You can check frequently, Monday to Friday, additions to our news & commentary database here:

        http://www.atlanticpacificalliance.com/news.html

 

 

US Helping To Clean Up Munitions, Oil in Lebanon / While Insurance Companies Targeted, Taxpayers Soaked / Has the Internet Increased Trade? / Case for transparent government is open and shut / Gunter Grass / Race and economics / McCain / Revolutionary Marxist gets 60 days for bank robbery / Soviet Ghosts Haunt the World Council of Churches / Why Britain Stopped the Terror Plot / ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' / How to Kill a Westerner / A footnote on Judge Taylor / The very richest are siphoning off the economic growth / Charter School Nonsense / Finally, an acknowledgment that competition in telecom abounds / Arresting business competitors in Hanoi / The U.S. needs a 21st-century missile-defense system / The U.N.'s inaction against terrorist abduction / Good Governance Is Good Business: NYSE / Schwarzenegger Gives Up / The rest of Europe fails to catch on to Finland's innovative prowess / China's Great Leap Backward / Tough Love for Iraq / Returning Some Order to Iraq / The Red Cross Ambulance Incident / Covering the Conflict in the North / NYT: Do as we say, not as we do / American Geophysical Union meeting “Aerosol Cloud-Precipitation" / A Sea Change in Global Warming? / Study rules out ancient 'bursts' of methane from seafloor deposits / Russian scientist predicts global cooling / Accuracy Of Weather and Climate Modeling Simulation and Prediction Of The Stable Atmospheric Boundary Layer / Counterfeit Drugs Threat to Global Health / New Waistline Scare / One way to get rid of insect pests may be to build a better bug / Articles in Spanish

 

To receive any of the following, free of charge, ask or send your request to Jorge Mata:

 

Any US State Dept., US Defense Dept., or any other US Government agency article, transcript, press release, briefing report, etc.

 

Any article, roundtable, etc., of Frontpage Magazine (index in http://www.frontpagemag.com), National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com), The National Interest (http://www.nationalinterest.org), Foreign Affairs (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/current/), The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/current), etc.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's articles (free of charge, sometimes registration needed):

 

Politics/Economy/Society

 

-  United States Helping To Clean Up Munitions, Oil in Lebanon. By Lea Terhune

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060824174045mlenuhret7.310122e-02

U.S. pledges funds, expertise to address threats to environment and security

 

-  While Insurance Companies Targeted, Taxpayers Soaked. By Ted Frank

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24825,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

 

-  Has the Internet Increased Trade? By Scott Wallsten, George R. G. Clarke

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24818,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

 

-  Case for transparent government is open and shut. By Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082406b.cfm

How good is government at wasting our tax dollars?

 

-  Deceitful evolution, by Helle Dale

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082406d.cfm

Gunter Grass

 

­-  Race and economics, by Thomas Sowell

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/08/25/race_and_economics

 

Erratum, by Dennis Sevakis

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5926

 

­-  McCain's Machiavellian miscalculation, by David Limbaugh

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2006/08/25/mccains_machiavellian_miscalculation

 

-  Dialectical Justice, by Lloyd Billingsley

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24060

Revolutionary Marxist gets 60 days for bank robbery

 

-  Soviet Ghosts Haunt the World Council of Churches, by Mark D. Tooley

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24064

A new top official and his communist past

 

-  Why Britain Stopped the Terror Plot. By Insight Magazine

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24040

And we wouldn't have been able to. . . .

 

-  ABC's 'The Path to 9/11'. By Govindini Murty

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24042

A powerful -- and honest -- new miniseries.

 

-  How to Kill a Westerner

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24061

 

-  A footnote on Judge Taylor, by Scott Johnson

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015105.php

 

-  The Secret Mechanism, by Russell Roberts

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2006/08/the_secret_mech.html

The very richest are siphoning off the economic growth

 

 

Education/Culture/Media

 

-  The Red Cross Ambulance Incident

http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/

 

-  Covering the Conflict in the North, by HonestReporting.com

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24065

 

-  NYT: Do as we say, not as we do. By Thomas Lifson

http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5929

 

 

Science/Health

 

-  December 2006 American Geophysical Union meeting “Aerosol Cloud-Precipitation," by Roger Pielke Sr

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/08/24/agu-meeting/

 

-  A Sea Change in Global Warming?

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/08/24/a-sea-change-in-global-warming/

 

-  Study rules out ancient 'bursts' of methane from seafloor deposits

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/osu-sro082106.php

A dramatic increase about 12,000 years ago in levels of atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas, was most likely caused by higher emissions from tropical wetlands or from plant production, rather than a release from seafloor methane deposits, a new study concludes.

 

For climate researchers, an understanding of methane behavior is of some significance because it is the second most important "greenhouse gas" after carbon dioxide. Its atmospheric concentration has increased about 250 percent in the last 250 years, and it continues to rise about 1 percent a year.

 

Interesting. But, please, don’t say methane is the “second most important”: first, water vapor, later, clouds, after that carbon dioxide and ozone. And, after all that, methane.

 

Also, it is wrong to say that atmospheric concentrations of methane are increasing. See CDIAC/Oak Ridge Nat'l Lab: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/otheratg/blake/methane/methane.html.

 

-  Russian scientist predicts global cooling

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060825-091321-7556r

 

­-  Research Papers On The Accuracy Of Weather and Climate Modeling Simulation and Prediction Of The Stable Atmospheric Boundary Layer. By Roger Pielke Sr

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/08/24/gewex-atmospheric-boundary-layer-study-gabls-on-stable-boundary-layers/

 

-  Counterfeit Drugs Threat to Global Health, Says New Report

http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.1385/news_detail.asp

 

-  Boomers Targeted in New Waistline Scare, by Steven Milloy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210350,00.html

'Just a few extra pounds could mean fewer years, study finds,' headlined a front-page, above-the-fold story in the Washington Post this week.

 

-  One way to get rid of insect pests may be to build a better bug, by Scott LaFee

http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20060821013128942

 

 

Technology

 

GOOGLE WILL BUNDLE email and scheduling offerings, among other services, increasing its competition with Microsoft.

*  *  *

Japan's Softbank improved the operating-profit margin of its mobile-phone unit from a wimpy 3.2% to a muscular 11.7% in just two-months. Its strategy -- a simple accounting shift -- is raising some eyebrows.

*  *  *

Advertisers have shown strong interest in sponsoring free video-on-demand programs, which have expanded as cable operators devise new services to battle satellite competitors.

*  *  *

Belgacom will pay Vodafone $2.55 billion for the 25% of mobile arm Proximus the Belgian firm doesn't own.

*  *  *

BellSouth scrapped plans for a surcharge on high-speed Internet customers after the FCC turned up the heat on BellSouth and Verizon.

*  *  *

Sri Lankan law-enforcement said they have been asked by the U.S. to hunt for Kobi Alexander, the former high-tech executive turned international fugitive.

*  *  *

The FCC cleared three XM radio models with overly powerful signals that violated emissions rules, ridding XM Satellite of a big cloud on its business prospects.

*  *  *

Microsoft's Zune digital media player will be manufactured by Toshiba and include an FM tuner and wireless networking capability. Toshiba revealed details of the player in an FCC filing.

*  *  *

Nacchio's Trial Will Remain in Denver

• FCC Ruling Boosts XM Shares

Australia to Lure Telstra Investors With Entitlements

Belgacom Buys Rest of Mobile Unit

                    >>>>>>>>>>> You can request these articles at no charge. Call Jorge Mata at any time to ask.

 

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

 

In Spanish: Europeos proporcionados

http://gees.org/articulo/2891/

La última guerra en Oriente Medio ha ofrecido a Europa la enésima oportunidad para demostrar al mundo quien es alguien, política y militarmente. Varios países europeos corrieron a airear su intención de enviar soldados como parte del contingente que la ONU pretende desplegar en el sur de Líbano para reforzar el alto el fuego.

 

-  ¿Cree usted en la ONU?, por Rafael L. Bardají

http://gees.org/articulo/2890/

Si usted es de los que todavía creen en la Organización de las Naciones Unidas como la garante de la paz y la estabilidad mundial sin duda se debe a que no ha conocido ninguna de las misiones desarrolladas por los famosos “cascos azules” a tal fin.

 

-  Cutregrafía: continúa el escándalo mediático. Por Michelle Malkin

http://gees.org/articulo/2886/

Es la noticia que la élite periodística preferiría que se tragara la tierra. Después del reconocimiento por parte de Reuters de que uno de sus fotógrafos, Adnán Hajj, había manipulado dos fotografías de la guerra del Líbano después de que los bloggers olieran sus crudas alteraciones de Photoshop, y todas sus 920 fotos de Reuters fueran retiradas, las pruebas de escenificaciones fotográficas y engaño mediático en Oriente Medio siguen surgiendo a raudales.

 

-  El converso, por Cal Thomas

http://gees.org/articulo/2887/

Soloman está en problemas por partida doble. No solamente renegó del Islam y de los objetivos de los terroristas, también se ha convertido en cristiano, lo que le etiqueta para morir. Nacido en Oriente Medio, visitaba Washington desde su país de adopción, el cual rehúsa nombrar con el fin de proteger a su familia.

 

 

============================

Wall Street Journal (excerpts)

 

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

 

 Charter School Nonsense

Flawed studies don't help education reform.

 

 California Epiphany

Finally, an acknowledgment that competition in telecom abounds.

 

 Vietnam's Hostages

Arresting business competitors in Hanoi.

 

 

COMMENTARY

 

 HENRY F. COOPER and ROBERT L. PFALTZGRAFF JR.

Lost in Space

The U.S. needs a 21st-century missile-defense system.

 

 JUDEA PEARL and RUTH PEARL

Hostage Crisis

The U.N.'s inaction against terrorist abduction.

 

 NEERAJ BHARGAVA

Good Governance Is Good Business

Why we like the NYSE.

 

 SHIKHA DALMIA

Schwarzenegger Gives Up

Politics trumps fiscal health.

 

 

COLUMNS

 

 STATE OF THE UNION

Innovation, Innovation, Innovation

The rest of Europe fails to catch on to Finland's innovative prowess.

By Ann Mettler

 

 

OPINION EUROPE AND OPINION ASIA

 

 China's Great Leap Backward

Three disturbing court cases.

 

 DAVID IGNATIUS

Tough Love for Iraq

What's needed is a reasonable timetable for the transfer of military control.

 

 DAVID IGNATIUS

Returning Some Order to Iraq

Leading by example on the streets of Baghdad.

 

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

--------------------------------------

Charter School Nonsense
August 28, 2006; Page A12

The Bush administration's desire to enlighten parents and taxpayers about alternatives to failing public schools is admirable. But it'll have to do better than the misleading report issued last week by the federal Department of Education, which purports to show that charter schools trail traditional public schools in student achievement.

The study used 2003 test-score data from the National Assessment for Education Progress (NAEP) to determine that fourth-graders attending regular public schools scored 4.2 points higher in reading, and 4.7 points higher in math, than their counterparts in charter schools, which are also public schools but operate independently and without many of the union and bureaucratic rules. The study claims to have taken family income into consideration, and that's important because a large number of charter schools cater to mostly low-income students.

But the use of federal-lunch program participation as a poverty indicator is problematic and likely skewed the results. According to the Center for Education Reform, a school choice advocacy group, as many as 1-in-4 charters nationwide would qualify for free- and reduced-lunch programs but don't take advantage of them. Cost and bureaucratic red tape are two primary reasons.

For example, to participate in a federal lunch program, a school must hire certified food service workers. Many charters operating on tight budgets choose to use parents or volunteers in the cafeteria and steer their limited resources into the classroom. By relying on a flawed proxy for poverty, the government's methodology penalizes this sort of efficiency.

It's also worth pointing out how little can be properly extrapolated about the quality of charter schools from a 2003 "snapshot" of fourth-grade reading and math scores. The study tells us nothing about the students' prior or subsequent academic record. Nor do we know how long the school had been open at the time or whether it's still in operation today.

Teachers unions and others averse to school choice want to use the study's results to indict the entire charter model. But they'd never dream of using such a crude approach to assess the effectiveness of traditional public schools. The NAEP data are merely a measure of current student performance. The only way to measure school effectiveness is through longitudinal studies that compare the same students over time.

"You compare students year to year in certain subjects to find out whether they're learning and how much of it can be attributed to the school," says Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform. "This national study doesn't do that." This federal picture is incomplete, in part, because the feds only began including charter schools in NAEP data three years ago. But states have been measuring performance trends for much longer. And the value-added effects of charter schools are clear.

Studies in California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida and elsewhere have repeatedly shown charter school students outperforming their counterparts in traditional public schools -- sometimes dramatically. In Michigan in 2004, 46% of black eighth-graders in charter schools passed the state math assessment test, compared with just 21% of black eighth-graders statewide.

Writing in the New York Post last week, Peter Murphy of the New York Charter Schools Association said a state report issued this summer found that "in 2005, a majority of charter schools had a higher percentage of students passing the state exams in English language arts and mathematics at the elementary and middle school levels" than did their respective school districts.

All charters aren't successful, but the bad ones tend to close in due course, which is a good thing and more than can be said for failing traditional public schools. As for the rest, they are providing a fast-growing option for underprivileged children. This irks unions, school boards and others with a vested interest in a public school monopoly that's failing to educate millions of kids. But it doesn't mean the Bush administration has to give its political opponents fodder in the form of shoddy, oversold research on school performance.

--------------------------------------

California Epiphany
August 28, 2006; Page A12

How much competition is there in U.S. telecommunications? So much that even California regulators have finally noticed. Last week the state's Public Utilities Commission voted 5-0 to lift decades-old price controls on land-line phone companies.

The move was instigated by Rachelle Chong, who was appointed to the Commission in January by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to a Los Angeles Times report, this is the first time in 18 years that California has altered its rate structure. Think about all that has happened in telecom in the past two decades, from the proliferation of wireless devices to Internet telephony, and you get some idea of how far past due these changes were.

Other states, including Texas, Florida, Indiana, Colorado and Massachusetts, have eased their anti-competitive price controls in recent years, but the decision to do so by the nation's largest state is still significant. "The California Public Utility Commission is used by Commissions in other states as a standard," says Barry Aarons, who follows telecom at the Institute for Policy Innovation. "They reason, 'If California is willing to do this, we shouldn't be scared to do it ourselves.'"

It's unfortunate that the Commission felt the need to delay matters by locking residential retail rates in place until 2009, thus dampening the incentive for AT&T, Verizon and others to continue building advanced networks. But the temporary rate freeze was probably the political price for passing broader structural reform in a state not exactly known for its deregulatory instincts.

The good news is that these state regulators have finally acknowledged that competition in telecom abounds, that free-markets work, and that holding residential phone bills below actual cost is silly in today's brave new telecom world. The other good news is that if even California regulators can come to this realization, anyone can.

--------------------------------------

Vietnam's Hostages
August 28, 2006; Page A12

In the capitalist world, if you make a bad business decision you live with the consequences. But not, apparently, in Vietnam. Details have emerged from Hanoi about how staff working for a foreign bank are being held hostage by police until their employer agrees to "compensate" a state-owned bank for the $5.4 million it lost in speculative foreign-exchange trades.

Vietnam was supposed to be heading in the right direction. Its economy is booming amid rising foreign investment, and a bill granting permanent normal trade relations is before the Senate. A free-trade agreement with Washington may be next, and President Bush recently backed Hanoi's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

But now comes the appalling treatment of staff of the Dutch bank ABN-AMRO, caught up in what even Vietnamese regulators say were legitimate business transactions. The story highlights how, for all its strides toward a market economy, this Communist state is still not always a safe place to do business. In Hanoi, Tom O'Dore, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce Vietnam, says "This particular case reeks of human-rights abuses."

We don't know all the details of the dispute between ABN-AMRO and the state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of Vietnam. But we do know that Incombank claims the employee who conducted the disputed trades with the Dutch bank wasn't authorized to carry out forex transactions, and that her boss approved them only because he couldn't read enough English to understand the contracts.

As a result, one ABN-AMRO staffer has now been held for more than four months in a top security prison for hardened criminals and refused permission to see his family or a lawyer. A second was detained last month. Two more escaped the same fate only because they have young children; they were placed under house arrest. A senior bank staffer in Hanoi, Vietnamese-American De Pham, has faced difficulties leaving Vietnam, even though she is six months pregnant and needs medical treatment overseas. A civil case between the two banks is due to begin in a Hanoi court soon, but meanwhile the staff is being treated like criminals.

All this over forex trades that were given a clean bill of health in a recent audit by the country's financial regulator, the State Bank of Vietnam. As Mr. O'Dore told us, all of this has left others doing business in Vietnam fearful that they could suffer the same fate. "They're criminalizing what appears to be a legitimate business transaction," he says. "This is very bewildering in a country that's trying to get into WTO and sends an inappropriate message to the U.S. Congress."

The ABN-AMRO saga will be familiar to foreigners who do business in China. Jerome Cohen, a New York University professor who specializes in China's legal system, says he continues to encounter numerous such cases in that country. In Vietnam, police are allowed to hold suspects without charges for more than a year. That doesn't necessarily mean the ABN-AMRO staff will remain in limbo for that long. Vietnam's reformist new Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung is reported to have ordered an urgent investigation into the case. He seems unlikely to risk Vietnam's trading status with the U.S. for the sake of one state-owned bank.

But even if this case is resolved through pressure from foreign governments, it stands as testament to how far Vietnam still has to travel before foreign companies can be confident of a fair and transparent business climate and a reliable rule of law. WTO entry is no panacea, with China's 2001 accession failing to halt its abuses.

In the free world, governments don't go around abducting a competitor's staff over a business dispute. Until state-owned companies are forced to live with the consequences of bad business deals -- or resolve disputes through the legal system -- Vietnam can never expect to become a full-fledged member of the world business community.

--------------------------------------

Lost in Space

By HENRY F. COOPER and ROBERT L. PFALTZGRAFF JR.
August 28, 2006; Page A12

Consider the implications of North Korea's July 4 missile tests. While the Taepondong-2 failed, Pyongyang has already demonstrated (in 1998) that it can launch long-range rockets. Meanwhile, the six short- and medium-range missiles it successfully tested can be sold to other rogue states and terrorists -- who could launch them at us from ships off our coasts.

When North Korea launched its missiles in July, what President Bush has properly termed our "modest" missile-defense system was activated -- but it included no protection against this short-range threat to the three-quarters of all Americans living within 200 miles of our coasts. Indeed, if a nuclear warhead on just one missile, launched from a ship off our coast, was detonated at an altitude of 100 kilometers, the electromagnetic pulse would have devastating consequences for critical infrastructures such as telecommunications, finance, fuel/energy, transportation, food and water supply, energy resources and space systems.

* * *

The blunt truth is that, since withdrawing from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the U.S. has not done enough to protect the nation from the threat of missiles. The Pentagon is improving ground-based interceptor systems, but it is not fully exploiting other interceptor-basing modes. Sea-based defenses, for example, remain focused on defending our overseas troops, allies and friends against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles -- without using their inherent potential also to shoot down ballistic missiles aimed at the U.S. homeland.

Nevertheless, our continuing vulnerability to missile attack is the result of easily reversible past choices. Japan and the U.S., for example, are jointly developing sea-based missile defenses against short- and medium-range missiles; three U.S. ships equipped to shoot down these missiles will be operating in or near the Sea of Japan later this year. With a $25 million software improvement, these same ships can shoot down North Korean intercontinental-range missiles early in their ascent phase -- long before ground-based interceptors in Alaska or California. And if ships operating near our coasts are similarly equipped, they could shoot down short- and medium-range missiles launched by terrorists from ships off our coasts.

We have already made an $80 billion investment in over 80 Aegis ships now at sea around the world that have the ability to shoot down cruise missiles. A minimal additional investment can enable them to shoot down ballistic missiles: Outfitting a single ship costs $100 million ($20 million for support systems and $80 million for eight interceptors). There is no better investment in near-term missile-defense capability.

As the administration has acknowledged, current missile defenses represent only a "starting point" for building improved capabilities. But rather than just marginally improving systems that evolved from the ABM Treaty era, missile-defense designers should start from the basics.

The authors participated in an Independent Working Group that for the last five years considered these issues in depth. Our full report, "Missile Defense, the Space Relationship and the 21st Century," is available at www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf. Here, we emphasize several points:

 Missile-defense systems should protect us against more than just small rogue states. We should make it virtually impossible for any adversary -- rogue states, non-state actors and larger strategic competitors -- to influence U.S. decisions, or the course of regional conflicts, by threatening to launch missiles with nuclear weapons against the U.S., its deployed forces or its allies.
 

Since we cannot be certain where or when a missile will be launched against us, we need a continuously ready, global, multilayered system to provide multiple shots at attacking missiles and their warheads in all their phases of flight -- boost, midcourse and terminal. Such defenses make an attack more expensive, and therefore less attractive for enemies to buy the technologies to overcome them. The ABM Treaty era showed that it is the absence of defenses, rather than their presence, that encourages the development of offensive technologies.

 Ground-based defenses can protect specific territory; sea-based defenses can more flexibly defend larger areas for less money. Neither provides global protection. Only space-based systems can provide a truly global defense. The U.S. needs a streamlined development program to build space-based interceptors for boost-, midcourse- and terminal-phase interdiction -- and to begin deployment of these interceptors by 2010.
 

Political factors have dictated technical behavior, subordinating the development of the most technically sound and cost-effective defenses. The problem transcends administrations and political parties; it reflects the unprecedented political opposition that has been mounted against effective missile defenses over the past five decades. The most technologically feasible global defense -- space-based -- has not been politically acceptable, because of concerns about the "weaponization of space." This is a dubious argument that ignores history, and the current efforts of other states to weaponize space. But the result is to leave us with a ground-based defense that is politically the most acceptable but technologically the least effective.

Because of Ronald Reagan's interest in research on all ballistic missile-defense concepts, his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) explored all possible concepts and pursued major technology initiatives, in order to underwrite those most effective. By the end of his administration, it was clear that a space-based interceptor system, "Brilliant Pebbles," could meet even the strict so-called Nitze criteria (survivability under direct attack and cost-effectiveness at the margin as compared to investments in attacking missiles).

This interceptor system consisted of a constellation of very lightweight satellites (each about the size of a watermelon) that would continuously monitor the Earth below and detect any missile launch within its field of view. The satellite with the best intercept opportunity would release a Brilliant Pebble (weighing a few pounds) that maneuvers into the path of the oncoming missile or its payload and destroys it by impact. All key technologies were proven by the mid-1990s; today's technology is more advanced and could intercept even short-range Scuds in their boost phase.

Brilliant Pebbles was approved in 1990; the Pentagon's independent costing agency estimated acquisition and 20-year operations costs at $11 billion in 1990 dollars, or about $16 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. It would have been far more capable than all other missile-defense concepts pursued since then -- at many times that cost -- but political considerations killed Brilliant Pebbles in 1993. Even the supporting technology programs were cancelled and the technologists dispersed -- so those most important products from the $30-billion SDI investment were lost.

* * *

Today the U.S. should make deployment of a multilayered missile defense, including space-based systems, an urgent priority. We should complete the ground-based sites in Alaska and California -- but build no additional ground-based sites. Limited resources are better spent to meet emerging threats by building the more cost-effective (sea- and space-based) missile components.

Great advances in technology have resulted when visionary and persistent leaders, supported by competent scientists and engineers and set apart from the normal acquisition bureaucracy, are given the necessary resources to prove new ideas can and will work. This recipe should again be employed to revive cutting-edge technologies demonstrated over a decade ago -- and to build the defenses we need in the 21st century.

Mr. Cooper, former director of the SDI and chief U.S. negotiator to the Geneva Space and Defense Talks, is chairman of High Frontier, a missile defense advocacy group. Mr. Pfaltzgraff is president of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

--------------------------------------

Hostage Crisis

By JUDEA PEARL and RUTH PEARL
August 28, 2006; Page A12

As the parents of Daniel Pearl, The Wall Street Journal's reporter who was kidnapped and brutally murdered in Pakistan in 2002, we share the anguish of the families of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, and their frustration with the international community for failing to secure the release of their loved ones. For more than six weeks now, these soldiers and their families live each day tortured by unimaginable fears and shattered hopes, praying desperately for the nightmare to end; we relive this nightmare each time an innocent person falls victim to the inhumanity of terrorist abduction.

Whatever success the U.N. Security Council would presume to claim, it cannot be said that Resolution 1701 has effectively addressed the direct cause of the fighting -- the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser, 31, and Eldad Regev, 26, by Hezbollah, and the earlier abduction of Gilad Shalit, 19, by Hamas. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call for the unconditional release of these soldiers has been ignored. Moreover, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, the terrorists have not only seized the soldiers as hostages for political blackmail, they have not allowed the Red Cross to visit them. Their families do not know their physical condition; they have no proof they are even alive.

And so now these families of Ehud, Eldad and Gilad are asking to meet with Kofi Annan. They wish to plead with the secretary-general to use the full weight of his moral authority to mobilize and intensify the efforts of the international community he leads -- an influential body that has managed to compel two fierce armies to cease hostilities -- to address this flagrant violation of humanitarian law.

On that score, these families are correct: The time has come for Mr. Annan to personally and aggressively intervene, and to insist publicly that, at the minimum, the Red Cross, or his personal humanitarian representatives, be given immediate access to these soldiers.

Will he? It seems unlikely. Sadly, this is not the first time that concerned parents have turned to Mr. Annan in much the same circumstances. Six years ago, another delegation of distressed families came to the U.N. with a similar tragedy, following the abduction of three Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah from under the noses of Unifil and, by some accounts, with their help. The investigation that was subsequently conducted found that the U.N. had made "serious errors in judgment" by hiding information that "would have been helpful in an assessment of the condition of the three abducted soldiers." At that time, the U.N.'s interest in appearing "neutral" overshadowed its commitment to the preservation of human lives. The world cannot afford a repeat of such inaction and poor judgment.

Undoubtedly, the secretary-general will tell the families of Ehud, Eldad and Gilad that he has dispatched a high-level team to Beirut that will urge the release of their loved ones. But that team negotiates behind closed doors. And by not publicly demanding the unfettered access of humanitarian representatives to the kidnapped soldiers, Mr. Annan has deprived his team of the force of credibility and seriousness they need in those negotiations.

When our son Daniel was in captivity, millions of people around the world prayed for his safe return. In that prayer, they made a solemn pledge never to allow abductions of innocent people to become the norm of civilized society, no matter the political purpose, regardless of grievance or goal.

Kofi Annan's resolve against these acts of terrorism will determine to a great extent what norms will govern our society in generations to come, and whether organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas will gloat in unruly appetite or be reined in by moral principles. We urge Mr. Annan to make bold and brave efforts to ensure -- as a legacy and gift -- that we will not allow our children and our world be taken captive by terror. Mr. Secretary-General, this time, help bring the boys back home.

Mr. and Mrs. Pearl are co-founders of the Daniel Pearl Foundation (www.danielpearl.org), a U.N.-affiliated NGO.

--------------------------------------

Good Governance Is Good Business

By NEERAJ BHARGAVA
August 28, 2006; Page A12

A growing number of headlines suggest that stringent Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, U.S. accounting guidelines and Sarbanes-Oxley compliance standards place undue burdens on U.S.-listed companies. Accused of inhibiting the free flow of information as well as the entrepreneurial spirit of growing businesses, these listing requirements have caused many to question whether U.S. markets -- long considered the gold standard -- are losing their luster.

Based on our recent experience going public on the New York Stock Exchange, we at WNS Global Services, an India-based business process outsourcing provider, believe the answer is no.

Exchanges in India, the U.K. and the U.S. all offer unique value propositions. Believing that it is important for clients and investors to view our organization as a trusted, well-run and compliant company, we chose what we thought to be the most challenging -- and possibly most rewarding -- option. Specifically, our decision to list in the U.S., and on the NYSE, was driven by the following:

• Credibility: Meeting the financial reporting, corporate governance and disclosure requirements necessary for listing on the NYSE builds confidence among clients, the government and other regulators. Clients prefer reporting in U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP -- the same high standards they set for themselves.
 
• Global visibility: The prestige of an NYSE listing not only builds brand recognition among U.S. clients and potential clients, but also among international audiences, who recognize the high standards that must be met. The enhanced visibility associated with becoming a U.S.-listed public company translates directly into new business opportunities.
 
• Shareholder value: Companies that list in the U.S. have a valuation nearly one-third higher than those listed elsewhere, according to a study co-authored by professors Andrew Karolyi and Rene Stulz of Ohio State University and Craig Doidge of the University of Toronto. Companies that cross-list in the U.S. have a valuation 13.9% higher. This is attributed to the greater visibility, as well as the improved disclosure and transparency, of a U.S. listing.
 
• Liquidity: A U.S. listing allows us to reach a wider pool of investors and to trade in scale. This, in turn, helps drive value for shareholders.
 

Even the much-maligned requirements for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance have benefits: Business processes are better defined, vetted by experts and made more efficient. There also could be potential for long-term benefits such as a lower cost of capital, smoother follow-on financing and greater flexibility in future M&A activities.

Good corporate governance is good business. Meeting global best practices, we help to ensure the healthy growth of our company. This helps to make it a better employer for our associates, a better corporate citizen in the countries in which we operate and a better partner for the companies and other organizations with which we interact.

Headlines are likely to continue to assert that stringent financial reporting and corporate governance guidelines are diminishing the prestige of a U.S. listing and driving companies to international exchanges. And yes, meeting the highest listing standards in the world does come at a price. But the benefits continue to outweigh the challenges and to drive companies toward greater efficiency, stability and long-term growth.

Mr. Bhargava is co-founder and group chief executive officer of WNS (Holdings) Limited, the parent company of WNS Global Services, an offshore business process outsourcing provider.

--------------------------------------

Schwarzenegger Gives Up

By SHIKHA DALMIA
August 28, 2006; Page A13

Arnold Schwarzenegger is following the wrong script. After taking over as governor in 2003, he was expected to vanquish business-as-usual politicians in Sacramento -- and pull California from the brink of fiscal ruin. Instead, he has decided to put his own political future ahead of the economic survival of his beloved Golden State. How else to interpret his recent move to join ranks with his opponents in Sacramento to put a pork-heavy $37 billion bond infrastructure proposal on the November ballot?

Mr. Schwarzenegger's move officially marks the end of his grand plans to reform Sacramento, earning him kudos from many California Democrats. Sen. Don Perata, the most influential Democrat in the state legislature, and Senate Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez have praised Mr. Schwarzenegger's leadership and pledged to campaign with him this fall to promote the initiative. Making joint appearances with prominent Democrats while he is campaigning for re-election will help cement Mr. Schwarzenegger's image as a political moderate, something he has been trying hard to cultivate in this bluest of blue states since last year. That's when the state's public unions accused him of right-wing partisanship, and defeated the bold reform initiatives he put on the ballot to curtail their influence on state government and politics.

The real issue, however, is what this bond measure will do to California. Few doubt the need for California to invest in its crumbling infrastructure. But this is an infrastructure bond in name only. The four big-ticket items in the bond -- which is two times bigger than the biggest bond in the state's history -- are $2.6 billion for housing, $10.4 billion for K-12 schools and universities, $3.1 billion for levee repairs and $19.2 billion for transportation.

The housing bond is simply welfare masquerading as a capital project. A bulk of its money won't fund general infrastructure -- an acceptable use of general-obligation bonds like these -- but such things as cheap multifamily dwellings for low-income families, and down-payment assistance for first-time home buyers.

The education bond is equally misguided, given that 40% of the state's $94 billion general-fund revenues are already constitutionally earmarked for education. Moreover, California voters approved a total of $25 billion for school-construction bonds in 2002 and 2004 to reduce overcrowding. If there is still not enough money for new schools, it is not because of lack of state spending, but abject waste by individual districts. If anything, this handout will encourage more waste by undercutting districts' need to explore the kind of public-private partnership responsible for Inderkum High School in Sacramento being completed a month early and $2.5 million under budget. In this case, a private developer built the school and district authorities used their public dollars to lease the facility from him.

In contrast to schools, California has genuinely underinvested in its levees and transportation. Yet it is unclear that general-obligation bonds that mortgage the wallets of all future taxpayers are the best remedy. To the extent that levee repair, for instance, would benefit mostly those living in the flood plains, at least part of the cost ought to be recovered through special assessments on them.

California has also been routinely raiding the transportation dollars it raises from gas taxes for other general fund needs -- a fact obvious to anyone who has ever battled traffic on the San Diego Freeway. Yet only about half of this bond's revenues are slated for actual road building. Instead, $4 billion is going to mass transit even though mass transit's share of commuters, never large, has dropped by 9% since 2000.

Even after the proposed $19 billion transportation bond and the $384 billion in planned transportation spending by the state's biggest three regions (Los Angeles, the Bay Area and San Diego), California's traffic congestion will actually be worse in 2030 than it is today because the state is choosing pork and pet transit projects instead of prioritizing and adding much-needed highway capacity.

There are better ways of generating steady revenues to fund transportation and other needed infrastructure that don't involve giving Sacramento's politicians a ready excuse to dip into the pockets of future taxpayers. Among them, notes Donna Arduin, Mr. Schwarzenegger's former finance director, are things like privately built toll roads and congestion pricing. "These were things that were recommended to him back when he first took office," she says.

It is disheartening that the governor -- who claims to have been inspired to enter political life by the small-government ideas of Milton Friedman and Adam Smith -- has ignored these measures, especially now when government spending in California is touching the stratosphere. Indeed, despite the fact that California's economy has rebounded after the dot-com bust, pouring $7 billion more than expected into the state's coffers this year, the state's 2006-07 budget still shows a deficit of $7 billion. California has the dubious distinction of being one of only eight states showing deficits instead of surpluses right now.

"That would not have been the case had the state simply held its spending increases to the expected gains in revenues," laments Tom McClintock, a Republican state senator who is running for lieutenant governor this year and who has refused to endorse any of the bond measures except for the one pertaining to levees. "This would have covered inflation, population increases and then some."

The deficit is not all Mr. Schwarzenegger's fault, of course. He deserves much credit for killing Gray Davis's notorious car tax and reforming California's job-killing worker compensation laws, both of which have paved the way for California's economic recovery and generated revenues for the state.

But the bond proposal suggests that Mr. Schwarzenegger has given up on even trying to put California's fiscal house in order -- his core promise when he took office. Instead, he has flipped the script, deciding to buy off special-interest groups by throwing even more money at their pet causes.

Ms. Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation.