Everybody except maybe the Bush administration is drowning in the seemingly endless deluge of stories about death and destruction in Iraq. (Fortunately for Bush, there is Justice to worry about.) But when does it become acceptable for those in power to ask if we have been looking at the problem the wrong way? The US Government and the US media clearly define success by whether there is peace within the post-colonial borders. "Can we avoid all-out civil war?"
When do we consider, however, that the West's historical division of the region by borders drawn on a map may have been at the root of the current issues? The West wants folks the world over to be excited by, and loyal to, a map and a flag (and a finance ministry and a UN seat), just the way the West has been since Westphalia. Is it possible, however, that other regions of the world may naturally prefer to divide themselves differently? That there may be other measures - say religious, business, or familial - that other people prefer to consider in determining who is "one of us"?
By introducing wealth along with its means for dividing, the West has enticed people everywhere to adopt, or at least to appear to adopt, the legitimacy of the Western style of division. But how many deaths will it take before we consider that the world may not yet have truly bought the West's global map? That systems empowered by Western wealth will break down, and when that happens, people's innate means for division will re-awaken, often wreaking havoc after having been suppressed and supplanted? I say until we wrestle thoroughly with this possibility, we will never even understand the problems, much less commence a successful solution in Iraq.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Zbigniew, Where've You Been?
Zbigniew Brzezinski's piece in today's Washington Post is stuff to think about. Z goes to great lengths to point out that the "War on Terror" is primarily a tool designed to augment a culture of fear. Z argues this tool enables ever more questionable activity by the US Government, and it makes the US voters ever more complacent.
In the end, Z argues that the USA's go-it-alone approach to this so-called war has been at the core of the greatest current national security threat. Z is spot on - more so than than most Americans will ever know, since most of them rarely or never leave the USA, and most of them limit their information sources to US-based media. That US voters would want to know so little about the perceived (foreign) sources of the ubiquitous terror threat is amazing, but apparently quite true. So a good piece, thanks Z.
Where he loses me is at the end, where Z urges that America stop the hysteria and paranoia and instead be true to its traditions. Has Z been living in the US during much of the last 40 years? (Think USSR, China, East Germany, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan again (for different reasons), Iraq and Iraq, Iran again (for different reasons), Korea again (for different reasons), Venezuela, etc. - and that list is just off the top of my head at midnight.) Because only a lengthy absence from the country - or a dogged limitation of information sources to the US media - could enable a thinking person to put both of these urgings into the same paragraph and miss the irony. There may be more work to do than Z realizes.
In the end, Z argues that the USA's go-it-alone approach to this so-called war has been at the core of the greatest current national security threat. Z is spot on - more so than than most Americans will ever know, since most of them rarely or never leave the USA, and most of them limit their information sources to US-based media. That US voters would want to know so little about the perceived (foreign) sources of the ubiquitous terror threat is amazing, but apparently quite true. So a good piece, thanks Z.
Where he loses me is at the end, where Z urges that America stop the hysteria and paranoia and instead be true to its traditions. Has Z been living in the US during much of the last 40 years? (Think USSR, China, East Germany, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan again (for different reasons), Iraq and Iraq, Iran again (for different reasons), Korea again (for different reasons), Venezuela, etc. - and that list is just off the top of my head at midnight.) Because only a lengthy absence from the country - or a dogged limitation of information sources to the US media - could enable a thinking person to put both of these urgings into the same paragraph and miss the irony. There may be more work to do than Z realizes.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
John John
Stewart had Bolton on the Daily Show last night, and wow. That was nine minutes of worthwhile television. The two appeared diametrically opposed on the subjects they hit, and their repartee was informative and entertaining. Stewart jabbed with whether Bolton's "fox in the hen house" appointment as UN ambassador was emblematic of Bush hubris and failure to understand and utilize compromise as a resource with Congress and other countries. Bolton countered with the need for an elected administration to remain true to its stated policies, even if that means putting people in places where they will seek to effect fundamental change, even creative destruction (OK, I am tossing that last part to Bolton).
Though he didn't say all that much, Bolton had the most interesting lines. Following up on the "true to stated policies" point, he asked, if administrations have to compromise as Stewart suggested, what is the point of having elections? And was Stewart challenging what Bolton called "democratic theory"? I will sound off on elections in another post, but for now, let's just remind Bolton that the President is not the only elected official in the US Federal Government. And Congress was designed to be a check and balance on the executive branch, if I remember my civics correctly.
But, surprisingly, Bolton unknowingly answered his own question a bit later. He stated that elected officials should be judged by their effectiveness. In other words, the point of having elections may be to have the people choose which policies their government should effectuate. Not to have them choose which policies their government will shout about while utterly failing to advance. Recognizing the thin ice onto which he had skated, and after the audience chuckled, Bolton changed his wording ("effectiveness" became "actions"), and returned to the voter loyalty point etc.
Smartly, Stewart retorted "if you you'll give us the first part of that, we'll let you have the rest of it". Bolton was as deer in the headlights as Bush would have been. Then the show ended. Too bad.
Though he didn't say all that much, Bolton had the most interesting lines. Following up on the "true to stated policies" point, he asked, if administrations have to compromise as Stewart suggested, what is the point of having elections? And was Stewart challenging what Bolton called "democratic theory"? I will sound off on elections in another post, but for now, let's just remind Bolton that the President is not the only elected official in the US Federal Government. And Congress was designed to be a check and balance on the executive branch, if I remember my civics correctly.
But, surprisingly, Bolton unknowingly answered his own question a bit later. He stated that elected officials should be judged by their effectiveness. In other words, the point of having elections may be to have the people choose which policies their government should effectuate. Not to have them choose which policies their government will shout about while utterly failing to advance. Recognizing the thin ice onto which he had skated, and after the audience chuckled, Bolton changed his wording ("effectiveness" became "actions"), and returned to the voter loyalty point etc.
Smartly, Stewart retorted "if you you'll give us the first part of that, we'll let you have the rest of it". Bolton was as deer in the headlights as Bush would have been. Then the show ended. Too bad.
Monday, March 19, 2007
It's Justice, After All
I for one hope the Dems get to the rock bottom of US Attorney-gate. Allegations are that the Justice Department might have been infected with -- oh no! -- politics, which might have influenced decision-making about who should serve in what office and what they should do. If the Dems are on track, we may discover that US Attorneys sometimes hear from their appointers (at whose pleasure they serve) about legal work programs and priorities. Of course, this will be just shocking news when it breaks, though you won't be surprised to learn that only Republicans ever engage in this kind of activity. No way would Dems ever be so political, I am sure.
Once again, I am thrilled that the US Government is so wisely using taxpayer dollars. Lord knows where the USA would be if the Government did not occasionally tell folks what they already well know (or should know) about governmental deviation from stated policy. And we certainly would not want the folks at Justice to be spending too much of their time on legal matters that may heavily affect the future of the USA, such as Guantanamo, corporate fraud, and official dealings with nuclear-capable nations.
Look, I get that we need Justice to be as pure as it can be, and politically-motivated investigations at least work toward ensuring that Justice is minimally corrupted. But it sure is unsettling to pay taxes which are supposed to be used (a) to get the job done, but instead have to be used (b) to screw-up the job, (c) to investigate the screw-up, (d) to fight with political opponents about the screw-up and the investigation, (e) to figure out how to present the screw-up and investigation to the media and the public, and then (f) maybe, if we're lucky, to get some part of the job done. That litany's old news, for sure, I understand.
And though I want politics out of my Justice as much as the next guy, the fact that it is in there surely ain't news either. The wasted resources and diverted energies, however, now that's a story. Who's been covering that one again?
Once again, I am thrilled that the US Government is so wisely using taxpayer dollars. Lord knows where the USA would be if the Government did not occasionally tell folks what they already well know (or should know) about governmental deviation from stated policy. And we certainly would not want the folks at Justice to be spending too much of their time on legal matters that may heavily affect the future of the USA, such as Guantanamo, corporate fraud, and official dealings with nuclear-capable nations.
Look, I get that we need Justice to be as pure as it can be, and politically-motivated investigations at least work toward ensuring that Justice is minimally corrupted. But it sure is unsettling to pay taxes which are supposed to be used (a) to get the job done, but instead have to be used (b) to screw-up the job, (c) to investigate the screw-up, (d) to fight with political opponents about the screw-up and the investigation, (e) to figure out how to present the screw-up and investigation to the media and the public, and then (f) maybe, if we're lucky, to get some part of the job done. That litany's old news, for sure, I understand.
And though I want politics out of my Justice as much as the next guy, the fact that it is in there surely ain't news either. The wasted resources and diverted energies, however, now that's a story. Who's been covering that one again?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Leadership, finally
It seems the Bushies may have caught on to what Chavez has been building in the Western Hemisphere for a number of years. W took his recent trip through Latin America. And though I suppose it is better for him to go than not (Andy Rooney, what do you think?), being a casual observer of the headlines, I can't escape the sense of W as a kind of late tag along, showing up on the playground only once Chavez' ballgame is well underway.
Does anybody think W knows what Chavez has underway in Bolivia and Ecuador? How about in the Eastern Caribbean? Argentina? I would bet that Cuba gets more airtime in the White House discussions of Chavez than all the rest of the region combined. (At least we're not ignoring Cuba, though, as those concerned with the war on terror might have feared.)
Now, don't get me wrong. W's trip was all about leadership - showing the Brazilians a thing or two about the alternative energy industry - and persuading the region that we care - confirming to the Mexicans that the US is really quite keen for more traders to cross the border (this one is a "strong view").
I'd say Chavez is squarely in check now. A good expenditure of US taxpayer dollars. Thanks W.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Who's Thinkin' at Microsoft?
I can't be alone. I am sure that Internet Explorer 7 is much improved over previous versions in many ways. Must be a heck of a lot less vulnerable to viruses or re-directs or trojans or something. But when it comes to user friendliness, OUCH! A very simple thing - on all other browsers I know of, the basic five navigation buttons (back, forward, stop, refresh, home) are all located in the same place on the browser. Upper left is good. Easy to remember, easy to get to.
Which genius decided that these buttons ought to be scrambled all over the page, in different rows, on different sides of the screen? And then which brighter genius decided that the user should not be able to move these buttons from their pre-set locations, so we are forced to adjust to the new scattering?
I am sure that Microsoft knows something on this subject that I am missing. Something about more efficient web-surfing if I could just get my head out of my a#$ and learn the new, more intuitive way to move the mouse over more real estate to do the same old things. But I wish they would tell me what it is, because I have been at it for weeks (months?) now, and it is totally lost on this sorry surfer. I still sigh every time I open IE7.
Which genius decided that these buttons ought to be scrambled all over the page, in different rows, on different sides of the screen? And then which brighter genius decided that the user should not be able to move these buttons from their pre-set locations, so we are forced to adjust to the new scattering?
I am sure that Microsoft knows something on this subject that I am missing. Something about more efficient web-surfing if I could just get my head out of my a#$ and learn the new, more intuitive way to move the mouse over more real estate to do the same old things. But I wish they would tell me what it is, because I have been at it for weeks (months?) now, and it is totally lost on this sorry surfer. I still sigh every time I open IE7.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Insider Trading Redux
Insider trading. Just terrible. That folks would use what they have learned to their personal benefit. Imagine. And that we would tolerate such filth in a selfish, capitalist society is almost beyond comprehension. So I have an idea. Those in governments who enforce the rules against insider trading should have to explain publicly (not just to insiders) their parameters for deciding who to investigate and how. Bankruptcy Judge Allen Gropper, presiding over the Northwest bankruptcy, seems game (see below).
As I imagine it, whole swaths of trading activity go completely unnoticed by the authorities, even though the activities could be described (at least by us amateurs) as "insider trading". For example, hedge funds, particularly those that invest in emerging markets, have all but perfected the art of buying and selling securities in advance of, or on the heels of, significant events that they themselves drive or create, sometimes in cahoots with management of the companies that issued the securities. These events can materially alter trading prices, and those who drive the events can profit nicely since they know when the events will happen or when they will end. It's so easy, any average investor (or Rooney soldier) can try it. And the authorities are blissfully unaware, right?
Not so much, one would think. At least if one considers the ivy (and better) qualifications of the regulators. But the lowest hanging fruit for our esteemed regulators seems to be those stories that involve traditional features like management trading or big broker-dealer information leaks. Or disposable cell phones and other made-for-movies sex appeal. The fact that our retirements are these days heavily and increasingly counting on emerging markets yields, which can be masterfully and unaccountably driven by hedge funds, is much too dull - or too important? - for now.
Judge Gropper made an interesting move this week, ruling that members of an ad hoc committee of distressed investors in Northwest's shares (is this an emerging market?) have to disclose their holdings and their purchase prices. Such disclosure is anathema to the secretive hedge funds, who thrive on information about others and who abhor sharing information about themselves. Sharing information about their investments and investment strategies would, after all, reveal more about the event-driven aspects of their business, making it more difficult.
Judge Gropper has taken a reasoned, if uncomfortable and debatable, stand on an issue that may be more core than folks appreciate. Will his Federal brethren be able to take similar steps? I would guess not, but hey, why not hope? After all, this place is "for the people" too, no?
As I imagine it, whole swaths of trading activity go completely unnoticed by the authorities, even though the activities could be described (at least by us amateurs) as "insider trading". For example, hedge funds, particularly those that invest in emerging markets, have all but perfected the art of buying and selling securities in advance of, or on the heels of, significant events that they themselves drive or create, sometimes in cahoots with management of the companies that issued the securities. These events can materially alter trading prices, and those who drive the events can profit nicely since they know when the events will happen or when they will end. It's so easy, any average investor (or Rooney soldier) can try it. And the authorities are blissfully unaware, right?
Not so much, one would think. At least if one considers the ivy (and better) qualifications of the regulators. But the lowest hanging fruit for our esteemed regulators seems to be those stories that involve traditional features like management trading or big broker-dealer information leaks. Or disposable cell phones and other made-for-movies sex appeal. The fact that our retirements are these days heavily and increasingly counting on emerging markets yields, which can be masterfully and unaccountably driven by hedge funds, is much too dull - or too important? - for now.
Judge Gropper made an interesting move this week, ruling that members of an ad hoc committee of distressed investors in Northwest's shares (is this an emerging market?) have to disclose their holdings and their purchase prices. Such disclosure is anathema to the secretive hedge funds, who thrive on information about others and who abhor sharing information about themselves. Sharing information about their investments and investment strategies would, after all, reveal more about the event-driven aspects of their business, making it more difficult.
Judge Gropper has taken a reasoned, if uncomfortable and debatable, stand on an issue that may be more core than folks appreciate. Will his Federal brethren be able to take similar steps? I would guess not, but hey, why not hope? After all, this place is "for the people" too, no?
Oh Hillary
Hillary Clinton is particularly upset about Halliburton's latest. The government's decision to permit Halliburton without competition to devour so much of the multi-billion dollar fund available for Iraq's so-called reconstruction was bad, yes. But now, if you can believe it, Halliburton wants to open up shop in - Oh Lord - Dubai! Where the heck is that again? Somewhere over there, near all those Middle Eastern and Asian countries that are taking all our jobs away, or were responsible for 9/11, or otherwise need a dose of good-old American values.
Somebody in Hillary's campaign has decided this is just the hook they need to rub the Republican's nose in the muck. How dare Halliburton take all that money off to Dubai? One supposes that it all would have been fine if the Halliburton HQ were to remain squarely in Texas, where the US Government has been so effective at overseeing Halliburton to date (that is, if rudely generous bank deposits = oversight).
Good stuff indeed, and once again confidence instilling. Successful campaigns know how to pick their battles. Must be Hillary is running for the town welcoming committee.
Somebody in Hillary's campaign has decided this is just the hook they need to rub the Republican's nose in the muck. How dare Halliburton take all that money off to Dubai? One supposes that it all would have been fine if the Halliburton HQ were to remain squarely in Texas, where the US Government has been so effective at overseeing Halliburton to date (that is, if rudely generous bank deposits = oversight).
Good stuff indeed, and once again confidence instilling. Successful campaigns know how to pick their battles. Must be Hillary is running for the town welcoming committee.
Oh Andy
So Andy Rooney goes on TV last night (CBS' 60 Minutes) to say that he thinks the USA should re-institute the draft. He thought he'd never say that, having hated being drafted himself in 1941. But he can't seem to stand the thought of the USA being "represented" in Iraq (or other places in wartime) by the "bottom of the barrel" of our society - folks who are not even high school graduates (heavens) or, worse, convicted criminals.
Agreed - how must an Iraqi militant or civilian look down his/her nose at the fellow with a gun at that nose, since that fellow so obviously didn't even earn a high school diploma? Ouch. How the USA is suffering.
Andy seems to have stopped THINKING on this subject, no? He seems inexplicably unwilling to consider that the entire Iraq war enterprise just might be more of a driver of Iraqi disdain for the US than the (lack of) education of the US soldiers ever could be. That the President's administration is widely considered to scorn education. That there may be an unfortunate perceived parallel between that scorn and the armed "representation" Andy has in Baghdad.
Sorry Andy. Perhaps a softer arm chair would help ease the pain?
Agreed - how must an Iraqi militant or civilian look down his/her nose at the fellow with a gun at that nose, since that fellow so obviously didn't even earn a high school diploma? Ouch. How the USA is suffering.
Andy seems to have stopped THINKING on this subject, no? He seems inexplicably unwilling to consider that the entire Iraq war enterprise just might be more of a driver of Iraqi disdain for the US than the (lack of) education of the US soldiers ever could be. That the President's administration is widely considered to scorn education. That there may be an unfortunate perceived parallel between that scorn and the armed "representation" Andy has in Baghdad.
Sorry Andy. Perhaps a softer arm chair would help ease the pain?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)