So here’s a quick and easy approach for Mac users if you don’t want to fire up either Lightroom, Aperture or Photoshop:

1. Copy the pictures you have chosen for your presentation into a folder on your desktop called “Resize.” Note that I said “Copy” — this is important since this process changes the files themselves and you don’t want to mess up your originals.
2. In Finder, select all the images in “Resize” (you know about Ctrl-a, right?).
3. Double click on one of the selected images — this will open them all in Preview.
4. Select all the images in Preview (Again, Ctrl-a).
5. In the Tools menu, click on “Adjust size.”
6. Change to “pixels” in the dropdown to the right of “Width” and “Height.”
7. Change “Width” to 1024 and make sure “Scale proportionally” is checked.
8. After you click OK, you will see shrunk images.
9. Do a File | Save ALL and you will now have a nice folder full of resized images.
10. Use these images for your powerpoint.

This is a really quick and simple approach to making your powerpoints more efficient, faster loading and less likely to crash.

The U.S.-Russian Summit Turns Routine

By George Friedman

The Moscow summit between U. S. President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has ended. As is almost always the case, the atmospherics were good, with the proper things said on all sides and statements and gestures of deep sincerity made. And as with all summits, those atmospherics are like the air: insubstantial and ultimately invisible. While there were indications of substantial movement, you would have needed a microscope to see them.

An agreement was reached on what an agreement on nuclear arms reduction might look like, but we do not regard this as a strategic matter. The number of strategic warheads and delivery vehicles is a Cold War issue that concerned the security of each side’s nuclear deterrent. We do not mean to argue that removing a thousand or so nuclear weapons is unimportant, but instead that no one is deterring anyone these days, and the risk of accidental launch is as large or as small whether there are 500 or 5,000 launchers or warheads. Either way, nuclear arms’ strategic significance remains unchanged. The summit perhaps has created a process that could lead to some degree of confidence. It is not lack of confidence dividing the two countries, however, but rather divisions on fundamental geopolitical issues that don’t intersect with the missile question.

The Fundamental Issues

There are dozens of contentious issues between the United States and Russia, but in our mind three issues are fundamental.

First, there is the question of whether Poland will become a base from which the United States can contain Russian power, or from the Russian point of view, threaten the former Soviet Union. The ballistic missile defense (BMD) system that the United States has slated for Poland does not directly affect that issue, though it symbolizes it. It represents the U.S. use of Polish territory for strategic purposes, and it is something the Russians oppose not so much for the system’s direct or specific threat — which is minimal — but for what it symbolizes about the Americans’ status in Poland. The Russians hoped to get Obama to follow the policy at the summit that he alluded to during his campaign for the U.S. presidency: namely, removing the BMD program from Poland to reduce tensions with Russia.

Second, there is the question of Iran. This is a strategic matter for the United States, perhaps even more pressing since the recent Iranian election. The United States badly needs to isolate Iran effectively, something impossible without Russian cooperation. Moscow has refused to join Washington on this issue, in part because it is so important to the United States. Given its importance to the Americans, the Russians see Iran as a lever with which they can try to control U.S. actions elsewhere. The Americans do not want to see Russian support, and particularly arms sales, to Iran. Given that, the Russians don’t want to close off the possibility of supporting Iran. The United States wanted to see some Russian commitments on Iran at the summit.

And third, there is the question of U.S. relations with former Soviet countries other than Russia, and the expressed U.S. desire to see NATO expand to include Ukraine and Georgia. The Russians insist that any such expansion threatens Russian national security and understandings with previous U.S. administrations. The United States insists that no such understandings exist, that NATO expansion doesn’t threaten Russia, and that the expansion will continue. The Russians were hoping the Americans would back off on this issue at the summit.

Of some importance, but not as fundamental as the previous issues, was the question of whether Russia will allow U.S. arms shipments to Afghanistan through Russian territory. This issue became important last winter when Taliban attacks on U.S. supply routes through Pakistan intensified, putting the viability of those routes in question. In recent months the Russians have accepted the transit of nonlethal materiel through Russia, but not arms.

Even before the summit, the Russians made a concession on this point, giving the United States the right to transit military equipment via Russian airspace. This was a significant policy change designed to demonstrate Russia’s flexibility. At the same time, the step is not as significant as it appeared. The move cost the Russians little under the circumstances, and is easily revoked. And while the United States might use the route, the route is always subject to Russian pressure, meaning the United States is not going to allow a strategic dependence to develop. Moreover, the U.S. need is not as apparent now as it was a few months ago. And finally, a Talibanized Afghanistan is not in the Russian interest. That Russia did not grant the U.S. request last February merely reveals how bad U.S.-Russian relations were at the time. Conversely, the Russian concession on the issue signals that U.S.-Russian relations have improved. The concession was all the more significant in that it came after Obama praised Medvedev for his openness and criticized Putin as having one foot in the Cold War, clearly an attempt to play the two Russian leaders off each other.

What the Summit Produced

Much more significantly, the United States did not agree to withdraw the BMD system from Poland at the summit. Washington did not say that removal is impossible, but instead delayed that discussion until at least September, when U. S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Moscow. A joint review of all of the world’s missile capabilities was established at the summit, and this joint review will consider Iranian — and North Korean — missiles. The Polish BMD system will be addressed in that context. In other words, Washington did not concede on the point, but it did not close off discussions. The Russians accordingly did not get what they wanted on the missiles at the summit; they got even less of what they wanted in the broader strategic sense of a neutralized Poland.

The Russians in turn made no visible concessions on Iran. Apart from studying the Iranians’ missile systems, the Russians made no pledge to join in sanctions on Iran, nor did they join in any criticism of the current crackdown in Iran. The United States had once offered to trade Polish BMDs for Russian cooperation on Iran, an idea rejected by the Russians since the BMD system in Poland wasn’t worth the leverage Moscow has with Iran. Certainly without the Polish BMD withdrawal, there was going to be no movement on Iran.

NATO expansion is where some U.S. concession might have emerged. In his speech on Tuesday, Obama said, “State sovereignty must be a cornerstone of international order. Just as all states should have the right to choose their leaders, states must have the right to borders that are secure, and to their own foreign policies. That is why this principle must apply to all nations – including Georgia and Ukraine. America will never impose a security arrangement on another country. For either country to become a member of NATO, a majority of its people must choose to; they must undertake reforms; and they must be able to contribute to the alliance’s mission. And let me be clear: NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation.”

On the surface, this reiterated the old U.S. position, which was that NATO expansion was between NATO and individual nations of the former Soviet Union, and did not — and should not — concern Moscow. The terms of expanding, reforming and contributing to NATO remained the same. But immediately after the Obama-Putin meeting, Russian sources began claiming that an understanding on NATO expansion was reached, and that the Americans conceded the point. We see some evidence for this in the speech — the U.S. public position almost never has included mention of public support or reforms.

In many ways, however, this is splitting hairs. The French and Germans have long insisted that any NATO expansion should be limited to countries with strong public support for expansion, and which meet certain military thresholds that Georgia and Ukraine clearly do not meet (and could not meet even with a decade of hard work). Since NATO expansion requires unanimous support from all members, Russia was more interested in having the United States freeze its relations with other former Soviet states at their current level. Russian sources indicate that they did indeed get reassurances of such a freeze, but it takes an eager imagination to glean that from Obama’s public statement.

Therefore, we come away with the sense that the summit changed little, but that it certainly didn’t cause any deterioration, which could have happened. Having a summit that causes no damage is an achievement in itself.

The Kennedy Trap

Perhaps the most important part of the summit was that Obama does not seem to have fallen into the Kennedy trap. Part of the lack of serious resolutions at the summit undoubtedly resulted from Obama’s unwillingness to be excessively accommodating to the Russians. With all of the comparisons to the 1961 Kennedy-Khrushchev summit being bruited about, Obama clearly had at least one overriding goal in Moscow: to not be weak. Obama tried to show his skills even before the summit, playing Medvedev and Putin against each other. No matter how obvious and clumsy that might have been, it served a public purpose by making it clear that Obama was not in awe of either of them. Creating processes rather than solutions also was part of that strategy.

It appears, however, that the Russians did fall into the Kennedy trap a bit. The eagerness of Putin’s advisers to tout U.S. concession on Ukraine and Georgia after their meeting in spite of scant public evidence of such concessions gives us the sense that Putin wanted to show that he achieved something Medvedev couldn’t. There may well be a growing rivalry between Medvedev and Putin, and Obama might well have played off it.

But that is for the gossip columns. The important news from the summit was as follows: First, no one screwed up, and second, U.S.-Russian relations did not get worse — and might actually have improved.

No far-reaching strategic agreements were attained, but strategic improvements in the future were not excluded. Obama played his role without faltering, and there may be some smidgen of tension between the two personalities running Russia. As far as summits go, we have seen far worse and much better. But given the vitriol of past U.S.-Soviet/Russian relations, routine is hardly a negative outcome.

In the meantime, BMD remains under development in Poland, there is no U.S.-Russian agreement on Iran and, as far as we can confirm at present, no major shift in U.S. policy on Ukraine and Georgia has occurred. This summit will not be long remembered, but then Obama did not want the word “disastrous” attached to this summit as it had been to Kennedy’s first Soviet summit.

We wish there were more exciting things to report about the summit, but sometimes there simply aren’t. And sometimes the routine might turn out significant, but we doubt that in this case. The geopolitical divide between the United States and Russia is as deep as ever, even if some of the sharper edges have been rounded. Ultimately, little progress was made in finding ways to bridge the two countries’ divergent interests. And the burning issues — particularly Poland and Iran — continue to burn.

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to www.stratfor.com

Zion heavily restricts vehicle access to the park but offers an excellent shuttle-bus service plying a 12-mile round trip through the lower end of the park. Visitors can get on and off at a number of stops, each of which features a variety of easy or hard excursions. It makes the process of visiting the park ideal for newcomers.

Following showers, we headed downstairs to reclaim our car. Today would feature a trip to Hoover Dam and, if we didn’t get lost, a tourboat ride on Lake Mead. First, though, breakfast. Luckily we happened on an iHop just a little bit south of the hotel on Las Vegas Blvd. Happy place! They have free internet. The hotel charges $15/day, something of a rip-off.

The drive to Hoover Dam was short and we were early enough not to be caught in the usual summer traffic jam of tourists crossing the dam. We parked in the new garage and walked across the street to the visitors center where only a 10 minute wait preceded the introductory movie. The Bureau of Land Reclamation puts on a decidedly pro-dam presentation with no discussion of the anti-dam point of view.

The dam is wildly impressive, from the ‘30s-style winged statues and commemorative plaques at the entrance to the vast pipes and turbines in the generator house. What an incredible work this structure was and how beautiful the lake impounded behind it.

Almost equally impressive is the new highway bridge under construction across the Colorado half a mile or so downstream of the dam. The enormous concrete arch has grown from both banks and has only a few center sections to cast before it is complete (estimated at 30 days). The bridge is a cable-stayed concrete arch. The cables are already in place, providing support for the incomplete arch. Afterwards, they will provide necessary stabilization for the arch. The completed bridge will carry a 4-lane, divided highway across the gorge, a substantial improvement from the narrow, twisty 2 lanes now riding atop the dam.

From there we turned back to Las Vegas. A short way down the road we followed signs to a lookout with spectacular views of Lake Mead. It is amazing how bright blue the water is. A little further on, we headed to a lakeside marina where we took a two-hour sightseeing boat ride featuring a round trip to the dam. This was quite a sights as were the hills surrounding the lake. The only negative was the furnace-like breeze — it hit 108 degrees that afternoon. Luckily the boat had an air-conditioned deck where we spent most of our time.

The rest of the trip back to Las Vegas was uneventful except that our GPS took us to the north side of Las Vegas, not the southern end of the strip where the Luxor is located. We got the full view of the strip, through some pretty seedy areas including a couple of blocks of homeless tents. Obviously the opposite pole from the glitz and money image Las Vegas likes to present.

There is lots of construction going on in Las Vegas, though some of the big jobs are apparently now on hold. Nevertheless, literally thousands of new hotel rooms will be coming on line in the next 12–18 months. I wonder what the occupancy rates will look like next year.

We ate dinner at a nice (and quite expensive) steak restaurant in the hotel and then cabbed to the Rio Hotel, home of the Penn & Teller theater. They put on a great show — funny and obviously skillful magic. Gillian thinks this is the high point of the trip so far, even surpassing the roller coaster at New York New York.

We are staying in the huge pyramid called the Luxor Hotel. The prices during the week (and maybe this year especially) are pretty reasonable. Gillian should get a real kick out of the Egyptian theme.

Wednesday morning we plan to drive to Hoover Dam and take the tour of the dam and power plant. Maybe we will take the paddle boat that leaves on the Arizona side as well.

Wednesday evening we have tickets for a magic show: Penn & Teller at the Rio Casino Hotel.

Thursday we plan to sightsee along the Strip and use the pool — Las Vegas has sun and heat, something NJ hasn’t seen this year.

From Las Vegas, we will drive north to Zion Canyon, then on to Bryce Canyon. From there we will drive south to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, west to Mesa Verde and finally south to Albuquerque from which we fly back home.

We will be gone for 12 days, so we expect to have lots of sightseeing adventures to report. Once we are out of Las Vegas, though, our internet connections may be pretty scarce, so these reports may be sporadic at best

A joke should have the perfection of a haiku. Not one extra word. No wrong words. It should seem to have been discovered in its absolute form rather than created. The weight of the meaning should be at the end. The earlier words should prepare for the shift of the meaning. The ending must have absolute finality. It should present a world view only revealed at the last moment. Like knife-throwing, joke-telling should never be practiced except by experts.

Many fine examples follow. Well worth reading, and be prepared to laugh out loud. Ebert’s writing is a pleasure on all levels.

Ed Luce, from the Financial Times. Where’s Ed — there he is.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the context of all the multilateral activity that’s been going on this week — the G20, here at NATO — and your evident enthusiasm for multilateral frameworks, to work through multilateral frameworks, could I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of American exceptionalism that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy? And if so, would you be able to elaborate on it?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.

And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.

Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.

Not only is this a fine definition of American Exceptionalism, but it is yet another example of the ringing oratory this president brings to all his communications, whether pre-prepared or off-the-cuff.

Where are the critics who claim he can speak only with a teleprompter?

Sue and I are going to Jamaica later this week. We’re looking forward to seeing this idyllic spot again. Beautiful location, nice, interesting people and great weather. A welcome respite from a long northern winter.

We’re staying in Montego Bay, home of this lunch counter. Sounds like a pretty good lunch to me. Click on the photo to see some other Jamaica pictures.

Interesting reading as backdrop for President Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress tonight.