Is the iPod a U.S. product?

Interesting piece in the Times about the sources of the 451 parts of the iPod. Three researchers from UC-Irvine analyze the device, and conclude, basically, that the iPod can be rightly called a U.S. product.

For example, the hard drive is made by a Japanese company, Toshiba, by workers in China and the Philippines.

However, more profit goes to Apple and its designers here in the United States than to any single component manufacturer. And further segments of the cost can be attributed to distribution and retail costs, which benefit U.S. workers when sold in the U.S.

Ultimately, the researchers argue, more than half of the cost of the 30GB video iPod ($163 of $299) goes to U.S. companies and workers.

However, the authors failed to account for $110 of the cost! While I'm sure it's difficult to pin down specific countries, this omission detracts from their argument. It's not a barn-door-sized hole, as U.S. costs are still in the majority, but still: who is acquiring the $110?

Anyway, I'm not sure how products like these figure into the gross export and/or gross import segments of GDP calculations, but measuring the actual production of countries is getting a bit more complicated. The article illustrates this conundrum well.

The traditional measures behind "Made in..." tags might not be relevant these days.

Operation Arrowhead Ripper: What does it mean?

The current U.S.-led operation in Iraq is called "Operation Arrowhead Ripper." What does that means?

It is entirely possible it means nothing. Often, that is the case. But I doubt it on this one.

I haven't been able to find any interesting speculation on the magnificent blogosphere, but here is my thought:

Hasn't anyone ever seen a cowboyws-and-Indians movie?

Before you remove the arrow from a person, you have to tear off the arrowhead. This is John Wayne 101.

(I tried to find a clip in Youtube or even a still, but came up with nothing. I did, unfortunately, come across a "Xena Warrior Princess" clip where someone gets an arrow in the stomach.)

You have to remove the arrowhead before you can remove the arrow.

The question, then, becomes, "What does the arrow symbolize?"

1. The enemy

Arrowhead ripper could refer to a "decapitation strike," which aims to kill the leadership. Then, if we follow the metaphor, the rest of the arrow (the rest of the enemy) could easiy be removed.

Hopefully this is not the case, as apparently the enemy leaderhip was tipped off about the operation, and split before U.S. troops arrived.

2. U.S. involvement in Iraq in general

Ok, this metaphor is not as clear, but it seems somewhat likely. If one wants to extricate the entire arrow - get the United States out of Iraq - first the "arrowhead" must be removed.

The arrowhead to be removed in this context would not be U.S. leadership, of course. Instead, the arrowhead might be the main "point" (sorry) of the continued U.S. presence: insurgency.

Before the U.S. can begin to withdraw, the insurgency must appear to be at least somewhat muted. Will this be possible without political change, and the entrenchment of solid institutions? Probably not.

But if that arrowhead - the effort to stamp out organized insurgency - is taken care of, then the arrow - U.S. presence - can be removed.

3. Something else

Ok, so everyone in America is thinking about how to begin a withdrawl, or else they should be. But the name of Operation Arrowhead Ripper is most likely #1, thought perhaps alluding to the removal of the arrow described in #2.

Perhaps the cowboy that is Iraq has several arrows in him that need to be removed.

I'd like to apologize for this over-analysis and over-metaphorification.

Marine Forces Unitas (MarFor Unitas)

Photo: The author (left) and Lt. Mark Reid stand near Pisco, Peru, after a pre-dawn amphibious training exercise in 1999 involving U.S. and Peruvian Marines.

This post is not about currents events or the news at all. Instead, it's bait in attempt to get in touch with Marines or sailors who were on a certain deployment with me in 1999.

It was called Unitas 40-99, and was the 40th annual deployment of a regularly-scheduled U.S. Navy and Marine training mission to South America (and Africa - but not all Unitas missions go there).

Basically it is a training mission, wherein U.S. troops train with partner-state troops. And displays are put on for local civilians. The training helps troops from both countries, but I think the real reason for the deployment is political: socialization and alliance-bolstering. ("Alliance" here is used informally.)

So why write about it on my blog?

Visitor-tracking program Sitemeter tells me that many people get to this blog because they search for "GRE scores" and "political science" on the web, as I'm apparently one of the few people to write somewhat extensively about both subjects together. I'm glad.

And I was searching for information on this deployment, as I mentioned, and didn't find a lot. So perhaps other former shipmates will do the same, and find this post.

Email me! Maybe we can swap pictures or lies or whatever.

Also: Does Unitas still exist? The most recent evidence of its existence that I've found is from 2004, Unitas 45-04. And apparently it was reservists on the cruise - not active-duty Marines, like when I was on it.

I would not be surprised if the War on Terror required the Unitas resources, and our South American and African allies were downgraded.

Anyway, it was a great experience. I was really lucky to have been on it.

2009 UPDATE: Unitas apparently still does exist, although it seems to be substantially smaller since the beginning of the Iraq war. Here's an article about Unitas 2008 (Unitas 49-08). See also here. However, this appears to be only one exercise, near Brazil. Weak.

This description here offers a more comprehensive explanation of recent Unitas activity. Like the above, it seems to be more fragmented, and generally smaller than the Unitas I was on (1999).

The 24-second news cycle

Once again, The Onion is on it.

The must-update-now mentality I referred to in my post below is lampooned in the Onion article "Media Landscape Redefined By 24-Second News Cycle."

Good stuff.

NY Times at night

I used to work in the "online" division of a daily newspaper, so I know how it goes.

"Must put something new on the front page, even if it's not 'new.'"

"Must put something up that gets a lot of clicks, even if it isn't worth printing on paper."

So I've had a lot of free time the past week or so, and have closely monitored the NY Times. They don't update as often as I'd like, but that's largely because they simply do not have the content; There isn't groundbreaking news every two hours.

But they do put up new main stories at least four times per day - regardless of whether or not there's news value there.

Anyway, this post was largely inspired by the fact that this story is front-and-center on NYTimes.com.

It's basically a description of a Youtube video. Some kids rap about Vermont. White rappers, so hilarious.

It only had 55,000 views at the time the story was written, not many by Youtube standards.

I know "news" standards are relaxed on news websites in the evenings; hard news goes up in the morning, and it gets softer as the day goes on.

But come on.

Can the NY Times have a semi-serious story as its main front-page story?

Acknowledgment of abandoment?

I've largely abandoned this blog. My three regular readers have noticed.

The workload and pace of graduate school has forced me to make some choices, and I've chosen to not update this much, obviously.

I'd like to thank those who have commented, and I am glad to have met some kind and brilliant folks through this site.

Anyway, I'll still post from time to time, but I admit that things ain't what they used to be.