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?
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
The Moral High Ground
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.
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
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.
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.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
TAKE THAT!
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.
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.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Why the Political Process in the U.S. is Dead
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?
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!?
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."
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Back in the Game
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?
Friday, March 24, 2006
Health Insurance & MDR TB
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?
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Quote of the Day
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...."
"...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...."
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Why Monopolies are by their Nature Government Controlled Economies
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.
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
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.
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.
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Been Away too Long (And We Got the Bombs!)
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.
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.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Michael Jackson to Keep America Safe
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....
“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....
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Connectivity is a Right
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Why Guest Worker Visas are Unethical
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.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Joke of the Day
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.
Maybe he should teach Condi this tactic before her next hardline chat about Iran.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
The Moral High Ground
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.
Monday, January 31, 2005
When Idealism is in our Self-Interest
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?
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?
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Rule Set Reset
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.
Monday, January 24, 2005
How Little We Understand Ourselves
- '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.
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.
Friday, January 21, 2005
A Citizen Of Mosul
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.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Jazz and Policy
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.
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.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Sorry for the Absence
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.
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.
Monday, December 27, 2004
Rugby V. Football: The Future of War
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.
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
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!
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?
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.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Happy Holidays
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.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Speak Plainly
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Congratulations!
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
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.
There's a discussion going on Critt's blog about this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)