The truth about boys and girls is out

There is no difference in their ability to comprehend and execute  maths and science subjects.
According to recent reports: The United States ranks 31st on the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Index and is tied for 21st on Social Watch's Gender Equity Index. Still, the test scores of U.S. high school girls have reached parity with those of boys, and half the undergraduate math degrees awarded in this country go to women.

But something happens  to women at higher levels of studies where the number of women drop off and they are under-represented in the PhD and in academic careers in science. The old beliefs that women are not hard-ired for high level maths and science appear to discourage or prevent women from being able to access high levels of education in this area thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy of the pundits.

  Society loses in this transaction. This is a problem, and not just from an equality standpoint, says math professor Rebecca Goldin, an associate professor of mathematics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and director of research at the university's Statistical Assessment Service. "Scientific and mathematical progress relies on the best people doing their best work," she says. "If you discourage half the population [from doing science], then that part is simply not in your pool of who's the best, so the best science doesn't happen."

  Professor Goldin said, forget about biological inference about gender differences in understanding maths and science "You have to look at the data. And the data all seem to be saying that men and women who make it to the point of entering the academic world have roughly equal intellectual potential, and that the differences between them are shaped by sociocultural influences, not biology."


Read more:

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/753523/evidence%3A_there%27s_no_biological_reason_for_gender_gap_in_math_and_science/#paragraph4

The Real and the Unreal People

The Real 'Invented' People




Newt Gingrich's controversial statement begs the question: Who invented a nationality? The Palestinians or the Israelis?

Last Modified: 24 Dec 2011 12:57




The state of Israel and the Israeli people were invented from scratch by the Zionist movement [GALLO/GETTY]

It is hard to believe that anyone who defends Israel's legitimacy as a state would buy into former Speaker Newt Gingrich's argument that Palestine is an "invented nation".



The singular triumph of the Zionist movement is that it invented a state and a people - Israel and the Israelis - from scratch. The first Hebrew-speaking child in 1900 years, Ittamar Ben-Avi, was not born until 1882. His father, the brilliant linguist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, created a modern language for him to speak by improvising from the language of the Bible.



The founder of the Israeli state was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), an assimilated Viennese writer who was convinced by the Dreyfus trial in France - and the horrendous right-wing anti-Semitism that resulted from it - that Jews had to get out of Europe.



In 1897, he wrote the book that would essentially inaugurate the Zionist movement. It was called Der Judenstaat (meaning "the Jews' state" or "the Jewish State"), which was his proposal for moving the Jews out of Europe and into their own country.



He didn't specify where the Jewish homeland should be. He was more concerned about quickly obtaining territory anywhere for Jews to seek refuge.



Later, he decided that Palestine made the most sense because that was where the Jewish people both began and exercised self-determination in ancient times, and where there already was a small minority of Jews. But he also spoke of finding a place in Africa or the Americas if Palestine was unavailable.



The reaction to Herzl's idea was primarily that he was a bit crazy. Jews committed to assimilation insisted that Jews were not a nation, but a religious faith. Their nationalities were French, German, Polish, Iraqi or American - not some imaginary Jewish nationality that had not existed for 1900 years.

100 years ago: 'just an idea'



As late as 1943, during the worst days of the Holocaust, the American Jewish Committee - which adhered to the assimilationist view - resigned from the body created by American Jews to respond to the Nazi catastrophe over its "demand for the eventual establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine".



Seventy-plus years later, it is impossible to argue that the Israeli nation is not as authentic and worthy of recognition as any in the world (more authentic than some, in fact).



The Hebrew language is spoken by millions of Jews and Palestinians. The Israeli culture is unique: Bearing little resemblance to any other in the world. In fact, diaspora Jews have as little in common with Israelis as African-Americans have with Africans.



Israelis are not just Jews who happen to live in Palestine, even though the concept of Israel-ness started just over a hundred years ago as nothing but an idea. They are Israelis, entitled to self-determination, peace and security in their own land.



And the Palestinians are every bit as much a nation. If the ultimate definition of authentic nationhood is continuous residence in a land for thousands of years, the Palestinian claim to nationhood is ironclad. They never left Palestine (except for those who either emigrated or became refugees after the establishment of Israel).



Those who deny that Palestinians have a nation base their case on two arguments, both of which are logically incoherent. The first is that Palestinians never exercised self-determination in Palestine; they were always governed by others from ancient times to the present day.



The answer to this is: So what? [this could be said about Indians in every country in the Americas-clyde]

What makes a people real?

Most nations in the world lacked self-determination for long periods of their history. The Polish nation existed between 1790 and 1918 even though the state was erased from the map - divided between Russia and Austro-Hungary. It achieved independence in 1918 only to again lose it to the Nazis, and then the Soviets from 1939 until 1989. Would anyone today argue that the Polish nation was invented?



The idea of it is ridiculous, especially when offered by Israelis or Americans (or Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians... ) whose national existence would have been unimaginable a few centuries ago.



The second argument is that Palestinians never thought of themselves as Palestinians until Jews started moving into their territory, that Palestinian nationalism is a response to Zionism.



Again, so what?



When European Jews docked in Jaffa, Palestine in the early immigration waves of the late 19th century, there were Arabs waiting at the port. When the Jews purchased land, it was Arabs who had to move out.



And if those Arabs didn't call themselves Palestinians until the Zionist movement began, neither did the Jews call themselves Israelis. Until 1948, they were just Jews. But each of the two peoples knew who they were and who the other was.



The bottom line is that today, the Palestinian nation is as authentic as the Israeli nation - and vice versa. Those who think either is going away are blinded by hatred.



To put it simply, the first part of the phrase self-determination is the word self. Both nations have the absolute right to define themselves as two nations which, hopefully, will evolve into two states. The alternative is national catastrophe not for one nation, but for two.



But why would Newt Gingrich care about that?

MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Environmental Watch

They May Have to Rewrite That Christmas Story


About the Three Wise Men and Their Gifts ...

Gold - Frankincense and Myrrh!
Charlie Cooper in The Independent 21 Dec 2011

They journeyed from the East to pay homage to the boy king bearing gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. But they would struggle to complete the feat today. Times for wise men have never been tougher. Gold prices are soaring on commodity markets, myrrh crops have been hit by drought – and now frankincense could soon be no more.

Solid frankincense resin can be sold at up to £37.33 per kilo, according to the International Centre for Research in Dry Areas. Myrrh is roughly twice as expensive, but prices are volatile – something that can also be said for the Wise Men's third gift. Four days before Christmas, an ounce of gold costs £1,029.20 on the international market – up by nearly 20 per cent this year.

But the worst news for biblical gift-buyers came this week, from Dutch ecologists studying populations of Boswellia in Ethiopia, who warned that numbers of the frankincense-producing tree could halve in the next 15 years and eventually cease altogether if factors such as fire, grazing and insect attack go unchecked.

An extinction of Boswellia would put an end to a millennia-old trade in the aromatic resin, which peaked under the Roman Empire and still provides materials for the perfume and aromatherapy industries today. Frankincense is used by major cosmetic firms such as the Body Shop and Ren, which sells Frankincense Revitalising Night Cream at £32 for a 50ml bottle.

Harvests of myrrh, another fragrant resin which comes from another species of desert tree, have also suffered from the effects of long-term drought. About 2,000 tons of frankincense is produced each year.

Researchers gathered population and seed production data on various species of Boswellia over two years. Their study of 13 two-hectare plots in Ethiopia, published The British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology, revealed its rapid decline. However, it is not the cosmetics industry, but cows and insects that are the mostly likely cause of the decline, the study said.

"Frankincense extraction is unlikely to be the main cause of population decline, which is likely to be caused by burning, grazing and attacks by the long-horn beetle," said Dr Frans Bongers, of Wageningen University in the Netherlands. "The number of fires and intensity of grazing in our study area has increased over recent decades as a result of a large increase in the number of cattle, and this could be why seedlings fail to grow into saplings."

"Our models show that within 50 years populations of Boswellia will be decimated, and the declining populations mean the frankincense population is doomed."

Bearing gifts... but for how long?

Gold Prices have soared as the economic crisis rumbles on. The current price is £1,029.20 an ounce.

Frankincense The tree which makes the resin faces extinction due to overgrazing and insect attacks.

Myrrh Drought may have had an impact on the growth of the thorny tree from which the resin comes.

Reflections of Fidel Castro

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL


Genocidal cynicism (Part I)

(Taken from CubaDebate)

NO sane person, especially anyone who has had access to the basic knowledge acquired in elementary schools, would agree that our species, particularly children, adolescents or young adults, should be deprived today, tomorrow and forever of the right to live. Throughout all of their hazardous history, human beings, as persons endowed with intelligence, have never experienced anything similar to this.

I feel bound to convey to those who take the trouble to read these reflections, the belief that all of us, without exception, have the obligation to create an awareness of the risks which humanity is inexorably running, and which are leading to definitive and total disaster as a consequence of the irresponsible decisions of politicians in whose hands chance, rather than talent or merit, has placed the destiny of humanity.

Whether or not the citizens of their country are the bearers of religious or skeptical beliefs in relation to the issue, no human being in their right mind would agree that their children or closest family members should perish in an abrupt form, or as victims of atrocious and torturous suffering.

In the wake of the repugnant crimes which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is committing with growing frequency under the aegis of the United States and the richest European countries, world attention focused on the G-20 meeting, at which the profound economic crisis currently affecting all nations had to be analyzed. International opinion, and particularly that of Europe, was awaiting a response to the profound economic crisis which, with its profound social and even climatic implications, is threatening all the inhabitants of the planet. That meeting was to decide whether the euro could be maintained as the common currency of the largest part of Europe, and even whether certain countries could remain within the community.

There was no answer or solution whatsoever to the most serious problems of the world economy, despite the efforts of China, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and others in the emerging economy, desirous of cooperating with the rest of the world in the search for solutions to the grave economic problems affecting it.

The unprecedented event is that, barely had NATO announced as concluded the operation in Libya – after the air attack which wounded the constitutional head of that country, destroyed the vehicle transporting him and left him at the mercy of the mercenaries of imperialism, who killed him and exhibited him as a war trophy, thus offending Muslim customs and traditions – than the IAEA, a United Nations body, an institution which should be at the service of world peace, launched its political and paid for sectarian report, which is placing the world on the brink of a war, with the deployment of nuclear weapons, which the yankee empire, in alliance with Britain and Israel, is meticulously preparing against Iran.

After the "Veni, vidi, vici" of the famous Roman emperor more than 2,000 years ago, translated into "I came, I saw and he died," transmitted to public opinion via an important television network as soon as the death of Gaddafi was known, words are surplus to describe the politics of the United States.

What is important now is the need to create among the peoples a clear awareness of the abyss towards which humanity is being led. On two occasions our Revolution experienced dramatic risks: in October of 1962, the most critical of all, in which humanity was on the brink of a nuclear holocaust; and in mid-1987, when our forces were confronting racist South African troops equipped with nuclear weapons which Israel had helped to create.

The Shah of Iran also collaborated alongside Israel with the racist and fascist South African regime.

What is the UN? An organization promoted by the United States before the end of World War II. That nation, whose territory was at a considerable distance from the scenes of war, had enormously enriched itself; it accumulated 80% of the world’s gold and under the leadership of Roosevelt, a sincere anti-fascist, promoted the development of the nuclear weapon which Truman, his successor, an oligarch and mediocre president, did not hesitate to use against the defenseless cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

The monopoly of world gold in the power of the United States and Roosevelt’s prestige gave him the Bretton Woods agreement, assigning him the role of issuing the dollar as the sole currency, which was used for years in world trade, with no limiting factor other than its backing in metallic gold.

At the end of World War II, the United States was also the only country to possess nuclear weapons, a privilege which he lost no time in conveying to his allies and members of the Security Council: Great Britain and France, the two most important colonial powers in that period.

Truman did not say a word about the atomic bomb to the USSR before using it. China, then governed by the nationalist, oligarchical and pro-yankee Chiang Kai-shek, could not be excluded from that Security Council.

The USSR, hard hit by war, destruction and the loss of more than 20 million of its sons in the wake of the Nazi invasion, dedicated huge economic, scientific and human resources to bring its nuclear capacity up to par with the United States. Four years later, in 1949, it tested its first nuclear weapon; the hydrogen bomb in 1953; and, in 1955, its first megaton bomb. France acquired its first nuclear weapon in 1960.

Only three countries possessed nuclear weapons in 1957, when the UN, under yankee aegis, created the International Atomic Energy Agency. Can anyone imagine that this U.S. instrument did anything to warn the world of the terrible risks to which human society would be exposed when Israel, an unconditional ally of the United States and NATO, located right at the heart of the most important oil and gas reserves in the world, constituted itself as a dangerous and aggressive nuclear power?

Its forces, in cooperation with British and French troops, attacked Port Said when Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, property of France, which obliged the Soviet Prime Minister to convey an ultimatum demanding an end to that aggression, which the European allies of the United States had no alternative other than to obey.

I will continue tomorrow.



Fidel Castro Ruz

November 12, 2011

8:15 p.m.

====

REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL

Genocidal cynicism (Part II and last)

(Taken from CubaDebate)

TO give some idea of the potential of the USSR in its efforts to maintain parity with the United States in this sphere, suffice it to note that when its disintegration came about in 1991, there were 81 nuclear warheads in Byelorussia, 1,400 in Kazakhstan, and approximately 5,000 in Ukraine, which were passed on to the Russian Federation, the only state capable of sustaining their immense cost in order to maintain its independence.

By virtue of the START and SORT treaties related to the reduction of offensive weapons between the two major nuclear powers, the number of those warheads was reduced to several thousand.

In 2010 a new treaty of this type was signed between the two powers.

Since then the greatest efforts have been dedicated to improving the direction, reach, precision of nuclear missiles and their deception of the enemy defense. Vast sums are invested in the military sphere.

Very few people in the world, except for a handful of thinkers and scientists, have realized and are warning that the explosion of 100 strategic nuclear weapons would be enough to end human existence on the planet. The vast majority would have an end as inexorable as it would be horrific, as a consequence of the nuclear winter which would be generated.

The number of countries which possess nuclear weapons at this moment has risen to eight. Five of them are members of the Security Council: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. India and Pakistan acquired the nature of countries possessing nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998, respectively. The seven countries mentioned acknowledge that nature.

On the other hand, Israel has never acknowledged its nature as a nuclear country. Nevertheless, it is calculated that it possesses 200 to 500 weapons of this type, without that being acknowledged at a time when the world is concerned about the extremely grave problems that would be provoked by the outbreak of a war in the region where a large part of the energy which moves the planet’s industry and agriculture is produced.

It is thanks to the possession of weapons of mass destruction that Israel has been able to fulfill its role as the instrument of imperialism and colonialism in that region of the Middle East.

It is not about the legitimate right of the Israeli people to live and work in peace and freedom; it is precisely about the right of the other peoples in the region to freedom and peace.

While Israel was rapidly creating a nuclear arsenal, it attacked and destroyed, in 1981, the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak. It did exactly the same to the Syrian reactor in Dayr az-Zawr in 2007, an action of which world opinion was strangely not informed. The United Nations and the IAEA were fully aware of what had occurred. Such actions had the support of the United States and the Atlantic Alliance.

There is nothing at all strange about Israel’s highest authorities now announcing their intention to do the same to Iran. This country, immensely rich in oil and gas, had been the victim of the conspiracies of Britain and the United States, whose oil companies were plundering its resources. Its armed forces were equipped with the most modern armaments from the United States’ military industry.

Shah Reza Pahlevi also aspired to acquiring nuclear weapons. Nobody attacked his research centers. The Israeli war was against the Muslim Arabs. It was not against those of Iran, because they had become a NATO bulwark pointing at the heart of the USSR.

Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, the masses of that nation, profoundly religious and defying the power of those weapons, removed the Shah from the throne and disarmed one of the best equipped armies in the world without firing a shot.

Given its fighting capacity, number of inhabitants and the country’s extension, an aggression against Iran would bear no resemblance to Israel’s military adventures in Iraq and Syria. A bloody war would invariably be unleashed. There should be absolutely no doubt about that.

Israel has a large number of nuclear weapons with the capacity to reach any point in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. I ask myself: Does the IAEA have the moral right to sanction and asphyxiate a country if it attempts to do in its own defense what Israel did in the heart of the Middle East?

What I really think is that no country in the world should possess nuclear weapons, and that this energy should be placed at the service of the human species. Without that spirit of cooperation, humanity is inexorably advancing toward its own destruction. Among Israeli citizens themselves, doubtless a hardworking and intelligent people, many will not be in agreement with this crazy and absurd politics which is also taking them to total disaster.

What is being said today in the world about the economic situation?

The international news agencies report that U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, presented divergent commercial agendas [...] highlighting the growing tensions between the two largest economies in the world.

"Obama used an address – Reuters affirms – to threaten punitive economic steps against China unless it started ‘playing by the rules…’"

These rules are evidently the interests of the United States.

"Obama faces a tough 2012 re-election battle, in which Republican opponents accuse him of not being tough enough on China," the agency states.

News published on Thursday and Friday reflected the realities which we are experiencing much better.

AP, the best informed U.S. news agency communicated, "Iran’s supreme leader warned Israel and the U.S. that Tehran’s response will be tough should its arch-enemies choose a military strike against Iran…"

The German news agency reported that China had stated that, as always, it believed that dialogue and cooperation were the only form of active rapprochement to solve the problem.

Russia was equally opposed to the punitive measures against Iran.

Germany rejected the military option but was in favor of strong sanctions against Iran.

The United Kingdom and France advocated strong and energetic sanctions.

The Russian Federation assured that it would do everything possible to avert a military operation against Iran and criticized the IAEA report.

"’A military operation against Iran could lead to very grave consequences and Russia will have to invest all its efforts in appeasing spirits,’" stated Konstantin Kosachov, head of the Duma’s Foreign Committee," and, according to EFE, "He criticized ‘affirmations by the United States, France and Israel as to the possible use of force and the fact that the launch of a military operation against Iran is constantly closer.’"

Edward Spannaus, editor of the U.S. EIR magazine, stated that an attack on Iran would end in World War III.

After traveling to Israel a few days ago, the United States Defense Secretary himself acknowledged that he could not obtain a commitment from the Israeli government to consult with the United States prior to an attack on Iran. Things have reached this extreme.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs crudely revealed the empire’s dark intentions:

"Israel and the U.S. will embark on ‘the largest and most significant joint exercise in the allies’ history,’ said Andrew Shapiro, U.S. assistant secretary for political-military affairs, on Saturday."

"…in the [...] Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Shapiro spoke about the 5,000 US and Israeli forces who will participate in the exercise to simulate Israel's ballistic missile defense system."

"’Israeli technology is proving critical to improving our Homeland Security and protecting our troops,’ he added…"

"Shapiro emphasized the Obama administration’s support for Israel, despite comments by a senior U.S. official on Friday, who expressed concern that Israel would not warn the U.S. before taking military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities."

"‘Our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper and more intense than ever before.’"

"‘We support Israel because it is in our national interests to do so [...] It is the very strength of Israel’s military which deters potential aggressors and helps foster peace and stability.’"

Today, November 13, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the UN, told the BBC network that the possibility of a military intervention in Iran was not only not off the table, but is a real option which is growing on account of Iran’s behavior.

She insisted that the U.S. administration is reaching the conclusion that it will become necessary to end the current Iranian regime in order to avoid it creating a nuclear arsenal. "I am convinced that regime change is going to be our only option here," Rice acknowledged.

Not one more word is necessary.



Fidel Castro Ruz

November 13, 2011

8:17 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

Fundamentalists and anti-trafficking?

http://www.alternet.org/story/153457/christian_fundamentalists_and_private_military_contractors_the_strange_bedfellows_of_the_sex_slavery_anti-trafficking_movement?page=entire

Occupiers - Arundhati Roy's Speech

We are all Occupiers


People the world over salute the Occupy movement for standing up to injustice and fighting for equality at the heart of empire

Arundhati Roy speaking at the People's University in Washington Square Park, New York, held at Judson Memorial Church, 16 November 2011. Video: NYU4OWS/YouTube

Tuesday morning, the police cleared Zuccotti Park, but today the people are back. The police should know that this protest is not a battle for territory. We're not fighting for the right to occupy a park here or there. We are fighting for justice. Justice, not just for the people of the United States, but for everybody.

What you have achieved since 17 September, when the Occupy movement began in the United States, is to introduce a new imagination, a new political language into the heart of empire. You have reintroduced the right to dream into a system that tried to turn everybody into zombies mesmerised into equating mindless consumerism with happiness and fulfilment.

As a writer, let me tell you, this is an immense achievement. I cannot thank you enough.

We were talking about justice. Today, as we speak, the army of the United States is waging a war of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. US drones are killing civilians in Pakistan and beyond. Tens of thousands of US troops and death squads are moving into Africa. If spending trillions of dollars of your money to administer occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan is not enough, a war against Iran is being talked up.

Ever since the Great Depression, the manufacture of weapons and the export of war have been key ways in which the United States has stimulated its economy. Just recently, under President Obama, the United States made a $60bn arms deal with Saudi Arabia. It hopes to sell thousands of bunker busters to the UAE. It has sold $5bn-worth of military aircraft to my country, India, which has more poor people than all the poorest countries of Africa put together. All these wars, from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, have claimed millions of lives – all of them fought to secure the "American way of life".

Today, we know that the "American way of life" – the model that the rest of the world is meant to aspire towards – has resulted in 400 people owning the wealth of half of the population of the United States. It has meant thousands of people being turned out of their homes and jobs while the US government bailed out banks and corporations – American International Group (AIG) alone was given $182bn.

The Indian government worships US economic policy. As a result of 20 years of the free market economy, today, 100 of India's richest people own assets worth one-fourth of the country's GDP while more than 80% of the people live on less than 50 cents a day; 250,000 farmers, driven into a spiral of death, have committed suicide. We call this progress, and now think of ourselves as a superpower. Like you, we are well-qualified: we have nuclear bombs and obscene inequality.

The good news is that people have had enough and are not going to take it any more. The Occupy movement has joined thousands of other resistance movements all over the world in which the poorest of people are standing up and stopping the richest corporations in their tracks. Few of us dreamed that we would see you, the people of the United States on our side, trying to do this in the heart of Empire. I don't know how to communicate the enormity of what this means.

They (the 1%) say that we don't have demands … they don't know, perhaps, that our anger alone would be enough to destroy them. But here are some things – a few "pre-revolutionary" thoughts I had – for us to think about together:

We want to put a lid on this system that manufactures inequality. We want to put a cap on the unfettered accumulation of wealth and property by individuals as well as corporations. As "cap-ists" and "lid-ites", we demand:

• An end to cross-ownership in businesses. For example, weapons manufacturers cannot own TV stations; mining corporations cannot run newspapers; business houses cannot fund universities; drug companies cannot control public health funds.

• Natural resources and essential infrastructure – water supply, electricity, health, and education – cannot be privatised.

• Everybody must have the right to shelter, education and healthcare.

• The children of the rich cannot inherit their parents' wealth.

This struggle has re-awakened our imagination. Somewhere along the way, capitalism reduced the idea of justice to mean just "human rights", and the idea of dreaming of equality became blasphemous. We are not fighting to tinker with reforming a system that needs to be replaced.

As a cap-ist and a lid-ite, I salute your struggle.

Salaam and Zindabad.

• This is the text of a speech given by the author at the People's University in Washington Square on 16 November 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/17/we-are-all-occupiers-arundhati-roy

Remembering Sara Baartman

Who Is Sara Baartman Every black woman should know her name

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nRhSbcYI-o

 

Steve Job's Biography -

Why You Shouldn't Read The Steve Jobs Biography




By Kim Bhasin
Business Insider – 21 hours ago



Businesspeople and consumers alike look up to Steve Jobs as perhaps the greatest CEO of his generation. He undoubtedly made a profound impact on this world.

But business executives shouldn't read his biography. You can't be like him, and you shouldn't be like him. And when you read it, you won't be able to resist trying.

You can't be like him because he was a genius.

Many of the business lessons in Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs can't be applied anywhere else. Jobs had a management style unique to himself, and it was deeply connected to his company and industry at the time. What he did at Apple only worked because of his own inexplicable, and extraordinary, abilities.

Any executive is capable of doing the things that folks claim are from the "Steve Jobs School of Management," but these aren't the things that defined his success. For instance, he was decisive, intensely detail-focused and valued design above all. But what counts is that he made the right decisions, focused on the right details and helped design things that were truly beautiful.

It's that unidentifiable bit that gets us. How did he get all those things so right? Well, there's one word that always appears in discussions about Jobs' abilities: "uncanny." His uncanny ability to know exactly what people wanted, even before they wanted it. His uncanny ability to think outside the box. His uncanny ability to seduce people with his ideas. His uncanny ability to foresee innovation. The things he did made us uncomfortable, and we could never pin down exactly what he was doing.

That set of abilities, his most mysterious features, are what made him great at business. He was an aberration (or outlier, in Gladwell-speak). And that, you can't copy. All the other big business names that we put in the same category as Jobs were completely different from him, because each of these strange folk set themselves apart in a different way.

It's much easier to define minds like former GE CEO Jack Welch, who succeeded because of his set of management principles. Louis Gerstner turned IBM around by facilitating change. Both of them wrote books outlining all the decisions they made, how they made them and why. Jobs, on the other hand, thrived off his taste -- what he did in his lifetime with Apple simply worked.

Take the Apple brand for example. Marketers preach transparency and authenticity, and keeping a running commentary with their customers so that everyone can feel like they're part of a brand's story. Apple is shuttered and elitist, yet, its fans around the world are as adamant as any. It's an outlier, and it just works.

You shouldn't be like him because he was an asshole, and that wasn't what made him successful.

Nearly everything he did in the workplace defied the pillars of modern management theory. Managers are supposed to be good listeners. Managers are supposed to empower employees and not micromanage. Managers are supposed to coach workers. Managers are supposed to take real interest in the success of their subordinates. He did none of this, and he was an asshole throughout it all.

Which begs the question: was Jobs' success because of his jerkiness, or in spite of it? After all, he did get booted from Apple in the first place largely because of that. Tom McNichol recently dove into the topic in a stellar article in The Atlantic. He concluded, "Steve Jobs didn't succeed because he was an asshole. He succeeded because he was Steve Jobs."

And McNichol is right. Jobs was a strange sort of genius, and that's something none of us never be able to replicate. We praise his ability to get things done purely through force of will. That's impossible. Even the most indomitable spirit could keep failing, even if that spirit never breaks. He had that something extra, but meanwhile, he pushed people away. Jobs was so concentrated on his vision that he was an asshole to the people around him, and it drove them nuts. Yes, it worked, but only because of the value of the ideas in Jobs' head.

There are things you can learn from the life of Steve Jobs (many are things not to do), but these are lessons to take with you when you're thinking about how to better your life, not how to make decisions in the board room. He showed us how to be passionate, honest and believe in the power of knowledge, but he didn't give us a template for running a business.

And if you read his biography, you won't be able to resist trying to be like him.

It's hard for us to separate the business from the person in Jobs' case because he was so spectacularly successful. Apple's brand has accomplished what most marketers not dare dream of -- a fully devoted, and massive, cult following. Apple's design has become world-renowned. Strategically, Apple fought the tech behemoths of old, survived and came out the other side, more powerful than ever.

Still, we press on, and try to glean everything we can from Jobs' life. We have that need because we're terrified. We're afraid that we'll never see a mind like his again, just as we were with other visionaries like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison. We want to comb through their lives for every morsel of knowledge that they could have possibly left behind for us.

That feeling has been amplified with Jobs. We felt closer to him than people at the time did to Ford or Edison. When Jobs spoke, he did with charisma and conviction, and we witnessed it firsthand because TV and the web are so prominent now. We connected with him personally, because he stood side-by-side with the Apple brand, which is an incredible force on its own.

If the temptation is too much, try your best to read Isaacson's book as a narrative that's taking you through the life of one of our age's most influential people. Read it on a personal level, where you can find a personal connection with a man that created one of the most personal brands ever. Instead of trying to be like him, try to accomplish something equal to what he did during his lifetime. To, as Jobs said, put "a ding in the universe." And that can't be done through any amount of lessons. That comes from a person's individual drive, which can only be found through introspection.

But whatever you do, don't ever try to be Steve Jobs. That's a venture doomed to failure.