Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi Snackman
Ed Lasky hardly represents the mainstream press. He is not a shining example of journalistic integrity. He is the editor of the website "American Thinker," an ultra conservative site that regularly endorses viewpoints of people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. It is no surprise that Lasky tears into Obama, as he is now the front runner for the hated Liberals.
Lasky, Limbaugh, Savage, and others like them are a dying breed. People clearly want to move away from this type of attack politics, a sentiment that Obama has tapped. Obama's opponents just can't seem to wrap their minds around this concept. They would do well to consider what happened when Bill Clinton undertook a campaign of attack style politics against Obama. Obama's response was a simple "This is just more of the same old failed tactics." He did it to the Clintons, and he will do it to the Republicans.
Here is a Ricardo summary (Wikipedia)
Ricardo's most famous work is his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Ricardo opens the first chapter with a statement of the labour theory of value. Later in this chapter, he demonstrates that prices do not correspond to this value. He retained the theory, however, as an approximation. Ricardo continued to work on his value theory to the end of his life.
This book introduces the theory of comparative advantage. According to Ricardo's theory, even if a country could produce everything more efficiently than another country, it would reap gains from specializing in what it was best at producing and trading with other nations. (Case & Fair, 1999: 812–818). Ricardo believed that wages should be left to free competition, so there should be no restrictions on the importation of agricultural products from abroad.
The benefits of comparative advantage are both distributional and related to improved real income. Within Ricardo's theory distributional effects included that foreign trade could not directly affect profits because profits respond only in changes to the level of wages. The effects on income are always beneficial because foreign trade does not affect value.
Comparative advantage forms the basis of modern trade theory, reformulated as the Heckscher-Ohlin theorem, which states that a country has a comparative advantage in the production of a product if the country is relatively well-endowed with inputs that are used intensively in producing the product. (Case & Fair, 1999: 822).
Like Adam Smith, Ricardo was also an opponent of protectionism for national economies, especially for agriculture. He believed that the British "Corn Laws" — tariffs on agriculture products — ensured that less productive domestic land would be harvested and rents would be driven up. (Case & Fair, 1999: 812, 813). Thus, the surplus would be directed more toward feudal landlords and away from the emerging industrial capitalists. Since landlords tended to squander their wealth on luxuries, rather than investments, Ricardo believed that the Corn Laws were leading to the economic stagnation of the British economy. Parliament repealed the Corn Laws in 1846.
Another idea associated with Ricardo is Ricardian equivalence, an argument suggesting that in some circumstances a government's choice of how to pay for its spending (i.e., whether to use tax revenue or issue debt and run a deficit) might have no effect on the economy. Ironically, while the proposition bears his name, he does not seem to have believed it. Economist Robert Barro is responsible for its modern prominence.
Ricardo is responsible for developing theories of rent, wages, and profits. He defined rent as the difference in the costs of the production between different tracts of land. The model for this theory basically said that while only one grade of land is being used for cultivation, rent will not exist, but when multiple grades of land are being utilised, rent will be charged on the higher grades and will increase with the ascension of the grade. As such, Ricardo believed that the process of economic development, which increased land utilisation and eventually led to the cultivation of poorer land, benefited first and foremost the landowners because they would receive the rent payments either in money or in product.
Ricardo believed that in the long run, prices reflect the cost of production, and referred to this long run price as a Natural price. The natural price of labour was the cost of its production, that cost of maintaining the labourer. If wages correspond to the natural price of labour, then wages would be at subsistence level. However, due to an improving economy, wages may remain indefinitely above subsistence level:
Notwithstanding the tendency of wages to conform to their natural rate, their market rate may, in an improving society, for an indefinite period, be constantly above it; for no sooner may the impulse, which an increased capital gives to a new demand for labour, be obeyed, than another increase of capital may produce the same effect; and thus, if the increase of capital be gradual and constant, the demand for labour may give a continued stimulus to an increase of people.…
It has been calculated, that under favourable circumstances population may be doubled in twenty-five years; but under the same favourable circumstances, the whole capital of a country might possibly be doubled in a shorter period. In that case, wages during the whole period would have a tendency to rise, because the demand for labour would increase still faster than the supply. (On the Principles of Political Economy, Chapter 5, "On Wages").
In his Theory of Profit, Ricardo stated that as real wages increase, real profits decrease because the revenue from the sale of manufactured goods is split between profits and wages. He said in his Essay on Profits, "Profits depend on high or low wages, wages on the price of necessaries, and the price of necessaries chiefly on the price of food."
Hi Blue Fin
Lawrence Kudlow is a supply side, free market economist. Here is the summary on him from Wikipedia
Lawrence (Larry) Kudlow (born August 19, 1947), is an American conservative, supply-side economics enthusiast and television personality. Kudlow currently hosts the TV program Kudlow & Company on CNBC. Kudlow is also the economics editor for National Review (a political magazine) and its online complement, National Review Online. He is also the CEO of his own consulting firm, Kudlow and Company. A syndicated columnist, his articles appear in numerous U.S. newspapers and web sites. He also runs his own blog, Kudlow's Money Politic$. He opposes estate taxes, as well as taxes on dividends and capital gains. Kudlow advocates that employees be compelled to make greater contributions to their pension and medical costs, suggesting that these expenses are an undue burden on corporations. Kudlow defends high executive compensation as a manifestation of market forces and opposes most forms of government regulation. He believes that reducing taxes will increase governmental revenue through expansion of the overall economy. In general, he supports smaller government that interferes less and citizens who take more individual responsibility. He advocates wide ownership of stocks and frequently speaks of a broad "investor class" that includes most Americans. Kudlow has now become a harsh critic of corporate corruption at Enron, Worldcom, and other companies.
It is no surprise that he opposes Obama. He opposes anything that interferes with free markets.
While free markets might do many good things for businesses, they are a failed approach in terms of governmental policy.
Corporate taxes are a red herring when it comes to reasons that corporations move their operations overseas. The real reason is labor and environmental costs, and governments, like Nigeria, who will go all out to secure the placement of new factories. Corporations just don't want to say so. It looks better to call your political opponents greedy and unwise than to openly admit to your own greed.
Hi Alea
It is an extreme example of corporate misdeed. I know that most corporations and their employees operate in a basically fair and straightforward manner. If you watched "The COrporation," you saw them attempt to "diagnose" corporations as sociopathic. This is wholly inappropriate. They also paint with far too broad a brush in making their accusations.
Alea, it is morning here, and in honor of your post about breakfast, I will be taking my wife to breakfast this morning. We shall have a proper middle America breakfast at a diner, waited upon by a woman in an apron and a bee-hive hairdo. Our breakfast will be cooked by a man with four days growth of beard, a hairnet, and a cigarette with half an inch of ash hanging off.
Such is my life.
Alea-
Here is another side to the dilemma of corporate power-
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ShellNigeria.html
Anglo-Dutch oil company fails to have
a multi-million pound civil claim by Nigerian emigres
thrown out by New York appeal court
by Karen McGregor in Durban
INDEPENDENT (London)
19 September 2000
Allegations that the oil multinational Shell aided and abetted the torture and murder of Nigerian activists including the executed writer Ken Saro-Wiwa will be tested by a full jury trial in New York, after the oil company's attempts to have the case thrown out were rejected.
Shell will also stand accused of orchestrating a series of raids by the Nigerian military on villages in the Ogoni region that left more than 1,000 people dead and 20,000 homeless.
Saro-Wiwa and eight others were arrested in 1994 after a fatal attack on former leaders of their Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (Mosop). In a case that shocked the world, and was widely reported to be a legal farce, they were found guilty of the murders by military tribunal and executed in November 1995.
Now the case of the "Ogoni Nine", as they became known, has come back to haunt the Dutch and British owners of Shell Nigeria.
The lawsuit was lodged by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York on behalf of three Nigerian emigrs to the US, including Saro-Wiwa's brother Dr Owens Wiwa, and a woman identified as "Jane Doe" to protect her safety.
Their claims could run to tens of millions of pounds in damages against the oil company. "We believe Shell facilitated Saro-Wiwa's execution," said Jenny Green, of the Center for Constitutional Rights, after the judgment. "We believe there is a basis in US law to hold Shell accountable."
Dr Owens Wiwa and the other plaintiffs claim to have suffered abuse or be related to victims of a state terror campaign against Ogonis who fought oil exploration in Nigeria's Rivers State. They specifically allege that Shell Nigeria:
-Lent boats to Nigerian troops in September 1993 which were used to attack Ogoni villages. On the days of the attacks, a helicopter chartered by Shell reconnoitred three villages where military operations led to the massacre of more than 1,000 villagers.
-Made cash payments to military police who shot a 74-year-old man and two youths in the presence of Shell employees.
-Specifically requested the assistance of Nigeria's notorious "kill-and-go" mobile police force to quell protests. In late 1990 these police carried out massive "scorched earth" operations, culminating in the massacre of 80 villagers and the destruction of hundreds of homes.
-Called in government troops to fire on Biara villagers who were peacefully protesting at the destruction of their homes to build the Rumuekpe-Bomu oil pipeline
-Participated in the fabrication of murder charges and the bribery of witnesses to give false testimony against Saro-Wiwa, the youth leader John Kpuinen and other protest leaders, who were repeatedly detained and tortured by the government and later convicted of murder and hanged.
-Coercively appropriated land for oil development without adequate compensation, and proceeded to seriously pollute air and water in Ogoniland.
They also contend they and family members were imprisoned, tortured and killed by the Nigerian government at the instigation of the oil company, in reprisal for their opposition to oil exploration, and were not afforded the legal protection required by international law.
I think the lawsuit is still active. Here is a link on Saro-Wiwa's life:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa
Corporations, like governments are large concentrations of wealth, resulting in large concentrations of power. They also have an important psychological effect. They depersonalize situations (It's not personal, it's business...). When people are depersonalized, and thus more anonymus, they are more likely to perform immoral or criminal acts. Psychological research is very clear on this point.
I'm sure Mark Moody-Stuart, CEO of Shell, didn't want anyone executed, but it happened.
Philosopher Noam Chomsky observed,
“Slavery, or other forms of tyranny are inherently monstrous, but the individuals participating in them may be the nicest guys you can imagine—benevolent, friendly, nice to their children, even nice to their slaves, [and] caring about other people. As individuals, they may be anything, [yet] in their institutional role they are monsters, because the institution is monstrous.”
Milton Friedman
Nobel Prize-winning economist
"Asking a corporation to be socially responsible makes no more sense than asking a building to be."
My comment-
I believe that just as government should legislate to ensure the building won't fall on us, so it should legislate to safeguard society from corporations corrosive effects, while preserving their benefits for society.
Hi Alea- thanks
I hadn't thought of profits in the way that you framed them, and that is an interesting twist that is new to me. So thanks.
Also- "While corporations provide benefit, they are also based soley on profit motives." does not convey the meaning that I intended.
I suppose the difference between what you and I are saying is the difference between means and ends. While the end result of a profit may indeed be a social good, the means of exacting that profit may contain, as you stated, externalities. Thus, the factory here near where I live that employs many and turns out profits for it's investors has also in the past failed to properly treat the effluent from the plant. The plant has both a good effect, and a bad one (an externality.) That was what I meant by my statement.
Externalities can occur for a number of reasons. Corporations may be ignorant, careless, incapable of controlling the externality, or, they may willfully choose to commit the externality. Why willfully? Because they look at it as a measured risk. If they are caught polluting a river, for example, they may be fined. The fine is a known quantity, and can thus be factored into a potential costs analysis. If they are not caught, so much the better.
Ray Anderson, the CEO of Interface corporation, says most corporations are externalizing machines. The more corporations get others to absorb their costs of business, the better their profits (his sentiments- but I partly agree)
Here is the Interface website
http://www.interfacesustainability.com/
CEO Anderson has committed Interface to eliminating externalities. Here is the company description from their website:
Interface is a recognized leader in the commercial interiors market, offering floorcoverings and fabrics. The company is committed to the goal of sustainability and doing business in ways that minimize the impact on the environment while enhancing shareholder value.
Interface was founded in 1973 by our Chairman, Ray Anderson. We were pioneers from the start-the trailblazers of the modular carpet industry in the United States. A generation later, we're pioneering a better way to a bigger profit.
Today, we are promoting sustainable business practices-within our global community and in the products we make. For Interface, sustainability is more than surface appearance. It's a belief that is built into our business model. It's an underlying corporate value, ensuring that business decisions are weighed against their potential impact on the economic, natural and social systems we touch. It's a means for our associates to deliver superior value to our customers and to our shareholders.
Interface is a global company with manufacturing locations on four continents and offices in more than 100 countries.
Hi Blue Fin
Lets be clear, I don't agree with some of "The Corporation," and realize that other parts leave out significant portions of the story that they tell. For example, the story of the Cochabamba Water War in "The Corporation" is told while omitting the larger picture of the overall riots and rebellion against the government in Bolivia at that time, including the police protests and strike. I believe the stories of Fanta Orange soda being the "Nazi Drink" are also entirely false, as well, among other things. So, while I presented "The Corporation" as an interesting video, I didn't mean to say it was gospel. Far from it, in fact.
I hope you didn't really think of my previous post as a diatribe. It was not intended to be. I realize that the issue of the proper place of business in society is too complex to be disposed of by statements as simple as I made in my post. I simply meant to point out that while corporations provide benefit, they can also be the source of problems that do effect society. In fact, both corporations and the free market in general are only as good or evil as the people who wield the power that they confer.
Hi Weby
I basically agree with everything you said in your post. While corporations provide benefit, they are also based soley on profit motives. That's why we can't rely on the "free market" to solve social issues. The "free market" doesn't care about social issues, like education-it only seeks profits. To the extent that government acts to reign in corporate tyrannies like monopolies, I am in favor of their regulating business.
By the way, have you seen the documentary "The Corporation?"
http://www.thecorporation.com/
It's on Youtube here:
Orda and Alea
Take a look at what this article says
The U-Prove approach has been tried before, without commercial success. Most companies tried to sell privacy software to consumers, which was the wrong approach.
So Brands is flipping it around by developing a software developers kit that would appeal to businesses and government agencies that want to prevent costly and damaging data breaches on behalf of their customers.
In addition, Brands hopes that by providing a somewhat stripped-down version of his technology under a noncommercial license he can encourage developers to explore its potential applications -– just like RSA Data Security did in the 1980s when it offered free, noncommercial use of its public-key cryptosystem and went on to dominate the online security market.
"They were a small company," Brands says. "Now everybody knows who RSA is."
It can still be a tough sell. Most technical personnel continue to think of attacks from outsiders -- not abuse or collusion by insiders -- as the primary threat to personal data. And for nontechnical personnel, the theory underlying ID tokens can be daunting. Both Brands and Thompson tend to refer to the math behind U-Prove as "magic" rather than going too deep into the details.
Sound familiar?
Maybe some parts of SKS behavior aren't so far from the norm.
You may, and I am
I added a a bit last year, and am at the level I want right now while things are still dicey. If I see the revenues flowing, I will be adding more. I think I can still get shares on the cheap even after the first of the revenues start to ripple in-before the big wave hits.
Hi Blue Fin
A response to a couple of your points-
It is very disturbing to see politicians who are dishonest either from ignorance or by design and do not inform their supporters that corporations never pay a tax that they don't first collect from consumers and that they are in fact tax collectors for government not tax payors.
Whole heartedly agreed.
We have a senate and congress that have brought our country to our knees as a result of their uncontrolled spending and taxation then they use class warfare to try to increase tax revenues so they can add new entitlements,it is never ending and so far there is no one in the congress that will address the real problems of overspending.
If our country is on it's knees,as you assert, it's probably not because of corporate taxes. From the 1980s thru the early 2000s, our economy has morphed into a consumer and services economy. Our present troubles are the result of the fact that consumers have been overspending, and funding their purchases first through the dot com bubble, and then, after interest rates dropped so low, by accessing their home equity to buy cars and big screen TVs. We are now mortgaged to the hilt, even after signing variable rate mortgages, etc., and no one can squeeze an ounce more out of their properties. Many people are stuck in homes that are much bigger than they need, with mortgages that are skyrocketing. They've stopped most of their discretionary spending, which has cooled the economy.
The class warfare that you speak of has gone both ways, to the detriment of both sides, but in reality the problem of government spending is not so easily solved as turning off the spigot of your sink. The entitlements of which you speak carry money back into the economy, which is then taxed again by the government as it changes hands. While I agree that our government can't spend on just anything, it also can't just turn it's back on every problem while pulling out it's pocket linings and showing only lint.
Take for example the healthcare insurance proposals offered by the Democrats. While you may see them as entitlements that will only cause our debt to skyrocket, there is more to them than that. The government may spend some money on them, but, if the result is to lessen the burden of expensive healthcare for 10% of our population, that 10% may have more discretionary income that they spend, which will stimulate the economy, and result in more tax gains for our government.
The more problematic spending that occurs is of the type that is going into the pockets of Halliburton and Kellog-Brown and Root for their "contracting" work in Iraq. The "Cost-Plus" system that they bill the government under is scandalous. That government money doesn't circulate as the healthcare money would, and provides less benefit.
In reality, this is an old argument that began as soon as industrialization began changing social and geographic living patterns in England. It is the debate of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo on one side, and Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill on the other. I favor the utilitarian side of this, believing that the best laws do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Thus, a government should consider the interests of it's populace before that of the corporations.
Corporations themselves can be agents of good or evil. They do provide benefits through employment and investment opportunities, and there is little that is fiscally impossible to produce, due to the massive financial resources corporations can amass. They lower prices through economies of scale, and can innovate to improve upon their products.
That said, there is much to dislike in corporations, as well. For example, at 370 billion dollars in revenues, must Walmart be so tight with it's employees? Must Enron cook their books to puff up their stock? Did that help our economy? We would have been better off if the government had taxed them out of existence...
Must Halliburton charge the Defense Department $44 for a six pack of Coke in Iraq? Or Nike operate sweatshops in Indonesia, paying on average 8 cents in labor costs for each shirt produced? I mean, really, how much is enough?
Corporate freedom is not the answer to our problems. It will take a mixture of selective government spending cuts, and probably some increases, as well-while maintaining a business environment that allows corporations to succeed and compete in the world economy.
One last thing-if corporate taxation is the problem, as you suggest, how is it that with a Republican Congress and President, our economy went downhill? Aren't the Republicans the friends of corporations? Surely they didn't raise corporate taxes, and probably quietly gave many tax breaks. So, how are we not in better shape than at the beginning of the Bush administration?
Our problems are rarely as simple as politicians portray. The solutions even less so.
Hi Alea
Hopefully the siren song will not result in a shipwreck. At the very least, I think that an Obama presidency does several things. As an African-American, hopefully some of the racist tone of this country will finally diminish. It also may be, as the articles posted yesterday suggest, that Obama's face and name will prove to be a signal to some in the Muslim world that America is not just a nation of old white guys. Last, although he may not be able to move the government very far, and like a political Sysiphus will watch it roll back to it's original position, I hope that he will make a change in the political rhetoric in this country.
-and don't forget the change in political fundraising-
If he does only those things, while everything else is basically a wash, we will come out on top.
Alea,
This may be my favorite post from you-
ever.
L-O-L
Keeler,
What interesting things you chose to say in your post. I’d like to address one part, if I may
WOW, an Obamican is born! Weby I almost fell off the couch when I read that going fishin is intrigued by Obama! Per a previous conversation from a previous time you should understand that going fishin represents a tribal almost instinctive reactionary slant to modern american conservatism (written in the kindest manner possible believe it or not). To read in his own words that enlightenment (O.K. maybe enlightenment is a stretch) has arrived via the Senator from his home state almost brought tears to my eyes as the laughter born from the comprehension of his words words rang in my head!!
Consider this-what is this section but an attempt to paint me in a tribal fashion? Words like Obamican and “a tribal almost instinctive reactionary slant to modern American conservatism” put me in a group of your own label, one which you consider wrongheaded, per our old discussions, and one which is not your group. That’s tribalism in the modern world. It’s exactly that approach to politics that Obama is running against, making your assessment of me rather ironic, don’t you think? We've known each other thirty years, haven't you realized by now that I am not that easily categorized?
I don’t feel that I have come to see the light at all. I just have been mightily impressed with what Obama has done thus far. Just because I voted Republican in the past doesn't automatically wed me to every Republican candidate and failure, does it? I’m not sure if we ever discussed it, but I have actually voted a split ticket in every election for the last twenty years, and voted for both Senator Obama and Senator Durbin in the last election. Hardly the right wing reactionary that you portray.
I mostly voted Republican because I believed, after working in social work settings, that the best government is that which governs least. That was a major tenet of the Republican platform. (They can't really say that anymore, can they...) Weby and I will disagree here, but the concept of enlightened despotism is an old one. I contend that the enlightened part will always fade, leaving the despotism. I've seen the quality of government bureacrats up close. I haven't been too impressed. Yet, these people can change your life with the wave of their pen, or the tickety-tack of their keyboard. I find it hard to believe that you would not agree, given your experiences with the petty fiefdoms at some of your places of work.
I also recall many conversations with my good friend Professor MacDonald about how we would have to hold our nose to vote in the last two elections, no matter who we chose. I haven’t been happy with the candidates proffered by either of the two parties in years. That’s why I am happy to finally find that a major candidate has inspired me to believe that he may be able to lead as no one has in decades. He just may be able to rise above the fray.
With that said, I do still have some reservations. He is from Chicago, and that smacks of the old party machine. I don’t get that feel from him, but I do note the proximity. I also worry that once in office, he will experience the fate of Grover Cleveland. Cleveland ran as a reformer (Change!), and as a Democrat pulled significant Republicans into his camp to win the presidency in 1884. (sound familiar?) yet, once he got in office, the pressures of the position led him to seek compromise positions. Those compromises left both his supporters and his critics unhappy, and ultimately led to a foundering of his presidency. He declined to run for a second term.
Thus-Obama may look strong right now, but it is no slam dunk. The road is long and rocky.
BTW, did you see that the beagle got "Best in Show" at the Westminster Kennel Club? He bayed long and loud after he won, too.
Hope everyone is well on your end.
And remember-whether you fish, or work, or go ambling off on your own, you can always change your mind.
Weby-that merits a sad lol
You would think that we would eventually learn. FWIW, I voted for Bush twice, because I didn't like the democratic candidate either time, I also hoped that the Republicans would follow through on their promise to limit government growth and bureacracy. In 2004, I was concerned that we would leave Iraq too soon, leaving behind a new Afghanistan. Little did I know that the Republicans were going to make the old "tax and spend" Democrats look like the fiscal conservatives. I knew by 2004 that Iraq was probably a mistake, but thought that we were obligated to clean it up.
Moral number 1- be careful what you ask for, for a politician has a ready smile and nod, but a deficient moral sense.
Moral number 2- Trust not in Washington (Wavoids take heed...)
I am mightily intrigued by Obama, but luckily I don't have to decide yet. Meanwhile, the speeches are fantastic.
That we are, Weby
It is all too easy to simply go clopping off, moo-ing with the herd.
In caveman days, outsiders often spelled trouble. Sticking with your group was the best path to survival. But, you know what I think of the application of those old evolutionary principles in the modern world...
I do think that we are sometimes at a disadvantage in today's modern society because of our tribalistic tendencies. I also think that we are obligated to realize the pitfalls of our tribalism, and seek to minimize it's negative effects.
As a Psych major, I would also say that you can think of it as getting in touch with your amygdala, and learning to tune it out at times. (A skill that I sometimes sadly lack)
Fun stuff indeed
I get the sense that this election may be held up in later years as a great turning point in many different facets of American events. I only hope that the promise that these new forces hold can be realized over the next four years. I've seen plenty of idealists go to Washington and prove unable to chop a single head off the hydra that is the current political system.
As Gust said, "We'll see..."
Meanwhile, I am wasting many hours on primary nights watching the returns come in.
You know, Micro's "dispute" with you is a sort of microcosm of how politics in America has been conducted during the Baby Boomer years. While you were taking what seemed a purely academic approach to his assertions about the consumer space, he took a tribalistic, "with me or against me" approach. Once you pointed out shortcomings in his arguments, he took it as an impending ouster from the group, and chose to make his own, rather splashy exit, followed by much gnashing of teeth over on the "Bob."
This is how American politics has felt for some time- Choose your group and stick to the group rhetoric at all costs. Be sure to utter the correct shibboleths, and you are in. Meanwhile, denigrate the opposing view (as he now seeks to do with ad hominem tactics against you) and maintain a lockstep with the prevailing group ethos. It has been interesting watching Micro settle in amongst the bashers, and change his tune dramatically to fit their group rhetoric. Their "soothing" welcome was pretty priceless, as well. Do you think that he realizes that he is just being used by them? Probably not, he is too focused on belongingness.
It is John McCain's failure to pronounce the correct shibboleths for the conservative evangelicals that will sink his campaign eventually. Meanwhile, Obama seems to be able to avoid this destructive pattern.
What if people could move past this old pattern of tribalistic politics? I'm sure many in Washington would not know what to do with themselves.
And yes, if the only thing that comes of this possible moment of "Change" is that it becomes harder for corporations and special interests to buy influence, then it will be a most excellent election, no matter who wins.
Hi Alea-
Sullivan certainly shows great insight into Obama's appeal, and he makes connections that I have seen nowhere else between that appeal and events in American politics over the last thirty-five years.
The part of the article that I found most intriguing was the analysis of the culture struggle between the ultra liberal and ultra conservative halves of the Baby Boomer generation, and the resulting effects on the American political atmosphere. I have watched this debate for years, and heard much venom from both sides, so this struck a chord with me.
Sullivan also nails the Bush/Rove role in this divide, using it for their gain instead of trying to bridge the gap between both sides. This is what many misapprehend about Obama when he speaks of change. Some try to fob it off as a mere platitude, but I think he simply intends to move past the old divisions by not getting sucked into false dichotomies like you can't be tough on crime and soft on drugs, or "you're either with us or against us." The more I hear from Obama, the more I realize how thoughtful and nuanced his ideas about the American body politic are.
And, good lord, can he give a speech. Best I have heard in my lifetime, and I think on par with John F. Kennedy.
If you haven't had a chance to hear his 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, you should check it out. It's on Youtube.
What a historic election this is shaping up to be, with an African American as the current favorite, and the impending fracturing of the Republican Party over John McCain.
It's also significant that fund raising seems to be less connected to large corporate donors and special interests, especially in Obama's campaign, and moving to direct appeals to the people via the internet. In the end, that might be the best development of all.
Alea-OT, but of interest to you
I know you have followed to a certain extent the campaign of Barack Obama. This is the best article I've seen on Barack Obama's candidacy. It explains his personal appeal, as well as the political forces that are helping his ascent. enjoy- and thanks to Zen for sharing it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
Awk-nicely explained, thanks /eom
companies mentioned in presentation
Sks mentioned the following as examples of companies that have adopted FDE and, I believe ERAS:
A large Dairy Producer
The Ministry of Defense of a country in the E. U.
The U. S. Army
The U. S. Secretary of Defense
A large tech manufacturer
A number of law firms
A 150,000 seat company that is in the beginning stages of rollout.
The 85% rate was not ERAS purchases. It was an "attach rate," of which, he commented that if 50% then upgrade to ERAS it would result in a good revenue stream for Wave.
What the heck is an attach rate?
Overall, enough progress mentioned that we should see an interesting Q1.
Here is a transcript of Watkins remarks
He obviously knows this product inside and out, as well as their main marketing strategy for it. This is no small thing for Seagate. Also, this response was prompted by an analysts question, so they are familiar with the encrypting drives, too.
Starts right about the 16 minute mark
We have an encryption drive now, we think the most reliable encryption you can do is on the drive. We can encrypt a drive, 128 bit-pretty much fail proof.. Its on a chip, so its fairly cost ineffective for us. We do have some software providers to help turn it on. But we think we have the best encryption solution you have- and because its on a chip its fairly inexpensive for us to put in there.
We’re going to sell it as a value proposition. We’ve already launched it on notebooks, and we just launched at CES on our first external drive. We’re going to spend a lot of time trying to market this ideal of encryption, but we can lock your drive down. It’s a password, you can’t hack through the operating system- If you lose your password it is a done deal. You can’t break that thing down. Maybe if you put a mainframe on it for about six months, but we’ve been working with various government agencies trying for them to break it, and they can’t break it yet. Again, we think we have a very strong encryption, we need to get it out to the market and sell it. I think one of the things that people don’t realize is one of the sell features. When you turn your notebook in, that data is on there-you can’t erase that data-so what we can do with an encrypted drive, we can encrypt that data, and no one can get at it. So we can actually give you protection once you throw away your PC, notebook, or whatever, that data can never be recovered, and there is a system set up that allows you to do that. So, we think we have a pretty good proposition, we think we have a good cost structure on it, and we are going to continue to try to put a value proposition on it.
Boeing has security problems
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/boeing-employee.html
By Kim Zetter October 01, 2007
Boeing has fired an employee for speaking to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer after the newspaper published a story in July saying that Boeing couldn't properly protect data in its computer systems from theft, manipulation and fraud. The story also suggested that the company may have misrepresented the security of its data in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The fired employee says he was trying to save the company but was treated badly after he raised ethical concerns internally about how the company was conducting security audits of its systems. He then spoke with a reporter as well as the SEC about his concerns. Now he says the company is retaliating against him, instead of trying to fix its problems. An anonymous e-mail sent to the Seattle P-I also disclosed that Boeing is spying on other employees to ferret out whistleblowers by videotaping workers and reading their e-mail.
The Seattle P-I's July story about Boeing's alleged security problems revealed that the company had failed repeatedly to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act -- a law that requires companies to prove that they have internal control of their data to prevent anyone from manipulating financial numbers and deceiving stockholders. The law requires companies to, among many other things, implement controls that restrict access to data and computer systems to only those people who need it, and that access and changes to systems -- including code changes -- are well documented.
Companies have complained that the SOX Act is poorly written and places vague and expensive burdens on them to implement -- especially for companies the size of Boeing. Documents that the Seattle P-I obtained discussing internal and external audits of Boeing show that the company struggled to meet the law's requirements but could never quite get it together, and that the IT division had failed year after year to demonstrate that it had "a robust control environment."
Among the problems the Seattle paper found were:
Boeing's internal audit findings were so poor -- meaning that so many computer system controls were failing or evidence was missing -- that external auditor Deloitte & Touche decided not to rely on the results for three consecutive years.
Boeing exposed sensitive information about computer systems' holes to employees who did not need access to all of the data, according to e-mails and interviews.
An internal complaint was filed with the company's ethics board that audit results had been manipulated. The company decided last September that the allegation was unsubstantiated.
Some employees involved in the compliance process perceived a threatening culture. A late 2006 internal report said that employees felt they were being told that their jobs and salaries were "on the line," and they were being pressured to produce evidence for audits "ahead of events occurring normally."
In July this year, another Boeing whistleblower was charged with 16 counts of computer tresspass for allegedly stealing 320,000 company files and giving some of them to the Seattle Times to document flaws in the company's inspection process for one of its new planes. Police say they discovered password-cracking tools on the employee's computer. The company estimated that the stolen data could have cost the company between $5 billion and $15 billion if the information got into the wrong hands -- presumably meaning the hands of competitors.
Boeing also recently suffered three separate cases of data theft in which the personal information of more than 400,000 employees was stolen by thieves who made off with company laptops containing unencrypted data.
Whitewash
It was nice to see the subject of biometric tamper proof cards come up. One would hope that with the govenment already being aware of TPM technology, that the biometric credential would be protected with TPM encryption. But, we'll see...at the rate the government is moving on this, we'll be old and grey before the system is up and running.
Helpful
The fact that Wave is getting to benefit from all of those Dell advertising dollars is probably the thing that most confirms Wave's position to me. What a coup.
Unixguy-a question for you
Have any of the companies at which you worked been able to forge a contract with Dell (or a comparable gorilla) in which Dell pays the company for the bundling of their software?
Waverider
I too, am a legal and valid citizen in every sense of the term. I don't think that Ron Paul is necessarily correct, but he does represent a worry that has been voiced over the years about government power. Giving the government the power to track us closely will be a large expansion of government power. As a student of American history, I know that our government is only as good and as trustworthy as the people getting elected to office. Giving that power to government should be something that we think long and hard about. The road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
End sermon
Chance to See
First, good post. It is a valid worry, and one that we as members of a DD community should be watching.
With that said, I would like to comment on your questions-
From your post:
So, internet, what’s the point of listing all the nickel and dime (Steven’s words) arrangements that Wave has with these companies? They’re happily supporting Wave’s competitors in spite of these close relationships. What difference does it make that Wave turned the DOD on to the TPM? When the government finds that their software encryption vendors will encrypt all their old machines, support Seagate on their new machines, and support the TPM, why would they switch to Wave? If there’s an answer, that’s what I’m trying to find out. How will Wave compete with that?
My comments:
The nickel and dime arrangements that Wave has with companies exist because no one else but Wave can make their TPM based applications TPM agnostic. Only Wave can create software that communicates with all TPMs and allows all TPMs to be utilized by the many applications that will use them in the near future. The government will have to use Wave for Seagate if they want to utilize TPM based encryption and attestation. Other companies may support TPMs, but Wave makes them interoperable. If the government uses TPM encrypting Seagate drives, Wave wil be their defacto choice because Wave's TDM is bundled on every FDE TPM drive. The question should be, with Wave already handling TPM encryption for Seagate, how will an existing software company unseat them?
From your post:
And that’s why I spoke about the time element. That’s why I wonder how long it may take these competitors to get up to speed on hardware encryption and the TPM. Does Wave have time to establish a position?
My comments:
Wave's position is already established, but one of the tougher questions for those who follow this board is defining just what are the parameters of Wave's position. I think of it as this: Wave is the only software provider who can make applications TPM agnostic. Thus, any software provider who wishes to develop TPM applications that will be sold to owners of many machines which utilize several different types of TPMs must license Wave's IP. So far, all TPM based applications that are intended for horizontal deployment have licensed Wave's software, or asked Wave to develop an application to streamline use of the TPM. (like TDM for Seagate.) When I hear of another company that is developing a TPM agnostic application and is not licensing Waves software, then I'll be worried. Until then, it is just unsubstantiated worry.
From your post:
Awk, you say, how can these companies compete with Wave? They compete by keeping the customers they already have, by offering them new services like support for hardware encryption, support for the TPM. How does Wave take these customers away? If you know the answer, I’d like to hear it. That’s what I’m trying to find out.
My comments:
This is perhaps the most difficult challenge that Wave faces. Pre-existing relationships will likely delay some companies deployment of TPM based encryption and attestation solutions. However, the fact remains that software encryption is slower and can still be hacked. This will be the cause of its demise. While software encryption companies can tell their clients that TPM based encryption is not that much better, all it will take is for the right executives to see the speed and ease of use the TPM provides, and they will check out TPM based offerings. Will this process take long enough that the current software encryption companies can develop their own TPM agnostic applications in the meantime? That's hard to say, except that it hasn't happened yet, and we are not hearing of companies developing such products. You assert: They compete by keeping the customers they already have, by offering them new services like support for hardware encryption, support for the TPM. You say this as if it is simple to develop a competetive product when in fact, it took Wave years of employing the best encryption specialists in the country to achieve what they have today. It is not reasonable to expect that another company will easily do the same as Wave in a manner that doesn't violate Wave's patents, and faster by far than Wave developed its offerings.
In any event, until we see or hear of other companies developing TPM applications independently of Wave, it is again just unsubstantiated worry.
From your post
I’m not trying to rain on anybody’s parade. I’m not trying to get people mad at me. I’m trying to bring up points that I think are important to our investment, and I’m trying to get information on these important topics.
My comments:
You are right to say that these are important topics. You seem worried by them. I am not. I think that the DD here (and on the various basher boards) will warn us plenty early enough about any serious competition for Wave. You also seem worried that we "lack" information about these topics. I don't think we lack information, what we lack is news of any direct competition for Wave-and that certainly does not rain on my parade.
My prediction: You will see these possible "competitors" end up having to license Wave to develop their products.
On a Wave related front
In the Republican debate the topic of a "tamper proof" biometrics based immigrant ID card came up. Most of the candidates were in favor of ID-ing immigrants, but it was Ron Paul that said if you do that, you will have to ID anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant, which puts us on the path to a federal ID card for everyone. Paul said that is a step of which we should be wary. Of course, he is worried about the degree of power that would give the government over us. So, the issues that you speak of emerge from time to time in our political debates.
On the plus side for Wave, the idea was largely endorsed by all the Republican candidates, Paul excepted. I have to believe that eventually any such ID card would involve a TPM based protection from tampering, especially since the government is beginning to require TPM encryption.
Hi Alea
I'm sitting here and watching the debates from New Hampshire tonight. Both the Republicans and the Democrats held debates. There was a fair amount of dialogue between candidates, not the carefully scripted formats of the presidential debates after the nominees are decided. Overall, I would say that Obama and McCain acquitted themselves well, while Romney and Clinton made poor showings.
The debates of which you speak are definitely a part of the parties philosophies today. Democrats tend to believe that government monies should be spent on attempting to solve social ills, which increases the amount of regulation over our lives. Republicans tend to believe that the government should limit it's intrusions into social affairs. The Republicans in the decade before the current President made limiting the size and spending of government a major part of their platform. After their performance under Bush's leadership, they can hardly make that claim anymore. Spending is through the roof, but most of the money is going into the hands of corporations. Not a good situation, IMO.
You would probably find the presidency of Ulysses Grant interesting. Grant was a strict constructionist in his political beliefs. He believed that a president should confine his activities to just what the constitution said his powers were. Since the constitution does not say that the president should play a role in the construction of public policy, Grant did not attempt to influence Congressional legislation. It was probably because of his beliefs that those in power in the Republican Party (which was still pretty young at that time, and the liberal party of the two) chose Grant to run as their candidate.
The men in control of the Republican Party at that time were in favor of a massive expansion of federal power, especially over the South in the years after the Civil War. They passed reconstruction acts that placed US states under the control of the military, and three amendments to the constitution to guarantee civil rights for African Americans in the South. Those things are good, but often in America there are unintended consequences. One of the amendments-the 14th-has been used to assert corporate personhood, and thus, equal protection for corporations under the guarantees of freedoms found in our constitution. This has resulted in a massive expansion of corporate power, which neither the government nor private forces have been able to quell.
It is this power that John McCain has made a name for himself fighting against. He has attempted for years to get campaign finance reforms passed that would block corporations from contributing to candidates for public office. Because of the 14th amendment, corporations have been able to successfully block any efforts at meaningful reform. Contributing to political campaigns has been declared to be a form of free speech, and since corporations are persons in the legal sense, they can claim the same right to free speech that our constitution gives to any individual citizen here in the US.
Grant is usually listed as among the five worst presidents that we have ever had. His administration was corrupt and scandal plagued, and he did little to exert any power to reign in those who were conducting shady activities. After all, the constitution didn't say anything about providing leadership within the party. While he was president, the Republican party slowly became filled with people who were trying to take advantage of all the new government power. By the end of his administration, which had started with such promise of finally solving the ills of the South, the Republicans had to back off reconstruction in the compromise of 1877. Without the compromise, the scandals and rip offs occurring under Republican rule had reduced the party's standing among the people to an all time low.
My point would be that debates about great principles are fine, and should be a part of our election process, but I have seen too many grand pronouncements of principles fail when confonted with the realities of the office. I want a candidate that can think on his (or her) feet, and respond to challenges in such a way that the challenge is negated and their overall platform/goal is carried forward. Abraham Lincoln was able to do that, even while fighting a Civil War, and that is why he is among our greatest presidents. Obama has done that in these debates thus far, Clinton has not, and the rest are thus far not standing out. Even Ron Paul. When you have no chance of winning, it is easy to say just exactly what you believe is right. You don't care who you offend, and you call attention to yourself by sticking out. Put Paul in a competetive position, maybe just a few points behind McCain, and you would hear a different tune.
Hi Alea
Obama does have a degree of charisma about him that has not been seen in a while in our candidates. He can really give a good speech, and I think that his platform thus far is hitting the mark with the Democratic members. Ron Paul, however, is too much of a maverick to gain any real support. McCain might be able to carry the Republicans away from their current malaise without sinking their hopes in the process.
Hello Alea
Meanwhile, Hilary Clinton has a real perception problem on her hands. She has portrayed herself as the candidate of experience in a race where people are looking for change. It will be interesting to watch the repositioning that she attempts. Even if she does change her tune, she will create a new problem for herself. The Clintons have a problem with being perceived as disengenuous. Changing her message too many times isn't going to help that.
Iowa...
Who would have expected this?
Weby-my favorite Gust line was
"You're not stupid, you're just in Congress."
In Micro's case, it's not that he doesn't get it (He's not stupid), it's just that he has become a little too personally involved in his ideas, which is usually not a good thing. He seems to be having a hard time with the notion that just because someone questions one of his assertions, they aren't making a personal indictment of him.
He seems to be a perfectly nice guy to me, and I am a little puzzled at his lashing out on the "Bob." But, that doesn't change the fact that the evidence supports Awk, Alea and you more than Micro and Barge.
Not that the consumer side won't be huge in the future. But, Wave has chosen their path, and it looks to be bearing fruit. Once we get to break even by closing enterprise business, we will have time to corner the consumer side. The consumer side is going slowly anyway, judging by the article posted by Khillo on the Wavx board about Intel's ViiV systems. Meanwhile encryption is the new buzzword in enterprises.
Have you listened to the Intel presentation posted on the Wavx board? They will push hard from here on out. Bet on it. They even mention Wave Systems in their online writeup. It will be interesting to see if Seagate also includes Wave Systems in their ad campaign. I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.
Maybe Wave's mentions in the ad campaigns was a part of the deals cut by Wave with Dell, Intel and Seagate...
Matt25, you may find this interesting-
Upon the publication of "The Bell Curve," and the attendant controversy it caused, the American Psychological Association published this document
http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Correlation/Intelligence.pdf
-which is a review of the state of the research on IQ up to that point. Among the hilites:
The actual definition and specification of what intelligence is is still in debate. See the work of Spearman, Gardner, and Sternberg on differing conceptions of what "intelligence" is.
Intelligence tests were originally devised by Alfred Binet to measure children’s ability to succeed in school. They do in fact predict school performance fairly well: the correlation between IQ scores and grades is about .50.
Scores on intelligence tests predict various measures of job performance: supervisor ratings, work samples, etc. Intelligence tests are also correlated with socio-economic status and income. Most of the above correlations are weak, with IQ accounting for about 20-30% of the differences in achievement.
There are some differences between groups such as racial groups or gender, but social factors may explain those differences.
*******************************************
My comments:
When conducting an exercise such as Steve Sailor does, in which he attempts to use measured IQ as a predictor of how to treat certain groups, one would be wise to consider that ethnic groups are largely the result of social conventions based on ethnic origin as well as on observable characteristics. None of them are internally homogeneous-as an example, Asian-Americans hail from a wide variety of cultures-China, Japan, Korea, The Phillipines, etc. Lumping these people, or any "ethnic" group into one category is not conducive to performing good research. It likely will lead to sampling bias which will confound any conclusions drawn.
Research has demonstrated that IQ tests tend to be culturally biased, and that when cultural biases are accounted for, IQ scores among groups are largely similar. That being said, the "gap" between White IQ scores and African American IQ scores is narrowing.
A good summary of the most recent findings may be found on Wikipedia:
Still, a 2007 study at Case Western Reserve University found that cultural differences in the provision of information account for racial differences in IQ. The study also found that test problems, similar to some problems found on conventional IQ tests, were only solvable on the basis of specific previous knowledge. Such specific knowledge based questions showed evidence of test bias since the performance on non-specific knowledge based questions did not always correlate with the performance on the knowledge based question. Arguing that IQ tests are often wrongly described as measuring "innate" rather than developed ability, Jencks and Phillips (1998) write that this "labeling bias" causes people to inappropriately attribute the Black-White gap to "innate" differences. They argue that non-cultural environmental factors cause gaps measured by the tests, rather than innate difference based on genetics, and that to use these tests as a measure of innate difference is misleading and improper.
IQ scores overall are rising about 3 points per decade. This is called the "Flynn Effect." African-Americans are rising faster than Whites.
Most researchers agree that genetics accounts for about 50% of IQ, with the other half coming from the environment in which individuals are raised.
Yet, it is also interesting to note that studies of identical twins who are raised seperately reveal that even when raised in different households, their adult IQs were approximately the same.
Contradictory findings such as this show there is still much that is not understood about "intelligence." People such as Steve Sailor would be well advised that the current conventional knowledge about IQ will be subject to drastic change as researchers continue to probe this area. It's too soon to apply findings on IQ to public policy.
Awk-agreed, but here is my point(s)
First-while the most tech savvy posters here-you, Sheldon Levine, Ramsey, Ispro, etc. have been saying that Wave must be used, it is nice to see what could be the beginnings of a powerful confirmation of Wave's place in the new TPM firmament.
Second-if anyone has the resources to duplicate what Wave has done, it is companies like Intel and Microsoft. To see them both using Wave shows how hard it would be to come up with a TPM management application on your own.
This is good in many ways, if it indeed confirms Microsoft's use of Wave.
Confirmation of MIcrosoft/Wave collaboration?
From Mundo's find
Microsoft's introduction of INtel as a partned for Server 2008:
Intel is developing enterprise desktop and mobile PC platforms specifically for business customers—platforms that enable businesses to grow. Intel's strategy addresses the challenges and opportunities for businesses, while also aiming to reduce complexity in the IT environment. With desktop PCs based on Intel® vPro™ processor technology and mobile PCs based on Intel® Centrino® Pro processor technology—your business is free to focus on strategic initiatives, while IT managers are empowered to manage and administer assistance in new efficient, remote, and streamlined ways. Intel and Microsoft are working together to ensure that Windows Server 2008 Network Access Protection will take advantage of the unique hardware based capabilities in these new PCs. By taking advantage of the hardware based security and manageability in Intel vPro and Intel Centrino Pro processor technology, Network Access Protection will be able to better protect an enterprise’s infrastructure and allow only healthy PCs to enter the network that meet certain compliance standards.
/end
Wave handles these TPM functions for Intel, right?
Microsoft's introduction of Wave as a partner
From Mundo's find:
Wave’s trusted computing solutions include strong authentication, data protection, password management and enterprise-wide trust management services. Wave's EMBASSY software uses the Trusted Platform Module to extend the integrity of Microsoft NAP through hardware-based authentication, protection, and validation of NAP components and measurements. For more information about Wave, visit http://www.wave.com.
/end
Could this be confirmation that Microsoft will use Wave?
Hi Alea
For an interesting tracing of the manner in which Supreme court decisions can change over the years on virtually the same issue, compare the Missouri case Rachel v Walker (1836), and US cases Scott v Sandford (1857), Plessy v Ferguson (1896) and Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954).
In the era of Rachel v Walker, (which upheld the principle of "once free, always free" and allowed slaves that had set foot on free soil to claim freedom) slavery was not quite so politically supercharged as it would become in 1850 with the addition of the Fugitive Slave Act. Then in 1854, the Scott v Sandford case established a federal ruling that superceded Rachel, and averred that African Americans were not intended to be accorded civil rights by the authors of the Constitution. In fairness to Chief Justice Taney, part of his motivations here was a hope that this decision would avert a civil war. Plessy affirmed the "right" of a state to create public policy which created a segregated condition between African Americans and Whites.
The 1954 Brown decision overturned segregation, in significant part based on the testimony of Kenneth Clark (who later became president of the American Psychological Association). Clark conducted a study which ended with his conclusion that segregation is inherently harmful because the racism behind it is internalized and produces feelings of inferiority. He testified, I believe in a South Carolina Case that was attached to the Brown case, that his research demonstrated that segregation is inherently harmful. His scientific approach, and the general acceptance by that time of Psychology as a legitimate science, played a crucial role in the Brown decision.
The changes that had occured between the Plessy and Brown cases involved in part the growth and popular acceptance of social sciences like Psychology and Sociology, allowing the justices to make a more informed decision. So, we can and do flex our Constitution as new developments arise. You just have to hope the flex is in a positive direction.
Alea-something to consider re-your question.
The US Constitution is not amended very often, that's true. But there is a way in which the document is fairly adaptable. First, the Necessary and Proper clause allows for some flexibility, as do the provisions that the federal government has the right to control interstate commerce. Second, the power of Judicial Review (which isn't really in the Constitution, but for which we can thank -or blame- John Marshall) allows the Supreme court to review new issues and, in essence create additions/modifications to the Constitution.
Over the years, this has allowed the court to rule on issues which developed after the founders wrote the initial document, like creating the Bank of the United States, requiring educational integration, and regulating the Internet.
This power has been used for great evil, like the Dred Scott Decision, which invalidated the rights of every African American in the US, and for great good like ending slavery and the Brown v Board of Education decision.
Like any law, the constitution is only as valuable and just as the people enforcing it. It is here that the failures have been, more than any shortcoming of the document, itself.
The greatest danger IMO, is that we will allow a situation to develop in which one party takes a super majority on the court, creating an unacceptable bias in it's decisions. We might also eventually get another President who tries what Andrew Jackson did in ignoring the Worcester v Georgia decision in allowing the beginnings of the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes. As someone who is part Cherokee, that one affected my family directly.
Rick5- Poorly written on my part. I meant that with the advent of agriculture, humans began to escape the effects of evolutionary forces by achieving an ever higher degree of control over our environment.