perhaps this is really the way to go
has taken a while to understand that one can and does move beyond e-mail. i seemed to have passed up faxes. by faxes, whatever. perhaps in the same way that i basically avoided video. film til the end and dove into the computer. and eventually non-linear video.
- i have not even looked into MS-Explorer.
perhaps it will be even closer to a more comprehensive package to work
directly on the web. sound and picture for that matter.
-
i have not even looked into MS-Explorer. perhaps it will be even closer
to a more comprehensive package (which justice will no doubt try to deal
with) to work directly on the web. sound and picture for that matter.
http://web.mit.edu/uaa/www/writing/writereq/cmtewreq.html
The Committee on the Writing Requirement awards the Parke A. ('27) and Ann L. Hodges Writing Prizes for outstanding Phase Two Papers and for the outstanding Freshman Essay Evaluation essay. For information on these prizes, each of which includes a cash award, contact the Writing Requirement Office.
Good writing benefits everyone. Engineers, scientists, and humanists must
communicate well to do well. Consequently, MIT initiated the Writing Requirement
to ensure that its graduates have the writing skills necessary for personal
and professional success.
Address:
2502 Rocky Point Drive
Tampa, FL 33607
Phone:
(813) 636-0099
Fax:
(813) 636-0422
Industry:
Scientific & Technical Instr.
Sector:
Technology
Employees:
44
Officers:
J. Anthony Forstmann, Chmn.
W. Lee Shevel, Vice Chmn.
John L. Gustafson, Pres./CEO
David E. Brogan, CFO/ CAO
Steven T. Price,
Treas./Contr./Asst. Secy.
Business Summary
The National Registry Inc. is engaged in providing electronic identification systems and services utilizing bio-metric identification technology. Biometric identification technology analyzes and measures certain biological charac-teristics of an individual. For the nine months ended 9/30/97, revenues decreased 35% to $1.2 million. Net loss applicable to Common increased 41% to $7 million. Results reflect the absence of $860 thousand in project start-up revenues.
RESULTS OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
The Company incurred net losses for the fiscal years 1996,
1995 and 1994 of $7.3 million, $5.1 million, and $7.0 million, respectively,
due to its startup efforts in developing and marketing its finger imaging
identification software and processing capability. In the fiscal year ended
December 31, 1996, the Company achieved its first significant operating
revenue, generating $2.3 million from the sale of its welfare fraud control
systems and related services.
AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am
Pebble Beach GC (host), Pebble Beach, CA
January 30 - February 2 , 1997
Theodore J. Forstmann is one of the most admired entrepreneurs in America with an unrivaled record of successful investments. Forstmann splits his time between running his firm, speaking out on behalf of economic opportunity and growth, and helping children worldwide. He has poured his energies and resources into leading relief efforts in Bosnia, sponsoring charities in South Africa, and funding scholarships and teaching students in America's inner cities. He is the senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co.
"The current tax system is
ridiculously complicated, economically destructive, and morally corrosive.
We desperately need a new tax code that puts the individual - not government
- at the center of the equation."
Today the investor, businessman, shop owner, or what have you, lives in a less and less predictable environment. We can take almost nothing for granted anymore. What will the tax situation be five or seven years from now? What new regulation will affect which new industries? What will employer health care mandates do to the operating income of our companies? Your guess is certainly as good as mine. The only thing you can count on is constant shuffling of the cards. The only thing you know is that the rules will change incessantly. Indeed, dealing with the government today is a lot like dealing with the mob. Only the means of sending the message differs. The government does it through proliferation of regulations and the mob just ties it to a brick and throws it through your window.
The fact that we have to be so concerned about government's decrees makes it obvious that the relationship between our statist government and a free market system is strained at best. It's a relationship that should be based on trust and self-discipline, with the will of the people in charge. Instead, we, the people, are asked to accommodate ourselves to the restless social engineering of the elites who govern us.It won't exactly come as news to you that there are basically two irreconcilable visions of America. On the one hand is a vision, bequeathed by our Founders, that sees America above all as honoring individual worth and expanding individual opportunity. On the other, there is a vision which worships collectivism, denigrates opportunity and promotes government-enforced entitlement.
This latter idea of America, of course, is now prevailing at the expense of the former. In fact, America today is becoming a Social Democratic state which, with nightmarish irony, much resembles some of the places our immigrant forbears struggled to escape.
How has this happened? How have we chosen, by democratic means, to be less free? How has a nation born and built in the spirit of risk and opportunity chosen to allow an ethic of statism to proliferate? How have we become so estranged from our servants - those that we have chosen to represent us? Indeed, how did these people so ignorant of and removed from the struggles and goals of private life get into power in the first place? Sadly, of course, we put them there. Choice by collective choice, election by election, subsidy after subsidy, program upon program, we have turned government over to a corps of statists who abhor risk and opportunity but embrace entitlement and state sponsored security. And then, amazingly, we are surprised at our dependence upon a government of arrogant elitists who don't understand growth or creation, but concentrate on allocation and distribution according to their own notions of fairness.
We Americans obviously did not intend to bring about all the marvels modern government has given us. The Great Society certainly was not designed to create a permanent underclass. When our grand social experiments began thirty-odd years ago, the average person never imagined that domestic spending would one day -- in constant dollars -- increase five-fold; or that we would one day work from the beginning of July to the end of each year to support a government that employs more people than are employed in all manufacturing. All the bold social theories of the Sixties -- so liberating in the lecture hall and exciting on the big screen -- were not intended to create havoc on our streets. It was all sold to us in very different terms, terms that sounded quite noble and praiseworthy at the time.
And yet, as I have said, I think it's a mistake to let ourselves off too easily. Essentially, America has allowed itself to be persuaded by an idea that goes against our history, our experience and our purpose in the world. Statism is always celebrated in the language of hope and idealism. But almost by definition government expands only as the individual loses faith in himself.
America, unique in all the world, began with the idea of government as the quiet guardian of freedom, the old idea of the "night watchman state." This vision of our country remained largely intact until the Great Depression. Unnerved by that horrible event, the thought that government could do a whole variety of things that the individual could not, became embedded in the public psyche. Subsequently, in ever increasing increments, we have accepted the idea that government can be a substitute for freedom, and public compassion can replace personal virtue.
And really, we have no excuse for abandoning our principles. Throughout our history, America's great leaders have reminded us often of just that danger. All, until recent times, spoke of "human liberty" and "limited government" almost interchangeably. If Thomas Jefferson were attending this conference, he would probably remind us of his own simple formulation about political and economic power. "That government is best," he said, "which governs least." Or he might recycle his famous line that "government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people." Thirteen presidents later, the same principle was still taken as a given. "I go for a government," said Lincoln, "doing for the people that which they cannot do better for themselves." Even Woodrow Wilson, were he here today, could remind us of his own warning in 1912 that "the history of liberty is the history of the limitation of government, not its expansion."
No political freedom, their words echo down to us, is secure where the right to property, the fruit of one's own intellectual or physical labor, is not strong. Government's job, our Founders all believed, was basically to create a stable environment in which free people could operate; to provide the permanent political conditions in which economic changes would inevitably occur. This was all basic non-controversial stuff. And so, for example, in Wilson's day, Americans paid no more than 10 percent of their earnings to all levels of government. When the income tax was first proposed in 1909, one senator rose to suggest a constitutional limit of ten percent. And it's staggering to reflect how this suggestion was greeted. After further heated debate, the idea was rejected on the grounds that if a ten percent maximum were set, the income tax might inevitably rise to that ominous level.
Take all the endless warnings of our past leaders against unchecked political power, and what we have is the enduring moral case for the free market. But we forgot those warnings. Along came a class of people telling us that capitalism is a crass, selfish, depressing vision of human possibilities, that under their guidance we could do better. And, to a large extent, we bought it. We believed them, to the point that even today we take the expanded powers of government as a given, something scarcely worth questioning. To me, few figures today are more pathetic than the apologetic capitalist. He has surrendered to the idea that making money is the only goal; that the essence of economic activity is subsidies and penalties; that collectivism and entitlement, and the corresponding lack of opportunity, are alright - just so long as he gets his piece. He is like a holdup victim pleading to keep his empty wallet, who doesn't even question anymore whether government is acting within its proper bounds. A subsidy here, a tax break there, and soon fundamental principles are right out the window. He ends up articulating the problem in government's own debasing terminology of "who gets what" from its distributive powers. The elites have set up a giant bustling industry with millions of bureaucratic dependents and little by little, they buy us off with scraps of state power. They set their own boundaries, closer and closer to our lives and indeed closer and closer to our souls.
Even politicians who claim to represent democratic capitalism only argue on the margins, while the central principles are quietly abandoned. In both parties, we find ourselves locked in ferocious debate over the details of state expansion -- the timing, method and funding schedule of our own national and moral decline. I strongly believe that most Americans would survey the fruits of the modern welfare state and conclude that the experiment has been a failure. Really it's a scene of human wreckage that brings to my mind the old lines from Samuel Johnson:
How small, of all that human hearts endure, that part which laws or kings can cause or cure. The tragedy is that American capitalism arose precisely to prevent this state of affairs. The relationship between capitalism and American democracy always depended upon the simple enough insight that neither could succeed without the other, that both worked to the same end. That end was not just wealth creation. It was human liberty. Capitalism did not promise a world of perfect security. Perfect security under the state was precisely the thing America renounced at its founding. It did not, unlike the socialist world we have seen collapsing all around us, promise a blueprint for blissful equality and freedom from failure. It promised only freedom, with all the risks that entails, all the endless possibilities for success or failure.
Indeed, for all its rough edges, one cannot pay the free market a great enough tribute. It is hardly a system to be apologetic about. We think of capitalism as an outgrowth of democracy. But historically it happened the other way around. Modern democracy came into the world through capitalism at the close of the Middle Ages. It came into being because it ultimately afforded the only escape from the tyranny of religious theories and men who benefited from them. Capitalism is not a materialist vision. It is rooted in a belief in the ultimate worth of the individual. And, although supremely practical, it functions well fundamentally because of giving - not taking; of investing and producing - not consuming and destroying. Unlike modern government, it does not try to palm itself off as the answer to all human problems. It simply acknowledges that God made our individual lives to be meaningful enough without us all being herded into vast collective endeavors -- with perfect happiness and security just beyond the next New Deal, Five Year Plan, or Great Leap Forward. It declares that our lives are our own to live; our decisions, within reasonable bounds, our own to make; our property fundamentally our own to use as we think best.
Is this a crass, selfish vision of life? Not to me. To me, it has always seemed a profoundly optimistic vision. Where socialist schemes arise from a deep wariness of people, capitalism regards the ordinary person as a moral actor, flawed yet competent to work out his or her own fate. It may not be perfect, but the free market is so far the world's only workable vision of men without masters. It understands that life's great dramas are private ones, that goodness and compassion work better as personal virtues than federal mandates. It is a system based on trust of the ordinary person. It is not a license for rapacity -- it's a pact of self-discipline, above all on the part of government.
If our faith in the individual created and built America; if even now polling data demonstrates that 70% of Americans are disillusioned with government and believe that "when something is run by government it is usually inefficient and wasteful;" if our free market economy is now the model and inspiration for countries around the world -- why, as these countries make their way towards democratic capitalism, do they find us straggling in the other direction?
Well, let's see if there is a perfectly rational answer. Again and again, one has the surreal experience of hearing those in power speaking as if it were all a grand success -- all the lawyers and activists and professional staffers and academics who make up the state and the multiple members of the media who make their livelihood writing and talking about it. Only after a while does it dawn on you that, from the standpoint of all these people, big government, the statist model, is a great and historic success simply because they personally benefit from it.
For example, all through government lawyers predominate. This is true of Congressional members and their staffs, as well as most of the participants in our vast bureaucracy, and even in the cabinet. The result is an endless multiplication of laws -- what you might call the Innumerable Commandments instead of the Ten we used to work with. This, in turn, creates an illusory void to be filled by still more lawyers. A lawyer by definition is someone trained to see the world in terms of claim and counter-claim, of accusation and settlement, entitlement and damage. And so, under our government of lawyers, our Congress has come to resemble a giant civil court with the taxpayer standing perpetually in the docket, answering for an endless array of social wrongs. Thus our 4,000-page Tax Code. If you produce and create and build for a living, this is a disastrous situation. But if you are a lawyer profiting from the whole elaborate process, you are living in a golden age in American history.
Likewise with the others. Who is better off under our system than the professional political staffers? They help create a system so complex and labyrinthine as to make themselves indispensable to its continued operation. And when was life ever so rewarding for the professional academic? On leave from their universities, schools of public policy, and think tanks, they trek to Washington bearing their intellectual gifts and their self-described bold new ideas. Predictably, the mass introduction of such people on the political scene has coincided perfectly with the rise of the incompetent, arrogant state.
And what of all those omnipresent full-time activists who now occupy government offices? Originally, the federal government began expanding in times of crisis -- in wartime, for example. But for these secular missionaries, the crisis is always here. It's ongoing. Once health care has been solved, for example, by nationalizing a seventh of the economy -- there's a long agenda of other crises awaiting their urgent attention; an agenda sure to be picked up by like-minded journalists, who themselves are today little more than publicists for big government.
If we think of government in these human terms -- the particular people who actually seek and gain power -- the source of our problems becomes much more evident. They are the people who are forever reminding us of the excesses and greed to which the free market is prone. I believe that we have all been aware even before the means of power, held all the usual temptations power entails. We did not need affluent activists and comfortable social theorists or pontificating journalists to apprise us of this. Frankly, I had learned this from a much more credible source -- as a young man I was warned that faith in money alone would get me about as far into Heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle.
Nowhere in all of modern America can one see greater greed for power than amongst these people themselves. Actually, the grasping greedy taxer of today is far more destructive and devouring than the worst imaginable excess any free market could possibly produce. Unfortunately, these people are not overburdened with either modesty or practicality. At the Kennedy School and similar places -- they learn all the arcana of government, the flow charts, percentiles, depreciation schedules and theories of redistribution.
But our ruling elite do not, by and large, come to public office via the productive private endeavors they aspire to rule and reshape. They learn to do the only thing government can do: to gather and dispose of the fruits of other people's enterprise. What they don't learn is how to earn, create, or produce. Perhaps no one has described this mentality better than Winston Churchill. Big government, he said, "is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
Unfortunately, we are governed by people who do not agree with Churchill's sentiments. They are people unacquainted with the nobility of private life to whom we are only ciphers to be formed into aggregates. It's really that simple.
Less simple is the fact that Americans themselves have consented to this self-abandonment. We are less free by choice. We can speak of our "estrangement" from government, of how the system is failing us. We can say people are being "bought off" by politicians, seduced, misled, betrayed -- whatever. But aren't these all symptoms of the illness rather than the cause? Isn't the fundamental question this: Have we lost confidence in our worth as individuals?
In reality, despite the tired and overused excuse of the complexity of the times we live in, we face the same simple, hard questions free people have always faced: real risk or false security, individual worth or collectivism, opportunity or entitlement. I would like more than anything to end with a resounding assurance that we will make the right choice; a statement that surely, being Americans, of course, we believe in ourselves, and of course in the end we will find the way back. Unfortunately, the evidence is too ambiguous. I can only hope that Thomas Paine was wrong in fearing that one day, "A thousand years hence, perhaps in less, America may be what Europe is now...the noblest work of human wisdom, the grand scene of human glory, the fair cause of freedom that rose and fell."
What strategies are available to leaders who seek to subordinate their own armed forces... http://comm1.comm.virginia.edu/text/projects/com384/pmain.html
Japan - Clunan & HircshTradePort wishes to thank the U.S. Department of Commerce and the California Trade & Commerce Agency for their generous contributions of information and funding.
An international trade/defense conversion initiative of BAYTRADE, managed by the Bay Area Economic Forum, and LA TRADE, managed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, with support from the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration.
Italy: KEY OFFICERS OF FOREIGN SERVICE POSTS
U 94-KP-01014-SCT Thomas Clunan a/k/a James Oliver Clunan a/k/a Carl James Ridgdell v. State of Mississippi;
Appeal No. 940039 from Judgment dated AUGUST 22, 1994, Quitman County Circuit Court; Lower Court's denial of
Post-Conviction Relief Affirmed. Appellant is taxed with all costs of this appeal.http://revco.med.yale.edu/mmsc/racing/results/1997/sugar/masters.txt
#text# Italy KEY OFFICERS OF FOREIGN SERVICE POSTS ITALY Rome (E), Via Veneto 119/A,
00187-Rome * PSC 59, Box 100, APO AE 09624, Tel [39] (6) 46741, Telex 622322 AMBRMA; USIS
via Boncompagni 2, 00187 Rome, Fax 488-2672; COM Fax 4674-2113; USIS Fax..From: KEY OFFICERS OF FOREIGN SERVICE POSTS (1995)
University of Missouri-St. Louis
Index to All Key Officers...
UMSL Government Documents
UMSL LibrariesMatch 83 DB Rec# - 57,754 Dataset-KEYOFF
Source :U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Source key :ST
Program :KEY OFFICERS OF FOREIGN SERVICE POSTS
Program key :ST KEYOFF
Update sched. :Occasionally
ID number :ST KEYOFF KEY077
Title :Key Officers for ITALY
Data type :TEXT
End year :1995
Date of record:12/14/1995
Keywords 3 :
| ITALY
Text :
Naples (CG), Piazza della Repubblica 80122 Naples * Box 18, PSC 810, FPO
AE 09619-0002, Tel [39] (81) 583-8111, Fax 761-1869; USIS Fax 664-207;
COM Tel 761-1592; COM Fax 761-1869
CG: Clark N. Ellis
CG SEC: Ellen R. Ockey
POL/ECO: Cynthia R. Bunton
CON: Anthony C. Perkins
ADM: John D. Haynes
RSO: Stephen H. Jacobs (resident in Rome)
BPAO: Daniel A. Spikes
POLAD: James L. Clunan (resident in London)
U.S. Commercial Office (Genoa), Via Dante 2/43 (Palazzo Borsa), 16121
Genoa, Tel and Fax: (39) (10) 543-877
Index to Key Officers...
UMSL Govt. Docs...
UMSL Libraries...
UMSL Home...Cite:
Key Officers of Foreign Services Posts IN National Trade Data Bank: The Export Connection (disk 2 of a 2 disk set), February,
1996, United States Department of Commerce (http://www.doc.gov/),Economics and Statistics Administration
(http://www.doc.gov/resources/ESA_info.html), SuDoc No: C1.88:996/2/v.2
MacArthur Multilateralism Working Groups
MacArthur Multilateralism Working Groups Civil-Military Relations in Comparative Perspective For
information contact Aaron Belkin: abelkin@garnet.berkeley.edu What strategies are available to
leaders who seek to subordinate their own armed forces...
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/macarthur/belkin.html, 7824 bytes, 05Feb97
The Forrestal Lecture Back in the summer of '69, Woodstock was called the "defining event of a generation;" it was undoubtedly the high point of the counterculture movement in America. "If it feels good, do it" was a kind of unofficial banner under which the participants walked. But it is worth noting, I think, that most of those who attended the 25th year reunion were not even at the original Woodstock rock festival. The reason, one can fairly surmise, is that for many of those who attended in August 1969, the memories were not good ones, not ones they wished to rekindle. Woodstock was not a place to which they wanted to go again. Many people grew up and grew beyond what Woodstock stood for; in adulthood, they consider it to have been childish, utopian, irrelevant, irresponsible, or worse. It was a chapter of their lives many would just as soon close, a memory they hoped would grow dim with the passage of time. And the deaths and sickness there were pointless, mindless, and avoidable. It was a season of drug overdoses and self-inflicted death.
