Stop To Salute
Topic: worthy read
I think everyone should read this in honor of Memorial Day, if nothing else...

************************************************

It was raining "cats and dogs" and I was late for physical training. Traffic was backed up at Fort Campbell, Ky., and was moving way too slowly. I was probably going to be late and I was growing more and more impatient.

The pace slowed almost to a standstill as I passed Memorial Grove, the site built to honor the soldiers who died in the Gander airplane crash, the worst redeployment accident in the history of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).

Because it was close to Memorial Day, a small American flag had been placed in the ground next to each soldier's memorial plaque.

My concern at the time, however, was getting past the bottleneck, getting out of the rain and getting to PT on time.

All of a sudden, infuriatingly, just as the traffic was getting started again, the car in front of me stopped.

A soldier, a private of course, jumped out in the pouring rain and ran over toward the grove.

I couldn't believe it! This knucklehead was holding up everyone for who knows what kind of prank. Horns were honking. I waited to see the butt-chewing that I wanted him to get for making me late.

He was getting soaked to the skin. His BDUs were plastered to his frame. I watched-as he ran up to one of the memorial plaques, picked up the small American flag that had fallen to the ground in the wind and the rain, and set it upright again.

Then, slowly, he came to attention, saluted, ran back to his car, and drove off. I'll never forget that incident. That soldier, whose name I will never know, taught me more about duty, honor, and respect than a hundred books or a thousand lectures.

That simple salute—that single act of honoring his fallen brother and his flag—encapsulated all the Army values in one gesture for me. It said, "I will never forget. I will keep the faith. I will finish the mission. I am an American soldier."

I thank God for examples like that. And on this Memorial Day, I will remember all those who paid the ultimate price for my freedom, and one private, soaked to the skin, who honored them.

~ Army Captain John Rasmussen

Outsourcing debate...
Topic: worthy read
Lou Dobbs to outsourcing: Drop dead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 10, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

? 2005 Laurence A. Elder

Where does it say somebody owes you a job? Sure, for most of us, this seems self-evident. But how else do you explain people like CNN's Lou Dobbs?

Dobbs, formerly the host of CNN's "Moneyline," who now hosts CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," seems downright anti-money. For Dobbs constantly rants at the evil perpetuated by greedy American CEOs. What evil is that? Why, outsourcing! Dobbs calls it "exporting America," while he whines about "cheap overseas labor," arguing that "corporate America" ignores its responsibilities that "extend beyond a quarterly profit statement."

If it sounds to you like 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, you're not alone. Kerry, too, skewered CEOs responsible for the crime of "outsourcing," calling the executives "Benedict Arnold" CEOs. "When I am president," said Kerry, "and with your help, we're going to repeal every benefit, every loophole, every reward that entices any Benedict Arnold company or CEO to take the money and the jobs overseas and stick the American people with the bill."

What exactly is outsourcing? According to the American Heritage Dictionary, outsourcing is "the procuring of services or products, such as parts used in manufacturing of a motor vehicle, from an outside supplier or manufacturer in order to cut costs." The outside supplier could be in the same town, or a different state or country. Today, the term "outsourcing" usually refers to offshore outsourcing, where the outside service or product supplier is in another country.

A whole lot of companies outsource, including the parent company of Lou Dobbs' employer, CNN! Time Warner, CNN's parent company, employs about 3,000 people in business process outsourcing in India for its AOL company. According to industry sources, Time Warner is considering using India for various business process outsourcing and back office operations for other parts of its company.

Does outsourcing benefit the United States?

You better believe it does. Free trade works both ways. Jobs coming from other countries to the United States are called "insourced" jobs. While more jobs are outsourced from the U.S. than are insourced to the U.S., for the last 15 years insourced jobs grew by 117 percent, while outsourced jobs only grew by 56 percent. Insourced jobs account for nearly 5 percent of all private-sector jobs, and tend to be higher paying – with salaries an average of 31 percent higher than other private-sector jobs. Foreign-owned U.S. subsidiaries manufacturing their goods here in America account for 20 percent of all U.S. exports.

What about the decline in manufacturing jobs? Can we blame outsourcing? For the most part, no. Manufacturing now employs a smaller percentage of workers, given our dramatic increase in worker productivity. Higher worker productivity means fewer workers required. Between 1995 and 2002, U.S. manufacturing jobs declined 11 percent – identical to the average world decline in manufacturing employment. Yet in the last 15 years, insourced manufacturing jobs grew by 83 percent, while outsourced manufacturing jobs only grew by 23 percent.

The U.S. Department of Commerce reported that, in 2003, the U.S. bought over $77 billion from foreign companies, and sold $131 billion to them – exporting nearly $54 billion more in services than we imported. This surplus accounted for an additional 400,000 jobs in 2003.

Outsourcing and globalization of manufacturing allows companies to reduce costs, benefits consumers with lower cost goods and services, causes economic expansion that reduces unemployment, and increases productivity and job creation. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, for every $1 outsourced, the economic gain to the U.S. as a whole is $1.12 to $1.14.

Consider the CEO who refuses to outsource, believing – as does Mr. Dobbs – this hurts America. His competitor, however, wants to increase profits. When he can, he lowers costs by "outsourcing," using the savings to put back into his business. The CEO who refused to outsource now must explain to his finicky customers why he intends to charge them more.

Consider the real-life example of E-Loan, Inc., a Pleasanton, Calif.-based company that processes loan applications. Because of the growing sensitivity to "outsourcing," E-Loan offered customers a choice. Processing your loan could take 12 days if processed by American workers. If, however, you wanted your results two days earlier – in 10 days – you could agree to have your loan processed in India. Guess what? According to the Los Angeles Times, 9 out of 10 customers choose the 10-day, overseas option. So much for, "I only buy if it's made in America."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to have a better grasp of Economics 101 than CNN's Dobbs. Speaking to business and political leaders in India, she called "outsourcing" a "reality." Sen. Clinton, offering yet another reason why she may be savvy enough to win her party's 2008 nomination, said, "There are people who feel left behind ... because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing."

Tell Lou.

May John Paul II live on
Topic: worthy read
My favorite paragraph has got to be:

"In an age that at times seems on the verge of collapsing into its own mush of moral relativism, self-idolatry and existential vacuity, his leadership is a constant, inspiring reminder that Man is still capable of reaching beyond his animal instincts and his selfish gene to something genuinely divine."

**************************************************

Gerard Baker

February 11, 2005

May John Paul II live on
Gerard Baker
His enemies want him out, but we need the Pope's example of courage and dignity more than ever

A SIZEABLE component of the world’s media, and parts of the broader public, have been on a rather unseemly papal death watch for some time now. In scenes reminiscent of the last chaotic days of the Soviet Union, when Communist Party leaders were croaking with the frequency of laryngitic frogs, the world’s broadcasters, newspaper editors and commentators have been readying their battle plans.
Teams of journalists stand ready to pack their bags for Rome at a moment’s notice. In every university in Christendom, theologians have been dredged up to pronounce with great solemnity on the “legacy” of this Pope. While they are at it, of course, they will also be duped into playing the world’s most exciting but futile guessing game: who will be the next Pope? Designers will have been primed to produce imaginative graphics for the conclave — expect 3-D images of the Sistine Chapel and lots of little red hats.

Given the hair-trigger nature of the preparations for this massive media event, the first papal succession of the CNN-internet era, you can imagine the excitement a couple of weeks ago when the Pope was admitted suddenly to the Gemelli hospital in Rome. The balloon was going up.

Around the world, canon law edicts and obscure cardinals’ biographies were consulted as feverishly as Alitalia timetables. One of my local news stations in Washington, its spirit willing but its resources regrettably weak, headlined the story with a live broadcast to camera from outside a local Catholic church. Urbi et Orbi, I suppose they were thinking.

There is, therefore, a palpable disappointment now that the man has left hospital and it appears that he is not going to die at any minute. But deprived of their evanescent moment of Vatican vanity, not to mention three pleasant weeks in Rome spent pontificating (you will rarely find the word used more aptly) about the state of a Church of which they know nothing, commentators have found something else to get their teeth into.

“Should the Pope resign?” they ask. “Is he not really dead in all but the most technical sense?” What a great wheeze! Those dredged-up theologians and church historians could still come in handy after all. Get them to talk about Celestine V and Gregory XII.

When Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, gave an apparently cryptic answer to a question about papal resignation this week, the speculation was suddenly given a kind of imprimatur of curial respectability. I say “apparently cryptic” for good reason. What the cardinal said was: “If there is a man who loves the Church more than anybody else, who is guided by the Holy Spirit, if there’s a man who has marvellous wisdom, that’s him. We must have great faith in the Pope. He knows what to do.” That does not sound to me like a call for the Pope to go, but then again, I am not a headline writer.

Ostensibly this little debate touches on some intriguing philosophical and neurophysiological questions. How sick can a pope be before it is determined that he cannot perform his functions? Can a pope who cannot speak, for example, still carry on his duties as head of the Church, the leader of his worldwide flock? But I would find this frenzy of scantily-informed speculation slightly comical if I did not suspect the motives of most of those who seem anxious to have it.

The truth is that, dead or alive, as someone might put it in another context, they want this Pope gone. Whether it is a choking fit or the Camerlengo’s signature, the Pope’s enemies, all those secularist pundits of omniscient modernity, want him out.

I will confess that I know little about the precise prognosis for Parkinson’s or the dogmatic deliberations at the curia, though I thought the Pope himself had spoken fairly clearly about his intentions when he was admitted for surgery on his hip a decade ago: “Doctor,” he said to a surgeon somewhat nervous about his onerous responsibility, “neither you nor I have any choice. You have to cure me because there is no room for a pope emeritus.”

I certainly do not have any special insight into his capacity to discharge his specific papal duties but I will say this: as long as John Paul II is Pope, the rest of us can count ourselves unusually privileged to be alive with him.

In an age that at times seems on the verge of collapsing into its own mush of moral relativism, self-idolatry and existential vacuity, his leadership is a constant, inspiring reminder that Man is still capable of reaching beyond his animal instincts and his selfish gene to something genuinely divine.

Pope John Paul’s life is a long and brave testament to the overwhelming power of human dignity in the face of evil. He saw his native land ravaged by one vile ideology in the 1940s. Improbably, and dramatically, installed in Rome 40 years later, he was the dominant figure in an astonishing triumph over another.

His papacy has borne further witness to his staggering courage — personal and moral; taking his message of hope, love and peace to more of humanity than anyone before him. He is accused by his enemies of a rigid conservatism. What they mean by that is an unstinting refusal to march with the popular will, to ratify through doctrinal approval a steady slide down the path of amorality.

Above all, in his own twilight of pain and suffering he reminds us of the insuperable force that is love for human life. His defence of the weakest — from the poorest souls in beleaguered corners of dark continents, to the discarded unborn, to the inconvenient elderly and disabled ripe for the final syringe — challenges all to think again about our obligation to our fellow man.

He is, and will remain, as long as he has breath in him, a beacon of hope for the lost and loveless. He is truly a pontiff, the bridge between God and his people, in Chesterton’s words “a landmark, walling in the plain”. I hope — and not just to confound the ghoulish pundits — that he lives to 100.

gerard.baker@thetimes.co.uk