Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Refugee crisis

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-03/5-groups-doing-important-work-help-refugees-you-may-not-have-heard
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-germany-presses-europe-into-sharing-refugees

Frankly I've been avoiding this topic because it's just too damn depressing. Being a refugee fleeing war is one of the scariest situations to me - I can't possibly imagine leaving your whole existence behind to flee to a foreign place. Because if you don't, you or your loved ones will starve/be conscripted/get raped-murdered.
The US helped many in my family who were refugees in the 1970s, but we really haven't done that recently, not since Somalia. What are the UN, US, and UK doing about the current crisis? Germany has been forced into a leadership situation and pledged to absorb 800K mostly Syrian refugees (out of a potential 4M). If we won't physically take in people, at least we can send cash and supplies to those who are.
I've already written about how the US turned its back on allies and refugees before (below). Are we complacent to hide behind our geographic isolation? The UK's excuse is that the world should focus on "improving conditions" in Syria so there isn't a need to flee. Well they aren't doing squat about that either, so what gives? I know every nations has very needy people domestically and may not be able to support many new visitors. Greece is on the front lines, and obviously is not in the best position to handle the crisis. If the US was as welcoming as Scandinavians per capita, we would be taking in 5M refugees this year. And we can, for probably the cost it takes to maintain a nuclear carrier. But we won't.

http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/08/children-fleeing-central-america.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/05/refugee-to-native-ratios.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-and-responsibility-to-protect.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/10/with-friends-like-these.html
How about China too? Aren't they the #2 economy and don't they want to be respected as a global leader? Syria is a key partner - what are they doing for their friends? Like climate change, it's someone else's problem, even if the victims are innocent and the definition of deserving help.

Thursday, April 30, 2015

The staggering social costs of gun violence in the US

This was a good interview about a Mother Jones article on the indirect costs of US gun violence: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201504300930

The author's team performed an established economic analysis to estimate the total costs of gun violence - not just the direct costs of law enf., ER visit, and justice/penal system processing, but also lost productivity and diminished quality of life from long-term disability, incarceration, and death (affecting not just the victim but their family, workplace, and community). The article estimates that of the ~30K gun murders each year, on average it costs America $500K each. Add to that the ~80K cases/year of serious injuries from guns, and the total price tag is over $200B/year. That is 1/3 the value of Apple's stock, and more than US medicine spends on obesity each year. It's freaking huge.

But we're not talking about this because the NRA and others make the data so hard to access. And if people do try to study it (like the CDC and Harvard School of Public Health and Obama's recent nominee for Sgn. General), the gun lobby paints them as gun-control activists with a political agenda. Conservatives want to cut waste and spending left and right (social programs, research, etc.), but somehow the military and guns are exempt?

BTW - the study also found a correlation between states with weak gun laws and higher gun violence costs per capita (LA, WY are the worst, while HI and MA are some of the best - also with stricter gun laws). It's a no-brainer to us, but the 2nd Amendment crowd clings to the myth that more guns make you safer. They might also argue - what about the economic savings from all the crimes prevented by conscientious citizens with guns? Well there's just no data to support that claim, if it's even true (which is doubtful). You're much more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one than prevent a crime with your gun.

----

This is pretty heartbreaking stuff about the effects of violence on Oakland's youth:

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/29/violence-causes-ripple-effects-for-thousands-of-oakland-students

For a kid who turned 18 this year in Oakland, he or she lived through 111 kids getting killed in that city, not to mention the trauma that caused for everyone else. At least Alameda County is deploying more mental health resources for them now - but really this is an issue that no kid should have to deal with. Especially if they're under 10, children often can't deal with the difficult emotions generated from experiencing violence, so their ability to learn is impaired and they may lash out in negative ways.

----

NPR did a story based on this article and the most persuasive outcome, to me, was that there needs to be science and data applied to this stuff.  One of the guests was talking about the idea that if you even ask for data you are anti gun.  That there is this all or nothing approach.  Why wouldn't the dates show all the loves being saved if guns are great?  Couldn't we also find that, for example, people with lots of gun training have better outcomes related to fun violence?  It seems weird to assume data can only be anti gun.

----

Agreed. I guess it's like climate change and cop racism issues - if one side of the argument is confident in their position, they should have no problems whatsoever with full data transparency. When you are "trying to hide something" and suppressing info, that is a tell-tale sign that your argument has a problem. Actually if those folks really love gun rights and "freedom", then they should welcome data transparency to help improve gun use and gun culture in America (like a majority of NRA members favor better background checks, but NRA leaders don't). Or do they think that everything is OK? Don't they know that the most successful (legit) companies and gov'ts in the last 50 years are obsessed with data to help them succeed and improve?

Bottom line, the gun industry/lobby's only goal is to sell more product. Gun ownership in the US (as % of households) is on a huge decline since WWII, partly driven by urbanization, less interest in hunting, and I would like to believe social progress. But the # of guns in circulation may have gone up, so someone is buying them. There are fewer gun owners now, but they own more guns (and more deadly ones) per capita. Police departments upgrade their guns more frequently, and lord knows where their used guns go (I think there are accounts of cartels/gangs using former US police firearms).

So to accomplish their goal, the gun lobby has to oppose anything that would potentially hurt sales, and of course social costs data is a big threat. And when the costs are so obvious (even without hard data), they pull the freedom and liberty card. Sure guns are destructive, but the costs are "worth it" because we have to sacrifice to keep the communists from taking our freedoms. We have to tolerate the side-effects of guns because I need to protect my family from the bad guys. And when it's poor/black people shouldering most of the costs, it's easier to ignore - until incidents like Columbine and Sandy Hook happen, which affected affluent whites and jarred the nation.

I use data to put food on the table, so I'd like to think that I have some sense of "data ethics" and best practices. When the pro-gun side decides to actually use data in their arguments, I can honestly say that they are the worst in terms of ethics and rigor. Total intellectual dishonesty (or maybe ignorance). I have not read any NRA white papers (if there are any non-laughable ones), so I am basing my judgment mostly on the sound bites you hear in the gun debate.

Examples:
  • "Chicago has strict gun laws, but they still have plenty of gang violence and murders, so gun laws don't work!" Because we don't have borders. Thugs just have to buy a gun 30 miles away in easier places like Indiana, and then drive back to the city to shoot someone.

  • "Since the Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban expired, there have been fewer mass shootings, so assault weapons in the hands of 'the good guys' is an effective deterrent." Not enough sample size to assess a trend, and what defines a "mass shooting"? Public mass shootings are fortunately still pretty rare (it's much more common for someone to slaughter their family in a private residence). But Mother Jones and Harvard ran a statistical analysis to handle rare events, and they concluded that mass shootings are actually more frequent after the loosening of gun laws. Of course correlation is not causation, but it invalidates the pro-gun claim.

  • "Guns don't kill people; people kill people - address the mental health and anger issues instead." But guns kill people A LOT more effectively than a knife or bare hands. Yes there will always be a baseline level of violence and murder intent in any society, but if you restrict access to the murder tools, people won't be able to carry them out as effectively. Look at AUS/UK vs. US. Fairly similar culture, demos, etc., but we have all the guns and murders. Canada is an exception (many guns, few murders), but there will always be outliers.

Monday, April 27, 2015

These people are supposed to protect us

We've already heard many stories about how the CIA, military, cops, justice/penal systems, and Secret Service have really messed up and violated the public trust. Apparently most other agencies are not immune either:
The FBI admits to overstating the conclusiveness of forensic biological evidence (hair) - hundreds of cases potentially tainted since 1972, incl. dozens of death penalty cases: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/after-fbi-admits-overstating-forensic-hair-matches-focus-turns-to-cases/2015/04/20/a846aca8-e766-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html
DEA agents attended wild sex and coke parties for years in Colombia, paid for by local cartels: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/26/dea-brothel-prostitutes/70482964/

What is the point of funding these people and giving them broad powers, when this is how they serve us? I know plenty of security personnel are diligent, good people, but then they have a duty to call out or root out the bad ones among them. Their mission is to protect America against external AND internal threats, right?
At least I haven't heard any bad stuff about the Coast Guard. Well, they do interact with smugglers and cartels, so the opportunity for corruption is also there.

Saturday, February 7, 2015

What causes drug abuse and how to stop it?

I saw this guy (J Hari) on Maher last night and was pretty impressed with his reporting on the Western approach to the drug war, and how we totally botched it. It's pretty well-established that the US method of heavy-handedly attacking the supply and harshly punishing the consumers is an utter, expensive failure. We need to address demand, but what is the right approach - education, medical treatment, intervention?

Hari is saying that those responses could help, but they don't get at the root cause. Drug abuse is mostly driven by psychological distress due to environmental-social factors. Racism, violence, lack of economic opportunity, low self-esteem, alienation, and other negative influences lead an individual to turn to drugs for escapism, pleasure, release, etc. If a person has a comfortable home, decent job, loving family and community, and safe/positive surroundings, there is a very low chance that they will abuse drugs (unless they happen to be the minority of us who truly have an addictive biology, but then they would likely become addicted to something legal like booze or shopping).

Why is it that US drug abuse is highest in lower-income, at-risk communities and the youth? I think Rx drug abuse (which is a much bigger problem than illegal drug abuse) could be a different story, because that might be driven by over-prescription of those drugs by our health system. And since they're synthetic compounds, it's possible that the drug companies have engineered them to be very potent (and potentially addictive). But I'm not sure. Heroin is unanimously seen as the most addictive illegal drug, yet people get it legally all the time in the form of medical morphine. Anyone who has had an operation doesn't become a heroin addict, so the drug itself is not inherently the problem.

Portugal used to be the European nation with the worst drug problem (an estimated 1% of the adult pop. using). It is also a fairly poor and underdeveloped nation by EU standards. They tried the "US way" for fighting drugs, and it failed of course. So in 2001 they decided to scrap it - decriminalize ALL drugs and use the law enf. money on rehab and social development instead. Of course the conservatives predicted that all hell would break loose. But a decade later, needle drug use was down 50%, and so were OD deaths and drug-related HIV infections. Abusers were given medical rehab, but also given access to jobs, education, housing, etc. The former abusers were treated like humans and given a life, not like American convicts who are labeled as junkies and thrown in with the murderers and rapists. The Portuguese who employed and housed addicts were compensated by the gov't. It can work. A lot of the previous detractors came around and admitted that they were dead wrong.

Look at the countries with the worst substance abuse problems:
  • Iran (heroin) - crippling sanctions and a repressive, fundamentalist gov't
  • Russia (booze) - huge wealth inequality, corruption, and poor life prospects for many (interestingly the UK is also a big booze abuser)
  • Latin America (meth) - huge wealth inequality and gang-police violence
  • Afghanistan (heroin) - war, poverty, corruption, and fundamentalism
  • US (mixed) - fairly large wealth inequality, some communities with racism/violence
So maybe the solution for winning the war on drugs has nothing to do with drugs. Just fix society to be more just, inclusive, safe, and prosperous - even for the most lowly among us. Actually I think a lot of ills could be indirectly fixed with that approach.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

A scathing indictment of US lotteries

Like most enterprises involving a lot of $, the lottery has been pretty crooked in the US from the start. And it doesn't really make sense for the state to prohibit sports betting and other gaming, while it holds a monopoly on a $68B business that contributes only 1% to education (with untold billions in social costs).

Lastly, several states (CA, IL, etc.) have or are considering (NJ, others) selling stakes in their lotteries to private investors, in order to shore up their shaky budgets. Like many public asset sales, this usually works out to the detriment of the public. Investors want ROI, and will find new, unhealthy ways to increase the number of players/losers (an idea floating around is online sales).

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

The US political merry-go-round

I haven't really been following the midterms, but just wanted to share some general concerns. It just seems like Groundhog Day to me. The incumbents screw up (real or perceived, but the more interesting question is: how was their performance vs. the hypothetical alternative?), supporters are demoralized and fail to mobilize compared to the fired up opposition, and the other party sweeps into power.

If it's a divided gov't, nothing gets done (and it's so unlikely for one party to control 60 Senate seats). If one party has a monopoly on the Executive and Legislative, then they invariably overstep their "mandate", attempt to reverse the recent progress of their rivals, and make their fair share of screw ups too. Then the whole cycle repeats in 2-4 years, and the American people (and the world) are stuck in this futile cycle. For example, the GOP has tried to repeal Obamacare dozens of times, even when they didn't have the Senate. Now that they do, I am sure they will try again, even though it won't get past the Obama veto. And all the while infrastructure, education, climate change, immigration, etc. initiatives just languish while the problems get worse.

The only exceptions to this pattern seem to be (hopefully) rare, unifying security events like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 (Bush's GOP gained seats in 2002), or an especially bullish sustained bubble economy combined with terrible behavior by the opposition legislators (Clinton's Dems gained seats in 1998).
I'm not sure what can be done about this in the short term. Obviously the usual ideas surface: a more active and educated electorate, voting rules reform, a truly popular vote, longer terms and/or term limits, less unlimited dark money in politics, more time on politics and less on campaigning/fundraising, more competitive districts, and frankly better parties and candidates who can behave like gentlepeople and put country first. Clearly our representative gov't is dysfunctional when a majority of the public want tougher gun control, but our leaders are much less amenable. Same goes for bipartisanship, climate change, pot, gay rights, taxes on the rich, even Obamacare (when you peel away the misinformation).

http://billmoyers.com/2014/08/14/a-study-in-plutocracy-rich-americans-wield-political-influence-the-rest-of-us-dont/

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Children fleeing Central America

I found this interesting. Of the 50K or so children picked up at the US-MEX border in the last 6 months, most of them are from Guatemala/Honduras/El Salvador, yet very few are from neighboring Nicaragua.

Of course Honduras is the murder capital of the Americas (if not the world), so Nicaragua by default has less violence. All of those countries are pretty poor, but Nicaragua has much less drug gang violence and a different immigration history with the US. It stems from the Cold War. The US interfered in the affairs of all those nations to support pro-US, right-wing forces against leftist opponents. For Nicaragua, the US backed the Contra rebels against the Sandinista gov't (which, with popular support, overthrew the US-backed Somoza dictatorship beforehand). Because of that, the US was more welcoming of Nicaraguan refugees in the 1980s, similar to pro-American Cubans and Hmong. So the ones who wanted to leave may be already here. In addition, after the civil war Nicaragua invested more in functional law enforcement, community development, and proactive gov't (without America's help). The Sandinistas were recently elected back to power.

For those other nations, the US supported the repressive, corrupt, right-wing regimes in power against leftist insurgents. So refugees fleeing those nations were not as welcomed in the US (and no specific provisions were written for them). It could be coincidence, but it's likely that the US support for those less democratic, more brutal regimes paved the way for the lawlessness, violence, and misery today. Therefore, do we have somewhat of a moral obligation to help the fleeing kids?

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Where are the consequences for Israel for Gaza?

A pretty good summary of the Palestinian's plight from Rashid Khalidi: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/collective-punishment-gaza
Maybe few people really care about the Palestinians' suffering, but I hope that these current atrocities at least make the Israelis disgusted enough with their gov't/military to demand some changes. If they follow the outside free press, Israelis can't be happy with the commentary (much less the actual actions carried out ostensibly for their protection). Possibly the int'l community could consider boycotts/sanctions/colder relations with Tel Aviv, because after all we did that to Apartheid South Africa, Cuba, and Iran - and those regimes were far less murderous. Someone has to be held accountable, but alas the US has veto power in the UN.

It may not make much difference anyway, when the US continues to support the Israeli machine. Major figures on the Hill (incl. "progressive" leaders) denounced the UN report of Israeli war crimes and reiterated their unwavering support. In Washington, no major figure made a statement after the UN school bombing left 15 kids dead (only Obama's WH press secretary said it was "indefensible"), but when reports surfaced that Hamas may have kidnapped ONE Israeli soldier, you'd think Pearl Harbor was bombed again. In light of the outrageous body counts this month, the deadlocked Congress was able to overwhelmingly approve $225MM for the Iron Dome (maybe that is just a "defensive" system, but the donation frees up funds for Israel to buy offensive weapons). No infrastructure bill, no jobs bill, no immigration bill (until today at least), and no progress on the multitude of other pressing issues. In light of all the spending cuts and austerity, we will continue to finance the killing of unarmed noncombatants. I don't get it.
Another good interview if you can't get enough misery and injustice: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/30/henry_siegman_leading_voice_of_us

Millennials are less supportive of Israel than older Americans: link

Thursday, January 9, 2014

The US will soon be the number one energy producer, but is it worth it?


This is mostly driven by fracking and the growing global demand for energy keeping fracking economical. I am not insinuating causation here, but it's probably not coincidence that the top energy producing nations are all corrupt, repressive, wealth imbalanced, polluted, and economically dysfunctional outside of the energy sector. Therefore, I am not sure we should want the US to go down the same path. The notable exceptions are Canada and Norway, but they benefit from strong public institutions and more balanced economies. In our post-Citizens United, underfunded-EPA, too-big-to-fail corporate reality, I just hope we don't resemble Nigeria or Russia too much. 

We've already discussed all the potential reasons that fracking is an environmental risk, but what about the economic upside? Some in the industry would claim that the fracking boom vaulted the US out of recession. It's undeniable that more jobs, corporate profits, and taxes were generated, but enough to have a material overall GDP impact? Business Insider and W Post are not sure (see below). The boom has triggered the market price of gas and electricity to go down a lot, but energy is a small fraction of modern industrial costs (compared to labor and raw materials), so it's not like the lower prices led to much higher profits or cheaper products for consumers. Also, the oil & gas industry is fairly automated with low labor participation relative to capital investment. So there weren't that many new jobs created, and even in drill-baby-drill Texas, only 6.5% of jobs are in energy (and 1% nationally). So even if the industry doubles in size (and you believe the API's claim that for every 1 new petro-job created, 2.7 other indirect jobs are too), it's not enough to make up for the 7M-plus jobs lost during the Great R. But what about GDP growth? Well, oil & gas is only 2.5% of our economy (it's a commodity after all), and of the 7.6% GDP growth the US experienced since 2009, only 0.6% can be attributed to the "energy boom" according to Capital Economics. 

Therefore, is all the environmental risk worth these meager benefits? As we've discussed before, just because it is economically justified at present to do something doesn't mean it's the best available course of action long-term. And in many cases, once we commit down a path, we can't undo it later. We can always drill in the future after more testing is done and if national needs dictate. But if we drill now (chasing short-term bucks and jobs, however small), we can never revert to "the way it used to be" if we discover that we made a mistake. 

Monday, August 26, 2013

Syria and the "responsibility to protect"

After worldwide moral cowardice during the Rwanda genocide, the UN adopted the "responsibility to protect" (RTP) doctrine, which states that global powers have the duty to "take action" when there is evidence of genocide. Two concerns: it leaves it up to the individual nations as to what actions are warranted, and the definition of genocide is pretty hazy. So it's a non-binding statute to say the least.


RTP was used to justify NATO bombing the Serbs over Bosnia, NATO bombing Saddam for gassing the Kurds, and most recently NATO bombing Qaddafi's military (for the record, Qaddafi wasn't really engaging in genocide, unless you consider those rebelling against him as a threatened minority). Of course other genocides have taken place since Rwanda where no one took any action beyond speeches. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of some global powers vis-a-vis RTP.

Last week the Syrian opposition claimed that Assad used chemical weapons on civilians/rebels in a Damascus suburb, and hundreds were sickened and killed. There is a lot of evidence to support that claim. This is the 2nd widely documented chem. attack by Assad in the last 3 months. Earlier in the civil war, Obama threatened that Assad deploying WMDs would cross a "red line" where the US would be forced to act. We did nothing after the first attack, but after this recent attack we have deployed more warships to the area (for possible missile strikes). However, there are several reasons why military intervention (even under the RTP) would be problematic for the specific case of Syria.

Bosnia is the only case on record where military intervention (with no boots on the ground amazingly) actually stopped war crimes. And the NATO bombing stopped it cold; i.e. Serbia rushed to the bargaining table the next day. But the differences with Syria are like night and day, so we can't expect to be that lucky again:

- Assad is locked in an existential internal struggle and major blood feud, while Milosevic was supporting Bosnian Serbs in a proxy war with very little strategic value or reasons to escalate
- There were clear, centralized chains of command in the Balkans, vs. quasi-chaos in Syria
- Bosnia was pretty much the nastiest war in the EU's backyard during a very peaceful period of world history (more attention, outrage, and support for intervention), while Syria is a blip (albeit a very tragic, bloody one) in the protracted War on Terror, failed Arab Spring, and general Mideast unrest that deters foreign powers from decisive action
- Russia and China will really risk a lot to go to bat for Syria, while most of Serbia's "allies" (including Russia) were not that close and easily persuaded to drop support

Then what about Libya? Over 100,000 Syrians have died so far; some in "legitimate" civil strife and others unlawfully. Qaddafi didn't come anywhere close to that (Libya as a nation is only 6M concentrated in a few major cities vs. Syria's 22M). But we helped the rebels topple his ass. Well, the effort was mostly led by the French (who sound more aggressive on Syria as well), so the US could "lead from behind" and not take flak for the consequences. Also we intervened when the Arab Spring momentum was strong and we appeared to be turning a new page in the region. In other words, lots of upside with little cost. Over a year later, we now know there were some major costs: they can't form a coalition gov't, they can't disarm their militias, they can't protect our ambassador, and arms used to oust Qaddafi (some given by the West) are getting funneled to Syria, Yemen, and other hot spots. So even a "no brainer" intervention has its downside.

This puts Obama in a real bad spot, obviously. If we keep talking about war crimes and not doing anything about it, then our credibility sinks even lower than its current abysmal level in the region. Also if we don't respond, innocents will continue to die and the instability/refugee crisis will threaten fragile neighboring nations. If we bomb Assad, then it's possible Hezbollah and other Iranian proxies will attack our forces in the Gulf (and no guarantee it will stop the atrocities). Plus it will further worsen our strategic relations with China and Russia. If we support the rebels (and they win), then Alawites will be persecuted/slaughtered and another Egypt might happen, except this time Al Nusra (overt Al Qaeda affiliates) could lead instead of the "tame" Muslim Brotherhood.

There's no way we put boots on the ground after Obama has campaigned and worked hard for years to pull out of our recent 2 Mideast wars. I believe no-win situations are in fact very rare if parties really give full effort to come to a solution, but Syria could actually be a legit one.

------

Oh, forgot to mention... punitive air strikes can really go both ways, though clearly we don't have a big data sampling to study. Bombing worked well in the Bosnia War, but then I guess Milosevic learned and he was a lot less cooperative during the Kosovo War. Whereas we only bombed for a few days in Bosnia, Kosovo required over 70 DAYS of air strikes before the Serbs came to the bargaining table. Good thing too as NATO was running out of military targets, and decided to punish all the people of Serbia by expanding their target list to include irrelevant, peaceful infrastructure like the power grid and chemical plants. Also some accounts suggest that there really wasn't much evidence of atrocities against Kosovar Albanians, and NATO just wanted to teach Slobo a lesson at the time. After the first wave of cruise missiles, sadly the killing of Albanians increased out of retaliation. That's the problem with "long distance war", you have even less influence than conventional chaotic war. And it doesn't help our image, especially considering anger over our cowardly reliance on sometime illegal drone attacks. So even if we effectively and carefully target Assad's weapons (and I'm sure his WMD are carefully protected/hidden), we can't stop his ground forces from slaughtering more dissidents. UN boots on the ground won't guarantee civilian safety either. A recent report slammed the post-bombing UN-NATO peacekeeping mission in Kosovo for failing to protect local ethnic Serbs from revenge attacks by Albanians, and not investigating claims that thousands went "missing." The Alawites know what is coming if their side loses.

We are backing them and Assad into a corner. What is he going to do, capitulate? Slobo was still the popular leader of Serbia, possibly wanted for war crimes, and had something to lose if he didn't bargain to save his neck. Assad knows there is no scenario where he doesn't go to the dock or the morgue, so of course he is not going to respond they way we would like (especially after seeing what happened to other dictators who thought they would be safe by playing ball with America, like Qaddafi). I guess that is why diplomacy is so precious before the streets are full of blood and everyone gets irrational; now we've missed our chance to intervene effectively and are left with only bad options.

But we just can't sit idly by either, refusing to be vigilant after a regime has used WMD on civilians (and likely shot at UN inspectors trying to investigate that). If we stick to our guns, we have to go all-in then. Toppling Assad is the easy part, but we have to make sure to not let Syria become another Egypt, Iraq, or Kosovo. And we have to make sure we can afford to intervene, both financially and politically. Or we hold off and try to bribe Russia/China into permitting a UN mandate, then go in as a coalition and try our best to not F it up again.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

Bill Maher on The Great Gatsby and the modern wealth gap

America's bizarre fetish for romanticizing the leisure-class, mega-rich, Guilded Age types like the Buchanans depicted in Gatsby is especially peculiar today considering what we have (or haven't) learned from the Great Recession, as well as recent the populist backlash against US plutocrats.

The sad irony is the rich would be better off with less income disparity and a more flourishing middle class. Clearly when basic needs are more securely met, people feel more comfortable to consume, which benefits most of the economy and trickles up to the wealthy. Well, the rich got around that issue by expanding credit (pay day loans, adjustable rates, even tax refund loans).

The rich complain that they already pay the lion's share of the nation's taxes. While that is numerically true, maybe we can reframe the issue. When employers and other the powers that be give people quality wages and benefits, they will be healthier and less of a burden on health services. When education is more democratic and affordable, people will make better economic choices and become more productive, which will increase GDP, lower demand for public services, and reduce the "tax burden" on the rich. When we don't fight wars or adopt bad taxation and trade practices just to give special interests more profits, then that also reduces the need for taxes. So if the rich are tired of paying so much tax (even though marginal rates are much lower today than the 1960's), then reduce the wealth gap and make the market more free and democratic.

And when workers are not stressed out and distraught over neighborhood crime and horrible commutes (caused by defunding public services/infrastructure to support tax breaks), rising health care, real estate, and education costs (driven by the irrationally high willingness to pay by those who can afford it), uncertain retirement (brought on by the cutting of pensions, the Fed's low rates pushing people to equities, and market volatility due to risky speculation, manipulation, and fraud), and the omnipresent threat of layoffs/outsourcing/downsizing, then they are actually able to concentrate on their jobs and become more creative, productive, and valuable to the company and its stakeholders. When employers treat their staffs well, they are less likely to be a workplace cancer, a slacker, a defector to the competition, or new competition (launching their own venture). It's strange that the rich, who love to congratulate themselves for being so clever and superior, can't grasp this simple concept.

But here is the circular problem: political corruption allows some companies to enjoy economic advantages. They out-compete all the mom & pop shops without the Washington connections (yes I know companies succeed on their own merit too, but far too many cheated to get to the top and secure their standing). Other firms witness this "recipe for success" and follow suit, because now it's too risky to try to win the old-fashioned way. This Darwinism leads to the "survivors" of the dog-eat-dog market often being the biggest jerks. So now we have fewer and nastier employment choices, and the % of Americans working for public companies is at an all-time high. Employers know they have the leverage, so they cut benefits and make the workers more dependent on investment income (for the minority who can even afford to invest). More and more, our survival is tied to the stock price of our employer and our chosen securities. So for the few shareholders who actually vote, they want boards and execs who are the shrewdest SOBs around - to make the stock appreciate. And for passive shareholders, they are just happy when the price goes up, and they don't want to know how. So public companies are making our lives hell, yet they are also our only potential salvation from hell, so we make a Faustian bargain with them. It is paradoxically in our economic best interests to support those who harm us. 

When people are not desperate, they are less likely to steal or kill or revolt (yes, it has come to that). As Maher said, you can only squeeze people so far before they push back (especially when the squeezers are a tiny minority). It's not as bad as the starving peasants in monarchic France or Russia, but there will be a point when the masses won't take it anymore (see the Arab Spring, which started as an economic uprising). Or look at the angry youth and public workers in much of Europe now. When that stuff happens, it's no good for the rich either (unless you are like the Shah and can loot Iran before you flee to posh exile - not trying to give Lloyd Blankfein any ideas). So wouldn't they rather share a little more of the pie in order to preserve the good thing they have going? They say that love knows no bounds, but really selfishness and greed (even to the point of self-destruction) is America's most abundant resource. Well, one could argue that greed is a twisted form of love - just loving the wrong things.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Why is China such a bad global citizen?

This is coming from an Asian-American, so there is a certain level of obliviousness and hypocrisy here, but I am tired of Chinese BS like this: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-02-20/a-look-at-mandiant-allegations-on-china-hacking

I know in their society, stuff like hacking and currency manipulation isn't seen as dishonest cheating, but instead a clever and necessary part of competition. Morals have nothing to do with it; it's about winning. I guess China does use soft power, but their antics are just so annoyingly passive-aggressive: spying but denying everything, cracking down on peaceful dissidents but calling them terrorists, stealthily building up their military, laying claim to new waters, and buying up raw materials all over the globe. And of course they manufacture unsafe, defective, and poisonous products just to shave a yuan here and there. Surely the US is guilty of all of that too (and worse), but at least we cowboys are more brazen with our bad deeds (part of that is due to our freer political system and press). And at least the US does help some people around the globe (Americans are some of the most generous in terms of foreign aid), our inventions/actions have reduced illness and poverty, and we did fight global threats like Hitler and the USSR.

In almost every arena, the Chinese government is playing a negative role (note that I am criticizing the Chinese GOV'T here, not Chinese people). Apart from the unique economic relationship with the US, I don't think any other nation can say that they are so grateful for what China is doing for them - maybe with the exception of Iran, Myanmar, etc. No other state is coming to China's defense and singing its praises. I know I am misinformed and exaggerating here, but there is just case after case of bad news. Uncompetitive behavior with their solar industry and fears of stealing IP have probably set back global green tech innovation a decade. They are the #2 consumer and #1 polluter in the world now (not per capita of course). They don't respect property rights and trade laws. They are usually one of the last states to condemn crimes against humanity (except for America's shielding of Israel), and they commit plenty of atrocities themselves. Their system is rife with corruption and injustice. Their wealth gap is even larger than ours.

Like Israel, China almost "gets a pass" for its poor global citizenship because of its meteoric rise and tragic history. Only the USSR had more dead from WWII. Maoism was taking them in the wrong direction, but then Nixon and Deng shocked everyone and started a new partnership that changed the world. China went from Third World to #2 economy in a GENERATION. Many people got rich and many new products/jobs were created in Asia and the West. Many want China to be a feel-good, zero-to-hero story. And some may like a powerful China to counter-balance Russian and US imperialism. Previously ignored, poor African nations enthusiastically welcomed Chinese development and merchants. But they "overstayed their welcome" and caused major resentment by displacing local businesses and "scamming" naive African governments (trading the rights to precious resources for shoddy infrastructure projects made with crappy materials and imported Chinese labor). China has been an impediment to Western interests on Darfur, Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc. They really don't have much of a stake in those conflicts, and have little to lose by cooperating. But they don't (maybe they still fear Western domination, or have a chip on their shoulder and want to be respected?). They have made little to no serious effort at conflict resolution over Tibet, Taiwan, and democratization. They don't volunteer troops or resources for peacekeeping missions or natural disasters. A poor, developing nation may deserves a pass for that, but China always wanted to be a global power and now they are. So they are held to a higher standard, which they are not living up to. I know the #1 priority of any gov't is self-preservation, as well as maintaining harmony and growth. But a global power should think bigger. They have to make friends and work with others if they want major, mutually-beneficial accomplishments - which will better ensure the continuation of their gov't than repression.

I guess China has its 5, 10, and probably 50 year master plans for development. What are their plans for getting along with the rest of the world, and maybe making the world a better place? Some Chinese people are working selflessly and tirelessly on those issues, but what is the gov't doing? Because even those rooting for China will eventually tire of their egocentrism and more-or-less sociopathic behaviors (= inability to empathize with and care about others). China was so successful since the 1980's partly due to its soft power and peaceful cooperation. Yet they seem to be straying from that now, flexing more hard power and possibly losing friends (empire syndrome?). Some businesses are tired of Chinese corruption, inflation, and IP theft, so they prefer to set up shop elsewhere in more democratic, cooperative places like India and Malaysia. The global economy will be "dependent" on China for decades to come, but clearly the winds are changing and we are coming up with substitutes and strategies to wean ourselves off of China. The West has known about Chinese hacking for years, but maybe it has finally reached the tipping point. Nations are collaborating and deciding what to do about it. But the problem is, how will it escalate? We can get together and tell China, "Hey, stop doing this crap or we will ____ you." But what will the stick be? What will get them to desist without making matters worse for everyone? Because no one wants a cyber, trade, or conventional war with China - especially because China would probably prevail in cyber and trade (and can hurt our allies militarily). I don't know, what else can we do to peacefully encourage them to change their ways? Because it only seems to be getting worse. I think China is loathe to succumb to outside pressure, especially when we have so little leverage with them. Change has to come from within, but how much support can we covertly funnel to dissidents and reformers? China clearly won't tolerate what we did to Iran and Qaddafi.

The tragic part is, China can have awesome socioeconomic growth and global admiration without engaging in these annoying, ultimately mutually harmful antics. The gains they can reap from transparency, trust, reforms, and lawfulness vastly outweigh the fleeting benefits of cheating. They can win fair. But this is the side-effect of a one-party system. There is no check or balance to say no and act as a sanity check. Their state-run enterprise system is now an impediment to innovation and growth in my opinion. China may be the #2 economy, but they are like the #10 creative economy (or worse). Maybe they make up for that with stealing and cheating, but it can't last forever. Some are concerned that China's economic model has run its course and plateaued. I am not sure yet, but clearly they will have to move towards a more democratic market and society in order to have the free flow of ideas necessary for entrepreneurship and economic success in the 21st Century.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Maybe the US isn't such a religious nation?

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/24/163527979/what-we-say-about-religion-and-what-we-do

But we are sure good at guilt-fueled lying! The common stats show that a much larger % of Americans report being religious and attending worship regularly vs. the EU and virtually all other developed nations. But is it true?

Self-reporting often produces suspect information due to self-esteem, social norms, and image issues - like will an alcoholic admit to his/her problem if directly asked about it, especially from another person face-to-face? 45% of respondents claimed that they went to services EVERY week, but many preachers suspect that is inaccurate because based on what they know of population stats, they should see their pews much fuller then. Americans think that they are supposed to respond that they attend services regularly, otherwise they may not think of themselves as "good people".

So the survey staff tricked the respondents; instead of posing the question directly, they instead asked them to recite their morning schedules for each day of the week. This "disarmed" the respondents and they forgot that they were "supposed" to say they go to worship every week. In this case, only about 20% said they attend church weekly, which is on par with many EU nations.

Of course the act of attending church is not necessarily indicative of one's religious convictions and how important faith is in one's life. Maybe if the survey asked how faith affects daily decisions and political beliefs (or what is the role of religion in society), they may find differences vs. Europe even when reducing the chance of respondent lying. That's of course ironic because EU nations literally have political parties called "Christian Democrats" or whatnot, yet I don't think their beliefs would even come close to those of Palin, Aikin, Ryan, etc. (extreme examples I know). Or at least the Euros know to separate their personal beliefs from the secular constitutional duties of their offices.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Comments on the pharma industry

I think the problem in pharma is similar to "Moneyball" - people are pursuing the wrong goals and measuring success incorrectly. Health care should be a holistic, systemic effort. It's about measuring quality of life enhancements, longevity, and other social goods vs. opportunity costs. I guess that is similar to the NHS but of course their system has flaws too. But if we really measured health care properly, and priced drugs and services based on that, the industry would look radically different. Now we just have fragmented players each pursuing their own narrow profit motives, and the invisible hand breaks down (well that theory was never meant to characterize our complex, computerized, global, accountability-lacking modern economy anyway). Academics just want to publish so they can get grants (that are getting harder to come by due to austerity). Drug and device makers just want to develop positive NPV projects and milk monopoly rents. Physicians just want to prescribe more high-margin treatments. Insurers just want to place the right bets. So of course we have inefficiencies. Though drugs are not the biggest culprit for our current healthcare mess, and it's probably more due to unnecessary diagnostics, procedures (esp. end-of-life), and implanted devices. We have a treatment-based, consumption system when it should be a prevention-based one.

I know gov-sponsored enterprises don't have a great track record, but I would propose something like that - not that I know anything about health policy. But like how the gov mandates that vaccine and antiviral makers have a sufficient stock of affordable product in case of an outbreak, they could take it a bit further and manage their own drug development org. Otherwise the market doesn't price healthcare properly and you get shortages. It's kind of obscene for the US that spends so much on health to have to ration, and we're not talking about Viagra here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/10/04/140958404/shortages-lead-doctors-to-ration-critical-drugs. So like how the FDIC backs up commercial banks, maybe a nonprofit federal drug org could back up the pharma industry by producing sufficient quantities of generics. I know Asian firms are doing that now, but might as well consolidate into a single point of sale and keep jobs here if it's affordable? It's also a national security issue. Then this org could reinvest its excess cash into research to compete with the big pharmas and put price pressure on them too. But of course the conservatives would never allow such a "threat to the free market."

I would also hold academics more accountable, as the "Inside Job" documentary implicated academic economists for pumping up optimism during the credit bubble. For academics and MDs who have relationships with pharmas, if their published research is used in drug dev't and the drug turns out to fail later (esp. during expensive clinical trials), then those researchers should have to surrender some of their grant $ or other compensation. I know this is also impractical and fraught with issues, the general idea I'm getting at is to hold the upstream guys accountable for downstream results. I know research on paper may look great but then fail in practice through no fault of their own. But there can't be this total detachment. That's why some universities are even building their own drug dev't infrastructure. They discover the IP, they know it the best, so why not keep the dev in-house? Plus it keeps the research team focused on practical issues. I am not sure how to do this best, but basically there has to be some way to punish researchers for "bad projects", otherwise the current incentive structure just encourages them to pump out all sorts of pie-in-the-sky, diarrhea-of-the-brain, quantity-over-quality findings. This is exacerbated by the glut of bioscience PhD's getting pumped out of schools (esp. from Asia) - and often they are uncreative and under-qualified, but the school just needs to get rid of them after 6 years (so many of them can't get PI jobs and end up taking the jobs of BS and MS level people, thereby blunting the career dev of people like me). They are permitted to publish crap, since there is also a glut of stupid journals out there who are happy to fill their pages with something and make some money (you probably have seen the same in your field?). Then they over-sell them as the next wonder drug, and we end up wasting billions on a stupid idea. It's better and cheaper to kill bad projects early, and punish bad researchers so they really have to stake their careers on only the best projects. Of course you can tell that I'm a little (or a lot) jaded from R&D, but I think I have a point. And I haven't even gotten into the data fraud issue...

http://wenchwisdom.blogspot.com/2011/12/this-just-in-scientists-elusive-goal-to.html 

I think the patent system needs to be reformed too. Monopolies are rarely ever in the public's best interest. Yeah pharma bitches that if they don't get exclusivity, it's not "cost effective" for them to research new drugs, you know the usual blackmail shit. Even if we threw out our generous IP laws tomorrow, I guarantee you that it would still be profitable for someone to develop a diabetes or Alzheimer's drug, because like we see in semiconductors and other products, there is still value in being first-to-market and leading the learning curve. I do agree though that the FDA clinical approval process can be reformed and probably simplified (though how can we do that when the GOP cuts funding to the agency? I think they just want to gut regulators and let the industry "self monitor"). But like other industries, there is a big established infrastructure of paper pushers who stand to lose from reforms, so they will fight for the status quo. It's not an easy fix by any stretch. I can identify some problems, but I am not sure how to fit all the pieces together to make a better solution. Well if I did know, I would be set for life. :)

Thursday, November 10, 2011

The agencies getting Chinese students into US colleges (often by cheating)

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/11/09/pm-chinese-students-too-qualified-to-be-true

With the one-child policy "little emperors" in China growing up into adulthood, their doting parents want to do everything they can to get their kids accepted into the best Western schools, even at the cost of $7K to top "placement" agencies. These agencies have a lot of money and reputation on the line, so they do what needs to be done to please customers. Whistleblowers claim that they wrote entire college apps for about 75% of clients. When a Wisconsin school was informed of an investigation concerning their recruiting partner in China, Shanghai Shenyuan, they immediately terminated their relationship.

I know that those with means are entitled to press their advantages in order to beat the competition, and a little tutoring or coaching is fine. But outright fraud, so they take admission spots away from honest, hard-working students who gave full effort (American, Chinese, or otherwise), is just outrageous. But these are the times we live in. And I guess some colleges aren't as rigorous as they should be to check on foreign students' credentials, because they get full tuition from a Chinese student instead of the discounted in-state rate. And yes, I know American students cheat plenty too (NY SAT scandal: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/nyregion/sat-cheating-inquiry-on-long-island-expands-to-include-act.html), but it's not as blatant as this:

A report by consulting firm Zinch China seems to confirm [this fraud]. Zinch advises American colleges and universities on recruiting Chinese students. The firm interviewed agents and admissions consultants, as well as more than 200 Beijing students headed to U.S. schools. Zinch estimates 90 percent of these students submitted false recommendation letters; 70 percent had other people write their personal essays, and half of them submitted forged high school transcripts. Two former employees of a college placement agency told Marketplace they routinely falsified application materials. We did not use their names, because they feared they would lose their current jobs... There are numerous colleges that are having difficulty assuring the integrity of the essays, transcripts and credentials, coming from other countries, and in particular in Asia.

-Marketplace

Currently 1/5 of all foreign students in the US are from China, totaling over 130,000. You can check marketplace.org today for the 2nd part of this story - what is going down on the US side of the issue. As I am starting an MBA program, I know that it's pretty bad for b-schools too (what do you expect from the future execs and who will lie and cheat their way to the top?) :). Despite clear warnings that it is a violation of school honor code, I estimate that many applicants ghost-write or team up with their managers to draft letters of rec. Bosses are busy, and it reflects well on them to get their reports into top schools, so I guess they are OK with it. I recently heard complaints from peers that the writing abilities of some of our classmates are like middle-school level (the parties in question happen to be Chinese-born, but not making any generalizations). Clearly that level of writing on an admission essay won't cut it for top schools, so they either got help or magically forgot their English in a year. And then there's the GMAT. I had to give a thumb-print, e-sign, and show my driver's license to use the bathroom during test breaks. Is the GMAC test firm just paranoid? Apparently not: http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/dec2009/bs2009123_558900.htm (again, China is implicated here).

But the whole system is just out of control. College is a major determinant for future prosperity and happiness. Demand vastly exceeds supply for top education, and even more so for good employment. Any leg up a young person can get may help. But the ludicrous costs associated with college acceptance/tuition make wealth, not student merit/potential, the major driver of admission - and that's not how a meritocracy is supposed to work. But some cash-strapped schools are thinking about future alumni giving, so would they rather hook up a trust fund baby, or take their chances on a bright kid out of the inner city who wants to major in ethnic studies? I guess we have to get real regarding what college is about. Forget their idealistic mission statements and credos. It's not about inspiring the brightest young minds to make the big contributions that better humanity. It's about giving already privileged people the skills and connections necessary to do even better after graduation, which will augment the school's marketing, reputation, and endowment. Yes I know I'm being harsh, but this successful cheating industry would not exist if schools were serious about academic integrity, so I blame them more than the Chinese or whoever. Well, university trustees, professors, and coaches lie, steal, and cheat too, so I shouldn't be surprised if students just follow their authority figure role models. Cheaters may be in the minority overall, but like we discussed about Greek tax evasion - when the honest people see that the corrupt can do as they please with impunity, what's in it for them to remain honest?

Friday, January 28, 2011

Egypt unrest: does America stand up for the cause of liberty or not?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_egypt_protest

In the recent SoU speech, Obama did offer token support to the Tunisian reform movement (as if 30% of Americans could even find Tunisia on a map), and he delivered that famous address in Cairo trying to repair relations with the Muslim world and encourage democratic changes in repressive Mideast regimes. But now that the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt is at its weakest state in decades, Washington is deathly silent. Heck even this AP article barely explains why Egyptians are protesting to begin with (tired of decades of martial law, repressed expression, huge wealth gap and unemployment, etc.), I suppose feeding more misunderstanding and the stereotype of the angry Arab. Mubarak is a former military officer who has been president since 1981, miraculously winning numerous landslide re-elections similar to the ousted Tunisian despot (and now Mubarak is grooming his son to take over as head of state, yeah very democratic). Maybe part of that is due to his thugs beating down opposition parties, even the deceptively named Muslim Brotherhood, which is mostly non-violent, advocates many Western-friendly reforms, and has nothing to do with extremist Islam. Mubarak outlaws public demonstrations and speaking out against the government too. Yet US leaders have supported this man for years, even selling him weapons and such. Well, after some deal-making Carter got Egypt to recognize Israel, and they do control the Suez Canal after all, so we have to buddy up to them, no matter what type of ruler they have.

America claims that it opposes tyranny, and we supposedly stood by the Iranian anti-government protests a few years ago, which is pretty much the same situation as Egypt except that their government is Islamic and pursuing nukes. We supported Kosovo against Serbia, and Bush even recognized Kosovo's independence a few years ago, much to the dismay of Serbia and Russia - diplomatic ties with those nations are much more critical than with Kosovo/Albania. Then recently a European report concluded that the current Kosovo regime is led by criminals. So we go out of our way to bomb and kill hundreds of Serbs to ostensibly defend the human rights of Kosovar Albanians, then legitimized the state of Kosovo, only to watch as a criminal regime develops. And yet we also tolerate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt that routinely commit abuses? How can we expect anyone to take our foreign policy seriously?

------

More on Egypt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2011/01/on_egypt_white_house_is_ignore.html

"If there is a democratic revolution, US-Egyptian relationships are in for a world of trouble... There will be some anti-US sentiment among the protesters because they believe the US has been trying to prop up the regime until the last moment."

Or is the US (irrationally) scared "that democracy would 'open up the flood gates' to Islamic revolution"?

-BBC

From Nobel laureate and Egyptian opposition leader Mohammed El-Baradei:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-26/mohamed-elbaradei-the-return-of-the-challenger/

"If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, [our handling of Egypt over the years] is precisely the answer... You reaffirmed their belief that you are applying a double standard for your friends, and siding with an authoritarian regime just because you think it represents your interests. We are staring at social disintegration, economic stagnation, political repression, and we do not hear anything from you, the Americans, or for that matter from the Europeans.

Of course, you in the West have been sold the idea that the only options in the Arab world are between authoritarian regimes and Islamic jihadists. That’s obviously bogus. If we are talking about Egypt, there is a whole rainbow variety of people who are secular, liberal, market-oriented, and if you give them a chance they will organize themselves to elect a government that is modern and moderate."

------------

I boycott most cable news, but part of me was curious as to how FOX may spin the events in Egypt into their worldview. I shouldn't have wondered. Warning: if you click the link to the Glenn Beck footage on YouTube, it's like "The Ring" and you will die in 3 days from a stroke (the brain can only handle so much idiocy), unless you show it to someone else first (pick someone you don't like).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH7GPPpsw6g

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/12199_glennbecksegyptfreakouthowtheuprisingsplitsusconservatives;_ylt=Ahl6zEsNcBy8S9ddBSa8g3Fg.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTRtOWhxZDE0BGFzc2V0Ay9zL2RhaWx5YmVhc3QvMTIxOTlfZ2xlbm5iZWNrc2VneXB0ZnJlYWtvdXRob3d0aGV1cHJpc2luZ3NwbGl0c3VzY29uc2VydmF0aXZlcwRjY29kZQNtcF9lY184XzEwBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA3RoZXJpZ2h0c2VneQ--

Since the war in Iraq, it seems, Beck, like others on the right, has changed his mind about the desirability of Middle Eastern democracy. It was only a few years ago, you'll remember, that conservatives were crowing about a new birth of freedom in the Muslim world.

You couldn't make this stuff up: "We've shown you tonight that Hamas, Code Pink"—the feminist anti-war group—"and the Muslim Brotherhood are all linked together." With the future bleak, Beck called on his viewers to pray for "our way of life" and for Israel.

"The whole world starts to implode... This is coordinated."

It must be hilarious to watch Beck play Risk. So it's fine when a bunch of Anglo-Saxon slave-owning farmers demand independence from the tax-and-spend British Empire, but when brown-skinned Muslims take to the streets, tired of their president-for-life and 30% unemployment, it's a radical fundamentalist-progressive conspiracy (if you could get those two camps to conspire together, you would be a master negotiator). All his paranoid talk about the Islamist insurrection spreading across the Mideast and even penetrating Europe is basically McCarthyism 2.0. We later found out that Cold War commies had a really tough time getting along, much less unite and overthrow the capitalist pigs. Does Beck really think that a unified Muslim caliphate will suddenly form across dozens of nations, ethnic groups, sects, etc. in order to destroy us? Even the Muslims in tiny Palestine can't get along. Yes when you dare to let people determine their own destinies, sometimes the results are not to your liking. But that doesn't mean that the worst-case scenario will occur every damn time. This is not an easy situation for the US and other Western powers, and maybe inaction is better than intervention (even on the side of "liberty") and possible backlash from our perceived meddling.

I think El Baradei ruffled a lot of feathers at FOX when he compared the Muslim Brotherhood's influence in Egyptian politics to that of the Evangelicals in the US. I'd probably go further and say that the Evangelicals are more of a threat to Western democracy.

But it is interesting how the Egypt situation is creating a rift among conservatives:

It was never entirely clear how the right's support for political freedom in the Muslim world meshed with its overwhelming contempt for Muslim people... an interesting divide is opening up on the right. On one side are those who actually took all that democracy stuff seriously. On the other are those who see the Muslim world only as an enemy to be crushed and controlled. With a Republican primary approaching, it remains to be seen which view of Middle Eastern policy will triumph among conservatives. 


Not surprisingly, the politicians closest to the religious right have been the quickest to side with Mubarak... At least some neoconservatives, meanwhile, have shown an admirable consistency, urging support for Egypt's demonstrators. Michael Rubin of the AEI, for example, wrote a piece for Forbes.com headlined "The U.S. Should Not Fear Regime Change." 


This highlights an interesting difference of opinion between neoconservatives and conservative Israelis, who are often thought to move in lockstep. "Israelis aren't on board on the democracy game," says Rubin. "They'd much rather rely on aging dictators to keep things quiet. They're perfectly happy selling out Lebanon to Syria, and perfectly happy selling out the Egyptian people to Hosni Mubarak."

- Michelle Goldberg

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

"Lord of War" extradited to the US

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101116/ap_on_re_as/as_thailand_us_arms_suspect

If any of you have seen the Nick Cage film "Lord of War", then you know some of the details about the life of prolific arms trafficker Victor Bout. He was nabbed in a sting in 2008 by Thai authorities working with the DEA in Bangkok, believing that he was negotiating an arms deal with the FARC of Colombia. Since then, the US and Russia have been lobbying the Thais for control of Bout. Bout was a former Soviet military officer, and when he went private after the fall of the USSR, Moscow still contracted with him for some under-the-table work and funneling arms to the black market. He is also rumored to be former KGB. So apart from the fact that he is a Russian citizen (and a professed "honest businessman"), they are concerned about what he may tell the US about their military-intelligence establishment and illicit arms distribution. The US may be interested in Bout for precisely that reason, not really to get a bad guy off the streets (since we cut deals with bad guys all the time in the Middle East). I guess after years of wrangling, we finally offered the Thais a big enough bribe/threat to let us have Bout and bring him to US trial for terrorism-related offenses.

Sure there is the whole cover story of the noble US global policeman wanting to bring a dangerous arms dealer to justice, a bad man who enabled warlords and dictators around the globe to commit unspeakable crimes on innocent victims, just to make a buck. He contributed to and profited from suffering and political instability. But it's not like getting rid of Bout since 2008 has made the world a safer place. The black market for guns is still alive and well, even in the US as we provide Mexican drug cartels with the bulk of their weapons. There are plenty of other arms dealers too, namely the permanent members of the UN Security Council, who do much larger volume sales of more deadly weapons than Bout could ever dream of. In 1990 dollars, the US has sold about $6B in arms each year, with the Russians not far behind at $5B/year. I am not sure if that amount includes military aid too (stuff we give away for free to friends).

In comparison, the UN estimates the global black market for arms trafficking at $250M yearly, which is less than 5% of America's "legitimate transactions" value. One can argue that the US is mostly selling to democracies, or at least people who share some of our values and hope to never have to use the weapons we sold them (but that's obviously not the case for Israel, Pakistan, and to some extent Colombia and Turkey). Arms smugglers are selling to people who are barred from buying arms openly because of their reputations and what the global community expects them to use the arms for. We are selling fancier, costlier merchandise of course, like warplanes and missile systems. So the cost of one F-16 equals thousands of used small arms that could wreak havoc on many victims in the hands of angry fighters. But Al Qaeda and Omar al-Bashir don't have gun factories. The small arms they obtain often originated in rich nations with strong military-industrial infrastructure, or poorer satellite states allied to global powers. So even if we didn't sell our guns (or the technology to manufacture them) directly to thugs, the people we sold them to eventually did via secondary transactions. So that is also irresponsible of arms dealing nations to not track and properly dispose of our weapons once they have outlived their initial purpose, or politics have changed. There are operational AK-47s used by the Taliban against NATO that are literally collector's items from the 1950s. The US doesn't face this problem because our guns break down much faster in harsh environments.

And lastly, I find it hilarious that this AP article failed to mention Bout's past dealings with the US military, and how he was actually an "ally" in our war on terror. Sure they noted his affiliation with bad men Gaddafi and Charles Taylor, but what about us? The "Lord of War" film alluded to this during the ending scene where a US general bailed Nick Cage's arms dealer character "Yuri" out of prison (sorry for the spoiler). During our 2003 invasion of Iraq, we needed to get a massive amount of military personnel and hardware airlifted into a nearly landlocked hostile country. Our military air cargo resources were insufficient, so we contracted with private carriers. But due to the high risk and insurance premiums, most firms declined to fly for us. But not Bout's air freight company of course. His fleet was plenty experienced smuggling in arms through war zones and avoiding detection. So he was earning millions from our defense contractors, or even directly from Pentagon accounts, while being a wanted criminal and on a US Treasury black list. He has even flown humanitarian aid flights for the UN. So I guess sometimes we have to go to bed with our enemy for the greater good.

Bout obviously has some relations with the Russian government that has afforded him legal protection and access to arms over the decades. He is a lubricant, so to speak, for their trade and foreign policy. But he is not the only one, as the world's top arms-dealing nations probably each have their own rosters of Viktor Bouts. During the Cold War, the US gave safe haven to many anti-communist terrorists who killed innocents in Cuba and Latin America, often at our behest and with our weapons/training. We obviously collaborated with arms traffickers during the Iran-Contra scandal (stinger missiles for hostages with drug money mixed in). Clearly it's not a bad thing that Bout is behind bars, but his market share will just be claimed by another. This isn't a matter of justice, but the projection of military and economic influence, as usual. The US-Russia rivalry changes with Bout out of the way, and possibly spilling his guts to the Feds about what he knows. Just don't be surprised if Putin spikes Bout's prison Salisbury steak with some radioisotopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_dealing
http://www.havocscope.com/the-financial-value-of-the-black-market-in-arms-trafficking/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111799310

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8651333.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100401/bs_afp/uspoliticsenergyoil_20100401033417

"There have been 509 fires, at least two fatalities and 12 serious injuries on oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico since 2006." -BusinessWeek

What bad timing that under a month after Obama unveiled a plan to expand offshore oil drilling in the Eastern US and Gulf of Mexico, the BP disaster occurred (11 workers suspected dead, thousands of barrels pouring into the Gulf across a 600-mile-wide area, with the slick heading towards wildlife protected wetlands). Maybe it's a sign. Obama has already ticked off much of his liberal base over concessions to the GOP/Wall Street, dithering on gays in the military, the painful passage of watered-down Obamacare, and inaction on immigration reform. Now this move has angered environmentalists.

Parts of Florida may be on the table as well, but the plan faces protest. It's funny that the flip-flopping FL GOP governor and US Senate hopeful Charlie Crist (who tends to vote anti-gay but is suspected to be a closet homosexual, but that's another story: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/10933/npr-spikes-outrage-review-that-named-names) was historically against offshore FL drilling, but when he was touted as a possible running mate to pro-drilling McCain in 2008, he suddenly changed his mind. But now that President Obama is calling for the exact same drilling plans, he's against it again.

BP has had a bad safety run in the last decade. In 2005, their refinery at Texas City exploded, causing 15 deaths. In 2006, a corroded pipeline caused 1,500 barrels worth of oil to leak in AK's North Slope, and the next year they had a 2,000 gallon methanol leak in Prudhoe Bay. The company has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines from these accidents. Who knows how much the Gulf disaster will cost, in terms of dollars and environmental harm?

All the easily-accessible oil has been tapped in North America, and most of the world. Expanded offshore drilling through harder rock in deeper water (also areas in hurricane zones) is more expensive, complex, and dangerous. Is it worth the environmental risk and infrastructure investment to do this, just to add a few million barrels per year (and the US consumes 22M barrels per day)? So it's a drop in the bucket gain. Yes oil accidents are rare overall, but when mistakes happen, they really cause problems. Would it make more sense to just keep buying more foreign oil (by foreign, I mean Canada and Mexico mostly), or even affordable Brazilian ethanol, instead? But then US energy and farming companies have a shit fit.

Monday, February 22, 2010

How unemployment is destroying a generation (or two)

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201003/jobless-america-future


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123974560

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html



The current US unemployment situation is most drastically affecting white Midwest manufacturing workers and "trophy kids" from the Millennial Generation, which we've already discussed a bit: http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2009/02/welcome-to-recession-spoiled-brats.html



Self-esteem without basis encourages laziness rather than hard work... The ability to persevere and keep going [is] a much better predictor of life outcomes than self-esteem...There’s an element of entitlement—[Millennials] expect people to figure things out for them.

- Jean Twenge, psychology prof. at SDSU



It's foolish to generalize an entire generation, but new graduates born between 1980 and 1991 grew up with comfort, security, and high expectations. As suburban Boomers had fewer kids and bigger incomes, they doted on their children and taught them to believe that they were special and destined for great things of their choosing. But with that mindset, if things don't go well for them, it can't be their fault, right? They're perfect; what are Harvard and Google smoking to reject them? Something must be wrong when 74-79% of Millennials surveyed thought of themselves as physically attractive and very intelligent. It can't be all grade inflation and TV. More Millennials think that they will have postgraduate degrees and high-paying jobs versus previous generations too. Maybe even scarier, more Millennials think that they will be able to earn a living as entertainers and artists versus their predecessors. Good luck.



But it's not all their fault; sometimes "society" and timing are to blame too. Studies of the 1980 and 1990 recessions showed that for every 1% the unemployment rate rises, new graduate salaries drop 7%. So similarly skilled people who entered the job market during a boom may enjoy 25% higher pay than those who entered during a bust, which will haunt them their entire careers (by cursing them to a lower baseline). The number of graduating seniors given job offers was down 21% from 2008 to 2009. An American's first job has huge impact on his or her career potential too. Recent graduates stuck with a less glamorous job out of desperation are handicapped for future promotions or job transitions, because employers write them off as low achievers (in general, but of course there are exceptions with a few truly talented young workers getting ahead). So maybe the Millennials who shun boring, subsistence jobs and prefer to spend a year or two "finding themselves" and living off their parents are on to something (and the clingy, enabling Boomer parents are complicit in this for another precious opportunity to dote and feel life in their homes again). But they can't wait too long, as the younger crops of grads with more current skills, more fire in their bellies from spending their teen years in a recession, and no "gaps in employment" will be breathing down their necks.



Here's more reason to feel for the Millennials: studies have shown that prolonged unemployment during the post-high-school-to-age-30 years increases the risk for lifetime alcohol abuse, poor health, and depression, even when controlling for people's psychological background, exposure to alcohol, and socioeconomic situation. So maybe all those years of being praised as wonderful (when they were always just average) makes the let-down of "you're not even good enough to get a job" all the more bitter. This is another reason why it may do more harm than good for parents to coddle and overly inflate their kid's self esteem.



--------



“A man is not a man without work.”

“During the Depression I lost something. Maybe you call it self-respect, but in losing it I also lost the respect of my children, and I am afraid I am losing my wife.”

“I still love him, but he doesn’t seem as ‘big’ a man.”

Quotes from people who lived through unemployment during the 1930s.



And now for the older folks: 3/4 of recent job losses were incurred by men, since male-dominated construction, manufacturing, and finance have had the most layoffs, while female-oriented service, health, and education jobs have fared better. For the first time ever, women may comprise the majority of the US workforce by mid-2010. But unless the woman earns significantly more in a non-traditional household, an unemployed father/husband has disasterous effects on the family. Besides their financial contributions, men are less likely to help with household work while unemployed (maybe in rebellion against their loss of manhood from unemployment), and being out of work affects them more psychologically (self worth, mood, treatment of others, turning to destructive behaviors).



Only a death is more traumatic to a family than male unemployment. The likelihood of divorce increases drastically when the man is out of work, especially for over 6 months, which is now the average duration of American unemployment (the longest period since the Bureau of Labor Statistics started the measurement in 1948). All the divorces and unstable households will have terrible impacts on the children and America' future. Despite some arguments that children can still excel from single-parent homes (like Obama), statistics show the opposite. And more unmarried, unemployed men on the streets causes social problems. Married men are less likely to be involved with gangs, crime, and drugs, since they are spending more time doing wholesome family activites (in theory). This point applies more to poor blacks than whites or Latinos, but all races are affected. People are still having kids at normal rates (which is expensive and can negatively impact work performance), but fewer people are deciding to marry during this recession too (as in the past), which makes sense due to the exorbitant costs of the "ideal marriage" played up by the wedding industry, and shifting priorities during hard times.



All this has been going on in predominantly white communities from the Rust Belt to Buffalo even before the recession began. And the jobs lost there will never come back, despite what the politicians may promise and what the people may hope for. If they want to return to the workforce, they may need complete retraining, which is expensive, time consuming, and maybe not practical for many of them. Plus they will be competing with more qualified and experienced urban folks for new jobs. We've already seen the effects of this phenomena in urban black blue-collar communities in the 1970s. As the jobs left, those African Americans had difficulty transitioning to other employment, due to cultural and racial barriers. A macho steel worker can't become a courteous customer service rep overnight. So instead of joining the urban service sector as women and immigrants did, blacks languished and turned to depression and crime. I don't know if Rust Belt white communities are heading down that same path, but it's possible.



And on a societal level, recessions and tough times can make people meaner, less progressive, and less tolerant (against those who get blamed for the harships of the masses, namely immigrants). Politicians say that they draw inspiration from the American spirit of good people helping each other, working together to deal with hardships, and getting back to basic values. Like those Allstate commercials and whatnot. In some cases, recessions do make people more compassionate and grounded, as class tensions and wealth gaps shrink. But in the current recession, the rich-poor gap has actually increased (thanks, Goldman Sachs). Anger against the rich (and by extension, our leaders) has spiked, as we've seen with the Tea Parties and populist backlash. White lower-income Americans are increasingly feeling left out of the American promise (blacks and Indians are saying, "Welcome to our world!"), and are raging against that.



To close, I'll leave you with this statement from The Atlantic's Ron Peck:



In The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, the economic historian Benjamin Friedman argues that both inside and outside the U.S., lengthy periods of economic stagnation or decline have almost always left society more mean-spirited and less inclusive, and have usually stopped or reversed the advance of rights and freedoms. A high level of national wealth, Friedman writes, “is no bar to a society’s retreat into rigidity and intolerance once enough of its citizens lose the sense that they are getting ahead.” When material progress falters, Friedman concludes, people become more jealous of their status relative to others. Anti-immigrant sentiment typically increases, as does conflict between races and classes; concern for the poor tends to decline.