news , events , issues , trends

Free Enterprise Zone, The Freeman, Leonard E. Read

Editor’s Note: Leonard E. Read was born September 26, 1898. Below is a reprise of one of his timeless and timely classics.

From the day when the first members of councils placed exterior authority higher than interior, that is to say, recognized the decisions of men united in councils as more important and more sacred than reason and conscience; on that day began lies that caused the loss of millions of human beings and which continue their unhappy work to the present day.

—Leo Tolstoy[1]

This is a striking statement. Is it possible that there is something of a wholly destructive nature which has its source in councilmanic, or in group, or in committee-type action? Can this sort of thing generate lies that actually cause the loss of “millions of human beings”?

Any reasonable clue to the unhappy state of our affairs merits investigation. Two world wars that settled nothing except adding to the difficulties of avoiding even worse ones; men lacking in good character rising to positions of power over millions of other men; freedom to produce, to trade, to travel, disappearing from the earth; everywhere the fretful talk of security as insecurity daily becomes more evident; suggested solutions to problems made of the stuff that gave rise to the problems; the tragic spectacle, even here in America, of any one of many union leaders being able, at will, to control a strategic part of the complex exchange machinery on which the livelihood of all depends; these and other perplexities of import combine to raise a tumultuous “why,” and to hasten the search for answers.
The Search for Answers

Strange how wide and varied the search, as though we intuitively knew the cause to lie in some elusive, hidden, unnoticed error. The affair is serious. The stake is life itself. And the error or errors, it is agreed at least by the serious-minded, may well be found deep in the thoughts and behaviors of men, even of well-intentioned men. Anyway, everything and everyone is suspect. And, why not? When there is known to be a culprit and the culprit is not known, what other scientifically sound procedure is there?

“. . . on that day began lies. . . .” That is something to think about. Obviously, if everything said or written were lies, then truth or right principles would be unknown. Subtract all knowledge of right principles and there would not be even chaos among men. Quite likely there would be no men at all.

If half of everything said or written were lies. . . .

Human life is dependent not only on the knowledge of right principles but dependent, also, on actions in accordance with right principles. Admittedly there are wrong principles and right principles. However, the nearest that any person can get to right principles—truth—is that which his highest personal judgment dictates as right. Beyond that one cannot go or achieve. Truth, then, as nearly as any individual can express it, is in strict accordance with this inner, personal dictate of rightness.

The accurate representation of this inner, personal dictate is intellectual integrity. It is the expressing, living, acting of such truth as any given person is in possession of. Inaccurate representation of what one believes to be right is untruth. It is a lie.

Attaining knowledge of right principles is an infinite process. It is a development to be pursued but never completed. Intellectual integrity, the accurate reflection of highest personal judgment, on the other hand, is within the reach of all. Thus, the best we can do with ourselves is to represent ourselves at our best. To do otherwise is to tell a lie. To tell lies is to destroy such truth as is known. To deny truth is to destroy ourselves.

It would seem to follow, then, that if we could isolate any one or numerous origins of lies we might put the spotlight on the genesis of our troublous times. This is why it seems appropriate to accept Tolstoy’s statement as a hypothesis and examine into the idea that lies begin with “decisions of men united in councils as more important and more sacred than reason and conscience.” For, certainly, today, much of the decision that guides national and world policy springs from “men united in councils.”

In what manner, then, do “the decisions of men united in councils” tend to initiate lies? Experience with these arrangements suggests that there are several ways.
The Spirit of the Mob

The first has to do with a strange and what in most instances must be an unconscious behavior of men in association. Consider the mob. It is a loose-type association. The mob will tar and feather, burn at the stake, string up by the neck, and otherwise murder. But dissect this association, pull it apart, investigate its individual components. Each person, very often, is a God-fearing, home-loving, wouldn’t-kill-a-fly type of individual.

What happens, then? What makes persons in a mob behave as they do? What accounts for the distinction between these persons acting as responsible individuals and acting in association?

Perhaps it is this: These persons, when in mob association, and maybe at the instigation of a demented leader, remove the self-disciplines which guide them in individual action; thus the evil that is in each person is released, for there is some evil in all of us. In this situation, no one of the mobsters consciously assumes the personal guilt for what is thought to be a collective act but, instead, puts the onus of it on an abstraction which, without persons, is what the mob is.

There may be the appearance of unfairness in relating mob association to association in general. In all but one respect, yes. But in one respect there is a striking similarity.

Persons advocate proposals in association that they would in no circumstance practice in individual action. Honest men, by any of the common standards of honesty, will, in a board or a committee, sponsor, for instance, legal thievery—that is, they will urge the use of the political means to exact the fruits of the labor of others for the purpose of benefiting themselves, their group, or their community.

These leaders, for they have been elected or appointed to a board or a committee, do not think of themselves as having sponsored legal thievery. They think of the board, the committee, the council, or the association as having taken the action.[2] The onus of the act, to their way of thinking, is put on an abstraction which is what a board or an association is without persons.

Imagine this: Joe Doakes passed away and floated up to the Pearly Gates. He pounded on the Gates and St. Peter appeared.

“Who are you, may I ask?”

“My name is Joe Doakes, sir.”

“Where are you from?”

“I am from Updale, U.S.A.”

“Why are you here?”

“I plead admittance, Mr. St. Peter.”

St. Peter scanned his scroll and said, “Yes, Joe, you are on my list. Sorry I can’t let you in. You stole money from others, including widows and orphans.”

“Mr. St. Peter, I had the reputation of being an honest man. What do you mean, I stole money from widows and orphans?”

“Joe, you were a member, a financial supporter and once on the Board of Directors of The Updale Do-Good Association. It advocated a municipal golf course in Updale which took money from widows and orphans in order to benefit you and a hundred other golfers.”

“Mr. St. Peter, that was The Updale Do-Good Association that took that action, not your humble applicant, Joe Doakes.”

St. Peter scanned his scroll again, slowly raised his head, and said somewhat sadly, “Joe, The Updale Do-Good Association is not on my list, nor any foundation, nor any chamber of commerce, nor any trade association, nor any labor union, nor any P.T.A. All I have listed here are persons, just persons.”

It ought to be obvious that we as individuals stand responsible for our actions regardless of any wishes to the contrary, or irrespective of the devices we try to arrange to avoid personal responsibility. Actions of the group character heretofore referred to are lies for in no sense are they accurate responses to the highest judgments of the individuals concerned.
The Spirit of the Committee

The second way that lies are initiated by “the decisions of men united in councils” inheres in commonly accepted committee practices. For example: A committee of three has been assigned the task of preparing a report on what should be done about rent control. The first member is devoted to the welfare-state idea and believes that rents should forever be controlled by governmental fiat. The second member is a devotee of the voluntary society, free-market economy, and a government of strictly limited powers and, therefore, believes that rent control should be abolished forthwith. The third member believes rent controls to be bad but thinks that the decontrol should be effected gradually, over a period of years.

This not uncommon situation is composed of men honestly holding three irreconcilable beliefs. Yet, a report is expected and under the customary committee theory and practice is usually forthcoming. What to do? Why not hit upon something that is not too disagreeable to any one of the three? For instance, why not bring in a report recommending that landlords be permitted by government to increase rents in an amount not to exceed 15 percent? Agreed!

In this hypothetical but common instance the recommendation is a fabrication, pure and simple. Truth, as understood by any one of the three, has no spokesman. By any reasonable definition a lie has been told.
The Lowest Common Denominator

Another example. Three men having no preconceived ideas are appointed to bring in a report. What will they agree to? Only that which they are willing to say in concert which, logically, can be only the lowest common-denominator opinion of the majority! The lowest common-denominator opinion of two persons cannot be an accurate reflection of the highest judgment of each of the two. The lowest common-denominator opinion of a set of men is at variance with truth as here defined. Again, it is a fabrication. Truth has no spokesman. A lie has been told.

These examples (numberless variations could be cited) suggest only the nature of the lie in embryo. It is interesting to see what becomes of it.

Not all bodies called committees are true committees, a phase of the discussion that will be dealt with later. However, the true committee, the arrangement which calls for resolution in accordance with what a majority of the members are willing to say in concert, is but the instigator of fabrications yet more pronounced. The committee, for the most part, presupposes another larger body to which its recommendations are made.

These larger bodies have a vast, almost an all-inclusive, range in present-day American life. The neighborhood development associations; the small town and big city chambers of commerce; the regional and national trade associations; the P.T.A.’s; labor unions organized vertically to encompass crafts and horizontally to embrace industries; farmers’ granges and co-ops; medical and other kinds of professional societies; ward, precinct, county, state, and national organizations of political parties; governmental councils from the local police department board to the Congress of the United States; the United Nations; thousands and tens of thousands of them, every citizen embraced by several of them and millions of citizens embraced by scores of them; most of them “resoluting” as groups, deciding as “men united in councils.”

These associational arrangements divide quite naturally into two broad classes: (1) those that are of the voluntary type, the kind to which we pay dues if we want to, and (2) those that are a part of government, the kind to which we pay taxes whether we want to or not.

For the purposes of this critique, emphasis will be placed on the voluntary type. In many respects criticisms applying to the former are valid when applied to the latter[3]; nonetheless, there are distinctions between the way one should relate oneself to a voluntary association and the way one, for the sake of self-protection, is almost compelled to relate himself to a coercive agency.

Now, it is not true, nor is it here pretended, that every associational resolution originates in distortions of personal conceptions of what is right. But any one of the millions of citizens who participates in these associations has, by experience, learned how extensive these fabrications are. As a matter of fact, there has developed a rather large acceptance of the notion that wisdom can be derived from the averaging of opinions, providing there are enough of them. The quantitative theory of wisdom, so to speak?
A Lie Compounded

If one will concede that the aforementioned committee characteristics and council behaviors are perversions of truth, it becomes interesting to observe the manner of their extension—to observe how the lie is compounded.

Analyzed, it is something like this: An association takes a stand on a certain issue and claims or implies it speaks for its one million members. It is possible, of course, that each of the one million members agrees with the stand taken by the organization. But, in all probability, this is an untruthful statement, for the following possible reasons:
If every member were actually polled on the issue, and the majority vote was accepted as the organization’s position, there is no certainty that more than 500,001 persons agreed with the position stated as that of the one million.
If not all members were polled, or not all were at the meeting where the voting took place, there is only the certainty that a majority of those voting favored the position of the organization—still claimed to be the belief of one million persons. If the quorum should be 100, there is no certainty that more than 51 persons agreed with that position.
It is still more likely that the opinion of the members was not tested at all. The officers, or some committee, or some one person may have determined the stand of the organization. Then there is no certainty that more than one person (or a majority of the committee) favored that position.
And, finally, if that person should be dishonest—that is, untrue to that which he personally believed to be right, either by reason of ulterior motives, or by reason of anticipating what the others will like or approve—then, it is pretty certain that the resolution did not even originate in honest opinion.

An example will assist in making the point. The economist of a national association and a friend were breakfasting one morning, just after the end of World War II. Wage and price controls were still in effect. The conversation went something as follows:

“I have just written a report on wage and price controls which I think you will like.”

“Why do you say you think I will like it? Why don’t you say you know I will like it?”

“Well, I—er—hedged a little on rent controls.”

“You don’t believe in rent controls. Why did you hedge?”

“Because the report is as strong as I think our Board of Directors will adopt.”

“As the economist, isn’t it your business to state that which you believe to be right? If the Board Members want to take a wrong action, let them do so and bear the responsibility for it.”
Paying for Misrepresentation

Actually, what happened? The Board did adopt that report. It was represented to the Congress as the considered opinion of the constituency of that association. Many of the members believed in the immediate abolishment of rent control. Yet, they were reported as believing otherwise—and paying dues to be thus misrepresented. By supporting this procedure with their membership and their money they were as responsible as though they had gone before the Congress and told the lie themselves.

To remove the twofold dishonesty from such a situation, the spokesman of that association would have to say something like this to the Congress:

“This report was adopted by our Board of Directors, 35 of the 100 being present. The vote was 18 to 12 in favor of the report, 5 not voting. The report itself was prepared by our economist, but it is not an accurate reflection of his views.”[4]

Such honesty or exactness is more the exception than the rule as everyone who has had experience in associational work can attest. What really happens is a misrepresentation of concurrence, a program of lying about how many of who stands for what. Truth, such as is known, is seldom spoken. It is warped into a misleading distortion. It is obliterated by this process of the majority speaking for the minority, more often by the minority speaking for the majority, sometimes by one dishonest opportunist speaking for thousands. Truth, such as is known—the best judgments of individuals—for the most part, goes unrepresented, unspoken.

This, then, is the stuff out of which much of local, national, and world policy is being woven. Is it any wonder that many citizens are confused?

Three questions are in order, and deserve suggested answers:
What is the reason for having all these troubles with truth?
What should we do about these associational difficulties?
Is there a proper place for associational activity as relating to important issues?

“And now remains

That we find out the cause of this effect;

Or, rather say, the cause of this defect,

For this effect, defective, comes by cause.”

Pointing out causes is a hazardous venture for, as one ancient sage put it, “Even from the beginnings of the world descends a chain of causes.” Thus, for the purpose of this critique, it would be folly to attempt more than casual reference to some of our own recent experiences.

First, there doesn’t appear to be any widespread, lively recognition of the fact that conscience, reason, knowledge, integrity, fidelity, understanding, judgment, and other virtues are the distinctive and exclusive properties of individual persons.

Somehow, there follows from this lack of recognition the notion that wisdom can be derived by pooling the conclusions of a sufficient number of persons, even though no one of them has applied his faculties to the problems in question. With this as a notion the imagination begins to ascribe personal characteristics to a collective—the committee, the group, the association—as though the collective could think, judge, know, or assume responsibility. With this as a notion, there is the inclination to substitute the “decisions of men united in councils” for reason and conscience. With this as a notion, the responsibility for personal thought is relieved and, thus relieved, fails to materialize to its fullest.
A Blind Faith

Second, there is an almost blind faith in the efficacy and rightness of majority decision as though the mere preponderance of opinion were the device for determining what is right. This thinking is consistent with and a part of the “might makes right” doctrine. This thinking, no doubt, is an outgrowth of the American political pattern, lacking, it seems, an observance of the essential distinctions between voluntary and coercive agencies. It is necessary that these distinctions be understood unless the whole associational error is to continue. The following is, at least, a suggested explanation:

Government—organized police force—which according to best American theory should have a monopoly of coercive power, must contain a final authority. Such authority was not planned to be in the person of a monarch, in an oligarchy, or even in a set of elected representatives. The ultimate, final authority was designed to derive from and to reside with the people. Erected as safeguards against the despotism that such a democratic arrangement is almost certain to inflict on its members were (1) the Constitution and (2) the legislative, executive, and judicial functions so divided and diffused that each might serve as a check on the others.

When the concession is made that government is necessary to assure justice and maximum freedom, and when the decision is made that the ultimate authority of that government shall rest with the people, it follows that majority vote is not a matter of choice but a necessity whenever this ultimate authority expresses itself. No alternative exists with this situation as a premise. To change from majority vote as a manner of expression would involve changing the premise, changing to a situation in which the ultimate authority rests in one person.

For reasons stated and implied throughout this critique the majority-decision system is considered to be most inexpert. However, it proves to be a virtue rather than a fault as applied to the exceedingly dangerous coercive power, providing the coercive power is limited to its sphere of policing. This inexpertness in such a circumstance tends to keep the coercive power from becoming too aggressive.

Conceding the limitation of the coercive power, which was implicit in the American design, the really important matters of life, all of the creative aspects, are outside this coercive sphere and are left to the attentions of men in voluntary effort and free association.

The idea of citizens left free to their home life, their business life, their religious life, with the coercive power limited to protecting citizens in these pursuits presents, roughly, the duality of the American pattern. On the one hand is the really important part of life, the creative part. On the other hand is the minor part, the part having to do with constraint. Constraining and creating call for distinctly different arrangements. Constraint can stop the trains but it is not the force we use to build a railroad.

Out of this pattern has developed a high appreciation for our form of government, particularly as we have compared it with the coercive agencies of the Old World. Here is the point: The majority-decision system, an effect rather than a cause of our form of government, has been erroneously credited as responsible for the superiority of our form of government. It has been thought of as its distinctive characteristic. Therefore, the majority-decision system is regarded as the essence of rightness. Without raising questions as to the distinctions between creating and constraining we have taken a coercive-agency device and attempted its application in free association. Something is not quite right. Perhaps this is one of the causes.
Loss of Reason

Third, we have in this country carried the division-of-labor practice to such a high point and with such good effect in standard-of-living benefits that we seem to have forgotten that the practice has any limitations. Many of us, in respect to our voluntary associational activities, have tried to delegate moral and personal responsibilities to mere abstractions, which is what associations are, without persons. In view of (1) this being an impossibility, (2) our persistent attempts to do it, nonetheless, and (3) the consequent loss of reason and conscience when personal responsibility is not personally assumed, we have succeeded in manufacturing little more than massive quantities of collective declarations and resolutions. These, lacking in both wit and reason, have the power to inflict damage but are generally useless in conferring understanding. So much for causes.

“What should we do about these associational difficulties?” This writer, to be consistent with his own convictions, finds it necessary to drop into first person, singular, to answer this question.

In brief, I do not know what our attitude should be, but only what mine is. It is to have no part in any association whatever which takes actions implicating me for which I am not ready and willing to accept personal responsibility.

Put it this way: If I am opposed, for instance, to spoliation—legal plunder—I am not going to risk being reported in its favor. This is a matter having to do with morals, and moral responsibility is strictly a personal affair. In this, and like areas, I prefer to speak for myself. I do not wish to carry the division-of-labor idea, the delegation of authority, to this untenable extreme.

This determination of mine refers only to voluntary associations and does not include reference to membership in or support of a political party. The latter has to do with my relationship to coercive agencies and these, as I have suggested, are birds of another feather.

One friend who shares these general criticisms objects to the course I have determined on. He objects on the ground that he must remain in associations which persist in misrepresenting him in order to effect his own influence in bettering them. If one accepts this view, how can one keep from “holing up” with any evil to be found, anywhere? If lending one’s support to an agency which lies about one’s convictions is as evil as lying oneself, and if to stop such evil in others one has to indulge in evil, it seems evident that evil will soon become unanimous. The alternative? Stop doing evil. This at least has the virtue of lessening the evildoers by one.

The question, “Is there a proper place for associational activity as relating to important issues?” is certainly appropriate if the aforementioned criticisms be considered valid.

First, the bulk of activities conducted by many associations is as businesslike, as economical, as appropriate to the division-of-labor process, as is the organization of specialists to bake bread or to make automobiles. It is not this vast number of useful service activities that is in question.

The phase of activities here in dispute has to do with a technic, a method by which reason and conscience—such truths as are possessed—are not only robbed of incentive for improvement but are actually turned into fabrications, and then represented as the convictions of persons who hold no such convictions.

It was noted above that not all bodies called committees are true committees—a true committee being an arrangement by which a number of persons bring forth a report consistent with what the majority is willing to state in concert. The true committee is part and parcel of the majority-decision system.
Intellectual Leveling-Up

The alternative arrangement, on occasion referred to as a committee, may include the same set of men. The distinction is that the responsibility and the authority for a study is vested not in the collective, the group, but in one person, preferably the one most skilled in the subject at issue. The others serve as consultants. The one person exercises his own judgment as to the suggestions to be incorporated or omitted. The report is his and is presented as his, with such acknowledgments of assistance and concurrence as the facts warrant. In short, the responsibility for the study and the authority to conduct it are reposed where responsibility and authority are capable of being exercised—in a person. This arrangement takes full advantage of the skills and specialisms of all parties concerned. The tendency here is toward an intellectual leveling-up, whereas with the true committee the lowest common-denominator opinion results.

On occasion, associations are formed for a particular purpose and supported by those who are like-minded as to that purpose. As long as the associational activities are limited to the stated purpose and as long as the members remain like-minded, the danger of misrepresentation is removed.

It is the multi-purposed association, the one that potentially may take a “position” on a variety of subjects, particularly subjects relating to the rights or the property of others—moral questions—where misrepresentation is not only possible but almost certain.

The remedy here, if a remedy can be put into effect, is for the association to quit taking “positions” except on such rare occasions as unanimous concurrence is manifest, or except as the exact and precise degree and extent of concurrence is represented.

The alternative step to most associational “positions” is for the members to employ the division-of-labor theory by pooling their resources to supply services to the members—as individuals. Provide headquarters and meeting rooms where they may assemble in free association, exchange ideas, take advantage of the availability and knowledge of others, know of each other’s experiences. In addition to this, statisticians, research experts, libraries, and a general secretariat and other aids to effective work can be provided. Then, let the individuals speak or write or act as individual persons! Indeed, this is the real, high purpose of voluntary associations.

The practical as well as the ethical advantages of this suggested procedure may not at first be apparent to everyone. Imagine, if you can, Patrick Henry as having said:

“I move that this convention go on record as insisting that we prefer death to slavery.”

Now, suppose that the convention had adopted that motion. What would have been its force? Certainly almost nothing as compared with Patrick Henry’s ringing words:

“I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

No one in this instance concerned himself with what Patrick Henry was trying to do to him or to someone else. One thought only of what Patrick Henry had decided for himself and weighed, more favorably, the merits of emulation. No convention, no association, no “decisions of men united in councils” could have said such a thing in the first place, and second, anything the members might have said in concert could not have equaled this. Third, had the convention been represented in any such sentiments it is likely that misrepresentation would have been involved.

One needs to reflect but a moment on the words of wisdom which have come down to us throughout all history, the words and works that have had the power to live, the words and works around which we have molded much of our lives, and one will recognize that they are the words and works of persons, not collective resolutions, not what men have uttered in concert, not the “decisions of men united in councils.”
A Waste of Time

In short, if effectiveness for what’s right is the object then the decision-of-men-united-in-council practice could well be abandoned, if for nothing else, on the basis of its impracticality. It is a waste of time in the creative areas, that is, for the advancement of truth. It is a useful and appropriate device only as it relates to the coercive, that is to the restrictive, suppressive, destructive functions.

The reasons for the impracticality of this device in the creative areas seem clear. Each of us when seeking perfection, whether of the spirit, of the intellect, or of the body, looks not to our inferiors but to our betters, not to those who self-appoint themselves as our betters, but to those who, in our own humble judgment, are our betters. Experience has shown that such perfection as there is exists in individuals, not in the lowest common-denominator expressions of a collection of individuals. Perfection emerges with the clear expression of personal faiths—the truth as it is known, not with the confusing announcement of verbal amalgams—lies.

“. . . on that day began lies that caused the loss of millions of human beings and which continue their unhappy work to the present day.” The evidence, if fully assembled and correctly presented, would, no doubt, convincingly affirm this observation.

How to stop lies? It is simply a matter of personal determination and a resolve to act and speak in strict accordance with one’s inner, personal dictate of what is right. And for each of us to see to it that no other man or set of men is given permission to represent us otherwise.

If such truth as we are in possession of were in no manner inhibited, then life on this earth would be at its highest possible best, short of further enlightenment.
Notes
The Law of Love and the Law of Violence (New York: Rudolph Field), p. 26.
It is acknowledged that most of us acting in association do not consciously regard any of our acts as bad. Yet, the fact remains that we persist in doing things in this circumstance that we would not do on our own responsibility. Actually, involved is a double standard of morality. Morality is exclusively a personal quality. Any action not good enough to be regarded as attached to one’s person is, ipso facto, bad.
The common political idea that a member of Congress, for instance, must “compromise,” that is, must on some issues vote contrary to his convictions in order to effect a greater good on some subsequent issue, or to keep himself in office that he may insure the public good, leaves shattered and destroyed any moral basis of action. If each member of Congress were to act in strict accordance with his inner dictate of what is right, the final outcome of Congressional action would, of course, be a composite of differing convictions. But the alternative of this is a composite of inaccurate reflections of rightness.
It is evident that any such report as this is worthless. Yet, a more pretentious report would be a lie, a thing of positive harm. If a procedure can result only in worthlessness or harm, the procedure itself should be in question.

________________________________

Leonard Read (1898–1983) was the founder and first president of FEE.

Intel Corp. will reveal details about its next-generation Atom "Cedarview" central processing unit (CPU) at the Intel Developer Forum (IDF) that will take next month in Beijing, China. The information will partly reveal peculiarities of next-generation netbooks, nettops and other ultra low-cost personal computers (ULCPCs).

"This track delivers the system design information and selected technical details needed to develop the next generation of Intel Atom processor-based devices. Intel experts will reveal both the market research data and the technical underpinnings of system definitions for netbooks - including the classmate PC, tablets, and entry-level desktops," a description of an IDF session at Intel's web-site reads.

Besides revealing details about the new chip and ULCPC platform, Intel will likely show concept systems and performance estimations at the show that will take place from April 12 to April 13, 2011. Actual manufacturers will likely showcase their prototypes of the forthcoming netbooks and nettops a little later at Computex Taipei in June, 2011.



Intel plans to release its new platform for netbooks and nettops code-named Cedar Trail based on code-named Atom "Cedarview" processor in Q4 2011, according to information revealed earlier. Intel Cedarview system-on-chip with a new Atom core will feature DirectX 10.1-capable graphics engine that will have integrated high-definition video decoder (in order to enable Blu-ray disc playback on all Atom-based systems), will support higher clock-speeds, will have improved DDR3 memory controller and will feature digital interfaces for displays. The document by Intel also claims that the new chip will consume lower amount of power, perhaps, because it will be made using 32nm fabrication process. The new Cedarview processor will continue to utilize the NM10 input/output controller, which should make it easier for manufacturers to transit to the new Cedar Trail platform.

Thanks to integration of high-definition video decoder into the new Atom SoC, all systems powered by the new chip will be able to playback Blu-ray video. Unfortunately, since the new Atom SoC has outdated DirectX 10.1-class graphics core, it will be unable to use it for general purpose computing. As a result, even the forthcoming platform for ULCPCs from Intel will not be able to match AMD's Brazos in terms of functionality in many terms.

The new platform for ultra low-cost personal computers will be Intel's second major updats for the Atom family since the introduction in 2008.

The doctors of Grey's Anatomy definitely know something about both surgery and sex – but do they know how to sing?

Viewers are about to find out Thursday, when several of the more melodically inclined members of the cast – Tony winner Sara Ramirez, Kevin McKidd, Chandra Wilson and Chyler Leigh among them – raise their voices in song for a special musical episode of the medical drama.

Grey's Anatomy: The Music Event features an extended musical fantasy playing out in the head of Callie Torres (Ramirez), with performances of several tunes very familiar to longtime viewers of the show, including The Fray's "How to Save a Life," Snow Patrol's "Chasing Cars" and Brandi Carlile's "The Story."

"I sing a little bit," McKidd told PEOPLE recently at the 8th Annual John Varvatos fundraiser for rape crisis center Stuart House. "I'm not like Sara Ramirez – she's pretty amazing! I mean, off the chart. She's a Tony Award winner for a reason, and the rest of us bask in her shadow. Chyler is a great singer, Chandra Wilson's a great singer, and I can get away with it, let's put it that way. I'll let people judge what they think."

One Grey's doc who wasn't McDream-ing about a solo was series star Patrick Dempsey. "I have no voice at all, so I was very adamant not to sing," Dempsey said. "I'm very much happy to be supporting the rest of the cast in this one." But Dempsey said the cast quickly got over any apprehension about the high-concept episode.

"Everybody was a little leery of it at first, because we were like 'Well, should we jump on the bandwagon of Glee?' because they do what they do so beautifully," said Dempsey. "But it was an opportunity, I think, for some of the cast members to really show their talents musically. And it's really quite moving when you hear Sara's voice and Kevin's voice. Even Justin Chambers sings beautifully, and Eric Dane does a great job. So it's really nice to see them have a moment to shine in a different way and hopefully entertain the fans and keep it fresh."

McKidd said he didn't care if he fell flat. He loved the chance to shake things up. "Nobody has a clue what's going to work, and that's the fun of it," he said. "That's the experiment of being in show business. You don't know what is going to resonate with an audience and what isn't, and you've got to try stuff. I'm always up for that challenge. That's what I love about acting and the job I do."

"I don't love musicals, so I was kind of like 'Oh, great,' " admitted Jesse Williams, who plays Dr. Jackson Avery. "But it's really, really beautiful. Shooting it was really, really moving."

But not quite moving enough for Williams to want to move from the chorus into the spotlight. "I think the producers mistook me saying no for false modesty, but then they got me in the booth and realized, yeah, they should probably not make anybody endure the horrors of my voice."

Four former Auburn football players claimed they received thousands of dollars of cash from boosters from a number of schools on an HBO special that airs Wednesday night, according to the website Sports by Brooks.

The players, Chaz Ramsey, Troy Reddick, Stanley McClover and Raven Gray, alleged they received money as part of a pay-for-play scheme during their time at Auburn. None played there more recently than 2007.

"Somebody came to me, I don't even know this person and he was like, 'we would love for you to come to LSU and he gave me a handshake and it had five hundred dollars in there," McClover said in the HBO special, an advance copy of which was obtained by Sports by Brooks. "That's called a money handshake ... I grabbed it and I'm like, 'wow,' hell I thought ten dollars was a lot of money back then."

McClover told "Real Sports" that boosters from Auburn, Michigan State and Ohio State also arranged for him to get money and other inducements such as sexual services when he was being recruited in 2003. He originally committed to Ohio State but switched his commitment to Auburn after receiving cash that he said persuaded him to change his commitment. On that occasion, he said the cash was delivered in a bookbag. The amount was not disclosed.

"I literally passed out I couldn't believe it was true," the HBO transcript quoted McClover as saying. "I felt like I owed them."

"Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel" reports the NCAA declined interview requests and Auburn officials declined to comment, according to Sports by Brooks.

Also in the interview with HBO, Ramsey said Auburn boosters would approach him after games, and that they would give as much as $300 to $400 a game. He said that before he arrived at Auburn, a booster gave him spending money during his junior college career.

The former Auburn offensive guard said he accepted more than $5,000 in cash from boosters, but that he has since taken a stand against the practice. "I'm not out to get anybody, I want high school athletes to know what they're getting into," he told HBO.

When unrest exploded in Libya last month, Khamis Gadhafi--the youngest son of the country's embattled leader Muammar Gadhafi--wasn't around. He was on an internship program in the United States.

Khamis, who runs Libya's special forces, quickly returned to his home country, where he has led a military unit that has brutally suppressed rebel forces.

The internship, which lasted a month, was sponsored by AECOM, a Los Angeles-based global engineering and design company that has been working with the Libyan regime to modernize the country's infrastructure. Khadis made stops in San Francisco, Colorado, Houston, Washington, and New York City, meeting with high-tech companies (including Google, Apple, and Intel), universities, and defense contractors like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. While in the Big Apple, Khamis even took in the Broadway show "Mamma Mia."

News of Khamis's internship, which was approved by the State Department, was first reported by ABC News.

Since coming home, Khamis appears to have played a key role in helping his father's regime in its violent campaign to quell the uprising. He has led the elite 32nd Reinforced Brigade, known at the Khamis Brigade, which reportedly has been involved in brutally suppressing rebel forces.

Vice Adm. William Gortney of the Joint Chiefs of Staff described the Khamis Brigade, whose headquarters were the target of U.S. Tomahawk missiles, as "one of the most active in terms of attacking innocent people."

On Monday night, Libyan television showed Khamis dressed in his military uniform and greeting people at his father's Tripoli compound.

A spokesman for AECOM told CNN that the company was "shocked and outraged" to learn of Khamis' military role.

AECOM added in a statement: "The educational internship, which consisted of publicly available information, was aligned with our efforts to improve quality of life, specifically in Libya, where we were advancing public infrastructure such as access to clean water; quality housing; safe and efficient roads and bridges; reliable and affordable energy; and related projects that create jobs and opportunity."

This isn't the first time that Gadhafi's sons--and their ties to the west -- have hit the headlines. As we've written, the regime was embarrassed after Wikileaks cables shed light on the lavish New Year's parties that another son, Muatassim, has held on the Caribbean island of St. Barts, at which Mariah Carey, Usher, and Beyonce have all been paid to perform. And the current crisis also has spotlighted the Libyan leader's own personal eccentricities.

(Soldiers and dozens of tanks from the Libyan military's elite Khamis Brigade, led by Khamis Gadhafi. take positions and check vehicles in Harshan, Libya, Feb. 28, 2011.: Ben Curtis/A

The ICC [ Images ] on Tuesday agreed to allow India [ Images ]n TV channels to attend the high-voltage World Cup semi-finals between India and Pakistan following a request from Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni.


Soni stepped in to resolve the ongoing tussle between the ICC and the electronic media, which was barred by ICC from covering tomorrow's semi-final clash.

The minister had a meeting with the representatives of the News Broadcasters Association on Tuesday and then wrote a letter to Pawar requesting him to allow the electronic media to cover the event.

She proposed a 24-hour 'truce' in a dispute created by Indian non-rights holders (NRH) breaching the terms and conditions they had agreed to follow when they were awarded accreditation for the World Cup.

"Ms Soni had written to ICC President Sharad Pawar [ Images ] and asked for the television channels be allowed access into the ground at Mohali for this important game," ICC Chief Executive Haroon Lorgat [ Images ] said.

"At the same time she agreed to convene a meeting at the Ministry on 31 March 2011 to address the dispute which has been caused by repeated and serious breaches of the terms and conditions which these organisations had signed up to."

Giving a vivid outline of the facts, Lorgat said, "Firstly, the News Access Guidelines for Broadcasting the ICC Cricket World Cup were issued in January 2011 and all news broadcasters were reminded of these Guidelines in a letter from the ICC on 27 January.

"No objections to the guidelines were received and accreditations were issued to the NRH reporters and cameramen on condition that these guidelines were followed.

"Sadly there have been many breaches and despite requests for such activity to cease the NRH stations continued to break the rules.

"It was only as a last resort that the ICC withdrew the accreditation of these companies when they refused to sign an undertaking that they would desist from breaching the guidelines. It was not something done without very good reason," he added.

Lorgat, however, pledged to protect the rights of its broadcast and commercial partners.

"It is also important to understand that the removal of the accreditation does not prevent these channels from reporting the ICC Cricket World Cup. It only prevents them from entering the stadium. Footage is provided to them from several agencies, including SNTV and Reuters, the ICC's official news providers," he said.

"I am grateful for the minister's intervention in calling a meeting but I must repeat that we are committed to protecting the rights and investments of our broadcast partners as well as the exclusivity of our commercial partners.

"We will not allow that to be compromised and if the relevant members of the News Broadcasters' Association are not willing to give the necessary undertakings we require, we will have no other option but to withdraw accreditation for the final in Mumbai [ Images ]," he added.

Earlier in the day, ICC had barred electronic media, who breached the media guidelines for covering the ongoing World Cup, access to the PCA stadium, depriving them of covering the pre-match press conferences.

ICC officials, armed with a list of banned channels, checked the media accreditations of all the journalists as they entered the stadium to cover the press conferences of Indian skipper Mahendra Singh and Pakistan captain Shahid Afridi [ Images ].

Only those channels who were not in the banned list were permitted to enter the stadium while others had to report on World Cup related matters from outside the venue.

As a result, there were hordes of reporters from the print media but only a handful of television cameras at the press conference.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is under pressure from Congress to spell out an exit strategy for the U.S. military in Libya and provide a clear plan to end Col. Moammar Gadhafi's 42-year rule as the American public remains fiercely divided over the war.

Obama delivered a full-throated defense of his decision to deploy military forces to prevent a slaughter of Libyan civilians in his speech Monday and in the shadow of the United Nations on Tuesday. The president said the nation's conscience and its common interests "compel us to act" to protect civilian lives in Libya.

"We've learned from bitter experience — from the wars that were not prevented, the innocent lives that were not saved — is that all that's necessary for evil to triumph is that good people and responsible nations stand by and do nothing," the president said at the dedication of the Ronald H. Brown mission at the U.N.

In a series of network interviews, Obama insisted that the "noose is tightening" around Gadhafi although forces loyal to the longtime leader pounded the rebels with tanks and rockets Wednesday, forcing them to retreat. The president did not rule out arming the rebels, saying the U.S. and its partners could get weapons into Libya and all options were being considered.

In the course of his statements, however, Obama created more questions among lawmakers when he said ousting Gadhafi militarily would be a mistake and a diplomatic approach would be a better option.

"We hope Gadhafi leaves. I just don't think that that is a strategy," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday. "When you listen to what's going on and all the words, it is really nothing more than hope. So if Gadhafi doesn't leave, how long will NATO be there to enforce the no-fly zone?"

On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen are certain to face tough questions when they brief members of the House and Senate in closed-door, back-to-back sessions.

Their Capitol Hill appearance comes as a new Associated Press-GfK poll found the country split on U.S. involvement in military actions in Libya, with 48 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving.

About three-quarters say it's somewhat likely that U.S. forces will be involved in Libya for the long term. Fifty-five percent say they would favor the United States increasing its military action to remove Gadhafi from power, although only 13 percent favor U.S. ground troops, a step Obama has said he would not take.

The poll was conducted in the days leading up to the president's speech.

Reflecting the nation's divisions, several lawmakers praised Obama's actions while others raised a series of looming questions about the U.S. mission.

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama's 2008 rival for the presidency, said he appreciated the president's explanation of "why this intervention was both right and necessary, especially in light of the unprecedented democratic awakening that is now sweeping the broader Middle East."

McCain said Obama deserves strong bipartisan support in Congress and in the country on Libya.

But Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Obama needs to further refine U.S. purposes.

"I still did not hear a clearly defined goal for how long military operations will last in Libya," McKeon said. "Utilizing U.S. warriors to protect civilians from a brutal dictator is a noble cause, but asking them to maintain a stalemate while we hold out hope that Gadhafi will voluntarily leave his country raises serious questions about the duration of the mission."

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio sought congressional support Tuesday for his effort to cut off funds for the operation.

Under questioning by Congress, NATO's top commander, U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, said officials had seen "flickers" of possible al-Qaida and Hezbollah involvement with the rebel forces. But Stavridis said there was no evidence of significant numbers within the political opposition group's leadership.

"The intelligence that I'm receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership that I'm seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gadhafi," Stavridis told a Senate panel. "We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah. ... At this point, I don't have detail sufficient to say that there's a significant al-Qaida presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks."

Obama, in an interview with CBS News, said most of the opposition leaders are professionals such as lawyers and doctors, but "that doesn't mean that all the people — among all the people who opposed Gadhafi — there might not be elements that are unfriendly to the United States and our interests."

Clinton met in London with Mahmoud Jibril, a representative of the Libyan political opposition. The Obama administration is not ruling out a political solution in Libya that could include Gadhafi leaving the country, she said, but she acknowledged there is no timeline.

In the military campaign, a U.S. Navy ship fired 22 Tomahawk cruise missiles at weapon storage sites around Tripoli on Tuesday, according to a U.S. defense official. It was the highest number of Tomahawks fired in several days, even as the Navy has reduced the number of missile-firing ships and submarines off the coast.

The Libyan missiles in the storage sites targeted by the U.S. onslaught could have been used by pro-Gadhafi forces defending Tripoli, should heavy combat spread to the capital, which remains under Gadhafi's control. The rebels are outmatched in training, equipment and other measures of military might by Gadhafi's remaining forces, and would be hard-pressed to mount a full-scale battle for Tripoli now.

As for the overall international campaign against Gadhafi, Stavridis said he expected a three-star Canadian general to assume full NATO command of the operation by Thursday. Meanwhile, the Pentagon put the price tag for the war thus far at $550 million.

Optical illusions will be the focus of a children's art workshop to be offered by the SFA School of Art from 4 to 6 p.m. Tuesday, March 22, at The Cole Art Center @ The Old Opera House.

Participants in the class, which is open to first through eighth graders, will view "Rufus Butler Seder: LIFETILES," learning about Seder's optical glass-tiled murals popularly known as "movies for walls."

The students will then create their own optical illusions and artwork inspired by the exhibition, explained Dawn Stienecker, SFA lecturer of art education. She and SFA art education majors will teach the workshop.

Registration for each class is $5 and covers the cost of the materials and refreshments. Parents may pre-register by e-mailing Stienecker at stieneckdg@sfasu.edu.

Optical Illusions: Got a small room you wish was twice as big? Use paint to convey largeness, say the paint professionals at Canadian paint brand CIL. According to CIL, painting is the simplest and most economical way to make a small space appear larger. Not sure how this can be? Here are some tips:

- Draw the line. Paint a horizontal stripe around a small room to make it look deeper and wider.

- Be a colour schemer. Cool colours such as soft blues, purples and greens make smaller areas feel open and airy.

- Shed light on the subject. Assess the amount of natural and artificial light coming into the room. Good lighting makes paint colours appear lighter, so rooms that have a lot of natural light may tolerate a warmer hue.

- Avoid distractions. Paint the trim in a small room a different shade of the main colour so it will fade into the background. Also, use patterns sparingly.

ON first glances it may look King Kong has been unleashed...but don’t worry, this fearsome sight isn’t quite Knowsley Safari Park’s giant new attraction.

The picture - seemingly showing an enormous baboon delivering a fearsome blow on a car’s roof - is in fact an optical illusion, captured at the perfect moment by Chez Owen, who was visiting the tourist attraction with his family.

The baboons, which have a reputation for not being very car friendly, was perched on his bonnet, with its arm stretched out.

The small car it appears to be striking is in the distance.

The United States mobile phone market is still abuzz over AT&T announcing its intentions to acquire T-Mobile USA. While it is still at least a year away until this acquisition becomes finalized, it's not too early to start thinking about what this could mean later on for smartphone vendors and operating systems involved with the two companies. Handset redundancy is to be expected and some vendors may end up experiencing smaller shipment volumes than before. But will it be that way for everyone?

AT&T has enjoyed a long history with smartphones, being one of the first carriers to offer such a device in the United States. It has enjoyed terrific success with the Apple iPhone since 2007, has had exclusive rights to multiple smartphone models, and has offered smartphones running on each of the major operating systems. Moreover, AT&T has a strong presence among enterprise customers in addition to its large consumer base. T-Mobile's list of accomplishments in the smartphone space is equally impressive: it was the first carrier worldwide to offer an Android-powered smartphone (the T-Mobile G1 in 2008), has a strong history with Android smartphones, and has likewise had exclusive rights to multiple smartphone models.

The Dell Streak 7 tablet is available from T-Mobile for $200 on contract, or $450 if you go the contract-free option. But it turns out that you can pick up a Dell Streak 7 from T-Mobile, unlock it, and use it with AT&T’s network.

That’s because the tablet has an HSPA+ modem which actually supports both AT&T and T-Mobile’s wireless technologie. That means you can access either carrier’s 3G and 4G networks (if you consider HSPA+ to be 4G). You just have to unlock the device.

Right now the easiest way to unlock the Dell Streak 7 is to use UnlockStreak. The company will sell you an unlock code for $49. Once that’s done, you can just insert an AT&T SIM card and start using the tablet on AT&T’s network.

via StreakSmart

The report quotes an FCC official as saying that the government regulator would not “rubber-stamp” the transaction and that AT&T (NYSE: T) would have a “steep climb to say the least.”

Working in AT&T’s favor is a long history as one of the top-spending lobbyists and campaign contributors in Washington, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. AT&T also has ties to influential lawmakers and policymakers in both parties, as well as the backing of Communications Workers of America, the union that represents thousands of AT&T workers.

AT&T has 3,710 employees in the Kansas City area.

Overland Park-based Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S) has said that the combination of the No. 2 and No. 4 U.S. mobile carriers would create a company three times the size of Sprint, in terms of customers, and that regulators should take a good look at the planned deal. Sprint is the nation’s third-largest wireless carrier but would become a distant third if the deal went through. ...
Read Full Article

Happy Friday!

It’s official. Lindsay Lohan is changing her name! Lohan will be removing "Lohan" from her name and will now just be referred to as “Lindsay.” Lindsay’s mother Dina Sullivan explains in an exclusive interview with Popeater, "Lindsay is dropping the Lohan and just going by Lindsay. Plus, me and [younger daughter] Ali will be officially changing our last names back to my maiden name, Sullivan."

Lindsay will be joining the many celebrities in history that only go by one name, including Oprah, Madonna, Cher, Prince, and Lassie. Maybe dropping her surname will free her up to focus on acting. Remember when Lindsay was an actress? Me neither.

The ballerina who served as a dancing double for Natalie Portman's Oscar-winnning role in Black Swan tells EW she has been the victim of a "cover-up" to mislead the public about how much dancing Portman actually did in the film. "Of the full body shots, I would say 5 percent are Natalie," says Sarah Lane... 

Natalie Portman's dancing double for "Black Swan," Sarah Lane, told "Entertainment Weekly" that the public has been mislead about Portman's dancing in the film. "Of the full body shots, I would say 5 percent are Natalie... I mean, from a professional dancer's standpoint, she doesn't look like a professional ballet dancer at all and she can't dance in pointe shoes. And she can't move her body; she's very stiff."

Portman has said in interviews that she used a body double for scenes in the film, and her fiancé and "Black Swan" choreographer Benjamin Millepied told the L.A. Times that, "There are articles now talking about her dance double [Sarah Lane] that are making it sound like [Lane] did a lot of the work ... Honestly, 85 percent of that movie is Natalie." (Matt Sayles/AP Photo, Joe Schildhorn/PatrickMcMullan/Sipa Press)

The 1962 film the Manchurian Candidate is a certified classic. The political thriller was so good that it earned the best tribute it could get. A remake. In 2004, Denzel Washington took on the role originally played by Frank Sintra.
There was of course some updating in the remake, some new tweets, and lots of color. But the original black and white, still holds it own. So which one is better and what has been said in comparing the two films?Most film fans who were familiar with the original political thriller tend to side with the 1962 version. But under the direction of Johnathan Demme with a cast that included along side Denzel the likes of Meryl Streep and Liev Schreilber, they do a fabulous job. It’s a strong piece of cinema that comes as a fresher, bright version of the dark and foreboding original.

NEW YORK (AP) — A New York lottery official says a winning ticket for the Mega Millions lottery jackpot worth $312 million has been sold at a variety store in Albany, N.Y.
New York Lottery spokeswoman Carolyn Hapeman says the winning jackpot ticket for Friday's drawing was sold at Coulson's News Center.
According to the Mega Millions website, the jackpot is the sixth-highest in the game's history. The largest jackpot was $390 million in March 2007.
This is the second-highest jackpot for a single winning ticket behind a $315 million prize in November 2005. That ticket was purchased in California.
Hapeman says the earliest the winner or winners can claim the prize is Monday, because lottery offices are closed for the weekend.
The winning numbers in Friday's drawing were: 22-24-31-52-54, with a Mega ball of 4.
Hapeman says the winner or winners have the option of taking the $312 million prize over 25 years or as a payout of $198 million.