“‘Unbounded’ morality ultimately becomes counterproductive even in terms of the same moral principles being sought. The law of diminishing returns applies to morality.”
Thomas Sowell

There’s a story about Robespierre that has the preeminent rabble-rouser of the French Revolution leaping up from his chair as soon as he saw a mob assembling outside.

“I must see which way the crowd is headed”, he is reputed to have said: “For I am their leader.”
http://www.salon.com/tech/books/1999/11/04/new_optimism/

People who exercise violence in the pursuit of what they hold to be just causes are alternately known as “terrorists” or “freedom fighters”.

They all share a few common characteristics:

A hard core of idealists adopt a cause (in most cases, the freedom of a group of people). They base their claims on history - real or hastily concocted, on a common heritage, on a language shared by the members of the group and, most important, on hate and contempt directed at an “enemy”. The latter is, almost invariably, the physical or cultural occupier of space the idealists claim as their own.
The loyalties and alliances of these people shift effortlessly as ever escalating means justify an ever shrinking cause. The initial burst of grandiosity inherent in every such undertaking gives way to cynical and bitter pragmatism as both enemy and people tire of the conflict.
An inevitable result of the realpolitik of terrorism is the collaboration with the less savoury elements of society. Relegated to the fringes by the inexorable march of common sense, the freedom fighters naturally gravitate towards like minded non-conformists and outcasts. The organization is criminalized. Drug dealing, bank robbing and other manner of organized and contumacious criminality become integral extensions of the struggle. A criminal corporatism emerges, structured but volatile and given to internecine donnybrooks.
Very often an un-holy co-dependence develops between the organization and its prey. It is the interest of the freedom fighters to have a contemptible and tyrannical regime as their opponent. If not prone to suppression and convulsive massacres by nature - acts of terror will deliberately provoke even the most benign rule to abhorrent ebullition.
The terrorist organization will tend to emulate the very characteristics of its enemy it fulminates against the most. Thus, all such groups are rebarbatively authoritarian, execrably violent, devoid of human empathy or emotions, suppressive, ostentatious, trenchant and often murderous.
It is often the freedom fighters who compromise their freedom and the freedom of their people in the most egregious manner. This is usually done either by collaborating with the derided enemy against another, competing set of freedom fighters - or by inviting a foreign power to arbiter. Thus, they often catalyse the replacement of one regime of oppressive horror with another, more terrible and entrenched.
Most freedom fighters are assimilated and digested by the very establishment they fought against or as the founders of new, privileged nomenklaturas. It is then that their true nature is exposed, mired in gulosity and superciliousness as they become. Inveterate violators of basic human rights, they often transform into the very demons they helped to exorcise.
Most freedom fighters are disgruntled members of the middle classes or the intelligentsia. They bring to their affairs the merciless ruthlessness of sheltered lives. Mistaking compassion for weakness, they show none as they unscrupulously pursue their self-aggrandizement, the ego trip of sending others to their death. They are the stuff martyrs are made of. Borne on the crests of circumstantial waves, they lever their unbalanced personalities and project them to great effect. They are the footnotes of history that assume the role of text. And they rarely enjoy the unmitigated support of the very people they proffer to liberate. Even the most harangued and subjugated people find it hard to follow or accept the vicissitudinal behaviour of their self-appointed liberators, their shifting friendships and enmities and their pasilaly of violence.

Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at samvak.tripod.com

Argentina’s Economy

Contrary to conventional economic wisdom, rich countries tend to stay rich and poor countries tend to stay poor. The exceptions tend to be those “economic miracles”, like Japan, that have lifted themselves from the ranks of the poor into the ranks of the economic elite.

Argentine economic history stands in stark contrast to that pattern. In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the world’s richest countries, with a higher per capita income than that of France or Germany. And while Argentina still enjoys many of the fruits of wealth, like a highly educated population and a modern infrastructure, income per head had fallen to a meager 43% of the rich-world average by 1987. In the wake of the economic collapse of 2001-2002, over half of the population fell under the poverty line, and over a quarter were classified as indigent.

Roots of Wealth

From 1880 to 1914, Argentina experienced a massive population boom as European immigrants came in search of land to settle and make productive. Many ended up in the fertile pampas region around Buenos Aires, and with the help of British-built rail links, an export economy was soon in full swing. On top of an already vibrant wool and hide industry, Argentines were soon exporting corn, wheat, and flour to hungrily industrializing European cities. But the real money was in meat exports, made possible by the invention of the refrigerator ship in 1876; Argentina has been famous for beef ever since.

The Long Decline

While Argentina became rich, Buenos Aires made the transition from sleepy backwater to thoroughly modern city”The Paris of the South”boldly leading Latin America into the new century. Unfortunately, the 20th century failed to meet the high hopes of any Latin American nation, least of all Argentina’s.

The trouble started with the great depression of the 1930s, which kicked off a downward spiral into economic and political instability which lasted for the next sixty years. A military coup in 1930 was the first of many, and the civilian governments that occasionally emerged were scarcely more competent than the military juntas.

The government of Juan Domingo Peron (1946-1955) left an indelible mark on the Argentine economy, making it less open to foreign trade, nationalizing key industries, and greatly expanding the benefits of workers. While Peron was somewhat able to redress the gross inequalities permeating the country, he also left a legacy of state control of the economy, stifling private entrepreneurship and creating an environment ripe for corruption.

In the post-Peron years, governments increasingly relied on deficit spending to smooth out social problems. To cover the difference between spending and tax revenue, they simply printed more money, creating inflation. By the 1980s, inflation was out of control; in 1989 the inflation rate was over 5,000 percent.

The 90s Boom

Enter Domingo Cavallo, who stepped in as Carlos Menem’s economy minister in 1991. The keystone in Cavallo’s economic recovery plan was to curb inflation with something called convertibility, a legal guarantee that Argentine pesos could be exchanged for US dollars at a ratio of 1 to 1. Inflation was tamed, and investor confidence soared as Cavallo steadily opened up the economy to foreign trade and capital. In tune with the free market fervor of the 1990s, the more inefficient state-controlled enterprises were soldsometimes to Menem’s friends at bargain prices.

Still, Argentina was clearly getting richer. The gross domestic product grew briskly from 1991 to 1998, with the exception of 1995, when Mexico’s financial crisis shook Latin America. Much of the new wealth was accruing to the country’s elites, but the poor and the middle class were also becoming better off. The Argentine debacle was starting to look like the Argentine miracle; Carlos Menem became an international celebrity and Argentina a poster child for liberal economics.

The Crisis of 2001-2002

Ironically, Argentina’s blatant disregard for a fundamental tenet of “neoliberal” economics proved to be a decisive factor in its demise. As the 90s boom roared on and the government’s tax take soared, fiscal discipline would suggest setting aside a “rainy day” fund for the event of a recessionbecause recessions are inevitable in any economy. Instead, the money was spent and new debt was piled up even in the good years. When the economy hit a rough patch in 1999, the government found itself in an extremely difficult situation; it needed money fast and was already significantly indebted.

Luckily for Menem, his term was up and the new President, Fernando de la Ra, was left to pick up the pieces in 2000. He could try to balance the budget by cutting spending or raising taxes, but this would exacerbate the recession and further reduce tax revenues. Faced with this catch-22, de la Ra opted to borrow his way out, in the hope that the recession would quickly and quietly fade away. Unfortunately, this approach often leads to a downward spiral of its own, known as “explosive debt dynamics”, in which investors begin to fear a default on the debt, driving interest rates up and deepening the recession, thus increasing the debt even more. This is exactly what ended up happening in Argentina’s case.

As a last ditch effort, de la Ra appointed as his economy minister Domingo Cavallo, now a national legend, in a move that electrified the country. But neither Cavallo’s mystique or the IMF’s haphazard intervention could stave off the coming default. As dollars started to flee Argentina, the government enacted restrictions on bank withdrawals that became known as the corralito, or little fence. In the public eye, this was the final straw, and massive street protests rocked Buenos Aires and other big cities, forcing de la Ra and Cavallo to resign in shame in late December , 2001. The government had collapsed; Argentina defaulted on its debt a few days later.

One of the first acts of Eduardo Duhalde, the new president elected by congress at the start of 2002, was to discontinue the convertibility system by which the peso was linked to the US dollar. With the shortage of dollars in the country, the system couldn’t be maintained; there simply weren’t enough dollars to trade for pesos. Set free, the peso fell to about 4 to the dollar over the next six months, spelling ruin for those who had taken out loans denominated in dollars. Banks ceased to function as individual debtors defaulted and now-cynical savers refused to deposit money. The poverty rate soared while incomes plummeted. The Argentine financial crisis has been compared in scope to America’s great crash of 1929.

After the Crisis

The very dark cloud of Argentina’s collapse did have a silver lining. The peso recovered slightly and has held steady at about 3 to the US dollar, a level that makes Argentina’s products (and Argentina as a travel destination) much more attractive to the rest of the world. In fact, some have argued that one cause of the crisis was the overvalued exchange rate, which made Argentine exports less competitive. The economy was growing again in 2003, and has since, fueled in part by high worldwide commodity prices. In 2005, GDP roared past its previous peak (in 1998), and many economists believe Argentina is on firmer ground than it was in the 90s owing to the fiscal responsibility of Nestor Kirchner, the current president.

Looking to the future, rising inequality is one concern deeply felt by many Argentines. The recovery has put more wealth in the hands of the wealthy, like the soy farmers leading the new export boom or those who were lucky enough to get their money out before the devaluation. On the upside, employment is up, and a fiscally solvent state will be in a much better position to help those on the bottom rungs of society climb higher.

Visit Argentina Cafe Travel Guide to learn more about Argentina’s history.

Maxim Gorky (1868-1936) is widely considered a Bolshevik author, closely allied with the likes of Lenin and Stalin. But this is far from the truth.

Gorky’s real name was Alexei Maximovich Peshkov. He chose the pseudonym “Gorky” - “bitter” in Russian - to describe his early experiences from the age of eight as a menial worker. In his late teens he attempted suicide. The bullet pierced his lung, rendering him susceptible to Tuberculosis for the rest of his life.

Between 1899 and 1906 Gorky lived in St. Petersburg and participated in the activities of the Social Democratic Party. When it split in 1903, he, indeed, supported the Bolsheviks financially - though he never joined them formally. He was a strong critic of Lenin. Partly to avoid his wrath, he exiled himself to Capri, Italy in 1906.

Moreover, though he upheld the Bolsheviks’ anti-war stance, he opposed the 1917 October Revolution (the Bolshevik coup against the post-Tsarist Social Democratic government). So damaging was his criticism of Lenin’s dictatorial ways and the illegitimacy of the Bolshevik regime that his work was censored from July 1918 onwards.

Gorky left Russia in 1921 and lived in Sorrento, Italy until 1928 when he was lured back by a lavish celebration of his 60th birthday. The year after, he relocated permanently to Russia. In 1938, certain senior Soviet figures - like Nikolai Bukharin and Genrikh Yagoda - were accused of murdering him in 1936, while under medical treatment.

Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at samvak.tripod.com

What, you may well ask, do 13 foot-tall New Zealand birds that have been extinct for 500 years and modern Wyoming trout species have in common? And what, you may also ask, since you’re in the asking mood, do snails have to do with any of it? Well, the answer is “quite a lot, really”. It’s a bit complicated, but bear with me.

In something like the year 1500 C. E. the Polynesian ancestors of the Maori peoples arrived in what is known today as New Zealand. They were a brand new species to the islands, with no previous place in the ecosystem. As a result the local prey species, most notably the enormous native birds called Moa, had no natural defenses against them. Moa were not only flightless, they were completely wingless. Their only natural predator on the island was a 30-pound eagle (also later hunted to extinction by the proto-Maori), so the weren’t that fast on their feet, since there’s not much point in running from an 80-MPH flying killing machine. Their only defense against ground-based predation was their great size, which humans have traditionally not given much of a damn about (island peoples can hunt whales in wooden canoes; over-grown chickens are hardly scary to them). The end result is that all of New Zealand’s giant flightless birds are currently on display at several fine natural history museums around the world.

But what’s that to do with snails?

Enter Potamopyrgus antipodarum, the New Zealand Mud Snail. These tiny, aquatic, freshwater mollusks are migrating out of New Zealand, not into it, but their impact on an ecosystem they had no previous place in could have similar repercussions for native species. Carried by us world-trotting humans, these critters made their North American debut in the 1980’s in the Snake River, and have been drifting west ever since. They are now present in Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park.

How do these diminutive invaders hop from river to river, lake to lake, establishing an almost unshakeable presence as they go? Humans again, I’m afraid. The New Zealand Mud Snail is prone to hitchhiking on boats and fishing gear. So a careless or messy angler on an extended fishing trip can spread the little devils far and wide.

Mud Snails are quite hardy enough to make the trip as well. They’re so small ( 6mm long, maximum, and sometimes as small as a grain of rice), and they so much resemble tiny flecks of mud, that they often go undetected. They can survive out of water for several days, and can live in many kinds of freshwater environments. They’re even resilient enough to handle low temperatures (anything above freezing) and can pass unharmed through the digestive tract of most fish. Moreover, they reproduce asexually, and are “livebreeders”, meaning they produce a number of perfectly formed little clones, so even one can spawn a colony.

New Zealand Mud Snail densities of more than million snails per square yard have been found in Yellowstone Park. With no natural predators to keep it in check there’s every possibility native snail species will be out-competed into extinction and native plant species overwhelmed. Such an unbalancing presence can decimate other species, such as trout, something that gives the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Department and dedicated Wyoming fishing enthusiasts reason for pause.

Efforts are being made to curb the New Zealand Mud Snail invasion. Let’s hope the trout have more luck than the Moa.

Looking for more information on Wyoming Rivers check out visitusa.com your outdoor adventure travel guide

The American Revolution was a civil war between Loyalists to the British crown (aka Tories, about one fifth of the population), supported by British expeditionary forces, and Patriots (or Whigs) in the 13 colonies that constituted British North America.

About 20-25% of the populace in the colonies - c. 600,000 - were blacks. About one third of the white denizens were non-British. Local patriotism ran high. All adult, white, property-owning, men (about two thirds of the male numbers) were eligible to vote in elections to the lower house of the legislative assembly of the colony they resided in. Each colony also had its governor.

Some colonies (e.g., Rhode Island and Connecticut) were, in effect, incorporated under royal charter as semi-commercial ventures. Others belonged to the descendants of their founders (proprietary colonies such as Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware). Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire were royal provinces, under direct British rule.

Some of the colonists - for instance, the New Englanders - were among the wealthiest and best educated people in the world, better off than the British themselves. But, per capita, they paid only 3% of the taxes levied on a typical Briton. The colonies supplied the West Indies with most of their foodstuffs and consumed British finished products - but they were not economically crucial to the British Empire.

In the years leading to the War of Independence (1765-1776), the British actually repealed all the taxes on products imported into the colonies - with the single exception of tea (and even this tax was drastically reduced). The colonists’ slogan “no taxation without representation” was, therefore, more about local representation than about foreign taxation. And even this bit ringed hollow. The Encyclopedia Britannica: “The assemblies had the right to tax; to appropriate money for public works and public officials, and to regulate internal trade, religion, and social behavior”. The role of British government was confined to foreign affairs and trade.

But both parties to the conflict breached this modus vivendi. During the Seven Years (French and Indian) War (1754-1763), the colonies refused to relinquish control over their militias to the British command and smuggled French goods into British North America (France being Britain’s enemy). The British, on the other hand, began interfering in the colonies’ internal affairs, notably (but not only) by imposing taxes and customs duties in order to ameliorate Britain’s growing national debt and by rendering tax officials financially independent of the local colonial assemblies.

Add to this a severe recession in the colonies brought on by unbridled spending financed with unsustainable personal indebtedness and, not surprisingly, acts of resistance to British taxation - such as the Boston Tea Party - were organized mainly by smugglers, artisans, and shopkeepers. Secret groupings, such as the Sons of Liberty resorted to violence and intimidation to achieve their (mostly economic but disguised as “patriotic”) goals. Even women got involved in a “buy American” campaign of boycotting British goods.

Many British merchants, bankers, politicians, intellectuals, and journalists supported the colonies against the crown - each group for its own reasons. The merchants and bankers, for instance, were terrified of a mooted unilateral debt moratorium to be declared by the colonies if and when militarily attacked. Others found it distasteful to kill and maim white British subjects (as the insurgents were). Yet others resisted imperialism, the monarchy, taxes, or all three. Even within the British Army there was strong dissent and the campaign against the rebellious colonies was carried out half-heartedly and lackadaisically. On the other hand, British die-hards, such as Samuel Johnson, demanded blood (”I am willing to love all Mankind, except an American”).

The denizens of the colonies tried, till the last moment, to avert a constitutional (and, consequently, military) crisis. They suggested a model of two semi-autonomous nations (the United Kingdom and the colonies), united by the figurehead of the King. But it was too little and way too late. Violent clashes between the citizenry and British units started as early as October 1765 with the First Nonimportation Movement, directed against the Stamp Act. They continued with the Boston Massacre (five dead) in 1770; the attack on the British customs ship, the Gasp©e, in Rhode Island, in 1772; and the Boston Tea Party in 1773.

In April 1775, General Gage, governor and military commander of Massachusetts, suffered a humiliating defeat in a skirmish in Concord and Lexington. The Patriots were alerted to his movements by Paul Revere who rode all night to inform them that the “regulars (not the British, as the legend has it) are coming.” He was one of many such scouts.

The Loyalists fielded 50-55,000 armed men and the Patriots countered by organizing “militias” - irregular units of ill-trained and undisciplined volunteers. The Continental Army was established only in June 1775, under the command of George Washington, a veteran of the French and Indian War. At their peak, the rebels mastered less than 100,000 men in arms - only 25-30,000 of which were on active duty at any given time.

The Continental Army was, in the words of General Philip Schuyler of New York “weak in numbers, dispirited, naked, destitute of provisions, without camp equipage, with little ammunition, and not a single piece of cannon.” Late pay caused frequent mutinies and desertions. In 1783, Washington had to personally intervene to prevent a military coup. Only repeated promises of cash bonuses and land grants kept this mob of youngsters, foreigners, and indentured servants intermittently cohesive.

Still, they outnumbered the British and the “Hessians” - the 30,000 German mercenaries who participated in the 8 years of fighting. In all of North America, the British had 60,000 soldiers as late as 1779. They had to face a growing presence of hostile French, Spanish, and Dutch armies, supplies, and navies. The Native-Americans (Indians) supported mostly the British, especially west of the Appalachians. This provoked numerous massacres by the Patriots.

The War spread to other parts of the world: the Gulf Coast, the Caribbean, India, the Netherlands, the Mediterranean. The US Navy even invaded the British port of Whitehaven in 1778.

The conflict affected the civilian population as well with both sides committing war crimes and atrocities aplenty. With many men gone, women took over traditionally male roles and vocations, such as farming. Hyperinflation - brought on by $500 million in newly minted and printed money - led to mob scenes as storekeepers were attacked and warehouses looted.

The blacks largely sided with the British - but many joined the Patriots and, thus, won their freedom after the war. Virginia planters alone manumitted 10,000 slaves. By 1800, slavery was abolished in all the states north of Delaware.

All told, less than 7000 Patriots died in battle (and 8500 wounded). About 1200 Germans perished, too. No one knows how many British troops, Indians, and other combatants paid with their lives in this protracted conflict. About 100,000 Loyalists emigrated to Canada and thousands others (mainly of African ancestry) went to Sierra Leone and the Bahamas. They were all fully compensated for the property they left behind in what came to be known as the United States of America (USA).

Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at samvak.tripod.com

After seizing power in a bloody CIA-backed coup, General Augusto Pinochet ruled Chile with a rod of iron for two decades, during which human rights violations became the norm of Chilean life.

Hailing from an upper-middle class background, Pinochet entered the military academy in Santiago at the age of 18, graduating three years later as a second lieutenant. By 1968 he had risen to the rank of brigadier general.

In 1970, Salvador Allende, a Marxist, became president of Chile with the backing of the Christian Democrats, and began restructuring Chilean society along socialist lines. In the process he expropriated the US-owned copper-mining companies, alienating the US government and foreign investors. He further annoyed Washington by establishing relations with Cuba and Communist China, which the United States did not recognise at that time. As a result, America imposed tough economic sanctions and the CIA spent millions of dollars destabilising the Allende regime, much of it going into Pinochet’s pockets.

By 1972, the Chilean economy had collapsed. With no foreign investment, production had come to a standstill. There were widespread strikes, inflation, food shortages and civil unrest. With the backing of armed forces, Pinochet staged a military coup on 11 September 1973. It was bloody even by Latin American standards. The navy seized the key port of Valparaiso, while the army surrounded the presidential palace in Santiago. Allende refused to step down. When the palace was overrun a few hours later, he was found dead. It appears that he shot himself rather than face inevitable torture and execution.

A junta took over and declared marital law. Those who violated the curfew were shot on sight. Pinochet was named president two days later. He broke off relations with Cuba - Nixon had staged his famous rapprochement with China by then - and moved against Allende’s supporters. Some 14 000 would be tried and executed or expelled from the country, while Pinochet claimed he was only trying to ‘restore institutional normality’ of Chile.

In June 1974 Pinochet assumed sole power, with the rest of the junta relegated to an advisory role. Under Pinochet’s tyrannical rule, it is estimated that 20 000 people were killed and torture was widespread.
While Pinochet continued to maintain tight control over the political opposition, he was rejected by a plebiscite in 1988. He eventually stepped down in 1990 after immunity from prosecution in Chile. He stayed on as army chief of staff. However, during a shopping trip to London in October 1998, he was arrested on a Spanish warrant charging him with murder. He was later accused of torture and human rights violations. For 16 months, he fought his extradition through the British courts, and then in January 2000, Home Secretary Jack Straw decided that he was too ill to stand trial and sent him back to Chile.

More info about Augusto Pinochet

Written by Vassil Dimitroff

Maxim Gorky (1868-1936) is widely considered a Bolshevik author, closely allied with the likes of Lenin and Stalin. But this is far from the truth.

Gorky’s real name was Alexei Maximovich Peshkov. He chose the pseudonym “Gorky” - “bitter” in Russian - to describe his early experiences from the age of eight as a menial worker. In his late teens he attempted suicide. The bullet pierced his lung, rendering him susceptible to Tuberculosis for the rest of his life.

Between 1899 and 1906 Gorky lived in St. Petersburg and participated in the activities of the Social Democratic Party. When it split in 1903, he, indeed, supported the Bolsheviks financially - though he never joined them formally. He was a strong critic of Lenin. Partly to avoid his wrath, he exiled himself to Capri, Italy in 1906.

Moreover, though he upheld the Bolsheviks’ anti-war stance, he opposed the 1917 October Revolution (the Bolshevik coup against the post-Tsarist Social Democratic government). So damaging was his criticism of Lenin’s dictatorial ways and the illegitimacy of the Bolshevik regime that his work was censored from July 1918 onwards.

Gorky left Russia in 1921 and lived in Sorrento, Italy until 1928 when he was lured back by a lavish celebration of his 60th birthday. The year after, he relocated permanently to Russia. In 1938, certain senior Soviet figures - like Nikolai Bukharin and Genrikh Yagoda - were accused of murdering him in 1936, while under medical treatment.

Sam Vaknin ( samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Global Politician, Central Europe Review, PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International (UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and Suite101.

Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government of Macedonia.

Visit Sam’s Web site at samvak.tripod.com

Thomas Edison failed thousands of times before he revolutionized the world by inventing and patenting the incandescent light bulb. Because of his desire to create the incandescent light, he was one of the most persistent people in history. The invention in which Edison had the most failures, the incandescent light, was one of his most famous inventions. His persistence also led to many other great inventions. He had patents on items such as electricity, batteries, cement, motion pictures, phonographs, mining, telegraphs and telephones.

How many times have you failed in your endeavors? When you were learning how to ride a bike, roller skate, play the piano, learn a foreign language, etc., didn’t you fail many times?

Many modern conveniences are the result of Edison’s ingenuity. Edison did amazing things simply by persevering.

1. Edison was persistent

After fifty years of efforts to create a long-lasting incandescent light bulb, Edison achieved success with the incandescent light bulb. Edison needed a material that would be compatible to form a long-lasting filament. He initially tried platinum, which only worked for about one to two hours. He tried carbon, which had the highest melting point. When carbon didn’t seem to work, Edison tried boron, chromium, molybdenum, tungsten, nickel, platinum (again). Finally, Edison got carbon to work as a filament material for his light bulb, which lit for over 40 hours.

What are some of the things that you are doing in your life and careers? Do you like what you are doing for a living? Are there other things that you would like to be doing as a career? You may ask, “what if I try something and it doesn’t work?” Try something else. And if you’re not successful, try again! Reference the example with a baby learning how to walk. How do most people walk? They kept on trying, no matter how long it took, to walk.

2. Edison learned how to meet the unmet need

The classic marketing philosophy says to “fill the unmet need.” Edison invented practical items that a majority of the population could use, such as the light bulb, the phonograph, batteries, etc.

Edison not only could invent things, he could invent practical things. Every one of us has practical skills that we can offer the world. The world needs your talents much like the world needed Edison’s talents. What are some ideas that you have that would meet the unmet need? What are you seeing around you that could be improved? Edison did the same pondering and look at how much he accomplished.

3. Edison knew he could invent something when he was determined

Edison’s quest to invent the incandescent light bulb took him about four years. About his electric light experiments, he said “I was never myself discouraged or inclined to be hopeless of success.” Edison knew that he could find a way to make the light bulb work and to be a practical item for the general public to use.

For those of you involved in obtaining goals, are you determined enough that you are going to succeed? Do you have that attitude of accomplishing something no matter what?

Edison saw thousands of better ways of doing things. He had to literally make many things happen in order to achieve success. Edison did not think that any of his failures were actually “failures.” Edison said “If I find 10,000 ways something won’t work, I haven’t failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is just one more step forward….” Do you turn your “mistakes” into learning experiences? Adopt the same attitude as Edison did. Learn from mistakes. Be persistent.

Sean North primarily helps writers gain focus, motivation, remove mental blocks that help to unblock the writing process.

EVERYONE who writes has been stuck at some point in his or her career. You do not have to accept these mind-boggling roadblocks!

seannorthstn@aol.com

(586) 216-7516