May 15, 2006- Presidential Address On Iran
Over the last seventeen days, negotiations stalled at the Security Council as China stonewalled. In the meantime, Iran stepped up its nuclear program, coupling the re-opening of the Natanz enrichment facility with a nuclear technology export deal with Sudan. Enraged at the Iranian's refusal to talk, their increasingly radical rhetoric toward Israel, and the inability to bring about cohesive international action, yesterday afternoon the American delegation walked out of the UN. This morning Americans were jolted awake by news from Iran of massive bombings, and civlian casualties. Speculation and rumors swirl while reporters eagerly awaits information from the government. The room hushes as the President enters, a solemn _expression fixed on his face.
Ladies and Gentlemen, People of America and Iran. Yesterday, after the breakdown of negotiations and failure to persuade the security council to take action, I was forced to order the initiation of our last resort: a military strike. Faced with the eminent development of an Iranian nuclear capability and their refusal to back down, much less negotiate, we were given no other alternative. After having consulted NATO and our allies in the Middle East, the United States Air Force and Navy commenced operations at sundown last night. The strikes were surgical yet overwhelming. All twelve known nuclear sites were struck, along with approximately two dozen suspected sites and the residences and laboratories of prominent scientists involved in the program. Additionally, various airfields, radar installations, and other air-defense facilities were bombed toward the end of neutralizing Iranian defenses. Finally, submarine facilities and missile pads were destroyed so as to eliminate Iran's ability to lash out at American forces stationed in the Middle East. American casualties were minimal. Iranian casualties are unknown, but in all likelihood substantial.
People of Iran, we are sincerely sorry. We know you mean us no harm, and the needless waste of human life that comes with military action pains us deeply. Furthermore, I apologize and take full responsibility for the grievous wrongs the United States has committed against the people of Iran in the past. In 1954, we took political power away from you, replacing a democratically elected government with a repressive, corrupt, and despotic one. Today, I am committing our full resources to doing just the opposite. Today, I am committing America to giving Iranian political power back to the Iranian people.
Towards that end, leaders of Iran, you are given two roads:
One allows you to join the modern world if you will abide by the rules. The first condition is that you must renounce terror and the organizations that support it. The second is that you must renounce attaining a nuclear bomb and open yourselves up to full inspections. Finally, and most important, you must hold free, internationally monitored, open, elections for both your Majiles (the Iranian Parliament) and Presidency, while giving the newly elected Majiles the authority to amend the Iranian constitution as they see fit. If you take these steps, we will embrace the proud nation of Iran's return to the modern world. The United States will drop all sanctions, pay for the damages you suffered last night, and allow you to proceed with your nuclear energy program, on the condition that the weapons geared parts of the process occur in some outside nation under international supervision, such as Russia. Furthermore, we will provide you with substantial economic aid and work toward your inclusion in various world organizations, such as the World Trade Organization
Yet if, leaders of Iran, if you refuse such an option, instead insisting upon wreaking havoc on both the outside world and your own people, we will have little option left but that of coercion. If you take this second road, starting in 48 hours a new, sustained, bombing campaign will be launched. It will be aimed first at those leaders that repress the Iranian people, second at those institutions they utilize to repress the Iranian people, and finally at those institutions, such as your military, that you might utilize against non-Iranian and Iranians alike. If, leaders of Iran, you continue to put your own wants and needs above those of the nation, then, in two weeks, we will broaden the campaign from the political to the economic spectrum. At that time, we will impose a complete blockade. Every plane will be intercepted, every outward leading road, railroad, and pipeline bombed, and every ship sunk. The actions and behaviour of your regime have rendered its continued existence in its present form intolerable to the United States and the world community.
Leaders of Iran, I beseech you, do not push us down the second road. Let us put our differences behind us, so that we all may enjoy the fruits and freedoms of life, and the prosperity the world has to offer.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Iran Solution #1, Regime Change
If regime change were to happen in Iran, effectively solving the second problem by bringing the reformist faction to power in Iran, the first problem would be solved because reformists would likely see reason and abandon the nuclear program in exchange for better international relations. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen.
We certainly cannot force regime change through military action. After our performance in Iraq, the Iranians probably wouldn't trust us, regardless of the fact that we don't have the resources to do so anyway.
We cannot do it through covert action. We were responsible for an Iranian coup d'etat in the 50's, and ever since Iranians have have held to a paranoid fear of American covert action that has kept the CIA out of Iran.
That leaves reform within the system, but that's already failed as well. The hardliner system that keeps hardliners winning the President and Majile elections was overwhelmed once, in the 1996 election of reformist Khatami, when the popular vote so favored this obscure candidate that the harldiners let him win fearing a revolution. He proceeded to make some cautious reforms and reach out to America, but the hardliners fought back, using thuggery to intimidate reformists, the still harldiner Majiles to censor them, and even going so far as to assassinate prominent reformists. In 1999 the conflict peaked, when students took the streets in protest to a new law that would ban most reformist newspapers. The hizbollah and other hardliner thug groups showed up to beat the students into submission, but the students fought back. The riots escalated, and students went so far as to make statements denouncing not just the law, but the entire government. They were ready for a revolution. Unfortunately, Khatami was not. Faced with preparations for a violent hardliner reprisal (military units were being moved into position near rioting cities), he caved, denouncing the riots. The hardliners had regained control, and by his 2000 re-eleciton, Khatami was nothing more than a puppet President without any real power. Since their brush with revolution, the hardliners have consolidated their position, liberalizing the economy like China and social restrictions to vent the rage of Iran's youthful population. Additionally, with oil prices at record highs, there's no reason to believe the Iranian government cannot deliver economically most everything their populace wants, effectively bribing their populace into submission.
Thus military action will not work, covert action won't do the trick, and a spontaneous revolution is not going to happen until the price of oil goes down, and probably a while after that. We can improve conditions for regime change keeping pressure on the current regime through embargoes and harsh diplomatic statements, perhaps also work to increase our covert action capabilities in Iran, but not much more. Regime change is something to hope for, and we should support such a goal, but its nothing we can count on toward solving more short-term problems with Iran.
We certainly cannot force regime change through military action. After our performance in Iraq, the Iranians probably wouldn't trust us, regardless of the fact that we don't have the resources to do so anyway.
We cannot do it through covert action. We were responsible for an Iranian coup d'etat in the 50's, and ever since Iranians have have held to a paranoid fear of American covert action that has kept the CIA out of Iran.
That leaves reform within the system, but that's already failed as well. The hardliner system that keeps hardliners winning the President and Majile elections was overwhelmed once, in the 1996 election of reformist Khatami, when the popular vote so favored this obscure candidate that the harldiners let him win fearing a revolution. He proceeded to make some cautious reforms and reach out to America, but the hardliners fought back, using thuggery to intimidate reformists, the still harldiner Majiles to censor them, and even going so far as to assassinate prominent reformists. In 1999 the conflict peaked, when students took the streets in protest to a new law that would ban most reformist newspapers. The hizbollah and other hardliner thug groups showed up to beat the students into submission, but the students fought back. The riots escalated, and students went so far as to make statements denouncing not just the law, but the entire government. They were ready for a revolution. Unfortunately, Khatami was not. Faced with preparations for a violent hardliner reprisal (military units were being moved into position near rioting cities), he caved, denouncing the riots. The hardliners had regained control, and by his 2000 re-eleciton, Khatami was nothing more than a puppet President without any real power. Since their brush with revolution, the hardliners have consolidated their position, liberalizing the economy like China and social restrictions to vent the rage of Iran's youthful population. Additionally, with oil prices at record highs, there's no reason to believe the Iranian government cannot deliver economically most everything their populace wants, effectively bribing their populace into submission.
Thus military action will not work, covert action won't do the trick, and a spontaneous revolution is not going to happen until the price of oil goes down, and probably a while after that. We can improve conditions for regime change keeping pressure on the current regime through embargoes and harsh diplomatic statements, perhaps also work to increase our covert action capabilities in Iran, but not much more. Regime change is something to hope for, and we should support such a goal, but its nothing we can count on toward solving more short-term problems with Iran.
On Iran...
With Iran achieving the status of US threat #1 , it's time to make some discussion on the problem.
To give credit where credit's due, I've just read the Persian Puzzle, a book discussing the history of US-Iranian relations as well as the author's (former Clinton ME advisor) recommendations for the future, so his thoughts are bringing some influencing this discussion.
First, the problem, or problems, Iran presents to the United States:
First, the short term threat. Iran is obviously developping nuclear weapons, a bad thing in view of its stated intentions to wipe Israel off the map, its aggressive foreign policy in the past, and the possible nuclear arms race it could spark in the Middle East.
Second, the long term, and ongoing, problem. Iran is (surprise), something of an anti-American dictatorship. Its hodgepodge government consists of an all powerful religious leader who rules for life, currently Khameini, a parliament, called the Majiles, and the President. The latter two are democratically elected, but the pool of candidates is vetted by the Council of Guardians, a hardliner stronghold. Additionally, votes are slanted through hardline use of thug groups (more advanced versions of Iraq's nascent militias), state controlled media, and outright fraud to insure that hardline candidates win. Although it still calls itself a theocracy, recent moves to liberalize the religious guidelines (what you wear, what music you listen to, couples can now hold hands in public) so as to address social unrest demonstrate that above all power, not religious zeal, is what matters most to Iran's leades. This dictatorship is a problem because they are self-pronounced anti-American, they pump enough oil to render themselves essential to the world economy, they have supported and instigated terrorism in the past, they are the largest supporters of extremist Islam, and they work counter to American goals in the Middle East, such as the Israeli peace process through, among other actions, their support of Hamas and the Lebanese Hizbollah.
The second problem is an ongoing one that, although a solution would be wise, we can afford to ignore. The first requires urgent attention. I'll run through some solutions in coming posts.
To give credit where credit's due, I've just read the Persian Puzzle, a book discussing the history of US-Iranian relations as well as the author's (former Clinton ME advisor) recommendations for the future, so his thoughts are bringing some influencing this discussion.
First, the problem, or problems, Iran presents to the United States:
First, the short term threat. Iran is obviously developping nuclear weapons, a bad thing in view of its stated intentions to wipe Israel off the map, its aggressive foreign policy in the past, and the possible nuclear arms race it could spark in the Middle East.
Second, the long term, and ongoing, problem. Iran is (surprise), something of an anti-American dictatorship. Its hodgepodge government consists of an all powerful religious leader who rules for life, currently Khameini, a parliament, called the Majiles, and the President. The latter two are democratically elected, but the pool of candidates is vetted by the Council of Guardians, a hardliner stronghold. Additionally, votes are slanted through hardline use of thug groups (more advanced versions of Iraq's nascent militias), state controlled media, and outright fraud to insure that hardline candidates win. Although it still calls itself a theocracy, recent moves to liberalize the religious guidelines (what you wear, what music you listen to, couples can now hold hands in public) so as to address social unrest demonstrate that above all power, not religious zeal, is what matters most to Iran's leades. This dictatorship is a problem because they are self-pronounced anti-American, they pump enough oil to render themselves essential to the world economy, they have supported and instigated terrorism in the past, they are the largest supporters of extremist Islam, and they work counter to American goals in the Middle East, such as the Israeli peace process through, among other actions, their support of Hamas and the Lebanese Hizbollah.
The second problem is an ongoing one that, although a solution would be wise, we can afford to ignore. The first requires urgent attention. I'll run through some solutions in coming posts.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Another Practical Solution for Iraq
Sorry, could not help myself, but there's one more good idea I've had banging about.
A 1% profits tax on American corporations to pay for military expenses in Iraq, with a loophole. The loophole is that if you instead invest the money in Iraq's economy, you don't need to pay the tax. The tax would be in effect for 10 years.
Thus, either our government finallys starts paying for this war, or Iraq starts getting rebuilt by America's private sector. It boggles the imagination to think what it would be like. Trusts would be set up to invest in Iraq, allowing small businesses to simply put their money there to avoid the tax, and perhaps even make a profit. Iraq would be flooded with thousands of American business men from these trusts. Any time an Iraqi company gets launched, or an oil field needs building, or an infrastructure project needs financiering, there would be an American waiting, willing to assess the contract, efficiently execute it, and try and turn a profit. Maybe even Ford would set up a plant, or Wal-Mart would make some stores, but that's unrealistic.
The Iraqi government would be bombarded with lobbyists offering advice on how to best regulate the economy to fit their needs. More stable regions, like Kurdistan, would at first enjoy a flood of investment, provoking a competition that would lead other regional governments to enact measures so as to lure investments. Iraq's overall economy would boom with the investment, providing the ultimate deterrent to terrorists. Long term relationships would be formed between Iraqi and American business men, laying the basis for the ultimate long term alliance: an economic one.
Really I can think of few better ways to insure a successful outcome in Iraq.
A 1% profits tax on American corporations to pay for military expenses in Iraq, with a loophole. The loophole is that if you instead invest the money in Iraq's economy, you don't need to pay the tax. The tax would be in effect for 10 years.
Thus, either our government finallys starts paying for this war, or Iraq starts getting rebuilt by America's private sector. It boggles the imagination to think what it would be like. Trusts would be set up to invest in Iraq, allowing small businesses to simply put their money there to avoid the tax, and perhaps even make a profit. Iraq would be flooded with thousands of American business men from these trusts. Any time an Iraqi company gets launched, or an oil field needs building, or an infrastructure project needs financiering, there would be an American waiting, willing to assess the contract, efficiently execute it, and try and turn a profit. Maybe even Ford would set up a plant, or Wal-Mart would make some stores, but that's unrealistic.
The Iraqi government would be bombarded with lobbyists offering advice on how to best regulate the economy to fit their needs. More stable regions, like Kurdistan, would at first enjoy a flood of investment, provoking a competition that would lead other regional governments to enact measures so as to lure investments. Iraq's overall economy would boom with the investment, providing the ultimate deterrent to terrorists. Long term relationships would be formed between Iraqi and American business men, laying the basis for the ultimate long term alliance: an economic one.
Really I can think of few better ways to insure a successful outcome in Iraq.
A Practical Idea For America
Two energy problems we have right now: our cars our consuming too much oil (everybody knows that), and our power plants are incredibly inefficient (that one ain't so well known). I won't explain the former, but the problem with the power plants is that you cannot store electricity. You use it or lose it. Because powering up and down most powerplants (NG is the exception) often takes hours if not days, powerplants thus have to produce enough electricity to sate demand when it is at its highest, its "peak", leading to enormous wastsed over-production.
The solution? Plug in hybrids. This new technology combines hybrids with electric batteries. By plugging in the car every night, fuel economy is increased enormously, often times upwards of 100 mpg (and the technology is still in its opening stages). The key proposal here is to create a device, should be fairly straightforward, that can both put energy into our cars and take it back out again, according to market conditions. The device can then "buy" energy, filling up your battery, when demand is low, sopping up all that wasted energy. Then, when demand is high, it can sell it, probably at a marginal profit, giving the grid extra capacity and allowing powerplants to produce less electricity. The device could even allow for turning on the car's engine to create electricity, were the demand high enough. Basically our cars, which already have atleast twice (I've heard up to five times) the power capacity of our nation's power plants and lay idle for most of the day anyway, can act like a huge national battery, even power plant, mediating supply and demand.
Of course, plug-in hybrids are still in an embryonic state, but the technology's there, the methods are there, and it's not ridiculously expensive. Already, without any sizable research commitment or economies of scale to back it up, there are companies that will upgrade hybrids to plug in hybrids for approx. 3,000$. Were the government to require that all new garages include the plug in devices and heavily subsidize plug-in hybrids (the best method is always through gas taxes), this solution could become the reality for the United States within ten years. Were a majority of cars to become plug-ins, we could realistically cut our oil consumption by 5 mbd. Furthermore, by reducing the strain on power plants, we could cut our consumption of natural gas (a fuel that shares many of oils problems) by shutting down NG powe plants, although the main point is the system would be more efficient.
Oil demand reduction and electricity production reduction. Sounds like a plan to me. If only there were some politicians with enough spine to make such a thing come true. Perhaps California...
The solution? Plug in hybrids. This new technology combines hybrids with electric batteries. By plugging in the car every night, fuel economy is increased enormously, often times upwards of 100 mpg (and the technology is still in its opening stages). The key proposal here is to create a device, should be fairly straightforward, that can both put energy into our cars and take it back out again, according to market conditions. The device can then "buy" energy, filling up your battery, when demand is low, sopping up all that wasted energy. Then, when demand is high, it can sell it, probably at a marginal profit, giving the grid extra capacity and allowing powerplants to produce less electricity. The device could even allow for turning on the car's engine to create electricity, were the demand high enough. Basically our cars, which already have atleast twice (I've heard up to five times) the power capacity of our nation's power plants and lay idle for most of the day anyway, can act like a huge national battery, even power plant, mediating supply and demand.
Of course, plug-in hybrids are still in an embryonic state, but the technology's there, the methods are there, and it's not ridiculously expensive. Already, without any sizable research commitment or economies of scale to back it up, there are companies that will upgrade hybrids to plug in hybrids for approx. 3,000$. Were the government to require that all new garages include the plug in devices and heavily subsidize plug-in hybrids (the best method is always through gas taxes), this solution could become the reality for the United States within ten years. Were a majority of cars to become plug-ins, we could realistically cut our oil consumption by 5 mbd. Furthermore, by reducing the strain on power plants, we could cut our consumption of natural gas (a fuel that shares many of oils problems) by shutting down NG powe plants, although the main point is the system would be more efficient.
Oil demand reduction and electricity production reduction. Sounds like a plan to me. If only there were some politicians with enough spine to make such a thing come true. Perhaps California...
A Practical Idea For Iraq
Iraq is currently suffering from both terrorism and sectarianism. Often enough, the former is provoking the latter, as has been demonstrated by the escalating mosque bombings. The worst aspect of terrorism: well, all of it, but the mosques are where they're inflicting most of the casualties, and inciting most of the strife. The worst aspect of sectarianism: those illegal militias that impose religious law and threaten to sweep the nation into civil war.
The solution? Legalize the militias as "Holy Protection Forces", or something like that. They would be allowed to act as an-almost police within a certain distance, say 200 yards, of religious buildings, principally mosques. Naturally, there would be a few stipulations. First, each one would have to be associated with and approved by its particular religious site and the residents of the surrounding area, and obtain a license from their local and national government. Second, they would be regulated. They would have to publish salaries, number of "guards", and other information that comes in handy when trying to keep small armies in line. They would only have the power to make arrests, and would have to prove to a court that they killed in self defense, should the occasion arise (which it will). Finally, these HPF's would have to immediately forward any and all cases to the real police as fast as possible.
Thus you have the ultimate solution. The militias become regulated (or atleast the groundwork would be laid for regulation, Iraq is in no shape to enforce many laws right now), and they would serve a purpose, legally defending the most vulnerable and most strife-inducing targets.
Then perhaps the situation experienced last week would have been different. Instead of twelve commando type terrorists walking into an abandoned mosque with four asleep guards in a back room, subsequently provoking the blind rage of thousands of militia men against Sunnis everywhere, some of those thousands could have instead been defending that mosque, stemming the problem at its source rather than exacerbating it.
Just a thought.
The solution? Legalize the militias as "Holy Protection Forces", or something like that. They would be allowed to act as an-almost police within a certain distance, say 200 yards, of religious buildings, principally mosques. Naturally, there would be a few stipulations. First, each one would have to be associated with and approved by its particular religious site and the residents of the surrounding area, and obtain a license from their local and national government. Second, they would be regulated. They would have to publish salaries, number of "guards", and other information that comes in handy when trying to keep small armies in line. They would only have the power to make arrests, and would have to prove to a court that they killed in self defense, should the occasion arise (which it will). Finally, these HPF's would have to immediately forward any and all cases to the real police as fast as possible.
Thus you have the ultimate solution. The militias become regulated (or atleast the groundwork would be laid for regulation, Iraq is in no shape to enforce many laws right now), and they would serve a purpose, legally defending the most vulnerable and most strife-inducing targets.
Then perhaps the situation experienced last week would have been different. Instead of twelve commando type terrorists walking into an abandoned mosque with four asleep guards in a back room, subsequently provoking the blind rage of thousands of militia men against Sunnis everywhere, some of those thousands could have instead been defending that mosque, stemming the problem at its source rather than exacerbating it.
Just a thought.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
“I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it”
As many readers are no doubt aware, a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, has brought about a great deal of outrage in the Muslim world. It’s easy to understand why the Muslims might be upset: the cartoons were offensive and in poor taste. Simply said, they allegedly broke a religious tenet of Islam by depicting Mohammed. But although I criticize the newspaper and stand firmly opposed to its views, the virulent reaction in the Muslim world has brought to issue an ideal in more dire need of defense and a problem far more in need of critique.
The ideal is free speech. Yes, we do not agree with what the Danish xenophobes who published the article are trying to say, but we should still defend their right to say it. The notion that they might be censored because they offend someone is a notion running directly contrary to the successful ideals upon which much of the Western world has been built, and a notion that leads to situations such as the one in Iran, where their leader calls the holocaust a sham, advocates the extermination of the Jews, blames all their problems on the Americans and eliminates those who disagree by calling them heretics. In fact, were I in the business of publishing materials offensive to society, I would re-publish the cartoon to display our free speech solidarity with the Danish newspaper, but I am not, and that is no longer the primary issue anyhow.
The primary issue, the problem in dire need of critique, is the extent to which the Muslim world, and popular opinion, is manipulated by various dictators and elites. Indeed, the current “outrage” is not at all indicative of popular Arab sentiment. To the contrary, it is a carefully manipulated, manufactured response born from the highest corridors of power in the Muslim world. The articles themselves were published in October. Since then, Western Muslims have calmly expressed their outrage by not buying the newspaper, circulating a petition, and telling people that they find it offensive. Arab Muslims hardly responded at all until after the 56 members of the Organization of Islamic Conferences, which consists almost entirely of dictatorial Islamic states, met and decided to create an outrage. This might sound ridiculous, but they’ve done it. They created and circulated new, doubly offensive cartoons. Utilizing a vast network of media outlets such as Al-Jazeera and a religious system dominated and funded by various Islamic oil-states, they further fanned the flames. In Dubai, the leaders even bussed in protesters to strengthen their Muslim credentials. In Iran and Syria the governments allowed for otherwise illegal mobs to gather. Now all across the Muslim world, the Islamic dictators have brought about violence which has led to the burning of embassies, the creation of embargoes, the murder of a Catholic priest in Turkey, and the death of dozens in rioting.
Why? Denmark is about to become the head of the UN security council, the same body that is to consider sanctions on Iran next month. These riots effectively delegitimatize it while rallying Muslims around their leaders when they most need public support.
Therein lies the real offense in this whole affair, the extent to which Islam and the Muslim world is being manipulated by those who are using religion to further their own agendas. The scarier thing is that the cartoon incident, in which many have already died, is the least of their crimes. They use the same system that has turned this non-issue into an outrage to incite terrorism, to pilfer their countries’ oil wealth, and to oppress their people. Thus, although we condemn the cartoon, the Danish violation of Islam pales in comparison to the crimes committed against the religion every day by the Muslim elites.
The ideal is free speech. Yes, we do not agree with what the Danish xenophobes who published the article are trying to say, but we should still defend their right to say it. The notion that they might be censored because they offend someone is a notion running directly contrary to the successful ideals upon which much of the Western world has been built, and a notion that leads to situations such as the one in Iran, where their leader calls the holocaust a sham, advocates the extermination of the Jews, blames all their problems on the Americans and eliminates those who disagree by calling them heretics. In fact, were I in the business of publishing materials offensive to society, I would re-publish the cartoon to display our free speech solidarity with the Danish newspaper, but I am not, and that is no longer the primary issue anyhow.
The primary issue, the problem in dire need of critique, is the extent to which the Muslim world, and popular opinion, is manipulated by various dictators and elites. Indeed, the current “outrage” is not at all indicative of popular Arab sentiment. To the contrary, it is a carefully manipulated, manufactured response born from the highest corridors of power in the Muslim world. The articles themselves were published in October. Since then, Western Muslims have calmly expressed their outrage by not buying the newspaper, circulating a petition, and telling people that they find it offensive. Arab Muslims hardly responded at all until after the 56 members of the Organization of Islamic Conferences, which consists almost entirely of dictatorial Islamic states, met and decided to create an outrage. This might sound ridiculous, but they’ve done it. They created and circulated new, doubly offensive cartoons. Utilizing a vast network of media outlets such as Al-Jazeera and a religious system dominated and funded by various Islamic oil-states, they further fanned the flames. In Dubai, the leaders even bussed in protesters to strengthen their Muslim credentials. In Iran and Syria the governments allowed for otherwise illegal mobs to gather. Now all across the Muslim world, the Islamic dictators have brought about violence which has led to the burning of embassies, the creation of embargoes, the murder of a Catholic priest in Turkey, and the death of dozens in rioting.
Why? Denmark is about to become the head of the UN security council, the same body that is to consider sanctions on Iran next month. These riots effectively delegitimatize it while rallying Muslims around their leaders when they most need public support.
Therein lies the real offense in this whole affair, the extent to which Islam and the Muslim world is being manipulated by those who are using religion to further their own agendas. The scarier thing is that the cartoon incident, in which many have already died, is the least of their crimes. They use the same system that has turned this non-issue into an outrage to incite terrorism, to pilfer their countries’ oil wealth, and to oppress their people. Thus, although we condemn the cartoon, the Danish violation of Islam pales in comparison to the crimes committed against the religion every day by the Muslim elites.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Iraq & Blame
I think all the discussion about revisionism and WMD's circumvents and neglects the more important point: How did we screw up so badly in Iraq?
Yes, there are and were legitimate reasons for going in (I don't consider WMD's to be in the top 2, see On Iraq), but how did the US allow such a weak military plan to carried out? We had no postwar planning, not enough soldiers, very little international support, and thus set the stage for the situation we are in, where we have, despite being on the right path, thusfar done more, judging by numbers, not liberties, harm than good.
To make it worse, this is all in stark contrast to Gulf War I, where everything went smoothly in accordance with the Powell Doctrine, which was entirely neglected in GWII.
Now the very concepts of nation building, regime change, and aggressive warfare stands the chance of being maligned and shunned in the American political atmosphere for decades to come. And not because they are bad concepts, but because they were badly implemented.
Whose fault is this? Personally, I say primarily the executive branch for being hugely incompetent, secondarily congress for trusting the executive branch, and finally the American people for their unwillingness to sacrifice (thus put more effort into this war).
More importantly, how do we fix it? We funnel all the dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq towards productive ends, ensuring the competence of our warmakers in the future, instead of trying to hinder them in their mission today. The senate's recent action may be a step towards ensuring that competence. Or it may be a step toward authenticating withdrawal. Seeing our nation's and congress's (in)ability to sacrifice, the latter is looking more likely than the former.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Riots?
I have a relation in France, and I asked her for the French viewpoint on the current riots, seeing as the American Media does not have a great track record with interpreting foreign events. It's an interesting email, and I thought it may interest somebody, donc, voila:
Riots? We were in Paris day before yesterday and things were as usual, beautiful and elegant, but indeed it is true that in the suburbs things are "chaud"!
The US embassy has even sent out a notice to US residents in France and US vistitors to avoid taking the subway in from the CDG airport because it passes by those suburbs.
M. de Villepin was on the television this morning talking about the problem but as I told your grandfather yesterday it is rather like the race riots of '68 in the states..;there is no racism about color in France but certainly about culture. Young Magrehbins or "arabes" have a hard time getting work, live in those dismal towers in the suburbs of Paris and have no hope but to embrace their own culture since the French population seems to reject them. Young women who choose to were normal "French" clothes in those "cités" risk harassment or worse so they often choose the traditional way just to get on with their lives. Often the parents have tried to become "French" and the children have seen that they haven't really had much success.
The traditional French in many ways have a hard time accepting them. You can say but aren't they Frenchtoo but it's more than that. Many even change their names from Mohamed Habedi to Marc Dupont just to have a chance at a job interview. And the amazing thing is it works...just until the employer sees their face and their address (the famous 93 postal code). Pure prejudice but I can understand both sides. There is a surplus of young people looking for jobs and why take a chance on a possible delinquent when you have a Marc Dupont from the nice side of town. In France there is a separation of State and church...but the french revolution asked that the population embrace the State essentially as their religion and that feeling continues today in the legislation and educational system etc. There is an interesting "arrangement" with the Catholic schools where most are under contract to the State...but I am not sure that is the case with Muslim schools. Many of the Catholic schools now welcome the better muslim students because the schools are more "accepting". All goes back to the foundations of Catholic education which is based on a philosophy of acceptance of ones differences but an acknowledgement of a higher authority (non specific,but other than the state) in terms of moral judgement.
So where do we go from here. I think one just has to change the very opiniated typical Frenchman who is more than willing to accept a Black Catholic Antillaise as an in-law but give them someone who is Jewish or Muslim and they close ranks. But then so do those two groups also. To be fully integrated one needs to accept the social reality...France even though they are mostly non-practicing is an old Catholic Society and is a meritocracy where despite what anyone says the Old Boy network is alive and well. All the top politicians and business leaders for the most part have gone to ENA (the school of Administration where the State pays the students to attend) where they prepare to go on as prefets, ambassadors etc. and they all know each other. That is one of the joys of Sarkozy in that he is not "part of the club" although he was mayor of the chic suburb of Neuilly in Paris and knows all the right people (but his parents were imigrants and he doesn't recite poetry like de Villepin!). The French revolution was two hundred years ago and supposedly was the downfall of the aristocracy but another "elite" took their place. Napoleon created an empire which still has great repercussions on everyday life here. But that is a whole book...if you have more questions I will try to answer them but I think this is just an indication of a real problem in French culture that needs to be dealt with. Your uncle, for example, is very against a sort of French "affirmative action" which has been put in place for the "grands ecoles" (the top schools) but I think that is precisely what is needed. The "meritocracy" is not bad in itself as long as all the players have an even playing field. I read "A Hope in the Unseen" which is a look at one specific example of the top student at the worse high school in Wash DC and his struggles and success with school. He was accepted at Brown essentially under an affirmative action program and when you read the book you certainly understand why he is perhaps not as well-prepared for an ivy league eduation but certainly why he should be given the chance. I would be interested to know what happens to those kids later. I am sure a fair number of them go on to become politicians lobbying for better chances for he under priveledged that they were.
It would seem the conclusion is that it's "culturalist" based violence, showing how essential it is that everyone is given equal opportunities in life.
Riots? We were in Paris day before yesterday and things were as usual, beautiful and elegant, but indeed it is true that in the suburbs things are "chaud"!
The US embassy has even sent out a notice to US residents in France and US vistitors to avoid taking the subway in from the CDG airport because it passes by those suburbs.
M. de Villepin was on the television this morning talking about the problem but as I told your grandfather yesterday it is rather like the race riots of '68 in the states..;there is no racism about color in France but certainly about culture. Young Magrehbins or "arabes" have a hard time getting work, live in those dismal towers in the suburbs of Paris and have no hope but to embrace their own culture since the French population seems to reject them. Young women who choose to were normal "French" clothes in those "cités" risk harassment or worse so they often choose the traditional way just to get on with their lives. Often the parents have tried to become "French" and the children have seen that they haven't really had much success.
The traditional French in many ways have a hard time accepting them. You can say but aren't they Frenchtoo but it's more than that. Many even change their names from Mohamed Habedi to Marc Dupont just to have a chance at a job interview. And the amazing thing is it works...just until the employer sees their face and their address (the famous 93 postal code). Pure prejudice but I can understand both sides. There is a surplus of young people looking for jobs and why take a chance on a possible delinquent when you have a Marc Dupont from the nice side of town. In France there is a separation of State and church...but the french revolution asked that the population embrace the State essentially as their religion and that feeling continues today in the legislation and educational system etc. There is an interesting "arrangement" with the Catholic schools where most are under contract to the State...but I am not sure that is the case with Muslim schools. Many of the Catholic schools now welcome the better muslim students because the schools are more "accepting". All goes back to the foundations of Catholic education which is based on a philosophy of acceptance of ones differences but an acknowledgement of a higher authority (non specific,but other than the state) in terms of moral judgement.
So where do we go from here. I think one just has to change the very opiniated typical Frenchman who is more than willing to accept a Black Catholic Antillaise as an in-law but give them someone who is Jewish or Muslim and they close ranks. But then so do those two groups also. To be fully integrated one needs to accept the social reality...France even though they are mostly non-practicing is an old Catholic Society and is a meritocracy where despite what anyone says the Old Boy network is alive and well. All the top politicians and business leaders for the most part have gone to ENA (the school of Administration where the State pays the students to attend) where they prepare to go on as prefets, ambassadors etc. and they all know each other. That is one of the joys of Sarkozy in that he is not "part of the club" although he was mayor of the chic suburb of Neuilly in Paris and knows all the right people (but his parents were imigrants and he doesn't recite poetry like de Villepin!). The French revolution was two hundred years ago and supposedly was the downfall of the aristocracy but another "elite" took their place. Napoleon created an empire which still has great repercussions on everyday life here. But that is a whole book...if you have more questions I will try to answer them but I think this is just an indication of a real problem in French culture that needs to be dealt with. Your uncle, for example, is very against a sort of French "affirmative action" which has been put in place for the "grands ecoles" (the top schools) but I think that is precisely what is needed. The "meritocracy" is not bad in itself as long as all the players have an even playing field. I read "A Hope in the Unseen" which is a look at one specific example of the top student at the worse high school in Wash DC and his struggles and success with school. He was accepted at Brown essentially under an affirmative action program and when you read the book you certainly understand why he is perhaps not as well-prepared for an ivy league eduation but certainly why he should be given the chance. I would be interested to know what happens to those kids later. I am sure a fair number of them go on to become politicians lobbying for better chances for he under priveledged that they were.
It would seem the conclusion is that it's "culturalist" based violence, showing how essential it is that everyone is given equal opportunities in life.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Pork Woes...
In light of the recent hurricanes, Senator Coburn has been pushing several amendments aimed at reducing pork, certainly some progress, but woefully depressing in light of the small number of votes the first has gotten. Democrat, Republican, across party lines the senate has stood in defense of its incompetence, preserving the pork. There are less than ten in the body who deserve to hold their posts. If only there were some other choice, some party pushing fiscal responsibility...
On Syria...
Syria has just been proclaimed the culprit in the Lebanese assassination. This could have huge implications. This means Syria has not just the ability but the will to carry out terrorism, making it extremely likely that they are actively supporting the insurgency in Iraq. Of course, any action should await confirmation of such intervention, but in the interim they are already paying a heavy price for their sins in Lebanon. Chances are the UN can get them to capitulate and straighten up through various resolutions.
The sad part here is the invasion in Iraq has failed to have much, if any, intimidation effect on its neighbors. Iran continues to push nuclear weapons, and now Syria could be fuelling the destruction in Iraq. Truly this has been a horribly executed war.
The sad part here is the invasion in Iraq has failed to have much, if any, intimidation effect on its neighbors. Iran continues to push nuclear weapons, and now Syria could be fuelling the destruction in Iraq. Truly this has been a horribly executed war.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Our Money At Work
Just in case anybody thought that the Oil States are using every one of our petro-dollars to its greatest extent, take a look at former president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Abu-Dhabi Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan's new house:
It's hard to find grander in the US, and yet the entire Arab league's GDP is still smaller than Spain's. Class disparities this large cause piss the poor people off.
It's hard to find grander in the US, and yet the entire Arab league's GDP is still smaller than Spain's. Class disparities this large cause piss the poor people off.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Competitive Government
There is a popular notion that the government is inheritently inefficient and corrupt because it is a monopolistic organization, as opposed to the private sector, where constant competition keeps businesses efficient and fast. This simply is not true. Public service is one of the most competitive sectors out there. Governments are constantly competing with one another. Cities compete for citizens, states compete for businesses, and countries compete for everything. If a government is corrupt, inefficient, or lazy, the nation will be overtaken by any number of problems ranging from economic collapse to invasion to revolution.
This outlook brings about many good points:
Fortunately, democracy allows the citizens to change the leadership without changing the institution, should the nation be heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, more often than not citizens are putting their votes behind the politicians who bring home the pork than the ones who are doing their best to improve the nation's welfare. How do we change that?
Smaller (geography wise) governments are often better at solving problems than larger ones, not only because they've got their ear closer to the ground, but because they're much more numerous. For instance: healthcare. Instead of having just the federal government attempting to draft a solution, we can have fifty smaller governments take a stab at it. When a clear and proven solution emerges, either the other states will adopt it, or the federal government will. Not only does the small government approach increase the chance of success by fifty, but it also makes for mistakes on a much smaller scale when, inevitably, there are some screw-ups. Unfortunately, politicians in DC want to solve the most cutting edge problems, and citizens more often than not forget that they have potential stateside solutions (who's your state congress rep?), and instead demand action from the federal government, bringing about disastrous solution attempts on a huge scale. Stepping aside and letting the states (or counties, or cities) tackle the problems with no clear cut solution seems like a sound and practical policy.
Finally, our government has been lazy, corrupt, and inefficient for quite some time now, and yet we have not been invaded, or outdone economically, or had a revolution. Is this just the status quo? Should we then let it be because it's always been, or are we setting up for some huge crises? I say the facts show some big predicaments heading our way, and just because we've gotten by thus-far doesn't mean we're going to continue to get by. Historically, most civilizations peak right before they collapse. I don't think we're dumb enough to collapse, but on our current path there are going to be losses, because our government simply is not up to par with other nations, and that's not acceptable.
This outlook brings about many good points:
Fortunately, democracy allows the citizens to change the leadership without changing the institution, should the nation be heading in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, more often than not citizens are putting their votes behind the politicians who bring home the pork than the ones who are doing their best to improve the nation's welfare. How do we change that?
Smaller (geography wise) governments are often better at solving problems than larger ones, not only because they've got their ear closer to the ground, but because they're much more numerous. For instance: healthcare. Instead of having just the federal government attempting to draft a solution, we can have fifty smaller governments take a stab at it. When a clear and proven solution emerges, either the other states will adopt it, or the federal government will. Not only does the small government approach increase the chance of success by fifty, but it also makes for mistakes on a much smaller scale when, inevitably, there are some screw-ups. Unfortunately, politicians in DC want to solve the most cutting edge problems, and citizens more often than not forget that they have potential stateside solutions (who's your state congress rep?), and instead demand action from the federal government, bringing about disastrous solution attempts on a huge scale. Stepping aside and letting the states (or counties, or cities) tackle the problems with no clear cut solution seems like a sound and practical policy.
Finally, our government has been lazy, corrupt, and inefficient for quite some time now, and yet we have not been invaded, or outdone economically, or had a revolution. Is this just the status quo? Should we then let it be because it's always been, or are we setting up for some huge crises? I say the facts show some big predicaments heading our way, and just because we've gotten by thus-far doesn't mean we're going to continue to get by. Historically, most civilizations peak right before they collapse. I don't think we're dumb enough to collapse, but on our current path there are going to be losses, because our government simply is not up to par with other nations, and that's not acceptable.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Flat Tax Pros & Cons
Back to the subject, some percieved pros and cons of the flat tax.
Pros: simple, encourages investment, less bureaucracy, more money for the people, no more loopholes.
Cons: rich people keep getting richer, more burden on middle class, less money for charities & nonprofits, less tax revenue, where does social security fit in?, H&R Block goes out of business.
I don't know enough about the subject yet to deliver a policy, and if you have any evidence/opinions, please contribute.
Pros: simple, encourages investment, less bureaucracy, more money for the people, no more loopholes.
Cons: rich people keep getting richer, more burden on middle class, less money for charities & nonprofits, less tax revenue, where does social security fit in?, H&R Block goes out of business.
I don't know enough about the subject yet to deliver a policy, and if you have any evidence/opinions, please contribute.
Flat Tax Argument
I recently ran into a Wall Street Journal editorial advocating a flat income tax. It seemed like a pretty solid argument, even addressing my biggest issue by giving a tax exemption for the first 11,000$, thus not taxing the super-poor. And then it invoked Russia:
"Russia put in a flat tax four years ago, and revenues have more than doubled in real terms"
Before President Putin took office, Russia was in a tax crisis. Nobody payed income taxes, because it was much cheaper to bribe somebody and nobody wanted to tell anybody how much they make (and alot of the economy was, and still is, underground). This made the government, facing a shrinking tax base, raise taxes, leading to less people paying, leading to higher taxes, etc. Putin came along, said enough of this, cut the taxes to a flat rate below 20%, and the Russians decided that a fee that small wasn't worth the evasion trouble, thus started paying taxes again. A brilliant solution for a chronic problem, but entirely non-applicable to our situation (because people do pay taxes and our economy isn't underground, mafia-dominated, and incredibly corrupt).
Thus this one piece of evidence, this one phrase, throws the entire argument into doubt, because if the author (Steve Forbes, he should know his stuff) was willing to throw in an argument like that, who can tell what other pieces, with which I am not so familiar, are entirely invalid? If making a policy about something as major as this, use valid evidence.
"Russia put in a flat tax four years ago, and revenues have more than doubled in real terms"
Before President Putin took office, Russia was in a tax crisis. Nobody payed income taxes, because it was much cheaper to bribe somebody and nobody wanted to tell anybody how much they make (and alot of the economy was, and still is, underground). This made the government, facing a shrinking tax base, raise taxes, leading to less people paying, leading to higher taxes, etc. Putin came along, said enough of this, cut the taxes to a flat rate below 20%, and the Russians decided that a fee that small wasn't worth the evasion trouble, thus started paying taxes again. A brilliant solution for a chronic problem, but entirely non-applicable to our situation (because people do pay taxes and our economy isn't underground, mafia-dominated, and incredibly corrupt).
Thus this one piece of evidence, this one phrase, throws the entire argument into doubt, because if the author (Steve Forbes, he should know his stuff) was willing to throw in an argument like that, who can tell what other pieces, with which I am not so familiar, are entirely invalid? If making a policy about something as major as this, use valid evidence.
Monday, August 15, 2005
The Balance
A little practical philosophy. Many often ask, why do we have welfare? Why does the government take my (hard-earned) money and give it to someone (less deserving) else? Isn't that socialism? Doesn't socialism lead straight to economic stagnation, and in turn big evil tyrannies, like Russia, or China? These are good questions, and since the practical party is going to continue to support these socialist policies, it's neccessary to give a good answer.
It is my belief that there needs to exist a finely tuned balance between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism produces losers. This is because it includes risks, many risks, and some people get unlucky. Those losers need a second, maybe third chance to get back on their legs. They and their children need to be provided with the same opportunities that are alotted to the winners (education, survival, good line of credit). Why? For starters, it's humane, but more sensibly, it's in our best interests. The winners can become too powerful, monopolizing items such as education or specific businesses, bringing about short term gains for them at the cost of long-term losses for all. Some of these long term losses: obviously, monopolies breed incompetence, also, if most of the economic wealth is concentrated in the hands of few, they'll try and take the political power as well (take note of where most the politicians come from...). More subtly, and importantly, it's not worth the cost of letting those losers sit out in the rain. When someone loses faith and hope in a system, they try and force change upon that system, often producing extreme movements of some sort. Most infamous of these extreme movements is communism, as in Russia, China, and North Korea, but there are countless other grassroots movements that started amongst the disenfranchised "losers" of the current system and ended up dominated by power-hungry dictators.
This balance concept is a conclusion that Europe came to post-WWII, after having suffered through both extremes and various socialist revolutions for the last 150 years. They created capitalist states with socialist programs, bringing about a stable & prosperous balance that have lasted them 50 years. With economic stagnation setting in, that balance needs some tweaking, but I have confidence that their political institutions can deliver.
This is also a problem that many oil-states have been facing for the last 25-30 years. They have too much socialism, essentially using oil-money to create millions of ornamental, yet paying, government jobs. This coupled with their political situation creates millions of young, frustrated, idle, disenfranchised men and women. These same ingredients ledto the communist revolutions and fascism, and I hope that they can reform before the oil starts running out.
Socialist policies are humane. Socialist policies have also sedated & delivered hope & faith to generations of capitalistic losers. The checks the winners have to pay merely maintain a system that benefits them most. They really benefit everyone, fitting the axiom "what goes around, comes around". Thus practical policy should seek to find a balance between capitalism and socialism.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Food For Thought...
At current population growth rates:
In 775 years there will be 10 people per square yard
In 2000 years the mass of humanity will equal the mass of earth
In 6000 years the mass of humanity will equal the mass of the universe
Family planning, anyone?
In 775 years there will be 10 people per square yard
In 2000 years the mass of humanity will equal the mass of earth
In 6000 years the mass of humanity will equal the mass of the universe
Family planning, anyone?
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Over 60...
It's a little belated, but oil's ppb is now past another landmark, and it's now trading at 62.31$. Keep in mind this is up from the 10-20$ range 6-7 years ago (and 40$ one year ago). I thought and I still think that this is a short-term price lurch with speculation and politics more to blame than the fundamental problem (there's only so much oil left), but it's a good time for an update.
The oil companies themselves are intent on informing the public of the root problem, as Chevron and others launch huge commercial campaigns imploring governments and populaces to provide them with the help and leadership to move onto the next energy source.
The estimate is now 5 years before non-OPEC production peaks. The US production peaked back in the 70's.
Whilst the US consumes 20 million barrels a day (1/4 the world total), the next largest consumer is China at 8, and France, a nation comparable to us in development and economic status, consumes a mere 2.
One of the biggest alternatives right now is tar-oil, a seemingly endless source embedded in sands which is much more expensive to extract and causes much more environmental damage (primarily through emmissions). This is what will happen if the free market runs it course.
67% of our consumption is in the transportation sector. Small things, like building a few less highways, a few more trains, more mass transit, zoning land in such a way that work, home, and shopping can all be walked to, mileage standards, and gas taxes can make a huge a difference, and it is the practical policy to implement them.
The oil companies themselves are intent on informing the public of the root problem, as Chevron and others launch huge commercial campaigns imploring governments and populaces to provide them with the help and leadership to move onto the next energy source.
The estimate is now 5 years before non-OPEC production peaks. The US production peaked back in the 70's.
Whilst the US consumes 20 million barrels a day (1/4 the world total), the next largest consumer is China at 8, and France, a nation comparable to us in development and economic status, consumes a mere 2.
One of the biggest alternatives right now is tar-oil, a seemingly endless source embedded in sands which is much more expensive to extract and causes much more environmental damage (primarily through emmissions). This is what will happen if the free market runs it course.
67% of our consumption is in the transportation sector. Small things, like building a few less highways, a few more trains, more mass transit, zoning land in such a way that work, home, and shopping can all be walked to, mileage standards, and gas taxes can make a huge a difference, and it is the practical policy to implement them.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
WASTE
Couldn't let this go, as it violates basic practical ideology.
Both the recently passed energy & transportation bill are laden with pork and don't really solve anything. That's 300 billion dollars down the drain, and the setting in of a trend for whose indulgence both parties deserve to be voted out of congress. 300 billion going to things like a 500 million dollars for two bridges in Alaska, one to an island of less than 50. Corn museums, bike trails, this amounts to nothing less than congress bribing the people with their own money and solves nothing! This on top of the fact that congress has no right to be indulging in such local projects with federal money. Not to mention the 13$ billion energy bill which consists of a bunch of subsidies to industries we should be curbing, like big oil, but atleast that takes a few steps forward by putting a pittance towards renewables and changing daylight savings.
I say this now and I will say it again, NO PORK. Thus stands the practical policy.
Both the recently passed energy & transportation bill are laden with pork and don't really solve anything. That's 300 billion dollars down the drain, and the setting in of a trend for whose indulgence both parties deserve to be voted out of congress. 300 billion going to things like a 500 million dollars for two bridges in Alaska, one to an island of less than 50. Corn museums, bike trails, this amounts to nothing less than congress bribing the people with their own money and solves nothing! This on top of the fact that congress has no right to be indulging in such local projects with federal money. Not to mention the 13$ billion energy bill which consists of a bunch of subsidies to industries we should be curbing, like big oil, but atleast that takes a few steps forward by putting a pittance towards renewables and changing daylight savings.
I say this now and I will say it again, NO PORK. Thus stands the practical policy.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Globalization & Free Trade
I'm back!
With the recent passage of CAFTA, I thought this an appropriate time to lay down some ideas about free trade and globalization.
What goes around comes around, and when in relation to trade, comes around and then some. With increasing globalization, countries can specialize, basic resources become cheaper and more abundant, and competition brings about increased efficiency. Free trade/globalization also brings interdependency and constant contact between all cultures. This breeds peace and understanding between the peoples of the world. Thus, globalization brings about increased wealth and peace for all the world. The microcosm for this model is Europe, which after thousands of years of constant war has now found prosperity, peace, and understanding due to the EU, an organization whose primary function is insuring free and fair trade. For these, positive, reasons free (and fair) trade is considered a fundamentally good objective and one that should be encouraged through American policy.
This said, there is a flip side that entails that our country act with some common sense (practicality) whilst globalizing. With specialization comes whole segments of the economy dying off while others expand, with abundant resources waste and faster consumption of the planet, with competition and efficiency comes lost jobs, despite the net gain. The very act of going out and making free trade agreements with other countries requires caution lest you end up on an unfair playing field.
Thus it is essential that our government insures a smooth transition through sound practical policies. The government needs to provide re-education to those who find themselves in an obsolete or uncompetitive job market. They need to make sure that the market's appetite in the short term is satiable in the long term by making sure that we have long-term resources available (this principally applies to energy). We also need to insure that the United States remains the most competitive player out there. This is best achieved through a superior education regime, an excellent infrastructure, and minimal regulations. Finally, we need to make sure everybody's playing by the rules. This is accomplished by using tariffs to punish countries (China) that are, for instance, subsidizing their companies, pegging their currency, and stealing one of our most valuable commodities by not respecting patent laws. If we do all of this on the economic side, there is no reason why globalization cannot be a win-win proposition for all the participants.
The non-economic side also has its flip side. Interdependency can bring about crucial political weaknesses if say, someone else is building your tanks, or in our case, we no longer build big ships, forcing prices through the roof when the navy wants one and there's only one American shipyard left with which to "negotiate". Constant contact between cultures can also breed resentment and misunderstandings, this is occuring in the Middle East when, for instance, they travel to Europe and see the opulent, free, and wealthy culture contrasted against... twenty-something countries who cannot equal Spain's GDP (the Arab League). Fixing the political weaknesses should be rather straightforward: insure that we have strategically essential resources for the short term (the oil reserve) and alternatives in the long term (working on that...), and bolster industries considered essential to our national security, like shipbuilding. The cultural aspect is a little more complicated. When those (case in point) Muslims go and see how rich the rest of the world is and wonder why their, (from their point of view) "enlightened", world is suffering, there's a very small chance that the government controlled media/religion is going to name the true problem: government incompetency due to lack of reform & democracy. No, they'll say it's the Europeans, or even better, the American's fault. "They're abusing you! Obviously they're cheating because they're winning!" I'm sure they aren't the only ones; no doubt the same ideas are pushed by all insecure governments, ranging from North Korea to Belorussia. To counter this will require an extensive system for insuring that where there's contact, there's understanding. To accomplish that it is integral that the practical policy on Islamic Extremism is implemented, as well a general (tactful) push for free speech across the board, for when all ideas are lined up on next to eachother in the global marketplace, the people almost always buy ours.
America should push free trade, but make sure that it is fair. We should also insure that we have a smooth transition to a globalized economy, and protect industries/resources key to our national security. Finally, we need to implement policies which bring about cultural understanding through free speech for all, for therein lies true world peace. Thus stands the practical policy on globalization & free trade as of 7/31/05.
With the recent passage of CAFTA, I thought this an appropriate time to lay down some ideas about free trade and globalization.
What goes around comes around, and when in relation to trade, comes around and then some. With increasing globalization, countries can specialize, basic resources become cheaper and more abundant, and competition brings about increased efficiency. Free trade/globalization also brings interdependency and constant contact between all cultures. This breeds peace and understanding between the peoples of the world. Thus, globalization brings about increased wealth and peace for all the world. The microcosm for this model is Europe, which after thousands of years of constant war has now found prosperity, peace, and understanding due to the EU, an organization whose primary function is insuring free and fair trade. For these, positive, reasons free (and fair) trade is considered a fundamentally good objective and one that should be encouraged through American policy.
This said, there is a flip side that entails that our country act with some common sense (practicality) whilst globalizing. With specialization comes whole segments of the economy dying off while others expand, with abundant resources waste and faster consumption of the planet, with competition and efficiency comes lost jobs, despite the net gain. The very act of going out and making free trade agreements with other countries requires caution lest you end up on an unfair playing field.
Thus it is essential that our government insures a smooth transition through sound practical policies. The government needs to provide re-education to those who find themselves in an obsolete or uncompetitive job market. They need to make sure that the market's appetite in the short term is satiable in the long term by making sure that we have long-term resources available (this principally applies to energy). We also need to insure that the United States remains the most competitive player out there. This is best achieved through a superior education regime, an excellent infrastructure, and minimal regulations. Finally, we need to make sure everybody's playing by the rules. This is accomplished by using tariffs to punish countries (China) that are, for instance, subsidizing their companies, pegging their currency, and stealing one of our most valuable commodities by not respecting patent laws. If we do all of this on the economic side, there is no reason why globalization cannot be a win-win proposition for all the participants.
The non-economic side also has its flip side. Interdependency can bring about crucial political weaknesses if say, someone else is building your tanks, or in our case, we no longer build big ships, forcing prices through the roof when the navy wants one and there's only one American shipyard left with which to "negotiate". Constant contact between cultures can also breed resentment and misunderstandings, this is occuring in the Middle East when, for instance, they travel to Europe and see the opulent, free, and wealthy culture contrasted against... twenty-something countries who cannot equal Spain's GDP (the Arab League). Fixing the political weaknesses should be rather straightforward: insure that we have strategically essential resources for the short term (the oil reserve) and alternatives in the long term (working on that...), and bolster industries considered essential to our national security, like shipbuilding. The cultural aspect is a little more complicated. When those (case in point) Muslims go and see how rich the rest of the world is and wonder why their, (from their point of view) "enlightened", world is suffering, there's a very small chance that the government controlled media/religion is going to name the true problem: government incompetency due to lack of reform & democracy. No, they'll say it's the Europeans, or even better, the American's fault. "They're abusing you! Obviously they're cheating because they're winning!" I'm sure they aren't the only ones; no doubt the same ideas are pushed by all insecure governments, ranging from North Korea to Belorussia. To counter this will require an extensive system for insuring that where there's contact, there's understanding. To accomplish that it is integral that the practical policy on Islamic Extremism is implemented, as well a general (tactful) push for free speech across the board, for when all ideas are lined up on next to eachother in the global marketplace, the people almost always buy ours.
America should push free trade, but make sure that it is fair. We should also insure that we have a smooth transition to a globalized economy, and protect industries/resources key to our national security. Finally, we need to implement policies which bring about cultural understanding through free speech for all, for therein lies true world peace. Thus stands the practical policy on globalization & free trade as of 7/31/05.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)