pascalsview

"The Untold Cyber War"-- Huffington Post Reports on Upcoming 2nd Annual IT Security Entrepreneurs Forum

I was recently interviewed by Karen Salmansohn, who writes a regular column for the Huffington Post, while I was at the Aspen Institute attending a Socrates Society Forum seminar on Energy Security.  Her article, 'The Untold Cyber War' , comments on an area of increasing personal and professional interest for me-- protecting our nation's vulnerability to a cyber attack that could cripple our critical data and communications infrastructure.

We are engaged in a full-on cyber war right now-- and the bad guys aren't just laptop-toting 17 year-olds fueled by Red Bull in the Ukraine.  Well-funded, organized groups (translates to state-sponsored) are constantly probing for exploitable weaknesses in our data network infrastructure, and they are not discriminating between the private sector and the government.  We must collaborate and share best practices to win this war-- the costs of losing it will be severe, pervasive, and will wreak havoc across our socio-economic system very quickly.

To learn more about how to promote public private partnerships and see the agenda for the second annual IT Security Entrepreneurs Forum, go to www.publicprivatepartnerships.org.

Unaffiliated But Not Agnostic-- The Number of Americans Outside of Organized Religion Continues to Swell

The New York Times reported today on the latest Pew Research Center demographic survey on religion in America. 

Highlights from the report--

* Over 16 percent of American adults say they are not part of any organized faith, which makes the unaffiliated the country’s fourth largest "religious group."

* In the 1980s, the General Social Survey by the National Opinion Research Center indicated that from 5 percent to 8 percent of the population described itself as unaffiliated with a particular religion.

* In the Pew survey 7.3 percent of the adult population said they were unaffiliated with a faith as children. That segment increases to 16.1 percent of the population in adulthood, the survey found.

* The unaffiliated are largely under 50 and male. "Nearly one-in-five men say they have no formal religious affiliation, compared with roughly 13 percent of women," the survey said.

*Protestantism has been declining, from two thirds of the U.S. population in the '70's to about 51% today-- with evangelicals accounting for a slim majority of Protestants.

*Catholics have remained steady at 25% of the population, but the influx of Catholic Latin Americans into the U.S. is largely responsible for what looks like stability in this group.

*Affiliated Jews have declined slightly to 1.7% from 1.9%

So what does this mean?  The New York Times article quotes a Pew researcher who concludes that these religious affiliation changes do not mean that Americans are becoming less religious: "Contrary to assumptions that most of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics, most described their religion "as nothing in particular."  I'm sure that the new-new atheists will conclude differently. 

Religious Pluralism Scores a Major Victory in Israel-- For Jews

Over the past three years, I have posted multiple times on the subject of religious discrimination and intolerance BETWEEN JEWS in Israel.  In America, this is a widely under-reported problem which, in my view, strikes at the heart of the socio-religious problems in the State of Israel and also threatens the future of Judaism in mainstream society.  In America, where tolerance and pluralism are central pillars of our society, it is a given that there is more than one way to be a Jew.  In Israel, which heretofore has only recognized Orthodox Judaism, there are the Orthodox and Ultra-Othrodox (which account for roughly 15% of the country's Jews vs. 6% of Jews in America), there are emerging Conservative and Reform Jewish congregations that receive no State support, and then, of course, there is the vast majority of unaffiliated or so-called 'secular' Israeli Jews.

I suport a vibrant Jewish State of Israel that embraces religious pluralism-- and we can now score a major victory for the forces of pluralism in Israel, thanks to the Israel Religious Action Center ("IRAC").  The following excerpts are from IRAC's most recent weekly newsletter:

"In Israel, where there is no separation between religion and State, the government cultivates and supports Jewish life and Jewish institutions. From the beginning of the State, and in fact up until last month, the government of Israel had granted land and buildings to hundreds of Orthodox synagogues, but never to a Reform or Conservative congregation. Kehilat YOZMA, a vibrant and rapidly growing community in the modern suburban city of Modi'in, is the first in a group of young Reform congregations who will now, thanks to IRAC, receive synagogue buildings from the State.

The year 2008 marks the beginning of a change in the attitudes of the National Authority of Religious Services, the Ministry of Construction and Housing, and several municipalities with respect to the rights of non-Orthodox Jews. ...  In 2008, at least four non-Orthodox congregations will proudly erect their synagogues with the help of governmental funds. This is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel, that the State is funding the construction of non-Orthodox synagogues. This is a groundbreaking accomplishment which sets a precedent for future cases of similar background. Public funding is an irrefutable sign of recognition by the State, which indicates a desire, however restrained, to move forward towards reconciliation between the various streams of Judaism in Israel.

The importance of this event can not be underestimated - the transportable synagogue in Kehilat YOZMA is the very first non-Orthodox synagogue being subsidized by the state in all of Israel's history."

"We are Robbing Posterity to Live Today."

I am at the Aspen Institute to attend a Socrates Society seminar this President's weekend, and the headline for this post is a quote by Zeke Emanuel, Chair of the Department of Bioethics at The Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health, who is moderating a session on "Resolving Bioethical Dilemmas" (believe it or not, his session is exclusively for teenagers-- see Teen Socrates).

Zeke made this comment during our opening dinner panel discussion in the context of answering the following:

"What is a key question that you believe the next President of the United States should consider upon taking office?"

This simple statement is a profound and concise rendering of the American malady.  Think about it-- American society has devolved to the point where virtually everything we experience is driven by a lust for instant gratification-- from the mainstreaming of pornography to celebrity-seeking reality TV shows; from hasty tax stimulus packages to hedge funds; from inscrutable financial derivatives to ignorant day traders.

The popular media is consumed with the NOW.  The basic concept of long-term stewardship in public policy, of the obligation that we have as a society to bear responsibility for our children and their children, is a novelty.  Many people debating the impact of accelerating rates of climate change on the future of the world are missing the point-- it's all about posterity.  Have we truly forgotten that we are here on earth for something more than just our brief and individually insignificant moments of existence in time? 

I come to the Aspen Institute, where I currently co-chair the Socrates Society Advisory Board with Laura Lauder, for the luxury of being able to learn, for the gift of being able to step outside the narrow hallway of thinking that governs my everyday business life.  I come to the Aspen Institute to be able to hear truly insightful observations from brilliant people like Zeke Emanuel.

Tonight, 65 of us who are participating in four different seminars were fortunate to be able to hear other answers to this question from former CIA Director Jim Woolsey, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations Isobel Coleman, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma Mickey Edwards,  and Princeton University Professor of History Sean Wilentz. 

Now what are we going to do to get more people who can impact the future to remember that posterity matters?

Why We Need to Find Common Ground With Islam Through Education

Babar Ahmed is a talented up-and-coming movie director ("Royal Kill") and the son of Professor Akbar Ahmed, who first taught me about the history of Islam at the Aspen Institute's Socrates Society.  Babar recently spoke about Islam at a gathering in Palm Beach.  The Palm Beach Post reported on his remarks:

"And so why are we seeing suicide bombings if Muslim history is so good?" he asked.

Because Islam is divided into three groups, Ahmed theorized, the conservative, the moderate and the extremist, the latter of which is "growing every single day."

In the aftermath of the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, Ahmed said, orphans were driven over the border to Pakistan, where they were taken in and educated by the most primitive tribal schools, run by illiterates who could not read or properly interpret the Koran.

"In driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan," Ahmed said, "the United States developed relationships with military dictators which continue to this day. That may have worked in the short term, but it left the orphans poor, desperate and angry, without any skills except how to use a gun."

The current movie, Charlie Wilson's War, makes the same point, he noted.

The solution, Ahmed said, is education, because the majority of Muslims are young. In Pakistan alone, he said, 40 percent of the population is under 16, and more receptive to radicalism.

"One half of the world's population is Muslim, Christian or Jewish," Ahmed said, "and if we don't start finding this common ground, we are going to be heading for a very turbulent century."

Babar is right on point.  One of the few successful models of bilingual interfaith educational success in the Middle East is Hand in Hand in Israel-- the madrassas have a long way to go, but there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we can act to make sure that it is not on oncoming train...

Marc Benioff and Warren Hellman Advocate Corporate Philanthropy at Jewish Community Federation Business Leadership Council Event

On February 7th, 300 people attended the third annual gala breakfast hosted by the San Francisco Jewish Community Federation's Business Leadership Council (BLC) to hear Warren Hellman, chairman and co-founder of Hellman and Friedman, and Marc Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce.com, speak about the power of business leaders to produce positive social change. 

    The speakers moderated their own discussion, which focused on the positive role that the proactive advocacy of corporate philanthropy can play throughout an organization.  In response to a question from the audience as to whether promoting corporate philanthropy is inconsistent with creating sharholder value, Benioff forcefully replied that "doing good" absolutely builds shareholder value.  I strongly agree.

Warren Hellman, who serves on the board of Salesforce.com's charitable foundation, asked Marc to talk about the 1:1:1 model which he established at the early inception of Salesforce.com.  1:1:1 represents a pledge of 1% of the company's equity (when it was still private); 1% of profits (once you have them); and 1% of employees' paid time (6 business days per year) to charitable purposes.  Today, the Salesforce.com foundation employs 16 full-time staff and manages "tens of millions" of dollars.

The Business Leadership Council (BLC), which I currently chair, reaches out to over 1,500 Jewish professionals in the Bay Area through close to a dozen events each year.  We host smaller seminars (30 to 80 people) on topics ranging from current trends in real estate to protecting intellectual property; and larger networking events (200+ people) designed to bring people together to meet in a community that shares both business and philanthropic goals.  We have barely scratched the surface in reaching out to the 6th largest Jewish community in America.  If you want to learn more about the BLC, go to www.sfjcf.org and click on the Business Leadership Council.   

 

Luddites, Technology, and the Gini Coefficent

  A recent article in the January 26th edition of The Economist, "Briefing: The world's silver lining",  cited interesting data on globalization and the contribution of technology to rising inequality in developing countries.  The data is drawn from the IMF's World Economic Outlook October 2007 and focuses on something called the Gini coefficient, an unfamiliar concept to me prior to reading the article.

What is the Gini coefficient?  According to Wikipedia, "The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion most prominently used as a measure or inequality of income distirbution or inequality of wealth distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1: the numerator is the area between the Lorenz curve of the distribution and the uniform distribution line; the denominator is the area under the uniform distribution line. Thus, a low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income). The Gini coefficient requires that no one have a negative net income or wealth."

One of the most interesting points to me in The Economist article is that the influx of new technology into developing countries initially exacerbates inequality in those countries.  Why? Because initially only a small number of local people in those countries are sufficiently educated to take advantage of the technology to make money.  Local elites continue to grab the low hanging economic fruit with new technology tools, and you experience an immediate greater concentration of wealth as the whiole economic pie also grows, or, in economic parlance, a higher Gini coefficent.

This reality only reinforces my view that we are still in the early innings of the globalization game.  21st century Luddites who claim to be looking out for the welfare of the least advantaged ignore the fact that technology, by catalyzing change, also contributes to the initial socio-economic dislocation that will ultimately erode the economic status quo.

As The Economist points out "technology in its broadest sense-- the flow of new ideas-- is the only way of getting growth rates up to 5-10% a year, the rate which enables poor countries to catch up with the West.  Without it, growth would be dependent on labour and capital inputs, and growth would be just a few percent.  To reduce technological progress-- even supposing one could do it-- would be to condemn poor countries to stay poor."

Those who decry globalization and the transfer of technology to developing countries are missing at least two key points: (1) that the absolute income level of the bottom fifth of these countries is rising steeply and has been since the mid-1990s (coincidentally the dawn of the Internet age); and (2) that this overall increase in income from sustained high economic growth rates will reach a tipping point that reverses the initial negative readings from the Gini coefficient. 

So much for the Luddites, again.