James Drogan

Here is an interesting book review from the Asia Times.  The book is called The Travels of a T-shirt in the Global Economy: An Economist Examines the Markets, Power, and Politics of World Trade and is written by Pietra Rivoli.

Rivoli follows the path of a US$5.99 souvenir T-shirt scooped from a bin at a Walgreen's drugstore in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

My sense is that a read of the book would give most of us more real information about globalization, particularly since it deals with something we can readily identify with, than most other books and articles we might pick up.

In my teaching I promote discussions of the inevitability of globalization.  If it is indeed inevitable, then the follow-on discussion needs to be about how one survives, thrives, and makes a difference.

From The Tom Peters Weblog comes Are We Ready?  The article questions, rightly I believe, whether Americans are properly preparing (for surely they are unprepared) to survive, thrive, and make a difference.

I try to do my part.  All my graduate classes include a module on global culture based on the results of Project GLOBE.  The discussions of how cultural characteristics color the views of issues and confine the range of solutions are (usually) the liveliest.   Another professor and I had a discussion regarding what and how we should be teaching culture in our institution.  Both of us agree that cultural understanding will increasingly be a critical success factor in careers.

Can this article by Matthew Yglesias at Talking Points Memo be correct?

Isn't productivity the ratio of output to labor hour.  Can't, and doesn't, productivity improve by reducing the denominator.  And isn't that what America has been about  through outsourcing and work force rebalancing?  And don't these actions result in fewer workers and lower payments into social security?

Hence, isn't the statement that "As we've been noting, if productivity rises faster than anticipated, that will make Social Security's deficit smaller than anticipated." potentially incorrect?

By way of Smart Mobs I was led to I was led to an article titled In The Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. A snippet of the article follows.

We're filling up the world with technology and devices, but we've lost sight of an important question: What is this stuff for? What value does it add to our lives? So asks author John Thackara in his new book, In the Bubble: Designing for a Complex World.

In may of my guest lectures I call to question that which Thackara asks.  Perhaps we are too technology driven as contrasted with technology enabled.   The symbiotic decision support systems of the late Prof.  Manheim also come to mind.

Sometimes the best technological decision is  simply to sharpen a pencil.

The title tempted me, but it is the picture that captured me.  See more at a Business Pundit of May 2, 2005.

I've seen the Reichstag before, but never like Cristo and Jean-Claude could see it.  Subsequently, they let us see it through their mind's eye.

The lesson here is that in a complex, chaotic, fast-paced time our ability to resolve important issues is heightened if we see the larger picture and perhaps see it from a different point of view.  In this previous post I commented on imagination as one of the fundamental principles of a good life.  Cristo and Jean-Claude possess it.

I finished this up a few moments ago.  I'll figure out the time it took at a later date, but I suspect it was well under half a day.  The only thing I've not transferred is the droganbloggin archives from December 2002 through April 2005.  I've retained copies of these on my laptop and, should the need arise, they are accessible.

The trial period will expire on May 19, but, inasmuch as my current website provider has not responded to any of my requests for service and they are more expensive, I will likely move to Squarespace prior to expiry.

Anya Sobodinska has written a interetsing five part series on the question of Technology: A Friend or a Foe? The fifth part can be found here and you can find your way to the other parts.

After having read all five parts I commented that

Technology, like just about everything else in life, except perhaps love, should not cause paranoia, but should raise in us prudence. Technology will be whatever we allow it to be.

and

I think it possible to rely too much on technology. I think this comes about for two reasons. The first is laziness. The second, and perhaps more insidious, is the use of technology as a buffer against taking responsibility. How often have we heard things like, "Well, I sent you an e-mail." Or, if you are a teacher, "My computer crashed."

We should be wary of making machines accountable.

and

I'm emboldened by this to believe that man can continue to master machine. The fundamental principles upon which I believe a good life is built -- integrity, intellect, energy, and imagination -- are, for the most part (I find myself hedging my bets more than I used to), reserved to the carbon-based life forms.

and finally


I'll end with a line that promotes taking responsibility for an informed view of the world.

"If stated reasons don't sit well with your conscience or stand the test of logic, look for deeper motivations." Docent Glax Othn

Take a look an Anya's article.

Senate Bolton Vote May Bypass Panel.  Perhaps I spoke a bit too soon earlier this morning.

From Of, By and For comes A Note to the Chairman of the Democratic Party.  It is most directly about American's energy issue.  But I see it as a more significant call for the Democratic Party to provide a different kind of leadership than it does today -- charitably, perhaps, called indifference to the issues -- to get the country out of the ditch.

After exhausting all(?) alternatives, and exasperating a substantial number of people, the Republicans come down on the side of ethics.

However, what is to be made of this?