Spero Meliora: Hope is Everything

Yappie Dogs

2009-02-17T09:08:00.002-06:00

I hate tiny dogs that bark furiously and nip at your ankles. It's not just the noise that drives me insane. I've always had an issue with people (and dogs) who don't know when they're spoiling for a fight that they can't win.

Enter Ken Starr.

According to this article from the Washington Times, Starr is talking tough about filibustering Obama Supreme Court nominees. That makes about as much sense as a salacious, government-funded book about semen-stained dresses and cigars.

Starr is a goon. He's not a Senator. He's in a party that has just suffered crushing defeats in both elected branches of government, and he's trying to pick a fight with a wildly popular president over something that hasn't even come up yet. Add to this the fact that the Democrats will have a near-supermajority (with an outside chance for a supermajority) in the Senate at the time such a vote might come up. This is kabuki theater of the absurd. It's loud and bizarre.

Starr's sole reason for pushing a filibuster: Obama voted against Bush's nominees and is the first president to have participated in a filibuster of a judicial nominee.

This illustrates the basic problem with the Republican party: no cognizable governing principle. This is problematic for Democrats as well, but it doesn't manifest in the same way. For Republicans the lack of a cognizable governing principle manifests as a tendency to treat politics like gang violence. Instead of remaining satisfied that Bush put two of the most conservative Justices in recent history onto the Court, Republicans like Starr are treating Obama's "no" vote like a personal vendetta.

The Republicans will be restricted to this sort of spectacle until they decide what their over-arching governing principle is going to be. For Democrats, at least the majority of Democrats, that principle is the expansion of personal freedoms. (That's "freedom" characterizied in the affirmative, as in "freedom to act" rather than "freedom from restrictions on action," a la Amartya Sen.) Once upon a time the Republicans were precisely the converse, as in "freedom from restricitons on action," a la Hayek, Goldwater, and von Mises. Now, however, the Republicans are pushing a tremendous number of incongruent polices. Fiscal deregulation does not fit well with extreme regulation of non-economic private action. Oh well, confusion in the enemy camp won Agincourt as much as the longbow.

How to Protect Your Freedom

2009-02-13T09:36:00.002-06:00

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m2d12-You-respect-my-rights-and-Ill-respect-yours

The Nashville Examiner really got it right in this piece. If you only stick up for the freedoms that you care about, then your cause is as weak is it is monolithic.

The $9B Path to the $0.99 Economy

2009-01-30T10:22:00.002-06:00

Virtually everybody has the means to buy something for less than a dollar. Whether it's a soda or an iPhone app, most people can manage to buy something small that makes their life more pleasurable or more efficient. That's the key to repairing our economy.

Through the past fifteen years or so the economy has been bolstered by a combination of large purchases (homes) and consumer spending on the part of the middle class. The credit crisis had the capacity hamstring growth because the ability of the middle class to spend was directly connected to two things: 1) the willingness of the banks to accept risk, and 2) the willingness of the middle class to pay interest for instant gratification. The market's collective realization that this culture of absurd excess and instant gratification was based on a fantasy led to the current crisis.

The bailout package that is presently on the table is both good and bad. It has the classic hallmarks of Congressional incongruity. It's loaded with provisions that don't seem to have a lot of direct bearing on anything. It ignores the reality that government spending creates inflation. It spends money on things that sound nice, but probably don't incur a lot of economic return in the near term. It's lavish government spending at its finest.

The bailout package, however, isn't that bad. It contains some wonderful provisions to build infrastructure, including electrical infrastructure. Expanding our nation's capacity to engage in commerce and eliminating inefficiencies in transport could generate untold billions. Improving the electricity transport infrastructure while wind power generation overtakes coal in job creation could ensure more jobs in the Midwest and reduce our dependency on unsustainable power sources.

The big winner, however, is the $9B for broadband expansion and some bold moves on the tax credit front for the same purpose. The package includes $9B for broadband expansion, a %10 tax credit for any company building out rural broadband, and a 20% credit for any company building next-gen broadband in an existing market. This recognizes two fundamental truths of market economics. 1) Lots of consumer spending is good. 2) Diversification is great.

No one knows better than Obama that lots of people spending small sums of money can accomplish amazing things. More people on faster internet connections means both more consumers and more products making connections. Harnessing the power of more people to create and purchase more goods and services will revolutionize the American economy.

The perfect example of the capacity of braodband to change the economy is the iPhone app. Masses of users and developers come together to create a semi-open economy that is primarily rooted in the $0.99 product. Everyone can participate, and there is something for almost everyone to want. What isn't there, is a golden opportunity for a developer to make money. Every dollar put into broadband infrastructure ensures that many, many more dollars will flow through that infrastructure.

That's the bailout.

The Illusion of Justice

2008-10-21T11:39:00.003-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-CB-Guantanamo-Charge.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The Times headline reads: "U.S. Drops Charges Against 5 Detainees." To Americans this implies freedom, for in America if they can't charge you, they let you go. Not so under the law of the leasehold of GITMO. There, they switch to the set of rules that allows them to hold you without charge until they can trump up some new ones. In GITMO even getting the illusion of justice requires that the prosecuting attorney revolt. What does real justice take?

The Return of Illusory Metastability

2008-08-28T21:17:00.002-05:00

Mea culpa. I was wrong. (Or, rather, I think I was probably wrong.) When the Cold War ended, I believed that this signalled the beginning of the dynamic, multi-polar world. I believed that the world had entered a state of flux destined to eventually lead to a state of overall stability underpinned by an ever-shifting system of heterogeneous actors constantly rising, collapsing, changing. I saw the emergence of Thales' universe, a world made of water and full of gods, rythmic, predictable, but never quite stable. I was wrong.

The U.S. led (read: perpetrated) invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan were purportedly undertaken for the purpose of bringing order to chaos, but this is an inversion of the reality of the situation (if reality is a concept that we can even refer to straight-faced). The system was already stable. Poverty and repression are not synonymous with chaos. The removal of two deeply repressive mechanisms did nothing to provide stability, but instead revealed that the uni-polar world of US hegemony lacked the requisite stability for the modern system of all-imersive Capitalism to function effectively.

Notably, neither of these systems was truly antithetical to the Capitalist system. Iraq, were it not for UN sanctions, would have proven fertile ground for Capitalism, and though Afghanistan's Taliban rulers maintained a policy of anti-Capitalist theocracy domestically, they were more than happy to supply the remainder of the world with opium and its most capitalist deriviative, heroin, that tranquilizer purged of its connection to nature, abstracted from any possibility of a mystic dimension. The crime of the former was that of pretending to non-alignment. The crime of the latter was of harboring a virus dangerous to the entire system.

Had the US merely invaded the latter, there would be no shake-up, no risk of a new bi-polar world. The purging of the Taliban would merely have increased opium production, merely have created a zone of instability to be filled by some amalgamation of strong-men. The invasion of Iraq, however, functioned like an autoimmune disease of the Capitalist system. Capital's strongest agent destabilizing a resource-rich area with a leader willing to play by the rules. Not the pseudo-political "rules" of the international political "order," but the rules of Capital. An agent willing to sell resources for the pretense of power was subjected to violence where an exchange of value would have sufficed.

This violation of the rules of Capital has prompted a response from Capital in the form of bi-polar escalation with Russia. America's lapse into the use of actual power instead of Capital's preferred mechanisms has prompted a similar response from Russia, the only agent capable of restoring the illusion of metastability that is mutually-assured destruction. Deterrence previously existed between Capital (power by the subtle violence of the market) and anti-Capital (power by overt violence), creating perfect stability. But in this potential future Capital will play both sides of the board. If deterrence was merely illusion before, it will be doubly so now. For while in the previous system the macabre threat of annihilation preserved the status quo, in this system there need not even be a reminder of potential annihilation. The world may conveniently slip into the dynamic of two Bell spinoffs, each comfortable with failing to compete. No conspiracy needed, merely an independent recognition that the status quo will be maintained regardless.

Of course, this bi-polarity need only exist to provide stability until "peacefully rising China" eclipses it. Capitalism is not a liberal ideal. It does not prefer civil liberties or mass-surveillance. It does not prefer freedom to opression. It can prosper in either environment. China's surveillance and repression is fine with Capital so long as it is directed solely at the non-economic choices of its citizens. Soon China will recognize the pacification mechanism inherent in Capital, rebellion on a t-shirt, subversion via the unread blog post. With China's inevitable rise will come the eclipse of the briefly revived struggle of the titans, and with it the reign of the all-seeing Zeus, patron diety of the contract, of the rules of Capital.

Winning the War: How Conflicts are Defined and Redefined Four Dimensionally

2008-08-19T19:07:00.002-05:00

Winning in any modern conflict is little different strategically than winning in any ancient conflict. The choice of the battlefield is frequently the decisive factor. However, in modern warfare, which, as Baudrillard points out so frequently, is hardly warfare at all, the choice of latitude, longitude, and altitude (or in political terms: issues, positions, and gravitas) is hardly as important as the selection of the time frame. I do not mean this in the classical sense of selecting the appropriate moment for action, the perfect time to strike a killing blow. I am referring to the modern trend in winning conflicts by only referencing a certain discreet section of time. This confinement of realitiy was once reserved for history books and chosen in order to allow the human mind to categorize data. However, in recent years it has become common to shift referential points to redefine conflicts.

To deal with a concrete military example, in Iraq there is a trend to narrow the referential points both temporally and spatially to include only those areas of space and time in which "The Surge" was employed as the only areas of import. The disaster of Iraq is already, by any reasonable standard, a failure. Clausewitz would likely deficate himself at the mere thought of referencing any of our Iraqi endeavor as a victory. He might have a second go-round if he were told of this "Surge" and its innovative tactic of deploying a large number of troops to quell low-intensity fighting. The very idea that "The Surge" (perhaps a name more fitting for an energy drink than a military strategy) is innovative is belied by a mere glance at the military advice provided by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shinseki, who, as those astute enough to remember that the Iraq war began before "The Surge" will know, posited that a similar troop level (per number of civilians, not overall) would be neccessary to achieve any kind of actual victory in Iraq. He was forced to retire before the actual invasion. The referentials of both the war and the concept of deploying a sizable force have been shifted by the sorceres of PR to ensure that they are viewed as creatures of the very recent past. "The Surge" has been further truncated by giving it the simulated lifespan of a mayfly. It, apparently, is completed and a success. That it may need to continue indefinitely in order to continue suppressing any violent conflict is never discussed. That it is a common tactic, used by any imperial power seeking domination over an area unwilling to readily submit to foreign control (direct or indirect) is never mentioned. It is "The Surge," the all-powerful, eternally successful, throughly innovative strategy of General Petraeus, a trademarked, branded sacred cow of militaristic prowess. Absurd. It's logic is as simple and eternally damning as that of a child taking the field with plastic army men. Locate the places where the enemy is attacking my men, and send more men until it stops. The unfortunate problem is that this scenario never ends. Ask the Vietnamese, the Russians, the Celtic Britons, and any other insurgency that ever succeeded.

This same shifting of references is consistently employed in the political arena as well (even presuming that the war and its referentials are not wholly creatures of the political realm). Senator McCain has consistently reinvented himself and somehow altered the reference points of his own career to span nearly forty years while skipping some of the most notable moment. The Senator is clearly setting a temporal agenda worthy of a Greek god by including in his own personal timeline his time in a Vietnamese prison camp and his "maverick" leadership on campaign finance reform while skipping over his membership in the illustrious Keating Five.

Of course, Obama is guilty of the same skillful manipulation of the time frame. He has repeatedly insisted on the relevance of his stance on the invasion of Iraq prior to its occurance. However, to suggest that the then State Senator for Illinois was in a situation where his opposition was either relevant or rooted in a situational similarity to his colleagues in the Senate is absurd. Its effectiveness is rooted in Obama's ability to conquer so much of the public spectacle. His ubiquity makes his presence seem to extend into the past and future, as though he were conquering time itself. His token opposition as a charismatic lawmaker unknown outside of his home state has grown with his media image into a full-blown simulacrum of not merely a vote, but leadership against a war that should have never happened.

Top 5 Reasons We Can't Be Pure Capitalists

2008-04-22T13:42:00.003-05:00

#5 - Wall Street is as redder than Trotsky.

It's true. There are more socialists on Wall Street than anywhere in America, but they won't tell you that. Where were the cries of "Let the market regulate itself!" when the Fed traded Bear Sterns a pile of cash for a pile of junk to make them a palatable buy for JP Morgan.

#4 - Politics is good for business.

Why would you want to be pure capitalists when you can pay lobbyists to bribe congressmen to dedicate tax dollars to subsidizing your industry directly?

#3 - Infrastructural monopolies are limited-scope governments.

Ever notice that your cable company makes an awful lot of decisions for you? If there were no regulation of companies that own massive, regional infrastructures they'd be able to do whatever they liked with them. Think a competitor would come in? Ever try to figure out what it costs to build out a massive telecommunications network? Neither have they. The corporate socialists mentioned above made sure that they didn't pay for it. Your parents did.

#2 - The limited liability model of corporations is anti-capitalist.

I'm all for deregulating the economy, but Wall Street can't have it both ways. Government intervenes by granting special protections to investors. That's why companies go broke and have tremendous amounts of debt and shareholders stay rich. They're not liable for the company's debts beyond the initial investment of their shares. Try that as a private citizen. Drive your car into somebody else's and say that you're only liable for the value of the car you were driving. CEO's do something like this with companies all the time. I'm not saying it isn't a good model for building up business. I'm just saying that if you want government out of your business, then don't expect them to grant you special privileges.

#1 - We don't want to!

We may hate tax day, but we hate having no services even more. Increasingly people vote for government to be a clearinghouse for outsourcing the services that government has traditionally provided, but then they complain when ambulance service is sketchy or fire departments don't have the proper equipment to deal with large chemical fires. People hate their medical insurance company, and they sure don't want to pay the premiums on having FedEx deliver their Christmas cards. Start taking away those little hold-outs of socialism and see what people really think about it.

The Oil Paradox

2008-04-21T22:36:00.002-05:00

"The last thing we need is another supply disruption. The outage certainly adds to the bullish sentiment." -John Kilduff, VP of risk management at MF Global on the news that attacks by Nigerian militants on two pipelines had disrupted supply and sent oil to 117.48/barrel.

Oil is in short, the most certain and lucrative investment in the entire global market. On a fundamental level, if the price of oil begins to decline in any real sense, one of two things has happened. The attractive option is that the energy, transportation, industrial, and food sectors have begun to realign their infrastructure with a sustainable model at a faster rate than the supply of oil dwindles as chaos in oil-rich areas spreads. And I'm the Queen of England.

The second, and much more realistic option, is that all of these sectors begin to undergo some type of cataclysmic collapse resulting from costs of production (read: cost of oil) rising beyond the ability of markets to cope without resorting to bold-faced, out-and-out war over the stuff. And, of course, war in the 21st century consumes a great deal of oil.

The most obvious problem in the oil equation arises from the sentiment so apparent in Mr. Kilduff's remark. The world's economy can't withstand shocks in oil supply (which are increasingly likely as supply becomes more tenuous), while simultaneously those very shocks ensure the wealth of speculators and producers. It is not in the short-term interests of those invested in oil to stabilize its supply or its price. To do so would jeopardize their ability to continue posting the profits now expected by their investors, but to not do so risks the long-term solvency of their companies and the entire global commodity system.

The law of demand will set the price of oil for only so long. At a certain point, as oil drives upward the prices of all other commodities, the size of the consumer base able to afford the new cost of living will become smaller by orders of magnitude. As this occurs, as the masses can no longer be entertained with products and services which are priced beyond their reach (and possibly even beyond the reach of their ability to buy on credit), their degree of political instability will rise accordingly. As Americans we have difficulty envisioning how this will impact us. The greatest difficulty arises in the nature of OPEC member nations as unstable, underdeveloped regions. It is difficult to imagine the Caspian Sea region, lying so close to some of the most chaotic areas of the former Soviet Union, as stable in a society even further divided by class. It is even more difficult to imagine Iraq, Iran, the Sudan, or Venezuela becoming more functional under these conditions. Thus, as oil becomes more expensive, regional political tensions rise, and the resultant instability creates a more restricted supply of oil.

In America this means initially the rise of a populist leader or some form of extremely oppressive "unitary executive," and probably both. This, frankly, might not be the worst thing for the people of the United States. Huey Long built most of Louisiana's roads and bridges, a great university, and provided health care to the poor. FDR was the only president to stay in office beyond two terms, and he attempted to virtually take over both other branches of government (albeit unsuccessfully). Of course, Hitler was a populist, too, in many respects. Franco, Mussolini, and Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell were all masterfully efficient leaders who knew how to keep order in troubled times, and economic crisis and political upheaval brought them all to power.

This will be oil's legacy. Oil will make the next round of speculator millionaires. Oil will drive the production of sustainable energy research. Oil will bring the next Hitler to power. Oil will drive cooperation to end violent conflicts. Oil will spawn convoluted wars with no clear sides. Oil may end the world. Oil may force the world to save itself. Probably, in some sense, oil will do both, and sooner than we think.

Waaahah, I Don't Want to be Regulated!!!!

2008-03-05T23:22:00.002-06:00

This Financial Times article perfectly illustrates the problems with bankers, the credit market, and the politics of money. Britain's finance minister wants to force banks to package mortgage-backed securities in groups appropriately labeled by risk. (i.e. If the security says it's AAA mortgage-backed debt, then every mortgage feeding the security meets certain standards relating to the credit ratings of the debtors, debt-value ratio of the mortgage, etc.) What do bankers say to this? It might create a "two-tier system" whereby some people (i.e. good credit risks) could get cheap home loans and others (i.e. bad credit risks) wouldn't be able to. The banks act as if lending to people who are likely to repay their debt and not lending to people who are less likely to do so is a both bad business and socially irresponsible. What!? There are two possible reasons that banks really don't like this idea. One: The banks made so much money lending to people that couldn't afford to pay their notes and selling the bad debt packaged up with the good debt that they can't wait for the market to recover and let them do it again. Two: The banks are so regulation-phobic that, even though option "one" is apparently not true (based on the number of banks that had billions in write-downs this year) they can't stand the idea of the government making them not do it again anyway. It's very much like a small child who cracks his head open riding a bike and then whines because mommy makes him wear a helmet next time.

Like many free-marketers I tend to support letting the banks do whatever they want, but that only works if we don't bail them out, don't lend them money from the public coffers (or printing press as the case may be), don't back their mortgages through Fannie Mae, and don't let them form government sponsored cartels that masquerade as government-run central banks. Just like the spoiled kid, he can ride the bike, but he's got to wear the helmet.

Change, Hope, Work, and the Modern Candidate

2008-01-09T23:07:00.000-06:00

Before reading this I should warn you, I am about to sound very cynical. I want you to take my cynicism with a grain of salt, and I want you to vote. I want you to vote for the candidate who you feel you should. Vote for the candidate who has said something that makes you think, "Wow, that's a great idea, and I think that's what America should do." Now, on to the cynicism.

This election is rigged. It's not rigged in the classical sense of the term. There's no Ken Blackwell quietly arranging to stuff the ballot box through careful application of law. There's no one purging voter rolls of, well, voters... yet. The election is rigged in the same way that everything in American life is rigged now. The meaningful choice has been removed. The media, through no fault of any individual, has eliminated choice at the behest of its master. Who, you ask? Who is this Orwellian demon, pulling at the strings of the American polity? It's you. It's me. It's the American people themselves. They have demanded the eradication of their choices. Simply put, choosing a president through the means one was historically chosen takes a great deal of time, time that we no longer want to give to the subject. In 19th century America politics was the entertainment. By the 1970's politics was competing with entertainment, and by the late 1990's it had been reprocessed to fit into the entertainment format of today. Unfortunately, we no longer consider listening to lectures by great minds entertaining, and anything longer than 20 minutes plus commercials had better have a budget in the tens of millions of dollars and star Brad Pitt or his wife.

To meet our entertainment demands the news media has been forced to choose who to cover. The medium of television would allow for serious 3 hour specials on the background and views of virtually every candidate whose name you've heard this year, and Americans do watch enough TV for that. However, they won't watch that, not even in the middle of a writers' strike. It's sad, but true. If they would, the media would have done it gladly because it would be cheap to produce. Instead, they're stuck to excluding people from debates just to make them more than hand-raising and true or false questions. On both the left and the right candidates have accused the media of manipulating the coverage. They have, but at whose behest? The behest of the American people. The candidates that raise money well and poll well get coverage, and others are excluded from it. As a result the candidates that get coverage raise more money and poll better. Go figure. As such the media ends up creating false dichotomies. This is most glaring on the Republican side where many candidates have enjoyed their time at the top. First it was Giulianni and Romney. Then it was Thompson and Romney. Then it was Romney and Huckabee. Then it was Romeny and McCain. Then Romney did poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now it'll be McCain and Huckabee. The point is, though, that the format of TV news and newspaper/internet headlines makes two candidates preferable, and the drama of the political race makes a new winner/frontrunner a necessity at every turn. To listen to the news you'd think that Obama had handed Hillary her ass in Iowa and vice versa in New Hampshire. In reality, the former is somewhat true and the latter patently false. New Hampshire splits up their delegates, so Obama is still out front, but the story of an ass whipping in the first round and a comeback in the second is so Rocky Balboa that we just but right into it. The choreography of the campaigns is so adjusted to this hyper-re-activity of the media that it begins to resemble Japanese No theater in which every move is calculated, deliberate, and intensely restrained. We never see a candidate deviate from message. The message is deliberately altered to suit the moment. No one even expects that candidates say what they mean. In fact, much of the commentary is on whether they seemed believable. It is implicitly assumed in the modern world that their message is void of content, and, as such, critique tends to focus on the skill with which it is delivered. People discuss whether or not a candidate can win as much as if they should win, and everyone falls for it. The false dichotomy created in the "frontrunners" results in most informed people choosing between the candidate that they want to vote for and the media darling that they least despise. (In the interests of full disclosure I like both Kucinich and Paul because of their stances on the war, civil liberties, and monetary policy, which, while different, are both realistic and show a real comprehension of the issues involved. Barring those two, I like Edwards. By the time of the Tennessee primary I will probably vote for Obama, or rather, against Hillary.)

What is an individual to do about this? God knows. I suppose the answer is inform yourself outside of TV media, and then vote for who you really believe in. That said, it is a bit like being in a Mexican standoff and being the first guy to lower your gun.

One final note:
I find Bill Clinton's heavy campaigning for his wife utterly distasteful. Former presidents, even ones with such clear affiliations, should recuse themselves from active political life.

SMS Saves!

2007-08-25T11:55:00.000-05:00

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/20/content_6569904.htm

According to this article from an English-language Chinese newspaper the government of Hunan Province sent 2.5 million text messages to warn residents regarding the storm remnants of Category-5 Typhoon Sepat. Fascinating.

Hollywood Goes Bollywood

2007-08-13T23:16:00.000-05:00

http://www.metro.co.uk/fame/article.html?in_article_id=61235

According to the typical celebrity hype news Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty is likely to be the next Bond girl. Why? Because she can sell out Asian theater markets. This is representative of a gradual shift in the center of cultural gravity globally. Even pop-culture, a bastion of American dominance, is shifting towards Asia. Though these types of shifts seem trivial, it is precisely this type of shift that will make Asian economic hegemony palatable to Americans.

I don't even rip movies, but....

2007-05-02T21:07:00.000-05:00

As usual, when data escapes the control of its "owners," a group of MNCs with deep pockets and first-tier law school grads have sent out cease and desist letters. They wanted to stop this:

09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0

It's like up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a, start, but it disables copy protection on certain DVD's instead of giving you thirty lives.

The djinn doesn't go back in the lamp very easily.

ADDED 5.3.07:

The EFF's counsel explains why posting this key could land people in trouble...

but try and put THIS back in the bottle!

My Reading of the Theaetetus of Plato

2007-05-02T01:03:00.000-05:00

I've worked through the Theaetetus of Plato several times and have become rather convinced that the point of the work is to illustrate that knowledge supervenes on connectivity. It's interesting to imagine that Plato, the great proponent of censorship and xenophobia, advocate of antidemocratic regimes, might have found knowledge and wisdom to be products of interaction and integration.

CLICK HERE TO READ

On Islamic Extremism and Suicide Terrorism

2007-05-02T00:55:00.000-05:00

This is a copy of a paper that I had a rather fun time writing on the nature of suicide terrorism in the Islamic world. Of course, I have a theory....

CLICK HERE TO READ

Why Kyoto is the Problem

2007-03-08T14:27:00.000-06:00

A few weeks ago I was one more voice in the chorus begging for American participation in Kyoto. After undertaking a bit of research on the subject I have made a complete about face. Kyoto, among numerous other problems, has created an entirely new problem with regard to climate change. Specifically, Article 12 of Kyoto stipulates that developed nations may provide clean development aid to non-Annex B nations to aid in meeting their reduction targets. Under Article 12 China can generate UN approved carbon credits to trade with Annex B nations, but is under no obligation to comply with any development standards.

China is more than happy to comply with this system, especially as not all GHGs (greenhouse gasses) are created equal. The potent GHG HFC-23 is roughly 11,700 times more potent than CO2. That means that for every one ton of HFC-23 (used as a refrigerant and for plasma etching in the semiconductor industry) captured, the company receives 11,700 tons of CO2 credits. Chinese companies have profited in to the tune of around $5.9 billion for an investment of less than $200 million while companies in states that have ratified Kyoto have had that many more carbon credits available for purchase. The Chinese government takes a 65% cut of that income, and though the official line is that it will be used for “sustainable development.” The word “sustainable” seems to have a very flexible meaning when translated into Mandarin.

This system essentially doubly empowers China as a polluter giving them both a free pass relative to industrial nations and a source of income for building out new infrastructure. Though I have only anecdotal evidence on which to base this assumption, I firmly believe that stories about Chinese wind farms and clean energy projects are the environmental equivalent of Trerezín (the Third Reich's so-called "model concentration camp" used to fool the Red Cross).

Encouraging this "gold-rush" atmosphere in carbon trading is Kyoto's limited time horizon. By drafting a treaty with such a near-term expiration date (Since when is climate change a short-term problem?) the international community has discouraged the building of large clean energy projects that require massive capital layout and have a long lifespan. From a certain standpoint the treaty actually incentivizes the construction of dirty industry. The feedback loop of revenue generated when the Chinese government taxes income on carbon credits produced cleaning up Chinese infrastructure actually incentivizes the construction of old-style dirty infrastructure. If the goal of the Chinese government is to industrialize rapidly (a safe bet, I think), then building infrastructure which will produce the additional boon of carbon credit income just slathers gravy on the meat and potatoes of industrialization. Again, were it not for the short-sighted time frame of Kyoto investors would be incentivized to build out large-scale projects which would generate these credits ad infinitum, especially if the promise of continued benefits beyond potential adherence to Kyoto by China were laid out. Instead, Kyoto merely creates an attitude of "get while the gettin's good." That hardly seems productive.

The Life Tax

2006-09-27T14:55:00.000-05:00

Over the course of my life, I have grown increasingly frustrated with inflation and the rising cost of goods. I remember when a Coke was less than fifty cents, but now it seems that to buy a can of Coke at a gas station costs a little bit more, ninety-two cents at the Tigermart down the street. In Tennessee that price includes a decent sized chunk of sales tax. Now, I know what you’re thinking. Democrats are supposed to be okay with taxes. As a liberal I’m supposed to appreciate the value of government programs and support the means through which those programs are funded, right? Well, even if that were entirely true, I’m still not okay with the sales tax. It’s barbaric.
The sales tax is possibly the most horrendous method of taxation ever heard of unless someone can find me a reference to a tax on breathing. The Republican Party loves to make a lot of noise about the “death tax,” the morbid epithet they assign to the estate tax on the transfer of inheritances over $2 million. The implication seems to be that there’s something unseemly about taxing someone’s property after they die. I think we should call the sales tax a “life tax.” Instead of taxing someone based on income or actual wealth, our state government sees fit to tax them based on what they spend. What does that cost real people?
Let’s assume a family of four is totally average (in economic terms) and makes the state’s median income (around $55,000). Let’s also assume that they are extraordinarily careful about budgeting for food and spend around $14 per meal for the whole family (one step up from ramen noodles). This family is still spending around 3% of their annual income on taxes just to eat. That could buy them a new computer, pay their house note for a couple of months, or pay most of the tuition for their kid who just started college. But no, that’s the government’s share for the privilege of eating frozen chicken and canned peas. Let’s look at a family living in North Memphis. Their median income is around $20,000, and suddenly the government’s cut of dinner is around 7% of their annual income. Does anyone else think of this as being extortionate?
In states with graduated income taxes (taxes on income that increase as you make more money) the government tries to cut into the purchase of diamond tennis bracelets, not hot meals for kids. When Republican Governor Don Sundquist tried to push for real tax reform in Tennessee (i.e. a graduated income tax) the bill met with striking resistance. Street protests and somewhat violent demonstrations orchestrated by then State Senator Marsha Blackburn frightened lawmakers into voting down the issue.
Citizens in states with graduated income taxes also get to deduct their state income taxes from their federal income taxes, meaning that not many people are really paying that much more in overall taxes. In recent years the Republicans, led by now Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have made state sales taxes deductible as well. The down side to that is it only works if you itemize your taxes, saving every receipt for everything you buy that you want to deduct. Thanks, Marsha, now those wealthy enough to hire accountants to do that for them can rest even more of the burden of government on those of us who fill out a 1040 EZ every year.
Anyone who isn’t utterly radical recognizes the necessity of government spending. Certainly most Republicans agree that we need a government and that government costs money, and most Republicans agree with Democrats that it is important to actually raise the money to pay for those expenditures through taxes. (Some, however, believe that going in debt to China and Saudi Arabia is preferable.) So why is it that here in Tennessee we can’t seem to manage a tax structure that doesn’t take food from the mouths of the poor, doesn’t make it harder for kids to go to college, doesn’t add to the cost of your textbooks every semester, and is only recoverable by the wealthy? Here’s my argument: Either people have been convinced by Republican politicians that an income tax is bad (even if it’s cheaper for everybody but the absurdly wealthy), or they are the absurdly wealthy and simply don’t care if they cut into your food, your books, and your education in order to ensure that they don’t pay an extra few bucks every year. After all, it’s immensely more important that Biff and Buffy have even more money stashed in offshore accounts, tax-sheltered annuities, and hyper-expensive art than it is that you have any of those things so necessary to a decent life. Who cares about the “death tax” when there’s a tax on life to be worried about?

The Moral High Ground

2006-09-25T17:05:00.000-05:00

Certain members of the Republican Party have, for a number of years now, reveled in their perceived status as the party of morality. As GOP politicians have derided Democrats as unpatriotic or immoral, implying of course that Republicans are the opposite, I have wondered exactly what politician in history has publicly claimed to be anything else. So, six years after the GOP has achieved its goal of holding the presidency, majorities in both chambers of congress, and appointing seven of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, what grand strides have been made by our government to promote morality and patriotism? Let’s take a quick look back at some of the great achievements of the past six years.
In 2003 Congress and the President took a great moral leap and cut veterans benefits to the tune of just under a billion dollars over five years. This decision clearly took into account the high level of patriotism felt by America’s men and women in uniform. Realizing that our valiant heroes were eager to sacrifice for their country, their country took them up on the offer thus rendering them more patriotic and more selfless! The Democratic alternative to those cuts was a 2.4 billion dollar increase in veterans’ benefits. As a veteran, I can only lament my party’s misunderstanding of our needs. I believe I speak for most veterans when I say that we neither desire nor need any reward for our service. The knowledge that cuts in the Veterans’ Administration budget will be used to fund a massive tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans is enough for me.
Also, as a former soldier, I never did think much of the Geneva Convention. There are several clear problems with it, not least of all combat provisions which clearly came from a different era of warfare. Most of all, however, I hated the requirement that we treat prisoners of war as human beings. I must admit that I am truly grateful that our Justice Department spent years working the legal system to keep the detainees at Guantanamo Bay from having the rights of either a criminal or a prisoner of war. Heaven knows that either might prevent us from utilizing interrogation techniques pioneered by the Spanish Inquisition or the judges at the Salem Witch Trials. After all, torture has always provided such reliable information. Another moral victory brought to you by the Republican Party! Who cares if we periodically find out that some of the detainees were tourists?
As the battle has raged on at home over gay marriage, the Department of Defense has held the moral line abroad, discharging Sergeant Bleu Copas and fifty-five other Arabic linguists who were found to be homosexual. That, my friends, is real moral certitude. Our Department of Defense has willingly sacrificed the practical gain of having Arabic linguists for the sake of letting the homosexuals know that their service to the nation will not be tolerated under any circumstances, not even war. I’m certain that every American soldier who has died because of faulty intelligence reporting or mistranslation died secure in the knowledge that the military has remained morally upright.
Nothing, however, could prove our government’s commitment to creating a nation of moral patriots than this year’s tripling of the tax levied on teenagers with college savings funds. In this day and age college students have too many advantages when paying for their education. Tax breaks on college savings funds may seem like a good idea, but the reality is that they simply make life too easy for students, to the detriment of their moral character. Clearly these tax hikes are critical to the health of the nation. It is of utmost importance that students do their part to pay for the war, the massive federal deficit, and the construction of a 100 billion dollar missile defense shield (even if it doesn’t work). Our nation’s millionaires have already done too much, so abolishing the estate tax entirely (It already has exemptions for estates valued at under 2 million dollars.) should clearly take priority over college savings funds.
All sarcasm aside, I do not oppose much of the traditional platform of the Republican Party. As a Democrat, I am an advocate for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. I support our troops, and, in fact, was one. I have faith in our entrepreneurial spirit to discover unique solutions to long-standing problems, and I believe that the market can create enough jobs and wealth for every American to have a living wage, healthcare, and a retirement. I believe that careful government spending can provide a massive tax cut for the American middle class. I am pro-choice, but so was Ronald Regan. I support the War on Terror, even if I disagree with certain of the methods this administration has employed.
In my opinion, the problem inherent in the Republican Party does not lie in its rhetoric, but in its actions. If the GOP would practice what it preaches and make a tough stand for morality and ethics in government, cut wasteful spending, honor our veterans, and author practical tax cuts instead of reckless ones, I might just become a Republican. They, however, continue to produce such outstanding policy achievements as the renaming of French fries and failed Constitutional Amendments to ban flag burning. As war deaths mount, as crime rises at home, as our ports remain insecure, and as our heroes fail to receive proper treatment, this is the best the GOP can offer. The problem with the Republican Party does not lie in its rhetoric. The problem is that the Republican Party is only rhetoric.

The Party of McGovern and MacGyver

2006-09-25T17:02:00.000-05:00

Will Rogers once famously stated, “I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.” I wish that Will Rogers were more like my magic 8-ball. It’s wrong a lot. Instead he struck the chord which has resonated within the Democratic Party since its earliest days. At various times the Democrats have been an amalgam of farmers and industrial workers, anti-imperialists and bankers, Southerners and union agitators, and segregationists and progressive reformers. Today’s incarnation of the Democratic Party is an ad hoc coalition of causes ranging from environmentalists to gay rights activists to Christian pacifists all attached to Roosevelt’s progressive populism with bubblegum and bailing wire.
Perhaps it is the realistic view of politics held by the Democrats that makes it such an eclectic group. Politics is not about two titanic sets of ideals fighting for supremacy, but rather about radically diverse regions and special interest groups jockeying for each others’ money and influence. Republicans do a good job of jockeying collectively, getting their strange coalition of wealthy corporate interests and traditionalist social values voters, or Greed and God, good seats at the bargaining table. (Granted, upon arrival Greed usually starts cutting into God’s share of the spoils, but that’s beside the point.) Democrats, on the other hand, fail to comprehend the “team play” aspect of this game. Our loyalties are all too frequently to our causes over our party so much that we forget that in order to control the agenda we need to support and strengthen our party first.
This election cycle is rife with examples of this. In Connecticut, as you are all probably aware, Senator Joe Lieberman lost his Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont, a wealthy entrepreneur running on an anti-war platform. Despite his loss, Lieberman simply filed to run as an independent, hoping that conservative voters and Republicans fearful of a more liberal senator would carry him to office. Those committed enough to the party’s agenda and goals to call themselves Democrats on the day of primary elections voted for Ned Lamont, but Lieberman’s tactic effectively allows him to ignore the wishes of Democrats, win with a hodgepodge of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents and continue calling himself a Democrat. Does it disenfranchise his district? No, certainly not. Does it damage his party? Yes, not only by pushing their major anti-war sentiment out of the picture but by deepening fissures within a party that already has problems with unity.
Here in Tennessee we face similar issues. In the 9th District (covering Memphis and some of Shelby County), Democratic Nominee Steve Cohen faces opposition in the general election by Jake Ford, an independent who claims to be a Democrat. Jake Ford, who happens to be brother to incumbent and Senate hopeful Harold Ford Jr., seems to be running on the platform that the seat should be held by an African American, and while that platform may be valid, it is not good for either the party or the district. Creating a racial schism in the fervently egalitarian Democratic Party is hardly the wisest course of action, jeopardizing both the party’s long term structure and the chances of Harold Ford Jr. in his Senate bid. Furthermore, Jake is not his brother, though he is banking on the family name. Unlike the well-educated and seasoned Harold, Jake Ford has not graduated high school or college, and has never held government office. In contrast Harold Ford Jr. graduated from the prestigious University of Pennsylvania, the first-tier University of Michigan Law School, has served in numerous staff positions in government, and has been a sitting Congressman for ten years. Does it seem that coat-tail riding is in fashion this election season?
Despite his reputation, Ford’s bid for Congress is not what offends me. In fact, Jake Ford does not offend me at all, because he filed as an independent. It is the tacit support of his brother who refuses to endorse the Democratic nominee but expects (and is receiving) the support of the Democratic Party that is so infuriating. Harold Ford Jr. and his ally, Gov. Phil Bredesen are the core of the Democratic Coordinated Campaign in Tennessee. Between them they have raised approximately fifteen million dollars for their combined efforts statewide. They have included Rep. John Tanner and a handful of other candidates in their push, but Cohen and 7th District nominee Bill Morrison remain conspicuously absent from their efforts. Why? When I asked Morrison he stated: “They wanted fifty thousand dollars to join. This is a grassroots campaign. We don’t have that.” Cohen’s staff never received such a straightforward answer.
Frankly the reasons for Democratic officials to fail in their support of fellow Democrats do not matter. The strength of the Democratic Party lies in its diversity and commitment to the common good, collective justice, and equality. Powerful political dynasties, coordinated campaign slush funds, and personal agendas do not bolster any of these strengths, the Democratic Party, or those many causes hanging on with bubblegum and bailing wire.

TAKE THAT!

2006-08-06T12:29:00.000-05:00

That's right, the 9th District of Tennessee is a majority black, majority Christian district. Gay rights are unpopular here, and a politician who wants to stay on everyone's good side should be vague about abortion. These are the rules to play by in Memphis. That is, if you want to lose. Thursday the voters of the 9th District told the political establishment that they cared more about integrity and a record of service in ares that impact their lives more than they cared about racial pandering, religious bigotry, wedge issues, and expensive campaigns. Steve Cohen, a white, Jewish progressive known for his high ethical standards and willingness to vote his conscience despite the political ramifications was elected to be the Democratic nominee in the 75% Democratic 9th District. Cohen defeated a field of candidates large enough to field a football team trouncing most of the candidates by double digits and defeating his nearest rival, corporate lawyer Nikki Tinker, by 6% despite being outspent 2-1 officially while another $200,000+ was put into the race in the form of attack mailings aimed at Cohen in support of Tinker by the Washington, DC based group Emily's List. Emily's List, a PAC supporting pro-choice, female Democrats enjoyed a sizable group of supporters in Memphis, but no longer. The group's interference in a primary election, their negative tactics, and their blatant sexism have generated a massive backlash in Tennessee.

Cohen's strategy was simple and admirable. Throughout the race opponents used race baiting and religious bigotry against him. He refused to play. When his record was attacked, he responded by simply correcting the factual errors and condemning negative campaign tactics across the board. In practice Cohen used the single most effective tools in politics. His TV commercials were a litany of endorsements from community leaders. His field campaign was agressive. Utilizing a veritable army of student interns and volunteers Cohen's campaign contacted thousands of voters creating a database of supporters who were then contacted again during early voting and on election day. In the end the honesty of Cohen's message and the tireless work of the field team paid off. Cohen won by approximately 4,300 votes. Every single person invovled with Cohen's campaign deserves congratulations. You can send mine written on the back of $100 bills.

Why the Political Process in the U.S. is Dead

2006-07-16T16:35:00.000-05:00

The great promise of America was that on this unspoiled continent a new nation would emerge led by it's citizens, not merely an elite minority. I'll forgive the fact that it took over a century to actually extend voting rights to the landless, blacks, women, and others, and I'll even ignore the fact that this was only made possible by one of the most successful programs of genocide and assimilation ever undertaken. Leaving all that aside, what's wrong with our political process? Why don't American's vote? Why do even those citizens who do vote get legislators that don't really represent them?

Simply put, the combination of gerrymandering and party primary elections has killed the process. Thanks to the creation of the "safe seat" only about 20 seats out of 436 in the House of Representatives are actually competitive between parties. Thus, in all but those 20 seats the congressman is usually determined in the primary election. Most Americans can identify with one party or another, but most are not represented effectively by either, and very few identify strongly enough to go to the polls for primaries. As such, only the outliers on the ideological bell curve actually vote in elections likely to determine the next congressman for a given district. As such one full chamber of Congress is largely comprised of ideological extremists or politicans willing to pander to extremists. Filling a room with 416 of those and 20 moderates does not tend to produce a viable forum for debate.

Because most Senators begin their federal legislative career in the House the Senate tends to be comprised of those members of the house who can play to their ideological base enough to get through a gerrymandered primary, but who have the ethical and ideological flexibility required to become instant moderates once in office. In other words, the Senate is largely composed of those who either lack core values or can sideline them for the sake of getting elected. Not exactly my idea of a forum for meaningful debate either.

Any idea how to get politicans to vote against gerrymandering that benefits the power bases of both parties?

Say What!?

2006-07-16T15:45:00.000-05:00

Last night at the University of Mempis Law School Alumni Dinner I sat, mouth agape, as the governor of Tennessee, Hon. Phil Bredesen, opened his speech with "One of the greatest things about holding public office is that you get to spend other people's money and take all the credit." He went on to comment on his removal of thousands of people from the Tenncare (Tennessee's failed public HMO service) rolls saying "that thing was just a leech on the budget" (hope I quoted that right) and patting himself on the back for using millions of dollars in savings to build a new building for the law school. A new building was definitely necessary (The ABA threatened to take away the school's accredation.), but perhaps we could have left a few hundred or thousand people with health insurance and put the building somewhere besides the most expensive real estate in town. Just a thought. So, Phil, in your honor I'm listening to the Dead Kennedys "Let's Kill the Poor."

Back in the Game

2006-06-18T22:23:00.000-05:00

Not too long ago I posted somewhere that I was out of politics for a bit. Well, not true. I'm working on the field campaign for Steve Cohen, and I'm quite happy about it. Who knew that there was a candidate to believe in out there?

Health Insurance & MDR TB

2006-03-24T11:04:00.000-06:00

About a year ago I wrote a paper in which I asserted that the for-profit health care system in the US was destined for gridlock and bankruptcy. Among the statistics that I used to make this assertion was one that projected a decline in the percentage of the population that was insured. The figure seems to have been a little more than 1% per year for the past five or six years. The rest of this post is educated guesswork. Let's assume that these newly uninsured are concentrated in certain localities (i.e. urban centers, rural townships, etc.). If this is true (The CW should tell you it is.) then what's really happening here is that we're growing the areas in which epidemics can spread. So far the epidemics that we've worried about in out laughable public discourse are HIV and Avian Flu, one whose transmission is easily preventable and one that doesn't even spread between humans yet. According to this article Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis and its even more vicious cousin XDR TB are on the rise. These are diseases which easily transmit between humans by airborne means. Totally disregarding treatment for a moment, what happens when large, concentrated segments of the population begin to spread a disease of this nature? Am I being alarmist to have visions of crowded 19th century European cities? Certainly we are better prepared to meet this threat than they were, but are we as prepared as the situation warrants?

Quote of the Day

2006-02-22T12:19:00.000-06:00

In an opinion written by Justice Robert Jackson (of Nuremburg fame) in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer Jackson expounds briefly on the powers of the executive with regard to foreign affairs.

"...No doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture...."

Why Monopolies are by their Nature Government Controlled Economies

2005-10-13T02:47:00.000-05:00

I constantly find myself in debates in which the words "free markets" are thrown at me like holy water at a vampire. The conception of many seems to be that 1) free market capitalism means captialism without serous interference from government, and 2) that monopolies are some sort of fluke of the market that only occurs when something goes wrong.

First, let me define a free market. I conceive a market to be free when it meets the following characteristsics:

1) The market is accessible to all who wish to participate.
2)The market is not under positive control of a political entity.
3)There are no negative controls placed on entry into the market.

Thus, by my definition, the USSR was not a free market (criterion 2), nor is the NYSE (criterion 3).

Secondly let me define a monopoly. I believe that an industry has become monopolized when:

1)One company controls enough of the market in a region, a particular industry, an infrastructure as to generate a collapse in competitiveness between companies. This begins to occur at around 30% of the market.
2)One company controls physical infrastructure that relates to products it sells that use that infrastructure, such as an airline that owns airports or a telephone company that owns an ISP.
3) One company controls a means of production from raw material to retail, giving it a huge advantage in terms of pricing, such as an oil company that pumps oil, refines it, wholesales it, and owns gas stations.

These are rough and working definitions that are somewhat open to revision, but what I would like to focus on is how monopolies meeting these criterea cause markets to become unfree. The monopolization of an industry, infrastructure, or region is an inherently political act. Markets can be thought of as a form of territory, and in fact most companies view market share as turf. Every company's aim is to control as much market share as possible, but at a certain point their control ceases to be economic and becomes political in nature. For example, when a Telco finds that it is losing revenue because Vonage and Skype are taking away traditional telephone consumers using infrastructure that they control (whether they actually paid for it or not is another question) their first response is to infringe on the use of VoIP. The infrastructure has become territory, and the traditional proprieter of the territory has become a political actor seeking to manipulate the market in conflict with all three criteria for market freedom. Simply being an economic entity does not prevent one from becoming a political entity as well.

It is in these situations that it is the responsibility of the duly elected government to consider that there are non-democratic political entities operating inside of its borders and dispense of them appropriately. The most viable method seems to be trustbusting, de-politicizing the industry by removing the monopoly. With regard to infrastructural monopolies this becomes more complex, because breaking the companies up does not ensure competion as they simply become regional monopolies. The answer in that situation could be as extreme as repatriation/annexation of the territory/infrastructure in question as government administered, or to ensure that the infrastructural monopoly remains entirely neutral through regulation of its activites outside of building, selling, and administering the infrastructure.

Hmm... I'm sounding Sweedish again.

Redefining Freedom

2005-10-13T01:57:00.000-05:00

I've been reading the work of Dr. Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize winner for Economics, as of late, and his work has enabled me to verbalize something that I've been trying to put my finger on for some time now. My problem with traditional libertarians and neo-liberals has been a constant focus on the economic sphere when that always seemed to me a focus on a means rather than an end. Beyond that, I've always found that while using traditional economic indicators makes measuring progress and development very easy, it doesn't really define what it is measuring in substantive terms. What does a per captia income of $20,000 in an area with a median income of $40,000 mean? In some places, places like Sweeden, it means that your house is smaller and you drive a VW Beetle rather than a Saab, but in most parts of the U.S. it means that you are unable to raise a family in a manner consistent with good childrearing methods, that you can't get good healthcare, and that you are probably in debt simply to pay the bills.

What I have discovered is that we Americans have traditionally defined our freedoms neagtively. That is to say that we deal in terms of what we are free from rather than what we are free to do. We are free from government interference in our speech, but we are not free to communicate by the most common and widely accepted means unless we posess the wealth to purchase the needed communications technology.

It seems that in the begining of our country's life we did not define freedom this way. We wrote our definitions this way as a group of people who remembered being interfered with by a foreign government, but we also sought to expand the real freedoms of people by establishing public libraries and a postal system with standardized postage. As time passes, though, private systems have far outstripped the public ones. There are obvious market related reasons for this, but in certain areas, especially health care, communications and utility infrastructure, and security and emergency response it seems to me that we must begin to reconceive of these freedoms positively. The right to life should mean a right to health. The right to liberty should mean the right to have access to all of the same markets and information available to anyone else, and the right to the pursuit of happiness should mean that the opportunity to gain an education free of economic burden should be present for any member of society.

Many will argue, I'm sure, that this is leftist, bleeding-heart nonsense. It is, but it's leftist, bleeding-heart nonsense that will generate a more productive (not to mention meaningful) economy worldwide, raising the standard of living of all human beings and lowering crime rates and violence worldwide.

Been Away too Long (And We Got the Bombs!)

2005-09-25T01:25:00.000-05:00

I've been away from this far too long. I doubt anyone has actually noticed, but I blog more for myself than as a means of editorial journalism.

What could bring me back? What nightmare of policy faux pas could make me vent my rage on the unsuspecting surfers who skim over my blog? How about the increased threat of nuclear war? That one might just do it.

Under the stormy cloudcover of Katrina the Joint Chiefs decided to release the revised US Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations. In short: it sucks. Why on earth would anyone want to ensure that it was clearly stated that pre-emption was a pillar of our nuclear arms policy. Whose idea was this? Next thing you're going to tell me is that they've already undertaken a study with regard to the possibility of a "mine shaft gap" resultant from the loss of a "doomsday" event brought on by the use of the pre-emption strategy.

Technically, this document makes it clear that if Iran (What other state does this really have anything to do with?) gets the bomb before or after we begin some form of open hostilities we can go ahead and engage in the most destructive game of rock/paper/scissors in history. God I hope Rummy approves of this one, and I can't wait until W is actually asked for permission to use them. I'm always curious when Tom Barnett compares W to Truman. Perhaps there's to be an analogy for the history books after all.

Give peace (and life unmutated by nuclear radiation) a chance.

Michael Jackson to Keep America Safe

2005-03-24T01:53:00.000-06:00

From an official DHS press release:

“I congratulate Michael Jackson for being confirmed with unanimous consent by the U.S. Senate as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. His management experience in public and private service will be extremely valuable to the Department and its vital mission. I thank Congress for acting quickly during the confirmation process and look forward to working closely with Deputy Secretary Jackson in the months ahead as the Department strives to enhance our capabilities and strengthen our nation’s security.” -Sec. Michael Chertoff

Let the jokes begin....

Connectivity is a Right

2005-03-10T18:49:00.000-06:00

Currently pending a hearing in both chambers of the Tennessee congress is a bill (HB 1403 in the house and SB 1760 in the Senate) which will make it unlawful for municipal governments to provide broadband internet access to their citizens. The goal here is to prevent municipalites from becoming potential competition for Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and the like, and though one could make an excellent case for major cities providing this service, I'm not even going to touch that one. Instead I'm going to tell you the story of the tiny town of Scottsburg, Indiana.

Just like numerous small towns all over Tennessee, Scottsburg hadn't had (or really needed) broadband Internet access until recently. It was a town that survived without email. If you needed to buy something you went to the local store, and if you wanted to talk to the mayor about a potholed road you just asked him about it when he said hello to you at the local cafe. The librarian would get books for you, and business agreements were transacted the old fashioned way, through the mail. Life in Scottsburg moved along just fine without Wi-Fi, Broadband, or anything of the sort, until life outside Scottsburg moved right along past it. Suddenly, businesses in Scottsburg were unable to compete with similar businesses in areas served by broadband. Mailing contracts and blueprints was simply too time consuming in a world where everyone is digital, and so, as is the case in this modern world, where there is demand, supply would arrive, right? Wrong. The town was simply too small, too far away from the primary broadband grids of Verizon and Comcast to be profitable. The town was in a catch 22. Without broadband the town couldn't grow, and would probably shrink as it lost jobs to connected areas, but until the town was larger broadband providers considered it a sinkhole for investment.

In steps the town's mayor, Bill Graham. Bill and the city council put together a plan to provide broadband Wi-Fi access to the entire community, beaming it right into the homes of every citizen with a computer. Businesses stayed, and things were looking up when suddenly, those very companies who'd showed no interest in Scottsburg before were up in arms. It wasn't long before lobbyists for the telecom industry were spouting all kinds of nonsense about unfair competition and misapropriation of tax dollars. How do I know that it's not unfair? Well, because these very companies are subsidized heavily by the federal government to expand access to communities just like Scottsburg. Hmm, that sounds like a misapropriation of federal tax dollars in itself. The bill they drafted to kill Scottsburg's municipal broadband project died in the Indiana legislature after Bill Graham told this same story in their house chamber.

Our own bill of this nature is even more subversive because it places a moratorium on services explicitly described as legal under Tennessee law. This bill is nothing but an attempt to protect the interests of massive, federally subsidized corporations from the horrible risk of people pulling together to serve themselves. Connectivity is the mortar between the bricks of society. The Roman empire was held together by a road network unlike any ever seen. The British fielded a navy that was unmatched by any in the world, and the United States has become this nation through various forms of connectivity from the railroad to the telegraph, the telephone to the Internet. To deny the right to provide this service to themselves to a city is to tell them the modern equivalent of no roads, no rail, no telephones.

Why Guest Worker Visas are Unethical

2005-02-15T13:35:00.000-06:00

President Bush has been gearing up for the campaign to create a guest worker visa. For those of you who aren't aware, this is entirely different from a green card or citizenship. The idea is that the visa would have a number of months for which it is valid (open to extension of course), and at the end of that period the "guest worker" goes back to his/her country of origin. This program is a clear response to population pressure from Latin America. Everyone is aware of the huge numbers of illegal immigrants that come to work in the U.S. every year, and any reasonable person is aware of the huge amounts of manpower wasted on trying to prevent it, manpower better devoted to stopping terrorists and drug trafficking. The administration seeks to relieve that pressure through means of the guest worker visa. Here's the catch: Guest worker visas are an old European scheme to allow cheap labor to flow in while still preventing it from integrating culturally and economically into the society. And the real kicker is that you can simply stop visa extensions when you need to pull an Ebeneezer Scrooge and "decrease the surplus population." Problem: Preventing integration with the society creates a socio-economic underclass (usually hostile to their hosts), deports GDP by means of remittances (cash immigrants send home), and (by means of the slums that these immigrants live in) creates areas prone to crime. The other nasty problem is that you can't deport this problem any more effectively than you can stop illegal immigrants from entering the country. In fact, it's harder because they're already here, living in urban slums with offline economies and surrounded by people in a similar plight. The trend in these cases has never been for families and friends to reunite back in their country of origin, but to reunite in the host nation. The creation of a disenfranchised sub-citizenry might relieve population pressure to some extent, but in the end it will only import a new set of problems. Given the choice between waging a futile border war now, a futile internal war later, or allowing working men and women living in America to be part of our multi-cultural fabric I choose the latter option.

Joke of the Day

2005-02-10T21:16:00.000-06:00

Earlier today, Donald Rumsfeld found a good use for the Powell Doctrine as applied to relations within NATO. After what was generally smooth going at a press conference in Nice, France, the Secretary looked to top aide Lawrence di Rita saying, "Are we getting close to the end, Larry? I'd like to get out of here before I make a mistake."

Maybe he should teach Condi this tactic before her next hardline chat about Iran.

The Moral High Ground

2005-02-01T01:50:00.000-06:00

After commenting on our own social welfare situation, this just makes my day. Apparently Germany, by legalizing prostitution, has created a situation in which brothels must be treated in the same manner as any other employer, meaning that if a person recieving unemployment benefits turns down a job as a prostitute, they risk having their benefits terminated. Oh, feel free to take all the moral high ground on Iraq you'd like, Gerhardt. Or, should I say, O.G. Pimp Daddy Schroder. I'm going to get SOOOO much mileage out of that at parties.

When Idealism is in our Self-Interest

2005-01-31T14:34:00.000-06:00

William Saffire put the president's inauguration speech in the top ten second term inaugural in history. I haven't read all the second term speeches, but I might've been inclined to give it even more prominence than that on the grounds of the singular statement:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

It would seem that the Bush administration has grasped that policy is most successful when idealism and self-interest intersect, or, rather, that they have grasped this with regard to foreign policy. While this rather subtle nuance of politics (frequently lost on academics) seems to have become the core idea of Bush's foreign policy, the president seems to have failed to comprehend that old adage: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Over the past weeks innumerable editorials have been published regarding the budgetary evisceration of social welfare programs, and, clearly, this is in keeping with ideas popular among Republicans since Reagan, but it is in direct opposition to both our ideals and our interests. As we pour money and manpower into the Iraqi reconstruction, even going so far as to daily sacrifice America's sons and daughters on the altar of freedom and global community, the administration would have us believe that our own disconnected areas are somehow fundamentally different from Sadr City, that our freedom and security are connected to slums in Baghdad, but not to slums in Detroit.

Allow me to put this into perspective. If the Bush doctrine, or some revised form of it, is successful, by 2020 there will be a functioning economy, a middle class, and prosperity in the Middle East. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine will no longer be fruitful recruiting ground for Jihadists. Indigenous populations, focused on building a future, riding steadily forward on a sense of possibility and increased expectations will shun Jihad in favor of moderate forms of Political Islam, geared toward building a better future for the Islamic world. However, as can already be seen in Western Europe, Islamic communities abroad will face discrimination, finding themselves in squalor amid the prosperous. Imagine the Black Panthers emboldened with Jihadist ideology and a lot of Simtex.

The very social programs that are designed to prevent indigenous Americans from sliding into crushing poverty are America's first line of defense against the Jihadists of tomorrow. While most Americans don't realize it, America's Islamic population is surging. In Dearborne, Michigan 30% of the population is of Arab ancestry, more than 60,000 people, most of them living in disconnected and impoverished communities. Already anti-American demonstrations have had a chilling effect.

In the coming years the survival of liberty in our land will depend increasingly on the survival of our commitment to opportunity for all Americans. Social welfare is our first line of defense against the Jihadists of tomorrow. Isn't it in our interests then, to ensure it's survival?

Rule Set Reset

2005-01-29T22:05:00.000-06:00

The first issue of Rule Set Reset: A Journal of News and What's Next will be available free of charge, and, given the wonderful articles by Thomas P. M. Barnett, TM Lutas, Mark Safranski, and yours truly I highly recomend that you all download it.

How Little We Understand Ourselves

2005-01-24T14:31:00.000-06:00

- 'Land grab' fears for Jerusalem, BBC World News, Jan. 24, 2005

It has been broadly accepted that the root cause of terrorism is "a sense of diminished expectations," and economist Hernando de Soto, President of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, has done extensive work connecting that feeling to what he refers to as property "meta-rights," or the right to have property rights. With Ariel Sharon molting his hawk's feathers it seems strange that his new government should be assaulting these rights shown to be most connected to that sense of diminished expectations. That's exactly what they're doing, however, when Palestinians, living in the West Bank who can actually prove their ownership of property in East Jerusalem, are losing property to the government under an absentee landlord law not in active use for fifty years. Sharon's political life has been bet on one hand of poker with the Palestinians. Is he really stupid enough to trade in a pair of jacks in hopes of a flush? For the peace process to succeed the Palestinians have to have hope. This marks two serious strikes against him (the first being the early shut down of communications with the Abbas government). Let's hope that he and his new government can get their act together and comprehend that a mutually beneficial agreement doesn't mean that they get all the land, power, and prosperity alongside the peace.

A Citizen Of Mosul

2005-01-21T23:47:00.000-06:00

A Citizen Of Mosul has decided to give us some perspective on Iraqi history. I rarely blog links to other blogs, but this one's worth it.

Jazz and Policy

2005-01-18T01:48:00.000-06:00

The fundamental difference between be-bop jazz and most forms of music that preceded it is that be-bop leaves room for dissonance and improvisation. In be-bop a trumpet player can go off melody and beat, creating wildly dissonant patterns. I love be-bop... as a form of music. Be-bop, however, is not a bureaucratic or political style that goes over too terribly well. That, according to an article in The Nation, hasn't stopped it from being tried as we struggle to create a future for Iraq.

I'll spare you the particulars of the article. Andrew Ackerman already wrote them, so I'll simply give you the necessary bits. According to Ackerman the Pentagon has awarded a nearly $3M contract for the protection of diplomats in Iraq to Aegis Defence Services, a London-based mercenary firm headed by the notorious Tim Spicer. Spicer is widely known in military circles as one of the most scandalous and disreputable men in a field that is hardly overburdened by ethics. The reason he is "widely known" is that he has, historically, been less than discreet while engaging in very questionable activities. He has previously violated international and British law by trafficking arms into Sierra Leone, accidentally triggered a coup in Paupa New Guinea, and, while commanding a Scots Guard unit in Belfast, allowed men guilty of murder to return to duty.

Five senators, led by Ted Kennedy, have lodged a protest with the Department of Defense to no avail. Protests raised by competitors to the GAO have had similar results. Simply put, Spicer's company meets all the bureaucratic requirements to be awarded the contract, and, frankly, were this a traditional war zone, I would think this a perfectly reasonable situation. War zones, however, are no longer traditional. The United States is, for better or worse, trying to build a free and modern state where once there was a despotism. This task must be taken personally. Every leader involved must share, or at least comprehend, the vision of a free Iraq. For the Department of Defense to outsource security duties to conflict-prone mercenaries is tantamount to the conductor of an orchestra allowing a trumpet player to go off melody during an Aaron Copeland symphony. Be-bop, it turns out, simply doesn't sound good as policy.

Sorry for the Absence

2005-01-09T02:10:00.000-06:00

My apologies for the long absence. I'd like to blame it on the holidays, and I suppose I can to an extent. I get terribly depressed around this time of year, and (combined with a nasty case of the flu) that kept me down for a couple of weeks. It was all I could manage to finish my article for Rule Set Reset (the monthly journal of the New Rule Sets Project). I'm quite happy about that. I consider having a 1000 word article next to articles by Thomas P.M. Barnett, TM Lutas, and Mark Safranski (Zenpundit) to be an honor. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why Tom asked me to write for them, but, hey, I'll take the exposure without asking too many questions.

Tom and Critt, thanks for asking me to be involved. Bob Jacobson, thanks for the outstanding coaching and editing. I'm proud to have worked with you.

If it's quite all right with the NRSP kids I'll post the article here when the Feb. issue of RSR comes out. Assuming that I keep getting a soap box in RSR, I'll try to publish the articles here as the following issues come out.

Esther Dyson and Jeff Jarvis on NPR

I hope at least some of you managed to listen to Esther Dyson and Jeff Jarvis on NPR this morning. There was some really serious insight into how the Internet (and blogs in particular) are changing everything from disaster relief to the media. It was all the guff that bloggers already know, but it demonstrated that NPR has really begun to get globalization. I also particularly like that a major media outlet is giving play to serious blogs, and that Wonkette's flirtation with a certain Capitol Hill hussy will no longer be the way that outsiders remember blogs.

The New Year

The calender insists that this is a new year, but I view time as a series of events rather than just a series of dates. So, by my reckoning it's New Year's Eve. About three hours ago the Palestinians started voting. Since I count the Tsunami (and the initial flow of aid) as the final event of 2004, I'm counting the Palestinian elections, or rather their completion, as the first major event of 2005. When the votes are in and a successor to Yassir Arafat has been declared, I'll call it '05. Get ready for a high bit rate for the next few weeks. The Tsunami pulled the vast majority of media and policy attention for a couple of weeks, but this election and the begining of this session of Congress are going to start a massive flow of pent up political energy. I'll save my immediate predictions as they're all fairly obvious, but I suppose I'll make a few big ones for '05.

1) Sharon's shaky government will collapse and the Palestinian peace process will require the intervention of an outside negotiator. Sharon will survive politically, but he probably won't be the PM. This will all happen after the settlement pullouts are largely complete, and the trigger will be budgetary in nature.

2) The attention that the Tsunami has brought to the Tamil Tigers will draw a third party negotiator to help bring about an end to that conflict. The Tigers will gain enough legitimacy in international eyes to become more of a political party and less of an insurgency.

3) Costal areas hit by the Tsunami will rebuild rapidly. By 2006 they will contribute at least double their previous percentages of their respective GDPs on average. These regions will attract massive investment due to the restructuring of local property laws and the creation of new physical infrastructure.

4) Iraq will be headed for trifurcation, though it will remain Iraq. The national government will exist, but it will serve as little more than a political battleground for the three regions to argue over oil rights. While the Shiites continue to stabilize and prosper the Sunnis will wage an undeclared civil war. We will, in response, train a largely Shiite military which will further alienate the Sunnis. The end result will be a bloody conflict management which will not improve until the peacekeeping force is made significantly more multi-lateral. The violent conflict in Iraq will only improve when continental Europe gets off its high horse and helps. That in turn will only happen when the Bush and Blair administrations ask politely. We might be waiting until 2007 for that. Another possibility is that the Islamic world, led by Turkey and Iran, will stage a serious effort to bring about peace in Iraq, but that sort of help will be linked (indirectly) to Turkey's EU ambitions and Iran's bomb.

5) The European Union will deal with more homegrown Islamic terrorism than ever before, prompting leaders to involve Europe more deeply in the Global War on Terror. This could prompt reconcilliation between the US and Europe over Iraq if Bush plays his cards right. As Europe will find itself the new home of massive terror networks, the epicenter of this reconcilliation will likely be interagency cooperation between US and European intel agencies. This one's an outside bet, but I'll still throw some cash on it.

6) This will be a weak year for national domestic policy due to massive partisan debate in Congress. The Hill will be full of sound and fury signifying nothing, but state governments will use the chance to seize the limelight, starting a decentralization of power. The rising stars of both parties will come from state governments, dashing the hopes of more than a few members of the House for political advancement.

That's all I'll predict for'05. This is going to be a tedious year in a lot of ways. Very little will come to fruition, but we'll see the emergence of quite a few patterns. Oh, one last one, North Korea will implode with less fanfare than expected. China will deal with that handily enough that the US barely gets involved until after the dice for the future of the country are already thrown.
Well, we'll just put that on to simmer for a year, and we'll see how well my crystal ball works later. Time for me to crawl back into my bottle of NyQuil. See you all after the votes are counted in Palestine.

Rugby V. Football: The Future of War

2004-12-27T10:59:00.000-06:00

When I was in the army my battalion commander was from a West Texas football town. If you've ever seen Varsity Blues then you know that Football is everything in West Texas. Conveniently for my BC football has been everything for the Army for some time, as well. The concept of rushing troops across terrain, making an end-run for Baghdad, is simply appealing. Throw in a complex series of rules, a pile of armor, and... wait, I'm confused. Are we talking about football or war?

It's easy to see how this model for warfare came to be. It's the 1980's, fourth quarter of the Cold War, and the Eagles are up on the Bears by a field goal. Both teams line up along the line of scrimmage (a.k.a. Iron Curtain), and Pentagon commanders call plays. The bad news is that the Bears conceded victory on that one, so we never got to see the mother of all superbowls. Instead we had to settle for Iraq I, but that's okay because Stormin' Norman was even good enough to name his strategies after football plays. Between that and CNN cum ESPN (of war) the first Iraq war was better than watching the UT Vols during the Peyton Manning years.

Fast forward a decade. Same basic strategy. Roll 'em up across the desert. Baghdad's the goal line. Woohoo! Touchdown! Wait, why aren't they running off the field? Oops. This is a rugby match. If you've ever clicked over to ESPN 2 at 1 AM then you've seen rugby. It's what football was during the Precambrian period, back when the other popular sport was dinosaur jousting. The basic idea is that the ball stays in play. Forward passes are against the rules, so no gaining ground quick. You've gotta run the ball. There are no downs, no field goals, no punts, just a bunch of guys playing offense and defense at the same time, constantly trying to adjust to the other team and passing backwards in order to get a shot at a few steps forward. Sound like fourth generation warfare? Oh, and these guys don't wear helmets.

Any further comparison would be pointless. The last thing I want to do here is convince anyone that rugby is the way to think about war. What I do want to do is to make the point that in order to prevail in this conflict we must shake ourselves of the mindset that there are periods of down time, that we could conceivably call a time out, and that running the ball to the goal line warrants a silly dance. Like rugby, this game is constantly in play, and there is no easy way to get to the other end of the field.

A Full Stocking a Day Late

2004-12-27T01:31:00.000-06:00

I just wrote a massive post on a host of good news, but my computer crashed. So, in lieu of rewriting the entire thing I'll hit the main points and call it a night.

Palestine is looking good to go on elections with Israel pulling out troops to ensure that polling is seen as fair. So long as Hammas the political party can either reign in or divorce itself from Hammas the suicide bombers the new government stands a good chance of being seen as legitimate by both the Palestinians and the international community. Let's see if it can leap the bureaucratic and legislative hurdles that all new governments face.

Go Yuschenko!!! Get ready to see a more European Ukraine.

Afghanistan is pulling together a new opposition party by internationally normal methods. I call that a big win. Who was it at Foreign Policy Magazine that decided to run that title "Why Democracy Won't Save the Middle East?" Howsabout "Why Pessimism Won't Save the Middle East?"

If I can get gifts like this I'll wait until the 26th every year!

How Fleixible is Asia?

2004-12-27T01:03:00.000-06:00

One of the major defining characteristics of a functional, decentralized network is its flexibility. South Asia has just suffered a catastrophic loss of human life and property. Over the coming weeks the predictible aid will flow in from the EU, US, and NGOs, but I predict that India may be more able to deal with this crisis than they are being given credit for. A truly amazing turn of events would be a massive Chinese aid response, though I won't be holding my breath. If those two nations want to flex some international muscle this is the time. They're undisputed powers in numerous areas. Now it's time to see how they respond to crisis management in their own backyard.

Happy Holidays

2004-12-24T01:18:00.000-06:00

Okay, so I've been accused of having a heart three sizes too small this time of year. I generally don't do too well with Christmas, but I just wanted to wish all of our servicemen and women overseas, in combat zones, on ships, and pulling guard duty all night in the cold a safe and uneventful holiday weekend. It's never a Merry Christmas when you're standing in a guard tower for 12 hours and you're scared to look at your thermometer, but I just want to remind everyone to think of those men and women. The desert gets cold at night, and even colder when you're ten thousand miles from home.

Speak Plainly

2004-12-23T16:58:00.000-06:00

I have at various times in the last three years stood by several very different opinions with regard to America's attempt to police the Middle East. Let's go ahead and call a spade a spade. That's what we're doing. We're policing a bad neighborhood. In Iraq today there are innumerable factions divided between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, theocrats, technocrats, tribalists, Baathists, Islamists, and probably at least one political satirist. What I'd like to point out is that if America stands for anything, if we want the lives of our dead soldiers to mean anything we must ensure that we leave Iraq with these groups, nay, these individuals, represented in some form of democratically elected government.

We, have sent our men and women in uniform into harms way to eliminate a totalitarian regime, and have found ourselves involved in a prolonged conflict. My patience for hearing ivory tower academics denounce the war in its entirety is exhausted. Certainly criticism of officials managing the war strategy, both military and political, is appropriate, even patriotic, however it is unpatriotic in the highest order to insinuate that a pullout from Iraq, after having destabilized that region, is appropriate. I call it cowardly. I call it cowardly because it is irresponsible, shortsighted, and because those prominent columnists who insinuate that we should execute such a "strategy" do so under the guise of bold criticism for the administration. We now owe it to the people of Iraq, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and all, to leave them with at least more stability and security than they had when we came.

I propose a new code for op-ed journalism, a very simple rule to follow: If you don't like it, offer a solution. Simply stating that something is evil, dangerous or ineffectual after the fact simply doesn't cut the mustard for quality journalism. Maureen Dowd, someone whose writing I have hithertofore admired, has, among widely circulated columnists, been most guilty of breaking this rule. Maureen, like it or not, we're in a war. If you can't offer solutions then give your rather prominent space in the Times to someone who can. I wonder if after rear-ending someone you would feel the need to give a twenty minute denouncement of traffic patterns and your own driving before exchanging insurance information. It strikes me that Ms. Dowd would be willing to leave Iraq in the hands of Baathist militants, a group who, as her counterpart Thomas Friedman points out, have been begged to come to the table of democracy and declined in favor of what amounts to gang violence. I'm afraid, Maureen, that two wrongs don't make a right. Leaving Iraq in its present state would definitely constitute a second wrong.

Congratulations!

2004-12-22T22:41:00.000-06:00

Congrats to Tom Barnett and Critt Jarvis on their new consulting firm The New Rule Sets Project! The Project will also have a monthly journal based around Tom's stellar foreign policy work called Rule Set Reset to which Tom's asked me to contribute. I have to say, I can't imagine what they're thinking (must be all the stress from the new business), but I'll give them whatever I've got. If we're in a war of ideas, these guys are the Delta Force of network-oriented thought, moving heaven and earth for a future worth creating. Cheers, boys!

The News Matrix

2004-12-22T22:32:00.000-06:00

Critt Jarvis and I have been discussing a "News Matrix," or a way to graphically represent the data we collect every day. I'm sure that some of you are already familiar with the concept of pattern recognition, or noticing trends in news and society that let you know what's going to happen. It's a useful skill, but one that's difficult to teach because it requires a worldview paradaigm and an intuitive grasp of data analysis. We feel that a graphic aid would be helpful in explaining our ideas to others, perhaps even providing a piece of software that would allow people without the intuitive grasp to perform the analysis.

There's a discussion going on Critt's blog about this.

Surprise!

2004-12-22T16:23:00.000-06:00

Well, everybody said that the Kremlin was going to end up in control of Yukos. Everybody said that Baikal was a front. Surprise! Everybody was right, but nobody expected it to go down this quick.

Damn, Vladamir, you puttin' the smackdown on that free trade bullshit WWF style!
Score one for the bad guys.

A Certain Breed of Arrogance

2004-12-20T13:10:00.000-06:00

This morning I'm feeling saucy, so, having just spent the evening defending my globalist viewpoints against an assault of Kaplan and Huntington quotes, I'd like to make a very broad and very firm statement. Simply put, it takes a certain breed of arrogance to firmly believe that within one's own lifetime some massive, tectonic shift in the function of the world will occur. This is why Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" and Kaplan's "Coming Anarchy" are tantamount to Chicken Little's "The Sky is Falling," with their implications of a radically altered world, shaped by the ravaging forces of chaos and the imperial might of the U.S. military (and dollar).

The world is an ever more complex place than that. There will be no titanic struggle between Good and Evil for the fate of the world fought on pay-per-view. My apologies to the cable networks. I know you were banking on that one. Instead of a "clash" I think we can expect more of a "mild friction" as two imperfectly matched networks try to aggregate. The struggle between Good and Evil? I'm afraid it will be somewhat Biblical. Oh, I mean Biblical like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Biblical, not Revelation. Biblical as in personal, interpersonal, and very, very human. I'm afraid that the images of John Wayne singlehandedly taking down Osama, thus bringing about peace on Earth will have to wait for the DVD edition of the 21st century. For now, we'll have to content ourselves with slowly, haltingly working towards "a future worth creating."

Good Will Gestures for the Holiday Season

2004-12-19T15:03:00.000-06:00

Well Santa Claus sure just hit up the Palestinians and the Chinese. Sharon (the bionic man of Israeli politics) and his new buddies at Labor are putting their new deal on paper, so the pullout is looking good. The Israeli's are tossing in 170 Palestinian prisoners (the non-violent type) to sweeten the deal, and Hammas' Gaza faction is even backing peace talks. Christmas is looking good for the Arab-Israeli conflict, a little too good. I'd be ready for the hiccups to start early in the new year. Hammas' other factions aren't so ready to deal as Gaza is, and they'll be likely to voice their opinion with semtex. There's still a lot of budgetary stress in the Israeli government, so I'm still standing by my theory that that'll be the weak link on Israel's side of the fence. Sharon's driving this bus right now, and he's got a lot of support, but there should definitely be some third party structure going on. Mr. President, get in or get somebody else in! Somebody's gotta sweeten the deal for everyone involved, just like the trade deal for Egyptian-Israeli cooperative products.

In China there's yet another carefully worded change of policy on free expresion. Now, according to the Chinese government, you can believe whatever you want and people can't discriminate against you for your beliefs! Careful about how you exercise them, though, that's still regulated. The moral here, though, is that China is testing the waters about freedom of religion. This move is going to spark religious activity (or rather, did spark), and how that activity progresses will determine Beijing's future actions, a Sun Tzu approach to domestic policy.

Hmm... maybe that'll be good for article fodder... yes... excellent... my plans for world domination are coming along nicely.

Irony in Buenos Aires

2004-12-18T13:22:00.000-06:00

There's some irony in the fact that global warming talks are being held in B.A. That said, this round of talks may have more impact than Kyoto could've ever hoped to have. The Bush administration has been wildly criticized for not signing Kyoto, and I'll admit that I was on that bandwagon. However, there may be some boons for the future in the rejection of that particular treaty. Bush's main objection is that it didn't constrain the "developing nations" of China and India, creating an unfair trade advantage. While China and India are emerging economies, their frail attempt to hide behind the "developing nation" title is absurd. Yes, they're in the middle of their respective industrial revolutions and tech revolutions. Yes, they will have to operate under looser rule sets than we do to continue their development. No, they're not under that "developing nations" umbrella with Pakistan and Ghana.

Now, at the moment, imposing a massive rule-set on those two nations would be disasterous, but at the rate they're trying to connect up to the global network, they'll be needing those rules very soon. In order to be effective any global treaty on pollution is going to have to include the two largest populations on earth. As usual, a graduated shift is in order, but, as governments are wont to do, it's an all or nothing deal. 2012 is the slated date for the expiration of the Kyoto Accord, and that's probably about the time we'll want to put pressure on those states to adopt more stringent rules regarding pollutants. China's not too far behind the power curve already. It's rules on cars are quite strict, but while the rules in place are apropriate, the rules don't encompass enough of their polluters. I imagine that much of this situation will be remedied internally by 2012, paving the way for more globally relavent agreements.

Softly With A Big Stick

2004-12-12T13:10:00.000-06:00

Today's NY Times article on the Iran nuke situation carried some interesting connotations. The most eye catching was in a comparison to the Iraqi nuclear program at Osirak, destroyed by Israel in 1981. It reads:

"Iran takes great care to protect its technology and production/storage capability with multiple layers of security, hardening and dispersal," said one Air Force general with experience in the Middle East. "All this complicates identification, targeting and execution."

What's fascinating about this analysis is that these are not characteristics of an unstable R&D program. The level of coordination required to pull off this kind of decentralized effort signals two very important things. The first is a highly functional bureaucracy, necessary for prolonged operation of a decentralized network. Rogue elements like terrorist organizations can operate on a network-oriented model by utilizing infrastructure that is already extant (phones and internet) and because they are driven by the zeal of their members, requiring little bureaucracy to function. Government R&D programs require complex bureaucratic structures in order to transfer information, pay staff, and coordinate operations. "Multiple layers of security, hardening and dispersal..." are not something that can be accomplished without a stable, functional bureaucracy. I'll say more on this later.

The second point to be made by this analysis is that Iran hardly presents a major threat to global nuclear security. Any government (be it a democracy or a theocracy) going to these lengths to secure a program isn't going to be inclined to distribute its secrets to the highest bidder. Iran's main concern is Iranian security and stability. Distributing nuclear technology to terrorist groups or unstable regimes would seriously undermine both, almost assuring economic, political, and military backlash.

The really good news in this is that Iran is sporting a functional, and probably fairly massive, political bureaucracy. Couple that with a fairly well-educated population and an economy that swings some lumber regionally, and you're looking at a lot of network infrastructure in the making. Networking means connectivity, and connectivity inevitably leads to communication. This in turn leads to a free-market for ideas, and once you've got that truly representative government is on the way.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we should just let Iran have the nukes and expect them to become a democracy afterwards. That's absurd. What I am suggesting is that because of Iran's capacity to develop an extensive nuclear program that we can't readily eliminate (or even cripple) Iran is probably further down the road to being a democracy than even they know. Insofar as the nukes go, keeping international political pressure on them is definitely the best route, but avoiding economic sanctions is probably wise. That would do little but stifle those aspects of Iranian civil society and government that we would most like to foster. A stable Middle East requires a regional power that can be both feared and respected by its neighbors. Excluding EU bound Turkey, Iran is the only Middle Eastern nation that can be expected to be both by 2020. An Iranian nuke is a big stick to look at, but it's that soft, steady walk that should be drawing our eye.

Where Do I Sign?

2004-12-09T14:53:00.000-06:00

The November 3rd Theses

This pretty much rounds out what I've been saying about the Dems. Wonder why I didn't see this earlier.

Gay for Pay?

2004-12-09T11:57:00.000-06:00

New Zeland's parliament just passed a controversial bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Ever since this debate heated up in the U.S. it's been on the rise in other countries as well. (See: Canada 'Can Permit Gay Marriage' BBC News UK Ed.) Most notable among states legislating protections for same-sex couples (and unmarried straight couples) is Singapore. Notorious for its intolerance of personal freedoms, Singapore's push for GLBT legislation is, well, strange.

The reason is that Singapore (and several of these other nations I imagine) is interested in capitalizing on America's strangely hostile climate for homosexuals. Depending on who you cite anywhere between 2 and 10 percent of the American population is gay. (Kinsey pulls out the top end at 10, but 6 is a more reasonable figure.) Avoiding all of the traditional stereotypes about homosexuals (even the one about good taste in shoes), what that means for NZ, Singapore, and possibly Canada is that those homosexuals with the means, especially couples, will be inclined to consider moving to and working in those nations. Singapore's GLBT movement outright admits that it wasn't a human rights victory, but a free enterprise victory.

Tighter top-down controls on a population isn't conducive to the free spread of ideas, which isn't conducive to capitalism. I'm not suggesting that all of America's gay population is going to move to Singapore. What I am suggesting is that the most creative, most adventurous, and possibly wealthiest of the GLBT population in the United States will find themselves with a decision to make about where they want to make their home. That decision will become decidedly easier as U.S. states pass gay marriage bans and lovely little Pacific islands attach pink triangles to their flags.

Not Until You're Older

2004-12-09T01:14:00.000-06:00

- "South America Creates Single Market,"
BBC News UK Ed. Thursday, 9 December, 2004, 03:13 GMT

More connectivity. More international agreement. Less focus on dealing with their individual lack of infrastructure. This is only good if South America can, as a whole, integrate the massive extralegal economies that exist in its individual states. Brazil is making good strides, and I'm sure that Argentina and Chile are trying as well. But, really, does anyone delude themselves into thinking that because Bolivia is managing its first peaceful (and legitimate) election and Colombia is begining to have great connectivity to the U.S. where extradition of drug lords is concerned that they'll be ready to join a union of states akin to the EU or US by the time that Argentina or Brazil will be? The loosening of trade restrictions in South America has far too many smuggling ramifications at present to be reasonable. Argentina, Brazil, and Chile are fighting to be part of the global economy. They won't be ready to serve as three pillars of a South American currency by 2020. One passport? Do you want Brazilians and Colombians to have equal access worldwide?

This is a giant step that the South American governments are taking, and they're taking it in their dad's oversized shoes. There's gonna be some slipage and maybe a fall or two. Is it overall bad? No. But it's definitely too soon to call this a success. This greater network that's being created won't be worth anything until the smaller networks beneath it are fully functional and able to go online. That said, it will be good for there to be a network structure there when these smaller networks are able to start the aggregation process, though I imagine it will be somewhat tired and defunct by then. Think "League of Nations" tired and defunct.

Doing Things the Hard Way

2004-12-07T14:45:00.000-06:00

Should we promote connectivity at any cost?

Thomas Barnett, a man whose opinion and insight I value greatly, posits that the Middle East's connection to the functional world through oil and natural gas provides a slender strand of connectivity on which to build, but I find this to be an imperfect linkage, destined to break. While I recognize the value of fossil fuel as an impetus to have some manner of connection with the source, I do not see that connecting an oil field to a major consumer requires the consent of the local populace or their participation. A global network must consist of innumerable tiny networks, networks of neighbors, networks based on common need. The connection of the Middle East to the more developed sectors of the world is flawed because there need be no real exchange, especially on the local level , only an extraction.

When dealing with many areas of the economic network there is an impetus to create stability. That impetus is "the long term," but with non-reneweable resources it is less of a factor for the simple fact that there is a forseeable end to the resources themselves, at least in a given form and geographic location. Certainly, the Middle East as a whole may have massive fossil fuel resources, however the long term stability of the entire region is not required to extract them, and it may in fact be less expensive to maintain the stability of a few oil platforms and buy concessions from "big man" type governments than to transform the region as a whole in "the long term."

It is for this reason that I believe that the Middle East will not likely be transformed by the intervention of nations largely interested in its natural resources, but by its more natural route of connectivity, Turkey. While we are clearly not intervening in Iraq for control of its oil reserves, our interest in the region as a whole is based on two things: oil and terrorism, or, more bluntly, greed and fear. I do not suppose to have an over-arching answer to the questions that this raises. I only wish to pose the question: "Should we build along the flawed link, or tear it down to create new, stronger ones? Can we do both at the same time?"

Balancing Act

Of course, networks are balancing acts of internal structuring and external forces, so while Turkey (hopefully as an EU member) provides the external connectivity to the developed world, Iran, I expect, will provide the internal structure to support that connectivity. Personally I do not forsee the obliteration of the Islamist regime in Iran the way many do. Instead I note that economic forces are forcing Iran to flirt with free-trade zones. Turkey's new government of moderate Islamists will provide a unique bridge between the Middle East and Europe as many policy analysts have noted. However, it is worth pointing out that the overthrow of the Ayatollahs is not really relavent to whether or not this bridge is functional. In fact, the functionality of that bridge is something that the West (note I do not say "developed world") should likely observe from a distance. That connectivity will be fostered through Islamists, not through secular capitalists. Being Islamist, after all, does not preclude being capitalist or interested in building a better future.

Our attempt to unilateraly create stability in Iraq is doomed. Our method of repairing the region resembles a man with a mallot striking a broken television in hopes that the picture will clear. This may work on the first or second attempt but after that... well... you know the old saying: "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results." As the dust settles from Fallujah and we near the promised deadline for elections we shall see if the striking has worked or if it is time for us to change tactics dramatically.

I believe that should we hope to stabilize the Middle East, the link provided by oil is irrelavent at best. Should we wish to bolster it we will take more resources, and energy (read: blood and treasure) than would be necessary to push the solution of a Turkish bridge between Europe and the Middle East. Dr. Barnett is fond of noting that no oil = no impetus. As usual, he's right, but the statement is somewhat misleading. The oil will continue to be the impetus for someone for a long time to come, whether it is China, India, or another nation going through its industrial revolution. To suggest that the West should maintain its dependence on Middle Eastern oil (something I believe Dr. Barnett does inadvertently) is somewhat strange. The developing world will increase its rate of consumption faster than we can decrease ours. If demand increases, the focus on oil as the link between the global network and the Middle East will increase as well, and it will not likely serve to bolster is so much as to draw focus away from other, more lasting links. No decent network engineer would design a global computer network with a huge portion linked only by one massive fiber. That doesn't support network stability.

The Illusion

The problem with thinking of oil as the first in a series of linkages, is that the link is really an illusion. There is no extant network to connect to, so the network cannot naturally aggregate. By pushing the "Turkish Bridge" scenario we grow connectivity at the same rate as the local networks. By insisting on maintaining our own independent link to the Middle East, we are struggling to create an artificial network with which to connect ourselves.

Removing Saddam Hussein was not a flawed concept. It was merely the execution (for reasons to oft discussed to repeat here) that was horrific. Now it is time that we accept that failure and move towards a natural trifurcation of Iraq. Turkey will be best suited to steward the North. Iran will naturally gain influence in the South. In the former case we should do all we can to foster this. In the latter, we should be prepared to cut deals and involve as many moderating forces as possible. If executed with deftness this could even serve as an oportunity to create another bridge into Iran, a more moderate statelet of similar makeup. If executed poorly, this could serve as a propaganda victory for extremists. The Sunni Triangle presents a challenge, and it will likely come in the form of a military one. The most important thing is to prevent it from doing damage to the two more stable regions.

The network will grow. Of this I am certain, but beware the flawed links and the urge to press forward when a step sideways is more productive. Even network-oriented thinkers are susceptible to tunnel vision sometimes.

Pattern Recognition

2004-11-29T14:35:00.000-06:00

I hate holliday weekends. There's always a bunch of crap about to happen in the world, and BANG the media takes four days to create "traditionally slow news days" as though the world actually turns a bit slower. Then, the following Monday is like a mad plunge into an icy pool of reality. Amid the flurry, a couple of major events are emerging in a pattern that I've been touting ever since I first noticed it.

China's taking ownership of Asean. By entering into a free-trade agreement (of which this is only a harbinger) with other Asean nations China will fulfill its own manifest destiny as the Asian Dragon. Networks, especially economic ones, tend to aggregate. According to Reed's Law the more utility the network provides the more users it attracts, and China, based on its user base and economic power, is a supermagnet. Here's the better news. As China, already constantly moving towards democracy and freedom, pulls more economies into its orbit it will be forced to loosen its restrictive government faster and faster. China will soon reach a critical mass of users and utility that will make it an economic/informational superpower. Don't get scared. Not only is this not likely to prompt too much military buildup, but as China deregulates its economy and society, Taiwan (our main point of contention) will likely slip into China's orbit naturally, without any military influence, becoming the Chinese equivalent of Puerto Rico.

Asia and Brazil, Sittin' in a Tree... Looks like the Pakistani have figured out the painfully obvious way to exploit their natural resources (something Europe and the US have shown minimal interest in). So, Brazil builds the infrastructure, Pakistan supplys the oil fields, and BANG new broadband connectivity between Asia and South America. If Brazil can get Pakistan to support its bid for a permaseat on the Security Council as part of the package then we're talking about the realization of major economic potential in Brazil. Of course, Brazil needs to speed up its own internal reforms (which it's been doing) to serve as a South American international economic hub. The US should largely sit this one out. This is going to be one of those fast and loose relationships that could only get mucked up by too much US/European involvement. Our systems are much too stable and regulated to route through. Good news is, with all the focus on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, we probably will.

Time for a new bid for PM. Sharon wasn't the guy to play peacemaker. I never had much hope that he'd pull off this dramatic shift of gears, but the good news is that the political infrastructure that he's created may be able to be used by a follow on. If he bites it over something so ordinary as a budget proposal, don't be fooled. It's because he's alienating his old allies and trying to make new ones out of old rivals. That's a tough bit for anybody. Let's just see how far he can run with the olive branch before somebody else has to pick it up.

More to come...

The Idea Rises...

2004-11-29T03:37:00.000-06:00

I'm hardly able to sleep these days. The Idea keeps getting larger, more defined, more... something. The Idea is that great, all encompasing model for a network-based universe. I see hydrogen molecules everywhere, my new basic symbol for mutual dependence, for the simplest of networks. In hydrogen (H2) each atom is in need of the other to remain somewhat stable. Every question that arises results in a network-based answer. A brief, and very civil, discussion of the abortion issue resulted in the question, "When does life begin for a child?" being raised. The answer: at division. At birth. A new nation exists when it divides out of the old national network that encompassed it. A new cell exists when it divides from the pre-existing one. I didn't like this answer much. I'd always liked to think that life began at some point, a gray area to be sure, before the third trimester in which conciousness was achieved. That answer doesn't hold water. It leaves more questions than answers, and none of those questions yield the answer either. Fortunately I can still skirt the abortion issue while holding my answer to be true, because simply defining a child as part of a mother until birth does not give the implicit right to abortion. (Depending on whether or not you're a libertarian, that is.) Anyway, the Idea rises.

I'm finding more network-centricists every day. I'm not even close to the only one, and I realized something today. We're reaching critical mass. Soon, we'll hear the jargon that we've been spewing at each other in ordinary conversation. Soon, our ideas on how to make politics more efficient will be reality. Take a look at this article from The Nation.

It's time to start writing. The Idea is mature enough. It's time to begin pruning the bonzai.

FedEx vs. UPS: Network-Centricism and the Long View

2004-11-23T17:26:00.000-06:00

It's been a long day of dealing with a family crises amid a host of deadlines and a travel schedule. Tonight, happily, I find myself largely caught up and just hanging around my parents' house with my laid-up-after-surgery step-father waiting on my old high school buddy and fellow political activist to get over here with the Chinese takeout. Rockstar.

While staying up until the wee hours of the morning helping a friend of mine out with a research paper I came to a nifty realization. The topic of the paper is irrelevant, but I came to realize something interesting while comparing FedEx and UPS as business entities. Both businesses are very successful and have bucked the last few years economic downturn. Strikes me that this says a lot about the market for connectivity which is fundamentally what the parcel service industry is about. Interestingly enough FedEx has done better over the long haul and with a great deal more consistency. I know that coincidence isn't causality, but I'd just like to point out that FedEx is built on an entirely network-centric business model from the operator to upper-management level, and that the company tends to grow like a network on all levels. UPS, which has many network-centric components utilizes a somewhat antiquated unionized workforce and seems to have a more stolid and traditional management structure. FedEx has incorporated many of the benefits of being a union employee into its corporate structure, and offset the slight sense of instability with a great potential for upward mobility, drawing its future managers from the line employees. Sparing you any further comparisons, it would seem that almost all market analysts are putting their money on FedEx. Granted that's FedEx to win and UPS to place, since the market for parcels is still emerging into the developing world and there's definitely room for Sharks and Jets in that town, but the money seems to be on FedEx based on one phrase: "Growth Potential." For reasons that never seem to be specified analysts (of many different types) say FedEx has more room to grow. Could it be that the network-centric model simply allows for unlimited potential growth whereas the top-down model eventually reaches a point of critical-mass at which it either divides or collapses? Is that why FedEx has more room to grow? True, both businesses are hybrids of the two models. To be an aggregate network model business FedEx would have to be a co-op, and UPS can't deliver packages efficiently without having a vast communications/transit network, but while UPS clearly draws the line between its business and how it runs it, FedEx seems to believe that networks... well... work. Given that FedEx dumps virtually all of its charitable donations into IT related education facilities it seems that they've even taken it upon themselves to bring about a more network-centric (and thus network-friendly) world. Who do you think has the long view in mind? I know where to bank my retirement money.

Reflections on Re-election

2004-11-06T13:41:00.000-06:00

Well, I joined many Americans this week in my disappointment at the re-election of George W. For me it was partially the fear of what might happen under another four years of neoconservatism, but also the feeling that I'd just been sucker punched. Unlike many Kerry supporters of my generation I'm not suggesting that the election was stolen or fabricated. I don't think that the Diebold machines were all hacked or that hundreds of thousands of minorities were denied their right to vote. I don't think the Republicans had to do any of that. I think we were outplayed on a basic level. Their media campaigns were better. They sold their ideas in thirty second sound bytes. They adapted to the global information age, and, frankly, we didn't. Kerry supporters assumed that because their ideas were so much better for the country, their ideals so much more worthy of the greatest nation on earth that they would triumph. We were wrong.

The Republicans learned to sell George W. Bush as John Wayne. They sold values and a stern father. They sold steadfastness. It wasn't hard to fit that into the attention span of the average American, but it's nearly impossible to fit concepts like "making the war on terror multilateral" into a soundbyte. Kerry's mantra "fighting for the middle class" is just wrong from a sales perspective. No marketing exec worth his salt is ever going to include the word "middle" in something. The popularization of the prefix "mid" is thanks to marketing execs who want to avoid seeming boring in a society that values standing out. Further more, the middle class just doesn't sound like a group that needs fighting for. Would you ever say: "I'm fighting for the guys who aren't bad off, whose kids are all in college, and who just bought a new lawn mower." No, no you wouldn't.

It's time to get off our high-minded horses. It's time to get our hands dirty. In my home county of Shelby County, Tennessee we won. We turned a starkly divided county flat out blue. We mobilized minorities. We made sure that voting rights were protected. We politely asked people to listen. We didn't attack their ideas, but showed them how our ideas were compatible. We didn't approach people wearing Kerry buttons and waving flags. We waited until we heard conversations about "those ungrateful French" and then we talked about how frightened we were that the euro was getting stronger than the dollar under Bush. We asked what they were interested in and we told them how our ideas could help. We let pro-lifers be, and we didn't try to sell everyone on ideas that Bush had made controversial. We played his game, and here, in this little patch of racially charged politics, we won.

Now, we're getting organized. We came together for John Kerry, but we're staying together for each other and for you. We're keeping this going, not for ourselves, but for those we love and for those we've never met, for our soldiers, for our children, and for our future. Spero Meliora are the words on my family crest. They mean "Aspire to Better." We aspire to a future worth creating.

While We Set Their VCR Clocks They Set Policy

2004-10-27T02:51:00.000-05:00

While doing my daily skim through the Brookings Institute website I found this op-ed written by Shibley Telhami, a nonresident senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

According to his resume Mr. Telhami should be among the foremost experts on the Middle East today, and that's what I'm going to talk about. Thomas Jefferson said that the Earth belongs to the generation that inhabits it. Never is this truth more clear than following a massive change in the global system, in this case the end of the Cold War. During the 1980's and 90's the economic world became a nightmare for business leaders who couldn't adapt to rapidly changing technology and international rule sets. For many executives learning to deal with the Japanese, email, and conference calling were simply tasks that couldn't be accomplished. Now, in the security and international policy realms we find ourselves in a similar situation.

While most Americans of my generation vaguely remember the Cold War the first formative images in international policy for most of us were the fall of the Berlin Wall and Gorbaychev's birthmark. Mr. Telhami's article belies his formative years doing duck and cover drills in school. Simply the terminology he uses implies that the old zero-sum game is in overtime. Mr. Telhami talks about "balance of power" and at one point compares a potential pullout of Iraq to the American pullout of Saigon, or more specifically he says, with reference to a retreat from Iraq potentially inciting Islamist militancy,

"America's enemies, including the Soviets, did not attack the United States once we abandoned Saigon and bared our defeat."

What? How is that relavent? I never read about any Maoist terrorists waging an asymetrical war against the U.S. during the 70's, nor were the Soviets likely to openly attack the U.S. after we'd pretty much agreed that Mutually Assured Destruction was the name of the paradigm in which we were living. For that matter, I'd like to point out that it wasn't long after the fall of Saigon that we were paying CIA clandestine services officers to train Osama bin Laden and give him stinger missles to fight the Ruskies. It's a brave new world! I digress.

For my part I am grateful in the extreme to Mr. Telhami's ilk for their part in making sure that I didn't grow up on the set of Mad Max. I don't want to be percieved as disrespectful, nor do I discount the gift of decades of experience. I just question the relavence of being a ski jump medalist in the summer Olympics. If Mr. Telhami represents the pinnacle of thought on the modern Middle East situation then we're in trouble. Thankfully he doesn't. We're fortuneate to have a number of people who have adapted to the paradigm that the fall of the Soviet Union has created, but the fact that this sort of article gets plastered on the front page of the Brookings website "above the crease" (visible without scrolling down) frightens me. While I certainly believe that institutions like Brookings are to be lauded for their ability to include varied viewpoints, I must say that this is evidence that the "wise old men" of our nation should really consider if they are prepared to accpet the challenges faced by a world map that looks a lot more like a diagram of the Internet overlapping a lava lamp than the old maps that ensorcelled the Soviet Union as though "Here be monsters".

The following is the email I sent Brookings:

I'm curious about the relavence of mr Telhami's discussion of "America's enemies, including the Soviets" not opting to attack the U.S. following the Saigon pullout in relation to inciting militancy by pulling out of Iraq. While considering the present in the context of history is, of course, imperative, viewing Iraq in the fame of a Cold War proxy war seems ridiculous. By the time Vietnam ended the MAD ruleset had not only been sold worldwide, it was on clearance at Wal-Mart. A more accurate comparison might be the Goths stepping up their raids into Roman territory following pullouts from northern outposts. While that comparison has obvious flaws, the psychology behind those raids and asymetrical attacks on U.S. soil are significantly more simmilar than Cold War containment/proxy wars versus pre-emtive warfare and stabilization operations. I'd be happy to entertain arguements, but that sort of thinking (i.e. Cold War type) is what keeps certain strategic factions within the Pentagon focused on China as the next emerging near-peer competitor. Sorry, the Manthorpe Curve is defunct, and it's time to define our world in much more complex terms than the zero sum game. This is more like playing the stock market than poker. Investments carry risks, but sometimes the riskiest investments can carry massive payoff. Last generations military decision makers were staring across a table at their opponent trying to guess what kind of hand he was holding. This generation's must be more like market analysts trying to determine what the payoff is and how long after investing before we call it a win or loss.

Holistic Medicine for America

2004-10-24T03:18:00.000-05:00

In reading another blog that I frequent I came across a bit, rather proudly written by an activist Green pointing out that corporations had taken over America causing everything from obesity to war. I wanted to respond to this myopic view, however the blog is member-only, so that was that. It did, however, prompt what I think is a rather nice little bit about the true causes of many issues which plague America today.

The major problem with the thought process of most activists is that while they note the symptoms of the disease they take what amounts to a centralized symptom and call it the illness. Large corporate power structures seeking to cut bottom lines are composed of members of our society. Therefore, they are part of the ailing body. If the legs hurt we do not necessarily amputate the legs. We must to seek a more inclusive diagnosis. If the ailments of the extremeties are caused by problems with the heart, we do not simply cut out the heart. We must seek a more pragmatic solution. What are the problems of the heart, and how do we treat them? In this case the legs represent everything from obeise members of society to malfunctioning electoral systems. They cannot simply be removed without damaging the body, so we must seek out the cause of the ailment. The heart represents the institutions which have driven our ascendancy as a nation (capitalism, democracy, corporate power, military might, etc.), so we cannot simply cut it away, we must reform it.

I would put forth that we have already begun this process, that one merely has to take a step back to see. For example, during the 80's we reached a tipping point in consumer culture. Americans bought everything that was pitched to them. All one has to do is compare 80's marketing to the marketing of eras previous and subsequent. Previously marketing had been geared more towards pragmatism. In the 90's marketing began to apeal to everything from pragmatism to artistic taste and spiritual satisfaction demonstrating a growing dissatisfaction with consumer culture. It is, of course, strangely ironic that only after the peak of consumer culture is nearly twenty years past (just ask any marketing exectuve) do we find ourselves with words like "consumerist" in the lexicon.

Throughout the 90's and 21st century we have seen a growing backlash towards irresponsible corporations, to the point that companies like Whole Foods (a supermarket chain devoted to organic/free-range/environmentally sound products) have begun to thrive in earnest. This is but one symptom that has begun to turn around. The natural tendency of activists is to note only the areas in need of change, not the areas that have changed. The frequent response among activists to any assertion that change has occoured is a "that's not enough" attitude. By putting forth that a process is under way one hardly presupposes that it is complete. By assuming a "We're on the way!" attitude activists are more likely to find support. Simply put, people bandwagon. Whole Foods didn't begin to thrive because activists put photos of caged pigs in newspapers. Whole Foods began to thrive because they provided an easy, fashonable, and well executed alternative to eating factory farm produce. Activists are important in the system because they spread knowledge of a flaw in the system. However, the flaw will seem to go largely ignored until someone, usually an entrepeneur or politician, presents another viable option. The test of a viable option is, of course, that it does not cause any dramatic change in a person's life. While being Vegan and growing one's own produce requires immense effort, shopping at Whole Foods simply requires the expenditure of more money. By making the interior of the store more attractive and the level of service superior to a normal super market Whole Foods provides a viable (indeed superior) option for almost anyone living at or above the median lifestyle. Using similar logic, I put forth that when gas prices (either through taxation or natural economic forces) rise very much beyond their present level (I'll state that any amount significantly over $2 a gallon should suffice). Americans will begin to purchase more fuel-efficient cars on a large scale, producing competition in that aspect of auto manufacturing.
Activists (both left and right) have already given America numerous reasons to reduce it's consumption of oil, however since Americans like SUV's and sports cars, until the cost of fuel is taxing to the point that these become financially impractical for Americans to own they will continue to purcase them, unless, that is, someone comes up with a fuel-efficient SUV. Hell, a lot of the sports car set has already defected to the Honda Civic. Why not? They all knew that it would save them on gas, and the market has provided a million ways to make your Civic cooler with bolt-on parts.

Activists are the system's natural response to ailment. They function like antibodies, attacking those things which infect the system. However, a healthy immune system functions better than an ailing one. It is my belief that activists need to be organized and educated. While in Europe most activist groups unite under the banner of political parties (forcing random counterculture elements to simply refer to themselves as anarchists, something I find most ammusing) in America our activist groups tend to be decentralized and lack any sort of focus. The result is that serious activists who want to drive change are absorbed by major political parties and organizations leaving perfectly good movements to fill their ranks from the afforementioned counterculture elements. As an examle, my mother supports almost every aspect of the Green platform, however there isn't much of an organized Green Party here so she gives money to the Sierra Club and volunteers for the local Democrats. I would like to applaud the Green Party's focus on seeing Greens elected to local office in areas with a heavy liberal bias. That is exactly the kind of grass-roots effort we need. In America we have a tendency towards top-down thinking, based on the idea that the head leads the body. While this system is not entirely flawed, a healthy brain in a body riddled with tumors and illness will hardly be able to repair the entire form. It is my opinion that it is better to think of the system as a pyramid. One must lay the foundations layer by layer before the capstone can be put in place. By strengthening the immune system thus, the Greens are helping to lay the foundations for a stronger body. Well, it's late and I'm rambling. Hmmm... fried peanut butter sandwiches... excellent....

The Infinite Power of the Masses (Is Valued at $9.34 Trillion)

2004-10-20T07:00:00.000-05:00

Just a note on current reading... In 2000 Hernando de Soto, the famed Peruvian economist, published a book called The Mystery of Capital. According to his studies the total wealth of the shadow economy, extralegal assets filling legal niches in the third world (e.g. houses to which no one has a title) is $9.34 trillion. To put it in context let's just say that it's immensely more than the total wealth held legally in those countries. The reason: the legal structure necessary for ownership doesn't exist in the third world. The result: $9.34 trillion dollars disconnected from the global economy and 80% of the inhabitants of the third world unable to connect their functional economies to the global economy. Talk about a glass ceiling. Time to talk less about bringing democracy to these nations and more about bringing bureaucracy to them. The nearly instantaneous addition of a functional and legitimized middle-class to the third world would almost surely bring about democratic change within a generation.

A Note For Bill

2004-10-20T05:02:00.000-05:00

Bill is unable to read this because Bill suffers from a combination of cataracts, macular degeneration, and retinal detachment stemming from a congenital defect. You see, Bill is guilty of the apparently unforgivable sin of being born to a mother who suffered from chicken pox during her pregnancy, and, as is frequently the case in this scenario, Bill didn't come out exactly as he was supposed to. He's not deformed to the point of being miserably handicapped. There aren't any missing limbs, and his brain is in superb working condition, so superb in fact that Bill managed to finish two years of college and even now earns a little money helping people who aren't particularly computer literate set up web sites and install software. He hasn't too much difficulty getting around as he has a nearly flawless map of Memphis stored in the area of his brain dealing with navigation and spatial relationships. He'd probably have little difficulty at all if he didn't constantly walk into telephone poles and flower planters, frequently injuring him just enough to make his life difficult and painful, but not enough to hospitalize him.

As Bill and I walked towards my house tonight so that I could get him the makings of a few sandwiches and some iced tea he held his left eye open with one hand, turning his head at specific angles attempting to counteract the effects of the macular degeneration. On the walk we chatted about his condition, Bill slowly and carefully explaining his situation, not angry with the world that had left him this way, but rather somewhere between disappointed and hopeful.

Bill told me that about seventy percent of Memphis' homeless are either "mentally disabled or substance abusers." He said that he falls into that "other" category, the men and women who just fall through the cracks of the system. As someone who is through experience wary of drug addicts and alcoholics, I wondered for the first few blocks of our walk together if Bill wasn't selling me the Brooklyn Bridge. After all, maybe the milky color of his eyes had something to do with smoking crack, and perhaps I was just unable to notice any of the classic symptoms of an alcoholic with which I am so familiar. No, Bill had approached me with a great deal of reluctance, only asking for anything at all after he was sure that I wanted to listen, lacking entirely the practiced nonchalance of a freeloader. We must've exchanged three or four sentences of casual greetings before he inquired if it would be alright for him to ask me what he was sure was "a redundant question." I, being flat broke and sure that I wouldn't be moved to offer money, but just a pastrami sandwich from my fridge, decided to listen to his pitch. And so, upon my invitation, a blind beggar accompanied me on my walk home. The drivers of several cars looked strangely at us, their aversion to Bill's disheveled state quite clear on their faces. I found myself almost glad that Bill couldn't see them.

When asked what sort of assistance he received from the government he replied that Social Security, a system we all know to be on wobbly legs at best, sent him $117 a month, of which 27 cents remained now, two-thirds of the way through the month. "There isn't much way to withdraw 27 cents from a bank, and it wouldn't do me much good if I could," Bill lamented. Bill told me that Tennessee was good enough to provide him some level of health coverage through Tenn-Care, a nearly bankrupt and poorly managed attempt at providing health care to Tennessee's poor. However, like many attempts at reforming health care for the "indigent," to use Bill's own term (a term that filled me with the frightening images of Dickens' world), Tenn-Care fails to provide for preventive medicine of any sort, instead choosing to await serious illness or injury to be useful. I asked why it was that he received so little in the way of government assistance, and was floored. Bill, a man unable to walk without periodically impacting random objects, does not qualify as one-hundred percent blind, and thus does not qualify for full disability. "When I'm fully blind," the anticipation in Bill's voice sending a shiver down my spine, "I'll get a lot of help."

Gathering that I was interested in politics Bill asked my opinion regarding embryonic stem cell research, knowing that many researchers believe that it could correct the effects of both the macular degeneration and the detached retina. "I really believe," he firmly told me, "that if I just had the money something could be done, something to fix all this." The only answer I had for him was that, yes, most probably, something could be done.

Bill was polite in the extreme, a shy sort of politeness that comes from a combination of good manners and constant rejection. If only my own generation could muster this sort of politeness in their daily life. As I walked with Bill I thought of Bellevue Baptist Church, a massive religious complex in the overwhelmingly Republican East Memphis sometimes referred to as "Six Flags Over Jesus." I imagined the massive sums of money that were brought in every year though donations and fund-raising events, such as their Broadway-like annual Christmas pageant, "The Singing Christmas Tree," a production of such magnitude as to require the participation of hundreds of cast and crew. I remembered a specific scene from one year during my childhood in which blacklights made the innumerable phosphorescent hands of the cast glow. I imagined those hands and the money that had purchased the phosphorescent paint put to use to help Bill and the millions of other Bills around the world. I imagined a world in which a structure the size of Bellevue Baptist Church might house Bill. I imagined a disability system in which a man who is functionally blind could receive more than $117 a month to help him survive, and I imagined a world in which Bill would not have to be blind, a world where preventive medicine and ongoing treatment would be available to him, a world in which the proven miracle of stem cell transplants would be allowed to give him back his sight. I imagined a world in which people understood that Christ did not mandate that the meek wait their turn to inherit the earth or that only mud return the sight of blind beggars. I imagined, and I prayed, but I gave Bill a good sweat shirt and $7, enough for him to stay three nights at the shelter, because I can't seem to muster Bill's hopeful tone, just an angry one.

To Arms!!!

2004-10-09T11:40:00.000-05:00

Dear readers, I must apologise to you for my prolonged absence from the blog. I've been up to my chin in projects since my last post, and I simply haven't had the time to research anything new. However, between trying to fix an old Roper gas stove, painting, yardwork, moving in, and working on the Kerry campaign, I've noticed I'm still bitching about one thing more often than not. So here's a quick shout out to my kids in DC. Keep your heads down, because if you think gun violence is bad now...

I'd like to thank a bipartisan group of Congressmen (I had originally intended to target specific individuals, but hey, let's spread the love.) for making sure that Washington, DC, my home until one week ago, is going to be safer. Presuming the District of Columbia Personal Protection act passes the Senate in coming months the law abiding citizens of the District will no longer have to worry about those annoying little gun registration laws passed by the city council so long ago. Now, before I go any further, I'd like to point out that this bill is a piece of House of Reps grandstanding used by Dems to give them a little Second Amendment flava and Republicans for the opposite reason. It's no more a real piece of legislation than a letter to the editor of the Washington Times is a real piece of journalism, however, that doesn't change the fact that the citizens of DC are still looking under their beds for their enfranchisement.

I'll spare you the obnoxious details. Simply put, DC has strict gun control laws, extremely strict. Forget packing a handgun unless you're specially licensed as an armed security guard or a cop. Shotguns and rifles are legal, but you've got to register them with the Metro PD, and don't expect to transport them out of your house unless they're locked and unloaded. The bill repeals these regulations, put in place by the city council and mayor of the District of Columbia, without the consent of the citizens of the District. In fact, they don't even get a Congresman to vote on the issue. Now, I won't even get into the DC Taxation Without Representation bit right now, but sufficed to say that really starts getting agitating when Congress takes that rare oportunity to exercise it's power of the District's local laws. Folks, just so you're aware, DC is the only place in the country where they can do that.

As a nod to the "spirit" of the bill (H.R. 3193 By the by) I'll go ahead and point out that DC has a high violent crime rate. The idea, denounced by anyone with one whit of knowledge regarding gun violence statistics, is that if the law abiding citizens of DC had guns they'd be able to kill the bad guys. Okay real simple, you remember high school algebra, right? If 1 + x = 1 then x = 0, right? Meaning x has no value. Try this on. Canada + lots of legal guns = minimal gun violence and Italy + strict gun control = minimal gun violence, then what must be true of both lots of legal guns and strict gun control? That they both have little effect on gun violence? That, perhaps, they function similarly to the "0" in the previous equation? Don't peg me for a gun control nut here. I'm a gun lovin', trigger pullin' freak when it comes down to it. When I first moved to DC I was upset to discover that I couldn't obtain a conceal and carry permit, but that doesn't make me delusional regarding the role of gun control in violent crime or able to read the Second Amendment backwards and hear a message from Charlton Heston. The simple fact here is that DC doesn't want guns. The city has made it quite clear that this legislation is unnecessary and unwelcome.

To add insult to injury the bill cites that one of its goals is to "REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS." It cites a 1906 law regarding the killing of wild birds and animals which states that,: "The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms." Believe me, I'm going to be on the look out for any laws of this nature which apply to segregation and women's sufferage, and I'll be emailing them to Mr. Ford and Mrs. Blackburn respectively. Frankly, Mr. Tanner, I just expected more from you. Welcome, dear readers to the land of dangerous precedents. Seems like we're visiting frequently lately.

This subject has become, at this stage, quite personal to me, as the legislation was voted for by every West Tennessee Congresman. Thank you, John Tanner, Marsha Blackburn, and Harold Ford Jr. I'll be in touch.

Vows...

2004-09-27T21:46:00.000-05:00

Readers, it would seem that the new trend in the House of Representatives is to attempt to create de facto consitutional amendments. A measure to amend the Constitution to ban gay marraige was defeated in the Senate by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, so the Republicans in the House who had backed it wholeheartedly decided to get clever. They drafted H.R. 3133, the Marriage Protection Act, which is the spiritual forerunner of the Pledge Protection Act. It is, however, slightly more insidious in its unconstitutionality. It attacks one very specific area of the Constitution (one dealing with states recognizing each others' acts, records, and judicial proceedings) by ignoring it, then attacking another, somewhat weaker area discussing the jurisdiction of courts in order to produce a loophole diverting the potential of a legal battle regarding the area that it really wants to attack. Sound convoluted? It is, but let me try to explain.

The Marriage Protection Act is very simply designed to protect states from being forced to recognize a marriage license issued in another state. That's unconstitutional. And I quote: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The bill limits the jurisdiction of the courts to hear cases which might question the constitutionality of a state not conforming to that particular clause with regard to marriage. This is tantamount to the House passing a bill that says "Criminals who violate federal law cannot be tried in federal court." Rep. Hostettler (R-IN), the bill's chief sponsor, has done an excellent job of citing constitutional sources for limiting the jurisdiction of courts, however, he exploits a potential reading of the Constitution to produce an intentional loophole. Art. III Sec. 2 reads:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The key words here are: "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Now, here's where things get tricky in my opinion. Hostettler is assuming that the phrase that I just quoted applies to the first sentence as well. (i.e. Congress can make Exceptions and Regulations in Cases to which a State is Party.) It seems to me that the Founders were trying to give Congress the right to create additional areas in which the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction. The reason I say this is simple. If for whatever reason the state of Indiana sued the state of Virginia and Congress had passed one of these "Protection Acts" regarding the subject of the lawsuit, who would decide? The state courts? They can't. The federal courts? They couldn't either. Judge Judy? I don't think so. Again, blocking cases where specific issues are at stake threatens to create a logical error of the type that would cause a computer to crash.

If reading the constitution in one fashon produces a smooth flow of logic (even if you don't like the outcome) it must be more correct than a reading which produces potential unresolvable conflicts. Let's try to keep in mind that our Founders were the children of the Enlightenment, and Reason was the founding principle to which they subscribed, not religion. If you find yourself in doubt of that simply read virtually anything Thomas Jefferson or James Madison ever wrote.

Thomas Jefferson instructed us that when reading the constitution we should try to imagine the original intent of the founders. Given that the founders were all men of reason, I doubt very much that they intended for us to view the Constitution as a fortress which we are to besiege with crafty legal wrangling. That's all this is, readers, this is a legal and political attack laid according to Sun Tzu's Art of War. They are choosing which portion of the Constitution to engage and altering the battlefield so that they will never have to engage the portion which they cannot defeat. The document establishing our government was not meant to be attacked or defended in segments, divided so that it may be conquered. It was meant to face honorable men face to face. Perhaps our founders placed to much faith in their succeeding generations.

Weekend Observation

2004-09-27T01:21:00.000-05:00

Well, my Orwellian fears of despotic plots to undermine the republic have yielded to a fairly benign weekend (at least in that arena). I did however stumble over a rather interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson from his Notes on Virginia. It's a quickie, just a little blurb, but it, in the style of Enlightenment politicians, is rather profound. "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

I'm not going to expound on it. A far wiser man than I said it, and I'll leave it to you, dear readers, to ponder his meaning. Personally, I choose to ponder it in relation to the war. It seems to me that for a just war fought on the honest pretenses of freedom and democracy there's an awful lot of spin control. Just a thought.

Not That Simple?

2004-09-25T05:12:00.000-05:00

It has been brought to my attention that my explanation of the unconstitutionality of the Pledge Protection Act was oversimplified, so I'll remedy that in brief. Here's the wording of the act:
`No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'
Here's the wording of Sec. 1 Art. 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America :
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
According to the website of Rep. Todd Aikin (R Missouri) the Congress derives its power to regulate the jurisdiction of inferior courts from this article. Here's the problem:
It simply doesn't say that. It says that the Congress can "ordain and establish" them. The part of the US Code which the bill amends deals with instances in which jurisdiction is in question, and, well, that has nothing to do with this. According to Aikin's website this also only affects lower courts, however, the Supreme Court could be interpereted as having been established by "Act of Congress" since the Constitution was adopted by the Constitutional Congress. Additionally, since the Supreme Court is the highest level of appeals court, how are these cases supposed to arrive in their inboxes? Simple, if Aikin has his way, they won't. So, I'm saying to the Gentleman from Missouri, start writing your constitutional amendment because that's the only way this will ever be legitimate.

-BT

Check the Imbalances

2004-09-24T21:01:00.000-05:00

It would seem, dear readers, that it simply isn't enough for the GOP to push an agenda in Colorado which greatly undermines the rights of the people of that state (see previous blog entry). In fact, it would seem that the GOP has engineered (through some unholy alliance no doubt) the passage of a bill designed to upset the system of checks and balances laid out in our Constitution. The bill is with reference to one very specific, and, if you ask me, relatively ridiculous issue: the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you think back, you may remember that a California man brought suit agianst his daughter's school system because he, an athiest, did not wish his daughter to recite the words "under God" when saying the pledge. One California senator stated that a federal appeals court's ruling that the pledge was "an unconstitutional endorsement of religion" was "political corretness run amok." In my personal opinion he is, at least in spirit, correct. He might, however, find a bit of resistance from the author of the Pledge were Mr. Bellamy alive today.

Bellamy was a Christian Socialist and the chairman of the comittee of state superintendants for the National Education Association. He wrote the Pledge as part of a flag raising ceremony for the quadricentinial Colombus Day celebration in 1892, and, notably, he did not include the words "of the United States of America," or "under God." The former was added, against Bellamy's protest, by the National Flag Conference after a campaign by the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, the latter, by Congress in 1954 following a campaign by, astonishingly, the Knights of Colombus, but I digress.

The real point of this article has virtually nothing to do with the Pledge. The point, friends, is that the United States House of Representatives, in an unprecedented move, has passed a bill which (should it pass the Senate and President) will prevent federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases regarding the Pledge. It's called the Pledge Protection Act, and when it arrives at the Senate floor it will be, by far and away, the most unconstitutional piece of trash to ever disgrace both houses of Congress.

For those of you not already clear on why this is so absurd, I'll provide a brief tutorial of the system of checks and balances which is written into our Constitution. The three branches of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) are responsible for keeping each other in check, thus preventing one branch from gaining too much power. Congress is the legislative branch. The word legislate derives from Latin roots meaning "to write laws." Thus the function of Congress is self explanatory. The executive branch, the President, is equally self explanatory. It is the job of the President to execute the laws laid forth by congrees. Where's the check and balance? Simple, laws have to pass the executive branch before they become laws, but, should the President veto them, a two-thirds majority vote of the entire congress will override the veto. The function of the judicial branch is a little less self explanatory than others. The nine justices of the Supreme Court function a little differently than other courts. They only hear cases in which the constitutionality of the law which has been violated is in question or a civil suit (as in this case) has raised a constitutionality issue. While they have no power whatsoever in the law making process, they can strike them right out of existence. Seem a little unbalanced? Well, it's not. The president appoints the justices who must then be ratified by congress. See, everybody gets a say. After they're sitting, though, they're there for life, and they determine what cases they hear. Now, if Congress and the President really didn't like a ruling the Supreme Court made they could make an amendment to the Constitution, thus making whatever was unconstitutional before, constitutional. However, this takes a pretty hefty number of votes in the House and Senate, and doesn't happen very often. So, you see, the system of checks and balances really does prevent any one branch from having too much power.

So there, three houses of government, all alike in dignity, in fair Washington, DC where we lay our scene. The play is a tragedy in the most Greek sense of the word, the kind of tragedy where things started off just fine and went downhill from there. The Pledge Protection Act is a direct assault on the Supreme Court's position in the system of checks and balances. It is nothing less than an attempt by GOP members in the House of Representatives to force the Supreme Court to dance to their tune. The good news is that, theoretically, the Supreme Court could strike a ratified (it hasn't even hit the Senate floor yet) Pledge Protection Act right off the books, but only after someone brings suit against and makes it through the lengthy appeals process to the Supreme Court. What does this mean for us? Imagine an act of the same nature to protect abortion cases. You're pro-life, you say? I didn't specify that this hypothetical act had to protect women who wanted to have abortions. Imagine an America where Congress could place protections on free speech cases. Imagine an America where you could be arrested for voicing an unpopular opinion and then, when you finally get a hearing, it's deemed illegal for the courts to hear your case. Well, the Pledge Protection Act is one of but a few steps into that deep chasm that is despotism, and once over the edge, readers, there is no turning back.

-BT

Related Links:
The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History
House Votes to 'Protect' Pledge of Allegiance (Reuters)

Going Political

2004-09-23T20:32:00.000-05:00

Okay, I've already got a website dedicated to me, so I've decided that for now my blog is going to be dedicated to something more important: the state of our nation. There's a reason this website is named for the seminal work on the collapse of the Roman empire (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, First Vol. Pub. 1776). I think there is something more than coincidental, possibly even prophetic in the fact that Gibbon published the entirety of his 6 volume work between the years 1776 (the year of the Declaration of Independence) and 1788 (the year prior to the creation of the Bill of Rights and the start of the French Revolution). Gibbon, with unrivaled eloquence, scathing wit, and an artists eye for detail laid out the events leading to the collapse of the Roman Republic and Empire and, more importantly, the underlying causes. "There is," as Hans-Friedrich Mueller says, "much in Gibbon to offend." He lays bare the damaging consequences of religions fanaticism and the tendency of mankind to sacrifice freedom for luxury. Gibbon is offensive because he is honest. Historians are only offensive when they are either too truthful or blatantly deceitful. I doubt very much that anyone with even a vague understanding of history would attempt to discredit Gibbon on the factuality of his treatise.
In writing about the collapse of the first western civilization, Gibbon foreshadowed all that would come. The Romans (this time in the form of American colonists) would again throw off the shackles of their insane monarch, and they would rise to power first through a rugged might and dignity, then through economic and political influence. We would follow the template laid out by empires long dead. We would rise. We would reign, and now, says history, we will fall.
If that template is to be believed, having advanced to our present status with approximately four times the rapidity of the Romans, we should collapse at that same alarming rate. With advances in communication and technology, the deteriorating attention spans of our people, and a consumerist paradigm the likes of which the world has never even imagined we should expect to be reduced to a state of despotism within a generation or two. Or have we already arrived there? Are we, like the ancient Romans, so bloated with pride over our supposed republic, our military might, our economic power, and our social dominance of the globe that we simply do not see that our own political influence is being dismantled bit by bit.
In Colorado the state legislature has instituted a referendum to determine whether or not the winner-take-all system with regard to the electoral college should be abolished in favor of a percentile distribution. (e.g. Should 33% of the state vote Democrat this November and the other 67% Republican then 3 of the 9 electoral votes would go to to Kerry and 6 of the 9 to Bush. This would almost always result in a 4/5 split between the two parties.) The benefits of this type of vote to Democrats is questionable, in fact there are many good arguments both for and against this measure, however, that's not the issue that's really at stake here. Republican Party lawyers have threatened, or more appropriately declared their intent, to bring the constitutionality of the issue into federal court should the measure pass. The reason: a clause that states that the method of distribution of the electoral votes is to be determined by the state legislature.
While I believe that there is a great deal of legitimacy to the arguments against the abolition of the winner-take-all system, I find that that issue takes a back seat to two other issues raised by this referendum. The first is the never-ending issue of states' rights. With Republican party members contesting the legality of Colorado's decision-making process in federal court we may find that American voters, American citizens, will find themselves at the mercy of Washington-based lawyers. I find it to be a dangerous proposition that GOP lawyers would be more than willing to take the issue to court based simply on the fact that the decision will be based on a referendum rather than a vote of the state legislature?
The second issue that this raises is the fundamental flaw in a political system, claiming to be a republic, in which it is possible to view a legislature's decision to hold a referendum as potentially unconstitutional. For goodness sake, we're talking about elected officials seeking the guidance of their constituency. How does this seem any more wrong than congressmen being lobbied over thousand-dollar dinners in Washington? Why is it debatable that the citizens of this country can be allowed by their elected officials to make decisions regarding their own government? I understand that the wisdom of a republic is that it mitigates the influence of the mob, but what is the wisdom in allowing lawyers, motivated by financial interest, to question the authority of the people and the elected officials?
It seems to me that this is simply a calculated attack on the power of the average citizens of the United States, just an attempt by the political elite to weaken the ability of the people to determine their own fate in the political arena, giving more power to special interest groups and Washington insiders. In these crucial times we must, as a nation, take care in how we allow this to proceed. We must heed the warnings of our founders that true patriots question their government and not simply allow it to advance unchecked.