Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1094 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Outsourcing and globalization aren't the major problems
[Read the article: You can't stop a tidal wave with a fork]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As another veteran of founding and winding down a technology company, I have come to believe that the problem with our economy today is the total elimination of competition. The business world is so enamored of the "category killer" business that every conceivable niche of every market capable of producing profits has been consolidated down from a wide number of players to just a handful. Notice how Silverman's troubles began when the number of customers was reduced by the consolidation among textbook publishers. Of course, the poster examples of this are the loss of mom and pop stores to WalMart and local hardware stores to Lowe's and Home Depot.
The driving force behind this, in my mind, is the mindset in the major financial markets that capital should be concentrated in the fewest possible hands. I realize that this can be seen as a simple playing out of capitalism, but somehow the American ideal of fair play has completely disappeared from the scene. I worry that the next generation of potential entrepreneurs will decode this quickly and realize the futility of expecting to break into the ranks of Michael Dell or Larry Page and Sergey Brin, because the odds are astronomically stacked against them, regardless of the merit of their technology or business plan.
I don't have any real proposals on how the venture capital and investment banking industries can recover their souls. Unfortunately, I fear it will take another Depression before any real introspection occurs. I still believe in capitalism, it's just that the current version in the US is totally corrupt and soulless.
-
We have to change the timetable
[Read the article: Impeachment? It's not just for Kucinich anymore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's clear from yesterday's comments by the Repugs that they want to wait six months before admitting that it's time to get out of Iraq. That realization has to sweep entirely through the party before impeachment can grow legs. It's vital that the Dems keep up the pressure now to shorten that time so that Bush's lawlessness can be highlighted when Congress removes authorization and funding but he continues to try to execute the war (which he certainly will).
Pelosi has to step up to the plate and acknowledge her mistake in taking impeachment off the table. She now knows the public is behind it. If she comes out powerfully and makes the case clearly, the polls will jump over 50% in favor of action. This has to be done well, however. Impeachment without conviction will create a monster the likes of which the world has never seen.
It's hard for me to believe that our country can survive waiting out Bush's term. Continued massive recruitment by Al Queda will eventually get them to a critical mass. Loss of respect in world opinion has to be reversed. The economy simply can't sustain itself on such massive deficits and a Congress that is genetically incapable of generating revenues. Finally, US involvement in the continued US and Iraqi casualties simply must be stopped if our country is ever to rejoin the civilized world.
-
@Geoff Randall
[Read the article: Impeachment? It's not just for Kucinich anymore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Geoff,
Properly done, an impeachment proceeding puts all of the issues you mentioned out on the table at once. Read Glenn Greenwald's blog post today and the comments on it to get a feel for just how incredibly difficult it is going to be to restore habeus corpus with Bush still in office. Similarly, the next president would make short work of replacing Wolfowitz. In my opinion, an impeachment trial is the best venue for a complete, issue by issue repudiation of the neocon agenda. Simply put, this agenda, and the actions of Bush and Cheney in implementing them, form the basis for their high crimes and misdemeanors.
-
Citizen to Gonzales:
[Read the article: Gonzales to Congress: Move on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Same to you!
Move on (out, that is).
-
Wrong direction?
[Read the article: Pesticide harmony -- a sick free trade tune]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't we import much more food from the south than the north? At least Canada is proficient in establishing and carrying out standards, even if they may not reach our exacting standards. I fear that is much less likely for food from south of us. I also think that a much bigger risk than pesticide residue on these foods in the risk of microbial contiamination, which so far, thankfully, has all been due to accident or negligence. God help us when the terrorists discover the ease with which they could infest these shipments.
-
New Business Model?
[Read the article: A beautiful mosaic of anti-blogger hatred]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Several threads over the last few days seem to be coming together around the concept of corporate ownership of MSM, the conflict of interest inherent in such public ownership and the accompanying consolidation of such ownership. With recent wire stories placing both the WSJ and Reuters "on the block", it occurs to me to wonder whether a completely new business model should be considered (and apologies in advance if it already has been proposed).
Let's consider the concept of a non-profit foundation to establish a core of independent journalists who are free to pursue both topical stories of the day and longer term investigative pieces. These journalists would not be motivated by the high salaries paid to MSM luminaries, but would be dedicated to pursuing truth in the public interest. I'm thinking something on the order of the McClatchy Washington Bureau, supplemented with a small percentage of the current AP reporters now employed by hometown papers and making salaries in the range the foundation would be able to match. Perhaps a small network of international reporters would be possible, as well. Revenue, though not the driving force, could come from both individual and MSM subscriptions to the resulting new wire service.
A back of the envelope calculation suggests a network of 150 reporters, at $100,000 per year for salaries, benefits, travel and research costs each, would cost about $15 million per year. An endowment of $300 million, yielding annual income of 5%, would fund the operation entirely, without need for revenue. That sounds like a huge pile of money, but easily will be eclipsed by fundraising for the 2008 election cycle. Where would your contribution be better spent?
-
Weathering the storm?
[Read the article: Poor, poor Gonzales]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This just in : forecasters predict an unusually heavy storm season this summer. In Abu's shoes, I would particularly fear storm number 7 (Goodling, with immunity) and number 11 (Karl).