Dear readers,
There are many ways to approach counter-terrorism. The challenge is like that of David and Golliath--or Odysseus and the Cyclops. The terrorists are small, careful, smart, desperate and creative. Governments are large, lumbering, filled with internal bureaucratic issues. And, you might note, Golliath and Odysseus did not fare well--mostly due to my lack of good imagination to come up with a better parallel. :)
Two striking stories about extremist terrorist groups with ties to Islam.
Technology versus good old-fashioned spying: Europe's antiterrorism agencies favor human intelligence over technology
My favorite paragraph from this article is this one:
"You have to have people who go into a specific community, an ethnic group, religious group, a sectarian group, get acquainted with their people, their leaders, and get to know their community," Hamilton said in an interview. "Those communities know, usually, the people within the community that are disaffected, mad, angry, maybe even threatening."
Partially, because it deals with an understanding that terrorists, or people who become terrorists are an anomaly, not the mainstream. Also, if you build networks within a group, you can quickly find those anomalies...everyone knows the local weirdo, right?
The other story deals with the trickier aspect of the causes of terrorism--anger, frustration, the fact that the US is still killing people in 'Muslim lands' and how disconnected I think most Americans are from the reality of other people's fear--not just ours.
Just how deeply unpopular the United States is in the Muslim world?
My favorite paragraphs in this one are those that quote George Orwell:
Their violence, our violence
The palatable and politically safe answers – for conservatives, that Muslims are inherently violent, and for left-liberals, that only a small minority is violent – have always skirted around one important detail: our own violence.
This is no surprise. The notion that our violence motivates terrorism has always lost out to the notion that terror is absent from our violence. It was George Orwell who observed in 1945 that “the nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them”.
But this “remarkable capacity” is not shared by everyone. Civilian deaths and accounts of torture from Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine have fueled the radicalization of a minority of Muslims abroad, and it was only a matter of time before it produced the same effect on a minority of Muslims here, too.
It is only now, amid this growing domestic radicalization, that we are seeing some willingness to cure the deafness Orwell once wrote about.
Hope you enjoyed these stories.
Best,
Alena
Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weapons. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part V
Dear all,
Here is part IV in my series of excerpts from President Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
Regarding pledges of mutual non-use, even an agreement limited to the United States and Russia would be a watershed event that would produce a major reduction in perceived threats, from which alliance partners would equally benefit. It would also provide an opening for reviewing the extraterritorial deployment of warheads and missile defense programs as steps toward the gradual dismantling of the nuclear umbrella.
As demonstrated in the final report of the International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese
governments, issued in December 2009, there are increasing calls from within countries living under a nuclear umbrella for a review of traditional nuclear doctrine.
Among the benefits of establishing declared nuclear non-use regions would be to encourage progress toward global denuclearization and a comprehensive system to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and forestall the dire possibility of nuclear terrorism. The aim would be to transform the confrontational stance prevailing in certain regions—including those where the nuclear-weapon states or their allies are present—of meeting threat with threat. What should be encouraged instead is the approach of mutual threat reduction exemplified by the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program instituted between the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union in the wake of the Cold War.
Regrettably, the NPT in its current form does not include provisions for reducing threats and offering mutual assurances that can enhance confidence. If progress can be made on negotiations toward these goals on a regional basis, it will make even more salient the physical and psychological security offered by participation in disarmament frameworks, as opposed to the further deepening of isolation on the outside. This will in turn reduce motivations to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
If, through these systems, expanding circles of physical and psychological security can be created to encompass not only countries relying on the nuclear umbrellas of nuclear weapon states, but also North Korea and Iran, as well as countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel that are currently not part of the NPT framework, this would represent a major breakthrough toward the goal of global denuclearization.
There are still many more pages, so thanks to those who've followed so far!
Best,
Alena
Here is part IV in my series of excerpts from President Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
Regarding pledges of mutual non-use, even an agreement limited to the United States and Russia would be a watershed event that would produce a major reduction in perceived threats, from which alliance partners would equally benefit. It would also provide an opening for reviewing the extraterritorial deployment of warheads and missile defense programs as steps toward the gradual dismantling of the nuclear umbrella.
As demonstrated in the final report of the International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, a joint initiative of the Australian and Japanese
governments, issued in December 2009, there are increasing calls from within countries living under a nuclear umbrella for a review of traditional nuclear doctrine.
Among the benefits of establishing declared nuclear non-use regions would be to encourage progress toward global denuclearization and a comprehensive system to prevent the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction and forestall the dire possibility of nuclear terrorism. The aim would be to transform the confrontational stance prevailing in certain regions—including those where the nuclear-weapon states or their allies are present—of meeting threat with threat. What should be encouraged instead is the approach of mutual threat reduction exemplified by the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program instituted between the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union in the wake of the Cold War.
Regrettably, the NPT in its current form does not include provisions for reducing threats and offering mutual assurances that can enhance confidence. If progress can be made on negotiations toward these goals on a regional basis, it will make even more salient the physical and psychological security offered by participation in disarmament frameworks, as opposed to the further deepening of isolation on the outside. This will in turn reduce motivations to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.
If, through these systems, expanding circles of physical and psychological security can be created to encompass not only countries relying on the nuclear umbrellas of nuclear weapon states, but also North Korea and Iran, as well as countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel that are currently not part of the NPT framework, this would represent a major breakthrough toward the goal of global denuclearization.
There are still many more pages, so thanks to those who've followed so far!
Best,
Alena
Thursday, April 15, 2010
In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part IV
Dear all,
Here is part IV in my series of excerpts from President Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
Expanding frameworks for non-use of nuclear weapons
To date, the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) has represented an effort to fill the gap in the legal framework left by the absence of any treaty or convention providing a blanket prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons. In 2009, NWFZ treaties entered into force in Central Asia and Africa. These followed similar agreements covering Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific and Southeast Asia. The decision by so many governments to eliminate nuclear weapons from so many regions around the world is truly significant.
Although the preamble to the NPT, which entered into force forty years ago, calls on signatories to “make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,” it is clear that the nuclear-weapon states have not fulfilled that obligation.
The NPT does not, of course, accord these countries an open-ended right to possess nuclear weapons. Despite this, their continued adherence to the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has had the effect of encouraging both “vertical proliferation” (expanded and enhanced nuclear arsenals within nuclear-weapon states) and “horizontal proliferation” (the spread of nuclear technologies to other states and entities). The real-world effect has been to shake and undermine the foundations of the NPT regime itself.
The time has come for the nuclear-weapon states to develop a shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons and to break free from the spell of deterrence—the illusory belief that security can somehow be realized through threats of mutual destruction and a balance of terror. A new kind of thinking is needed, one based on working together to reduce threats and creating ever-expanding circles of physical and psychological security until these embrace the entire world.
As evidence of the nuclear-weapon states’ genuine resolve to move beyond deterrence, I urge them to undertake the following three commitments at the 2010 NPT Review Conference and to work to fully implement them by 2015.
1. To reach a legally binding agreement to extend negative security assurances—the undertaking not to use nuclear weapons against any of the non-nuclear-weapon states fulfilling their obligations under the NPT.
2. To initiate negotiation on a treaty codifying the promise not to use nuclear weapons against each other.
3. Where nuclear-weapon-free zones have yet to be established, and as a bridging measure toward their establishment, to take steps to declare them nuclear non-use regions.
I have no intention of underestimating the difficulties that lie in the way of realizing these commitments, especially the second and third. But it is important to stress that these are political decisions that the nuclear-weapon states can take now while maintaining their current status as possessors of nuclear weapons.
Stay tuned till tomorrow!
Best,
Alena
Here is part IV in my series of excerpts from President Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
Expanding frameworks for non-use of nuclear weapons
To date, the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) has represented an effort to fill the gap in the legal framework left by the absence of any treaty or convention providing a blanket prohibition against the use of nuclear weapons. In 2009, NWFZ treaties entered into force in Central Asia and Africa. These followed similar agreements covering Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific and Southeast Asia. The decision by so many governments to eliminate nuclear weapons from so many regions around the world is truly significant.
Although the preamble to the NPT, which entered into force forty years ago, calls on signatories to “make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples,” it is clear that the nuclear-weapon states have not fulfilled that obligation.
The NPT does not, of course, accord these countries an open-ended right to possess nuclear weapons. Despite this, their continued adherence to the doctrine of nuclear deterrence has had the effect of encouraging both “vertical proliferation” (expanded and enhanced nuclear arsenals within nuclear-weapon states) and “horizontal proliferation” (the spread of nuclear technologies to other states and entities). The real-world effect has been to shake and undermine the foundations of the NPT regime itself.
The time has come for the nuclear-weapon states to develop a shared vision of a world without nuclear weapons and to break free from the spell of deterrence—the illusory belief that security can somehow be realized through threats of mutual destruction and a balance of terror. A new kind of thinking is needed, one based on working together to reduce threats and creating ever-expanding circles of physical and psychological security until these embrace the entire world.
As evidence of the nuclear-weapon states’ genuine resolve to move beyond deterrence, I urge them to undertake the following three commitments at the 2010 NPT Review Conference and to work to fully implement them by 2015.
1. To reach a legally binding agreement to extend negative security assurances—the undertaking not to use nuclear weapons against any of the non-nuclear-weapon states fulfilling their obligations under the NPT.
2. To initiate negotiation on a treaty codifying the promise not to use nuclear weapons against each other.
3. Where nuclear-weapon-free zones have yet to be established, and as a bridging measure toward their establishment, to take steps to declare them nuclear non-use regions.
I have no intention of underestimating the difficulties that lie in the way of realizing these commitments, especially the second and third. But it is important to stress that these are political decisions that the nuclear-weapon states can take now while maintaining their current status as possessors of nuclear weapons.
Stay tuned till tomorrow!
Best,
Alena
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part II
Dear all,
Here is the second installment of President Ikeda's Peace Proposal, the part that focuses on nuclear abolition.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
When the Soka Gakkai was founded in 1930, Japan and the world were shuddering under the impact of the financial panic of the previous year. People were afflicted by a deepening sense of dread and unease. Writing at that time, the founder of the organization, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-1944), called for a transition from a dependent or even an independent way of life to what he called a contributive way of life. He rejected a passive, dependent way of life in which one is swayed by and at the mercy of one’s surroundings and the conditions of the times. He likewise rejected a way of life in which we are capable of looking out for our own needs but remain indifferent to the sufferings of others.
He urged, instead, a contributive way of life as described by the Buddhist maxim that when we light a lantern for others, our own way forward is lit. The source of illumination needed to dispel the chaos and darkness of the age is to be found in actions that bring forth our own inner light through committed action on behalf of others.
The second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda (1900-58), as heir to Makiguchi’s spirit, declared: “I wish to see the word ‘misery’ no longer used to describe the world, any country, any individual.” He put this conviction into practice through his efforts dedicated 4 to peace and people’s happiness and to the construction of popular solidarity rooted in a philosophy of respect for the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person.
Surveying the challenges that confront contemporary global society, I am convinced that nothing is more crucial than an essential reorientation of our way of life based on a commitment to the welfare of all of humankind and the entire planet, such as Makiguchi and Toda called for. Rather than stand to one side and ponder how the future might develop, we must focus on what each of us can do at this critical moment, the role each of us can choose to play in changing the direction of history. We must strive to make a proactive, contributive way of life the prevailing spirit of the new era.
On the basis of this recognition, I would like to offer several concrete policy proposals focused on two main challenges. The first challenge is nuclear weapons, which continue to threaten humankind as the ultimate embodiment of a cruel and blatant dismissal of the needs and welfare of others. The second is the structural distortions of global society where poverty and other threats continue to undermine the human dignity of vast numbers of people.
What do you think so far? What are your thoughts on nuclear weapons? Where does the average person stand on this issue?
Best,
Alena
Here is the second installment of President Ikeda's Peace Proposal, the part that focuses on nuclear abolition.
2010 Peace Proposal
Toward a New Era of Value Creation
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International
When the Soka Gakkai was founded in 1930, Japan and the world were shuddering under the impact of the financial panic of the previous year. People were afflicted by a deepening sense of dread and unease. Writing at that time, the founder of the organization, Tsunesaburo Makiguchi (1871-1944), called for a transition from a dependent or even an independent way of life to what he called a contributive way of life. He rejected a passive, dependent way of life in which one is swayed by and at the mercy of one’s surroundings and the conditions of the times. He likewise rejected a way of life in which we are capable of looking out for our own needs but remain indifferent to the sufferings of others.
He urged, instead, a contributive way of life as described by the Buddhist maxim that when we light a lantern for others, our own way forward is lit. The source of illumination needed to dispel the chaos and darkness of the age is to be found in actions that bring forth our own inner light through committed action on behalf of others.
The second president of the Soka Gakkai, Josei Toda (1900-58), as heir to Makiguchi’s spirit, declared: “I wish to see the word ‘misery’ no longer used to describe the world, any country, any individual.” He put this conviction into practice through his efforts dedicated 4 to peace and people’s happiness and to the construction of popular solidarity rooted in a philosophy of respect for the sanctity of life and the dignity of the human person.
Surveying the challenges that confront contemporary global society, I am convinced that nothing is more crucial than an essential reorientation of our way of life based on a commitment to the welfare of all of humankind and the entire planet, such as Makiguchi and Toda called for. Rather than stand to one side and ponder how the future might develop, we must focus on what each of us can do at this critical moment, the role each of us can choose to play in changing the direction of history. We must strive to make a proactive, contributive way of life the prevailing spirit of the new era.
On the basis of this recognition, I would like to offer several concrete policy proposals focused on two main challenges. The first challenge is nuclear weapons, which continue to threaten humankind as the ultimate embodiment of a cruel and blatant dismissal of the needs and welfare of others. The second is the structural distortions of global society where poverty and other threats continue to undermine the human dignity of vast numbers of people.
What do you think so far? What are your thoughts on nuclear weapons? Where does the average person stand on this issue?
Best,
Alena
Monday, April 12, 2010
In honor of the Nuclear Summit, part I
Dear all,
I am watching the Nuclear Summit closely. I am strongly dedicated towards nuclear abolition--not just for the removal of the weapons themselves, but for making an important step forward as humanity--to realize that we shouldn't use fear as an weapon. Nuclear weapons may seem remote to those of us who grew up after the Cold War, but they're still very real.
In that vein, I will spend most of the week posting excerpts from President Daisaku Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal, which focuses on the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Hope you enjoy--please feel free to post events/thoughts/articles related to this issue:
TOWARD A NEW ERA OF VALUE CREATION
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International (SGI)
(Excerpted Translation)
On January 26 and 27, the annual Peace Proposal by SGI
President Ikeda was carried in the Seikyo Shimbun newspaper.
The following is a translation of the portion carried on January 27 dealing with specific policy proposals in the fields of nuclear abolition and human security.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss several proposals that I believe can support efforts to resolve the current crises faced by the world and construct a new order of peace and coexistence for the twenty-first century.
The global economic crisis has had a severe impact on the lives of citizens in many
countries. There is also concern that one of its impacts will be a slowing or scaling back of international cooperative efforts to respond to the complex array of global issues, including poverty and environmental destruction. We must avoid a vicious cycle in which crisis gives rise to pessimism, which in turn exacerbates crisis.
In terms of finding a path toward the resolution of global issues, the year 2010 will be a critical one, with a number of important meetings scheduled, including the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in May and the special summit in September on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
We must remember that there is always a way, a path to the peak of even the most towering and forbidding mountain. Even when a sheer rock face looms before us, we should refuse to be disheartened, but instead continue the patient search for a way forward. In this sense, what is most strongly required of us is the imagination that can appreciate the present crises as an opportunity to fundamentally transform the direction of history. By mustering the force of inner will and determination we can convert challenges into the fuel for positive change.
I will post more tomorrow.
Best,
Alena
I am watching the Nuclear Summit closely. I am strongly dedicated towards nuclear abolition--not just for the removal of the weapons themselves, but for making an important step forward as humanity--to realize that we shouldn't use fear as an weapon. Nuclear weapons may seem remote to those of us who grew up after the Cold War, but they're still very real.
In that vein, I will spend most of the week posting excerpts from President Daisaku Ikeda's 2010 Peace Proposal, which focuses on the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Hope you enjoy--please feel free to post events/thoughts/articles related to this issue:
TOWARD A NEW ERA OF VALUE CREATION
Daisaku Ikeda
President, Soka Gakkai International (SGI)
(Excerpted Translation)
On January 26 and 27, the annual Peace Proposal by SGI
President Ikeda was carried in the Seikyo Shimbun newspaper.
The following is a translation of the portion carried on January 27 dealing with specific policy proposals in the fields of nuclear abolition and human security.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss several proposals that I believe can support efforts to resolve the current crises faced by the world and construct a new order of peace and coexistence for the twenty-first century.
The global economic crisis has had a severe impact on the lives of citizens in many
countries. There is also concern that one of its impacts will be a slowing or scaling back of international cooperative efforts to respond to the complex array of global issues, including poverty and environmental destruction. We must avoid a vicious cycle in which crisis gives rise to pessimism, which in turn exacerbates crisis.
In terms of finding a path toward the resolution of global issues, the year 2010 will be a critical one, with a number of important meetings scheduled, including the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in May and the special summit in September on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
We must remember that there is always a way, a path to the peak of even the most towering and forbidding mountain. Even when a sheer rock face looms before us, we should refuse to be disheartened, but instead continue the patient search for a way forward. In this sense, what is most strongly required of us is the imagination that can appreciate the present crises as an opportunity to fundamentally transform the direction of history. By mustering the force of inner will and determination we can convert challenges into the fuel for positive change.
I will post more tomorrow.
Best,
Alena
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Jesus and the Burka
Well, I am not an expert on French politics or the fine print of weapons purchases. Every now and then I feel obligated to point out something good that happened in the country of my passport (the US) and examine something unfair or bigoted in another country (in this case, France, altho I would really like the French approach to food--fresh!--to take root in the States).
Also, I did not grow up in an Abrahamic faith (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), so forgive me if I make mistakes in some terminology in this post.
After the embarrassing news coverage that US soldiers carry guns with Christian scripture on them (the now-infamous Jesus Rifles), will now have the scripture removed. I think this is a very good step forward. I think its pretty inappropriate--in terms of our constitution, the structure of our military AND especially in terms of our current two wars. If we're 'winning hearts and minds' and 'engaging with the Islamic world' and trying to 'support moderate Islam,' then then we need to also not be (or perceived as) radical Christians. So bravo to the US government for making some progress on separating Church and State.
Now, on the other side of the Pond and this conversation. A French parliamentary panel recommends that France ban burka/burqa (the veil that a Muslim woman can choose to wear across her face to be modest before God) in public places (hospitals and schools), but not in private buildings or on the street (which would be even a more gross violation of a person's religious rights. What's next? Removing a nun's robes? The Pope's garb? Tell Orthodox Jewish women to wear miniskirts? I feel like this is a double standard poorly masking a bigoted bias against Muslims. Are the veils harming anyone? I know plenty of strong-willed, independent Muslim women who choose to wear the veil, or the hijjab...sometimes from families who were very moderate and were surprised their daughters chose that path. I think these women should be allowed to wear what they want--plenty of people wear offensive clothing all the time without fear that the government will not allow them to wear it into hospitals...
Radicalizing religion does not help. Neither does abusing human rights and choices.
Best,
Alena
Also, I did not grow up in an Abrahamic faith (Christianity, Islam, Judaism), so forgive me if I make mistakes in some terminology in this post.
After the embarrassing news coverage that US soldiers carry guns with Christian scripture on them (the now-infamous Jesus Rifles), will now have the scripture removed. I think this is a very good step forward. I think its pretty inappropriate--in terms of our constitution, the structure of our military AND especially in terms of our current two wars. If we're 'winning hearts and minds' and 'engaging with the Islamic world' and trying to 'support moderate Islam,' then then we need to also not be (or perceived as) radical Christians. So bravo to the US government for making some progress on separating Church and State.
Now, on the other side of the Pond and this conversation. A French parliamentary panel recommends that France ban burka/burqa (the veil that a Muslim woman can choose to wear across her face to be modest before God) in public places (hospitals and schools), but not in private buildings or on the street (which would be even a more gross violation of a person's religious rights. What's next? Removing a nun's robes? The Pope's garb? Tell Orthodox Jewish women to wear miniskirts? I feel like this is a double standard poorly masking a bigoted bias against Muslims. Are the veils harming anyone? I know plenty of strong-willed, independent Muslim women who choose to wear the veil, or the hijjab...sometimes from families who were very moderate and were surprised their daughters chose that path. I think these women should be allowed to wear what they want--plenty of people wear offensive clothing all the time without fear that the government will not allow them to wear it into hospitals...
Radicalizing religion does not help. Neither does abusing human rights and choices.
Best,
Alena
Cold Warriors say NO to Nukes
Dear readers,
I will be more prolific this week, but just wanted to let you know about a film on nuclear non-proliferation. The key to how important this, is the people involved:
"Nuclear Tipping Point is a conversation with four men intimately involved in American diplomacy and national security over the last four decades. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn share the personal experiences that led them to write two Wall Street Journal op-eds, in support of a world free of nuclear weapons and the steps needed to get there. Their efforts have reframed the global debate on nuclear issues and, according to the New York Times, "sent waves through the global policy establishment.""
Nuclear Tipping Point. Go here for information about the film.
The original op-eds in the Wall Street Journal are available on a pdf on the main site (WSJ charges for readership). Scroll to the middle and it'll open up.
Food for thought, hmm?
Best,
Alena
I will be more prolific this week, but just wanted to let you know about a film on nuclear non-proliferation. The key to how important this, is the people involved:
"Nuclear Tipping Point is a conversation with four men intimately involved in American diplomacy and national security over the last four decades. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn share the personal experiences that led them to write two Wall Street Journal op-eds, in support of a world free of nuclear weapons and the steps needed to get there. Their efforts have reframed the global debate on nuclear issues and, according to the New York Times, "sent waves through the global policy establishment.""
Nuclear Tipping Point. Go here for information about the film.
The original op-eds in the Wall Street Journal are available on a pdf on the main site (WSJ charges for readership). Scroll to the middle and it'll open up.
Food for thought, hmm?
Best,
Alena
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)