Feed aggregator

Helyszín: Novo Ogarjovói rezidencia, 2015. március 6.

Read more...

A középiskolai diákok pénzügyi ismereteit bővítő előadássorozat indult a fenti címmel szerdán, a dunaszerdahelyi Vidékfejlesztési Szakközépiskolában.

A Szlovákiai Magyarok Kerekasztala mellett működő Gazdasági bizottság és az OpenReg – regionális fejlesztési ügynökség szervezésében létre jött sorozat azt a célt hivatott szolgálni, hogy az adott témában minimális ismeretekkel rendelkező fiatalokkal könnyed stílusban beszélgessenek a pénzügyekről.

„Nem titkolt kihívás előtt állunk, hogy egy közös gondolkodást indítsunk el a fiatalok körében. A diákok ugyanis az a korosztály, amelynek csupán minimális ismeretei vannak a pénzügyekről, ez pedig komoly veszélyeket rejt magában, hiszen néhány év múlva különálló háztartást kell majd vezetniük. Elemzések kimutatták, többek közt az információhiánynak is köszönhető az ország lakosságának eladósodottsága, amely a déli régióban még erőteljesebb“ – mondta el kérdésünkre Rajkovics Péter, az előadás ötletgazdája, aki a dunaszerdahelyi középiskolában két csoportnak is előadásokat tartott.

„Szerettem volna velük beszélgetni arról, mit is gondolnak a pénzről, milyen jövedelem vár rájuk az iskola után és hogyan kívánják azt beosztani. Nagyon hasznos volt mindkét óra, s bízom benne, hogy nem csak számomra, hanem a diákoknak is, akiket láthatóan érdekelt a téma.“

A pénzügyi intelligencia témáját érintő sorozat már holnap folytatódik, ugyancsak Dunaszerdahelyen, de már az Építészeti Szakközépiskolában, jövő héten pedig a komáromi Selye János Gimnázium diákjai is egy érdekes órát hallgathatnak meg a gazdaságról.

A szervezők nem titkolt célja, hogy amennyiben sikeres lesz a körút, akkor a következő tanévben akár több órából álló előadásokat is készítsenek, de már most indítottak egy Facebook-os oldalt, ahol a jövőben szakértőktől a diákok nem csak kérdezhetnek, de érdekes anyagok segítségével maguk is képezhetik magukat.

Foto: Ranostaj Tibor

At the Airborne ISR & C2 Battle Management conference in London, UK this week Colonel Austin Pearce, Assistant Director Concepts, British Army revealed his Top 10 themes for the future of ISR. The growing importance of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance will play a centr

Valami furcsa zajlik Oroszországban. Az orosz elnök március 5-e óta nem jelent meg a nyilvánosság előtt.

Read more...

French Renault Kerax 4x4 Heavy Utility Truck

Szik Juliskát több mint tíz évvel ezelőtt ismertem meg a Lakókocsi című darab egyik szereplőjeként. A sors fintora, hogy az első találkozásra a most már éppen üresen álló Bárka Színházban került sor. Minél több színdarabban láttam szerepelni, annál biztosabb voltam benne, hogy kiemelkedő tehetség. Soha nem gondoltam volna, hogy egy nap arról fogunk beszélgetni, miért vannak a magyarok a lengyelek alatt a dubaji hierarchiában, vagy arról, mit jelent Molnár Ferenc darabot rendezni az Egyesült Arab Emírségek második legnépesebb városában. De a sors úgy hozta, hogy ő lehet az első magyar, aki új értelmet adhat a hazai sajtóban elterjedt „dubajozás” fogalmának.

Kapcsolódó hírek:  Szik Juliska Egerbe szerződött

tovább

95,86 millió forint vissza nem térítendő uniós támogatást nyert el az AgroTech-Komfort Kft.

A szentesi vállalkozás a 191,72 millió forint összköltségű projektje során meglévő telephelye bővítése és új épület kialakítása mellett eszközparkját fejlesztette.

Az AGROTECH-KOMFORT Kereskedelmi Kft. mezőgazdasági és élelmiszeripari technológiai gépeket és berendezéseket, kiegészítő egységeket gyártó, összeszerelő vállalkozás.

Az elmúlt évek technológiai korszerűsítési igénye alapján a megrendelői állomány erőteljes növekedésével a cég telephelyén rendelkezésre álló kisméretű épületek pótlása és kiváltása vált szükségessé.

A projekt keretében új szerelő csarnok kialakítása (930,24 m2), meglévő műhely bővítése (120 m2), új telepi térburkolat és csatlakozó út építése (1.260 m2), megújuló energiára alapozott központi fűtésrendszer kialakítása, melegvíz ellátás biztosítása, továbbá az előszerelés, szerelés, összeállítás munkafolyamatokhoz közvetlenül kapcsolódó anyagmozgató, rakodó illetve szerszámgépek beszerzése (10 db) történt meg.

A fejlesztés eredményeként a vállalkozás a kibővített telephelyen újonnan kialakított, korszerű létesítményekben új gépekkel tudja kiszolgálni az elmúlt évek technológiai korszerűsítési igénye alapján erőteljesen megnövekedett megrendelői állományt, illetve az EU jogszabályi előírásainak megfelelni akaró mezőgazdasági üzemek megrendeléseinek is eleget tud tenni.

A Kft. a jelen projekt által munkahelyet teremtett a régióban a foglalkoztatottság megtartása és annak javítása mellett. A vállalkozás fejlesztésének további célja, hogy a több lábon álló tevékenységi kör megerősítésével stabil jövedelemtermelő, adófizető és versenyképes gazdasággá tudja magát tenni a piacon.

A DAOP-1.1.1/E-11 „Telephelyfejlesztés” pályázati kiíráson 95 864 390 Ft támogatást elnyert, 191 728 780 Ft összköltségvetésű fejlesztés 2013. május 29-én indult és 2014. december 31-én zárult.

The following by Daniel Pipes is reposted here with permission of the Middle East Forum:

Americans Battle the Arab-Israeli Conflict

by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2015 (view PDF)

Texas senator Ted Cruz meets with Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Israel, January 11, 2013. A week after taking office, Cruz traveled to Israel on a congressional delegation trip, led by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell.
When, in the midst of the 2014 Hamas-Israel war, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration briefly banned American carriers from flying to Israel, Sen. Ted Cruz (Republican of Texas) accused Barack Obama of using a federal regulatory agency "to launch an economic boycott on Israel, in order to try to force our ally to comply with his foreign policy demands."[1] In so doing, Cruz made an accusation no Israeli leader would dare express.

This is hardly unique: Over the years, other American political figures, both Republican (Dan Burton, Jesse Helms, Condoleezza Rice, Arlen Specter) and Democrat (Charles Schumer), have adopted tougher, and sometimes more Zionist, stances than the Israeli government. This pattern in turn points to a larger phenomenon: The Arab-Israeli conflict tends to generate more intense partisanship among Americans than among Middle Easterners. The latter may die from the conflict but the former experience it with greater passion.

More Anti-Israel than the Arabs

Eulogizing Helen Thomas in 2013, al-Monitor referred to her as a "firm advocate of Palestinian rights." At an Iraqi embassy dinner for the country's foreign minister Tariq Aziz, she accused the regime of cowardice for not retaliating against Israel after the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. She commented, "Just yellow, I guess."Americans who hate Israel can be more volubly anti-Zionist than Arabs. At a memorable Washington dinner party in November 1984, hosted by the Iraqi embassy for the visiting foreign minister Tariq Aziz, two tipsy American press grandees admonished and even insulted this emissary of Saddam Hussein for being insufficiently anti-Israel. Helen Thomas of United Press International complained that Iraq had not retaliated against Israel after the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.[2] When Aziz tried brushing off her criticism, she scornfully accused the Iraqi regime of cowardice: "Just yellow, I guess." Later the same evening, Rowland Evans of the syndicated Evans and Novak column, interrupted Aziz when he called the Iran-Iraq war the most important issue in the Middle East, shouting at him to tell Secretary of State Shultz that the Arab-Israeli conflict was his main concern.[3] The late Barry Rubin, who was present, subsequently commented: "Unaccustomed to being attacked for excessive softness on Israel, Aziz looked astonished."[4]

Similarly, in 1981, James E. Akins, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia described as "more pro-Arab than the Arab officials,"[5] chided Sheik Zaki Yamani, the Saudi oil minister, for rejecting the idea of linking Saudi oil production to U.S. policy toward Israel. In 1993, Edward Said of Columbia University castigated Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat for entering into the Oslo negotiating process. Meanwhile, Anthony B. Tirado Chase, an analyst of Said's writings, found that "Said's rejectionism speaks for few in the West Bank or Gaza."[6] In 2003, George Galloway, the British parliamentarian, incited Palestinians against Israel:
The Arabs are a great people. Islam is a great religion. But it has to, and they have to, stand up. … I asked somebody once, when [Ariel] Sharon was massacring the Palestinians in Jenin, why the huge demonstrations in the Arab countries didn't continue? Why did they go away? They answered because a student was killed in Alexandria. I am very sorry for the student and his family, but the Palestinians are losing their children every day, yet it doesn't stop them from coming out the next day. So it can be done. Hizbullah drove the enemy running from their country. Fares Uday, a 14-year-old boy, stood in front of an Israeli tank and attacked it with his hands. And when they killed him, his brother and his neighbors came in his place.[7]In 2009, after a lecture tour of American universities, the Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toamehobserved that
there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah. … Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment, I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber. … What struck me more than anything else was the fact that many of the people I met on the campuses supported Hamas and believed that it had the right to "resist the occupation" even if that meant blowing up children and women on a bus in downtown Jerusalem.[8]
During the 2014 Hamas-Israel war, the Arab street remained largely calm.Even more ironically, Abu Toameh found that many of the Arabs and Muslims on American campuses "were much more understanding and even welcomed my 'even-handed analysis' of the Israeli-Arab conflict." Along the same lines, the historian Bernard Lewis notes that "Israelis traveling in the West often find it easier to establish a rapport with Arabs than with Arabophiles."[9]

Conversely, Lewis notes the viciousness of some Westerners residing in the Middle East:
Time and time again, European and American Jews traveling in Arab countries have observed that, despite the torrent of broadcast and published anti-Semitism, the only face-to-face experience of anti-Semitic hostility that they suffered during their travels was from compatriots, many of whom feel free, in what they imagine to be the more congenial atmosphere of the Arab world, to make anti-Semitic … remarks that they would not make at home.[10]One symptom of this: The recent Hamas-Israel war prompted anti-Israel hate demonstrations, some violent, on the streets of many Western cities, while—with the exception of territories under Israeli control—the Arab street remained largely calm.
More Zionist than the Israelis

In 2000, the late Edward Said, a vocal anti-Israel critic, complained that Zionist groups in the United States have views "in some way more extreme than even those of the Israeli Likud."
Similarly, American supporters of Israel tend to stake out more ardently Zionist positions than do Israelis. In 1978, Richard Nixon complained that "the problem with the Israelis in Israel was not nearly as difficult as the Jewish community here."[11] In 1990, Israeli journalist Yossi Melman was surprised to find a Jewish audience in Texas taking a harder line against the Palestinians than he did himself; he responded with alarm when one young man asserted, referring to a fracas with the Israeli police that left nineteen Palestinians dead, "I do not feel sorry for those Palestinians who were killed. The Israeli police should have shot a thousand of them," and no one in the audience took issue with him.

In 2000, Said complained that Zionist groups in the United States have views "in some way more extreme than even those of the Israeli Likud."[12] Also in 2000, when Israel's prime minister offered unprecedented concessions on Jerusalem, Malcolm Hoenlein, vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, criticized his efforts "to take away or compromise Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount and turn it over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations or the Palestinian Authority." Later, he warned, "all of us will have to answer to our children and grandchildren when they ask us why we did not do more to stop the giving away of Har haBayit [the Temple Mount]."[13]

Polling by the American Jewish Committee regularly finds American Jews more skeptical than their Israeli counterparts on the question of the efficacy of diplomacy with the Arabs.[14] At the same time, for an American to be pro-Israel means liking all Israelis; starting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel, pro-Israel organizations offer unconditional support to Israel. Many American Jews go further: With neither their own lives nor those of their children at risk in the Israel Defense Forces, they do not publicly disagree with Israeli government decisions. By contrast, ranking Israelis repeatedly demand that Washington pressure their own government into taking steps against its wishes. Most famously, in 2007, David Landau, editor of Haaretz newspaper, told then-U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice that Israel was a "failed state" and implored her to intervene on the grounds that Israel needs "to be raped."[15]
ExplanationsThree reasons account for American partisans adopting stronger positions than their Middle Eastern counterparts:

Pure passion: Abu Toameh notes: "Many of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials … sound much more pragmatic than most of the anti-Israel, 'pro-Palestinian' folks on the campuses." That is because they have real-life decisions to make with which they must live. Israelis and Arabs maintain a patchwork of relationships and daily life that softens the harshness of rhetoric. In contrast, pure passion tends to reign in the West. Most Israelis have contact with Arabs, something few American Zionists do. Similarly, a fair number of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and other Arabs come into contact with Israelis. For Middle Easterners, the enemy is human; for Americans, the opponent consists of two-dimensional political adversaries.

This even applies to so monstrous a dictatorship as Saddam Hussein's. As Barry Rubin commented about the experience of Tariq Aziz at dinner: "Perhaps it was easier to deal with the inner circles of Saddam's regime, where fear bred discipline, than with these wild, unpredictable Americans."[16] Two examples: Pro-Israel and anti-Israel Americans never need to cooperate on joint water supplies.Ismail Haniya, a prominent leader of the Hamas terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's elimination, has three sisters who emigrated from Gaza to Israel, live as citizens there, and have children who served in the Israel Defense Forces.[17]



Three sisters of Hamas leader Ismail Haniya live in Tel Sheva, the first Bedouin town established in Israel in 1967. Some of their children have even served in the Israel Defense Forces. For Middle Easterners, the enemy is human; for Americans, the opponent consists of two-dimensional political adversaries.
Solidarity: Israelis argue mostly with other Israelis and Arabs with Arabs; but in the United States, pro-Israelis argue with anti-Israelis. Israelis and Arabs in the Middle East feel free to disagree with their own side more than do their U.S. partisans. When a left-wing Israeli criticizes the Netanyahu government's policy, he disagrees with the Likud Party; when a left-wing American Jewish figure does the same, he attacks Israel. The former debates are within the framework of Israeli policymaking, the latter in the arena of American public opinion. Melman noted that "we Israelis have the luxury of expressing ourselves more frankly than many American Jews" and explained this by noting how "American Jews fear that their public criticism [of Israel] might be exploited by professional critics of Israel. Hence, most American Jews prefer to conceal their disagreements about Israel." Mattityahu Peled, a left-wing Israeli gadfly, similarly observed that the pressure on Jews who hold dissenting views in the United States "is far greater than the pressure on us in Israel. … probably we in Israel enjoy a larger degree of tolerance than you here in the Jewish community."[18]

In the United States, the Arab-Israeli conflict is better known than any Middle East issue and dominates the discussion.Best-known policy issue: In the Middle East itself, other issues—civil wars in Syria and Iraq, the Saudi vs. Qatar vs. Iran rivalries, water problems—compete with the Arab-Israeli conflict for attention. But in the United States, the Arab-Israeli conflict is far better known than any other issue and thus dominates the discussion. As a result, the lines of debate are far more clearly etched: When the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) conquered Mosul in June 2014, no one knew what to do. But when Hamas launched rockets against Israel a month later, the facts and arguments were reassuringly familiar.
ConclusionArab-Israeli partisanship fits a broader pattern in which distance turns greys into blacks and whites, increasing political passions. In the case of the Contra war in Nicaragua, the journalist Stephen Schwartz writes that, on the one side, "Sandinistas often commented to me that they were put off to realize that their Democrat supporters in Washington employed a bloodthirsty rhetoric that would never have been heard in the towns of Central America." When asked about this, a Sandinista explained: "We have to face death, and it makes us less willing to speak idly about it; but they enjoy talking about a death they will never risk or inflict on others."[19]

The same reluctance applied on the other side, Schwartz found. A Contra supporter explained: "Our families are split by this conflict, and we do not feel the aggravated sense of rage displayed by foreigners about the war here. In fighting, we may have to kill, or be killed by, a relative with whom we grew up. It is not something that fills us with enthusiasm."

In other wars where combatants live in close proximity to each other but their supporters do not, a similar pattern has emerged: Civil wars in Vietnam, Ireland, and Bosnia come immediately to mind. Commenting on the Spanish civil war, Trotsky observed that the rhetoric in London was far more extreme than the reality in Barcelona.

In conclusion, this pattern runs contrary to the general assumption that the frenzied combatants in a war need cool-headed outsiders to help guide them to resolution and peace—an assumption that sometimes leads to the unfortunate decision to put ignoramuses in charge of diplomacy and policy. In fact, the locals may see the problem more lucidly and realistically than their foreign friends. It is time for foreigners to stop assuming they know how to achieve the region's salvation and instead to listen more to those directly involved.
Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum. DanielPipes.org[1] Ted Cruz, "Did President Obama Just Launch an Economic Boycott of Israel?" Sen. Ted Cruz website, July 23, 2014.
[2] Brent Baker, "Tariq Aziz Too Soft on Israel for Helen Thomas," Media Research Center, Apr. 29, 2001.
[3] Barry Rubin, "America's Friend Saddam, 1988-90," Cauldron of Turmoil, p. 3.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Steven Emerson, The American House of Saud (New York: Franklin Watts, 1985), p. 250.
[6] Anthony B. Tirado Chase, "Edward Said's Anti-Oslo Writings," Middle East Quarterly, Mar. 1997.
[7] Douglas Davis, "In the Service of Saddam," The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 27, 2003.
[8] Khaled Abu Toameh, "On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians' Real Agenda," Hudson Institute, New York, Mar. 24, 2009.
[9] Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1986), p. 257.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Richard Milhaus Nixon, The Memoirs of Richard Nixon (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978), p. 787.
[12] Edward Said, "American Zionism: The Real Problem (1)," al-Ahram Weekly (Cairo), Sept. 21-27, 2000.
[13] YudelLine, Sept. 29, 2000; Jewish Law Blog, accessed Feb. 17, 2015.
[14] Yale M. Zussman, "How Much Do American Jews Support the Peace Process?" Middle East Quarterly, Dec. 1998, pp. 3-12.
[15] Ezra HaLevi, "Haaretz Editor Asked US Secretary of State to 'Rape' Israel," Israel National News, Dec. 27, 2007.
[16] Rubin, "America's Friend Saddam, 1988-90," Cauldron of Turmoil, p. 3.
[17] The Telegraph (London), June 2, 2006.
[18] Mattityahu Peled, quoted in Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Chicago: Chicago Review Press; 3rd ed., 2003), p. 285; Middle East Policy, June 1992, pp. 136–57.
[19] Letter to the author, Mar. 24, 2009.
-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Technorati Tag: Israel and Zionism and Arabs.

(Actualisé-2)

Két jármű bemutatására és egy országos program meghirdetésére került sor kedden a DanubeTruck Magyarország Kft. Hunyadi János úti telepén. A tesztprogram keretében két haszongépjárművet lehet kipróbálni, melyek előnye, hogy sűrített földgázzal (CNG) működnek, így gazdaságosabb és környezetbarát megoldást nyújtanak a fuvarozóknak.

tovább

When Jean-Claude Juncker took office last year as President of the European Commission he claimed that Europe had a problem – it was chronically under-investing in its critical infrastructure. The long lag in economic growth following the financial crisis and the fiscal pressure felt by most European countries since have contributed to an investment gap of up to €370 Bn below Europe’s current potential – compounding the economic malaise of the continent and reducing, in turn, Europe’s foundation for economic growth in the future.

Luckily however, Juncker didn’t just identify the problem but made finding a solution to it the headline priority of his first year in office. Enter the EU Investment Plan (#InvestEU for you Twitter addicts, and better known as the ‘Juncker Plan’) which proposed to mobilize €315 Bn in investment finance over three years along with a range of initiatives to improve the general investment environment in Europe. The centerpiece of the Plan was the creation of the European Fund for Strategic Investment (the EFSI) which would work within the European Investment Bank to leverage and direct the seed capital for the €315 Bn target towards the most efficient projects Europe has to offer.

We might then all have a cause to celebrate this week, as EU Finance Ministers reached a quick agreement on the structuring legislation for the EFSI yesterday. But before anyone uncorks the champagne, we should take stock of the obstacles the Juncker Plan still faces – as the road between yesterday’s agreement and filling Europe’s yawning investment gap is a very long one indeed.

Challenges Ahead for the Juncker Investment Fund

It is firstly worth noting that the political process to establish the EFSI Investment Fund is not actually complete. European Member States, having now reached an agreement, will now have to negotiate with the European Parliament on a common position before EFSI can enter European law – something which needs to happen before the summer break (this is, by all means, an extremely tight timeline for the European legislative process).

The bigger challenges, however, might lie outside of the political process, as it’s a very poorly kept secret that the European money mobilized for the Fund is nowheres close to its €315 Bn target – it’s actually just €21 Bn.

All the rest has to come from leverage and co-investment, which can’t be done by legislative decree.

The first step will be for the EIB to leverage the €21 Bn three times to €63 Bn. This is, of course, very achievable for an institution with the expertise and creditworthiness of the EIB.

The trickier bit is co-investment. In short, the remaining funds (fully €252 Bn) will have to come from public and private investors who decide to invest alongside the EIB in specific projects supported by EFSI (a process that will look something akin to the graphic below).

To give you an idea of the scale of the challenge, France and Italy, Europe’s second and fourth largest economies respectively, just this week committed to co-investing €8 Bn each in EFSI projects undertaken in their countries. That still leaves another €236 Bn of funds entirely unidentified at this stage.

What about the private sector?

It’s clear enough to everyone involved that the private sector is going to have to step up and take advantage of historically low interest rates by investing more in infrastructure. But how can we convince them to actually do that in time?

The answer to this is not so much in the Fund itself, but the broader Plan. You didn’t forget that the Plan was bigger than just the Fund, did you? Crucially, it is.

The ‘Juncker Plan’ includes a range of initiatives meant to substantially improve the environment for infrastructure and other investment in Europe. This includes creating a European Infrastructure Pipeline and Infrastructure Advisory Hub, both meant to enhance the transparency and investability of infrastructure as an asset class for large institutional investors (think pension funds and insurers).

Initiatives like the infrastructure pipeline are crucial innovations as one of the biggest roadblocks for private sector investment in infrastructure has been the lack of deal-flow and past performance data in many countries. This is mostly the case because infrastructure is traditionally seen as a public good with no steady record of private sector involvement in funding its creation. A European-level pipeline of identified projects would help investors plan their investment allocations over time and give them more information to consider increasing their exposure to infrastructure in general.

This maybe sounds easier than it will actually be. In practice, private investors often plan their investment allocations years in advance and have to balance those decisions within a diversified strategy that relies on carefully made decisions about risk appetite and the financial instruments used for investment.

In this context, it’s important that public sector officials develop a strong understanding of how private investors make their decisions and what they need in order to co-invest in EFSI-type projects. The skepticism demonstrated by some EU countries over the infrastructure pipeline (now made optional by the Council’s agreement for countries to participate in) is an example of just such a disconnect that could risk the Plan’s ability to attract private interest.

Overall however, the Juncker Plan has been proposed by the Commission and initiated into the European legislative process in record time. The need for such an initiative is clear, and this has been reflected in the high priority attached to it by almost all Member States and political groups in the EU. The quick process of establishment though, highlights the need to make sure we get things right the first time. Recognizing the role the private sector will have to play in this and considering how best to ensure that this actually happens is therefore perhaps as urgent as the Plan itself.

Scott Martin