or an alternative view, scientists drive improvements and innovations that ultimately benefit everyone. It is not “antiscience” to be skeptical—it’s definitively pro-science. At a time when people of all ideological stripes are seeking definitive sources of truth, we should all embrace our inner skeptics and turn to the scientific method for a fresh approach to resolve our differences.

When I started out as an oncologist in the mid-1980s, women with the most aggressive form of breast cancer were subjected to surgical removal of not only their breasts but large amounts of their chests and rib cages. Treatment later evolved toward less-extensive surgery but greater use of chemotherapy, which too often came with debilitating side effects. I still remember what I called “the mother sign”—women being helped into my clinic by their moms because they were so weak from the therapies I gave them.

In the 1990s I left patient care for biotechnology, which held promise in improving cancer treatments. I led product development at Genentech, where we developed drugs such as Herceptin, which targeted cancerous cells and left healthy ones largely intact. By challenging the status quo, we found ways to treat at least some patients without first making them sicker. In a little over a decade, cancer treatment moved from disfiguring surgery to powerful drugs to precise gene therapies. Today, harnessing the immune system to treat cancer shows immense promise for the next advance.
Photo: iStock/Getty Images

But whereas skepticism and uncertainty have always been the heart and soul of science, confidence and certainty are the coin of the realm in much of today’s public discourse. Unquestioning confidence is deeply troubling for the scientific community because it is not the currency we trade in, and it has led people in America and around the world to question scientific enterprise itself. We should all be troubled when science is treated as if it were an ideology rather than a discipline.

Valuing beliefs over science manifests itself as cynicism at best, denialism at worst. Scientists talk about skepticism to assert that nothing should be accepted or rejected without considerable evidence. Denialism—the refusal to accept established facts—is different and dangerous. According to Harvard research, between 2000 and 2005 AIDS denialism in South Africa led to an estimated 330,000 deaths because the government rejected offers of free drugs and grants and dragged its heels on establishing a treatment program. And in just eight weeks last year—April 7 to June 2—Minnesota saw more cases of measles, a disease easily prevented with a vaccine, than had occurred in the entire United States in 2016.

The point of science is not to produce doctrine, but to collect and test evidence that points toward conclusions, which in turn inform approaches, treatments and policies based on rigorous research. These conclusions are provisional. Scientific investigation is undertaken to question today’s knowledge, to seek new evidence through research and experimentation.

Oprah and the triumph of the therapeutic May 25, 2011 by Jamie Manson

Later today, Oprah Winfrey will present the final episode of the epic 25-year run of her talk show. Whether you belong to the Oprah or the “Just Say Noprah” camp, it is difficult to deny that, for millions, Winfrey’s program has been much more than a talk show. The devotion that she has inspired goes beyond her massive car and gift giveaways and her ability to attract the most powerful celebrities to her stage.

In the late 1990s, Oprah made a concerted effort to change the nature of her show from an entertainment similar to rival programs hosted by Phil Donohue and Sally Jesse Raphael, to what she branded “change your life television.”

Though Oprah now admits it was presumptuous to insist that her show could transform any life, hearing some of the testimonials of loyal viewers certainly lends credence to her initial claim:

A woman who, five years ago, suddenly lost her 13 month-old baby, reflects on a show about a mother who has suddenly lost her twin boys. “Nothing could console me,” she says, “This show was the only anchor I could hold onto in my sea of pain.”

Another young woman describes her being in a car accident with a drunk driver. She survived, but her mother and her best friend were killed. “I was so lonely. When I got home, I would turn on the TV and just listen to Oprah. She taught me the power of forgiveness. It freed me.”

A teenage girl who grew up watching Oprah thanks her for “lifting the shame of being abused. You taught me it wasn’t my fault.”

MY SAY: ABBAS THE “PEACE PARTNER”

It is no breaking news that Mahmoud Abbas, also known by his war name Abu Mazen is simply Arafat in a suit. Abbas was hailed as a “moderate” and “peace maker.” Weak kneed semi-supporters of Israel breathed a sigh of relief….they would not have to waste their time defending Israel and having those uncomfortable moments at dinner parties.

Why even Netanyahu accepted him as a “negotiator for peace.”He was described by fawning media as “a politician” and a “realist.”

They ignored his role in barbaric acts against Israeli civilians; his rewards to the families of terrorists; his praise of them in “the struggle”; his routine and diurnal fulminations against Israel-all in Arabic, of course.

In his own words celebrating terrorist killers: ““On the anniversary of the [Fatah] Launch, we renew the promise to our blessed Martyrs, that we will follow the path of the Martyr Brother Yasser Arafat and his comrades among the leaders of all the fighting forces, all the Martyrs.”

Now the mask is slipping and he is not what he seemed to the willfully stupid. Of course many are blaming President Trump for Abbas’ tantrum over recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’ capital.

You see, in the lexicon about the Arab war against Israel, “moderate” is defined as someone who would destroy Israel”peace-meal.” rsk

Robert Kaplan The Shrink-Rapped Presidency

Robert M Kaplan is a forensic psychiatrist. His book The King who strangled his psychiatrist and other dark tales is in press.

They have been told to shut up by the American Psychiatric Association, which has rejected the “diagnosis” of Hillary-supporting mental health “professionals” who swear that Donald Trump is a loony and must be removed from office. Something like that happened in Bavaria and didn’t end well

Following the publication of Michael Wolff’s book “Fire & Fury” — reviewed for Quadrant Online by Geoffrey Luck — there has been a cacophony of comment on the president’s mental state and whether Amendment 25 in the US Constitution can be applied to remove him from office. The amendment was instituted during the Eisenhower administration, the intention being to provide a mechanism for being rid of a president rendered incapable of governing. The example in mind was the severe incapacity of Woodrow Wilson from a stroke during his last years, his wife and doctor colluding to hide this from the government.

There are many examples of presidential mental states that led to concerns about psychiatric disorder; Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s-afflicted final years in office being just two. In those cases, nothing was done and the fact remains that there has never been an attempt to remove a president on these grounds.

For those contemplating such action with the current incumbent, a look back in history at a baroque example will serve as a warning. The case concerns the monarchical defenestration of King Ludwig 11 of Bavaria and the Palatinate, known to this day as “Mad King Ludwig” (above). This is a startling tale of royal eccentricity and grandeur, venal relatives, penny-pinching bureaucrats and miscarriage of justice, to say nothing of broken medical ethics. Those studying the current White House will recall Marx’s dictum that history repeats itself first with tragedy, then with farce.

Ludwig was the splendid king of Bavaria. Influenced by Richard Wagner, he built a number of fairy-tale castles – Neuschwanstein, Herrenchiemsee, Linderhof, Nymphenburg and Hohenschwangau – for no purpose other than to meet his fantasies. His castle-mania drained the state coffers, causing much concern to the treasury and unpaid creditors escalated. His family, a Macbeth-like bunch, seethed with jealousy, resentment, intrigue and envy. To add to the problem, Ludwig queered the pitch with his rampant sexual exploits, rogering the stable men and guards in the royal barracks. His nocturnal sleigh-rides and opulent orgies with soldiers in artificial grottoes did not go down well in staunchly Catholic 19th century Bavaria.

Media Chickens of the Frankfurt School Have Come Home to Roost By Michael Walsh

This week’s press conference featuring the White House physician, Rear Admiral Ronny Jackson, ostensibly was about President Trump’s health. In reality, it was a physical and mental check-up on the White House press corps, whose jejunity, mental impairment, and ideological blindness bespoke a dangerous warning sign for both the White House and the nation. These people are sick, and getting sicker. And until they’re all in quarantine, we’re all in danger of catching what’s obviously now a deadly communicable disease.

According to Dr. Jackson, the president’s health is excellent, especially for a 71-year-old man who subsists on little sleep and an old-fashioned American diet. But that wasn’t what the media was there to hear. In fact, they weren’t there to hear much of anything at all, or indeed even to listen (since they had already mentally discounted anything the doctor was going to say). Rather they had come to speak, using Dr. Jackson as the foil for “questions” that stated and restated the same Leftist-narrative talking point: that Trump is physically and mentally unfit to lead the nation that elected him—much to their shock and anger—fifteen months ago.

You can watch the whole thing here. But do note a few things going in, including the relative youth of the media folk, especially the women—who seem to be, like the Eloi in The Time Machine, chosen for their freshness and beauty rather than the penetrating quality of their minds. The men, meanwhile, skew slightly older, although no less primped and blow-dried.

Their “questions”—which were not phrased to elicit information but to score political points—almost all contained an underlying premise: that the president is manifestly unsuited to his high office, and the burden of proof is on the doctor to prove otherwise. Even when he stated in unequivocal terms that there is nothing physically or mentally wrong with Trump, the press corps practically sneered in his face, like small children demanding to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the sun will, in fact, rise in the east tomorrow. “Some people just have great genes,” said Dr. Jackson. But in the mechanistic world-view of “progressivism,” there can be no mysteries; everything must have a cause and effect, tied directly to diet, exercise, sex, race, and climate change. Things cannot simply just be.