text:
Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit
By Clayton Christensen and James Allworth
The opinions expressed are their own.
Steve Jobs retires as the CEO of Apple with a reputation that will place him amongst the pantheon of history's great global business leaders. Many people have written about what makes Jobs and Apple special, but I think they're missing what truly set him apart. Jobs has succeeded by eschewing the one thing that most people view as the raison d'être for companies — profit.
When I left the industry to come to academia 22 years ago, it was driven by a set of questions that had troubled me for some time. Why was it that the best run companies in the world — companies that have had incredibly smart leaders, following carefully detailed plans and with tremendous execution ability — reliably seem to come unstuck? The answer to this question is what has become known as the theory of disruption.
In a cruel twist of irony, the pursuit of profit — something that Wall Street pushes so hard — is what leaves companies open to being displaced. As they grow, their ability to find opportunities that are big enough to sustain their growth is reduced. They become myopic; they listen only to their best customers. They focus disproportionately on their most profitable products, and strive to improve these the fastest.
The American auto manufacturers have suffered at the hand of disruption in the past few decades; they focused on their most profitable vehicles, and abandoned less profitable markets when low-cost entrants emerged. The Japanese came along with their smaller, cheaper vehicles; the Big 3 retreated upmarket all the way to SUVs and trucks. It was not long before Toyota was winning the sales race. Now, the Japanese are going through the same process, fending off the Koreans.
In short, disruption describes how the incumbents move upmarket, and leave the bottom of the market completely open for scrappy upstarts to enter. It explains the rise and fall of many great companies.
But there has always been one company that doesn't follow that pattern. At some point in my class every year, a student raises his or her hand and asks: "What about Apple? Aren't they a high-end, upmarket player? Why haven't they been disrupted?"
It's a great question. Despite being perceived as a premium, high-end player, Apple under Job's leadership has not simply managed to avoid being disrupted by others, it has disrupted entire industries — many of them. Even more impressive, it's disrupting itself.
I have come to the conclusion that what has made Apple so different is that instead of having a profit motive at its core, it has something else entirely. Many big companies like to pretend this is the case — "we put our customers first" — but very few truly live by that mantra. When the pressure is on and the CEO of a big public company has to choose between doing what's best for the customer or making the quarter's numbers… most CEOs will choose the numbers.
Apple never has.
As paradoxical as it is that the pursuit of profit is what causes the long-term failure of companies, I believe that Apple's lack of focus on profitability has actually made it one of the most successful companies in the history of capitalism.
The iPod was the first indication that they were, in fact, thinking different. Here was a personal computer company, used to selling $2,000 computers, willing to take a risk on a gadget that would sell for a fraction of that price. Most big companies would not invest the time and energy to develop a device that was not nearly as profitable as their existing products, in a market that did not even exist yet. This sort of endeavor is typically the domain of start-ups. If Apple had done what most big companies do: sit down, hire some consultants to do a profitability analysis, and relied on that to make the decision, I seriously doubt that the iPod would ever have been built.
Yet build it they did, and it was the first in a string of successes where Jobs tore up the usual management playbook that leads to companies losing to disruptive competitors.
But what may be most notable is how Apple is in the process of disrupting itself right now. You almost never see this happen. The iPad — Apple's most recent success — is disrupting the PC industry, and by extension, its Mac business. The tablet computer is going to do to the PC what the PC did to the minicomputer. Most companies cannot bring themselves to make decisions that result in the market for their existing core products being completely destroyed. When they consider it from a financial perspective, it just doesn't make sense to create new products at the risk of jeopardizing your profitable, existing products. Don't do it. It's exactly that fear that has led many great companies to leave themselves vulnerable to disruption from others.
But it hasn't affected Apple because that's not how the company sees the world. Profitability isn't at the center of every decision. Apple's focus is on making truly great products — products so great that its own employees want to use them. That philosophy has made Apple one of the most innovative companies in the world.
Steve Jobs' legacy isn't the Mac. It's not the iPhone. Or the iPad. His legacy is in the creation of Apple itself, reminding us that profit is not the ultimate goal, but rather a consequence of something greater.
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Excellent article. Hopefully some CEOs will read it and learn from it but probably not.
One of the best posts on Apple I've ever read. Bloggers have consistently accused Jobs and Apple of making profit motivated decisions such as the choice to nix Flash in the mobile devices. I've always known that the opposite was the truth. Great companies are motivated by a Purpose and strive to make products that will improve the lives of others in some way. It's a rewarding endeavor. And the irony is, when they do that — focus on doing great things for people — the profits take care of themselves. This is at the core of what makes Apple great and what made Pixar great. And it's at the core of what makes the vast majority of corporate America fleeting successes, if that.
[…] the original: Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit | The Great Debate Comments [0]Digg […]
Just like hierarchy is second to ideas at Apple, profit is secondary to making value for money products.
[…] Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit | Clayton Christensen. pretty excited that I'll get to see Christensen speak at a conference in October. […]
Apple: Relevant for the last 4 years.
How is profit not a factor if they chose to assemble products where labor is cheapest?
what a juvenile analysis in this article.This is why journalists should stick to reporting news instead of opining on things that they know nothing about. Allow me to destroy all the arguments in this article.
Back in the late 90s, when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, Microsoft had a full and absolute strangehold on the market. Anything that Apple do didn't matter.Remember those psychedelic looking Mac computers ? yeah those didn't matter either. So Apple had to come up with something. It's not like Apple exactly had any "profitable" line of products at that time. And they came up a good idea… the idea of integrating IPod media players with Music store. It was the matter of their survival as a company. With the trendy marketing campaign of iPods and iTunes they turned around the public perception of Apple. To the absolutely Jibberish argument that profits don't matter… do you guys even know how much profit margin Apple charges on it's devices? It's the HIGHEST in the industry. If they really don't care about profits, their devices wouldn't be this costly.
Also, this implication that other companies make crappy products (because they value profits so much) is based on absolute jibberish.
[…] Clay "Innovator's Dilemma" Christensen penned a very interesting piece in Reuters (thanks to Chetan Sharma for pointing it out to me): "Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit." […]
[…] Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profitReuters Blogs (blog)In short, disruption describes how the incumbents move upmarket, and leave the bottom of the market completely open for scrappy upstarts to enter. It explains the rise and fall of many great companies. But there has always been one company that doesn't …and more » […]
Look around you – find a 'real' entrepreneur. Ask them how much money they're making. If their newer business is part of the 10% that's been successful over a period of time, they may be making a tidy sum (or maybe not, but). Now ask how many hours it takes (currently) to make that kind of money and you'll find that the great majority will reveal that you can make more on a per hour basis working as a manager in almost any Fortune 500 shop. Now if you want a real shock, ask them how many hours (or perhaps years would be the better time frame) that they had to work for subsistence wages in order for their enterprise to become semi-established.
Simple fact is – there is a name for people that do it just for the money. Those folks are called MERCENARIES (as well as at least one another name we tend to avoid using in mixed company) and the great bulk of successful entrepreneurs (not just Steve jobs) are not part of the mercenary demographic. And – neither are most teachers or people that manage or work for charitable organizations or people that spend their lives developing medicine for the body or the mind. The great majority of these folks do what they do because they believe that what they're doing is something that really needs to get done. (Many times it's just because they want to make their 'better way of doing something' even better and share it with other people.)
There is a pragmatic role for money of course, and this is where stellar figures like Steve Jobs are differentiated for the more pedestrian entrepreneurs. Folks like Jobs don't just have passion – they have more passion than any one person could possibly stand to have without sharing it with every other person they can think of, and maybe every other person on the planet. And they know that in order to do that, they're going to have to hire a lot of mercenaries to make it happen. Money then (actually business processes in general, of which cash flow is a significant part) becomes the vehicle by which the passion to share on a grander scale than would otherwise be possible.
I know that the mercenaries out there (and I know – there are a LOT of them out there – and they read Forbes and Reuters assiduously) are collectively shaking their heads at this, thinking that this is an insane proposition – and I won't argue with you – it probably IS insane to forgo the rewards of a more mechanistic existence in exchange for lots of hard work and an unreasonably high chance at bankruptcy early (and perhaps many times) in life. What can I say to that except that it's nice (for all of us) to live in a place where insane choices like this remain available as an option.
[…] about what makes Jobs and Apple special, but I think they're missing what truly set him … – Bing News Advertisement //interstitial ad clicksor_enable_inter = true; clicksor_maxad = -1; […]
[…] Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit | The Great Debate. This entry was posted in Apple, Business, Technology. Bookmark the permalink. ← […]
Interesting take – but only partially true.
When Jobs came back to Apple, actually everything he did was about getting the business back into profit.
He slashed the R&D budget, dramatically reduced the number of product lines [bye bye Newton, adios cloning the OS], and hacked away at the cost base.
His big hire at the time was not Jonathan Ive who was already there, but his now successor Tim Cook, who as COO sorted out the supply chain.
When the company got back to profit – it was on the back of falling revenues. Had they not have had this very short term focus on profit, they would have frankly gone out of business before they got to launch the great [and profitable] products that we all know [and in some cases, love].
Sed themselves so yes, they have disrupted themselves, but to say they haven't focussed on profit actually undermines the enormity of Jobs' achievement.
BTW – I wrote all of this up in my book: Creative Disruption [http://bit.ly/creativedisruption ]
A lot of thoughts and concepts in one blog, although not sure the anecdotes prove the conclusion. Without reviewing 25 years of Apple financial statements, I'd guess that, in fact, Apple's profitability has not significantly strayed downward from the S&P average. I'd also suggest that a mantra for Apple you deem as customer-centric – granted, its products undoubtedly reflect heavy user testing – I'd call an unwavering focus on technological excellence, if not arrogance. For decades this strategy resulted in what Porter would call a niche, differentiated position – high-margin, yet somewhat limited audience. Jobs wouldn't waver as the Wintel oligopoly reached the mass market with interoperability and non-proprietary supply chain for lower priced PCs. For $1,000-$2,500 products, Apple was stuck. Instead of cannibalizing its Mac though (at least consciously though), they found that the mass market would, in fact, 'overpay' for a better user experience in smaller price point markets: enter the iPod ($49-$199), the iPhone ($99-$499), and the iPad ($499-$729), must haves style symbols even for the middle class. Apple had found a new, more elastic demand curve, a larger market volume, and huge growth and profits. So, either Jobs was myopic on product innovation, or, in fact, he had some very smart economists in his finance department.
This is a bit of revisionist history. I don't think the authors understood the context into which the iPod was introduced — portable MP3 players existed before the iPod, and it wasn't just Steve Jobs who noticed that it could be a potential growth industry. He didn't decide to make the iPod just because he thought it'd be cool. This is a lovely example of an academic taking his namesake theory and attempting to apply it (inappropriately) to a popular current event.
[…] Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit […]
When Internet begin, consumer satisfaction was the primary driver of AOL, Yahoo and many companies. But, larger organizations (picture the U.S. Government) get stultified, it happens every time, they begin to serve their own idea of what they should be. And ignore the idea they begin with …
I'm a big fan of Dr. Christensen, but I'm a little disappointed with this article. Dr. Christensen has made a name for himself by being an incredibly deep thinker and noticing things others haven't (e.g. the innovator's dilemma). However, this article seems to be a little shortsighted. While Apple does fit nicely into the innovator's dilemma paradigm, and has definitely been an incredible company that has changed the game in the mobile and music industry, Apple is far from proving that focusing on products as opposed to profit is what makes a great company. For every company that you could point out that has succeeded by focusing on products instead of profit, I can point out a dozen companies who have done just the opposite and have succeeded for a hundred years, compared to Apple's mere few years of wild success. I could also point out companies who have likewise focused on cool, innovative products instead of profit and failed miserably.
I've always thought that Apple looks at profit much less than they look at competition. Profit is assumed. Competition is blocked at every turn. Apple seems to me to have two brains: the business brain and the creative brain. In most companies the business stifles innovation. Jobs seemed to have a tremendous skill for balancing both-encouraging the talent of young developers and creative minds, while ensuring that their bread and butter business does not suffer. Other companies should learn from this model.
[…] Christensen at Reuters claimed that the biggest lesson we should take from Jobs's success is that more companies should pursue high-risk, disruptive product strategies at the expense of short-term p… "I believe that Apple's lack of focus on profitability has actually made it one of the most […]
Um no I can just as easily point to endless failures where profit was not the main focus but I have no doubt profit is the focus at Apple anyway. You only have to look at the overpriced products made in third world factories to see that they are chasing the almighty buck. I think where they outperformed the competition is in convincing so many people to buy their colourful toys for excessive prices. And line up in the rain for days to be the first to have it. That is the miracle here, these "iwhatever" things have not changed the world despite what worshippers think. The cellphone was invented decades ago (hint – Apple was not involved), the world changed then. Making it cool and adding apps did not change the world, just adding more time wasting activities to dull folks lives. Says more about the critical thinking skills of people than anything else, although it illustrates that you can never underestimate the intellect of the masses. But really I have had enough of this hero CEO worship now.
in an interview in 2005 with All-Things-Digital, Steve Jobs synthesizes Apple's focus in no uncertain terms: http://allthingsd.com/video/?video_id=14 098D2A-8586-483A-A1CE-8AB6721521D4
[…] Christensen at Reuters claimed that the biggest lesson we should take from Jobs's success is that more companies should pursue high-risk, disruptive product strategies at the expense of short-term p… "I believe that Apple's lack of focus on profitability has actually made it one of the most […]
Apple and Jobs did exactly the opposite from what the article implies. Apple at the beginning was a company as you're writing in the article, focus on innovation and not profit, and it almost went bankrupt, until they focused on profit. Apple from a company that brings new ideas and new things, became a company going to ideas that others started and failed and having potential of extra cash flow from other uses(istores, itunes etc).IPod(Sony and other companies had mp3 players), IPhone (HTC and blackberry were in smart phones before apple), Ipad(Microsoft made a big project few years ago in making tablet PC and failed to it).As long as Apple can make new products to fuel it's online stores, it will be successful. The problem of Apple is that the only new space to expand is the area that it has already failed Apple TV(were Microsoft, Apple and probably Google now ,have failed)
It is true that many companies allow smaller, more-nimble competitors to "come up their tailpipe" and disrupt their businesses because they myopically focused on their current set of profitable customers rather than keeping an eye out for where things are heading (as their hungrier, smaller rivals must do), and Clayton covers this quite well in his excellent book The Innovator's Dilemma.
But in this case, as others have mentioned, I think he's stretching a bit to claim that mastering the innovator's dilemma is why Apple and Jobs have been successful. Rather, it's been because Jobs and his team have mastered the art (and it IS an art) of making their devices easily and incredibly usable and useful. Sure, being willing to disrupt your current business before someone else does anyway, helps (and will surely kill your business if you aren't willing to self-disrupt). But that alone does not come even close to explaining how and why Apple has succeeded to the extent it has.
I thought I might get some greater insight than "Steve Jobs rocks!" from the world's foremost expert on innovation and growth. Oh well.
Thanks for all the great comments. From the top:
gowejifw: "How is profit not a factor if they chose to assemble products where labor is cheapest?"
Great question. I think they're realistic enough to know that if you make a great product but the price is too high, nobody is going to use it. It can only be a great product relative to the price you charge for it, right?
marioMano: "do you guys even know how much profit margin Apple charges on it's devices? It's the HIGHEST in the industry."
That's the point, Mario! If they set out to try to charge with the greatest margins in the industry, they would have failed. Instead, they've created a string of products that provide the best experience… and as a result of that, the margins are high. it's the order in which you set out. those margins enable them to do things like launch the retail stores, research new products, and so on. Most companies set out to go for the margins, and that's why they don't end up getting them.
— james
simon_walden: "When Jobs came back to Apple, actually everything he did was about getting the business back into profit.
He slashed the R&D budget, dramatically reduced the number of product lines [bye bye Newton, adios cloning the OS], and hacked away at the cost base."
Absolutely true. You can't have a business if you don't have any money. If you're about to go bankrupt, it's very hard to focus on making great products.
I think what we describe is more an evolution, rather than "Jobs arrived and this is how it is".
— james
gradstudent: "portable MP3 players existed before the iPod, and it wasn't just Steve Jobs who noticed that it could be a potential growth industry"
I think you're missing the point – it was the iPod that was successful. The others should have won; but Apple came along, doing what they do best – which is to make a device that they themselves wanted to use, rather than going after the market "because it was a big opportunity". That difference in mindset is part of what makes Apple so different.
— james
Interesting analysis. Perhaps it helps explain why there are so few great companies in the world as they stifle creativity and the pursuit of being the best for the sole pursuit of the buck. But this alone does not explain such incompetent dinosaurs for instance like BP. The pursuit of immediate profits has imposed a very short range vision usually no more than a year at many companies just enough to get the stock price up and for the CEO and major players to cash out. We can thank Wall Street for this myopia.
The article makes a good point, but as others have pointed out, focusing on love instead of profit was running the company into the ground. However, keep in mind that Apple fired Steve Jobs at one point, which is when they became very conservative and almost failed completely. Jobs _came_back_ and immediately started slashing pet projects, laying off huge numbers of people, and focusing on the "masses before classes" by introducing the iMac.
His genius is not derived from inattention to profit, it's derived from minimalism and austerity. Sometimes, their software is so simple that it doesn't even give you everything you need! Same for hardware (lack of USB ports, etc). But in the end it always gets the job done because it makes you focus on what's truly important. Big fat rich bloated companies (and their leaders) simply do not have the self-discipline to focus. They don't have the discipline to do what they really believe in. Jobs' passion lies in simplifying the world – the complex world of computers, software, and the internet. In a world that's one big giant tangled mess, simplicity is the better mousetrap, and the world clearly beat a path to Cupertino. All because of Jobs' personality – his personal focus on minimalism and simplicity, trying to tame a sometimes messy and complex life… and turning that personal drive into a corporate philosophy that has changed the world.
But to go back to the original point, all of this wouldn't be possible without the money. Simplicity was the product, derived from his personal philosophy, and he realized – when looking at that tangled confused world – that people would pay for something that would make their world simpler and easier.
"…reminding us that profit is not the ultimate goal, but rather a consequence of something greater."
Well if profit were not the goal wouldn't Apple be selling its products at cost? Wouldn't Apple be using that $75 billion in cash for something other than simply hording it? I'm sorry but any credibility this article might have had was completely tossed out the window when the writes says something akin to, "you aren't wet, now stop standing in the ocean."
Please, Apple has always been about profit… Apple has no internal foundation for philanthropic activity, it doesn't even bother to match employees giving to non-profit organizations like 99% of other Fortune 500 companies…. If Scrooge were alive he would envy Apple for its miserly ways….
Clearly the writer is a worshiper of Apple and can't see the truth smacking him across the head…
Don't really agree with this at all. Wasn't Steve who once said "True artists ship". It's not about making a point, it's about making a profit. Especially true from a company that hasn't paid a dividend in how long.
You mention the iPod was such a progressive leap forward. What was the profit margin on that? As far as I know, iPads and iPhones have the best profit margins in the industry. Perhaps you have to sell 10 phones instead of 2 computers, but if the margin is favorable, does it matter?
Looking only at absolute profit instead of profit margin seems very amateurish.
We can try to say all the words we can to hype Apple such as "the best experience" etc etc, repeating what we've heard others say and not using our own minds. There are some PC makers that give you a great experience also. Now I admit, I am an Apple fan, always have been for many many years and they make great products hands down. I use PC also, although my preference is Mac. But to say that Apple is not interested in profit is to be naive to the highest extent. Anyone who owns a business knows that if you can get cheap labor, it will allow you to mark up your product regardless of what it might be, to maximize profit. Apple makes money under the cloak of "cool" and great marketing and advertising which is key. You will NEVER see a Macbook Air at 599.99, ever …lol. We pay for the construction and parts and time, but not the labor. Do you think that any of the money from the high costs of the products go back to the laborers overseas?? No, it goes in Apples "pockets". No we pay for "cool" because this product is "cool". If you do your homework, alot of this technology is not new. Asia had alot of this technology in "motion" before Apple, it just never made US shores, so of course how would we know. When Apple first introduced the iPhone, folks were in a frenzy to buy them. Some buying two at one time. Then the bomb was laid: a cheaper, faster iPhone. So the same people that brought the first one, put them on Ebay, and went and brought the other…Apple made a pretty penny. Same happens with the laptops. Example: One version in January, then the same laptop, just tweaked with addition specs, released in April…everyone buys it. This tweaked version could have be released in the beginning. This is America folks, its always about money. I don't care how you disguise it, money is the bottom line, not concern for people or giving people the "best experience" lol…capitalism at its best and Apple is no exception to the game, and they are smart, even though i love Apple. Again, im not beating on Apple, but this is the real world, real business, it is what it is. For me, if this isn't about profit, then it will have to be proved one day. I want to walk in the Apple store and buy an Air for 499.99 or a macbook pro 17″ unibody for 799.99, or 27″ inch iMac for 1100.00, yes slashed, PC prices. Then i will say I had "the best experience". Until then, its Capitalistic "cool" business as usual.
Best Business article I've ever read. Now, if a large portion of American businesses put this thinking into practice our stalled economy would be in high gear in no time. Fat chance though as every consulting firm will advise them to go in the opposite direction.
The worst thing a technology company can have is a non-engineering finance-geek becoming the CEO. From that day on, all the innovations in the company start to stop. Only one this such a CEO has in mind. Make profit and profit using tools like outsourcing, layoffs, degrade quality, etc.
[…] Many people have written about what makes Steve Jobs special, but they're missing what truly sets him apart. Jobs has succeeded by eschewing the one thing that most people view as the raison d'etre for companies – profit. ary […]
If Apple ignored profits then why does it have $70 billion in the bank? And Apple has ignored markets. There is no mid range Mac. Sorry I can't count the iMac that forces you to accept a glossy screen and also ties processor speed to screen size. I've used Macs for 18 years, never bought a PC. I really need to get a newer computer and would like to stay with Apple. but I want a computer that offers features that place it between the mini and the Mac Pro and Apple refuses to enter that market. I'm close to walking away from Apple because it is all about profit and it refuses to go after the less profitable mid range market.
[…] http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/20 11/08/29/jobs-made-apple-great-by-ignori ng-profit/ […]
The company's support that has driven me to the point of suing them is Apple. Obviously Mr. Christiensen never tried to deal with Apple from a large organization perspective. I'll spare you the details, but Apple's marketing of features for enterprise networks was clearly dishonest.
When the center of gravity of computing was the enterprise, Microsoft was ascendant. Since 2000 the center of gravity has moved back to the individual customer. Jobs deserves credit for taking advantage of this shift and populating an organization with people with complementary skills.
Interesting that the author spends a lot of time exalting Apple's eschewing of profit, yet fails to include the one statistic that might prove (or disprove) his point: The percentage of price markup of Apple products versus those of other manufacturers. My guess is that Apples percentage of profit on all of their products is significantly higher than everyone else.
What Apple truly excels at is effective marketing.
Ignoring profit?
Have you seen just how much Apple marks up their profits? They charge an insane amount of money for basic hardware, slap a logo and a trendy design on it, and claim that it's "forward."
Look up a comparison of the cost of hardware (even for end-comsumers, not just bulk-buyers) vs. the cost to buy a typical PC vs. the cost to buy a Mac with essentially the same hardware.
I prefer to believe Steve Jobs and Apple exemplify the followng. "New product and new types of service are generated, not by asking the consumer, but by knowledge, imagination, innovation, risk, trial and error on the part of the producer, backed by enough capital to develop the product or service and to stay in business during the lean months of introduction." W. Edwards Deming
Did everybody forget that Jobs rescued Apple from the $%^&*() from Pepsi?
Look at what has happened at H-P after Bill and Dave left and a bunch of B-school fools took over!
((What Apple truly excels at is effective marketing.))
Actually, Apple "truly" excels in designing devices that feel sublimely luxurious to hold in your hands. That's what everyone else is missing.
Mario Mano makes some truly ill informed points.
Firstly lets get it straight, Apple has been a hugely successful (read profitable) because they understand innovation.
Secondly, if Apple didn't have a profitable line of products before they diversified into iPods etc how have they survived with just computers for 20 years?
Next, he complains about Apples high prices yet it seems that the rest of the world seems to think they are okay as they have no problem in buying.
And finally it comes as no surprise that Apple has been a much more successful company than Microsoft. Market Cap Apple $361B, Market Cap MS $219B.
[…] Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit […]
[…] testimonial for Apple. Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit | The Great Debate. But Apple's "core" capability, beside innovation, is/was Steve Job's […]
It is well known that an Apple iMac almost always costs around twice as much as a factory-assembled Windows PC. The ratio is even higher when comparing to a self-built Windows PC. Apple products have always been ridiculously expensive for the service they provide. They haven't eschewed profits at all; they're simply good marketers.
IBM had the original monopoly folks and they decided to let others play. They don't do that and nothing is as we see it today, absolutely nothing. From Apple to Microsoft and all points in between there would have only been Big Blue. Comprehend.
Thanks again for all the great comments. Seems we have a few sceptics lurking about the forums; for more definitive proof of what it is we're talking about in the article, I'd encourage you to jump over here and have a read:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/tag/steve-jo bs-resigns/
"… and only one person, the chief financial officer, has a "P&L," or responsibility for costs and expenses that lead to profits or losses. It's a radical example of Apple's different course: Most companies view the P&L as the ultimate proof of a manager's accountability; Apple turns that dictum on its head by labeling P&L a distraction only the finance chief needs to consider."
A lot of people have raised margins. It's important to understand that we've never said they're running the company as a not-for-profit. What we're trying to say is that the profit isn't what drives their decisions – and this is what sets them apart. I'll let Jobs himself explain:
"Apple's goal isn't to make money. Our goal is to design and develop and bring to market good products… We trust as a consequence of that, people will like them, and as another consequence, we'll make some money. But we're really clear about what our goals are."
Cheers everyone – thanks again for all the great commentary!
— james
By reading these comments, a lot of you don't get the jest of the article and others have your facts wrong. Apple did not almost fail under Steve Jobs. It almost failed under Sculley. Apple almost failed because it was working on too many projects at once and lacked focus. They became a different company when Jobs returned. Cost cutting was of course necessary. The article is not suggesting that Jobs has no interest in profits,, quite the opposite. Apple puts out what it perceives to be premium products. Some of these products sell at a premium, others at market prices. Apple ignores profit in the sense that they do not compromise quality to increase sales volume. They put out products at a margin that works for them. They refused to put out a $500.00 netbook as they don't believe in the product. Even though they recently reported record mac sales, they only sold 4 million computers last quarter. That's 16 million a year whereas companies like Dell will sell in excess of 40 million per year. Apple might have a higher profit margin but they sell far fewer units. Look at Iphone, high margin. Android has a higher market share because Apple wont put out a cheaper product,,, has fewer models and fewer carriers. Apple is not compromising their business model. They want all of their users to have a consistent experience and are able to do that by controlling the hardware. They aren't after the biggest market share, just the best products. They don't sell the largest amount of phones yet they makes the highest profits,,, why is that? It is because they focus on user experience. Many companies focus on volume and cost. They would rather make $100.00 dollars a phone on 1 million units than $200.00 a phone on half a million units. Apple focuses on selling what they feel are the best quality products and will not compromise that belief to increase volume. What the author is suggesting is focus on the top line and the bottom line will take care of itself. Of course the company wants to make money. This isn't a charity. Remember that Jobs has no business training. He is a college drop out. He had a vision and passion. Tim Cook keeps the company lean and profitable. Jobs ignores the lessons of traditional business and focuses strictly on the consumer. This concept is obviously working very well for Apple, but makes a lot of people who don't get it angry. The tech guy feels Apple users are snobs and fools because they pay more for a computer. They can't see spending $1,500.00 for a laptop when you can buy a non apple brand with similar specs for $900.00 . These are the same people who think this article is suggesting the apple doesn't want to make a profit. Again, the article is stating that profits come because Apple focuses on the consumer first
I agree with this article's point of view. Jobs did not start the project by counting profit but ending the projects by counting profit instead.
There is one analogy I draw after reading the story.
Option A: Is it better to sell high-end products, with high profit margin, but getting little customers to buy. Option B: sell low-end products with low profit margin, but get lots of customers to buy. Simple analysis may say that B choice will bring in more profit cause low-end product has low cost in R&D while can sell in large quantity. Despite concerns of expensive R&D and failure to expand market concentration, Apple proceeds with plan A. It innovates at the risk of high cost in R&D, and risks of reaching only a small pool of customers. The message is : Don't sacrifice innovating at the fear of losing money/fear of not being able to get your investment back. It is worth taking the risk cause at the end you will make more money by over)charging high price for innovative high end product.
There is actually nothing "great" about Apple. The company is neither particularly innovative (non of the "i"s revolutionized the world like internet, TV, PC, phone, car, cell phone etc. did) nor successful. The real success is actually the last 5 years. The overpriced stock price mostly reflects Fed's monetary policy and has nothing to do with Apple. The company is indeed very good at marketing playing nicely on white Americans' newly-discovered insecurities of increasing class divide. It helped that the Apple management (Steve Jobs) had a real story behind their marketing (enhanced by his health condition). All in all, it is a very successful company. But you know what? There has always been some successful companies! Always! And we always make the mistake of explaining this success as something unique and extrapolating companies' short term success infinitely to the future. My guess: in 10 years time Apple will be what HP is now.
I can't help but reply to the last comment, which is wrong all around. The fact that you feel the stock is overpriced shows you have zero business experience. How do you define overpriced? Is because its $390.00 dollars a share? The stock trades at 11 times earning which is a discounted to the S&P. You will have to research what that means. Its nothing to do with fed policy. Apple isn't innovative,,, if they aren't who is? They did invent one of the first PCs so yes they did revolutionize the world. The government invented the internet, but Apple made it easily accessible via an easy to use intuitive interface. Innovation isn't just about invention but also making the existing world around you easier to navigate. The company doesn't even have a huge budget for marketing considering its size. So many can't grasp the concept that Apple is just a successful company that fulfills consumers needs. They must come up with excuses as to why Apple is successful, any excuse except the fact that the company is just run well and putts out great products in an innovative way. It cant be that, the company must be number one in revenues by mistake,,, that's it
Some of the ideals I would not agree.It is true that everything will meet a failure one day.Apple had done aserels of right measure at the right time.But everyone will make a wrong step.
Apple is not a perfect company. They experienced years of miss-steps, failed products and near bankruptcy. Jobs philosophies on business did not create an overnight success. Its last 10 yeas are its most successful. Apples learned from its mistakes. Jobs created his own vision of management and it took years and years to refine his style into something that works. They are now in a strong position. They have plenty of cash on hand. It would really take a stupid bad move to affect their growth. The question is whether Jobs style of management carry on in his absence. Me sense is yes, I believe he was able to instill his style in Apples culture. It doesn't mean Tim Cook or anyone else will mimic Jobs, but it does mean the thought process that got the company where it is,,,,, is instilled in the company.
One of the comments above said that "an Apple iMac almost always costs around twice as much as a factory-assembled Windows PC." But, as the many comments in this article show, profit and price are not the same. Apple machines cost more because they're made of metal… because they last longer… because the company invests huge amounts into R&D so that their materials and manufacturing methods will set their devices apart from the flood of cheap plastic "me too" devices. Watch the documentary "Objectified" for some insight. Subjectively I feel that any additional cost is fully justified, you can't compare a Dell to an Apple because there's more to the machine than the technical specs.
I completely agree. So many are merely focussed on tech specs and ignore build quality and components used to create the unique products they put out.
Apple may set a price but its the market that dictates whether price is justified or not. Very simple,, if its priced right, it will sell, if its not, it won't. Windows people don't get it, people who buy by and love their products do. No, they aren't under a magic spell that Apple put out and no, they aren't handcuffed using inferior technology in an effort to be cool. Just maybe, and this is a hard concept to get,,, but just maybe, the products fulfill their needs.
Wow, what a concept.
To close, it goes back to the windows/Apple argument, Windows people are concerned with features, whether or not they actually need them, Apple focuses on less features but superior user experience.
This article is laughable… Not even worth a reply, but here I am… Oh, by the way, Steve. Now that you have billions, could you spare a penny in dividend? NO ! But, alas, it is not about profit, is it? Oh, and certainly not about stock options… LOL.. What a crock this writer has churned out for cyberspace !
[…] Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit by Clayton Christensen and James Allworth – "When the pressure is on and the CEO of a big public company has to choose between doing what's best for the customer or making the quarter's numbers… most CEOs will choose the numbers. Apple never has." […]
[…] found this story about Apple intriguing. Rather than profits first, will profits follow if companies concentrate on great […]
[…] value , does not make their decisions with their eyes focused on making a profit. The message in this article is relevant for companies of any size. If you're in business just to make money, it is […]
[…] morning I read this beautiful reflection on the legacy of Steve Jobs – how he made Apple great by ignoring profits. Steve Jobs, like countless entrepreneurs, are […]
[…] think about creating or exchanging value, or expressing our love or passion.This morning I read this beautiful reflection on the legacy of Steve Jobs – how he made Apple great by ignoring profits. Steve Jobs, like countless entrepreneurs, are […]
[…] morning I read this beautiful reflection on the legacy of Steve Jobs – how he made Apple great by ignoring profits. Steve Jobs, like countless entrepreneurs, are […]
[…] morning I read this beautiful reflection on the legacy of Steve Jobs – how he made Apple great by ignoring profits. Steve Jobs, like countless entrepreneurs, are […]
[…] under Jobs' leadership. Others have commented on the secret to Jobs' success (see Clay Christensen in Reuters) but after the roll that Apple has been on, I don't know that I agree with […]
Well, the only thing I do not agree in this article is when they say about their own employees want to use it. What employees? The development ones right? Because in China where the products are made they are totally out of the blue, no social life, just slaves shift of 12 hours job 7 days a week.And don't tell is not true, I've been there I saw and many of them are committing suicide. Nonetheless, Yes Apple is a Great Brand and for sure a good Company to work for.
[…] of Steve Jobs- to him, making a profit was a happy side-effect of product development. To him, profit simply didn't matter all that much. Jobs and his executives put the customers first by casting themselves as customers- […]
[…] products out with proper research and development. R&D is a crucial part of Apple's success. Steve Jobs loved the research process, which helped make innovative design Apple's […]
[…] Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit […]
[…] Opinión de Publimetro – Lima se refiere a el blog de Clayton M. Christensen The Great Debate donde expone como principal razón del éxito de Apple algo que a simple vista […]
In my humble opinion I wish to point out what has made me in my own small way both succesfull and very happy. I believe that what the authors were trying to get accross is well summed up in the old adage – What came first, the chicken or the egg? Most , if not all the people around me seem to live for money or profit at the expense of passion or lifestyle. With Steve Jobs it seems that passion, not money or profit came first. This does not mean that money or profit did not exist, but that simply, it is pushed into second place. His focus was passion and product first, profit secondary. An article I read recently on the
"Lifestyle Entrepeneur" summed up my outlook on life. At any stage in life, one can choose a certain way to live, with dreams, goals and a lifestyle. Then work hard to earn the required funds necessary to live that chosen lifestyle or passion. Most people I know seem to let the pursuit of money and profit dictate their lifestyle, goals, passions and dreams and relegate these into second place to the extent of ignoring them. Therefore in conclusion, it is not whether profit, money, passion or dreams is what makes us exist, like it made Steve Jobs exist,
or work towards, but the way we prioritize them. Passion and dreams should always trump money and profit…
[…] It has a history of saying, "No, that's not who we are; it's not what we're about." Apple prides itself on caring more about making great stuff than about making easy money. Apple has passed up opportunities to make more money by expanding its focus or by being more […]
Amazon never has.
You will see the rise of AMZN in the next decade.
[…] Christensen's "Jobs made Apple great by ignoring profit" has a simple point: "the pursuit of profit – something that Wall Street pushes so […]
I agree this is so hard to do. Apple grew into this in the big, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, but in many small ways dumping the Mini-iPod for solid state Nano-iPod, dumping the floppy drive in iMacs, dumping ADB for USB, dumping SCSI for Firewire, dumping ethernet for WiFi [remember Apple first Airport was 5X cheaper than competitors], dumping CD/DVD drive for MacBook Air, not jumping on Blueray, etc.
In other words, in a host of small ways Apple made the choice to disrupt itself – this helped build the culture. When you look at Apple's competitors, they never never make that leap. Whether in a big or small way and then later try mimic Apple or in the case own SAMSUNG be a quick follower, but even there they can't make the break, stylus on a fat cell phone?
Where I run into a problem is understanding the job to be done that Apple consciously or unconsciously does. Is it "build the stuff we want" the way to think about jobs to be done in a practical sense?
Great website
[…]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren't linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[…]…
[…]Sites of interest we have a link to[…]…
Recent Blogroll Additions…
[…]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you're new to this site[…]…
Websites worth visiting
[…]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]…
You should check this out
[…] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well […]…
Websites you should visit
[…]below you'll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…
Online Article…
[…]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available […]…
Recent Blogroll Additions…
[…]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you're new to this site[…]…
Gems form the internet
[…]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[…]…
Recommeneded websites
[…]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[…]…
Superb website
[…]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don't get a lot of link love from[…]…
[…]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[…]…
Blogs ou should be reading
[…]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[…]…
Cool sites
[…]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[…]…
Online Article…
[…]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available […]…
Websites worth visiting
[…]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]…
Recent Blogroll Additions…
[…]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you're new to this site[…]…
[…]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[…]…
Sites we Like…
[…] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose […]…
Gems form the internet
[…]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[…]…


text:
There are untold riches beneath the Earth's surface awaiting discovery and Rachelle Pinnow is using her expertise to do just that.
Pinnow loved to go hiking when she was growing up in Saskatchewan, keeping her eyes fixed to the ground and searching for treasure in the rocks and shells. "I spent hours and hours outside and had an affinity for just picking things up and looking at them," she says.
Geoscience studies were a natural fit when time came to attend the University of Regina. But while working on her thesis, she was drawn deeper into the oil and gas sector. "It was a whole different facet of geology," she says. "I developed an interest and a career from there."
Pinnow has worked on a number of exploration plays in Western Canada holding shallow methane gas and carbonate oil.
These tracts of land are expensive to develop and involve a great deal of risk. Geologists help resource companies mitigate those risks by predicting the best opportunities for success based on data gathered through drilling.
In her current role as senior geologist with Cenovus Energy in Calgary, Pinnow is involved in heavy oil exploration. Her work includes subsurface mapping, planning, data collection and analysis for the emerging oilsands project in Telephone Lake (formerly Borealis), north of Fort McMurray.
While most of Pinnow's work is carried out from her Calgary office, she travels to the exploration fields to meet on-site crews and ensure that sensitive data collection equipment is delivering the information that she needs.
Opportunities in geoscience are expanding, says Colin Yeo, president elect of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geologists of Alberta (APEGA).
"Geoscience is critical to the oil and gas industry so there is a lot of uptake in the energy sector, especially petroleum," he says. "The other area is environmental geology, which encompasses mapping of geological features such as terrain conditions, vegetation and rock formations prior to mining to establish baselines for reclamation projects."
A number of universities have geoscience programs, including the University of Calgary, which offers a bachelor of science degree in geology with a petroleum concentration. Students gain an understanding of earth history, materials and resources through the basic geology program, says Charles Henderson, professor and head of the department of geoscience.
During their senior year, students concentrate on the oil and gas industry, including methods for interpreting geological materials on top of and up to 3,000 metres below the earth's surface.
There are promising opportunities for students graduating with a geoscience degree, says Henderson.
"There is a coming shortage of professional geoscientists. Demographics in the industry show that many of those currently working in this area are over 50 and retiring soon so prospects for students are quite good."
The jobs are also highly satisfying and pay quite well, he says. There are also international opportunities with the larger companies, especially for those with experience in the Canadian oil and gas industry.
Yeo says high school students need to focus on math and science if they hope to enter the field; these are pre-requisites for entry into university science faculties. Having a technology bent is also key, as much of the work is driven by computers.
Pinnow highlights the need for vision and imagination to create maps and make projections. Communication skills are also important as projects may span many years and require co-operative relationships with local communities and governments.
A woman in a traditionally male-dominated field, Pinnow strongly urges teenage girls to give science a chance. "It can take you to many interesting places," she says.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I was 10 days overdue when I was booked in to be induced.
How many weeks can you go over your due date?
It depends on the situation. My second child ended up ten days late (I was induced) because the doctor did not feel there was enough amniotic fluid around the baby. And sure enough, when they broke my water hardly a trickle came out. But she was completely healthy. It also depends on how the mother's doing. if her vitals are getting bad, they will induce earlier.
I asked my OB that hen pregnant with my last child, not that I was worried my first came 3 months early, but I was interested and he told me, that after a certain time, there is no benefit to the baby to remain in the womb. I've heard of women going a month over. A long as the baby is not in distress, it can remain in the womb until either it goes into distress, it gets too big to deliver vaginallly, or the mother and dr. decide there is no extra benefit for the baby and let's do it today. Yay! MOdern technology.
'full term' is 40 weeks, but can go to 42 weeks. if nothing is happening by then, chances are they will induce labour.
Join Circle of Moms
Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.Join Circle of Moms


text:
With the early injury absence of central midfielders Logan Pause and John Thorrington, second-year Fire player Baggio Husidic has seen his role expand from substitute help to needed starter over the course of four games. The UIC product has started the club's last two matches and just went the distance for the first time this season in the Fire's 2-0 win over DC United on Saturday.
The Bosnian-born midfielder has broadened his game in every match.
"Every game I've improved," said Husidic. "I think I've already done better than my performances last year. I feel much more confident on the ball and more comfortable going forward."
Husidic's first start of 2010 came in the Fire's 2-1 home opening loss to San Jose on April 10. A quick glance at the box score would signal a poor performance (Husidic was replaced by Justin Mapp at halftime) though with the teams in a scoreless deadlock, Fire head coach Carlos de los Cobos made a tactical decision to spark more offense in front of the home crowd.
"I think Carlos made the technical decision to sub me in order to insert Marco [Pappa] as a central attacking midfielder to provide more offense. We had a few decent chances to score and in that situation at home you go for more production. Marco was in the right place for his goal, but unfortunately we lost."
With Thorrington and Pause's prognosis sitting stagnant, de los Cobos employed a 4-5-1 formation for last Saturday's match at United. The switch saw Mapp make his first start of the season and allowed Pappa to play centrally again. Husidic teamed in the middle with Peter Lowry for the second straight match and the partnership proved fruitful as the pair bossed the United midfield throughout, with the second-year player coming close to scoring his first MLS goal a number of times.
"I personally thought I played well on both sides of the field. It's nice to finally get over that first hurdle and get a win. After you get your first win, it's like getting your first goal – they usually come a bit more frequently. We were frustrated with our start but knew we were capable of playing better and getting results. Now that we have it, we're hoping to get our second against Houston, who's playing very well right now."
De los Cobos has been happy with his central midfield corps in the absence of his two long-time veterans.
"Both Baggio and Peter are playing and getting better each game," said de los Cobo. "Players need to play in order to mature in the position and I feel good with both Baggio and Pete because they support the team in midfield and are working very hard -- playing with two functions -- not only to play in the midfield but to go from one box to the other. They've both come close very close to scoring. This is good for us because they are understanding the usefulness of playing both ways."
Sitting now on four points, tied for fourth in the Eastern Conference and with Saturday's match against the Houston Dynamo looming, Husidic is looking forward to playing again in front of the home crowd at Toyota Park.
"There is nothing like playing at home. There is nothing I don't like about the city of Chicago and I wouldn't mind spending my entire career here. Given the atmosphere and the attendance record the club set, we were disappointed not to get the result here on opening night. Section 8 is always our twelfth man and we know they'll be out in numbers again on Saturday in what will be a very tough match against Houston."


text:
Check out my New York Times post, Ideas for English-Language Learners | Earth Day and the Environment.
Earth Day, a time to recognize and celebrate environmental awareness, is on April 22nd. I thought it might be useful to have a "The Best…" list for that day.
This list isn't very long since a previous list, The Best Sites To Introduce Environmental Issues Into The Classroom, really has the best environmental-related resources.
You might also be interested in:
The Best Online Carbon Calculators
The Best Sites To Learn About Climate Change
The Best Sites To Learn About "Earth Hour"
The Best Sites To Introduce Environmental Issues Into The Classroom
The Best Resources For World Environment Day
In order to make this list, of course, sites had to accessible to English Language Learners.
Here are my picks for The Best Earth Day Sites (not in any order of preference):
The History Channel has a nice Earth Day feature.
Everyday Is Earth Day is a "talking story" from Starfall for Beginning English Language Learners.
ESL Holiday Lessons provides audio support for the text in its Earth Day Lesson. It includes this interactive sequencing activity.
The official Earth Day website has plenty of adaptable curriculum ideas for teachers.
Scholastic has an article describing the history of Earth Day.
A Colorful History of Earth Day is a slideshow from TIME Magazine.
Earth Day 2009 is a series of photos from the Boston Globe's The Big Picture.
CBS News has a slideshow also sharing 2009 Earth Day images from different parts of the globe.
You can send Earth Day eCards (you can post links to them on a teacher or student website) from Blue Mountain.
Teaching Tolerance is on The Best Places To Find Free (And Good) Lesson Plans On The Internet list, and they just came out with two good lesson plans for Earth Day. Both are related to environmental racism — the fact that low-income communities often have more hazards and pollution than in places that are better — off.
The two lesson plans are:
Analyzing Environmental Justice
CNN has several good videos and slideshows, including:
One billion expected to celebrate Earth Day
Earth Day Turns 40 is an article from Scholastic.
PBS has an Earth Day across America slideshow.
Ten Ways to 'Go Green' and Mark Earth Day comes from The New York Times Learning Network.
Timeline: 70 Years of Environmental Change is an interactive from The New York Times.
In Honor of Earth Day: The Earth From Above is a slideshow from TIME Magazine.
Earth Day 2010 is from the Big Picture.
Gearing up for Earth Day is a Washington Post slideshow.
Celebrating Earth Day across the world is another Washington Post slideshow.
Earth Day 2012 is a photo gallery from the Boston Globe.
Earth Day and All Days: 10 Ways to Learn About the Environment is from The New York Times Learning Network..
Images of Earth From Above is a photo gallery from The Atlantic.
Earth Day by the Numbers is from CNN.
Quote Of The Day: Lessons For Earth Day
Earth Day 2013: Lesson Plans, Reading Lists and Classroom Ideas is from Edutopia.
Five-Minute Film Festival: Earth Day is also from Edutopia.
Earth Day graphic produced by the Kars4Kids car donation program "Responsible vehicle recycling for future generations.
The Environment's New Math: How to Look at Earth Day, by the Numbers is from The Atlantic.
ELL Ideas: Learning About the Environment is from Colorin Colorado.
Google has created a pretty need site called Nature's Engineers.
Earth Day 2014: Lesson Plans, Reading Lists, and Classroom Ideas is from Edutopia.
Natural Heroes are a series of great public television films and educator resources.
Your Earth Day Guide to Saving the World is from The Atlantic.
Earth Day 2014 is a photo gallery from The Boston Globe.
Let's Celebrate Earth Day with Some Gorgeous Photos from NASA is from The Atlantic.
Our Planetary Home is a nice infographic from GOOD.
Earth Day 45 is a photo gallery from The Atlantic.
Earth Day 2016 is from The Boston Globe.
Happy #EarthDay! We're celebrating with a look at America's protected areas https://t.co/lLP944doX5 #StoryMap #Environment pic.twitter.com/qkmA8VxVCd
— Esri (@Esri) April 22, 2017
7 things we've learned about Earth since the last Earth Day https://t.co/I5Xd1ZO6Lt
— Vox (@voxdotcom) April 22, 2017
The March for Science on Earth Day, explained: https://t.co/IepEFSWt5i
— Vox (@voxdotcom) April 22, 2017
80 beautiful photos from around the world on Earth Day is from USA Today.
Climate Education Week 2017 Toolkit
48 Environmental Victories Since the First Earth Day is from National Geographic.
I also have an #ELL intermediate level jigsaw on global warming teachers are welcome to use. They can find it here: https://t.co/q7I2ZRNd8D
— Nancy Callan (@esljigsaws) April 19, 2019
As always, feedback is welcome.
If you found this post useful, you might want to look at previous "The Best…" lists and also consider subscribing to this blog for free.


text:
Pelini not concerned with rush defense
This Nebraska defense was getting compared to some of the great defenses in the 1990s but Saturday it gave up 155 yards to junior Bobby Rainey, a running back for Western Kentucky which lost 49-10 for its 21st straight loss.
Nebraska coach Bo Pelini, however, didn't sound worried.
"Our front four played pretty well," he said in Monday's Big 12 Conference call. "I'm not real concerned. I know things are really easily fixable. A lot of them are communication issues, alignment issues. I do know going in that there were going to be some rocky times in that game, just because of where we were and how we've been repping guys."
In other Big 12 tidbits from Monday's call:
* Texas hosts Wyoming Saturday after beating the Cowboys last year in Laramie, 41-10. Texas coach Mack Brown is most impressed with Wyoming's defense which has seven starters back.
"The secondary is really, really good," Brown said. "The quarterback is a really good player. He was athletic against us. Watching video he made a lot of plays. He can hurt you with the run, he can hurt you with the pass and he's tough."
* Kansas coach Turner Gill said he'll consider a quarterback switch after the embarrassing 6-3 loss to FCS North Dakota State. Sophomore Kale Pick, in his first start, was 13-for-21 for 138 yards and an interception. Freshman Jordan Webb stepped in later and went 6-for-11 for 59 yards.
"We'll reevaluate," Gill said. "Maybe we'll make a decision toinight or tomorrow but we're definitely evaluating that position, for sure."
* Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops wasn't crazy about sophomore quarterback Landry Jones in the scary 31-24 win over visiting Utah State. Jones, plagued with inconsistency a year ago, was 17-of-36 for 217 yards with two interceptions and two touchdowns.
"Very uneven," Stoops said. "He started off really well early on then for whatever reason in the middle part I don't know if he was a little rushed or a little hurried or whether he didn't trust his protection but he forced it a little bit. But Landry's a bright guy. I'm sure he'll realize it, see it and make those corrections."
* Oklahoma State safety Victor Johnson played in the Cowboys' 65 rout of Washington State after being charged with obstructing an officer and possession of marijuna but he paid the price for it.
He and starting defensive end Jamie Blatnick, charged with felony aggravated assault and battery, had to do 500 floors of the StairMaster during every practice. That's 14 steps a floor equalling 7,000 steps.
Blatnick pled guilty to misdemeanor assault after former Cowboys offensive lineman Steve Denning, whom Blatnick beat with a beer bottle on July 31, asked police to reduce charges. It was also Blatnick's first brush with the law.
When he returns to the team isn't known. Oklahoma State hosts Troy Saturday.
"What we do now is watch how Jamie responds in making decisions," Cowboys coach Mike Gundy said.
* New Texas Tech coach Tommy Tuberville wanted to add more of a running game to the Red Raiders' run and gun offense under Mike Leach. Tuberville is still looking for it. The Red Raiders rushed for only 72 yards on 31 carries in Sunday's 35-27 win over visiting Southern Methodist. Ballyhooed back Baron Batch gained only 52 yards on 15 carries.
And that wasn't the only concern.
"We have to stop the run better than we did yesterday," he said. "We gave up way too many rushing yards (109 on 27 carries). On the other side of the ball, the same thing. We weren't able to rush the ball. We have to. We gave up time of possession, basically."
* Iowa State visits Iowa Saturday, meaning its time to hose down Iowa State quarterback Austen Arnaud. The Ames, Iowa, native went just 10-for-22 for 78 yards and four interceptions in last year's 35-3 loss to the Hawkeyes at home. Coach Paul Rhoads is concerned Arnaud gets a little too worked up against his arch-rivals.
"I am worried," Rhoads said. "It is the biggest concern going into this game because of his personality, because of his competitiveness. (Offensive coordinator) Tom Herman and I have already talked about it and addressed it in the right manner."


text:
Search results
South Centers-produced video wins award
Conference. Gelley and her producers won first place in the video interview category for their video titled ... Invasive Weeds in a Pasture. Her guest on the May 2019 episode was Guernsey County Extension Educator Clif ...
Don't Hurry Into Hemp
(CFAES). Bergefurd and Islam, together in 2019, led a field trial of the controversial crop at OSU South ... Centers in Piketon that was one of only two planting sites in southern Ohio. They partnered with fellow ... CBD hemp) plantings. The other site was located in an open field near the Acela CBD warehouse in ...
4-H Rocks! 4-H Week
Please spread the word about our great 4-H program! Today, send a flyer to 5 new people and invite ... them to our 4-H Open House on February 15th. Flyer can be found on our website! ...
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT – Fire Extinguishers on the Farm
difference in saving a life, piece of machinery, or a structure. Take inventory of the number of fire ...
Another Fruitful Year for the Small Fruits Team
By Dr. Gary Gao Professor and Extension Specialist The year 2019, the 25th at The Ohio State ... 2019 at OSU South Centers in Piketon. Dr. Gao served as a planning committee member for the Ohio Grape ... and Wine Conference and the OPGMA Produce Network (Congress) that were heled in Dublin. Dr. Gao also ...
OSU Extension Direct Food & Agricultural Marketing Team
help to benefit Ohio farmers' market with decision-making information. In 2019 the team provided many ... host the third annual Ohio AgritourismReady conference at Maize Valley Winery. More than 100 ... individuals attended the conference and learned how to grow their agritourism enterprises, how to manage ...
Aquaculture team publishes book, 12 scholarly articles during 2019
articles in 2019. The book Sex Control in Aquaculture by Drs. Hanping Wang, Francesc Piferrer, and Song-Lin ... aquaculture team published 12 scholarly articles in 2019 in high impact journals such as Frontier Genetics, ... in adaptation of temperature and body shape among four Percidae species. 2019. PLoS ONE 14(5): ...
Aquaculture Boot Camp-2 successfully completed
12 monthly modules and three workshops, one conference and one bus tour in both Ohio and Wisconsin ... aqua-farms were conducted for both Intermediate and Intensive students. Six conferences were held for all the ... programs, providing annual conferences and a bus tour of aquaculture farms, facilitating cooperation among ...
Planning for the Future of Your Farm Program Planned
here for the flyer/registration form. ...
Bigger, Faster: Aquaculture Center is transferring fast-growing fish to the aquaculture industry
aquaculture industry by increasing the growth rate by 30-35% and saving energy expenditure of 20-30% for sex ...


text:
Michigan's state flag was first unfurled at the laying of the corner stone at the monument of the Solders' National Cemetery at Gettysburg on the Fourth of July, 1865.
By Act 209 of 1911, the State of Michigan flag was adopted with a simple phrase, "The State Flag shall be blue charged with the arms of the state."
The state flag-Michigan's third since becoming a state in 1837-features the coat of arms showing an eagle holding an olive branch and arrows. An elk and a moose support a shield displaying a man standing on a grassy peninsula. The following mottos appear on the coat of arms: E Pluribus Unum (From Many, One), Tuebor (I Will Defend) and Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice (If you Seek a Pleasant Peninsula, Look About You).
For more information see: Michigan flag, Great Seal of Michigan and the Coat of Arms
Please contact your legislator for information on ordering a State of Michigan flag. You can find your legislator on the Michigan Legislature Web site.


text:
Banks (2)
Aerospace (1)
Airlines (1)
Energy (1)
Gas/utilities (1)
Commodities (7)
General (5)
Opinion (3)
Currencies (2)
Currencies/forex (2)
Loving these underloved stocks can add value to your portfolio — plus other top investing tips
World's 2,153 billionaires hold more wealth than 4.6 billion people combined: report
Man who made a killing during financial crisis says that, at some point, the stock market will slow down — but, till then, 'I love riding a horse that's running'
Stock market is "eerily reminiscent of January 2018" when stocks suffered rapid correction, technical analyst says
Why 'irrationally bullish' investors are getting nervous as the stock market races to uncharted territory
Which markets are closed for Martin Luther King Jr. Day (and which aren't)?
Farmers still love Trump as president hits highest approval rate ever in ag poll
Value stocks are making a comeback, and here's how to get in early
SpaceX blows up its own rocket in successful test of crew-capsule escape
How to go back in time and cash in on 2018 tax breaks before it's too late
This 'incredibly powerful' home-insurance policy will make pay outs even if your property isn't damaged
The 'best job in America' pays $105,000 — and you've probably never heard of it
Netflix's chief content officer expresses interest in working with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
Illegal border crossings plummet as Trump forces more asylum seekers to wait in Mexico
Value stocks are making a comeback, and here's how to get in early
The 2020 Census starts Tuesday in remote Alaska. Here's what you need to know
Netflix, Comcast, Intel, and Other Stocks to Watch This Week
Virtual Stock Exchange


text:
Before scrolling down, while it is SPOILER FREE it will state how many bosses are there, so please keep that in mind.
Resident Evil 7 SPOILER FREE tips
Fight with mia winters in the attic is not needed for a hint guide. so we will skip her
#1 Jack (garage)
This fight can be a bit hard to understand what to do, no simply shooting him will not work. Your best bet is to really keep your eyes open for any items around you. search hard and you may find something that will provide a good clue what to do next, the item you find, should make things obvious.
Spoiler guide:
( Click to show/hide )
#2 Jack (morgue)
This is one cool fight for sure, Keep your distance starting out, and use the bodys to aid you in keeping him Back. There is an item your going to need, and to get it, simply play out the battle like any other enamy. at a point jack may get angry, and open a doorway of enlightenment for you.
Spoiler guide
( Click to show/hide )
#3 Marguerite (spider)
Theres not many hints to give, have alot of ammo going into this fight, especially fire.
Spoiler guide
( Click to show/hide )
#4 Jack (pier)
Yah i know, hes huge. But don't let him intimidate you, think for a sec, hes actually pretty easy. "eye for an eye" and dont be afraid to go down bottom, its easier on his level.
Spoiler guide
( Click to show/hide )
#5 Final Boss
No hints to provide here, should be a no brainer, very easy fight.
Spoiler guide
( Click to show/hide )
I hope these tips help you.


text:
Leaves can be glossy or dull, dark or pale green, and hairy or not.
Itching to get out in the garden? Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans aka Rhus radicans) includes several subspecies, and is only one of multiple sumacs, many of which are also rash-producing, and the one you're most likely to tangle with in your own backyard. It belongs to the Anacardiaceae family along with mangoes, cashews, smoke tree (Cotinus sp.), and other desirable relatives, which, likewise, may produce severe allergic reactions.
Our North American "brand" spreads from coast to coast, from Canada through Mexico, Asia to Guatemala, Europe and Australia. Only primates are sensitive to urushiol (the plant's toxic substance). Cats, dogs, goats, and deer are immune, but they can transfer the problem to humans via their fur.
The rash can also spread through airborne soot and ash, so never burn the plant. People inadvertently use poison ivy twigs for firewood. (Inhaling urushiol particles can cause asthma and swollen eyes.) Once the stricken victim has bathed, the rash is not contagious to others. Many people don't exhibit symptoms with their first encounter. About 80 to 90 percent of people are susceptible to poison-ivy-induced rashes. People have gotten rashes from 20-year-old herbarium specimens and garden tools they haven't used for years. We expect problems in spring and summer, when sap and pollen are plentiful, but in winter, dormant plants are equally dangerous.
The axiom "leaves of three" does apply to poison ivy, but the plants can have four, five or seven
leaves as well.
Poison ivy can take the form of a ground cover, a vine, or a shrub. It adheres to trees with hairy roots.
Identifying poison ivy
The familiar "three" leaflets can be four, five, or seven smooth-edged, lobed, or toothed, tiny or large, glossy or dull, dark or pale green, hairy or not, and can form a small deciduous plant, long vine, or huge shrub. Juveniles form ground covers and spread by runners until they find a climbable support structure (such as trees, walls, telephone poles). Mature plants can reach 100 feet with a 6-inch trunk diameter.
Once you've had a close encounter of the blistery kind, you'll soon be able to recognize it in its many sinister disguises. But, even if you never set foot outdoors, handling clothing or any object that has brushed against the plant can bring the poison ivy experience to you firsthand. The oil attaches to skin and cell proteins, causing our immune systems to react. The fluid emanating from blisters is mostly white blood cells and serum produced by our bodies. Almost all body parts are vulnerable to the sticky urushiol that produces the characteristic rash. Places where skin is tender, between fingers for example, are most sensitive.
Killing the rash
Cleansing within 10 minutes of contact may arrest the initial outbreak, and this can help prevent further spread. The rash may appear within a few hours to a week or more after exposure, and most rashes disappear within three weeks or sooner. Water alone can dilute the oil.
Home remedies for poison ivy rashes abound. Success has been reported using various soaps, chlorinated water, Aloe vera, vitamin C, tea tree oil (Melaleuca alternifolia), iodine, vinegar, sassafras leaves, plantain leaves, salicylic acid, even honey or banana peels.
Once a rash develops, aluminum acetate (Burrows solution), baking soda, colloidal or oatmeal baths, aluminum hydroxide gel, calamine, kaolin, zinc acetate, zinc carbonate, or zinc oxide applied to the skin can help, as can corticosteroids and antihistamines used both topically and internally. Menthol, benzocaine, and pramoxine sprays often can numb the itch.
Poison ivy can have red fall color and white berries.
Nevertheless, even "evil" poison ivy has beautiful fall color, and provides a source of cover and food for wildlife. Bees visit the flowers, deer browse the fruits and foliage, and cottontail rabbits feed on the twigs and bark. Its white berries are savory to at least 60 species of birds.
Killing the weed
But you probably don't want poison ivy in your garden. Using proper personal protection (such as long sleeves and pants, gloves, and eye protection) cut vines and pull them away from trees. Dig up roots. Mow or cut young shoots until the plant dies. Supposedly environmentally friendly herbicides, such as a citrus-based weed killer, and those formulated from soap-based fatty acids can rid large garden areas of poison ivy. Non-selective herbicides with the active ingredient glyphosate, and selective herbicides containing triclopyr also can do the trick. Or enlist one of the lucky 15 percent of the populace who seem to be immune to poison ivy's charms to weed the plants out for you.
Or rent a goat – they can eat poison ivy with no ill effects.
A version of this article appeared in a March/April 2017 print edition of State-by-State Gardening.
Photography courtesy of Joseph LaForest/bugwood.com and U.S. Department of Agriculture.


text:
I thought I had taken a photo of it before refinishing but turns out I did not. It used to look something like this:
After filling in all of the gauges and dings the old dresser had with wood putty, I repaired 2 of the legs with wood glue. Then the entire dresser was lightly sanded with medium grade sandpaper. I didn't spend too much time sanding. 20 minutes did the trick!
After wiping the dust off with a damp cloth, I primed the dresser with Zin stain cover primer. I used the latex primer (not oil based) because it's easier to clean and doesn't smell as much as the oil based version. I primed with 1 coat just to get the paint to adhere to the dresser.
Primed drawers drying in the driveway:
Primed dresser body:
Primed side of dresser:
By the time I was finished priming, it was dry enough to get the first coat of paint on. I used the white trim paint that is all over my house: Benjamin Moore Dove White (or is it White Dove?) in a semi-gloss.
A nifty trick to get the paint to roll and paint on smoothly is to use Floetrol:
For the blue color of the drawers, I used Benjamin Moore Wyeth Blue cut in half. I added half of the Dove White to create a less intense blue. I used the leftover can from painting my front door Wyeth Blue.
I thought I could get away with 2 coats of paint on top of the primer, but to get the coverage I wanted, I ended up with 3 coats of the Dove White. 2 coats of the Wyeth Blue on the drawers was fine.
I thought about getting new hardware for the drawers, but I kind of liked the hardware the old dresser came with so I shined it up with Brasso:
This stuff is very easy to work with and made the old pulls look like new!
They look silver here, but they are brassy in real life.
I put the dresser in my dining room because I need some storage since I sold the sideboard. I will be revealing the new dining room eventually (you can sneak a peek at the table, below). For now, I'm enjoying this revamped old dresser!


text:
A relaxing restaurant in a beautiful hotel, Grand Floridian Cafe doesn't tout characters or upscale cuisine, but they do serve moderately priced options for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Expect Mickey waffles or omelets for breakfast; salads, soups, and sandwiches for lunch; and seafood, chicken and steaks for dinner.
Another perk: this place isn't well-known, so you may be able to stop in for a table-service meal without a reservation.
Service: Table-Service
Type of Food: American
Location: Disney's Grand Floridian Resort
Disney Dining Plan: Yes, 1 table service credit
Tables in Wonderland: Yes
Official Disney Breakfast Menu
Official Disney Lunch Menu
Official Disney Dinner Menu
Grand Floridian Cafe Breakfast Menu
Grand Floridian Cafe Child's Breakfast Menu
Grand Floridian Cafe Lunch Menu
Grand Floridian Cafe Children Lunch/Dinner Menu
Grand Floridian Cafe Dinner Menu
Disney Food Blog Review: Disney's world Grand Floridian Cafe Review
Guest Review: Grand Floridian Cafe
Guest Review: Grand Floridian Cafe Breakfast in Disney's Grand Floridian Resort
Disney Food Blog Review: Breakfast at the Grand Floridian Cafe
Disney Food Blog Review: Dinner at the Grand Floridian Cafe in Disney's Grand Floridian Resort
Disney Food Blog Review: Floridian Pancakes and Lobster Thermidor Burger at Grand Floridian Cafe
Disney Food Blog Review & Food Photos: Should You Do Dinner at Disney World's Grand Floridian Cafe?
Important Info:
- Consider this restaurant when you don't have a reservation — it's just a quick monorail trip away from the Magic Kingdom and Epcot.
- Sample some of the Disney favorites like the Strawberry Salad!
Famous Dishes: Strawberry salad, sandwiches, grilled Rib-Eye steak, chocolate-crusted key lime tart
Disney Food Blog Posts Mentioning Grand Floridian Cafe
You Might also Like: The Wave…of American Flavors, Kona Cafe
Image copyright Disney


text:
By PAUL WISEMAN AP Economics Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hiring through the rest of 2012 will lag the brisk pace set early this year. But it will be strong enough to push the unemployment rate below 8 percent by Election Day.
That's the view that emerges from an Associated Press survey of 32 leading economists who foresee a gradually brighter jobs picture. Despite higher gas prices, Europe's debt crisis and a weak housing market, they think the economy has entered a "virtuous cycle" in which hiring boosts consumer spending, which fuels more hiring and spending.
The survey results come before a report Friday on hiring during April. The April report is eagerly awaited because employers added surprisingly few jobs in March. That result contributed to fears that the economy might struggle to sustain its recovery.
But the economists think the recovery will manage to reduce unemployment to 7.9 percent by Election Day from 8.2 percent in March.
Falling unemployment would boost President Barack Obama's prospects in November. Going back to 1956, no president has lost re-election when the unemployment rate dropped in the two years before the election. And none has won when the rate rose over that time.
Unemployment was 9.8 in November 2010. If the surveyed economists prove correct, the rate will be nearly 2 percentage points lower when Americans vote on Nov. 6.
Yet the AP economists think it will be at least three more years before unemployment falls below 6 percent, which would be a sign of a healthy economy.
They predict the economy will grow 2.5 percent this year, up from 1.7 percent in 2011. In a healthy economy, 2.5 percent annual growth is usually adequate. Not so when 12.7 million people are unemployed. The economy would have to grow about 4 percent for a year to lower unemployment another percentage point.
The economists expect job growth to average 177,000 a month from April through June and 189,000 in the second half of the year. That would be down from an average 212,000 jobs added monthly from January through March. Last year, job growth averaged 158,000 a month.
"The job market is improving enough that consumer spending can grow at a moderate pace as opposed to an anemic pace," says Phillip Swagel, a University of Maryland economist. "Businesses are finally confident enough to hire and invest."
The AP survey collected the views late last month of private, corporate and academic economists on a range of indicators.
They expect Europe to avoid a severe downturn this year even though it's struggling with a debt crisis and is likely in a recession. And most don't think any European nation will default on its debt this year.
But they worry that the lingering effects of the housing bust are slowing the U.S. economy's expansion. The AP economists say growth can't accelerate until national home prices - which dropped for a sixth straight month in February - finally bottom.
Falling house prices can slow numerous sectors of the economy. They demoralize consumers by eroding their chief source of wealth. A 30 percent drop in housing prices has vaporized $7 trillion in home equity since 2006.
Some of the economists fear that the financial crisis and recession left lasting consequences. Among their concerns:
Growth will remain slow as consumers pare debts. The long-term unemployed will struggle to regain jobs. People will no longer see housing as a source of wealth. And many will lose faith in the idea that Americans can achieve rising living standards.
One sign of the still-tough job market is long-term unemployment: Forty-three percent of the unemployed - 5.3 million Americans - have been out of work six months or more. Most of the economists blame weak customer demand. Only about a third think the main reason is a mismatch between the skills workers have and the skills employers need.
The unemployed might not get much relief from manufacturers, despite a report this week that U.S. factory activity grew last month at the fastest pace in nearly a year. The economists think manufacturers, a key source of hiring during the recovery, will fill jobs more slowly the rest of the year. If so, that could slow overall job growth.
Another factor in the economists' cautious view of hiring: political bickering and doubts about government policies in an election year.
"There's still a ton of uncertainty about the future of tax and regulatory policy," says Swagel, a Treasury Department official under President George W. Bush. "Business that might be tempted to expand say, `I don't know what my taxes will be in three years.' "


text:
Story highlights
- Elizabeth Biedell: In major foreign policy decisions, intelligence plays a key role
- Presidents get the fullest description of what intelligence agencies know
- Failure to share intelligence fully misled the public in advance of Iraq War, she says
- Biedell: Presidents should fully inform Congress of relevant intelligence
At a time when the United States is trying to figure out how to respond to threats from North Korean leaders, America and Israel are synthesizing their intelligence assessments of Iran's nuclear capability, and Americans are marking the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, it is useful to remind ourselves of the central role that intelligence plays in trying to understand our nation's greatest threat, an enemy armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Whether this intelligence turns out to be accurate or inaccurate, when trying to figure out the capabilities and intentions of hostile countries, our leaders turn to clandestinely collected information simply because they have no other way of knowing.
But it is also worth remembering that the picture that intelligence paints is not a factual depiction. With solid sources and analysis rigorously tested for bias, it can be very good. But a lack of these can produce intelligence analysis that is far less certain and therefore open for interpretation from policymakers.
The general public is not aware of the quality of our nation's intelligence at any given moment because it is not shared with the public, and we are forced to rely on the president's representation of the information. Not an ideal situation for a democracy -- and one that proved disastrous in the case of the Iraq War.
As an intelligence analyst at the CIA, I was privy to all the intelligence analysis on Iraq in the lead-up to that war. My office covered the country analysis while other offices covered WMD and terrorism, but we read each other's work. I remember thinking at the time how paradoxical it was that we were working so hard to be thorough in our analysis for the president, but then he gave the public only a few pieces of raw intelligence reporting from a handful of sources as well as the administration's own judgments that did not reflect the complexity of our assessments.
Thus the general public was given only the intelligence the Bush administration judged was most useful to characterize the danger of Saddam Hussein's regime. This was done by unilaterally declassifying secret intelligence for speeches, talk show appearances and Colin Powell's famous U.N. Security Council speech.
There is a far better way to give the public a more accurate reading of threats to our national security. One needn't look any further than the Constitution. The framers created Congress to be another body, unaccountable to the executive, to be entrusted with the nation's security and with the exclusive power to make war.
But for Congress to play this role in today's WMD reality, congressional leaders need to have access to the same intelligence the president has. This would allow Congress to challenge a president's characterization of a threat with the public (as well as call out a president if he isn't addressing a threat). This would provide the public a more accurate understanding of the real threats it faces and with that a greater certainty as to when we need to act.
While some congressional members on the intelligence committees are getting more intelligence information today than they were before, the President's Daily Brief, with information from the nation's most sensitive sources, is still for presidential eyes only. This puts the president in the driver's seat to define our threats, determine our enemies and tell the public what he thinks we need to do about it.
In the case of the Iraq war, by the time Congress began to take a more active role and summoned the now infamous National Intelligence Estimate, they were not in a position to function as a "balance" to the executive branch and "check" that branch's characterization of Hussein as an imminent threat. The Bush administration had already released most of the damning intelligence to the public, creating enough fear to convince many Americans that Hussein was "very likely" to give WMD to terrorists.
It would have been far better to have trusted the public with the CIA analysts' full assessments than for the individual, sometimes uncorroborated pieces of raw intelligence to be released to the public without any analysis or context. The public would have had to wrestle with the complexity, the uncertainties and in some cases the limited availability of sources that was the intelligence picture on Iraq in 2002-2003.
I am not advocating for this type of complete intel-sharing with the public in the future. Releasing top secret information to the public risks lives and collection methods and is clearly unwise. Congress, as the body representing the public, can and should serve this function.
But unless Congress' access to intelligence is on par with the president's, you can forget what you read in the Constitution; information is power and the branch with the most classified intelligence is king and alone makes war. Congress, and by default, the public, are largely irrelevant.
Fear should not compel us to go to war. A decision of that consequence should only follow a rigorous debate among all of our leaders on the necessity for war based on the best information available. And while they're at it, a debate on the quality of that information as well.
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion


text:
Celebrities everywhere seem to be lightening up their hair color for spring and summer. And why not? Sunkissed strands are the perfect accessory to your sundress and sandals.
Our June cover girl Sofia Vergara just dyed her hair back to her original super light roots, Emily Blunt went blonde recently, and now Drew Barrymore is jumping back on the blonde bandwagon, too.
Drew told us at her Flower beauty line launch, "There are no rules with makeup, but as a new mom I like to look as young as possible." Perhaps she feels her fountain of youth is some seriously light locks.
Either way, we think she looks amazing with blonde hair. Plus, it reminds us of the days when she rocked the strand shade in movies like Never Been Kissed, The Wedding Singer—the list goes on.
Now, let's hear from you. What do you think of her recent color change?
Photo: PacificCoastNews.com/FameFlynet


text:
12 June 2009
There's too much caffeine in your bloodstream...*
dress: 50s cotton day dress
purse: vintage John Romain
shoes: vintage Etienne Aigner oxfords
belt: thrifted
* listening to: The Smiths - Strangeways, Here We Come "A Rush and a Push and the Land is Ours"
Sorry it's been a bit of a boring week around here. Honestly the combination of cutting back on spending and loads of rain has left me feeling a bit uninspired. I've been hearing the phrase "shop your closet" thrown around quite a bit lately so I thought I'd give it a try. Last night I took down a couple of boxes from the top of my closet where I was storing some extra clothes and I found a few things that I thought I had gotten rid of. I have to say it was quite fun finding things that I thought were long gone. I switched them out with some dresses that were hanging in my closet. Hopefully, now I'll forget about those dresses and months from now when I take those boxes back down, it'll be like finding treasures all over again.
photos by Tom b.
20 comments:
- MYCLOSETGARDEN said...
Love the colors of this dress and the photographs are quite nice.
If you are looking for a little chuckle today, visit my blog:
- June 12, 2009
- thevamoose said...
that last photo is so beautiful!
your dress is lovely but i really want the belt.
- June 12, 2009
- Anonymous said...
i love your dress, its nice to see you wearing some more patterns for a change :)
- June 12, 2009
- Chronically Vintage said...
Heavens, I adore that charming plaid dress. It fits you to a tee and looks positively gorgeous!
Wishing you a stellar weekend,
♥ Jessica
- June 12, 2009
- Chie - Vivat Veritas said...
lovely pictures! i love the one with you by the window.
I'm presenting you with the "One Lovely Blog Award - pls visit my blog for more detail:)
- June 12, 2009
- Mars said...
there's such a great mood to these photos. i love this dress and its muted colors <3
- June 12, 2009
- jimena said...
looking lovely with that dress...
love ur purse!
- June 12, 2009
- Manja said...
Lovely! That dress and the purse are SO pretty :)
- June 13, 2009
- Amelia said...
The bottom right picture is stunning! I hope you feel more inspired :)
- June 13, 2009
- The Little Princess said...
Hey, I just found your blog. It's great:-) I love your pictures.
- June 13, 2009
- mice said...
Really lovable dress! ^^
- June 13, 2009
- orli said...
this dress looks simple yet it's absolutely gorgeous. is it collarless?
- June 13, 2009
- Isabel said...
You look so good! The plaid dress is amazing.
- June 13, 2009
- sara said...
that song will be in my head all weekend...thank you!
- June 13, 2009
- chelsea said...
I am so very into that summery plaid right now. Such a pretty dress.
I also love when I find things I have forgotten about. I am moving to Chicago here soon and I am going to store a lot of clothes at my parent's house. I cannot wait to dig through that in over a year. What amazing things I will find!
- June 13, 2009
- Tracy said...
that's one of the best places to shop! i always keep a couple bags of stuff for some time before i really get rid of it. and i generally keep about half the stuff when i finally go through it again!
- June 13, 2009
- geek-betty said...
I love the last photo, where you are peeking through the screen.
- June 14, 2009
- Jessica said...
Oh dear, this is another favorite dress of yours for me!! (amongst wayy too many!) You look as lovely as can be!! The whole setting is gorgeous too! Really, really perfect and all things wonderful!
- June 14, 2009
- Meghan said...
I love the shopping your closet idea! With the economy and all it's useful to cut corners.
Lovely dress!
- June 15, 2009
- Rachel said...
Somehow I missed this post until now. You look lovely and the pictures are stunning. I love the dress. Is that an old greenhouse of some sort? Is it abandoned? I just took pictures in my own greenhouse a few days ago, although they're not so dreamy as these. Check them out if you want, they're on my blog.
- June 19, 2009