Pushing for New START ratification over an anti-Obama GOP blockade

This Thursday, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations is scheduled to discuss the New Strategic Arms Reduction (START) Treaty, a nuclear arms control agreement signed by President Obama and Russian President Medvedev in April of this year. The proposed treaty reduces the US and Russian nuclear arsenals and reinstates on-site inspections.

In order to become a binding treaty, New START must make its way out of the committee and secure 2/3s of the vote by the full Senate (67 senators if all 100 are present). The problem? Despite a long history of the GOP supporting arms control, some Republicans and conservative commentators seem intent on sinking the treaty for no other discernible reason then to deny Obama and Democrats a victory before the upcoming Congressional elections. And with a current party breakdown of 59 senators aligned with Democrats and 41 Republicans (2 independents are aligned with the Democrats), some GOP senators will need to cross the aisle to ratify the treaty.

What does New START do?

The key points of the proposed treaty are:

• Limiting the US and Russia to 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 delivery vehicles -- ICBMs (long-range missiles), SLBMs (submarine missiles), and nuclear-capable heavy bombers.
  
  
• The reinstitution of on-site inspections and other verification measures (satellites, data exchanges, etc.). This is critical as on-site inspections have stopped as of last December due to a previous treaty (START) expiring.

Back in April, President Obama said about the treaty (White House text and video here):

... this day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia -- the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons -- to pursue responsible global leadership. Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global non-proliferation. 

While the New START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey ... this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. 

[For more details, read the full treaty text in PDF form. There are also plenty more State Department links here, and the Wikipedia entry is here. You can read an overview and take on the treaty from the Arms Control Association (ACA) here.]

Why no GOP love?

Right now, New START has very little public Republican support. In fact, Richard "Dick" Lugar (R-IN) is the only member of the GOP Senate on record supporting the treaty. Why? Do Republicans just not like arms control agreements? That's not the case, if you look at the history of the various major arms control negotiation efforts and resulting treaties.

• SALT I. The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks were a Nixon-era effort that notably resulted in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and an agreement to reduce nuclear weapons between the US and the Soviet Union. Now called SALT I because of a follow-up effort, the treaties were signed in 1972. SALT II never resulted in a treaty.

• INF Treaty. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed by President Reagan in 1987 and came into force the following year. Its goal was the destruction of intermediate-range nuclear weapons and it allowed for on-site inspections (I actually got to personally see the Soviets destroying missiles on a trip to the Soviet Union and the Ukraine in 1989).

• START I. Begun under Reagan, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty drastically reduced the number of nuclear weapons of the US and the Soviet Union. It was signed by Bush I and officially terminated last December. START II was never ratified, mainly because the US under Bush II backed out of the ABM Treaty.

• Moscow Treaty. A Bush II effort (also called SORT), this treaty to reduce nuclear weapons was ratified by the Senate in 2003.

It's important to reiterate that Reagan, held dear by most Republicans, became a strong supporter of arms control and even famously said he wanted to abolish all nuclear weapons.

So with a history of presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II encouraging and signing treaties with the Soviets/Russians, why is the GOP anti-New START? Is it because the treaty is bad for the US and its ability to defend itself? Not so according to the current Secretary of Defense, a Republican appointed by Bush II. In an Wall Street Journal editorial last May, he wrote:

The U.S. is far better off with this treaty than without it. It strengthens the security of the U.S. and our allies and promotes strategic stability between the world's two major nuclear powers.

So why be against the treaty? Here's a sample of why some choose not to support New START (from an OpEd piece this July published in the Washington Times).

• It unfairly reduces US stockpiles more than Russian arms. This is of course somewhat amusing, as previous treaties, such as INF, made the Soviets reduce much large amounts of weapons than the US.
  
  
• It leaves the US less safe with too few and too old nukes. It's funny for this OpEd to quote a Department of Defense (DoD) study when the Secretary has come out in favor of the treaty.

• There is no way to verify reductions. Other US presidents, including Reagan, agreed to "trust but verify." If the idea of entering into an agreement with verification was good enough for the Gipper, why not for current GOP Congressmen and women? 

The reality is there's no good reason to be against it. Without a good reason, one can only assume the main reasons to be against New START are irrationality, ignorance, or simply the desire to deny Obama and the Democrats a victory on the eve of critical mid-term Congressional elections. If I had to choose the main motivation of opponents, I'd have to go with No. 3.

Getting your GOP senators to do the right thing -- before it's too late

In an editorial in today's Boston Globe, the Republican legal advisor to the US SALT I delegation in the early 1970s (and an excellent father -- "Hi Dad!"), tries to encourage New England GOP senators to get over their partisan issues and support arms control -- just as their Republican predecessors and heroes did.

Republicans have a proud history of taking the lead on nuclear arms control treaties with Russia — treaties that have made America safer. President Nixon signed the SALT I agreements in 1972, President Reagan signed the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987, President George Bush signed START I in 1991, and President George W. Bush signed the Moscow Treaty in 2002. All were approved with strong bipartisan support — a necessity since treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate.

Let's hope Scott Brown (R-MA) and his fellow New England senators are willing to listen to reason.

A novel publishing future: Signing more, printing less

Being in the midst of trying to get a manuscript (that's what you call a book before it gets accepted) published and having spent so many years analyzing the changes in industries as a result of disruptive technologies, I thought I'd share a view on how I think novel publishing -- particularly the part about signing new authors -- will change in the near future.


The gatekeeper rules

For those who have never tried to get published, the way it works today in the fiction world (very different than the non-fiction process) is as follows. First, you must fully finish a manuscript. When complete and edited, you send it off to agents (actually, you send a "query letter," a one-page manuscript pitch, and hope an agent wants to read a few or more chapters). If an agent agrees to take you on as a client -- and the odds are heavily against you as agents claim to receive from 200-500 query letters a week -- he/she will then pitch you to a publisher.

The big problem is that publishers are extremely hesitant to take on anyone not proven -- the risk is too great. For example, when signing a new author, the publisher pays an upfront signing bonus. But there's more money and resources involved than just that, obviously. They have to edit the manuscript, create a market and publicity plan, print and ship the book, and keep the promotion train on the tracks. And when books don't sell, a publisher isn't just out those early costs -- they end up taking back the unwanted/unsold books.

The odds are against any new author getting through this process, no matter how good the manuscript. Sure, the occasional new author makes it through. Most aspiring authors can tell you how J.K. Rowling and Stephanie Meyer made it (lots of rejections before massive success). Occasionally, you hear of a colossal failure post-signing, such as the huge advance (reportedly $900,000) paid to Reif Larsen who's debut novel never gained traction. On a rare occasion, there is even the story of the person that self-published and was picked up by a real publisher (some great stories here). But in general, there are few newbies that get through. The bulk of the wannabe author crowd gives up, retools, or takes a break from their dream.

For publishers, the strategy of taking on few new authors reduces their exposure and limits their failure rate, but it also ensures that they are likely to miss on many under-the-radar new authors. No doubt publishers would like to improve their success ratio with new authors without incurring the financial pain of having a horde of market failures. Luckily, in the near future, they can and most likely will adopt a strategy to do just that.

The eBook evolution

With eBooks beginning to take off -- Amazon reported that eBook titles are now outselling hardback books -- the process described above will begin to change.

In the past, marketing eBooks was largely about an additive product, but with the lower price of the most recent Kindle from Amazon and the success of the first-generation Apple iPad, more consumers will jump aboard the eBook reader wagon (tech note: while many dedicated eReaders have disappeared or become still-born this year, a future entrant, Android-powered tablets, will soon join the party and should thrive).

Cheaper and useful eBook readers, more eBook sales, and more consumers comfortable with reading eBooks means that publishers will become more willing to reengineer their process for acquiring new authors.


A two-tier future of the on-their-own newbies and the coddled, proven writers

Publishing's future is not about print-on-demand (POD), though that will be an important part of the industry, especially for low-volume, out-of-print, and self-published works. Instead, it will be about publishers signing more authors to deals -- but to smaller, eBook- and POD-only deals. These Entry-level Authors will be in charge of their own success. Only if they can prove the value of their works, using mostly their own marketing skills and leveraging technology like blogs and social media services, will these authors move to the Premier Author status. Premier Authors will enjoy the old-world perks: physical printing, bookstore placement, and dedicated marketing resources from the publisher.

The change from a small number of authors being signed and supported to many being signed but largely left on their own will impact the entire writing/agent/publishing food chain.

• More "book" content for consumers. The reader will have many more books to choose from, but mostly in eBook format. For those who want paper, especially for non-premier Authors, they can pay for a POD version of an up-and-coming novel.
  
  
• An easier path to a deal for authors. Publishing deals will be easier to come by, but the responsibility for success will be on the author. The writing process will initially separate those that really want to be authors from those who like the idea. Then the self-markting process will further separate would-be novelists from those that can write but aren't dedicated enough to succeed and those that can sell themselves and their product.
  
  

• Publishers will have a greater chance of signing the next best-selling author. With many more authors locked into small contracts, instead of worrying that they passed on the next Rowling, publishers will more often congratulate the graduation of one of their own from Entry-level to Premier status.
  
  

• More deals for agents, but volume will be king for many. With lower signing bonuses and unlikely returns on many signed authors, agents will have more on their plate as they have to accept a greater percentage of the incoming queries.

Still debating the reliability of the M16/M4

The never-ending, often public debate about the reliability of the main US rifle/carbine (the M16/M4) was back in the news with an article from the New York Times ("Examining the Complaints About American Rifle Reliability").  We've looked at this issue before, specifically when the supposed replacement, the XM8, was suddenly abandoned (see this previous post) and when the Army announced the competition for a successor was back on (see this previous post).

Why does the debate persist? Critics of the current weapon system argue that it puts a solider or Marine at risk and makes him less effective than he could be. The two supposed reasons? Reliability and caliber.

The reliability question stems from the unique design of the M16/M4. When the rifle fires, a portion of the gas from the round travels back in a tube and cycles the weapon (ejects the spent shell casing, loads a new round, etc.). The problem, critics argue, is that the gas directly interacts with the mechanics of firearm, allowing it to become fouled over time, especially without thorough, consistent maintenance or when used in sandy and dirty regions, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Alternative weapon systems, such as the AK-47 family of assault rifles, have the gas drive a piston to cycle the weapon, alleviating the issue of a malfunction due to debris in the gas.

The caliber question is an age-old debate for military and gun lovers alike. Caliber is a measurement of a firearm's interior barrel diameter as well as the diameter of the bullet when it's facing you. It is sometimes measured in inches (e.g., .45) and, especially in the military, in millimeters (e.g., 9mm). In the case of the M16/M4, the caliber is 5.56 mm (or .223 in inches). That sounds tiny if you have ever shot a .22 rifle, but remember, the cartridge propelling the M16/M4 bullet is much more powerful than what you used on the summer camp range. Critics say the current 5.56 mm round is too small, doesn't offer effective "stopping power" -- think of putting a big hole in your enemy and knocking him down -- and is a bad choice for long-range shooting.

Proponents of the current round say the argument was won a long time ago, when an intermediate cartridge with a small caliber was shown to be more than adequate for most modern military engagements. Besides, they say, more powerful weapons are carried by others in military units for when they are needed (note: recently the Army increased the number of higher-caliber rifle toting squad-designated marksmen from one in nine men, a squad, to two per squad according to an Army Times article).

Settling an unsettle-able debate?

So, back to the recent story. First, the author's credentials. Can he be trusted to know what he is talking about?

So far this year, the photographer Tyler Hicks and I have spent roughly three months in the field in Afghanistan with American troops, many of whom are engaged in some of the most regular and intensive fighting of the war. As part of our work, we have been observing rifle performance and querying soldiers and Marines about their experiences in combat with what is arguably the most important piece of equipment they carry.

So what did the author find?

Simply put, in observations in many firefights in harsh conditions, and in the experiences of Army and Marine grunts queried this year, the issue of rifle reliability seems much less pressing than it has appeared in accounts of widespread worries about or dislike of the M-4 and M-16.
...
At War, for now, will draw no larger conclusions than this: Whatever the merits of the concerns about the M-4 and the M-16, on the matter of latter-day reliability, the complaints that have boomed on the Web feel out of proportion to what can be documented in the field, and may well be overstated, even hyped. 

This informal finding lines up with previous personal conversations with two former Marines and a former soldier who all stated that their M16s were reliable and that the only issues were usually the result of a Marine or soldier not properly caring for his weapon.


Still, some changes improve the old war horse

The good news for those in the field is that while a replacement rifle/carbine is most likely many years away, there are already changes in place that should improve what they have (mostly the M4). Two prominent updates include:

• A more reliable magazine. Last December, the Army announced an improved 30-round magazine for the M16/M4 that "reduces the risk of magazine-related stoppages by more than 50 percent compared to the older magazine variants." At the time of the release, more than 500,000 were supposedly in the hands of deployed troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
• A higher-performance round. The basic rifle round, or cartridge, has finally been updated. Yes, it's obviously still 5.56 mm, but according to a US Army press release, the new round's features "include improved hard-target capability, more dependable, consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity." And, what's more, it weighs the same and is even environmentally friendly. Win-win-win. For those who still want to debate caliber, the release notes the new round "performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets, blurring the performance differences that previously separated the two rounds." It's going out to soldiers this summer in Afghanistan, so real-world field reports should be in soon.

Despite the New York Times report and these updates, M16/M4 critics will never be satisfied. And as soon as a new rifle/carbine is selected, no matter the mechanics or the caliber, it's likely a new debate will take shape. Perhaps it will take the form of the criticism of the XM8 design: some of those against it said it looked like a plastic toy (ironically, similar to one of the reactions to the M16 when first introduced during Vietnam). The reality is that there's no way the US military will ever field a main rifle/carbine that satisfies everyone, from soldiers in the field to Internet pundits.

Ford shows it's possible to be a successful American car maker

With all the problems with the economy and constant news of floundering US companies that require government bailouts, it's nice to hear of a good story like Ford Motor Co. (Ford) and its recent $4 billion debt repayment. If you don't recall, Ford is the only American car maker that didn't take government cash to stay afloat. Instead, it incurred massive debt. Its apparently sage financial strategy, coupled with a strong lineup of cars and vehicles, is proving that at least Ford knows how to run a modern car company based out of the US.

According to a press release from the company, Ford is paying $4 billion back in debts owed (in cash) on top of $3 billion it paid in April -- a total reduction in debt of $7 billion for this quarter alone. Now, Ford still has plenty of debt. A Detroit News article today points out that even with these payments the company still has obligations to pay back an additional $27 billion. But the good news is that by knocking down its debt this quarter, the company expects to save around $470 million in annual interest payments. Not bad at all.

Things are pretty good at Ford these days despite their debt. The company reported its May sales of US cars and trucks (Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury brands; it is selling off its Volvo car unit) was up 23% from sales in the same month last year. In case you were wondering, that translates to over 192, 000 new Ford vehicles on the road. How about the books? According to its first quarter financials (from late April), profit was around $2 billion (pre-tax) on revenues of just over $28 billion. Again, not bad at all. 

While Ford has a long way to go in gaining traction against foreign brands, the recent problems at Toyota certainly help. With a strong lineup that includes hybrid and all-wheel drive (AWD) vehicles as well as flashy models like the updated Mustang, the company looks poised for more success. And that's great to hear. Along with companies like Apple, Ford is one of the few shining examples of American businesses that are growing as a result of good products, marketing, and efficient operations -- and without the need for federal funding.

Wonder Woman gets new threads, DC Comics hopes for a franchise revival

When you think of Wonder Woman, do you have visions of Linda Carter in tight spandex and accessorized with gold arms guards? If so, time to get that image out of your head, at least for the short-term. Yesterday, DC Comics, the creator of Wonder Woman (as well as the much more popular Batman and Superman), announced via a blog post that arguably the most well-known female comic book character is getting a new outfit (and a backstory).

Gone are the shorts with the American flag stars. Gone is the bodice that was perhaps most amazing for having been able to contain her ample Amazonian upper body. In its place? Some skintight leggings, a form-fitting top that looks like it came from Spiderman's wardrobe, and a cropped jacket with shoulder pads that looks like something from the 80s (think Working Girl). Yes, she's still got the arm guards and headband, as well as a nice gold belt to hang her lasso on. Whether you like the new outfit or not, you have to admit she is looking great for a 69-year-old.

Show me the money

Predictably, the story 1) generated a ton of traffic to the DC site and any media or blog covering it, and 2) the fan reaction has been nearly all negative. Is that a bad thing? Well, only if you don't buy into the old saw of "any publicity is good publicity."

DC knew the brand was flagging, and it has hoped for years to generate a Wonder Woman movie franchise like those of Spiderman, Batman, and now Iron Man -- franchises that have generated hundreds of millions for their creators. But to do so, the logical belief is that the Amazon princess needs to look and act much more modern and inline with the expectations of today's girls/women (Twilight notwithstanding). Back in 2007, DC hired a woman to write the comics (see this New York Times article). Now, they have gone further to make the character appeal to the modern female by finally getting rid of an outfit that looks like what a teenage boy in 1941 would want to see a woman crime fighter wearing.

The questions to ask are not was the change needed. Rather:

1. Can DC translate the wave of free media coverage into sales? Specifically, can the Web chatter and page hits form the marketing foundation for a series of Wonder Woman movies? Certainly, the comic book readers (in paper form, or the digital versions on products like the iPad) gained or lost won't mean much to DC. The big money will come from the silver screen and the home (DVDs, Blu-ray, and increasing digital downloads and streams). 
2. Will the outfit stay, or will fan reaction force DC to go back to the vintage uniform? Will the jacket and tights end up being the New Coke of the comic world (see this Wikipedia article if you are too young to have lived through that experience)? Maybe DC has always planned to rollback the look, but given that part of the change was to de-Americanize her outfit so she would appeal to foreign audiences, it's unlikely the company would return to the original suit even if the change proves a disaster (see this New York Times article).

Will it succeed? Was it even meant to, or was the change approved just to provoke reaction and thus gain free PR? The real test of its success will be if we hear about a movie deal for Wonder Woman in the next few months to a year. If that happens, let the casting call flame wars begin. Megan Fox? Angelina Jolie? Young versus older? Dumb versus a bit weird (but a social crusader)? Let's just hope it's not Kristen Stewart.

Note: If you are out of touch with modern celebrities, Fox is known for her roles in the Transformer series of films. Jolie is considered an A-list star these days, but made a name for herself as an action star in the first Lara Croft movie. Stewart is the lead actress in the Twilight movies (she might be able to act, but it's hard to tell given those films).

Afghanistan saved by the (mineral) bell?

An article in the New York Times today offered up the possibility that life in Afghanistan could be fundamentally altered due to the discovery of massive deposits -- "nearly $1 trillion" worth -- of important minerals, such as iron, copper, and lithium (used in, for example, the high-tech batteries of all your favorite portable consumer electronics gadgets, including the iPod nano, Nintendo DSi, and HTC EVO).

How big is the find? The article notes that Afghanistan could go from a country that is most well-known for growing opium poppies used in making heroin to "one of the most important mining centers in the world." That's pretty important for a country that has, according to the CIA Factbook, 35% unemployment and the 113th largest GDP in the world.

Prosperity or more carnage?

The result of the find could be that the new wealth will fundamentally change the country in ways that mirror what happened to countries in the Middle East when oil was discovered in that region. But it could also mean that the fighting intensifies once the enormity of the prize is understood by all.

In terms of possible peace disruptors driven by greed, it's not just the Taliban the US has to worry about. The warlords and regional power brokers all undermine the extremely weak Afghan central government. Even worse, some of the deposits are near the boarder with Pakistan. That border is already porous, and Taliban and other extremists, such as al Queda, move about relatively freely despite ever-present US drones.

With trillions at stake, fighters have even more to gain with victory.

Other impacts?
Besides the possibility of an escalation in fighting, the article notes other likely problems. For example, increased involvement by China in the country, which would be extremely interested in the valuable deposits, is a concern for the US government and military. Another issue noted was the possible environmental consequence by the required mining. In a country as war-torn, divided, and weakly led as Afghanistan, it is unlikely that a rapidly emerging mining industry would pay much attention to the environmental impact of its operations.

Outcome in doubt
With so many hurdles to overcome, from the lack of mining experience and infrastructure to a weak central government to a multi-faceted conflict, the belief that these new deposits magically will transform this part of the world and its people and enable US forces to largely withdraw seems naive. Still, having some potentially positive news out of the region is better than nothing these days.

Dog food study: You knew you were paying too much

A recent article in the New York Times detailed a study conducted by two professors at New York University and Cornell on the nutritional value of various dog foods. For anyone with a pet pooch, sticker shock from buying fancy dog food is a common experience. Despite our love for our domesticated wolves, it sometimes seems hard to believe the claims on the packaging -- many of the descriptions make Fido's meal sound better than what we are planning for the night.

The article notes several intersesting facts about the "$18-billion-a-year pet food industry," including:

• Your dog probably eats too much: "Veterinary groups have estimated that 20 to 60 percent of American dogs and cats are overweight or obese and at risk of developing heart disease, high blood pressure and Type 2 diabetes." On the positive side, most Americans are overweight, so at least the dog won't feel like the odd-family member out. 
• Sticker shock is real: We all know the non-store brands cost a lot, but how much more? According to the professors, "... premium pet foods cost three to four times more than supermarket brands ..." The price jump is bad enough for the small bag you pick up at Store24 to hold you over for the night, but when you lug that 40-pound monster up to the register, your shopping trip total skyrockets.
• Many listed ingredients don't matter: According to the professors, most food has the same top-5 ingredients, and all the extras added are usually present in such small quantities that they are almost irrelevant. That means don't fall for all the fancy ingredients listed on the call-out label -- most likely there's just a pinch of them within. They're to make you feel good, not to make Fido more healthy.
• The Fox News label is key: Apparently, all of the food you buy is made from the same source -- what food producers can't sell to our dog's (alleged) masters. That said, the professors point out that finding "complete and balanced" on the label of a bag of non-premium food will most likely deliver a meal perfectly healthy for your dog and much less impactful on your wallet.

So, does that mean you should never buy the high-end product? Not necessarily. The professors advice is that if your dog has a certain problem or condition (e.g., scratching or trouble digesting certain brands) then finding a food that addresses these symptoms may be worth the extra cost.

And a final thought: Should you broil that chicken for Fido or save some steak tips from your BBQ for him? The professors would say you don't need to -- your "complete and balanced" bag of food should provide everything your dog needs to stay healthy.