Global Liberty Advocate

Bloodsport: AIG is red meat for Obama's base

2009-03-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

As I may have mentioned previously, some years ago I was involved in the construction of AIG's market risk management system and also had visibility into AIG's evolving approach to credit risk management. Accordingly, I have some unique insights about AIG and how it got into the mess it's in. There are actually a small number of guilty parties, and it's quite possible that previous government action contributed unintentionally to the firms demise - I refer to Spitzer's pursuit of Hank Greenberg(founder, and former CEO & Chairman of AIG) which didn't yield even an indictment, no less a conviction, but did force Greenberg out with threats and hyperbole. I'm left wondering what would have happened if Hank had still been there. I have to think that he would have kept a stronger reign on the cowboys at AIG Financial products - where these losses came from, for those of you not keeping up with the blow by blow. Yet another 'victory' for Eliot Spitzer. It's so great that the arrogant jerk got his just desserts, although I can't help but wonder how the Feds got wind of his measly wire transfers to begin with, but I digress...

Let's talk about bonuses. For those of you who've never made six figures or more, the sums of money that are being discussed may seem excessive, but rest assured, these size bonuses are commonplace on Wall Street for elite traders/executives who've spent their careers generating profits in the capital markets (for every one of these folks who made it to this elite level, many have failed). So you have to set aside your reflexive jealousy. It's no different than someone making minimum wage being jealous of someone who makes 60k per year. In order to see this for what it is, you have to set aside your own envy. The facts are that these specific bonuses were to keep people in place to manage and wind down the positions that AIG FP had already lost on. This is a very technically demanding skill and folks who are good at it would typically have other employment prospects if they chose to leave. Put yourself in one of these folks shoes. The business goes to hell and you are faced with staying at AIG where you could lose your job any day, and you'll make peanuts for staying around. Typically the pay packages of these types of folks in capital markets are largely comprised of bonus. You might have a salary of 200-500k but receive a bonus in a year where you are profitable of several million. So, these folks don't stay in place for just a base salary and the prospect of zero bonus. They are getting offers from other firms that usually include a first year guaranteed bonus payout versus the certainty of a zero bonus payout from AIG. We are talking about a few of hundred people here who are key to operating a portfolio comprised of trillions of dollars in notional principal. These complex instruments take quite a bit of care and feeding just to maintain, not to mention the skill involved to possibly trade the position to improved profitability as the markets move. These folks - whether they were directly responsible for the losses or not - are critical to ensuring that the losses are minimized and managed to the best degree possible. One has to offer some incentive to keep these folks around, otherwise you'd be recruiting a new team to manage the operations and make good decisions about trading the portfolio without any knowledge and possibly no chance to learn from the existing staff because they left. In point of fact, you'd probably have to offer even greater signing bonuses to new employees to get them to join such a mess since AIG definitely has no future in the derivatives business. Remember, these folks have marketable skills that they can take elsewhere. The risk and cost to AIG of losing key AIG FP employees in fact makes it imperative to keep them until the portfolio is unwound. I would venture so far as to say that it would be irresponsible of management to not pay these key employees retention bonuses.

As we are finding out, it's clear that Geithner, Summers and Emmanuel, as well as Dodd et al in the congress, all knew about the bonus payment issue. They rightly made the distasteful call to accept them, going as far as inserting specific language in the TARP bill to accommodate these bonuses. What you're seeing now, by my way of thinking, is the use of this issue to fire up Obama's popular support as we move into the budget battle. He knows that his budget is up against much greater opposition in his own party and he needs to create a mood that will scare politicians. You see, the AIG story is part of a much greater narrative that Obama and his progressive ilk have about the U.S. Executive compensation is an issue they've been bitching about for years. They think CEO's have it easy I guess and that they just fly around in jets to meet each other for golf or perhaps decide how to enslave the working class. They don't respect market economics and the capital markets are the ultimate extreme of the market at work. It's unfair and brutal too, something else that strikes them as at odds with their 'Social Justice' agenda. And finally - and you cannot discount this - the enemy is a bunch of white guys in suits, currently a favorite boogey man to bash by almost all parties (I even enjoy it sometimes).

It's rhetorical genius to employ these emotional tactics to manipulate the masses, but unfortunately, it doesn't makes for rational decision making in terms of the actual equities involved. But hey, they are fighting for a just cause, right? So the ends justify the means, right? Feign indignation and outrage, throw some people under the bus, I mean screw 'em, they're Wall Street scum, aren't they? They're the guys who screwed the whole country over, after all? So let's take all their pay - just because we don't like them. Not because it's a good business decision or actually serves some public good, no let's do it because we want to get the 'Greedy Bastards', as the New York Post called them, right? LET'S GET 'EM NOW!!

Just hope it isn't you caught up in the next witch hunt. Just hope the government doesn't come after your paycheck, breaking your contract and retroactively changing the law just to screw you. Just hope that you aren't in an industry that the government decides it needs to invest in like, say, health care, education or energy for example? Once they get their hooks in you can bet your life that there will be new villains. Insurance companies, 'Big Pharma' - energy companies like Mobil, do you think that for a second these power hungry, self-righteous dilettantes will hesitate to string the 'fat cats' of these industries up to the nearest lamp post? Wait and see, Obama and compay are just getting started.

Let me put it in "Progressive-Speak" for those of you who still think this is a good idea. It's so easy to look at AIG as 'them'. I thought Obama and co. were the guys who were so against us defining groups of people as 'the other'. I'm not sure our newly minted 'Progressive Era' is going to be all that much fun after all, at least not if you're successful financially.

The Bush Legacy and Freedom

2009-01-19T05:27:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking about the impact of the Bush presidency on the agenda of freedom and democracy here and abroad. I think in order to start to understand it, one needs to take a broad, historical perspective.

I see the ascent of Reagan as a reassertion of the righteousness of the libertarian streak the Republican party. Remember, he came to power before the rise of the religious right and inherited a post-Nixon party that was run by corporatist patricians of the Bush Sr. ilk. His victory and policies drew their legitimacy and power from the idea of American individualism and exceptionalism. He believed that were more than just another empire, struggling to advance our interests in the world. He thought that America stood for something more both at home and abroad. He rightly saw the struggle with the Soviet Union in moral terms and clearly opposed them by standing for freedom whether it was for the Poles, Scharansky's "Refusenik" movement or by backing the Contras in El Salvador with something more than empty rhetoric. Domestically, he drove us in the direction of getting the goverment off the backs of people and saw individual freedom as a right and responsibility for Americans, invariably in conflict with an expansionist view of government. His rhetoric was more like JFK's than Nixon's, and people across the political spectrum responded to it.

Bush the elder was never comfortable with this strong ideology and called for a "kinder gentler" form of Republicanism. That made him a one term, forgettable president, giving us Clinton, who's ideological roots were never clear. His presidency can be seen as an ideological holding pattern as he never introduced a new idea of what it is to be American or how the government should operate in response to that idea. His was a skill that sought maximum advantage for him and his politics of the moment, pushing whatever bill or issue that happened to be important at the time, but he never made any lasting impression on the American psyche in terms of ideology.

The 2000 election included no big ideas, fought around the edges of special interest politics and resulted in a dead heat, not coincidentally. Each side only sought enough favor to get it elected, state by state. It's positions weren't infused by a great set of ideas. The Republicans did still have the lasting legacy of Reagan to rest on, and Bush Jr. seemed very comfortable with much of his rhetoric. Notably, he infused his right wing ideology with greater spiritual fervor than Reagan ever did, but early on in office didn't propose any radical action to support his agenda.

9/11 gave rise to big ideas and the application of these ideas to policy. Freedom and democracy were seen and promoted by Bush Jr. as the long term cure to what ailed the radicals in the Muslim world. But we can see that outcome of that adventure. On a net basis, one has to conclude that we've only further radicalized the Jihadis and added new urgency to their cause. They are more powerful than ever. States in the region, including Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, Iran and others are more radicalized than ever. Our only claim of victory is over Libya and possibly Iraq (we won't really know until we leave whether democracy will really take root there). Bush's squandering of these ideas, pursuing them so glibly and in such a ham-handed fashion didn't move or inspire people. Compare it to Reagan's actions and rhetoric in supporting Glasnost within the Soviet Union or the Solidarity movement in Poland freedom in Afghanistan semi-covertly. These were deft touches, strategically and ideologically out-maneuvering the Soviet Union, combined with a rhetorical clarity that made clear what we were up to. You will recall that there were many cries against Reagan's various efforts, but it became clear that he was right in short order, silencing his critics in large measure.

Bush Jr. can hope for no such validation. I laugh at those who say history will be his judge. What, will we see a collapse of the global Jihadi movement any time soon? Have we moved an iota closer to that goal? Quite to the contrary, the global Jihadi movement has gained traction and power around the world making great strides in even many western countries. There is nobody speaking clearly and credibly about this struggle, making the case for freedom and democracy in a compelling way. At home, his expansionist governmental policies, including "faith based" initiatives, have seen the power of government increase - which is axiomatically accompanied by a reduction in individual liberty. Rhetorically, he's surrendered the moral high ground to the left, who's class warfare rhetoric dominates the public sphere, with Republican's left arguing how large the trillion dollar deficits that are coming should be. Can you imagine what Reagan would have to say about this? We are in a hole created largely by debt and government intervention. I imaging Reagan would suggest the best thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. But the Republicn party has given up this ideological high ground, so there is nobody left to argue for the power of individual liberty and all that it entails.

So, what does this say for Bush's legacy? Let's just say that he held the door open for Obama. This past election was more about the ideological bankruptcy of the Republican party. Can you think of a less ideologically sound candidate than McCain? He offered nothing new, relying on jingoism and a some vague throwaway lines about markets that no one really think he even believed. Bush had a chance, with a Republican congress and the tailwind of 9/11 to formulate a new strategy for the U.S. globally that would be based on freedom, but he failed miserably to do so. In my estimation, rarely have I seen someone with such a great opportunity to lead fall so woefully short.

Finally, to those of you who would argue with about his legacy, citing details, that is not the point of this article. I'm talking about the the big picture. If you really think that history will judge him kindly, I ask you only to listen to Bush himself. He is a shadow of a man, rhetorically unable to summon up remotely inspiring ideas or a coherent defense of himself beyond answering the call of 9/11. There was much more at stake that he failed to grasp and the American ideal will suffer because of it.

What happened to reason?

2009-01-01T22:59:00.000-08:00

“Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man’s Life is its standard of value.” - Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

I come to you today in a state of great concern for the future of our nation, indeed, for the future of modern liberal society. I see it's bulwarks sagging all around me and from it's pulpits I hear strong voices cheering its downfall, giddy at the prospect of its collapse. The very foundation of what forms our freedom is now being being threatened, and truthfully has been for some time, but the tipping point has been reached and the coming darkness will make us all miss the light we have been living in, purchased for us by the blood, wisdom and treasure of our forefathers, only to be squandered by us in an orgy of selfishness and stupidity.

At its core is an intellectual rot that I know most of you will admit exists, privately, to yourselves, whether or not it suits your public political posturing. We have abandoned reason, critical thinking, tough mindedness, the very reason which gave rise to the notion of individual sovereignty which in turn ushered in the great age of modernity and freedom in which we live. At its core, U.S. democracy celebrates the individual. It puts government in service to individual freedom for the first time, or at least in the clearest way to date, and that freedom unleashed a creative explosion unlike any in recorded history. While the entire world can rightly lay claim to the idea of individual freedom, never was it so perfected as in the U.S. constitution and Declaration of Independence. These ideas have allowed us to freely associate with each other to create a world worth living in and yet, we seem all to ready to throw out the very idea that gave birth to our greatness.

What threats do I see? I believe that we are rushing headlong into a statist and socialist form of government, one that confirms that our best days are behind us. I believe that the media and the intellectual leadership of our universities believe that our economic system is fundamentally corrupt, that our purpose in the world at large is evil, that our country has as its very foundation racism, sexism, and exploitation and that we should tear down much of what we have built. In every newspaper and journal that I read I see calls for huge levels of government intervention into peoples lives. Crises are everywhere and there is a would be government program poised to solve every woe. Can't pay your mortgage? Don't have a job? Can't run your car company? Want to go to the doctor? The federal government is here to save the day. Let's spend another trillion, who cares?

But its not the expansion of government per se that is so pernicious. It's the idea that we as individuals and that we, freely associating with each other cannot solve these material problems. No, we need compulsory plans designed by technocrats - and implemented by the force of law. American ingenuity? - when is the last time you heard anyone use that term, ehh - no that's not good enough. People can't manage their own lives. We need a program to help everyone now, affirmative action showed us how helpful a government program can be, why not just do more of it? After all, you are powerless against these mean, bad capitalists and corporations and hey, it's just too complicated for you poor schmucks to figure out anyway. This collectivist thinking eats away at that special American confidence, that "can do" attitude which made us great to begin with.

Don't for a minute think any of this is by accident. The left - which became the "new left" in the early '70's calculated that it couldn't overthrow this country by revolution. No, it would do so by overtaking it's institutions. Very deliberately, those on the left who wanted to make real change concentrated their efforts on education and the media. This is how you change people's minds you see. Do most of you even know the all pervasive radical leftism, and feminism, and black nationalism, and Islamic Jihadism - and most of all, the all encompassing anti-Americanism that dominates today's universities? Are you aware that it's accepted pedagogy that being white is de facto being exploitative? That in the minds of most of the media elite, being a Republican, conservative or libertarian rules you out of getting a job (aside from Rupert Murdoch companies)?The New Left's victory is very nearly complete in these fields. Ideology has trumped reason, without a doubt. I was reading the American Social Work Curriculum standards the other day and it actually says that believing in Social Justice (a political theory) is required for all students in all accredited Social Work programs. In other words it's now an accepted truth throughout the entire field of social work that progressive ideology is morally superior to all other forms of thought. These are the folks who run social programs in government.

This is how you win a war without firing a shot. And now the left has the perfect storm. Between our economic problems, the collapse of the Republican party, the Iraq war, the hysteria around global warming (45% of the worlds climatologists don't agree that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, btw), our health care problems (which every nation on earth is facing due to the incredible increases in demand for health care) and every other malady which can be thought up, there seems to be no alternative to their solutions. As Rahm Emmanuel says, "every crisis is an opportunity" (I'm paraphrasing - but that's exactly what he means) and here they come with solutions.

It's kind of appealing, isn't it? Like slipping into a warm bath. I don't need to worry about paying for the doctor. I don't need to worry about finding a job. I don't have to start a company. I can just go to the employment office and they'll send me somewhere. I won't have to worry about saving for retirement - the money will just appear out of thin air. We'll just tax and spend our way into happiness and equality.

It would be nice to have ever problem be solved by some invisible hand of government, but alas,none of it works. Look at western Europe. Their socialism has already crushed their individual will to reproduce - at current reproduction rates Italy won't even exist in 75 years - in fact all of Europe will likely be dominated by Muslims by that time. They already cannot afford their social systems, particularly welfare and retirement which all go broke in the next 20-30 years. We aren't far behind them on that count, btw. Their health care systems are no picnic either, yes ours needs reform, but there are great free market ideas out there which can make our system so much better. The current thinking - did you see Sicko? - lays the problems in our system at the feet of the profit motive. Let me just ask you one question. If profit is so bad, why don't we nationalize food production and housing too? I mean you'll die faster without food or shelter than you will by being without health care, right? One problem though, I bet you wouldn't have 10 stores within 20 miles of your home with 30 brands of cheap cereal to pick from if the food production system was government run.

I'm sure by this point, if anyone has stuck with me this far, you're saying yeah, yeah, just another right wing rant. NO! I'm not a right winger. I'm an atheist, hedonist, objectivist and libertarian if you must put labels on me. I believe that I am so fortunate to live in a world where it's my choice to live as I choose - where my goal is to pursue my own interests and be proud of that, and to expect others to pursue theirs. A world where I'm free to fail (and yes, the government should provide a safety net to the truly unfortunate or unable), where I take the risks of my choosing and have the dignity and pride that comes with making my way in the world, a world where I feel I can influence outcomes and the world at large, a world where I'm powerful and my purpose is to use my talents and energy productively. I don't want to live in a world where it's up to some faceless GS 13 government employee to decides my fate. Do you?

Okay, I know, it's a pretty alarmist. But I have to say what I think. If you've taken the time to listen, thank you.

Happy New Year!

Hope is not a strategy

2008-11-06T19:40:00.000-08:00

Those of you who know me well understand that I voted for neither Obama nor McCain. I gave my vote to Bob Barr as a protest vote. My current strategy is to support the growth of a third party in this country that actually celebrates individual liberty, free markets, rugged self-reliance and limited government. So, my views on Obama aren't positive from a policy perspective yet they aren't driven by partisan two-party politics either. I'm going to speculate as to what a President Obama means for our liberty and how his plans may impact that liberty. Btw, I'm intentionally leaving the issue of race aside for this post. While I think it's very notable, it isn't relevant to my analysis of his stated policies and their potential impact on our liberty.

First, the good news. While, strangely, the facts are hard to find, turnout was very high, hearkening back to the elections of the early 60's. This election has brought new people to the ballot, and with that hopefully comes a responsibility and thoughtfulness that will accrue to the benefit of our country. Democracy without a reasonably high participation rate by the citizenry is not really any kind of democracy at all. The growth in turnout is a continuing trend - 2004 saw increasing turnout too. We've also reached record voter registration rates. Turnout was not as high in some groups as it was hoped it would be - youth turnout only increased slightly and the modest, twenty percent increase in black voter turnout only brings their participation in the voting population up to par with their percentage of the electorate. We did make substantial progress though, which I find heartening.

Voting, however, in and of itself is not the only measure of an effective democracy. The German people voted Hitler in, after all. My measure is based on what people are voting for and on that count, we are are sadly at a deficit in my opinion. When you scrape away all the lofty rhetoric and get down to policies, it's clear that Obama stands for a significant expansion of the role, power and reach of government into the citizenry's lives. He sees government as a director of outcomes in society, hewing to a "social justice" agenda, although he wisely didn't call it out as such in the campaign. For those of you who are curious, click here to read up on one of the principal theorists of social justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls . From a first principle perspective, he varies from the thinking of John Locke (developed the theory of matural rights, which in large part informed the American concept of freedom) mainly in the area of property rights and economic egalitarianism, injecting a new concept of the equality of circumstances into which one is exposed into the concept of liberty. Put simply, he doesn't see property rights as absolute, and he envisions the proper role of government to essentially level the playing field with respect to opportunity. A glimpse of this thinking came out in the infamous "spread the wealth around"comment by Obama. He makes this view much more plain in his writings and this fundamental concept drives much progressive thinking today.

So what's my beef with "social justice"? Very simply, I believe that property rights are fundamental to being free - and that this is enshrined in our constitution. Whatever the government lays claim to, it does so at gunpoint. Basic libertarian fare, but sadly our elections don't seem to ever contain this kind of dialogue so I'm hoping some of you find this illustrative. The libertarian position, simply put, is that the more property the government takes(taxes and regulation on your use of property) the less free you are - period. One could argue that we already do this, but my argument is about to what end and degree are we willing to give up our freedom for such beneficial outcomes? Who decides what the limits of the desired outcomes are and what equal opportunity is? We've had a small taste of this with affirmative action, but "social justice" takes things to a new level. The previous "deal" Americans have agreed to is that government was responsible for a "safety net" for those who couldn't care for themselves or were unfortunate, but left most economic outcomes to sort themselves out. Progressive taxation was seen as a fair way to apportion the responsibility for this safety net to those most able to support it - not primarily as a punitive redistribution scheme with the implicit assumption that those who have wealth were somehow more privileged. Welfare, social security, medicaid, medicare, these were all part of a societal agreement to not let folks fall into destitution, so we agreed to contribute taxes to support these programs. As a very important aside, note how wildly these programs have spiraled out of control with respect to cost. These initially modest programs now take big chunks of the GDP of our country. The "social justice" agenda asserts that equal opportunity is far more than equal treatment under the law. It opens up all of society for an examination of what causes equal outcomes, as though this was ever possible to truly understand in the first place and that it was desirable in any event. Let's look at a simple example. In education it's axiomatic that early childhood reading, being read to that is, is highly correlated with intelligence. A child who is read to daily, by the age of five has a huge advantage over a child who isn't in terms of future educational and economic performance. What's worse is that it's very hard for a child to catch up. Here is a perfect scenario where a progressive wants the government to intervene. Hence, early learning programs are needed to create equal opportunity for the innocent child. Sounds fair, right? Except in practice it's very hard to remedy. This part of childhood development is the province of parents and intervening in the family is a very tricky - oh yeah, and expensive - proposition (maybe that's why Marx called for the destruction of the family?). More to my point, advocates of "social justice" have many such examples of these kind of conditions that they would like to remedy. The question is where are the boundaries? Answer, there are none and this is where social justice conflates itself with Marxism and socialism. Essentially, the governments right to create desirous social outcomes overrides your individual rights, so unlimited intrusion into your life becomes warranted. In practice, wealth and the power to distribute it fairly is the responsibility of government, essentially giving goverment the ownnership of all wealth. Forget the notion of limiting government to it's enumerated powers, or the notion of individual responsibility. Let the smart people in government determine how to create "good citizens" and the right outcomes. That's how communist re-education camps were justified and how the eugenics movement - which was a brainchild of the original "progressives", btw, - led to the Nazi's Aryan aspirations.

It's not that I don't agree with the progressive movement's concerns about problems in society - and that's all Obama's positions are, btw. He proposes no "post ideological" or "pragmatic" new set of policies that differ substantially from the progressive agenda. I just think that the unintended consequences of this kind of social engineering are very dangerous. It's also clear that our constitution doesn't imbue the federal government with this kind of power - to the contrary, it explicitly forbids it. I do believe that Obama and his followers are truly well intentioned - and that's the scariest kind of fanatic, btw. I also think that this kind of government will (and already does) undermine the notion of individual responsibility in our society and I believe that the individualism enshrined in the constitution has been a core driver of the U.S.'s greatness. So I have to sadly give Obama a failing assessment with respect to the prospects for our liberty under his administration. I wish him well and hope for the best, but as my favorite book on sales is entitled, Hope is not a strategy.

The Pornification of our Politics

2008-10-31T20:33:00.000-07:00

I watched Obama's infomercial in abject astonishment. It was a masterpiece, a shining example of the "state of the art" in visual communication - such as it is. I was enthralled by his pitch perfect speaking abilities and the images he presented, so obviously created with great care and intent, while simultaneously horrified by what passes for substance in our times.

Did you notice that his presentation was uncluttered by facts and figures, statistics and charts? No, he's not in need of any such dross. Oh yeah, for those of you getting ready to say, "Well neither does McCain", please save your breath. I'm no fan of that erratic, dimwitted fool. If he had the abilities that Obama possesses, he would use them in the same, or perhaps in even more craven, ways. No, this is not another polemic article, seeking to sway you with half truths and supercilious righteousness. My task tonight is a more subtle one, and I think more important than that.

Don't get me wrong, I do agree with much of Obama's assessment of what's not working well in our country (although I couldn't help but notice the late model SUVs that the folks he sympathized with were driving or wondering about how much was spent on that child's football gear and league). What I'm enraged about is the substance free diagnosis of what's really ailing us. Does he think we are too dumb to understand? Some part of me was hoping that he'd carved out thirty minutes of uninterrupted time with the American people for a serious discussion about his priorities and governing philosophy. But instead I was treated to carefully selected words and images designed to inflame the class warfare that is already destroying our great nation.

What specifically am I referring to? Let's just look at the issue of health care. At no time did he mention the growth of the demand for health care in this country. The woman who was on twelve medications for arthritis, I wonder how much those medications cost each month? Did those treatments exist twenty years ago, or even ten? Or, dare I mention, how much did his mother's cancer treatment cost? Would he challenge us with the fact that 75% of all health care spending in the U.S. is for chronic care? That a Dartmouth study has concluded that at least a third of that spending may be unnecessary? That the current government controlled insurance system (already fifty percent of health care costs are paid by government in the U.S.) encourages patients and doctors to over-treat many illnesses, while other care goes undelivered due to lack of funds? Did he bother to mention that we face tough choices about how and when we should extend life with the breakthrough technologies that are being developed?

I'll stop there because my it isn't my intent to write a piece about health care, it is to point out the difference between the reasoned discussion of a problem versus the use imagery to manipulate the masses. We live in an image drenched society. Everywhere we turn we are being served up ideas as pictures. They're 'worth a thousand words', right? Maybe not. Everything is simplified into an image for us by the media, and a moving one is even more captivating. These moving images have been used by our masters in the media to tell us stories - whether they are news stories or sitcoms. Over time we have become trained to look for the story, the beginning and the end, the good guys and the bad guys, the conflict and the resolution, all neatly packaged up and easy to digest. I think we are more than trained, I think we are addicted to it now. We demand it! We need it! Don't bore us with dry policy discussions or analysis. We want to be entertained, dammit! Just like sex has been objectified by porn, and sexual behavior is now reflecting porn - so is our politics now reflecting the images we are being sold.

I don't need to give you any more examples. Please, just think for yourself. What's really going on in our country, in our world? In my mind, the most important thing to note is that most of the problems Obama is highlighting are complex and don't easily yield themselves to ideologically driven, sound-bite policy prescriptions - from the left or the right. Btw, I hope I don't need to keep pointing that out. I know you've all been trained to be amateur policy wonks with your ideologically drenched positions well defended and at the ready always, but try to resist the temptation to see this from a conservative or "progressive" point of view. Our TV driven culture is turning us into simpering idiots and unless we realize that we are being manipulated there is no hope for us.

I was tempted to take a different perspective in this piece, to say that it's sad that Obama has to dumb down his message for the masses to get through to them and to castigate all of you for making him do this. But I don't think that's true. I think about the people I know. So many of them are smart enough to understand complex problems and are able to make difficult decisions. The truth is that his "message" works best when kept dumbed down. If you don't believe that, I'll leave you with a question. Did George Bush or Barack Obama have more individual contributors that gave less than two hundred dollars to his campaign? I bet you Obamaniacs already have a sinking feeling in your stomach, knowing that your illusions about him are going to be smashed yet again. Yes, folks, it's true, George Bush in '04 had more donors who gave him two hundred dollars or less than Obama has had. My source is Brooks and Shields, Jim Lehrer News Hour on NPR, no enemy of Obama's. If you don't believe me, download the podcast, dated 10/24 . I know it hurts to see the truth, but it's there if you are willing to see it. Obama isn't a 'man of the people'. He's no different than the rest, he's just another political hack being packaged up by the power elite to be just acceptable to enough to get elected, using populist rhetoric as his primary tool. Don't be fooled by his silken speech or his good looks. Haven't you ever seen the way a porn star looks into the camera for the money shot, so full of desire and lust for you? Just because it looks like the real thing doesn't make it so.

Freedom to Fail

2008-09-28T08:06:00.000-07:00

Am I alone in seeing the collapse of our capital markets as a "canary in the mine", warning of a much greater decay at work in our society? The hortatory efforts of our leaders - from both the left and the right - have cowed us into believing that we "have to do something" or doomsday will be upon us. They tell us that now isn't the time for blame or finger-pointing, that can be addressed later, but that we must act now! And that the best course of action is bailing out the interest rate markets. It's essentially being sold to us - the folks paying the bills - as something that we don't/can't understand, but we have to do or else. Well folks, I'm here to do some 'splainin'. As some of you know, I have a background in market and credit risk management, actually having sold AIG their risk management system. I think we all have to think a bit about what's really happening, and more importantly, learn the lesson that I believe we all must learn from this catastrophe.

Consider the chart above, from the British Bankers Association Derivatives Survey, 2006 Data. Ah, ah - I can feel you wanting to click to something more interesting - DON'T YOU DARE!! THESE SOBs MAY DESTROY THE ENTIRE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM IF WE DON'T STOP THEM, SO PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOUR LATEST OBAMA PLATITUDE OR RALLYING BEHIND SARAH PALIN.

The "interest derivatives market" has exploded in the past 5 years. 2008 notional principal outstanding of just "credit default swaps" was forecast to be somewhere around 60 trillion usd. Just to put that in perspective , Global GDP for '08 is forecast to be about 64 trillion usd. So, just this market (which is a minority of the estimated 500 trillion plus OTC derivatives market) is trading massive, unimaginably large quantities of capital. And it's not as though these trading firms and hedge funds actually have that much capital - no, they've borrowed it. There is so much leverage in these markets that the participants can't possibly ride out "gaps" in the market - gaps that are inevitable, btw. "Gaps" are discontinuities, sudden variations in the rate of change that are statistically improbable but also hard to predict the frequency of, particularly given the newness of this market. Given the leverage involved, a cascade of what essentially look like margin calls in an ordinary brokerage account, have brought the global debt markets to it's knees from a "technical" standpoint, meaning that due to the rapid change in credit quality of both sellers and buyers of credit/debt/interest rate products and the related pricing of these securities, having moved to ridiculous price levels in search of buyers and sellers, there are essentially no buyers or sellers in these markets. In fact, if they did liquidate these positions, many participants would become instantly insolvent. It's like you bought IBM stock, paid for the trade with borrowed money, which is all you had because your actual net worth was 3-4 cents per dollar of capital you are trading. Only remember, you could never do that. Lehman Brothers, for example, would have never let you borrow anywhere near that much to trade with in your account, while all the while they are leveraged 30 - 1. It's very simple at a certain point. The investment geniuses in the derivatives market went crazy. Oh yeah, and don't for a minute think they didn't know what they were doing. During my time in the derivatives market, it was pretty clear to most folks involved that they were going to blow up the global financial system someday, it was only a question of when. Well that day has come.

What's truly galling about it all is that due to the resultant systemic risk, there does have to be some kind of intervention or we will face a global depression of a large magnitude which is simply unacceptable, so these guys will get bailed out to some degree versus being laughed out of the market, treated as the greedy, pathetic and ultimately stupid fools that they are (when are we going to learn that an ivy league degree is just proof of just about nothing?)

But the cretins on Wall Street aren't the only culprits, not by a long shot. Let's talk about John Q. Citizen, happily taking out mortgage after mortgage, buying house after house, with higher and higher prices. It was a classic speculative bubble. So many people bought houses that they knew they wouldn't be able to afford in a couple of years, based on the reset structure of the interest rates of the mortgages they signed for. Yes, these folks were abetted by a Federal Reserve ladling easy money out, trying to ward off a needed recession, by government agencies promoting relaxed lending standards and by a greedy mortgage industry selling the mortgages as fast as they could. But nonetheless, at the moment of truth, there is incredibly clear disclosure of the costs of a mortgage for an individual borrower. Those of you who have taken a mortgage recently can surely testify to the pages and pages of warnings and disclosures incorporated in mortgage documents. It's simply not plausible to now claim that somehow a significant percentage of these borrowers have been duped. Nope, people gladly got in line, smugly playing this Ponzi scheme out, pushing from their minds any concern of actually paying the mortgage off. They were going to borrow again at a later date, after they'd bought the new car, boat, vacation home, paid their kids private school tuition, built the salt water swimming pool - whatever luxury they'd imagined they were entitled to after watching too much TV. Now, surprise - they can't pay, so they are walking away. These people were stupid and greedy and now we are seeing record defaults, creating a huge devaluation in the securities created out of these mortgages, which has been the tripwire of the credit derivatives market meltdown. Shame on you people, shame on you for what you've done. You are just as guilty as the investment bankers, letting greed guide you, while simultaneously exercising some kind of mass blindness, willfully ignoring risks that were all to plainly laid out for you.

I'm tempted to continue to explain how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were manipulated, largely by Democrats, at the behest of those "housing activists" who are fellow travelers of Barak Obama, to encourage "access to the American dream" and other such platitudes, chief amongst them Senators Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (who has a sweetheart mortgage deal from now defunct Countrywide Financial). Or the Republicans who all too gladly go along with the anti-regulatory crowd on Wall Street, letting the largest securities market in the world - the OTC derivatives market - operate largely without oversight. But that's a different article, and would distract from my key point, which is what the hell is wrong with our society? How could we collectively act with such bad and corrupt judgement? Willfully ignoring the consequences of our actions, just grabbing the short term gratification while damning our future? That's not how this great country was built.

Folks, our collective freedom and prosperity are a reflection of of our individual behavior in our personal, professional and civic affairs. I see an unmistakable pattern of greed and short term thinking in this debacle that goes to the very core of our society, crossing ALL PARTY LINES - you Democrats out there, don't for a second take any comfort in this. Your folks are as guilty as anyone in all this. To put this on Bush is to simply not understand what is happening - btw, he and his cronies have been trying to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae since '01, viciously opposed by Democrats, as the foolhardiness of their policies was evident even then. This is not to offer comfort to the right either, who need to once and for all drop their reflexive anti-regulatory posture. Capitalism can't function without adequate regulation - wake up!

Here's my conclusion, and what I really want all of you to think about. We live in such unbelievable prosperity that I think many of us believe a continuation of these conditions is somehow inevitable. That's not the history of other great nations, in fact the history of most great nations is decay from within. We all need to act more prudently in our lives. Let's consider the future consequences of today's actions and of the bigger picture, individually and I suspect that thinking will be reflected collectively in our politics. Let those thoughts be reflected in your personal, professional and civic actions. If we don't, who will? Congress? The President? Take a good look at these folks. They aren't the "b" or even the "c" team. How many of them would make it through a job interview where you work? How much do they even understand about capital markets and economics? How do we have such knaves and fools leading us? I say that's the first place to start. Let's get rid of all these clowns and start over. Let's not be swayed by their glib promises of ever-expanding horizons and limitless prosperity for all. It's just not so. How about we elect someone who will encourage us to live within our means and be careful stewards of this precious gift freedom? Oh, snap, none of them are about any of that. We are well and truly screwed folks if we don't change, it's just a matter of when - not if - our great nations will collapse if we keep on the track we're on.

You know the toughest thing about democracy? Ultimately, we get exactly the leadership we want. It's up to us to change, folks, not them, they're just doing what makes us vote for them, which seems to currently be short term gain at the expense of the very foundation of our society. That should scare the living daylights out of all of us. It sure scares me.

Beijing Gets Over on the World

2008-08-24T11:10:00.000-07:00

Don't let the magnificent closing ceremonies confuse you. The Olympics just took place in the country where half of the least free people in the world live (see Freedomhouse's annual rankings of freedom at http://www.freedomhouse.org/ for more on this). Somehow, the repression of the press, free speech, reproductive rights (that's right - you are only allowed to have one child in China - where's the uproar from the "pro-choice crowd?) and so many other basic freedoms that we take for granted was just swept under the rug for the past month. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention China's widespread use of torture in its prisons and political re-education camps, since this topic is so top-of-mind for the worlds human rights activists. Where is the world's outrage at China? Or is that special, hate-filled vitriol only reserved for the United States? Btw, with democracy breaking out all over Iraq, one would think that the "progressives" would be looking for a new focus. Why wasn't an international showcase for the world largest repressive dictatorship a compelling rallying point for the do-gooder crowd?

You - the average person - are far too busy with your lives to know why the press has shut their mouths. The answer is very simple. If you want access in China, you have to play by the Chinese government's rules, which they've made explicit. Here are the guidelines for press coverage issued by the Chinese Government Propaganda Office, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald on August 14th.

THE 21 EDICTS FROM THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S PROPAGANDA UNIT
1. The telecast of sports events will be live [but] in case of emergencies, no print is allowed to report on it.
2. From August 1, most of the previously accessible overseas websites will be unblocked. No coverage is allowed on this development. There's also no need to use stories published overseas on this matter and [website] operators should not provide any superlinks on their pages.
3. Be careful with religious and ethnic subjects.
4. Don't make fuss about foreign leaders at the opening ceremony, especially in relation to seat arrangements or their private lives.
5. We have to put special emphasis on ethnic equality. Any perceived racist terms as "black athlete" or "white athlete" is not allowed. During the official telecast, we can refer to Taiwan as "Chinese Taipei". In ordinary times, refer to Taiwanese athletes as "those from the precious island Taiwan....." In case of any pro Taiwan-independence related incident inside the venue, you shall follow restrictions listed in item 1.
6. For those ethnic Chinese coaches and athletes who come back to Beijing to compete on behalf of other countries, don't play up their "patriotism" since that could backfire with their adopted countries.
7. As for the Pro-Tibetan independence and East Turkistan movements, no coverage is allowed. There's also no need to make fuss about our anti-terrorism efforts.
8. All food saftey issues, such as cancer-causing mineral water, is off-limits.
9. In regard to the three protest parks, no interviews and coverage is allowed.
10. No fuss about the rehearsals on August 2,5. No negative comments about the opening ceremony.
11.No mention of the Lai Changxing case.
12.No mention of those who illegally enter China.
13.On international matters, follow the official line. For instance, follow the official propaganda line on the North Korean nuclear issue; be objective when it comes to the Middle East issue and play it down as much as possible; no fuss about the Darfur question; No fuss about UN reform; be careful with Cuba. If any emergency occurs, please report to the foreign ministry.
14. If anything related to territorial dispute happens, make no fuss about it. Play down the Myanmar issue; play down the Takeshima island dispute.
15. Regarding diplomatic ties between China and certain nations, don't do interviews on your own and don't use online stories. Instead, adopt Xinhua stories only. Particularly on the Doha round negotiation, US elections, China-Iran co-operation, China-Aussie co-operation, China-Zimbabwe co-operation, China-Paraguay co-operation.
16.Be very careful with TV ratings, only use domestic body's figures. Play it down when rating goes down.
17. In case of an emergency involving foreign tourists, please follow the official line. If there's no official line, stay away from it.
18. Re possible subway accidents in the capital, please follow the official line.
19.Be positive on security measures.
20. Be very careful with stock market coverage during the Games.
21.Properly handle coverage of the Chinese sports delegation:
A.don't criticise the selection process
B.don't overhype gold medals; don't issue predictions on gold medal numbers; don't make fuss about cash rewards for athletes.
C.don't make a fuss about isolated misconducts by athletes.
D.enforce the publicity of our anti-doping measures.
E. put emphasis on government efforts to secure the retirement life of atheletes.
F. keep a cool head on the Chinese performance. Be prepared for possible fluctations in the medal race.
G. refrain from publishing opinion pieces at odds with the official propangada line of the Chinese delegation.

That's all a western news organization had to do in order to stay on friendly terms with the Chinese government - or else. Can you imagine if a western democracy had issued such an edict? Or engaged in the kind of repressive practices that go on every day in China? The politics would have obscured the event. So instead, China gets to hold itself out as a world-class nation, somehow on the same moral footing as the democracies of the world, when it's simply a dictatorial repressive sweatshop gulag. The victims here are the Chinese people. If you don't think that they were hoping the Olympics would put pressure on the Chinese government to liberalize something - anything - than you don't understand the hopes and dreams of a truly unfree people. But hey, at least Michael Phelps has eight new necklaces.

The Big Lie and the Big Test for the West

2008-08-16T09:44:00.000-07:00

The Big Lie and the Big Test for the West

It felt as though I’d been transported back to the 50’s this week, observing Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Putin and Medvedev speak of Georgian aggression against helpless Ossetians and then of genocide as just cause for their actions while they activate the armed insurgency they’ve built, setting it loose on ethnic Georgian’s. The stench of Soviet era arrogance was only too evident when Russian military authorities were asked by western media to go to the cemetery in Gori where the thousands of civilian casualties supposedly killed by the Georgian military were buried, only to be told that it was too dangerous for westerners to travel there due to the western support for Georgian atrocities. For the record, according to Human Rights Watch, civilian casualties are actually in the dozens. This conclusion is bolstered by reports from Gori hospitals that treated hundreds of wounded. If thousands were killed, tens of thousands would be wounded. It just doesn’t add up, but it doesn’t have to. It’s just another big lie for Russian public consumption, designed to give internal justification to Russian aggression, not international justification. The Russian’s know there is no international justification for it’s actions, no U.N. resolution, no overt act against Russia or any other plausible reason for it to invade another country. It doesn’t need them. You see, for them, it’s a test of the West. They want to see what we will do – they think we’ll do nothing and it turns out that they are right.

For those of you too busy with your fantasy sports leagues or Michael Phelps-mania to notice something as important Russia’s return to its expansionist, conquering ways, I suggest you wake up. This is an incredibly important moment for the “West” – if such a thing even exists anymore – and we are not rising to the occasion. So, please stop updating your Facebook status or downloading movies and, for a moment, use the Internet to inform yourself about the horrific crime against humanity that is unfolding before our eyes.. Maybe you could even read an article about it and Russia for more than thirty seconds, instead of just “scanning”, looking for “infotainment”. It’s important that these events be put into context, the deadly context that is Russia’s imperialist quest for a return to its perceived former glory. Russia’s lust for global prestige and power made an action of this sort inevitable and those who watch Russia have been warning the west for years that something like this was coming. It's amazing to me that so many who drink from the teat of freedom everyday just don’t seem to care whether another fledgling nation can stay free or not anymore. Maybe if we could make it into a “Green” cause, then I would hear an uproar from the “progressives”. Where is the outrage from the "progressives" over the 100,000 ethnic Georgian refugees who have lost everything, fleeing Russian tanks for their lives? The lack of outrage leaves me scared and sad.

There are so many aspects of this tragedy that are important to understand that I find it hard to even know where to start. Perhaps a little history is in order. Georgia was the first former Soviet republic to spin off, back in the early ‘90s, a heady time for those of us who hoped against hope that democracy would eventually come to the long suffering people of eastern Europe. Eduard Shevardnadze seduced us with his daring leadership in the early days, and then broke our hearts with his corruption. The bloodless revolution of ’04 gave new hope, returning Georgia to legitimate democratic rule. However, all the while a resurgent Russia kept threatening and meddling in Georgian affairs covertly and overtly. Simultaneously, Putin consolidated his iron-fisted grip over Russia, stealing billions in private property, repressing dissent, jailing and murdering opponents while Russia stopped evolving as a democracy and became an oligarchy, ruled by Putin cronies, rife with corruption from top to bottom. Simultaneously, Putin capitalized on the Russian public’s deep shame over it’s cold war drubbing and reflexive respect for the “strong man”, focusing his steely, unswerving gaze ahead, promising to lead his people to back to glory. His rule has become a cult of personality where the law is secondary. The Russian people have eagerly grabbed hold of him, following him wherever he took them. How can you blame them after the rheumy eyed Yeltsin? I remember when I began to truly understand how Putin was grabbing power without a popular backlash. In his last election campaign, I watched one of his campaign advertisements. No mention of policies were necessary, just pictures of Putin in action, looking strong and handsome and sexy girls oohhing and ahhing, with an unhidden sexual tinge. Putin will restore Russia to it’s former potency, it seemed to promise. How could the Russian people resist?

On another front, there is oil. Never has another commodity made so many ruthless tyrants so powerful. Ask a Russian why they like Putin and they will invariably mention the government’s targeted largess, such as computers in schools or other evidence of progress (they almost always mention his love of “sport” too, meaning that he exercises – George Bush does too, btw – what the hell does that have to do with anything?). Putin, very wisely, simply took the largest petroleum and gas assets from private owners and kept them for the government, allowing him to gain popular support by attacking greedy capitalists, something Russians were already suspicious of and funding populist, high profile government projects that bought him favor with a poverty-stricken and corruption-weary populace. Somehow, they forgive him his and his inner circle’s accumulation of billions in wealth along the way. His personal power culminated in a change of law allowing him to circumvent Russian term limits, and being appointed by his vassal President as Prime Minister, a perch from which he can rule Russia for life. None of this would have been possible without the oil windfall created by rising oil prices over the last years. It's the currency he uses to buy off the Russian people.

Perhaps a look at Putin himself is in order. The child of a factory worker and soldier, his family was seared by the experience of WWII, losing his oldest brother during the siege of Leningrad, while his father served in submarines and then in NKVD sabotage missions. He is an ardent Russian nationalist who worked his way up first through the KGB and then through the labyrinth that is Russian politics, as well as doing a stint in academia. He’s well educated in international affairs, is a strategic thinker and is very smart and sure of himself. He’s good looking and well groomed, and knows how to charm – witness his seduction of George Bush. His rise to power from very humble beginnings and his deft political sense have earned him great adulation from the Russian people. He's rightly seen as a true patriot and friend of the Russian people, but he's not a democrat, he's a nationalist, and he's leading Russia through a ruthless exercise of power not by empowering the people, but by manipulating them. He's a very dangerous man.

With this as prologue, hopefully one can begin to assemble a fuller picture of these events. Russia’s aggression against Georgia is calculated, just in the way that the Soviet’s would test the west during the cold war. They’ve waited until our weakest moment with the west divided, a lame-duck U.S. president, an American public war-weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, all while counting on an always feckless Europe, to take the first step in their expansion plans. We’ve been caught flat-footed, with the “French Bush”, Sarkozy, as our only ally, mouthing empty words and taking little meaningful action. They will act with impunity, and while some international bodies will squeal, Putin has already received his answer. He can act freely within former Soviet republics and he will continue to do so, to the overwhelming approval of the Russian public.

So where do you stand? Would you back U.S. military action to defend Georgian national sovereignty and it’s territorial integrity? Were we to implement a no-fly zone over Georgia and challenge the Russian naval blockade, would you support it? If it came down to putting NATO troops on the ground on Georgia’s borders, how would you respond? History says very clearly that Russians respect power. We clearly have right on our side and military superiority over the Russians at this point. Should we wait until an even more emboldened and stronger Russia acts at a later date in another place, perhaps in a greyer situation? Russian territorial expansion is inevitable. It seems we’ve already written off Georgia. What country is next?

What happened to reason?

2008-05-17T11:41:00.000-07:00

As the political silly season kicks into high gear, I find myself strangely relieved of the need to remove myself from all things political. It's as though the hard part is over. All that will happen from here on out is an insipid cage match fought over some "wedge issue" that either one political party or the other decides has the power to sway the approximately three or four percent of the voting public to their side whose vote is driven by personality, likeability, hopefulness, pork, envy, etc. - ughh, it's enough to make me wretch - versus voting for a candidate based on old-fashioned critierion like beliefs, character, strengths, policy positions and integrity. I personally believe our country would be much better if these "morons in the middle" didn't vote at all, but hey, that's democracy. Every sentient hunk of flesh gets to pull the lever, great... But I digress.

Roused from my torpor, I survey the terrain in which I find myself, carefully, with fresh eyes. Oooh, and I'm not at all sure I like what i see. Whether it's Bush's saber rattling over Iran or the Democrats sneaking a bill through congress allowing them to vote for war funding and against it simultaneously (John Kerry would have been all over that one!), issue after issue is raging on the international scene and we, the United States of America, look like a punch-drunk boxer in the late rounds of a match, on the wrong end of a lost decision, stumbling witlessly around the ring. People want to attribute this sad state of affairs to Dubya, but I think it's rather obvious that we have long been on a trajectory to land us in this place.

Nations and regions around the world stand arrayed against each other, still clutching their national colors to their chests, yelling hooray for their side (ty CSNY), and continuously launching into conflict with each other on a wide array of political, cultural, economic, idelological , religious or other issues. The U.S. operates as a nation in this system, at the level of advancing its own interests, and occasionally trying to force its view of what's good for the world upon it, which is soundly rejected by the "world" time after time. Simultaneously, while so many people claim to speak for humanity, we haven't orgzanized the world based on us all being human and equal as such. Nope, we are as American or Persian or as Chinese as ever and are content to be so while billions of our fellow human beings live in disarray, repression and misery. But hey, at least you've got your DVR and your HD TV, right? Perhaps the spew of images and sound still dulls the small, scared voices in the back of your minds that are telling you we are headed for ruin. Try turning the spew of crap off for a while and you might find your ability to think critically returns - and be as alarmed as I am about the state of the world.

The world is in a truly sad state of affairs. Never before have we had the ability to raise up the standard of living of every human being on earth - never - and yet, once having achieved this great feat, we instead have decided to squander our wealth on each other in an orgy of consumption, entertainment and waste. It's as though the civilized world - meaning about one third of the world - feels no obligation to the rest of world to bring them the basic liberties, protections and entitlements we were granted by our forefathers (and mothers) by no dint of our own labor. We are simply winners of the lottery, born here instead of there. The consciousness of most sophisticated, psuedo-intellectual, progressives, who profess to care about their fellow man seems to be discontinous from the timeline of history. I MEAN WAKE THE FUCK UP, PEOPLE! Rome is burning, and we just don't give a damn. And for balance, please don't even get me started on the reactionary right-wingers. They gleefully put blinders on and run around spouting completely irrational nonsense - I mean, for crying out loud, how long is it going to take to squeeze that poison out of the gene pool?

The current zeitgeist seems to hold that we are on some kind of inexorable journey towards greater freedom, liberty and prosperitiy, racing towards some ever-expanding horizon of human self-realization. This simply isn't true. One need only to look to Russia's headlong rush into totalarianism, with it's eyes wide open, to see how precarious this thing we call liberty is. So many elements have be set up properly for liberty to progress instead of retreat, and we in those countries that have these elements in place - you know, those things you take for granted like the rule of law, a guarantee of individual rights, freedom of expression, private ownership of property, individual sovereignity, self-determination, those little things that you rarely think about but are the very oxygen our countries breathe - don't even seem to be grateful for what we have.

In case you haven't noticed, there is no guarantee of a good outcome for humanity. We, collectively as human beings, must begin harnessing our will with our reason. The progress we've made as societies in the west is due to the philosophical progress which lit the way for our actions. So I ask you to do one thing. Please! Just stop your mind for a moment and think. What is either present or not present in our world that causes the current state of chaos? In my mind it's very obvious. We don't have a governance model for humanity, for our world. We have a chaos model where our interests collide with each other in some Darwinian conflict, resolveable only with the old, nationalistic tools of war or deal making. There is no "principle" behind international relations, not like there are principles that guide the relationship between people and their national governments. Nope, we are simply hoping that so many conflicts will simply work themselves out. Well , just ask the Nigerians (average life expectancy of a male - 38) or the Palestinians or the citizens (or are they the slaves of?) Myanmar how this working for them?

My point is simple. What it our plan for humanity? Answer, we have none. We only have American or European, or Chinese, etc. plans. Nobody is talking about how to make the world work for everyone. Nobody. Not even you. Well I am, again.

Political Exile

2008-04-06T12:35:00.001-07:00

My political journey continues by coming to its end. Once again I haven't been posting for a while, this time because of my utter disgust with our process of selecting presidential candidates. Out of the bunch, there were only three candidates who were even trying to level with the American people, and of course they were knocked out early on. They were Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Ron Paul. That they spoke from their hearts was obvious for anyone to see, versus the rest of the Madison Avenue driven images of the other cartoon character candidates. They were a threat to the power bases of their parties, and in the case of Kucinich, one was unelectable due the fact that he's short and looked a little nerdy - but I couldn't vote for any of them either.

The rest of these craven power mongers want us to believe that their strings aren't being pulled behind the scenes by fleets of campaign staff and consultants who coiffe, dress, write, drive, think, strategize, organize and fluff them before anything is ever said or done in public. They're more phony than movie stars who utter words they haven't written but know how to utter them in a way that sounds convincing. It's a sign of our world's decay into a TV and video game society, where there is no silence, nothing is prolonged and everything looks really good - the furniture, the people, their cars - everything, while providing non-stop sexual stimulation, drama, humour and entertainment.

So, the candidates entertain us. The core of my disgust is not with that fact, but rather the realization that we are getting exactly what we deserve. People don't want to take the time to read up on their candidates and talk to their friends and family about it. They want their characters, oops sorry, I mean candidates, delivered to them neatly, simply and quickly. Visually. "Entertain ME" they scream in silence. People won't even scream. Oh yeah, and just for the record, I'm not harkening back to some fictional time in the past when this was so - it has never been so. It's only recently that we've had the power to really change the world, yet we are so mis-using that power. We are squandering the chance that no generation before us has had to uplift the quality of life for the entire world but instead we are arguing about gay marriage or some other such nonsense. Oh yeah, there is no argument, both sides agree it's wrong. I mean, what the fuck? With modern communication, connectivity, travel and the worlds wealth, with concerted effort we could unify the world. But the flacid, narcissistic consumer just says "whatever" and continues to stuff their maws with more stuff than it can possibly even know what to do with.

My point? I'm disgusted with the American people. I don't think they stand for anything anymore, and the country is the result of what we stand for as a people, not the reverse. If you can't see that, just look back on the brilliant souls who created the dream of freedom (don't get hung up on the fact that it is far from perfect, it is much closer than it ever was) or the many geniuses who have invented the world around us, throwing themselves forward into a world as they would see it versus just settling for the one we're in.

Nimrods. Idiots. Buffoons. Gluttons. Pussies. Lazy. Small-minded. Numbed. Alone. Scared. Disconnected. This is the population that the candidates would appeal to. No wonder the good guys got out - how could they stoop to such a low?

My conclusion. I just don't give a shit. This will probably be my last post. I'm focused on my little world now, keeping it good for me and those around me. I'm tired of fighting the tide.

Political Migration

2007-09-08T08:25:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I've written a post, and there is good reason for it. I've been substantially reconsidering my political philosphy and attempting to find a home friendly to my political views. It's been a disturbing journey, but well worth the trip. I hope by sharing it with you that you might find we have something in common.

In 2004, for the first time in my adult life, I didn't vote. I found myself deeply ambivalent about the Iraq war, believing that freeing the Iraqi people from the tyrranical rule of that jackbooted thug, Sadaam Hussein, was a good thing and that the possibility of him having any kind of WMD was terrifying. Yet, at the same time, I believed that we would also fail in our attempt to instill democracy in their society from without. I was also nagged by the question, "Who the hell do we think we are, trapsing around the world, flexing our muscles and sticking our nose in places that aren't threats to us?" And I didn't just mean Iraq. Our presence and adventures in South Korea, Vietnam, the Philipines, Europe, Latin America, Eastern Europe and other places seemed to be deeply resented. The only legitimate exercise of our force seemed to have been WWII, fighting an existential threat to our freedom, and surprise, the after-war consequences had a good effect on freedom, while the others were abject failures, or very limited, short term or half-baked successes. The world seemed to perceive them through the lens of imperial impulse, despite our earnest attempts to position them as fights for freedom.

Nonetheless, I supported the Iraqi invasion because I figured it would be best for the Iraqi people and that the world was surely a safer and better place without Saddam. But then I began to see how we blundered at almost every turn, how it seemed we were failing in every attempt to "win" the war. It seemed that the law of unintended consequences was writ large in the sands of Iraq. I then noticed that we had somehow become caught up in the inevitability of our involvement, that all conversation about leaving was somehow unpatriotic and weak, ultimately a sign of U.S. impotence. I began to ask myself if I thought one American life was worth achieving our objectives in Iraq. The resounding answer was, and is, NO.

I found myself facing a profound dilemma. The right seemed to me not only obsessed with the Iraq war, but also pushing ever bigger government, the christian faith and an authoritarian government that was encroaching farther and farther on my life in numerous ways. These tendencies seemed to me to fly in the face of what I believed the legitimate role of the federal government to be. I used to think the right believed that individual freedom was the most important principal of our country, that goverment was to exert its power in very limited, enumerated areas. Clearly that path had long been abandoned, if it had ever been hewed to, by those nasty hypocritical, bloviating fuckers. I had never been comfortable with the right, the "family values" bullshit and just the whole vibe of them. Righteous, reactionary (in the true meaning of the word - if you don't know it, look it up), close minded - uggh. I mean the Republican convention looked like a bunch of hardware store-owning Shriners. I'm a writer, musician, atheist, objectivist and hedonist who thinks that the pursuit of happiness is anything I damn well please to do as long as I'm not encroaching on someone else's rights. I'd quit the Republican party in '05 after years of voting for them while holding my nose. No more would I give them any of my support. I'd rather write-in Wiley Coyote than vote for those jack-offs. I think you get my point by now, so I'll stop my rant.

Not that the left was attractive, in fact I find them even more repugnant then the right, due to their complete abandonment of capitalim, full-on socialist, progressive, nanny-state agenda, reflexive criticisms of the U.S. and their feckless, double talking con artist crap. Oh yeah, they also generally strike me as a bunch of pussies who willingly sacrifice their freedom for the cheap gratification of feeling superior to everyone else due to their boundless "compassion" for every victim group that they can dream up. It doesn't help that, as a white man making six figures, I am, apparently, the cause of all evil in the world. Their double standard stance on so many issues is sickening. Just look at what that cretin Clinton did. If they couldn't admit he committed the most glaring incident of sexual harrassment in the history of the White House, I mean then what legitimacy do their views have? In the private sector if you just write an email that suggests an impropriety to someone who works for you, you are very likely to be fired, forget getting blowjobs from a subordinate in your office. And Hilary? I've never seen a more craven, vicious, phony on the stump. If she gets into power, I may have to move to Estonia.

What to do, what to do? I'd previously rejected the libertarians because they seem to have so many raving, crazy idiots in their ranks that I couldn't in good conscience associate myself with them. But the more I checked out the underlying libertarian philosphy, the more I found them making sense. I had to, and continue to, ignore the anarchist bent of some of them but in general I'm down with the "LP". Here's why:

1. They get that everything goverment does via law, it does ultimately by the threat of, or outright use of force. And therefore, we should let it do very little.
2. They understand the intrinsic relationship between freedom and the right to own property. Just think for one moment, please. If private people don't own property, then who will? The government? They are well on their way to taking a majority of the wealth and property in our country and that is a sure way to enslave us to government.
3. They have no "social good" agenda. If you want to whore, smoke, gamble, drug, philander, lay around and not work - do whatever it is you feel like doing - it's just none of the government's damn business. Oh yeah, just don't ask me to pay for it.
4. They think we should radically reduce the police state we have built. It's not just the gun toters but the faceless, slackjawed bureaucrats who rob us of our property and freedom every single day. Let's disarm and fire most of them. Why should we grant so many people a government sinecure just so they can harrass us?
5. They think the only legitimate foreign policy is to defend our country and people. The rest of it is just none of our business and in many ways, uncontitutional. Get out of the U.N., treaties, trade deals, pull our troops home and, oh yeah, keep the baddest assed military around to discourage any country or group from messing with us, and if they do attack us, obliterate them.
6. Their governing philosophy is based on reason, not magical thinking (like believing in a God that there is no evidence of, for example, or at least gov't doing anything because of this belief). It's very compatible with an Objectivist world view, which I subscribe to.

I could go on, but if any of this interests you, just do a web search on the Libertarians and you'll find out all you need to know. You might want to check out the Objectivists too.

So what does that mean for my posittions? Well, I certainly think we should leave Iraq immediately. I'm against nationalized health care, for drug legalization, retroactively, freeing half our prison population. And so, so much more. My blog posts from now on will focus on the Libertarian solution to problems. I hope you enjoy them.

Best,

Glenn

Global Democracy - What am I talkng about?

2006-12-02T07:55:00.000-08:00

"There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government." ~ Albert Einstein.

Mr. Einstein came to this conclusion after the creation of the atomic bomb, but he wasn't the first. The idea of global governance dates back to the Greeks and Romans, and was furthered significantly by Hugo Grotius, who is credited with creating the concept of international law in the 17th century. Philosophers from Hobbes to Kant made compelling arguments that such a structure was mandatory for ending the perpetual state of war that exists in the world. However, this idea isn't just the province of obscure intellectuals . Ulysses S. Grant commented, "I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us". Following World War II there was a "World Citizenship" movement, famously founded by Garry Davis who gave up his citizenship in any nation and became a "World Citizen". That movement is still alive today, evangelized by his son, Troy Davis with tireless dedication (check out their site http://www.worldcitizen.org/).

Today, the idea has only become more pressing. I was at a conference recently where Tom Friedman , the three time Pulitzer prize winning journalist and author http://www.thomaslfriedman.com , was speaking. Tom has written two books on 'Globalization', The Lexus and the Olive Tree and his most recent, The World is Flat. When asked about some of the most difficult problems that face the world such as global warming, curing preventable diseases and the like, he commented that the only solution was "global governance". Indeed, with the advent of a more connected world, facilitated by technology, I posit that our economic system has outstripped our system of government. There is no reliable international structure of governance, but there certainly is an international system of commerce. Global commerce is a dominant global force, driving international relations and strongly impacting national economies while largely operating outside of our systems of governance. We do have trade organizations, import/export controls and weak international law but they seem to have limited effect on the flow of goods and capital around the world. This phenomenon is having a huge impact on people and nations. Whether it's the loss of a good paying IT job in New Jersey to a software developer in Bangalore India who works for 1/10th the cost or the manufacturing of goods in Chinese prison camps, we all feel the effects and inequities of the current environment. Economic "globalization" puts into stark relief the uneven economic playing field that the global polyglot of nations is.

Regardless of where you come out on Globalization (me, I'm a huge fan), it only makes more clear the need for global governance. Just consider the absurdity of hundreds of millions of people in the world doing without clean water daily, while a billion or more worry about missing their favorite tv show. Or consider the advent of another 1.5 billion consumers entering the modernity over the next fifty years in nations with very poor environmental controls, belching their pollutants into the world with little regard for the global consequences. Perhaps you are a pacifist, decrying the warring ways of man. With most nations preserving the right to go to war, and no binding way to reasonably arbitrate disputes between nations, we are very likely to maintain a perpetual state of war in the world. In fact, war is a logical course of action in some instances due to the current organization of the world as a collection of independent nation states. Let's get Hobbesian again, for a moment. Imagine that we lived in a state of anarchy where there were no nations. How would we as individuals resolve conflict? Without recourse to the rule of law, we would be back to tribes, warlords and a tremendous amount of violence against each other in our day to day lives. But since we have this recourse, the most vicious doesn't usually prevail and we resolve conflicts largely in peaceful ways within liberal, democratic nations. Unfortunately, nations relating to other nations don't have this recourse so they have to resort to other means.

I could go on and on. If you still don't agree, just Google global governance or world government and you'll find very compelling reasoning that may get you there. It may be that you find this concept objectionable in other ways. Am I proposing to subject the U.S. to a higher governance?No, what I mean is something that looks more like the United States of Earth. We don't need another layer of government, we need to expand the model works. A global federation of states. If you find the notion of the U.S. of Earth offensive, then use the European Union as a model but I wouldn't sign up for what they've done as I believe that another layer of government would run counter to the true tenets of liberty.

Most importantly, I ask you to consider whether it's humane and sensible for us to ignore the plight of the rest of the world? As a human being I cannot just sit by as so many human beings suffer so much deprivation, repression, exploitation and hopelessness. Do we really want to let our nationalist sentiments trump our concern for our fellow man? As well, is it smart for us to watch others suffer so while we grow more and more prosperous and free? At what point will the 'have nots' rise up? Or will their resentment be harnessed by power hungry despots? Is it possible that this is already happening? If compassion doesn't get you there, then self interest surely will.

Once we've agreed that global governance is a good idea, the next question is what form of governance should we choose? I argue that liberal democracy has demonstrated the ability to deliver the best results for its citizens in the history of civilization. Consider the dramatic jump in lifespan, health, protection 0f individual rights, innovation, creativity and wealth that the world has experienced in the past two hundred years as this form of government has been adopted by one hundred plus nations. No other system of governance even comes close by those or many other measures.

So, if we were to create a global democracy, what should it look like? Let's consider the elemental principles of a liberal democracy:

Individual Sovereignty - The principle that the individual exists independent of government. That rights are not granted to individuals, but that the individual grants certain rights to government to protect the common good and that government protects an individual's rights from being transgressed by others. It places limits on government, not individuals unless they infringe on others individual rights.

Self Determination - Leaders are elected freely by the citizens of free democracies without coercion.

Government by the rule of law - Decisions involving adjudication of disputes are made according to laws created by representatives elected by citizens and these laws are the ultimate authority in society with respect to the domains that they govern.

Private ownership of property - The right to own property and to do with that property what one wishes is guaranteed by law.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." ~ Albert Einstein.

You just have to love Einstein. As a seeker of wisdom, I can think of no other modern man who even comes close. Just imagine for a moment what a world with this system of global governance would look like? Imagine 7 billion people free, creating, communicating, producing, consuming and cooperating. Darfur or Rwanda simply wouldn't be tolerated - law enforcement would intervene. The need for standing armies to protect nations from one another would be eliminated. A level playing field in terms of environmental regulation, human rights, social welfare and commerce would be feasible to implement. Just imagine a single currency? Where a dollar (or a euro or a reais) is worth the same everywhere. Overnight, the exploitative practice of national "arbitrage" would be taken off the table as a business strategy. We could tackle effectively such problems as access to clean water, starvation and death from preventable diseases. Attempts at the repression of individual rights would be met with the conscience of the world enforcing freedom with the of rule of law. It's impossible to estimate the leaps forward humanity could make with the creative energy of all human beings being free.

Let's go even further. Imagine a world where national, racial and ethnic identities were less and less important. Where we care just as much about the suffering of a child prostitute in the favela's of Recife Brazil as we do about our next door neighbor because we would be united as human beings versus divided by nationality. A world where there is no "them", only an "us".

"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." ~ Margaret Mead

So, what to do? The first thing I ask is that you actually think about the idea of Global Democracy for a moment. Do you agree that it's a good idea? If so, then I'd ask you to share the idea with as many people as you can (maybe send them a link to my blog?). I'd also like you to vote at the following site http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/ on whether you support the notion of a Global Government. I do believe that their "referendum" (which I think of more as a petition) is a useful vehicle for raising awareness. I don't agree with all their proposals but they are promoting useful thinking about how a global government might start.

Most of all, I want you to see the possibilities of a global democracy. It's a hopeful vision for humanity and I think we could all use a little more hope.

In Defense of No Marriage, or Gay Marriage for that matter

2006-11-05T08:20:00.000-08:00

The current debate about making gay marriage legal is a perfect example of the philosphical weakness of both the Republicans and the Democrats view of the role of government in our lives.

From a first principle standpoint, I don't understand how the U.S. government can legitimately weigh in on the topic of marriage at all. Democracy (a much misunderstood and oft misused word) is fundamentally about individual sovereignty. It puts the individual's rights at the top of the foodchain in society. Government exists where it is needed to protect our individual rights from being infringed upon. In theory, it should only act when an individual's basic rights are being infringed upon. So why is the government involved in convoking special privileges on one group of people in society over another? Any special status given is a prima facie breach of individual rights. Period. Why should married people receive any special status in terms of how they are treated by government? It's important to note that how society treats marriage is completely distinct from how the government treats it. Whether it's tax code or property rights or contract law, why is government involved at all? If you've ever been divorced, it becomes very clear how absurd this is. What starts out as a love story becomes a contractual dispute. But I digress...

So how did we get to this point? I believe it all started with the growth of collectivist thinking, which is promoted by both parties now. Somehow the basic principles of democratic society have been turned on their head. Instead of thinking first of individual rights, both parties have become social engineers, trying to create a society which suits their liking. I believe the root cause of this thinking is rooted in the socialis/communist philosophy of Marx and his adherents. In it, society is seen as a whole and individual rights are of secondary consideration vs. that of society. In this world view individual rights may be trampled upon to achieve a desired societal outcome. We see examples of this in the growth of income taxes (minimal or non-existent 100 years ago), social welfare benefits such as the "New deal" or "Great Society" and many other programs which we've allowed our governments - both federal and state - to run amok with. So, now we accept without question that it is ok for government to treat marriage preferentially. And to decide arbitrarily who to give that right to. Because it's good for society according to some people. I don't know about you, but I don't think that the people who hold elected office have any special ability to determine what is good for our society, do you?

Now let's turn to the current debate. The left positions the argument as about "rights". Essentially the government is withholding certain privileges it grants to one group from being enjoyed by another group. Implicit in this argument is that government doesn't have the right to grant privileges to one group over another. But in actuality, the gay marriage lobby is just asking the government to move the line a little bit. To include them. It seems to me that the real problem is government drawing the line at all. But if the government is going to draw these lines, then there has to be some rationale based on individual rights to support it, yes? Since giving marriage rights to gay couples doesn't impinge on individual rights, how can a case be made against it? But the same case can be made of polygamists, correct? Once the case is made, all forms of marriage should be recognized as long as they don't impinge on the rights of the individual. This is the case that the gay lobby is afraid to make. It seems to me they just "want theirs" like every other interest group sticking their snouts deeper into the trough of government largesse. Great. Enjoy marriage and all the joy that divorce brings too.

As for the right, they are morally bankrupt in the extreme here. Purporting to believe in individual rights as opposed to the socialists on the left, they throw around ideas like "defending marriage" as the building block of society. Uhh - divorce rates are epic. Less people are getting married than ever. If this is government defending marriage, I'd like to see what happens when it stops. And since when did we give government the job of designing society? I thought we just gave them a small part of the job, namely protecting our individual rights. The socialists are the great social/political scientists twisting the dials and flipping the levers to manipulate us to their ends, right? The right also give aid and comfort to those who morally oppose homosexuality because of their religion or other predilections. Which, again, isn't the governments business if we believe that government exists to protect individual rights. This is allegedly the claim of the right, believers in small government and individual liberty, etc, except if you're gay? It's all illogical nonsense.

I guess I'm truly old fashioned. Believing in a silly little thing like individual sovereignty seems to fallen out of favor on both sides of the aisle. In a society where government has such control, both parties are left arguing over the scraps that our over reaching governments deign to give us, trying to manipulate the machine to support a world view instead of preserving a truly free society where individuals are free to do as they please as long as they don't impinge on others rights.

Destined for the dustbin of history, not world domination. China, the worlds largest gulag

2006-10-10T21:52:00.000-07:00

I'm so tired of people speaking of China as the dominant world power of the near future. A bubble of cheap labor and exchange rates have made them a very competitive low end manufacturing power. Interestingly, they are starting to price themselves out of certain industries which can go to the cheapest source of labor, currently to be found in other parts of Asia and increasingly, Africa.

With a GDP 20% of the United States, they have a long way to go. And they'll never get there. It's not a free, capitalist society. And every country that has attempted to mimic the growth of U.S. style capitalism without the attendant freedoms - and yes I include the social democracies of Western Europe in this group - have failed miserably. Freedom breeds innovation. Unrestrained, unfettered flows of capital are the lifeblood of economic growth. China has little of either.

Below is an excerpt from the annual Freedom House survey on China:

Of the People’s Republic of China, Freedom House observes:

• "The Chinese government continued to restrict political rights and repress critics of the regime in 2005. Restrictions on communication became more severe."
• "The Chinese state closely monitors political activity and uses vaguely worded, national security regulations to justify detainment or imprisonment of those who are politically active without party approval."
• The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) "possesses a monopoly on political power." The nation ostensibly is governed by the 3,000-member National People’s Congress. In reality, the Congress rubber-stamps decisions of a 9-member standing committee of the CCP Politburo.
• "Freedom of expression is severely limited in China. All media are owned by state or party institutions and barred from criticizing senior CCP leaders, government policy and state ideology."
• "China regularly blocks websites it deems politically threatening." In 2005, Beijing shut down over a quarter of the nation’s 573,755 websites.
• "Though constitutionally recognized, religious freedom is accorded little respect. Atheism is taught in the schools."
• "Chinese workers are not allowed to form independent labor unions."
• "The party controls the judiciary. The CCP directs verdicts and sentences, particularly in politically sensitive cases." Verdicts are predetermined; trials are window-dressing.
• Sixty-five criminal offenses carry the death penalty.
• According to official figures, in 2005, there were over 87,000 "public order disturbances" – everything from scuffles with the police to peaceful protests – most brutally suppressed.
That’s an overview. To get the full flavor of daily life in this police state, you need to look a bit deeper.
• The nation’s one-child-per-family policy has led to forced abortions and infanticide and fueled the nation’s sex industry, due to a shortage of women.
• Even the mildest protest can result in harsh treatment. In December 2004, a housing advocate in Beijing was arrested for "disturbing the social order." His crime was applying for a permit to hold a demonstration.
• The regime has over 1,000 "re-education-through- labor" camps scattered around the country. At these slave-labor camps, as well as in the rest of China’s penal system, torture is ubiquitous.
• Amnesty International reported that in 2003, in the PRC: "Torture and ill-treatment remained widespread in many state institutions. Common methods included kicking, beating, electric shocks, suspension by the arms, shackling in painful positions, and sleep and food deprivation. Women in detention were vulnerable to rape and sexual abuse."
• In August 2005, Chinese journalist Zhu Wanxiang was sentenced to 10 years in prison for reporting on rural unrest. Also in 2005, independent journalist Shi Tao received the same sentence for "leaking state secrets abroad." The state secrets? The presence of overseas dissidents in China to commemorate the 15th. anniversary of Tiananmen Square.
• In the Marxist Middle Kingdom, you can go to jail for taking part in a demonstration, applying for a permit to hold a demonstration, reporting on a demonstration, posting something about a demonstration on a website or representing someone arrested during a demonstration. Gao Zhisheng, a prominent human rights lawyer, hasn’t been seen since he was seized by police on August 15.
• Conditions in China’s factories are abysmal. In the toy industry, wages range from 6 cents to 40 cents an hour. Workers as young as 12 (the average age is 15) work up to 19-hour days handling toxic chemicals in 104-degree temperatures.
• Also last year, Li Xintao, formerly a worker at the Huamei Garment factory in Shandong province, went to prison for 5 years for "disturbing public order and government institutions." His heinous offense consisted of trying to collect wages owed him by a bankrupt state company.
• There are credible reports of organ harvesting, in Chinese prisons and labor camps. Victims include prisoners of conscience, among them members of the Falun Gong.
• On July 29 of this year, police in a suburb of Hangzhou used electric stun batons to break up a demonstration by 3,000 Christians who were protesting the demolition of a house church (as all unauthorized churches are called).
• On July 19, 2003, Deng Shiying died two days after her release from the Jilin Women’s Prison in Changchun City. Deng, who was serving a seven-year sentence for producing and distributing material describing human rights abuses committed against Falun Gong members, was beaten by other inmates at the direction of guards.

In China, the regime goes to extraordinary lengths to suppress any religious activity it can’t control. Catholic bishops loyal to Rome (as opposed to the puppet Patriotic Catholic Church), are routinely imprisoned.The regime has a morbid fear of any organization which could conceivably challenge the party – be it a church, labor movement, independent association of journalists or lawyers or even a meditation cult. The more popular the cause, the more brutal the repression.That’s what China is today – a huge, border-to-border detention facility for 1.2 billion inmates where human rights are non-existent and democracy is a distant dream.

And this nation is the juggernaut of the 21st century? Take a closer look. It's been reported that 30% of the loans on the books of Chinese banks are in default. Their are a hundred protests a day against the government. And the mass of Chinese are incredibly poor. They're a long way from first world status, forget real economic, political or military competition to the United States.

Spreading Democracy - Imperialism or Munificence?

2006-09-29T23:32:00.000-07:00

It's with a heavy heart that I write this post. In the runup to the fall elections, the polemicism of the mainstream political dialogue has me feeling naseuous. Enough of that negativity, suffice it to say that freedom can really suck sometimes.

On to the moral argument with respect to the forceful imposition of democracy on a sovereign state. Let's start by looking at the Bush adminisration's rationale for this course of action. The Bush administration made a deliberate choice to shift U.S. foreign policy from a foundation of "realism" (see the link at the end of this post for a complete discussion of realism). The fundamental implication of realism is to define politics as it's own domain, separate from morality, economics and philosophy, for example. and to examine issues with respect to interests and power. When the Bush administration claims to have shifted away from realism, what I believe it really means is that the pursuit of balance in many cases has had the unintended consequence of damaging U.S. interests, not advancing them. In the mideast in particular, the administration believes that our practical dealings with dictators and tyrants has cost us popular support and moral authority with Arab peoples leading them to support those who violently oppose us. A clear example of the thinking underlying realism was captured in a comment by Henry Kissinger during the Iran-Iraq war, stating "it's too bad they both can't lose". It's clear his fundamental concern wasn't the million plus casualties of the war.

This leads to the question of what our foreign policy is now. Is the promotion of democratic societies not compatible with realism? I certainly hope not. Stepping away from the semantics for a moment, suffice it to say that the active construction of democratic societies is a new direction for U.S. foreign policy.

The question on my mind and on the minds of many people is do we have the right to do so? Set aside for the moment whether it's possible to impose democracy on a society externally, what about the moral question of whether it is right to do so or not? From a "realists" point of view the only utility in considering the moral argument is whether taking morality into account will have in impact on our interests and power. I believe the Bush administration has answered this question with a resounding yes, but still, this is separate from whether it is a good moral choice.

I've heard sophisticated policy wonks talking about the Bush administration squandering American "prestige" in foreign affairs. That somehow, by attacking one of the most heinous dictators on the planet we have lost our moral authority. It is the very notion of prestige that I want to start with to decompose the moral question a bit. Let's hypothesize that American prestige was at a high at the end of WWII. Is prestige a form of political capital? With some finite supply that is exhausted and replenished? Or is it a label for something else? I suspect that it is thinly disguised proxy for world opinion. And sadly, world opinion has little correlation with morality.

Let's take as an example the U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam and subsequent refusal to send adequate military supplies to the South Vietnamese army. This met with worldwide approval, but resulted in the death of three million people. Most people reflexively believe that it was a moral imperative to leave Vietnam, but does that view hold up under moral scrutiny? I only bring this up to expose the difference between the question of morality and world opinion. And to piss off those who subscribe to left wing dogma about Vietnam that isn't based on facts.

It may be true that world opinion of U.S. actions has some utility and intrinsic value, but it is separate from the moral argument.

On to the morality. So, is it moral to impose democracy via force? And I hope it's clear at this point the distinction between it being moral and thinking it's good policy or not. It seems to me that every argument I hear against imposing democracy has some component of "it won't work" to it. Let's be sure to set that aside too, since that isn't a moral question. Ok, now that we aren't dealing with world opinion and the practicalities of the policy, maybe now we can consider the morality.

I believe that moral questions aren't answerable in the abstract, so let's take the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq as current cases. What are the moral factors one should take into account? Let's look at mortality. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was killing, on average, 60,000 of his own citizens per year to maintain his stranglehold on power. Even in the worst days of the current sectarian violence the maximum number dying is 100 per day. If one does the math, less people are dying now so the decision that reduces the number of deaths is the best moral decision, yes? What about quality of life? Certainly freedom has increased (it's imperfect) but no one seriously argues that the Afghani's were freer under the Taliban or that the Iraqis were freer under the Saddam. What about other quality of life issues such as education, health care, electricity, transportation, etc? While still difficult, apparently the basics of life are the same or better in most of Iraq and Afghanistan. So call the a slight edge for action vs. inaction wrt these basics of life. In terms of outcome on the people involved, it seems that the moral equation favors imposition of democracy vs. the status quo by wide margin.

What seems to be the remaining bulwark of the moral argument against such a policy is a vaguely defined "respect" for other cultures. Let's examine this. What is meant by such a statement? That one shouldn't differentiate between cultures at all? That one should have no preference for one over another? And what is meant by the use of the word culture? Language, customs, social structure, religion, cuisine, dress, art, music? It's a bit of a "bucket term" (lots of different junk thrown in). When considering the imposition of democracy by force we should restrict the definition to political structure. It seems clear to me that the rule of law, guarantee of individual rights in that law, self determination and the sovereignty of the individual over the state are superior morally to shar'ia law or the impulses of a dictator. I have no difficulty with divining the relative morality of these systems.

Perhaps what is implied here is respecting the sovereignty of a nation state for it's own sake. Frankly, I've never understood this. I make a huge distinction between the sovereignty of a liberal democracy and a theocracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, kleptocracy or monarchy. In fact, the sovereignty argument seems downright arbitrary. Are all nations legitimate because of their existence? Even when it's very existence is an affront to freedom loving people who won't sit by as human dignity is crushed under the jackboot of a thug - or mullah for that matter? I think this issue is the cornerstone of the moral argument against action. The moral question would seem to be whether there is any inherent morality in respecting sovereignty? In fact, this issue has been dealt with by the U.N. and other international bodies. There is ample precedent (Kosovo) for the moral need to override national sovereignty. Cases where sovereignty has won out such as Rwanda or the current situation in Darfur in which Sudan refuses international efforts to relieve the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people only serve to strengthen the case that in certain moral situations, the suffering of people should trump sovereignty and does already in our world. So an a priori rejection of action based on sovereignty is a bit of circular argument. The moral case must be made to do so. And if it is, then action is the morally correct path vs. inaction.

This argument is completely separate from whether it is possible to impose democracy and whether that furthers U.S. interests in a given situation. But from a moral standpoint, I don't see a valid case for opposing the imposition of democracy by force. Do you?

State of Freedom

2006-09-07T12:25:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post here. Thanks to a trans-atlantic friend, this report card on liberty came my way - just click on the link above. It's a great, reasonably objective and consistent model by which one can understand the state of freedom in the world, country by country.

Of note is the poor state of freedom in such countries as North Korea and Iran. When the public dialogue attempts to draw some kind of equivalence between these nations and western, liberal democracies I'm always amazed. A policy that actively pursues the destruction of these goverments which are keeping their own citizens prisoners (keep in mind a nice prison cell just like your neighbors is in a prison) seems the ONLY morally legitimate stance one can take. But that's just me.

As to the U.S. rank of 8 - take a look at the numbers. It's 1/10ths of percentage points that separate the U.S. from the most free nations. It's impercetible.

Freedom and the State

2006-04-23T14:46:00.000-07:00

Everywhere I turn, people on the left and right are constantly calling for action by the government on this issue or that. Values, health care, education, the environment - it's never ending. These calls are much more common from the left or so called "progressives" and I almost always have a reflexively negative reaction against these admonitions for government action while agreeing that many of the outcomes they seek to achieve are worthy. In this post, I will discuss the importance of the sovereignty of the individual, the basic conflict that exists between the notion of individual freedom and the very existence of the "state", and finally, the importance of civic society.

The philosophical foundation of democracy is "individual sovereignty". It holds that the individual is paramount in society. The power of the government is given to the state by the individual - not granted to the individual by government. The powers given to the government are explicit and limited. All remaining domains of life are the province of the individual. The individual is free to act in these areas as he/she sees fit. This very notion was a break from the historic relationship between people and their governments. Formerly, the individual was a 'subject' of the government and, as such, was always subordinate to it. It's important to note that this shift to individual sovereignty very neatly coincided with the burst of innovation, prosperity and liberty that has marked the past several hundred years of human history. Once individuals were free to own property and act as they saw fit in service to their own interests as they defined them, an avalanche of creative activity followed. This fundamental shift in the human condition and organization of society has given individuals a much greater stake in the world around them and hence they have behaved in ways that care for their interests and assets.

Another phenomena that has also marked the development of western style democracy is the rise of "civic society". In a community where the role of government is limited, many additional issues remain to be addressed collectively. Western democracies are teeming with these organizations. Consider the PTA, children's sports leagues, the NRA, Kiwanis clubs, Alcoholics Anonymous - there are literally thousands of non-governmental organizations that enrich our society and allow for collective action. These associations with like-minded people who share interests and commitments form without any intervention by the state. Even more interesting is their reliance (usually) on democractic principles and a set of published rules, mimicking the organization of the state. This provides an insight into the agreement by most people that democracy and the rule of law (not personality or power) are effective structures for making society work. Finally, another important aspect of civic society is that it reinforces the notion that people are responsible for society - not the state. That one's first instinct is and should be "what can I do to address this problem?", not "what can the government do?".

It is axiomatic that ones freedom is reduced by each privilege one gives up to the state. Given that laws are backed by the use of force by the state (whether to take your property, freedom or life), ones freedom is degraded in significant ways when the state is given power in any area of society. Just consider what it takes to start a business or build a home in New York city and the ways in which the state impinges on your freedom become remarkably clear. The problem is that it does what it does coercively. And as a result, we are less free in those areas where we give government control. More importantly, the more we have the government do, the more we expect it to do. In this way, the growth of the state inevitably suppresses the creative spirit of the individual, resulting in the stultification of society.

I believe there is some kind of 'tipping point' where the amount of power that we grant to government causes a degradation of civic society. Countries such as France have seen a great decline in civic society and have much social unrest as it's citizens look to the government for solutions to seemingly intractable problems. Given this derivative, but crucial impact, I think it's the responsibility of individuals in a free society to look to government last - not first - to meet our needs and desires. Or we risk giving up the very prosperity and freedom which we sought by forming modern democracies.

Does anyone have a better idea?

2006-02-27T06:18:00.000-08:00

This op-ed piece fromt he Wall Street Journal makes some excellent points about the U.S. policy of promoting democracy in the middle east. I couldn't say it better myself, so I decided not to try.

Democracy Angst
February 27, 2006; Page A14

In the matter of Middle East elections, the results of which we don't always like: Anyone out there have a better idea?

We ask amid some recent wringing of hands following elections for the Palestinian legislature, in which the terrorist group Hamas won an outright majority; elections in Iraq, where voters cast their ballots along sectarian lines, and a strong showing by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt's parliamentary elections late last year.

"For some, the promotion of democracy promises an easy resolution to the many difficult problems we face," says Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde. "But I believe that great caution is warranted here." And from the man who once gave us the "end of history," we now have the demise of neoconservatism: "Promoting democracy and modernization in the Middle East," writes Francis Fukuyama in a new book, "is not a solution to the problem of jihadist terrorism; in all likelihood it will make the short-term problem worse."

The brilliant insight here is that democratic processes don't always lead to liberal outcomes. Actually, that's not an insight: The world has had fair warning on this score at least since Adolf Hitler came to power democratically in 1933. We can be thankful, however, that the experience of Nazism did not deter successive generations of Germans from persevering with the democratic experiment.

Still, the underlying argument deserves thoughtful consideration, and it goes something like this: Contrary to the rhetoric of the Bush Administration, the taste for freedom -- and the ability to exercise it responsibly -- is far from universal. Culture is decisive. Liberal democracies are the product of long-term trends such as the collapse of communal loyalties, urbanization, the separation of church and state and the political empowerment of the bourgeoisie. Absent these things, say the critics, democratic and liberal institutions are built on foundations of sand and are destined to collapse.

* * *
This account more or less describes the rise of liberal democracies in the West. Yet simply because it took centuries to establish a liberal-democratic order in Europe, it does not follow that it must take centuries more to establish one in the Middle East. Japan took about 100 years to transform itself (and be transformed) from a feudal society into a modern industrial democracy. South Korea made a similar leap in about 40 years; Thailand went from quasi-military dictatorships to a genuine constitutional monarchy in about 20. As the practice of liberal democracy has spread, the time it takes nondemocratic societies to acquire that practice has diminished.

But, say the critics, Islamic and particularly Arab countries are uniquely resistant to change. Between 1981 and 2001 the number of non-Islamic countries rated "free" -- that is to say, both democratic and liberal -- increased by 34, according to Freedom House. By contrast the number of free Islamic countries remained constant at one, in the form of landlocked Mali. During the same period, the number of Islamic countries ranked "not free" increased by 10.

No doubt deep-seated cultural factors go some way toward explaining these statistics. But why seek abstruse explanations? In the same period when the U.S. was encouraging democratic openings in Eastern Europe, East Asia and Latin America -- areas previously thought impervious to liberty, often for "cultural" reasons -- it was supporting or tolerating undemocratic and illiberal regimes in the Middle East.

That period also coincided with the rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, the outbreak of the terrorist intifada in Israel, and September 11. Mr. Fukuyama may or may not be right that promoting democracy does not resolve the problem of terrorism in the short-term. What we know for sure is that tolerating dictatorship not only doesn't resolve the terrorist problem but actively nurtures it.

* * *
Which brings us back to the question of what American policy should be. One answer is to retreat completely in the hopes of being left alone. This is the formula recently suggested by Osama bin Laden; those who would credit it must also entrust themselves to him.

Another answer is to encourage friendly autocrats to "modernize" their countries without necessarily creating the kinds of democratic openings through which Islamic fundamentalists could come to power. This is what the U.S. has been attempting in Egypt for the past three decades, without success. A related idea is to promote liberal democratic ideals by means of "soft power" -- McDonald's, Oprah, USAID, Voice of America, Britney Spears. Soft power has much to recommend it, though generally only as a complement to hard power. Absent the latter, it is powerless to defend the very people it inspires, especially when the tanks are rolling.

Then there is the supposedly failed policy of the Bush Administration. In five years, it has brought four democratic governments to power in the Middle East: by force of arms in Afghanistan and Iraq, and through highly assertive diplomacy in Lebanon and Palestine. Mr. Fukuyama tells us that "by definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it."

Leaving aside the niggling examples of Japan and Germany, exactly how are we to know that country X does not want democracy, except democratically? Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese have all made their democratic preferences plain in successive recent elections. And with the arguable exception of the Palestinians (arguable because Fatah was as undemocratic as Hamas), they have voted to establish considerably more liberal regimes than what existed previously.

This is not to say democracy is a cure-all. It is also not to say that the peril these democracies face, from terrorist insurrection or ethnic or religious feuding, isn't grave. Nor, finally, is it to say that the "Hitler scenario" can be excluded in a democratizing Middle East; that possibility is always present, especially among nascent democracies.

But democracy also offers the possibility of greater liberalism and greater moderation, possibilities that have been opened with the courageously pro-American governments of Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani and Saad Hariri. And as we stand with them, it seems to us that America's bets are better placed promoting democracies -- even if some of them succumb to illiberal temptations -- than acceding to dictatorships, which already have.

Or does someone have a better idea?

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114099207518883661.html

Copyright 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.

Hamas - The West's Worst Nightmare Come True

2006-02-12T15:11:00.000-08:00

The Palestinians continue to be the pawns of a geopolitical game that seems to have no end nor the likelihood of ever delivering the justice and freedom they so richly deserve.

By polarizing the mideast conflict in political, religious, sociological and geopolitical terms, the international community and the leadership of the Palestinian people have backed themselves into a corner. And in their recent elections, the Palestinians gave their response to the world. It is resounding in capitals around the world. In their desperate struggle for dignity, an identity and freedom, they voted for the only alternative they had to Fatah - a corrupt shell of a party whose post-Arafat death rattles have finally come to an end. And the only alternative was Hamas.

The west now finds itself in the most impossible of positions. It is neither able to support nor disavow the Hamas regime. As a result, the west must hold it's nose while gingerly doing the diplomatic two-step. On the one hand statements will be made regarding "standing up for the Palestinian people" while the other hand makes it clear that Hamas is persona non-grata in the international diplomatic community - all while conducting secret discussions with it. The outcome is predictable. Sooner or later (most probably sooner) some nations will begin to treat with Hamas formally, if only to bolster their support in the Arab world. This policy will also neatly suit those who seek to stymie the U.S. and Israel every chance they get (China, Russia and possibly some western European states).

So what is a freedom loving person supposed to do? Well, in this authors mind, the only thing to do is speak the truth. And that is that the initial creation of the Israeli state was done unfairly. And that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances. As well, it should make clear that Hamas is anathema to the civilized world. And that the west will treat with Hamas only under certain conditions. But if those conditions are not met and violence is supported by the government of Hamas against the west or it's allies, then military occupation of Palestine is the only viable option. Not by Israel, but by U.N. troops. And if that comes to pass, a democratic government will be put in place as we are doing in Iraq. Once a legitimate government is in place, than the entire Palestinian/Israeili issue will be put on the table and a fair settlement will be reached. bBut let's face it. The U.S. isn't willing to admit the fault of the west in the original partitioning of Palestine and the U.N. will never muster the will to occupy Palestine. And Hamas can't back down from it's commitment to the elimination of Israel. And Israel can't live with a terrorist government on it's borders.

So it seems that the Palestinian people are destined for a continuation of chaos, deprivation and bloodshed.

Venezuela - When elections don't equal democracy

2005-12-06T06:58:00.000-08:00

What a miraculous electoral outcome in Venezuela. All the candidates that Hugo Chavez supported, won election. No legislative seats went to the opposition. This was in large part due to the opposition's decision to sit out the elections, but it also speaks to the implausability of a truly liberal (in the classic sense of the word) democracy existing under a paranoid kleptocrat like Chavez.

The question I ask myself is why it so hard for people from western democracies to see clearly what Chavez is up to? Regardless of his stated intentions (and perhaps true intentions), he's building and maintaining a dictatorship while trying to maintain the pretense of a democracy. He's effectively neutered the opposition and created hatred for a foe - the United States - to justify his increasingly power hungry behavior and is consolidating power by controlling key military, political and economic resources.

He's also a master of the fascistic/communist tactic of double speak. While maintaining free speech, political "proselytizing" is strongly prohibited. And "desacato" laws are strengthening while they are declining in the rest of free South and Latin America. These laws prohibit criticism of government officials in the press. Chavez maintains just enough of the of the structures of a free society to maintain "plausible deniability", but quickly undermines and suppresses any true political pluralism.

The world must stand in opposition to such sham elections. Elections are the process of self-determination, but in and of themselves are only as free as the society that is holding them. The free nations of the world must stand in opposition to such blatant sophistry. Which forces one to look at why there is not the hue and cry one would expect to see from western media and the NGO's which are dedicated to supporting freedom in the world. And sadly, they've decided to sit this one out.

Azeri's "Velvet Crackdown"

2005-11-20T10:28:00.000-08:00

It was to be a velvet revolution, following in the 'orange' footprints of Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgiztan. The stage was set. A populist democrat was to stage his return and the threat of a democratic uprising was real.

But it seems tht Baku was ready for all of this and more. Rather than the ham-handed bumbling of the hardliners who came before, President Aliyev pressed with nuanced use of force, propping up his own base and co-opting the election monitors so they could plausibly argue that the elections weren't rigged, despite rigging them. This is a disturbing development for the development of democracy in Azerbaijan and globally. Let's look at how this was accomplished.

First, Aliyev did not hesitate to use a massive show of force to prevent Rasul Guliyev from returning to Azerbaijan before the elections. This was in the face of overt threats of a populist uprising to ensure his return. Aliyev, and his political operatives, wisely discerned that this couldn't be seen as intereference with the electoral process since charges are outstanding against Guliyev. Whereas other governments in similar straits have either used force sporadically or were concerned about the prospect of outright confrontation, this government demonstrated that it would not hesitate to cut off the head of an uprising. This deflated the populist furor that was building by denying it leadership and sending a clear message to those thinking of taking to the streets after the election that force would be used decisively against the opposition.

Second, the Aliyev government massaged the election oversight proces. The OSCE had already given it credit for encouraging candidates to run, securing the registration process and ensuring access to polls. After the fact, it seemed that the only problem was in the count. So the objections by the OSCE to the final result are counterbalanced by earlier praise by the OSCE. And Baku wisely enlisted Moscows support, which stated that it's monitors didn't find substantial irregularities. It is with this bulwark of propaganda on which Aliyev has built a defense of the elections he's so clearly rigged.

Democracy advocates should be given pause by these strong and sophisticated opponents to democracy. The march towards freedom is not inexorable - it requres loud speech and sometimes even louder action by its supporters. Let us not allow democracies foes to finesse us in to submission. The Azeri administration is repressive of individual freedom and just stole an election. All freedom loving nations and people should speak up.

The Case for War and Left Wing Perfidy

2005-11-12T09:11:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while, George Bush makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. His Veterans Day speech perfectly re-stated the case for war in Iraq, giving it a needed update. He gives glancing, but serious attention to the hypocrisy of those on the left who are now accusing his administration of manipulating the intelligence that led to the decision go to war and of misleading (they mean the word to be read as LYING) the American people. The topic deserves more than glancing attention as it's the worst kind of dishonesty in that it relies on the fascistic technique of repeating ridiculous lies until they are believed to be true. Democracy requires rational decision making and a distinction between rhetoric and reason - both having their place in the public discourse - hopefully counter-balancing each other. But when rhetoric flies in the face of reason and becomes orthodoxy for a large segment of society including elected leaders and the press, it remains the duty of every citizen with functioning critical faculties to speak out.

Let's look at the case the left is making.

Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had an agenda to take us to war in Iraq well before 9/11 and used that tragedy as a pretext to justify action against Saddam Hussein. The more hysterical radicals claim it was to enrich the energy industry and the likes of Halliburton. The truly insane claim it was driven by an inchoate need to redress some Oedipal issue between W. and "papa Bush".

One has to ignore 20 years of efforts to deal with Saddam Husseins attempts to acquire weapons of mass distruction, his violently destabilizing effects on the region and the consensus of western political leadership regarding the threat he posed (from both the left and right) in order to make this case. It was the official policy of the Clinton administration that "regime change" was required in Iraq as of 1998. Let's assume that this administration believed that removing Saddam Hussein was a high priority before 9/11. In what way is this some right wing conspiracy? Yes, it's more pro-active and involves the use of force. But their position didn't differ from the rest of the national security community. And, in a post 9-11 world, is it inplausible to believe that the level of exigency wrt dealing with Iraq would be heightened? Since this is the explanation offered, and it fits all the facts, it seems to me that it's at least plausible. No offer of proof has been made by the parties claiming some pre-ordained scheme to benefit George Bush or his friends to support their wild and vicious claims.

The administration misled the American people and the congress. This is proved true by the fact that no WMD were found in Iraq and Joe Wilson predicted this by his visit to Niger

Two separate bi-partisan congressional investigations have concluded that no undue influence was exerted by the administration on the content or conclusions of Iraq pre-war intelligence. Before the fact, the entire world, including the U.N. agreed that Iraq posessed WMD and had threatening ambitions. In the aftermath of Desert Storm, much greater WMD capabilities were discovered in Iraq than we suspected. After 10 years of breaking sanctions and frustrating weapons inspectors, one could reasonably err on the side of caution in making an assessment of Saddams capabilities. It turns out that our ability to determine a nations WMD activities is still inadequate - witness the recent underestimation of Iran and Libya, both of whom had or have far more advanced capabilities than we believed and this is post Iraq. Also, it is not just the presence of actual WMD's themselves that are evidence of a threat. One only has to read the Iraqi Survey Group report to understand the breadth and scope of Saddam Hussein's capabilities. Over six hundred violations of the relevant U.N. resolutions regarding WMD's were documented. David Kay (in charge of the Iraqi survey group, and no lap dog of the administration) goes on to point out the ample opportunity for destruction of additional documentation and potentially, weapons stockpiles. He posits as likely - virtually certain - that many incriminating documents were destroyed - and these would likely have created the trail towards actual weapons stockpiles. He also goes to great lengths in addressing the nature of the mistakes in judgement that were made regarding the state of WMD capabilities and stockpiles in Iraq. He concludes that the facts had supported both conclusions (wmd stockpiles and no stockpiles) and that every analyst involved in the assessment asserted that there was no administration pressure to conclude their analysis one way or the other. Further, he comments in a candid moment in January of 2004, that "... I wish there had been pressure, that would have been easier to fix" than our inability to accurately assess this sort of thing. The ultimate conclusion of the Iraqi Survery Group is that Saddam Husseins posessed very dangerous WMD capabilities and was in some respects more of a threat than we believed. The congresspeople and other national security pundits who are criticizing the administration in this way are well aware of these facts (and more) but continue their partisan harangue. Then, they go on to cite Joe Wilsons New York times article as proof of the conspiracy. Joe Wilson , who's initial verbal report of his findings to the CIA (there was, strangely, no written report) was much less conclusive, was roundly found not credible in congressional hearings on this very subject. He's at best a flake and very likely a political operative out to put a hit on the administration. His "findings" don't withstand any real scrutiny and are one of tens of thousands of pieces of data going into the overall assessment of the threat of Iraq. Even if Joe Wilson was correct (I believe it's highly likely he was not) it would not have affected our Iraqi policy because it wasn't based on one inquiry about acquiring yellow cake uranium from Niger. But these facts don't stop the seemingly rabid crititcs - including the Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid from accusing the administration of dishonesty.

Iraq wasn't involvd in 9/11 and George Bush made the public think it was - The administration never stated there was any connection between Iraq and 9/11. It correctly stated the long connection between Iraqi intelligence and progenitor organizations to Al Qaeda (their was much involvement with the first WTC bombing). They also had some dealngs with Al Qaeda and other current terrorist organizations. Was this meant to imply that something bad could happen? Yes! It was . Moreover, the case that the administration made was that Iraq had WMD, dealt with terrorists including Al Qaeda and had already used WMD against another nation and its own people . And that in the current battle with Al Qaeda that was an unacceptable risk, given that Iraq was already in violation of it's obligations under th '92 cease fire and numerous U.N. resolutions it had agreed to - not to mentiong the non-proliferation treaty. This is a threat - no matter what part of the political spectrum you reside in. And the fact that some polls at the time of the Iraq war showed that 50+% of the public believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 is not relevant. The same percentage believe in UFO's and doubt that evolution is how we got here. Public opinion is just that and the fact is that the administration never once said that Iraq was behind 9/11.

Please read the text of George Bush's 11/11 speech - it's linked above. I think you'll find it's refreshing and clear. You may not agree with him - but it's no conspiracy or fraud being perpetuated on the American people. And the next time you hear someone say so, don't let them get away with it.

Democracy in progress!

2005-08-22T13:33:00.000-07:00

This picture says more than my paltry words ever could. Women in Iraq protesting outside of the Iraqi convention center for equal rights under the constitution that's being crafted inside. In traditional Islamic garb. It is just too good a shot not to be staged, but that aside, it speaks volumes about the state of the Arab and Islamic mindset and the state of freedom in Iraq.

How can these women wear the hijab of their faith yet protest being treated according to the laws of that faith? Sha'ria law relegates them to second class citizenry, lorded over by men. And yet they reflexively support their religion by donning their garb. Would that they see through the hypocrisy of their religion (would that all people see through the folly of their religions), only then might we start to a rational public discourse about the future governance of Iraq.

On to the state of freedom in Iraq. It is vibrant. Differing views are being expressed and the role of religion, federalism and the division of the material wealth of Iraq is at the heart of them. The critical areas of disagreement and conflict are seeing the sunshine of open debate and being tempered by public opinion. Compromise is the order of the day. The first version of Iraqi democracy will not be ideal - probably far from it. But neither was the United States. It took 200 years for equal rights to actually be a reality under law here, not to mention the lingering societal attitudes and economic impact of such a skewed system. A belief in God given rights was at the core of our founding priniciples. However, the sovereignity of the individual was never in question. The role of government to serve the people was maintained. The rule of law was the foundation of our governance. And property rights were respected and protected. All of these principles conspired to have our country evolve towards it's ideal. With good basic principles such as these in place in Iraq, should we assume they won't reason through the contradictions in their society? I'm hopeful that they will

To quote an old adage, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Let's declare victory and move on, shall we?

Iraqi Contitutional Drafting Process

2005-08-16T06:52:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the sausage factory that is democracy. I'm observing the democratic process in Iraq with a mixture of excitement, revulsion and fear. One wonders whether the country will collapse into tribal chaos. Or whether it will limit civil rights to the point where individual sovereignity is second to government or religion. More worrisome is the seeming intractability of the whole process. Fundamental issues such as federalism, womens rights and sharia law don't seem to be yielding to a process of compromise or understanding. Brinksmanship appears to be the order of the day.

Well, the Iraqi's have bought themselves a week. What will the week bring? Will the Sunni's wake up and realize that they no longer are the power brokers in Iraq? Will the Kurds quench their thirst for independence? Will the Shiites suddenly break with Allah? I think not. But something else is possible. Perhaps a form of democracy which we don't desire, but is at least a step in the right direction. Maybe there will not be perfect protection for individual rights. But let's not be doctrinaire. To compare this to our constitutional process, where there was fundamental agreement on at least individual rights and a common enemy to motivate us will not yield useful insights. Let this process burble along. Forget artificial deadlines. Self interest will intervene. The Kurds will not have independence - several countries in the region have said they won't tolerate it. The Sunni's will never have the power they once held - and if they don't act they may be made irrelevant the constitutional vote. The Shiia don't want to be a province of Iran. Each side needs to come to grips with it's own dilemma. And over time it is likely they will.

What I sincerely hope is that common ground will be found around individual rights, the rule of law and democratic processes. And that a desire for a society based on these principals will provide the incentive to compromise on the issues that divide Iraq. The consequences of not doing so for them and for the prestige of United States foreign policy would be devastating.

2005-06-14T14:58:00.000-07:00

Global Democracy Advocate
Sunday, February 27, 2005

The Iraqi Elections
The ballots have been cast and the votes are in. The images from election day were moving and inspiring. Dyed thumbs being held high and dancing in the streets were symbolic to Americans that there are Iraqis who wanted democracy. People braving threats against their lives to vote and the heroic efforts of all the security forces conspired to end the day on a promising note, averting the disaster the we all hoped to avoid.
But once the exuberance fades, I'm left with a very mixed view of Iraq's chances to have democracy take root. First, let's consider the turnout. At under 60 percent, one has to admit that the forces for democracy and insurgency have achieved some uneasy standoff. The fact that the insurgency can surpress voter participation to this extent is evidence of the control they still have in large parts of Iraq. And until the government can guarantee all Iraqi citizens the protection of the rule of law, it's legitmacy will be impaired.
Second, the influence of Islam on the constitution is still very much up for debate. Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the leading Shi'ite mullah is calling for a secular government. But at the same time is making concessions to Sh'aria law. Islamic law is not democratic, nor does it support equal rights for all individuals. It has no place in a democratic society. Period - it's not up for debate. American blood is not being shed to install a theocracy in Iraq. There is a real danger of the Turkish syndrome occuring. Turkey elected an Islamic fundamentalist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip ERDOGAN. Under his rule tolerance for the west has decreased, anti-americanism is at a fevered pitch and support for democracy is waning. Iraq could be Algeria all over again. It's a frightening prospect.
Third, when I look at the infighting and intransigence of the numerous parties that will have to form a coalition in order to create a constitution, it seems that they have formed along traditional tribal and nationalist lines. The kurdish demand for ownership of it's oil interests separate from the national Iraqi government in order to support a given coalition is a dangerous precedent. It's clear that the many factions within Iraq see democracy as a tool to acrete power in the ongoing struggle over Iraqs riches and people, not a fundamental shift in the view of the sovereignity of the individual. Yesterday, the New York Times speculated on a potential alliance between Challabi and Allawi - in order to build both their power bases. To call these long term enemies strange bedfellows is an understatement.
The question that I have is where are the Iraqi Washingtons, Jeffersons and Hamiltons? Who are the great human beings that will stand for something more than aggrandizing themselves and their positions? George Washington in particular embodied the notion of service to a higher cause than himself. When he voluntarily left the presidency of the U.S., he made it clear that the U.S. was something more than a pocket to be picked. He dignified the role as being of service to freedom and the citizens of the U.S. I wonder when we might see the same kind of leadership emerge in Iraq?
Glenn

posted by gdonovan - 2:17 pm
Saturday, January 1, 2005

Victory for Democracy in the Ukraine
The path towards democracy in the former Soviet Empire has been rocky to say the least. Russia itself seems to be moving backwards and the citizens of many of these countries often seem cynical and doubtful of democracy. This is what makes the the Urkrainian victory for Victor Yuschenko so sweet for those of us who believe democracy is the path for a world that works for everyone on earth.
Consider that Yuschenko is a pro-western and pro-reform candidate who was an outspoken critic of the status quo. He didn't get elected via nationalist appeals or some harkening back the communist times of security and stultification. Prime Minister Victor Yankovych clearly recognized the threat to his party's power base and pulled out the old Soviet playbook to wrest this election from the people. From assasination attempts to fiery rhetoric attempting to position Yuschenko as a puppet of the west, all the stops were pulled out. Russia also saw this as geo-politically key ground for them to hold and Putin did everything possible to get Yankovych re-elected. The desire to keep the Ukraine in it's sphere also seemed to be a point of Russian pride given the centuries old history of Russo/Ukrainian connection (or dominance). And the failure to do so does Putin little good domestically given his posturing as a 'strong leader' who stands up for Russian power and prestige.
One can easily conclude that this is a great example of democracy taking hold in the "DNA" of the Ukrainian people. Once the sovereignity of the individual begins to take hold, it becomes unthinkable for government to override the will of the people. If only the news were this good for Russia.
Glenn

posted by gdonovan - 11:28 am
Friday, December 17, 2004

Democracy in Iraq - Legitimacy and Democracy
If one were to take the mainstream press and pro-Islamic pundits at their word, one would have to conclude that democracy is illegitimate in virtually every country where it has taken root. Let's look at the case being made agains the legitmacy of the upcoming elections in Iraq (in general terms). It is posited that due to the lack of support by the Sunni minorty (they are not a majority in Iraq because the Kurdish Sunni's don't identify with much of the radical rhetoric of the hard core, non-Kurdish Sunnis) and their active repression of the vote in the 'Sunni triangle' that any outcome of the coming election is bound to be illegitimate.
Let's take first the idea of legitimacy with respect to elections. What is it? Acceptance of the authority of a government? The consent of the governed? The informal belief by the populace that a given election result is to be implemented? Or is it that the process by which the election was conducted was itself fair? It is this authors view that the answer is relative. Each of the aforementioned criteria are part of an evaluation of the legitimacy of an election result. But clearly, the most important criteria must be faith in the actual elecotral process. The rest of the cirteria to some degree rest on that foundation.
Let's look in turn at the major objections being raised. One most often mentioned is that Iraq's elections will be supervised by the U.N., Iraqi security forces and the U.S. led coalition (admittedly mostly U.S. troops). There have been many instances where elections have been supervised by these bodies or bodies of a similar type. I've heard a prima facie case being made against the elections legitmacy solely based on this fact. Clearly this argument withstands little criticism. Elections have beene supervised in dozens of countries succesfully. I argue that the opposite is true. In a country with little democratic tradition and active anti-democractic insurgency, outside supervision is the only way a legitimate process can be guaranteed.
The second major criticism is that the turnout will be repressed in areas where the insurgency is most active. Now let me see if I understand this. A legitimate exercise of democratic will is violently opposed by a small minority so all that minority has to do is threaten some voters in order to obviate an election. It's ridiculous on it's face. Of course a legitimate result can proceed from a process where voter turnout is not complete. Look at most western elections. Many have 40+ percent of eligible voters not voting at all. Yet the election results are considered legitimate. This is where the "relative" nature of legitimacy is imporatant. Clearly voter participation is a threshold issue. If say, 30-40% of the electorate was prevented from voting, then one might begin to question if an actual democratic election could be held. But to reward anti-democracy forces with a victory pre-emptively is just stupid. By enforcing the elections and outcome, one can hope to retard insurgency forces by making them turn to ballot box for power with their agenda vs. the rifle barrel. I'd argue the of an electorate facing an "anti-democratic" insurgency, it is even more important to proceed with elections to give democracy the chance to take root.
The third, and perhaps the most valid major criticism being leveled at the legitimacy of the election, is the selection process of candidates to be put on the ballot. It's clear that it has been a highly politicized process and that the IRC is heavily influenced by the U.S. So? Democracy has to start somewhere and to some degree it's almost unimportant which candidates are selected ulitmately. The process of electing them and their seeking re-election creates the most powerful incentive for the pursuit of policies that support. And they can be elected out of office. I ask you to consider this question. Since it is inevitable that the first election of any new democracy will be borne out of undemocratic processes, which forces would you choose have influence the process? Which country is better suited or more legitimate than the U.S.? Or at least, what makes the U.S. so unsuitable? One can make a powerful argument that the U.S. is the most powerful and effective force for democracy in the history of mankind. And may be the most legitimate outside influence on an emerging democracy.
In conclusion, one must actually be hopeful for the Iraqi election. It promises to be a bold step forward towards freedom and order in a land of chaos and violence.

posted by gdonovan - 1:19 pm
Wednesday, September 22, 2004

What's the plan for the world? And who's offering a vision for the world in the current presidential election?
Considering that Global Democracy offers a viable solution to resolving conflicts globally and to providing the basis for a world that works for everyone, I'm evaluating the two leading candidates for president on the basis of which one most likely moves us in the direction of this structure.
President Bush is an advocate for democracy on the national level globally. His support for people to live in democracy has been demonstrated by the movement towards democracy in Afghanistan - they will have their first elections in October. They've already had about 90% registration of their eligible voting population and it's likely they'll get close to 100% by the time the election is held. As well, the war in Iraq will result in the formation of democracy in Iraq. His policies have clearly promote democracy globally and this policy has been made clear in a number of speeches. See his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy (link follows)http://www.ned.org/events/anniversary/oct1603-Bush.html However, I've never heard him discuss Global Democracy. His vision seems to stop short of providing any democratic form of global governance. In fact, his reluctance to accede to the existing global institutions which are being constructed would lead one to believe that perhaps he doesn't believe in a form of global governance. But if one scrutinizes further the decision to not sign the Kyoto treaty or participate in the International Court of Justice, it seems that he believes institutions need the consent of the governed to be legitimate. And this is a key feature of global democracy. One would think that conceptually he'd support the idea - although he clearly is a nationalist. And ultimately, national identity will need to be transcended in order to implement a global democratic government.
Senator John Kerry seems to put much faith in the International Community. Institutions such as the U.N. and other multi-lateral alliances and NGO's seem to play large in his view of how the world could work more effectively to address it's issues (he proposes tripling funding for the NED). He does seem less eager to forcefully promote world democracy. One is forced to consider whether his policies would cause democracy to advance in the world as quickly as President Bush's. He does have well thought out positions on Latin American democracy and the role we should play in the ongoing struggles in that region. He will probably do a reasonable job of promoting national democracy.
The bottom line is that neither candidate is an advocate for Global Democracy. And all other things being equal, the Bush administration is more likely to promote the formation of democratic nations due to it's agressive policies in the mid-east. However, this is counter balanced by the lack of muli-lateralism it is engendering. This could result in a real slow down in the coordination of national policies by western democracies to promote national democracies globally. In the end it's a toss up in terms of the promotion of Global Democracy by either candidate.

posted by gdonovan - 4:27 pm
Sunday, August 29, 2004

Interchange with Opponent of Global Democracy

This email exchange occurred with a friend of mine over the course of several days. I've excerpted parts of the interchange. It picks up in the middle of the conversation - but you'll get the gist of it pretty quickly. I'm amazed by peoples resistance to the basic ideas of self determination and a guarantee of individual rights. Please read on - I think it is thought provoking.
Glenn
Rich thoughts Marilyn and Glenn. Thank you for your willingness to shareand again I invite everyone to engage in this quite sensible extension ofthe work of possibility in which we are engaged. Every post I read informsmy thoughts and beliefs.Marilyn, thank you for your acknowledgment and comments. I have it thatpeople get tired of listening to me talk and think I speak as I do to tryand be impressive, so I often suppress myself. I certainly used to thinkthat in order to "be", I had to master communication, thus it became astrong suit. I realize so much of it was about ego and now that I can ownmy communication I can contribute it.So thank for granting me the space to be a contribution to you and thiscommunity. The generosity and space you provide in listening allows for meto fulfill on the possibilities I create.Glenn, I find myself at the same point I was left with before, in ourconversation in the bar about Global Democracy. Mainly, I wonder there areseveral things you assert as truth, that I doubt.To be specific, let me respond to several things you wrote. "organizations and structure work for having groups accomplishthings. I'm not a priori distrustful of them."Doesn't every organization or form of government have structure? I do notthink Marilyn's post indicated she was--and I certainly have never said Iwas--- mistrustful of structure nor organizations, democratic or otherwise.I do think something happens when any individual OR structure has it thattheir way of doing things is the way everyone ought to do things. This isusually based on the belief that what works for them will work for everyone(everyone in every culture, every place, in every instance) and that is tome an immediately suspect premise. I am not distrustful of it, but I amhighly dubious. "There is a lot of data out there that suggests thesecharacteristics coincide with societies that by most objective measures are better for the people in them.I find it surprising that you would consider a monarchy orreligious based government acceptable since they do not recognizethe consent of the governed as necessary for governing...I'm lookingthrough a lens of workability - and I have not seen another form ofgovernment that delivers the peace, freedom or prosperity thatdemocracy, the rule of law and the guarantee of individual rights has delivered."As I read these passages I am left with questions. Whose data? Based onwhat standards? Who decides what "workability" looks like? Isn't that forthe individual to say? U.S. government claims Democracy is more workable inIraq than the previous regime. Would the average Iraqi agree? What"objective" measures do you use to determine what is better. I do not havea comprehensive list, but I would say life, liberty, the pursuit ofhappiness, full power, freedom and full self-expression would be a largechunk of what I think is "better." Cannot a monarchy or religiousgovernment provide these things? What about them inherently denies this? Ifit is simply a matter of 'consent' of the governed, I assert that the U.S.governs wholly without my consent and is not aligned with the globalpolicies I think it ought to have. Yet opposition to this governmentpublicly is squelched, "democratically guaranteed" freedoms curtailed ordenied, people are subject to inhumane treatment in various spaces andtheir is stratification based on any number of categories. I suggest, thereare not many things you can find in any form of government that you cannotalso find here in this democracy.I balk at the idea that democracy has delivered freedom and prosperity toanyone. When you can declare a democracy and have slavery at the same time,it seems to me democracy is no guarantee of the kind of workability I meanwhen I use the term. It wasn't democracy that ended slavery here, it waswar. The only reason you can claim no democracy has ever declared war onanother is that Civil wars and revolutions don't count. This particulardemocracy readily declares war on other sovereignties and ignores theglobally democratic practices (the U.N.) that might intervene, Why? Becauseit is powerful enough to do so.So, I do not mean to belabor the point, or make democracy wrong, or theU.S. wrong. I do not mean to engage in a debate about democracy. I inviteyou to consider that democracy has produced nothing on its own; Peoplehave. People working within that system. As people have worked withinsystems in China, the Islamic world and other "non-democratic" systemshave, to produce change. It is not the system that makes the difference, itis the individual. People do not suffer because of governments, orgovernmental systems. They suffer from the ill-treatment and/or neglect ofthose with the power to control their circumstances. This is has been truethroughout all of history, all over the world. "Finally, I ask you what it is you stand for the world to have? Ifnot democracy, freedom for the individual and the rule of law than what?"My stand is for the world to have people be alive and free, however thatlooks; inside a democracy or outside of it. It is the last part of yourquestion that inspires me the most. "Then what?". "What" is where thepossibilities are. It is the nothing in which a new future can be created,free of the constraints of our judging, evaluating and comparing what wedo, to/by what we've done. "Then what?" is a question every citizen, ofevery nation on Earth can ask and therefore a conversation everyone canparticipate in, free of agenda.There is no proposal or counter proposal to be made. just a powerfulconversation to be had.Leo "Glenn Donovan" nd.com> To 08/12/04 11:59 PM cc Subject Leo & Marilyn,Thanks for your thoughtful responses. And as for an organization of somesort that I'm promoting - I'm currently not affiliated with any of theGlobal Democracy or Citizenship initiatives that are out there. I've beenaffiliated with two of them but withdrew in one case because I chose not toalign with the agenda of the organization and the other seemed to beunviable for influencing policy makers or having any real, measurableimpact. I created a blog to start sharing my thoughts with others in thehope that I might enroll people in the possibility of Global Democracy.I've committed to this path after much thought, discussion and analysis.http://globaldemocracy.crimsonblog.com/BTW, I created this game in my SELP - it's a great game to be playing.Awo was part of causing it. What a way to spend my life!I'd love to get together with you for an adult beverage to look atwhat'spossible and discuss these ideas further. I'm also an incrediblelistening for your possibilities Leo. I have it that you are anincredibly powerful, compassionate and smart man. I believe you couldmakea huge difference in the work of transformation and I look forward toseeing you in the ILP.Regards,Glenn
posted by gdonovan - 4:52 pm
Tuesday, August 3, 2004

The United Nations and why it doesn't work
Why don't we start by reading the United Nations Charter? It's on their web site. I'd put the link in, but I'd rather you try and find it yourself. It's not accessible from the home page of the U.N, which I found surprising. Written shortly after World War II, it was largely about preventing another world war. The Charter makes declarative statements about "peace loving nations" coming together and it states as one of it's purposes to "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights". These are the first and second points of the Charter. One need go no further to understand why the U.N. doesn't work. Let's look at each of these prinicples and see how the U.N. is doing.
So, is it an association of "peace loving nations"? From a purely practical standpoint, how does one determine that? It has included some of most threatening and horrific, war mongering nations of the 20th century. How did the Soviet Union ever get in? It's imperial ambitions were not in question and anyone who doubted them (by ignoring their military occupation of Eastern Europe) could not have missed Kruschev pounding the podium at the U.N. General Assembly with his shoe in 1961 uttering "we will crush you" to the west. Other examples are legion - but hopefully this one example suffices to expose the U.N.'s fundamental lack of adherance to one of it's founding "principles". The question that begs to be answered is, what is the moral legitimacy of an organization that claims to stand for peace when it forces an equality between nations committed to peace and those committed to expansion by force? By violating one of it's clearly stated principles, the United Nations has severely damaged it's credibility.
And what about those "fundamental human rights"? When Sudan and Libya chair the Human Rights Commission, how can there be any legitimacy? If this doesn't convince you, how about reading reports on human rights abuses that cover the United States and Sudan in the same document? While some American haters would like to see us as systematic abusers of human rights - this analysis doesn't hold up under any serious intellectual scrutiny. By including these kinds of nations, the moral legitimacy of the U.N. is damaged critically. You need only look at it's ineffectualism in Rwanda or regarding the current ethnic cleansing going on Durfar, Sudan to see how the U.N. struggles to even forcefully condemn the atrocities of it's member nations - no less actually take action to stop them! I find it insulting that the civilized world (that's right I've said it - CIVILIZED) should have to engage these tribal, repressive, horrific nations as anything other than the enemies of freedom, democracy and peace that they are. To treat with them as equals is a pretense with devastating consequences.
I also point you to the over-expansion of the U.N. http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html This link takes you to their high level organization chart. Take a moment to review the sprawl of it. And that's just the high level view. If you were to explode the view down to the next level, the chart would look like a plate of spaghetti spilled out in front of you. The over-reach of the United Nations into so many issues not central to it's founding purposes lends to it's inability to deal with it's primary purposes.
At this point, those of you who've always held out some fuzzy minded faith in the U.N. as a vehicle for international cooperation are ready to scream, I'm sure. You'll quote the many good accomplishments and intentions of the U.N. Please be assured that by no means do I intend to demean the efforts of the many good people of the U.N. It has laudable purposes and has supported the achievement of many worthy causes such as de-colonization, dealing with world hunger and disease to name a few. The point I want to make is that it has failed to adhere to it's fouding principles in a breathtaking way - and to leave this unmentioned is to ignore reality.
Aside from the aforementioned implementation and execution problems, I also believe that the United Nations is fundamentally flawed. This flaw is indeed the cause of the lapses described above, and is so basic that I'm amazed it isn't seen clearly by every person living in a free, democratic nation. The United Nations is an association of NATIONS - not PEOPLE. It exists in agreement between the member nations and has no direct connection or accountability to the people it is supposed to unite. Compare this to the nations we live in in the democratic world. Our governments have powers granted to them by the people - and exist with the consent of the governed. Periodically, we are given the choice to put new people in the positions of power to represent us and they are held to account for their decisions. We effectively give them our proxy to act on our behalf within the structure of law of our particular nation. Since the U.N. lacks any of these characteristics, it will never have the legitimacy of a goverment. It will never be able to make or enforce laws - which ultimately are the expression of the peoples will in how they want to be governed. Consequently, it will never be able to deal with tough issues. Period.
One could go on, teasing out the flaws of the United Nations, but this brief essay set out to describe why the U.N. doesn't work - not what's wrong with the U.N. All organizations have problems - but if they are not constituted properly, they have little chance of achieving their stated goals. I leave you with one final question - particularly for you U.N. lovers out there. If the U.N cannot hope to ever achieve international order, than where does that leave us? Consider that what actually exists is essentially a lawless power struggle at the level of nations, governed by little principle other than the strength and benevolence of the "peace loving" nations of the world. I don't like counting the better instincts of nations - we need something more.
posted by gdonovan - 11:23 am
Sunday, July 18, 2004

Global Democracy - How I got involved.
After a year of searching for and volunteering with "global citizenship" advocates that I could associate with in good conscience, I've decided to strike out on my own. Each organization I encountered seemed incredibly partisan and/or not making any progress towards actual results that I could observe. There are also other organizations which seem to be about promoting some kind of awareness. LIKE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT DEMOCRACY IS! What I was looking for was advocacy within our current govermental structures, NGO's and other multi-lateral structures to create and promote policies to implement global democracy. So I'm starting a new conversation. One that has as it's goal to influence policy makers and the public to support policies that will result in a Global Democracy.
My Story
In early 2003 I took a course on the application of existential philosophy to the living of ones life and contemplated for the first time in my life the true nature of community. At the time we (the United States) were preparing to go to war with Iraq and I was deeply ambivalent about this decision. On the one hand, given the national interests as stake I supported and still support acting agressively and pre-emptively to deal with assymetrical threats to our security. On the other hand, I found myself deeply saddened that as human beings, we've found no better way to deal with our differences than war. And I was convinced that on the world stage we hadn't yet come up with a structure to resolve our issues.
Back to the class. I became present to the beliefs that allow me to tolerate the suffering of others elsewhere in the world. I wouldn't tolerate genocide in Tennesee for a moment, yet in Rwanda, somehow or another I'm not out in the street. Now don't get me wrong, I also realize the huge problems the west has created for itself intervening in national affairs of troubled nations and our reluctance to jump into the middle of conflicts. But all the same I realized that I don't really think of myself as a member of a larger identity than American. I have some fuzzy notion of being part of the human race, a member of western civilization, white, male. And as far as structures that I'm part of, there was nothing stronger or above the level of nation. I realized that it was these structures that created and persisted much of the reality that I existed in. And that the loose affiliation of nations has no governmental structure within which they can work things out. So ultimately, I became present to the complete unworkability of the current situation at the international level and the suffering of so much of humanity on the planet today. After considering this, I then came to the conclusion that the implementation of democracy, the rule of law and protection of individual rights were minimum sufficient conditions for creating the possibility of a world that works for everyone. I also saw that the rule of law would need to apply and be enforced globally if we are to have any tool other than war for enforcing adherence to these principles.
Considering this, I concluded that until we create a global government based on those principals we have no hope of living in peace, prosperity and achieving basic equality for all people. What's more, we have little chance of addressing other very serious isses such as disease, poverty, preserving the environment or virtually any other global issue without a global governmental structure. And I also saw clearly that the U.N. is not that vehicle because it is not democratic. A key element of the legitimacy of any government is having the consent of the governed. And the U.N. is not connected to citizens in any way. It also has members who are not democratic. And I want to eliminate non-democratic governments. I certainly don't want them part of my "country". For a moment, try to imagine having Iran as another state in the United States? With all their repressive laws and the lack of individual liberty? I cannot. Then how can we sit down with them as equals at the tables of the U.N.? Or make any common cause with them?
What do I want to do? I propose the expansion of the United States - the admission of new states into the republic. And that European Union do the same. And the eventual merger of the European Union with the United States. Now while this may sound quite radical, I ask you, what other structure has a chance of working? In particular, the U.S. has figured out many of the thorny issues of governing and guaranteeing individual freedom. I propose that this be voluntary - nations will vote on becoming part of the republic. Now all you patriotic Americans who find this a great idea should really stop and consider the impact of a United States of Earth. We'd be about 100 million out of say 2.5 billion voters. What I propose is that via this structure the U.S.A. actually give up it's hegemony of the planet. So don't be tempted to see this as a takeover by the U.S.. The current structure of the world as an unconnected polyglot of nations with us at the top of the heap serves our national interests quite well. It's the global human interests that aren't well served by the current structure.
This is just the beginning. In forthcoming blog's I'll discuss what doesn't work about the U.N., the European Union, NGO's and lot's more. I'll also be developing a program for influencing policy makers which you will watch evolve. I want to inspire both the left and the right to support these ideas. And I'd like you to join me. If any of this has inspired you please post a reply and I'll reach out to you.
More to come soon!
posted by gdonovan - 6:23 pm
About this siteThis blog is dedicated to posting legitimate ideas regarding the creation and implementation of Global Democracy. I believe that implementation of Global Democracy, the rule of law and creation of basic human rights for all individuals are the basic necessary conditions for a world that works for Everyone.
Site Links
Other Links
Update this Page