Shanghai Shock: A Clarification

I need to issue a clarification regarding my post about the U.S. pavilion at the Shanghai world's fair. I said that "according to Bob Jacobson," our nonparticipation would have been preferable. That was a miswording and a misrepresentation. The opinion that we need not have bothered with a pavilion at the fair was my observation and mine alone. I meant to say that we need not have bothered with a pavilion at the fair if "Bob Jacobson's commentary is any indication."

In fact, Mr. Jacobson - himself - read my post and sent me the following commentary:

"Thank you for your observations, Steve. However, I don't go so far in my HuffPo article as to say that it would have been better had we done nothing for Shanghai. What I say is, it would have been better, and still would be better, if we improved the existing US Pavilion -- even at this late date, there are ways, particularly online additions -- and started making serious plans for the two forthcoming Expos, in Yeosu, Korea, and Milan. It's rather amazing to me that no one from the State Department other than US Expo Commissioner General Villarreal, who is a temporary appointment, has reached out to anyone involved in the Expo business or even acknowledged to the press that they know something is very wrong and needs to be fixed. That I do regret, more than the US Pavilion itself or the way it was created. When there's no learning as a result of a failure, the most likely outcome is a repeat of the failure. Why do we have to go through this again? Ah well, it would make one hell of a book . . .."

Mr. Jacobson was cordial and constructive with his remarks. I hope he won't hesitate to contact me again. :-)