What's wrong with CA?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185791

Kind of related to our previous thread about Boomers/Net Geners:

"California, like any gorgeously endowed person, has a natural inclination toward self-absorption.... The most recent ascendant group are the gentry liberals, whose base lies in the priciest precincts of San Francisco, the Silicon Valley and the west side of Los Angeles. Gentry liberalism reflects the narcissistic values of successful boomers and their offspring; their politics are all about them."

Fed up with the Sacramento roadblock, some Californians are pushing for a Constitutional Convention to remake the state government (the last one occurred in 1878). Positive reform or another can of worms?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-convention25-2009feb25,0,374880.story?track=rss

Homeowner Stability Initiative

To Obama administration,

I am writing to question some aspects of the Homeowner Stability Initiative that the President unveiled this week. I do not know why jumbo mortgages above $417,000 are disqualified from assistance, since that loan amount is about average for attractive metro areas like the San Francisco Bay. Today on the real estate website redfin.com, a modest 1,100 sq. ft. home in San Mateo built in 1941 (just a couple blocks from a horse track and adult bookstores) still has a $799,000 asking price. I know that the government should not rescue speculators or people who "bought too much home", but in inflated real estate zones like mine, a jumbo loan does not constitute a jumbo home. Moderate homes cost $400-700 per square foot, which almost necessitates a jumbo loan, especially for younger buyers who haven't had time to accumulate much savings (car and student loan payments). Foreclosures exist in "wealthier" neighborhoods too, even though many residents are not rich. But this part of your plan boils down to geographical discrimination. Could you please reconsider this restriction?

Out of fairness and common sense, I would also request that you expand assistance to would-be homeowners as well. The government does not want to see more vacant, bank-owned homes further depressing the already troubled market. But in terms of the housing market, it does not matter if homes are occupied by the original residents, barely making payments even with federal assistance, or new buyers taking their place. Prospective buyers want and deserve a home just as much as those who were irresponsible or naive during the boom. But they should be given the benefit of the doubt because they didn't directly contribute to the problem. Under the temptation of easy credit and social pressures to convey financial status through home ownership, they showed restraint and prudence, and lived within their means. Now that prices have corrected somewhat, many Americans are better positioned to afford their first home, which can help stabilize the market. But they are also unsure about the future and may hesitate to act. Don't they also deserve government intervention to negotiate a fair mortgage that limits their interest rate, so that monthly payments do not exceed 31-38% gross salary? It would be a confidence boost instead of a lifeline.

In addition, I have to question the overall moral hazard posed by supporting duped borrowers and manipulative lenders. Then what is the incentive for lenders to make concessions to help restructure impossible mortgages, or borrowers on the cusp to tighten their belts in order to keep up with payments? As long as they appear to be sufficiently struggling, eventually Washington will intervene with taxpayer aid. I know that homes are a sensitive subject and part of the American Dream, but I hope that such sentimentality will not preclude sound judgment. We cannot save everyone, and experts are fairly sure that a good portion of the people who sign up for your mortgage relief plan will still lose their homes in the coming years. We trust you to manage our finite resources, and times are tight. Therefore, we expect you to allocate them in ways that provide the most benefit for the cost, and help the people who merit it most.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090219/us_time/08599188047300
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1880259,00.html

Follow-up economy comments

Out of respect for your time, I will try to piece together my disjointed socioeconomic ramblings below into a brief(ish) argument: Investing - built on credit, poorly regulated, and enhanced by technology - has become too prominent in our economy and the American Dream, devaluing honest labor and savings ethic. That which used to guarantee a decent quality of life is no longer sufficient, so families need to take more risks, waste more money, and partner with exploiting capitalists to achieve more financial security, or at least project the image of success. So in order to pursue the life goals that we were indoctrinated to believe that all Americans should pursue if they want to be somebody, we have to go to bed with the financial services sector. We are placing our resources, hopes, and futures in the hands of pathological gamblers who may not have our best interests, nor long-term interests, at heart. If all goes well, it is a mutually-beneficial symbiosis between those who control the capital/means of production, and those who provide labor and assume most of the direct risk. Such a paradigm can increase wealth (not evenly though), but is destined to fail at times, which poses huge consequences proportional to one's status on the economic totem pole.

The nefarious genius of such a stealthy system is that people don't have to be evil to commit evil. There are only a few blatant assholes out there like Madoff or Skilling, little Hitlers with an MBA. But for the rest of us, we are just trying to do our best and follow our self-interest within reasonable limits. We do what we're told, and mostly follow the rules, yet the very actions intended to grow our wealth actually endanger it. We now know that even the smart and rich are not immune either, but they at least have a cushion to soften the blow. It's not like every broker or banker is out to screw us, and many of them are heartbroken that they allowed their clients to lose so much (maybe concerned for them even above their own losses). And it's not like every Joe is living beyond his means and taking shortcuts. But Americans want a lot out of life, and in order to get it, we almost feel obligated to buy into this unsustainable system. We are all so entrenched in our bad habits that we would rather bail out the screw-ups (at huge expense) than reform the way we use our money. So when we finally come to our senses and admit the hazards of current economic trends, we have to work out some wholesale changes. I'm not in a position to know or dictate what those changes are, but I would hope that we can reduce our reliance on leveraged speculation to achieve financial objectives, restore importance/stability to labor, and accept that moderated expectations and a humbler quality of life can still be comfortable, satisfying, and in fact preferable to excess. Crafting and enacting policies that encourage those behaviors and reduce recklessness/greed is another challenge. But at least we can start to wean ourselves off the Kool-Aid, blindly believing that "the magic of the market" will solve our problems and deliver all that we desire.

Read on for more details, if you're masochistic enough...

I can understand how the survivors of the Depression would want a better life for their descendants, and maybe aggressively pursue financial well-being so their loved ones "never again" have to suffer so much. But I would hope that they also remember what caused and worsened the Depression: ignorance and greed. So yes, it is a fine American tradition to want to improve your lot in life through work. But what about the equally important values of honesty, discipline, simplicity, and sharing? Most parents would want their kids to do better than they have. But what about those who are already doing well? Do they need more, especially at the expense of the less fortunate? During the Roaring '20s and today, the wealthy have gained more than anyone else, even though they already had a higher starting point. It is because of their pre-existing capital that they were able to profit more from wild investment booms than the rest of us. But we know this already.

Yeah, the irony of this "generational war" is that none of us really has a problem with the Boomer who moved to a new town with the shirt on his back, and worked hard for 30 years in a factory for a humble pension, or maybe even started a small business. And no one faults the Net Gener who grew up in a tough urban area with a single parent, and is trying to work her way through community college to become a nurse. I don't think those type of people have a problem with each other either. They're not looking to grab the world by the horns or gain at the expense of others. They just want a simple, humble American existence with a few guilty pleasures here and there. They chose live and let live, and have more decency to let their greed harm anyone.

But the stodgy managers and the spoiled snowflakes are from said generations as well, though actually cut from the same capitalist cloth as Lis said. They detest each other (and we detest them), yet one created the other, and one is following the other's example (or even attempting to exceed it). The latter is the manifestation of everything that went wrong with the former. The coddled Gen Yers think that they are entitled to a great life, even surpassing Boomers, as long as they jump through all the societal hoops set before them (as if their trust funds weren't enough concessions). The greedy Boomers think that they earned everything they got (a Nixonism), and now being on top of the food chain, why should they give it up or accommodate to the youngsters? As J said, it's a centuries-old story updated with new details (Socrates even wrote about it).

80% of the Boomers and Net Geners are decent, honest, hard-working people. But the greediest, meanest 20% mess things up for everyone. And since they hold the power, they design society in a way that their bad behavior is protected, rewarded, and even admired (instead of prosecuted). It almost seems like we have to be like them if we want a decently comfortable life. Though of course a fulfilling life doesn't necessarily depend on how comfortable you were or how much assets you accumulated. Just as modern politics render it impossible for Boy Scouts to survive in it, an "average employee" won't get far in the workforce by his/her labor alone. Like those annoying "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" books and seminars, there is constant pressure for us to grow our wealth beyond our labor potential, but instead through capitalistic schemes (a.k.a. investments). No Western economy ever crashed because its workers or widgets weren't good enough (maybe the Confederacy is a rare exception). Markets crash economies because the people manipulating them were greedy, dishonest, and stupid. Market forces destroy honest, necessary companies (just because they didn't meet sales forecasts), and put thousands of good workers on the streets. Of course markets also reward business success, but only the big fish on Wall Street are really poised to benefit, especially when inflated prices preclude small-time investors from participating. So the very instruments that allow Average Joes to ascend the economic ladder also cause the ladder to come crashing down. What are we to do? I know plenty of books and business courses focus on this serious, complex issue, but so far we haven't really found a healthy balance.

The financial services sector is bloated and out of control. As a percentage of S&P500 market cap, it has grown from <5% in 1980 to 22% in 2004 (not sure if the number is now lower due to stocks tanking). Not surprisingly, total US credit market debt has doubled in that time period too (now it's over 3X GDP). So the more we leverage ourselves to ruin, the more Wall Street profits. The number of business-themed networks on TV has grown from 1 in the 1980s (anyone remember FNN?) to dozens today. It seems like all we ever hear/care about is the economy. People actually make decisions because the Dow went up or down 20 points, believing that such a change actually means something, even though it's clearly just noise. Emotional, knee-jerk investor reactions endanger us all. We might as well base our financial planning on palm readings. But seriously - it's our national religion, and it's just as irrational. Some people have completely forgot about prudent, long-term investing: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11wwln-lede-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Lowenstein%20ponzi&st=cse. The Boomers were raised by their Depression-survivor parents to only buy what they could afford, and many didn't even have savings accounts (wary of bankers). Yet now, E*Trade claims that they are opening up thousands of new accounts a week, and they're not the only ones. America's personal savings rate has plummeted from 26% in 1944 to -1% these days (even before the credit bust), because we're buying more crap and going to the "legal casino" instead. There are pros and cons to this economic transition, but I think it's clear that we haven't really grasped the gravity of it all, its growing/evolving so rapidly, and we are mostly powerless to control the beast.

Sorry - I don't mean to get into a Marxist diatribe about capital-labor struggles. Today, one cannot exist without the other, and even China has reversed its ideology (and it pulled at least 300M people out of poverty). But the trends show that people can make much more money through investing, while wages and earning power are losing ground vs. cost of living, even for white collars. So what can be done? Only a sucker would remain a laborer, right? The market is our ticket to the promised land. We're already trading everything from the likelihood of terrorist attacks to commercial debt to who wins presidential elections on open markets, but how many brokers does the world have room for? We still need bakers, teachers, welders, and cabbies, right? What about them, whose lower wages make it nearly impossible to invest without terribly leveraging themselves and their loved ones.

To move beyond the haves vs. have-nots cliche, maybe the delineation is between those who have the capability to exploit others for profit, and those who don't - or should I say, those who are dependent on the former to make a living. Many employers do take care of their workers, but usually get more out of them than they put in (they're not charities after all). And few of us get to dictate the terms of our employment without collective bargaining (but unions charge dues and may not do much). Brokers and bankers use our money to make themselves and their institutions richer (legally we hope). Yes credit makes the world go round, and gives people a chance to start a business, increase productivity, or buy their dream car/home. Yes some of us peasants can get lucky with stocks and real estate, but for every buck we make, those above us are gaining more. So I doubt the lender would like to trade places with the borrower. But why should the lenders, insurers, and traders enjoy more of the spoils? Forgive my disrespect, but they move numbers on a screen or dip into their treasure chests to throw us a few nuggets, then just watch the money flow in. The borrower submits to their terms, contributes most of the blood/sweat, and stands to lose much more when things go bad. So I hope that our leaders don't dismiss our fury over the exploiters getting bailed out more than the rest of us, just because it's more "costly" if they fail. And then there's the illegal exploitation by drug dealers, pimps, and despots. Sadly, some of their beliefs and methods are not so different than the financial sector's, and the line between legal and illegal exploitation is almost arbitrary.

The bakers, teachers, welders, and cabbies of the world don't have the training, resources, or ethics to do what the exploiters can, and thank goodness. The world will always need those workers (probably more than the brokers, and at least they usually don't hurt anyone else). So are they just forever doomed to financial insecurity/mediocrity? In order to get an edge, we need to call on the exploiters to improve our lot in life, so even though it makes our blood boil, we have a vested interest in their success (and rescue). In nature, a parasite can better secure its survival by making it very painful (or lethal) for the host to ditch its unwelcome guest, and I see Wall Street didn't sleep through biology class. So in order to pursue the life goals that we were taught that all Americans should pursue if they want to be somebody, we have to go to bed with the people who may prey on us. If all goes well, it's a mutually-beneficial symbiosis (even if they make out better). But the exploiters are under constant pressure to increase profits, so if they don't want to work harder, then they have to squeeze us more or just cheat. And the only way we can get out of the gutter is to work with them or become them. I can't believe that so many people go to business school and work 80-hour weeks on Wall Street because they just can't get enough researching stocks or selling mortgages. Let's get a grip before we lose it.

Hate the Boomers

So, to be reasonable, sure, the younger kids these days have high aspirations and great hopes. And yeah, they lack discipline and are used to having frequent feedback, having just finished their schooling. And it's probably a bit worse this time because they've never had to go through a serious recession. But this has been true of "kids these days" for hundreds of years, whether they're listening to that damn rock and roll music or moving into the cities to take part in the industrial revolution. The names and technologies change, but come on.

Having gotten the reasonable response out of the way, and in the spirit of inflammatory emails, let's get right into it!

Fuck the baby boomers and all of their hypocritical asshattery. They are the worst generation.

First off, these complaints about younger kids being self-absorbed and undisciplined. The data behind the Economist article are a series of surveys and studies asking managers and executives about their opinions, and these business leaders trashing the younger generation. Who are these folks? These are baby boomers, who spent all that money and time and all that shit raising these kids to be self-absorbed and think they're special snowflakes, despite being told time and again that they were raising a generation of poofters. Now the kids are grown up, the baby boomers are older and in executive management, and it's all, "You know, Ken, these kids in the younger generation, they just don't have the discipline to be good workers. There's this whole generation of poofters in the work-place, and it's creating a big problem for business leaders like me." WTF. THESE ARE YOUR KIDS YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT, TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY!!

Second, you want to talk about unable to handle economic hardship? Now that we've got a real recession, the boomers are all spending government money as fast as they can, flailing about trying to avoid taking their medicine. If a young kid were spending wildly on his credit card, the boomers would all give him the admonishing "tut tut" crap about how he's being incredibly irresponsible and frivolous. But when you're a senator spending a trillion dollars that you don't have, assuming that someone later will repay it (i.e. mailing the bill to the younger generation via the debt), that's demonstrating wisdom and reserve in the face of economic hardship?

Fuck that. I know I'm going to spend the rest of my life getting reamed on taxes to pay back the hilarious sums of money being thrown around by the boomer government, bailing out every useless fuck who thought it was perfectly reasonable to buy a $500k house on a $30k paycheck (or who was schemed by some mortgage salesman in an organization created and motivated by one of these executive assholes). But the least they can do is say "hey, thanks for paying my bills" - I don't need to hear about how I'm an undisciplined primadonna as well.

----------

Yeah, I know I'm overstating the case. Factual inaccuracies, blah blah blah. But seriously, there's some real generational warfare going on here, and they're doing a hell of a lot better job of it than we are.

--------

rant, continued....

you're absolutely right that these kids are the products of their upbringing, but why wouldn't we then blame their grandparents for raising the boomers to be self involved hippies who would invariably raise their kids to be brats, too? their parents were products of the depression who had nothing and wanted their kids to have it better than themselves. or, should we blame the generation who caused the last great depression? ah, capitalists, greedy capitalists who didn't want to work, they just invested money into a market that looked like an overly ripe boil and thought it would grow and grow and never pop sending puss oozing out, spoiling everything.
if i had a kid, oh yeah, i do have a kid, i tell him if he wants to buy something, you need to have money in hand. everyone in this society, especially the capitalists, have convinced you and your kids that you deserve the olympic sized pool and the 3500 sq. foot house.
if you haven't noticed, the govt. is not bailing these people out. they're going to lose it all. who are they bailing out? the capitalists that convinced these fools that they deserved all the shit they'd seen on 'the lifestyles of the rich and famous'. they're getting bailed out, not the homeowners! and, on top of that, the repubs who created this greedfest are the ones who don't want to collect more money to bail these guys out but they just want to hand it out without raising revenue through taxes. in fact, they want to pay LESS taxes! now, that goes against what i taught my son.

--------

True, true - thanks for writing guys! Well, to be fair, we of the class of 2002 are kind of on the cusp between Gen X and Y. Not that Gen X is thought of any better by the stodgy management. And you two are completely correct about the capitalist Boomers and the current bailout. He who burnt his house down can't criticize his kids for not cleaning their rooms. The younger Gens are a product of their predecessors, and we learned our flaws and vices from them. As I will elaborate on, I think the Boomers have endangered the planet and prospects for human survival more than even Hitler and Stalin's generation.

It's only 2009, but I can already predict that Gen Y will do more to help the the environment, start fewer wars/genocides, and have the most diverse, socially-conscious corporate-political leaders than any other American generation. Some of this is due to timing and world events of course, but it's also due to young people's heightened awareness and responsibility (yes, RESPONSIBILITY). Gens X and Y have a lot of potential, but I hope we haven't become so indoctrinated into the Boomer culture of "me first" and "never enough" to realize it.

In contrast, the Boomers have filled their bellies at the world's and the future's expense. They got cheap college education through the GI Bill and other plentiful scholarships (plus even Harvard tuition back in 1970 was just $2.6k). Middle-class life was almost a foregone conclusion for many of them, and they ascended the job ranks. They benefited from a quadrupling of the Dow and a tripling of housing values in hot metro areas like SF. Even better, those booms occurred when the Boomers were late in their careers, with a lot of "play money" to invest or speculate with. They did survive the Carter and Bush Sr. recessions, but unemployment benefits were better and the cost of living was much cheaper (plus wages actually kept up with inflation). Of course a lot of Boomer paper wealth evaporated in the Dot-Bomb and housing bust too, but many still have equity in their homes and IRAs to fall back on (and for now, functional Soc. Sec. & Medicare too, which we youngsters can't really count on). The Boomers racked up huge debt in the 1970s-80s (deregulation, Cold War arms race), paid it off under Clinton by gutting the social contract, then racked up even larger debt under Bush (pork, tax cuts, War on Terror). And in the meantime, they made a killing off John Q. Public during S&L, Enron energy trading, no-bid contracts, and other scandals. I am sure Gen Y will have its share of corporate criminals and brazen scams as well, but no one can touch the Boomers' record. They're the Barry Bonds.

Globally, the Boomers were indifferent to, or even facilitated, several Third World genocides, and the most egregious of them was AIDS. They didn't care until it was too late, with 36M+ gay and poor people already dead. They preferred to spend on military research than medical research. Heck, research wasn't even the bottleneck - it was "economic factors" like intellectual property. Actually the "silent killers" of starvation and respiratory diseases are much worse (again, preventable with minor commitments from the G8). Companies led by Boomers have shipped arms, pollution, injustice, and general misery all over the globe for profit. Globalization (when properly regulated) is a positive tool for humanity, but not in the hands of assholes. The Boomers have perfected colonialism lite, and plundered the most desperate corners of the globe (because they can get away with it easier). But these actions have produced serious blowback, as manifested in terrorist attacks in the US, UK, India, and elsewhere. While we have emerged from the spectre of Cold War Apocalypse, we've created or exacerbated a whole new set of micro-conflicts and ideological struggles to the death. The Middle East is a basket case, and many African nations were better off in 1940. And in their thirst for profit, the Boomers also contributed to water contamination/shortages, deforestation, toxic accidents, species endangerment, epidemics, and global warming more than any other generation. Politically, they ushered in a new era of big money corruption. Politics has always been a dirty game, but under the Boomers, we've seen $1B campaigns (more money, more stupid), an explosion of inappropriate earmarks/executive orders, a total lack of accountability, the red-blue ideological divide that doesn't really exist (but is easy to manipulate), and the lobbyist-Congress revolving door.

The Boomers all got their house, cars, and 2.5 kids. They lived the dream and mastered the game. They are certainly proud of themselves and feel that they deserved every last morsel (what I hate MOST about the Boomers). But at what cost? Their lust for possessions set a new consumption and quality of life precedent that is utterly unsustainable. But the younger generations are certainly trying, especially in growth areas like China and India. If half the world consumed as the average American does, we would need 6-12 Earths worth of resources to support humanity. We just can't possibly expect people to buy a new PC/TV every 2 years, a new car ever 5, home remodeling/accessorizing, and properties to flip and make a quick buck. But the Boomers tried, and now we wonder why companies have to lay off thousands when demand is drying up. Not really drying up, but returning to normal - actually it's not even normal but outrageously decadent and profligate! They defined a new type of success, and a new meaning of life. But if we follow their lead, there will be no life left at all, literally. Or at best we will have the top 10% bunkered in their gated communities, clininging to their luxurious lifestyles at the expense of the rest, in the mother-of-all class struggles. That is why I wish Obama would stop talking about making the American Dream a reality for more people, but instead redefining an American Dream that works.

The iconic Bill Clinton is the poster-child of the Boomers' mark on history. And even if Clinton wants to BS the press that he shares "no blame" for the current economic crisis, he and his Boomer ilk can't hide from the facts:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877322,00.html

I know a lot of that Time article was sensationalizing, blame-game journalism, but the bit on Clinton was right on. As a previous email explained, under heavy lobbying from Sandy Weil and the rest of Wall Street, Clinton and the Gingrich Congress destroyed the last vestiges of Depression-era financial safeguards: the Glass-Steagall Act that tried to prevent greedy banks-brokers from going to the casino with our money (and losing their shirt, which they will always do eventually). During the Clinton years, they wrote laws exempting the now-infamous credit-default swaps from federal regulation. CD swaps are not necessarily evil, and may in fact be necessary to our financial system, but refusing to study and regulate them is inexplicable. The Community Reinvestment Act was noble in its intention, but opened the floodgates for predatory lenders to exploit lower-income, less-financially-savvy communities. And now we know that a large fraction of victims of the housing bust fit that demographic, which trickled up to topple the fat cats.

Clinton also betrayed every liberal and compassionate bone left in his body on 1996's welfare/entitlement "reform", just to deprive Bob Dole and the GOP of a talking point during his reelection run. This move shifted the responsibility of caring for those who can't break out of the cycle of poverty from DC to the states, which is inefficient, less robust, and contributed in a major way to the fact that most states are in debt today (and would still be in debt even in a decent economy, because the burden of even a minimal social services network with today's living costs is just too ponderous). Any welfare program will be flawed, and better solutions do exist, but this was not the answer. The "reform" showed progress until 2001, while the economy was good. But in the last 5 years, it has been a clear failure. What is the point of a safety net that only protects people in times of plenty? If the reform was never implemented, there is a good chance that America would be better equipped to handle the droves of needy people today (many of them needy through no fault of their own I might add). And it would have cost the taxpayer much less than Bush's ugly Iraq War or dysfuctional Medicare drug subsidy.

So if Bush is a 12" piece of shit, Clinton is at least a 5" dookie.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=184

Welcome to the recession, spoiled brats!

Inflammatory email coming; brace for impact!

"Having grown up in good times, Net Geners have laboured under the illusion that the world owed them a living."
- The Economist

Most of us on this email were born before 1980, so we don't qualify as the "Millennial Generation", "Net Geners", or "Generation Y". We still remember the days of 13 TV channels and the rotary telephone. These spoiled kids were raised* (I should put raised in quotation marks for some of them!) by superficial, doting, low-discipline baby boomers during an era of mostly economic growth and political apathy. So maybe they come to expect that good times come easy, nothing really needs to be taken that seriously, and sacrifice/compromise/hardship are someone else's problem. They are great when it comes to gossip, excuses, and instant gratification, but struggle taking no for an answer and working hard without reward ("job well done" doesn't cut it anymore). It's never their fault, and they feel entitled to so much. Well that unfair characterization might apply to some middle-upper class suburban types at least, but forgive my blatant pessimistic generalizations throughout this email (though I'm not the only one, as the links below demonstrate). And of course I at times also exhibit some Gen Y traits in my behavior (and emails!).

Now before you label me Clint Eastwood in "Gran Torino", of course I give the "Millennies" credit for being much more tech-savvy, "productive" (on activities of their choosing), and multi-tasking than their predecessors (for better or worse - Google the scientific research). Commendably, they probably are more open-minded and tolerant of diversity than any other American generation (as long as they get their way!). They are tremendously self-aware, but not sure if the big picture matters. In other words, they don't care about anything outside of their needs. They will face the most competitive, complicated path to financial security since The Depression, and some will rise to the top and accomplish great things. Maybe even a handful of underprivileged minorities will make it too. They may also be more equipped to think outside the box and challenge dysfunctional status quos. They will spearhead huge innovations in the way we use the Net, consume, and socialize with one another. Maybe that type of untraditional thinking and work ethic is what the world needs to tackle the daunting environmental, economic, health, and sociopolitical problems we face. But if John Mayer's "Waiting for the World to Change" is any indication of the Millennies' leadership potential, we are in deep doodoo. At least we still have about 20-30 years until they do actually run the show.

I find it curious that this generation can't moderate its motivation. Some are completely devoid of it ("smoking weed and playing XBox all day" - TC), yet others are so wound-up and achievement-obsessed even by age 15. But of course they've been conditioned as such. You've probably had uncomfortable brushes with the latter: irritating Millennies who want it all, which is both ambitious-admirable and unrealistic-narcissistic. A top education, a perfect family, a fulfilling powerful career, and all the comforts of "successful people" as depicted by Hollywood. They plan out their storybook lives like a 10-step program. Older generations just wanted a paycheck; Millennies want a calling. And they want people to recognize their "gifts" and constantly tell them how great a job they're doing. Career-wise, it's a high bar to set (especially in this economic climate), and like the American Dream, it's not available or possible for many of us. They want a job with great compensation, personal growth potential, opportunities to "make a difference", and plenty of fun, exciting things each day. Basically they want Doctors without Borders-meets McKinsey. So if they're not getting all that, they'll move on, like pollinating bees. And I guess they'll just mooch off the 'rents while they're between jobs or saving up money for professional school?

Well this recession is giving them a strong double-shot of reality, and it tastes horrible. Wake up, kid. Free time isn't free. Sometimes you have to clean up your own messes. Things are expensive. You're not that special. And no, life is not fair. But the fact that our society has created a generation like this should lead people to ponder WTF is going on, and what values we are (intentionally or not) instilling in our youth by the behavior example set by elders.

Accommodating (or should I say babysitting) Millennies at work:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12853955
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml

Are Millennies "The Dumbest Generation"?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138536

Bad Behavior: Barkley and ARod

Poor Chuck... like Nelly said, if the head right he come back every night!!!

At least he was honest and polite with the cop, and didn't pull a Mel Gibson.

http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/01/01/charles-barkley-dui-update-oral-sex-and-its-got-to-be-your-bu/

--------

I still remember getting the Contra Costa Times' "Golden Pen Award" for my letter to the editor bashing the mainstream media for cutting away from the 1996 Olympics' opening ceremonies to interview Chuck about the Dream Team's prospects... God Bless Charles Barkley - without him, I would not only be short a Golden Pen but would be, at any given moment, hard up for a joke about spitting, gambling, head, a DUI and an ass tattoo. Anyone care to comment on which is the biggest contributor to the perceived value of sports in our society - the NBA, the NFL, or the MLB?



Also, isn't Sir Charles married with a daughter - WTF? Chuck's "honest" reasons for his behavior got me thinking... although society's collective consciousness probably associates Democrats with marital infidelity (think Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards) the Republicans have a storied (and arguably more diverse) record of bad behavior when it comes to relationships (which, I should note, extends beyond soliciting sex in public bathrooms and texting congressional pages):


http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/B001O9BXXY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234040877&sr=1-1



Here's another thing to consider: Is it conceivable that what we associate with improper conduct has more to do with media coverage and recency of transgression than it does with actual behavior (let alone intentions)? Is getting "caught" really the gold standard for measuring who is a fuck-up and who is not? Should it be? If traditional media companies become even more desperate for profits and new media companies become even more aggressive about capturing short attention spans then we're all doomed: there will be no private life in America and there will no such thing as "behind closed doors"; our frog of a society will become a caricature of itself before anyone even notices the water is boiling (God forbid it already is). Is anyone else pissed off that economic recovery and healthcare reform have more to do with who is a tax cheat and less to do with who is best suited to solve our problems? HECKUVA JOB BROWNIE!!!


PS: For the record: Sir Charles used to be (or consider himself, if you like) a "conservative" but recently (2006) changed his mind as demonstrated by his objective (i.e. not racially-motivated) support of Barack Obama in the last election. He has stated that he intends to run for governor of Alabama as an Independent in 2014 (once he establishes residency) though I do wonder whether his antics (gambling, DUI) would be more closely associated with Republicans, Democrats, or just overlooked...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Barkley

--------

Haha, seriously I don't care if A-Fraud makes a deal with the Devil, just as long as he kicks Bonds off all the record books!

So does Marc Ecko still have the Bonds record HR ball? In his online poll, they voted to give it to Cooperstown with an asterisk on it. I'd love to see that in the Hall!

Baseball's just a joke anyway.

For Chuck, I just think he looks silly because he is always dissing the younger players like AI and Bron for doing their childish stuff, and now he's a middle-aged father acting like an idiot. But seriously, that chick must have had some mad skills to make him do all this. Maybe she was even better than Spitzer's escort!

-------

Well, at least Pay-Rod was a man about it and didn't deny the roids allegations. Though he kept his secret for 4+ years. What I find worse is how he could want to bang old-ass Madonna!!!

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-rodriguez-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

The roids situation is funny. I know the sports reporters say that guys like Clemens, Bonds, and Rod think they're the best (well, they are) and try to get every edge possible to stay the best. They can't accept not being dominant. But those guys would be awesome players with or without juice. The stuff just keeps them in the game longer, and able to lift more weights per week. But that affects stats/records more than W-L for their teams. A 40-year-old Bonds isn't going to help any team get to the promised land. He just sells tickets and makes the SC Top Plays from time to time. So if you can't stop them from cheating, or can't make them admit it, just take away their stats (or downgrade them with a *). Then they have nothing to cheat for. If they want to abandon their families well into middle age, to hang around 2 or 3 more seasons to get 20 HR or 12 wins a year, just to set records, that is just gay.

So we know Bonds and Rod are a pitcher's nightmare regardless of what they're taking. It's not like roids are making them great. And frankly, I doubt there are many players in the pros who are such marginal talents that roids is the only thing keeping them in the big league. Maybe I'm wrong, what do you think? Sucky players will still suck with roids. Roids helps moderate or great players play a little better, but won't really help them win championships or perform in clutch moments. Again, maybe I'm wrong but I hope not.

--------

The way I figure is that roids takes the physicality out of the equation. You can be extremely talented and coordinated but not have the genetic composition of usain bolt. Roids takes care of that pretty nicely.

I think I remember the glarg monster mentioning a while back that the people who have the most to gain from roids is not a hitter/fielder but a pitcher. Throw more innings, recover faster and throw more games a week, longer effective career. I think that pitchers are the least likely to be able to play into old age in general right?

---------

Yeah good points. I mean roids helps no doubt, but I am not sure how much of a boost it gives you, say vs. a really good trainer or sports diet. Well it surely is a psychological boost, esp. for wife beating!

As you said, maybe fastball pitchers have the most to gain. Roids might build and help muscle heal, but it doesn't really affect connective tissue because that stuff has few cells and doesn't repair well. So if a guy like Rocket bulks up and can keep throwing 90 into his 40s, I wonder if his joints take such a beating that they're not supposed to, he'll actually wear out sooner? Obviously it wasn't the case with Rocket, but I guess the analogy is like putting nitrous in a Yaris. Though I guess their expert trainers give them all sorts of supplements and exercises to protect their joints too?

-------

I think there's a big problem with getting into the personal lives of athletes to determine who is "cheating" and who is not... Think about it - what is the MLB/NFL/NBA going to do once gene therapies and DNA modification are no longer the province of science fiction? Are you going to have two leagues, one for the "John the Savage" types (a la Brave New World) and another for the modified players? Where will the line be drawn? By whom? Testing for steroids (and even other drugs) is (in my humble opinion) an invasion of privacy and deeply flawed; if a player has a moral objection do they have any recourse other than peeing in the cup? Each of the respective professional leagues is a market monopoly with absolutely no check on its power and thus in a position to dictate behavior regardless of whether the mandates themselves are well-reasoned or even fair.


Also, why does it matter whether A-Rod (or anyone else) uses steroids (or anything else)? A person's body is his/her own business and (in our society, anyway) the measure of what you're free to do is whether your actions cause harm to others or not. While there may be some indirect harm to family, fans, etc. as a result of getting caught making the case that harm is caused by their actions alone is inordinately more difficult. It's worth keeping in mind that, if the leagues didn't have substance abuse policies, there would be nothing to get "caught" about - and of all the discussion I've ever heard about why drugs should be illegal I've yet to hear a single one which reasons steroids are a societal harm due to their second order effects (i.e. what their manufacture, trade, and use ultimately do to a population). Hell, in theory steroids could be made safe and beneficial to society if there was a will to make them so. I realize most people would argue that steroids are banned because they make competition "unfair", but hey - so is having 4x the budget of a competitor!!! I mean, come on - it's professional sports - it's naive to assume that it's fair at any level (and perhaps even more naive to think of it as anything more than a business).


Also, with respect to the point about performance, I think you're right - roids are not going to make you great. The saying "talent is common - discipline is rare" definitely applies to sports as weekend courts are filled with folks who probably could have made it had the stars aligned in their favor. I'd even go so far as to say that the real dividing line between good and great players has everything to do with focus, awareness, and mental fitness as it does physical prowess... and roids probably aren't gonna help you with that.


In short, I don't think it's funny - I think it's tragic that anyone who is larger than life (like A-Rod, Bonds, etc.) would feel the need to have to use steroids; I also think that it's even more tragic that we (the public) would tolerate witch-hunts and media circuses of the highest order which center upon absurd black and white divisions of right & wrong. Your $50 ticket to a game entitles you to watch, not to play King Of All Sports. I mean, WTF - Congress - get back to work!


PS: Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!?!?!?!


PSS: Madonna is still hot.

--------

Well I get what you're saying, but some basic rules have to be enforced. Employers have the right to drug test for illicit substances in your pee, because maybe drug users aren't the most reliable workers they want around. Plus you can get around drug tests, as many pro athletes have (or tried too... Wizzinator!). Call it an invasion of privacy, call it good business. And let's remember that "privacy" is not a god-given right like liberty. It is not written anywhere in our Constitution (at least before 1900). It is an interpreted right by the Supreme Court. Anyway, privacy is a sham if you consider what companies and the government already know about us, especially in the wired age (voting, shopping habits, TV ratings, credit scores... they can basically predict our behavior already). I would prefer to err on the side of privacy than not (warrantless wiretaps, etc.), but we can't be so naive to think that actions such as using illegal drugs are totally of the private domain and don't affect others.

Roids might seem innocuous, but they do cause behavioral and hormonal problems that can result in violence or illness for the user, which costs the user, the employer, and society (not to mention the moral message we are sending to condone chemical assistance to overcome physical limitations). I agree that it's impossible to have a law you can't enforce, so with corrupt MLB maybe it's easier to just open the floodgates on roids and scrap the record books. Maybe you can argue that tobacco is worse, yet still legal. And of course some roids are legal, or legal with a prescription. Contraband roids (like back-alley abortions) are also not regulated and inspected for safety. My company makes therapeutic HGH, and in 2006 one plant worker was skimming some of the rejected material and selling it to his relative who worked at a gym. They made tens of thousands, but he was eventually caught of course. If that stuff was contaminated or at the wrong dosage, it could have really messed up an ignorant user. Well, maybe that fits into your argument to legalize the stuff and make things more transparent!

I wouldn't say that pro sports organizations have absolute power. They have a ton of power, but there are also the players' unions, of which MLB's is the strongest. They have fought testing from the get-go, and only now agreed to minimal testing. A-Rod's positive test was supposed to be "confidential" to the public, as MLB was just "testing its testing" at the time. To me, I have no problem with WWE using roids, or other jobs where supernatural looks and strength might be needed as part of entertainment (not competition). As you said, the fairness argument might be a joke when NYY's payroll is over 3X OAK's, but at least we have to have some sort of preponderance of fair play, otherwise what's the point of sport? The public has to have some sort of trust in the integrity of the competition, or they won't spend their money (not to mention all the sports betting!). It does set an impossibly high bar for impressionable, obsessive youth to measure up to, if they aspire to be physically great in their careers (check out "The man whose arms exploded": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj3De6s3ZjQ). US soldiers are even using roids, meth, and other drugs in battle, to be stronger and more alert. If it keeps them alive I'm all for it, but if it affects their judgment, it might do more harm than good. If there was a roid that made women's boobs bigger and their butts rounder, I'd support that too.

Oh yeah, and as my coworker said about the recent CA Prop. to give more money to children's hospitals.... F DA CHILDREN!!

Oh, forgot to mention C - you are right, of course the media are going bonkers over nothing. That is what they do. It is sad as you said, but I wouldn't say tragic. No one is dying at least. I don't feel bad for A-Rod or others; after all, they're still rich.

--------

Dude it's not just about the records, it's about the lifestyle. About being "the guy," a pro baller. No one wants to give that up.

Take the example closer to home. Just imagine if the media, your friends, your family, all started telling you it was time to hang up your spurs. No more ragging on pro sports, no more hatorade, no more puns out of pro's names. Would you just pack it in?

Hell no! Bring on the juice! HATER LIFESTYLE BABY!! HATE HATE HATE!!!

-------

Well that is kind of a poor analogy but I'll indulge you. First of all, Rod, Bonds, and others started to juice long before they were washed up (ARod still hasn't even begun to decline). In fact they juiced near the peak of their careers. So I doubt it was out of fear of the fall. I guess they really loved being the man and wanted to stay that way, especially with hacks like Sosa and McGwire on their tails (and getting plenty of media attention). Even Brady Anderson hit 50 HR. They're celebrity whores I guess.

But no one forced them to quit once they couldn't perform at peak level. Because of their big names, Rocket or Bonds could play for most teams into their 40s without roids, even if they kind of suck and were injured half the season. They still can make money and lift their team's prestige. So I don't think it's a valid excuse to say that they clung to the juice as the only way to stay in the game. They would still collect big paychecks and make the highlight reels now and then. They just couldn't stand not being the best. And frankly, I don't know who would have the moxie to tell big egos and supercompetitors like Rocket or Bonds that they should hang it up, to their face. Probably people were begging them to keep playing. If you think you can still play, and no one is stopping you from playing, then who cares what other people say?

Lifestyle? I think they can still live pretty well being a "washed up" baller. Maybe they won't get the curtain calls and the media attention, but they'll still get a lot of love at the clubs with the hoochies. They'll still do the commercials, autographs, and maybe make guest appearances on TV or at ceremonies. If that wasn't enough, and the juice could give them more, well then they made their choice.

So that is a flimsy claim to say that the haters and doubters compelled people like Bonds to juice and prove them wrong.

-------

Heh thx for the reply Chopes. I agree with what you're saying about roids and safety. The only exception I can think of are strong roided-up football players may be more likely to injure each other, so in that case it's a safety problem (and a profits problem). Or even in baseball, faster hurlers can bean batters harder and break their wrists (it has happened plenty). Or bulked up guys colliding will cause more injuries, which loses money for everyone.

The ARod report reminds me of the Nixon tapes - why the F didn't they destroy them when they had the chance!?!

Heh, yeah it is sad how some students resort to "performance enhancement". Plenty of pay websites offer pre-written essays or even answers on the GMAT (http://www.chinaeconomicreview.com/mba/2008/09/05/gmat-scandal-expands-to-6000-students.html). Students are taking meth (or tons of Red Bull) to stay up later and study. The problem is much worse in East Asia. Here, usually the rich just buy their way to academic performance by loading up on tutors/test prep/internships for their kids, and the poor don't even get their GED, partly due to socioeconomic pressures. I guess it boils down to competition: it's out of control in developed nations. So many people want what so few can have. The irony of the American Dream is it's just a dream to many Americans, yet we somehow believe that it's "available" to all. We all can't be middle class (or rich); the Earth couldn't take it. We don't know how to share... it's just mine, mine, mine and F the rest of y'all. We are taught to admire the people at the top, the "winners", and the other losers are inconsequential. But in some cases, success is just a nice way of sugar-coating greed.

Wired for War

http://wiredforwar.pwsinger.com/
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/author-pov-wired-for-war.htm

One of Obama's campaign advisers for defense issues (P. W. Singer of the Brookings Inst.) recently published a book called Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. In an interview on "Fresh Air", Singer described the technological, political, strategic, and moral implications of this new evolution of warfare. Namely, do the "conveniences" that robotics/automation bring to modern combat affect how easily our leaders decide to wage war? Also, how wise is it to rely so heavily on this technology - what are the repercussions when it malfunctions and innocents die? Maybe due to social-ideological shifts or manpower shortages, it appears that the Pentagon has rushed to integrate automation into the military without really taking all the risk considerations into account. But that's nothing new for them, and boys will always be impatient to show off their new toys.

In rugged theaters like Afghanistan, remote-controlled Predator drones are critical for reconnaissance and air strikes. In Iraq, robots diffuse bombs, scout, and do many other tasks. Robot/drone missions in Iraq increased from zero in 2003 to 12,000 in 2008. The US military owns over 17,000 drones (5k air, 12k ground). By 2010, the Pentagon expects to spend $4.3B on such unmanned systems.

Every major technological advancement since the wheel has modified the ways that humans kill each other, so of course electronics and automation will create drastic changes. Robots can overcome some human limitations (fatigue, irrationality, variable performance, physical vulnerabilities). This can be a real help in some situations, if those robots function properly. Besides the more sci-fi models like Predator or TALON (think WALL-E with a machine gun), the majority of military automation is meant for information processing (where robots excel most over humans). Real-time, high-resolution battlefield data feeds allow decision-makers (or bureaucrats) thousands of miles from the war zone to micromanage a fight or overrule commanders on the ground. This of course creates a lot of tension and resentment among the soldiers who are risking their lives on the front lines, and the "soldiers" who watch them from afar (and may even render life-death decisions upon them without consultation).

We don't even realize how much of our national defense is already automated. Via our satellite network, computers survey and identify potential targets for attack worldwide. But the system does err, and we have ordered air strikes on what appeared to be high-value enemies (even Osama) that were actually innocent bystanders. In some cases, computers decide to shoot nearly autonomously. On-board B-52 targeting computers do 99% of the work, and the pilot just presses a button. He can't see the target on the ground and can't control the flight of the ordinance, but instead just trusts the computer. Our warships equipped with AEGIS defenses are designed to identify threats and defend the ship in case vital crew members are killed or incapacitated. But what about non-threats? One of our AEGIS ships erroneously shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in the Persian Gulf in 1988. The investigation concluded that the ship's crew misinterpreted or manipulated the AEGIS data feed tracking a commercial airliner, making it appear to be an attack plane. I know that a device is only as good as the people using it, but it's hard to believe that our trained sailors would be so trigger-happy in a sensitive conflict zone without some cause. Maybe trust or overconfidence in AEGIS provided that last bit of impetus to act on their paranoia.

Well, I guess it was cheaper to dismiss the incident as human error rather than call into question a multi-billion-dollar system deployed on over 80 US warships. But how much are robots augmenting, influencing, or outright replacing real-time human decision-making, and how will that trend grow in the coming years (especially with control of nuclear weapons)? Much sci-fi fiction involves machines, trusted with vital duties too important to be left in human hands, that end up going haywire. While we haven't had to battle a renegade Skynet or HAL2000 in real life, minor incidents have happened (read on). Our militaries will have to delicately balance the delegation of critical decisions among human and computer actors. If an Air Force bomber mistakenly transported nuclear warheads across the Midwest in 2007, obviously it couldn't hurt to add more automated failsafes and human-executed security procedures. But when is a computer allowed to override a human's decision in the interests of "national security"? Guide dogs are trained to disobey and protect their masters in cases of obvious harm, for example when a blind person wants to enter an intersection when it is not clear. Sadly, there is a thin line between protection and harm. But dogs, like computers, just act in accordance with their programming. If Asian hackers can crack most versions of Windows and crash the Microsoft website in their spare time, how can we trust programmers to design safe software that manages vital defense infrastructure? In an effort to make Windows Vista a more secure OS for our computers, Microsoft has made it nearly impossible for even experienced users to enact system changes to their own property. And there we see the trade-off with defense computing: it needs to be secure enough to resist enemy tampering, but it shouldn't be locked up so tight that humans can't "hit the kill switch" in time during a malfunction. Mistakes on either end could potentially spell doom.

New technologies completely redefine what it means to be a soldier, as well as the associated psychological burdens. Now a 19-year-old high school dropout in Nevada can contribute more to the Iraq war effort than a commissioned officer and veteran pilot stationed on a carrier in the Gulf... and they do. The author mentioned one unnamed soldier fitting that profile who became such an expert Predator pilot that he is now an instructor. He joined the military wanting to repair helicopters, but was found to be unqualified, so instead they sat him in front of a computer and he became a drone "ace". The author jokes that the military might now prefer to recruit computer nerds with sturdy bladders, rather than a jock with 20/20 vision and a 6-minute mile time. Needless to say, this change is not well received with the cocky Top Gun crowd in "traditional" pilot circles. For a military that is supposed to function as an integrated, cooperative unit, these new divisions and culture clashes cannot be overlooked.

The emergence of the Predator has also changed the military lifestyle. Drone pilots can literally work their craft as an 8-to-5 job, then come home to their families. "RC" soldiers don't even have to live with each other on a base, maintain off-duty discipline, and most importantly, don't have to get shot at or lose friends in battle. But this convenient duality is not as perfect as it sounds. The rate of PTSD among such drone pilots is actually higher than the average military, possibly due to the mental challenges of taking life one minute, then taking their kids to soccer practice the next. You can't just turn it on and off like a switch. There is inherent conflict between the civilian and military aspects of a citizen-soldier, and at least in a combat theater you can forget "the world", your comrades can support you, and also empathize with your problems. A Predator pilot can't really complain about his bad day to the wife and neighbors, without really freaking them out. And domestic problems or general busyness might be very bad distractions for inexperienced young men charged with huge responsibilities.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/flying-drones-f.html

Of course the military says that nothing can ever replace a brave, skilled American pilot. Tom Cruise's Maverick should be their recruiting poster boy, not Steve Urkel. But in this age of streamlining and reducing loss of (American) life, if our automated systems are performing about as well as human pilots, then why would the military continue to risk manned missions? But if they do decide to rely more heavily on RC drones or fully-automated fliers, they had better plan for the human consequences as well. As we all know, technology meant to make our lives easier often produces the opposite effect, or even introduces new problems.

Ever-increasing computing power has really blurred or destroyed the line between war games and warfare. Instead of video game makers tailoring their entertainment systems to simulate real warfare, the military is actually designing its new training and combat systems to emulate video game platforms! Maybe they figure that Sony and Microsoft have already done extensive ergonomics and performance research for their products, so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Think I'm exaggerating? It's already happened: the company iRobot (makers of the cute Roomba vacuum) also make the PackBot for military scouting and IED disposal. It can be transported in a soldier's pack (hence the name), assembled/deployed in a few minutes, and literally controlled by an Xbox 360 controller. I guess if it's already available and validated, no need to reinvent the wheel.

The controller used with the latest Pacbot is modelled after video game controllers, making the system easier to use.

As we all know, automation and advanced electronics do fail. And for the more complex systems that are charged with life-death capabilities, failures are very costly. Our forces in Iraq are using machine gunner robots nicknamed "R2-D2" to shoot down incoming insurgent RPGs/mortars. During an early test, it accidentally fired on a US helicopter, but fortunately missed. In South Africa, they weren't so lucky. An anti-aircraft robot (with a 35 mm cannon that can literally vaporize human flesh) experienced a "software glitch", started shooting wildly, and killed 9 soldiers. And then what about the legal aftermath? What if the victims are civilians/foreign nationals? Prosecute the designers or the administrator? Or is it just tough luck?

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/10/robot-cannon-ki.html

Another problem with increased use of military automation by the US is our allies/enemies will invariably follow suit. And our enemies will surely be hard at work to develop countermeasures to our robots. Since many of them are remote-controlled, our adversaries could potentially turn our weapons against us. Like torture, we can't let the genie out of the bottle and expect other nations or stateless militants to refrain. And unlike Star Wars or nuclear weaponry (WMDs that the US feels entitled to maintain a permanent advantage), robotics are much more cheaper, portable, and accessible. Already US companies are selling them to foreign governments. So an arms race of this nature would be much harder to control and stay ahead of the pack. Even the Lebanese militant group Hizbullah used simple robotics in its 2006 war with Israel (the first time in history when 2 sides used robotics against each other in a war). Just imagine how automation can change the way that "suicide attacks" are carried out.

In addition, how will enemies and neutrals perceive our increased use of robotic weapons? Western powers already take a lot of heat for "cowardly" air strikes and artillery barrages that often kill bystanders. While insurgents seek to level the field and confront our forces in small arms urban fighting, they can't do anything against our bombing. They die but we don't. They don't even get to see the whites of our eyes. It makes strategic sense, but appears quite dishonorable to some who still believe in a warrior code. We "hide" behind our technology and project our force from afar. But then again, the majority of US military deaths since 9/11 are from IEDs, which are equally cowardly by those standards. Bottom line, the more we rely on robotics (for dirty jobs or innocuous ones), the more we play to the stereotype of cold, militaristic Americans. But some of this could be mitigated with better PR and disclosure. Unfortunately most armed forces are not very skilled in those areas.

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

The over-arching danger of high-tech war is that it builds on a trend making it less and less of a moral-social burden to wage war. Historically, war maims and kills scores of people, shatters families, destroys cities, disrupts economies, bankrupts treasures, and causes massive trauma that takes years to repair. But if robots can remove some of that stink, does war become a more desirable option? And Obama has followed Bush's example by maintaining that "all options are on the table".

Walking the streets of any American city today, a foreigner could hardly tell that our nation was at war (in 2 places). Compare that to Congo or Sri Lanka, where it's abundantly obvious. I suppose that is the nature of foreign wars, and why Bush said that it's better to fight our enemies overseas than in our backyards. But despite our haste to oust Saddam, our inflammatory bombings in Pakistan, and the many terrible episodes in American militarism, I hope that war can be a very solemn, serious decision for our current and future leaders. If the Pentagon told Obama that a Predator thinks it has OBL in its bombsights, but there's a chance that it's a false positive, and children are in the area - what is he going to do? High-tech war thrusts these rapid, difficult decisions on flawed, emotional people, and therein lies the danger.

Many ordinary people are not feeling the effects of our wars, which is both a blessing and a danger. Out of sight, out of mind. Yes we're losing international goodwill and hemorrhaging tax dollars in the War on Terror, but the sting from that will be hard to directly notice back home, and probably further down the road. The lowest of our society are the ones dying and enduring 15-month tours, while the middle-upper classes keep consuming obliviously (or fretting about the economy). Mostly our exposure to war is just some fancy graphics and press conferences on CNN. When war is so "painless" to wage, what is holding us back from engaging in it? Violence seems to be such an easy "solution" to the various frustrating tensions around the globe, but the costs are profound and enduring. Just because we can do something, and do it swiftly and efficiently, doesn't mean we should.

Since WWI, industrialization has permitted soldiers to kill each other from afar without even seeing each other, and now we're taking it to another level. Modern wars for resource control, imperialism, or proxy power struggles tend to be fought on third party battlegrounds with little damage to the instigating parties' homelands. And after the expiration of selective service, our modern "professional army" is mostly comprised of the poorer, minority, and uneducated demographics. The rich and powerful monopolize the decision to go to war, but now they can totally divorce themselves and their loved ones from enduring the direct suffering of war. Outliers like Pat Tillman and Beau Biden aside, no privileged American should ever want or need to fight for their country, except maybe out of machismo or aspirations for a future political career, both of which are not necessarily in our military's best interest. Some hawkish Americans like to ridicule Europeans for being wimps and appeasers when it comes to modern conflicts and terrorism. But today's Europeans are children of the WWII ashes, and many of their states still mandate military service. They understand war suffering better than us, and if they do have to fight, it hurts everyone from the top down.

We also have the Rumsfeld-advocated (but he is not the only one) approach of "sleek war", with a minimal number of boots on the ground and a huge reliance on technology to dominate asymmetrical wars. Yes technology can improve our military capabilities, increase efficiency, and reduce the loss of life. But for now, robots can't kick down doors, protect VIPs, and escort convoys through IED-mined highways, so we hire Blackwater mercenaries to fill that need, as a previous email described. We have so few "regular" soldiers now (plus recruiting shortages), that we use contractors to prepare meals, do laundry, maintain equipment, and fill dozens of other tasks that enlisted people used to do a generation ago (in addition to fighting). But when we outsource our military effort to for-profit corporations, how can we expect loyalty and commitment when things go bad? Will they sacrifice for the good of the nation as an oath-bound soldier would? The same can be said of automated systems. They are designed and marketed by companies following their own agendas that are not beholden to any national goals or set of principles. All they care about is selling the maximum number of units and service plans, not winning or preventing wars.

Defense is obviously easier for richer nations, who can afford the most advanced weapons. But what is to prevent the haves from menacing the have-nots who stand in the way of their strategic objectives? Like easy credit and the housing bubble, convenience can lead to irresponsibility. Readily available resources are often abused, especially if the abusers won't suffer direct consequences for their actions. Sometimes the only thing stopping bullies in the schoolyard is their fear of picking the wrong fight and losing. When it doesn't hurt us to hurt someone else, what is left to keep the peace? The whole rationale behind the nuclear deterrent was to make it too costly to attack a nuclear nation (or their friends), but how can a superpower be deterred? Hopefully our laws and political system serve that purpose, but still Congress voted overwhelmingly to invade Iraq in 2003. Well, one method of deterrent is disarmament, and refraining from developing new weapons. The chicken-hawks of the privileged class need to know that war isn't just about the victory parades and "Mission Accomplished" banners. And even if they do succeed, like the amazingly one-sided Operation Desert Storm, their glory was purchased by others' blood. "War as last resort" has now become an insincere political cliche, but it should still apply just for the rare circumstances where not fighting means catastrophe. And I think we will be hard pressed to come up with even a handful of historical examples where a conflict could only be resolved through war.

Israel refuses to extradite its own in the event of war crimes indictments

Sorry to keep harping in this, but an interesting development:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7850085.stm

So after WWII, militant Jews hunted down suspected Nazi war criminals overseas, with little to no regard for the laws of other nations and the chain of evidence. Sometimes they brought them to Israel to stand trial, other times they assassinated them on the spot. The same can be said later for Arab-Palestinian terrorists. In some cases, they killed the wrong person. Like during the "Operation Wrath of God" retribution murders after the Munich massacre, Mossad agents killed a waiter in Norway, mistaking him for Black September honcho Ali Salameh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair). Israel never claimed responsibility for the murder, but 6 of its agents were captured and convicted in Norway, and later the government paid almost $500k to the victim's next of kin.

But now, PM Olmert has vowed to refuse extradition of any Israelis participating in the Gaza invasion who may be found guilty of war crimes by international courts. The government has also blocked the Israeli press from publishing the names of any squad commanders of Gaza forces, in the event that others want to build cases against them. Olmert said that no son of Israel will face trial for defending their country. So I guess if IDF soldiers gun down an unarmed civilian, or bomb a hospital, they did it out of love for country, so it's permissible and they're not accountable to anyone else?

But what about the Nazis and Arabs who were following their own extreme nationalistic, ethnocentric impulses when they carried out their atrocities against Jews? When the Allied tribunal or international courts declare the enemies of Israel as war criminals, by all means they are guilty as sin, and Israel has the green light to circumvent official channels. They bring them to justice on their terms, even if they have to break laws and kill the wrong people in the process. And Israel denounces any nation daring to harbor those fugitives as accessories to the crime. But with the shoe on the other foot, Israeli war criminals are immune to any outside punishment, and it's perfectly fine for Tel Aviv to protect them. Though of course with US diplomatic cover (plus America's disdain for the ICC or any other sort of cooperative European entity is already well-known), probably no Israeli will ever be charged with war crimes in our lifetimes. But I suppose it's anti-Semitic if anyone else dares to accuse an Israeli of a crime while carrying out the sacred duty of defending Israel. "Israel has the right to defend itself," by any means necessary.

Israel has attacked the UN more than Al-Qaeda

Last year, Al-Qaeda's #2 Zawahiri denounced the UN as the "enemy of Islam" for helping create and legitimize the state of Israel in the past, as well as condoning Western militarism in Muslim lands. We know that Al Qaeda in Iraq attacked the UN headquarters in Baghdad in 2003, killing 22 (including the special envoy to Iraq). After that, the UN withdrew completely from Iraq for years. More recently, Qaeda also claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing at a UN compound in Algiers that killed 41 (of them, 18 UN staffers) in 2007. These acts against defenseless victims were of course barbaric and cowardly.

http://www.fao.org/world/Regional/RNE/UNNews/news123_en.htm

But strangely, it is actually the Israeli military that has attacked the UN more times since 9/11, albeit less "deliberately" and with fewer casualties.

[The Israeli Defense Forces] don't care if they kill a UN man or anybody on the Lebanese side. For them, their own life is sacred, their own troops are sacred. They have a mission, and if the UN gets in the way of their efforts over there, if the UN gets hit, so be it.

- Timur Goskel, professor at Notre Dame Univ. and former UNIFIL advisor (UN peacekeepers in Lebanon), 2006

Maybe you remember during the Israel-Lebanon War in 2006, then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan chastised Israel for what appeared to be a deliberate targeting of a legally sanctioned UN observation post in South Lebanon that killed 4 neutral observers. The UN has been there since the first Israel-Lebanon war decades ago. The maps haven't changed and that outpost never moved. There were no Hizbullah fighters in the vicinity, yet the IDF decided to fire. But of course PM Olmert demanded than Annan retract his outrageous accusation.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/7/26/kofi_annan_says_israels_fatal_attack

And earlier this month in the Gaza war, Israeli armor allegedly fired on a UN aid convoy, killing a truck driver (a Palestinian contractor hired by the UN). This incident took place during an agreed-upon 3-hour cease fire. The UN had informed Israel of the aid convoy's scheduled trip, and were given the green light to proceed. Their vehicles are clearly marked with UN blue, and the IDF was given its GPS coordinates. However, Israel claims that it was actually a Hamas sniper that killed the truck driver, possibly in an attempt to set up the IDF for a bad PR incident (as if the IDF needed any outside help in that regard). Even giving Israel the benefit of the doubt here, what resulted was the UNRWA mission suspending all aid shipments into Gaza since then (they are set to resume tomorrow). So needy people continued to go without. If a neutral third party is "aiding" your enemy, would you fire at them as deterrence? Did the IDF want to send a message to the UN, and did the Lebanon incident have a similar purpose? So are their wars against all Palestinians/Lebanese, or just the terror groups?

A few days later, it got worse. Israel attacked UN-run elementary schools at 3 separate locations over 36 hours. One site was vacated, but the others housed hundreds of terrified Gaza residents seeking refuge from the fighting. Over 40 died. Again, these buildings are clearly-marked and the UN gave Israel their GPS locations long ago. The IDF attempted to justify its actions by stating that they observed Hamas mortar fire originating from inside one of the UN schools. UN officials on the ground said that they were 99.9% sure there were no Hamas there and no mortars were fired (and they have no reason to lie for Hamas). Laughably, the IDF further tried to defend the attack by releasing video of Palestinian militants firing a rocket from one of the schools and then fleeing. However, the video was from 2007! In that case, we better bomb Saudia Arabia, because we have past video of Osama bin Laden walking the streets of Riyadh. Even if Hamas was there, how can they defend their attacks? It is a neutral site, off limits like an embassy. For that matter, what if Hamas militants were alleged to be hiding in a US consulate building? Would the IDF still bomb? Technically that is a violation of international law and an act of war.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=1053455&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title='UN+rejects+IDF+claim+Gaza+militants+operated+from+bombed-out+school'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

The Israeli army however said the school was being used to store weapons, and the casualties were as a result of secondary explosions caused by the the munitions stored in the building. After a brief investigation this story changed. The army did admit the Israel Air Force targeted the school, but said it was returning fire. It had no comment on the fact that several hundred refugees had taken shelter at the school.
- IsraelNews.net

Israel scorns Hamas and Hizbullah for being so dastardly to hide behind civilian shields, and they're right. If only we could divorce combatants from populated areas, but in the post-Cold War world, most if not all conflicts will be asymmetrical and urban. When you decide to wage war (and let's look past the BS about being "forced" into war - it's always a conscious, voluntary choice), you have to know that many innocents will suffer (especially children), so hopefully that can serve as a deterrent. They should have learned all this at the military academy, but maybe as Prof. Goskel claims, the problem is that Israel just doesn't give a damn. Israel says they're being being set up to take the blame for civilian deaths as part of the propaganda war. But no one forced the IDF to pull the trigger. They know civilians are there, and yet they choose to fire anyway, just to maybe kill a few insignificant foot soldiers, or at best some "high value target" that will just get replaced by an even meaner SOB, as depicted in the film "Munich". They could apprehend and convict them through established legal channels, or wait to attack until their targets are in the clear, or if that doesn't happen then just let it go - because the cost of killing innocents (thereby creating much backlash and future terrorists in the process) is always higher than letting one bad man go free. Therefore, they don't get to blame anyone else for their murders. Not surprisingly, in 2003 27 elite Israeli pilots/officers had enough of their leaders' immoral tactics, and published a formal protest refusing to take part in assassination missions over urban zones where civilians will invariably get hurt (see article at end).

And just today, Israeli artillery fire near the UN Gaza headquarters (housing over 700 refugees) started a blaze that destroyed their food/fuel storage warehouse. This time, they openly acknowledged that it was a "mistake", though again insisted that Hamas fire came from the area. It is suspected that phosphorous incendiary rounds were used, which easily cause fires to spread in cities (and therefore their use in urban zones is prohibited). Tons of vital aid supplies went up in smoke. A Red Cross/Crescent hospital was also hit, and the Palestinian death toll rose above 1,000 dead/5,000 wounded. Israeli losses still stand at 13, with 4 dead from friendly fire.

The belief is that Israel is stepping up military operations ahead of agreeing to a ceasefire in the days immediately before Tuesday's inauguration of Barack Obama as U.S. president.
- The Daily Mail

So once again, it seems like politics trump decency. Isn't an escalation of violence prior to a ceasefire defeating the very purpose of that ceasefire? I guess they just want to get those last shots in, and probably Hamas will too (well, does the fact that Hamas still launches rockets at the end of the war signify the folly and failure of the war?). And I guess Israel wants to make a good impression on the new president by pausing its war for his inauguration. How thoughtful.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1117144/Israels-strike-UN-headquarters-Gaza-indefensible-says-Gordon-Brown.html

So if the gunmen and thugs under Milosevic, Haitian/Somali warlords, and even Hamas, Hizbullah, and the Taleban can mostly respect UN neutrality in their conflicts, then what is Israel's problem? After all, they are the most democratic and technologically advanced nation in the Middle East. Pretty much the only other places in the world where UN staff are under such direct assault are Congo and Sudan. Ignominious company for sure. And in those nations, UN soldiers are authorized to actually engage local forces to protect civilians, so they have chosen to be part of the fray. No UN worker ever fired a shot at an Israeli.

-----
27 Israeli pilots refuse raid duty
Question morality of hitting civilians
By Dan Ephron, Boston Globe Correspondent, 9/25/2003
JERUSALEM -- Twenty-seven Israeli air force pilots, who are considered the most elite servicemen of the Israeli Defense Forces, pledged in an open letter published yesterday that they no longer would take part in raids on Palestinian population centers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, describing them as "illegal and immoral."
The letter, published on the websites of several Israeli newspapers, appeared to give new impetus to the movement of several hundred soldiers who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on moral grounds. It also marked the first time a group of air force pilots, who could face ouster or military trials, have banded together to take such a stand.
Among those who signed were a brigadier general who took part in Israel's 1981 raid on an Iraqi nuclear facility, two colonels, and four lieutenant colonels. About half of them fly warplanes and attack helicopters in reserve duty, while the rest are inactive, according to a senior air force officer.
Military officials described the letter as politically motivated and insisted that the Israeli military goes to great lengths to avoid harming civilians, even when Palestinian militants hide in their midst. One analyst said the letter carried symbolic weight, but would be significant from an operational standpoint only if dozens of other pilots refused to serve.
"We veteran and active duty pilots . . . are against carrying out illegal and immoral attacks of the kind that Israel is conducting in the territories," the letter reads. "We . . . refuse to take part in air force attacks on civilian population centers.
"We [pilots], who feel that the Israeli Defense Forces and the air force are an integral part of us, refuse to continue attacking innocent civilians," said the letter, which also condemns Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Several pilots who signed the letter could not be reached for interviews.
Air force pilots have had a large role in the fighting between Israelis and Palestinians that erupted three years ago, most controversially in track-and-kill missions against key militants. Israel has assassinated scores of militants in missile strikes and bombing missions in crowded areas of the West Bank and Gaza, but scores of innocent civilians have also been killed and wounded in the raids.
In one particularly devastating attack in July 2002, Israel dropped a 1-ton bomb on a building in Gaza where Salah Shehadeh, a top member of the Islamic militant group Hamas, was hiding. He was thought to have orchestrated attacks that killed dozens of Israelis. The bomb killed Shehadeh, his wife and daughter, and 12 other civilians.
Reuven Pedatzur, a former fighter pilot who is now a defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, said the Shehadeh assassination was a turning point for Israeli pilots. "I think that was the moment many pilots began asking questions about what they're doing and why civilians are being killed," he said.
Pedatzur said the letter was significant because air force pilots are the military's "cream of the crop" and because pilots have never protested collectively in such a manner. But a top air force commander said that the protesters represented a small minority of fighter pilots and that most of them had not been taking part in missions during the past three years of fighting.
Ido Nehushtan, an air force brigadier general, said pilots participating in missions against Palestinian militants had the complicated task of trying to thwart terrorists who operate in civilian centers. He said that pilots have the authority to abort missions if they believe civilians might be harmed, but that the air force could not live with a situation in which individual pilots decide not to take part in a whole category of operations.
"I can tell you with full confidence that we do everything possible to avoid harming civilians," Nehushtan said late yesterday, hours after the letter was published.
He said the pilots published their letter in the media without first presenting it to their commanders.
Pedatzur said the Air Force must decide between ousting the pilots from their units or trying them for insubordination. Military judges have jailed dozens of reservists in ground forces who have refused to serve in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
"This is a serious dilemma, because these aren't just privates in regular units; they're air force pilots," Pedatzur said. "If you put them on trial, the atmosphere in the air force could become very sour, and this wouldn't be good for the military in general."
In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was killed in an early morning gun battle between Palestinians and Israeli troops searching for weapons-smuggling tunnels along the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.
The firefight erupted when 20 Israeli tanks and armored bulldozers entered the Rafah refugee camp. Mohammed Hamdan, 16, was killed in the clash, hospital officials told the Associated Press, and more than a dozen Palestinians were wounded. Palestinian witnesses said troops razed two houses.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

BART police "execution"

I was out of town when this happened, but friggin' A...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKy-WSZMklc

That is some messed up NYPD shit there. Who the heck is in charge of training BART cops anyway? Are they even subject to oversight and IA like the other cops? I guess they're one step up from Blackwater. But the video clearly shows the 2 other officers had the young man pinned down, he wasn't struggling (at the time of the shooting), and didn't seem like a danger to anyone. But the third just takes out his weapon, aims, and fires point blank in the back - for no valid reason that I can discern. It doesn't appear accidental. What was he thinking with all the witnesses around? My coworkers said that the BART police confiscated as many cell phones/cameras as they could find on people in the vicinity, supposedly for "evidence" (or cover-up?). But moot point, since some leaked to the press anyway.

And we wonder why urban minorities don't really trust police.

--------

http://www.ktvu.com/video/18426902/index.html

Take a look at this video. I looks as if one officer was off to the side talking on the radio, while officer Mehserle (the shooter) and another officer pinned the young man down. It is evident that the officer pinning the young man near his head moved up and away before the shot was fired as if expecting a stun gun shot and moving clear so as not to be secondarily tased. You can see the stupid look on Mehserle's face immediately after the shot, as he looks up and down at what had just happened.

I agree there's no valid reason to shoot the guy, even stun gunning the guy seems excessive. I disagree with your assertion that this does not appear to be accidental.

Now I'm not gonna defend this in anyway shape or form aside from saying this looks accidental. It's poor judgment anyway you cut it. It's bad protocol to have officers have stun guns near their firearms... most departments have them place it opposite their pistol on their non dominant side facing the opposite direction. As far as taking cameras from witnesses... hell who knows what standard operating procedure is on that one, but it does look suspicious.

This incident certainly doesn't help police win over urban minorities, but this incident looks like officer incompetence, lack of training, and poor protocol rather then the "white cop kills urban/minority youth" reaction this is getting on the streets of Oakland.

--------

But as far as I know, isn't a stun gun much lighter than a handgun? It's like reaching for a wood pencil at your desk and accidentally picking up a Mont Blanc - you should know the difference. I guess in the "heat of the action", maybe he just got confused. But I'm not sure if that "excuse" makes it any better, since there is an ongoing controversy about police over-use of stun gun submission that actually turns out to be more lethal that the manufacturers or cops claim.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/11/national/a114135D39.DTL

-------

Yeah, I mean I agree with Juan that it was probably accidental and the cop wasn't looking to whack the kid. But you know in the navy how the officers repeat orders all along the chain of command to make sure that it was correct before executing? Isn't that to make sure the end result is proper and intentional? Captian: all ahead full, 2nd in command: all ahead full roger, helmsman: roger all ahead full, and then finally he puts the boat in gear. I believe surgical teams do similar stuff in hospitals, obviously because mistakes are too costly (and yet they still happen, but anything to reduce them is desirable). So would it have been so hard for Mehserle to tell his partners, "I am planning to tase the suspect, I am drawing my taser now, I am preparing to fire." And the onlooking cop could actually verify that he was holding his taser and not his Glock, instead of just looking away and hoping for the best.

I have no idea what the effed up "rules of engagement" are for cops (or BART rent-a-cops), but maybe there needs to be some major overhaul to verify the use of force before actually using it. I know if a perp draws a weapon on you or other emergency situation, your life comes first and you just have to react based on your training (seen "Burn After Reading"?), but if the officers are in no hurry and under no immediate threat, one person shouldn't unilaterally have the right to use his weapons when and how he/she wants. That is a violation of the public trust, because obviously we are unarmed and at their mercy.