The Futurist

"We know what we are, but we know not what we may become"

- William Shakespeare

VietNam or Korea, which was better in the long run?

America fought two major conflicts in the second half of the 20th century, within the greater Cold War campaign.  Both the Korean War and the VietNam War each resulted in over 50,000 US troop deaths and 2.4 million total deaths on both sides.  The conventional wisdom in America is that VietNam was a 'failure' and Korea was a stalemate or even a success.  However, both assessments may be untrue when viewing the long-term evolution of both theaters through to 2006.

To this day, the US and most of the world worries about North Korea, where a maniacal despot has attained nuclear weapons, and where human development is at African levels.  North Korea is a nuclear-armed hypermilitarized prison camp, and a resolution to the current situation may yet prove even more costly than the first Korean War.

VietNam today is a rapidly modernizing nation with a GDP growth rate consistently in the 8% range.  While it still is a communist state, it is not belligerent and it does not appear to be at risk of being headed by someone like Kim Jong Il. 

The world is extremely fortunate that VietNam, with a population of 85 million, or 4 times that of North Korea, has not become a nuclear-armed state run by a despotic madman, 30 years after the fall of Saigon. 

Think, for a moment, about how bad that would be. 

In the context of whether the US should have fought either war, it is true that after the end of the Korean War, no further hostilities took place on the Korean Peninsula, whereas after the US withdrew from VietNam, 2 million more people will killed in Cambodia and Laos over the next 5 years.  Yet, 31 years later, VietNam is relatively benign, and makes one wonder, in hindsight, whether the same would have happened anyway without US involvement.  53 years after the Korean War, the ripple effects of that are a danger to the world even today, and leads one to think, in hindsight, that the US should have pushed further, sustained more casualties, and unified the entire Korean Peninsula.

One more dimension about the Vietnam War merits consideration - the indirect role it had in turning China away from belligerency.  China invaded Vietnam in 1979, possibly lured by the belief that VietNam was greatly depleted at the time.  But the Vietnamese had learned many advanced military tactics after 13 years of fighting American forces.  China lost 30,000 soldiers in just the first month of their incursion, after which the Chinese army hastily withdrew.  Prior to 1979, China had conducted several acts of military aggression, including wars on the Korean Peninsula, the annexation of Tibet, a border war against India (1962), and against the Soviet Union (1969).  But after 1979, the PRC has been substantially less willing to conduct expansionist aggression, with no comparable wars occurring since then.  Perhaps the Sino-Vietnam War was what induced this change in the PRC's behavior. 

Hindsight, of course, is 20/20, and is particularly malleable when given decades of time to look back upon.  This is why any judgement on current US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will not be settled for quite some time, and those who are quick and eager to brand it a failure reveal a lack of knowledge of historical process (as well as simply fashionable anti-Americanism). 

I believe that the US will achieve a distinct victory in Iraq by 2008.  I also believe this will force many surrounding nations to change for the better.  But the US should learn from the past and not let success in Afghanistan or Iraq lead to an incomplete job at the fringes, and the creation of another North Korea even despite the short term view of success.  The plan has to be in the scope of decades, not just months or years.

July 23, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Stock Market Capitalization in Developing Countries

Stock_marketAn interesting table in The Economist compared the market capitalizations of stock markets in developing nations.  The first surprise is that the top seven stock markets are so close to each other in size.  The next observation is that stock market capitalization has less to do with the GDP of the country than one would expect.  China, which has the largest economy by far among countries on this list, has a smaller market cap than India or Russia.  That Hong Kong and Taiwan approach China in size despite vastly smaller populations makes China look even more surprising.  The large and wealthy diasporas of India and Han Chinese of Taiwan and Hong Kong are also a reason why these countries have market caps larger than their GDPs would suggest. 

In any event, these numbers are dwarfed by the United States, which has a total stock market capitalization of $20 Trillion, or 30 times greater than that of South Korea, India, or China.  One company, General Electric, if placed on this list, would be between Taiwan and Mexico to take 9th place.  And the US market cap grows at 8% a year (without assuming acceleration), which would bring it to $130 Trillion by 2030.  If China or India want to match the US market cap in size by 2030, that means they have to grow at 25% a year for the next 24 years straight. 

This tells you how far any other country is from surpassing the US as an economic superpower.  This will be worth visiting again when one of the countries above crosses $5 Trillion. 

Related :

The Stock Market is Exponential and Accelerating

Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030

July 19, 2006 in China, Economics, India, Politics | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Terror Attacks hit Mumbai

Terrorists have struck the commuter trains in Mumbai, a city in which Iive at least 200 people that I am related to.  The attacks are very similar to the Madrid and London attacks. 

This is also the third attack by terrorists in India, after the Dec. 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and the attack on a Delhi market on October 29, 2005. 

It is vital for America to act quickly and re-affirm our support for India as an ally in the War on Terror.  Of all the world's countries, this is the most valuable alliance for the US to cultivate in the 21st century. India is already the most pro-US country in the world, and is the only country where George W. Bush is more highly regarded than in the US. 

The fifth-column in the US will try everything to undermine the War on Terror and help the terrorists.  This includes trying to prevent a tighter Indo-US alliance.  If this event helps draw America and India closer, we will have scored a victory against the enemies of freedom and democracy, both in terrorist organizations and in the US itself. 

July 11, 2006 in India, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

The US Job Market is Booming, For Those Who Can Admit It

The US economy continues to glide along in an optimal 'goldilocks' trajectory.  GDP growth, consumer confidence, service sector growth, and unemployment levels continue to proceed at robust, but not overheated levels. 

The June unemployment report confirmed this.  A quick glance at the historical unemployment rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the current rate of 4.6% is lower than it has been for 32 of the last 35 years, the only period of lower unemployment being the bubble era of 1998-2000. 

Jobs_2

This also shows something else that is interesting.  Let's examine the average unemployment rates over the last 14 years, during which there were two Presidents.  For simplicity, we shall ignore the notion of inheriting an economy, whether good or bad, from one's predecessor. 

Clinton : 5.3%

George W. Bush : 5.3%

So Clinton and GWB have had the same average unemployment rates during their terms, and only 3 of Clinton's 8 years had a lower rate than the 4.6% it is today.  Imagine that. 

People who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome just cannot accept that the economy could possibly be doing well.  Their memorized arguments are :

1) They will say that those who have been unemployed for a long time are no longer collecting benefits and do not get reported in the statistics.  This is untrue, as consumer confidence continues to be high.

2) They will say is that these jobs are all lower-skilled jobs that pay poorly.  This directly contradicts their claims that all the gains of US economic growth gravitate to the top of the income ladder while the rest received no benefit.  It also ignores the basic statistic that average hourly earnings are, in fact, rising.

3) Their final argument will be that 150,000 jobs a month are needed to keep up with labor force growth.  This is untrue, as the US workforce is 140 million people, growing at 1% a year, or 1.4 million new entrants a year.  Divide this by 12, and it comes to 116,600 jobs needed per month to accommodate the new entrants.  Furthermore, the US now has 1 million people who earn a living through entrepreneurial Internet activity, such as eBay trading, blogging, Google Ads, domain investing, etc.  They are not captured in the traditional employment statistics.  Ten years ago, these people would otherwise be working at traditional employers, but have voluntarily left the workforce.  Soon, even video games may provide a viable form of self-employment for some people(see item 6 here).

Behind this lies a deeper observation.  The angry Left has so much cognitive dissonance about the fact that the economy is currently strong, that they are probably inhibiting their own chances of success in this economy.  Their pessimism leads to risk aversion, negativity, and other behaviors that preclude success.  It also leads to a tortured logic that Bush supporters can be incredibly 'dumb' yet unfairly 'rich' at the same time. 

Here is an example of an extremist anti-Bush blogger, someone at least two standard deviations from the middle of political ideology, desperately trying to believe that the economy is doing poorly. 

It is true that jobs continue to be lost at the bottom of the skill ladder (like in manufacturing), while a greater number of jobs are added at the top of the skill ladder.  This is a boon for highly-educated workers, but a problem for workers with lower-level skills.  Those who can upgrade their skills will prosper, and those that cannot will see declines in their standards of living.

This pattern of workforce evolution has been the norm for centuries, ever since Ned Ludd and his 'Luddite' followers destroyed cotton looms that put handweavers out of business.  The accelerating rate of economic growth, however, now means that while a person could once spend their whole life at one skill level, they now have to continuously upgrade their skills every decade or so. 

July 08, 2006 in Economics, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Independence Day and Patriotism

On this Fourth of July, the birthday of the greatest nation in the world, let me provide some reading material. 

A Gallup poll on which demographic groups are proud to be American and which are less so.  The numbers are still at safe levels, but the low patriotism of 18-19 year olds is worrisome. 

Why the US will still be the only Superpower in 2030, with newly added bonus content.

Who hates America?  Not as many countries as you may think.

An easy way to expose anti-Americanism in a debate.  After today, the anti-American fifth column (8-10% of the population) will come out from under their beds again.

Enjoy!

July 04, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

The Demographics of Happiness

I happened to stumble across a report from the Pew Research Center on the demographics of happiness.  The report was interesting, but very little was actually surprising. 

HapThe report finds that income corelates to happiness, as having one's basic needs met can remove some of the most common causes of misery.  However, the survey puts all making above $150,000 a year into one bucket, thereby not providing any insight into whether there is incremental probability of happiness upon making $300,000, $500,000, or $1 Million a year.  I believe that it is quite possible that there is virtually no marginal increase in happiness beyond an income of, say, $200,000 a year or so, because nearly all material needs are met at this threshold.  Additional income can bring only more power, prestige, and fame, but material consumption and the resultant gratification saturates as this point.  In other words, if someone making over $200,000 a year is still not happy, it is probably for some reason other than money. 

The next question that arises is that of relative vs. absolute wealth.  If a person earns more than 95% of the members of his society, he is rich in whatever era he lives in, but even a person of average income today has many technological luxuries that were unavailable to the wealthiest person 50 years ago.   This, combined with the rapidly growing ranks of the wealthy as a share of the total population and the tendency of prosperity to move people up the ranks of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, could lead to a very slow but steady migration of happiness away from increasingly accessible material consumption and towards more self-actualized forms of human fulfillment. 

Hap_1Beyond wealth, one's worldview has an influence on happiness.  When happiness is categorized by political leanings, Republicans have had a stark advantage over Democrats for the last 35 years.  This is even during the Clinton years, when Democrats had the most reasons to be cheerful than at any other time, and President Clinton himself had a contagious optimism that contributed towards high consumer confidence and a strong economy.  The most obvious explanation for why 'liberals' are perpetually unhappy is that the realities of the real world continue to deliver outcomes contrary to what theoretical 'liberal' beliefs lead them to expect. 

Additionally, one particular strain of 'liberalism' departed from the genuinely liberal goal of improving society, and mutated into a religion of hatred towards those who are happier than they are.  'Tax the Rich' might really be intended to mean 'Tax the Happy, because we are jealous of them'.  Hap2There was a time when the 'left' and 'right' merely disagreed on which approach was more suitable to cause improvements in society, as opposed to today when many on the 'left' have no interest in improving society at all, but merely feign altruism while engaging in a hateful campaign to obstruct or distort the pillars of traditional society from which most non-leftists derive happiness (such as marriage, faith, children, or entrepreneurship).  This causes great conflict between their leftist religion and the natural urge of human decency still faintly present within them, and thus leaves them twisted and tortured in self-contradicting misery.  The same is probably true of suicide bombers, for that matter.

Since happiness is a natural condition, present when natural needs are met, what does it tell us about which belief systems, activities, and behaviours are more 'naturally' suitable for human life?

July 03, 2006 in Economics, Politics | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Senate Votes 93-6 to Keep Troops in Iraq. People Who Want America to Win Are Not Surprised

A few months ago, I wrote an article about how the Patriot Act was renewed in the Senate by an overwhelming 89-11 vote.  This lopsided margin makes one wonder what all the fuss is about, as legislation passing by such a margin, with even 33 out of 44 Democrats voting in favor, is simply not controversial by any meaningful degree. 

In the same way, a Senate vote on withdrawing US troops from Iraq by the end of 2006 was defeated by an even wider 93-6 margin.  This time, 37 of 44 Democrats voted in favor of and only 6 voted against keeping US troops in Iraq beyond 2006.  This effectively means that most Democrats are willing to incur several hundred more US troop fatalities in the hope of helping Iraq achieve a stable Democratic society, and that they too believe that victory is on track (by 2008, in my estimation).  Furthermore, along with the vote on the Patriot Act, this is ample proof that despite their rhetoric in order to appease fringe anti-American voters, most Democrats fully agree with the most basic principles of the War on Terror. 

This is also an indicator of how far from the mainstream the media has drifted.  When the media pours so much energy into positions that 89-93 Senators do not favor, and manages to persuade fashion sheep (those who form political opinions based on watching under 20 minutes of television news per day), it does extreme damage to our national security.  It also hastens the demise of the traditional media at the hands of the blogosphere, where the decentralized model and huge number of participants ensures that issues are inevitably given an amount of coverage in exact proportion to their importance and gthe political leanings of the general population. 

The 6 Senators who voted for troop removal contain, predictably, Kerry, Boxer, Kennedy, and Feingold, who depend on a substantial number of fringe leftist, fashion activist, and even fifth column voters to stay in office.  For the remaining 37 Democrats, I have sympathy, as they are caught in the absurd situation of having to say one thing on television, but quitely voting the opposite way on the floor, hoping that the media does not publicize their actual voting patterns.  Hillary Clinton was recently heckled when addressing an audience of extreme leftists, and will have difficulty finding issues to unite her prospective voters around during her Presidential campaign. 

Some fanatics believe that any supporter of the Patriot Act or Iraq occupation is 'dumb', 'evil', or both.  If that amounts to 89-93% of all Senators, that is also the approximate percentage of the population that would reject the traitorious views of the fifth column in the absence of media sympathy for these extremists.  Only 8-10% of the US population is a fifth column that sides with terrorists, but the majority of normal Americans have still not quite figured this out yet, even if the Senate has. 

As usual, Cox and Forkum always puts a thousand words in a picture :

Media

June 17, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Zarqawi and the Anti-American Fifth Column

The successful elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not only one of the biggest victories that we have seen in the five years since the War on Terror began, but the ripple effects of this will yield dividends for months to come. 

Zarqawi was a terrorist target of just as much importance as Osama bin Laden.  This is attributed to the fact that the reward placed on his head ($25 million) matches that of Bin Laden, yet avoided capture in a country that the US already occupies, for 3 years.  Zarqawi is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of nearly 1000 US troops in the last 3 years, while Bin Laden has not managed to kill any Americans during that period (except for being an inspirational figurehead to terrorists in Iraq).  Furthermore, Zarqawi beheaded multiple hostages personally, indicating a greater personal bloodthirstiness than Osama bin Laden has demonstrated a capacity for. 

At the very least :

1) The Expertise Vaccum : More than half of Zarqawi's lieutenants were already captured and killed before, and with the top leader gone, Zarqawi's successor is bound to be less experienced and capable.  A terrorist who can evade both the US military in addition to civilians seeking the $25 million bounty on his head, for 3 years, is not easily replaced. 

2) The Domino Effect : The recovery of Zarqawi's laptop provided a rich bounty of intelligence, and the US promptly conducted another 40 raids throughout Iraq in less than 24 hours since recovering the laptop.  Dozens of low-level terrorists have been captured and killed, yielding further intelligence.

3) The Psychological Effect : Terrorist leaders will continue to have the perpertual fear that a missile or laser-guided bomb can descend from the sky upon them at any time.  The strike that killed Zarqawi (just like the one that Ayman al-Zawahiri narrowly missed in Pakistan a few months ago) was from a precision guided weapon deployed from planes that were miles away less than a minute earlier. 

4) Iraqi Morale : The removal of a terrorist that has directly or indirectly killed over 20,000 Iraqi civilians in the same week that Iraq has formed their cabinet is a double-boost to morale.  Local tips were instrumental in locating Zarqawi, and that the net closed on him after two years of evasion is symbolic of how the Iraqi people are increasingly rejecting his ideology in favor of one of freedom and aspiration. 

Indeed, my earlier prediction of why we will be able to demonstrate full success in our mission in Iraq by 2008 is even more ascertained now.

Predictably, the 8-10% of the US adult population that constitutes an anti-American fifth column went to great lengths to downplay the news, discredit claims of Zarqawi's importance, or spin it in a way that attempts to make America appear as the villain.  Here are some selections of their words. 

The father of a man beheaded by Zarqawi (after voluntarily going to Iraq as a contractor), defends Zarqawi and makes Bush out to be far worse.  Also here.  Still more on the moral idiocy of this from Dennis Prager.

A blogger on DailyKos speaks semi-admirably about Al-Qaeda and Zarqawi. 

A sampling of quotes from other socialist blogs.  Interestingly, some criticize Bush for not killing Zarqawi when he had the chance in 2002 and 2003.  But that conflicts with their claim that the invasion of Iraq was unjustifiable and Saddam had no ties to Zarqawi-type terrorists.  The only common theme is a the end-goal of fanatical Bush-hate (also known as Bush Derangement Syndrome). 

Yet more mourning the loss of Zarqawi, as well as clumsy attempts to spin the news.

Bill O'Reilly calls out prominent anti-Americans.

Further explanation at Protein Wisdom about why Zarqawi's death is a blow to anti-Americans. 

There was a time when openly rooting for an enemy that deliberately targets civilians, and uses gruesome shock tactics such as televised beheadings, would have been considered shocking sedition.  There was a time when it would have been considered treason to claim that the elected President is more evil than such an enemy.  There was a time when it would have been considered strange for some people to openly oppose measures that may prevent themselves from getting killed by terrorists. 

As a wise man once said, a society is decadent when apathy is dominant, and the absurd seems normal.  A decadent society has to make a conscious effort to improve, or otherwise decline. 

I have been giving some thought as to why 8-10% of the human population is so bent on self-destruction, and perhaps the answer is Darwinian.  In nature, many species have natural predators to weed out the weak or defective members.  Since humans have no natural predators, nature had to adapt in order to continue the filtering process.  Nature responded by programming some members of the human species to weed themselves out voluntarily, by taking active action.  This manifests itself in the behavior described above, as well as in suicide bombings, etc.  Perhaps Darwinian natural selection has become natural self-selection. 

Perhaps this is the true key to understanding the threats we face. 

June 11, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Deconstructing the 'Leftist' Mind

A very interesting take on the mind of 'leftists' from Ace of Spades.  A few choice sentences are :

Now, the things the left wants you to believe are not easy to believe. It's hard to believe that, for example, taxing work and investment will not reduce work and investment (especially when one simultaneously believes that taxing the use of gasoline or other energy will reduce the use of gasoline or other energy).

Why is humor and irony so common on the right and so hard to find on the left? Humor and irony require emotional distance from a subject-- something I would contend the left is in of rather short supply.

The philosophy behind the article likens leftism to a fanatical religion.  However the author slightly falls into the trap that 'leftists' set for him, by referring to them as 'progressives'.  That term, along with 'elite' and 'liberal' are tools that the leftists in question use to automatically elevate themselves to some perceived level of moral and intellectual superiority over those who don't share their views.  To cede these words to them is itself to grant them unearned credibility. 

Another thing that is funny, that the author points out, is how 'leftists' are utterly convinced that those who disagree with them are stupid (and also evil). Yet, the 2004 Presidential Election Statistics show a rather straightforward corelation between income and a tendency to vote for Bush.  Those earning over $200,000 a year voted 63% for Bush.  The middle class slice earning between $50,000 and $75,000 voted 56% for Bush.  Only those who earned under $30,000 voted strongly against Bush as a group (from cnn.com).

Votes

Income certainly does not corelate exactly to intelligence, work ethic, and determination, as someone in college may have all of these things but still not yet be earning a high income.  But to believe the 'leftist' view that Bush supporters are stupid is to believe that intelligence is inversely corelated to an ability to earn a high income.  This is vastly more difficult to logically accept. 

A belief that disproportionate financial rewards are earned by people who are stupid enough to support Bush could lead to a dislike for the American system in general, and sympathy for socialism and communism, no matter how many countries those systems have failed in.  It thus would appear that socialists are not interested in equality at all, but merely punishing the dumb people who would otherwise be earning more money than the anti-meritocracy socialists. 

Related : The Biggest Story of the Last 15 Years - The Stunning Defeat of Socialism. 

June 01, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (86) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030

125pxflag_of_the_people27s_republic_of_c_2Version 2.0 of this article is posted here. 

One of the most popular dinner party conversation topics is the possibility that the United States will be joined or even surpassed as a superpower by another nation, such as China.  China has some very smart people, a vast land area, and over four times the population of the US, so it should catch up easily, right?  Let's assess the what makes a superpower, and what it would take for China to match the US on each pillar of superpowerdom. 

A genuine superpower does not merely have military and political influence, but also must be at the top of the economic, scientific, and cultural pyramids.  Thus, the Soviet Union was only a partial superpower, and the most recent genuine superpower before the United States was the British Empire. 

To match the US by 2030, China would have to :

300pxnasdaq_times_square_display 1)  Have an economy near the size of the US economy.  If the US grows by 3.5% a year for the next 25 years, it will be $30 trillion in 2006 dollars by then.  Note that this is a modest assumption for the US, given the accelerating nature of economic growth, but also note that world GDP only grows about 4% a year, and this might at most be 5% a year by 2030.  China, with an economy of $2.2 trillion in nominal (not PPP) terms, would have to grow at 12% a year for the next 25 years straight to achieve the same size, which is already faster than its current 9-10% rate, if even that can be sustained for so long (no country, let alone a large one, has grown at more than 8% over such a long period).  In other words, the progress that the US economy would make from 1945 to 2030 (85 years) would have to be achieved by China in just the 25 years from 2005 to 2030.  Even then, this is just the total GDP, not per capita GDP, which would still be merely a fourth of America's. 

150pxcocacola 2)  Create original consumer brands that are household names everywhere in the world (including in America), such as Coca-Cola, Nike, McDonalds, Citigroup, Xerox, Microsoft, or Google.  Europe and Japan have created a few brands in a few select industries, but China currently has none.  Observing how many American brand logos have populated billboards and sporting events in developing nations over just the last 15 years, one might argue that US dominance has even increased by this measure. 

300pxusafb2spirit750pix3)  Have a military capable of waging wars anywhere in the globe (even if it does not actually wage any).  Part of the opposition that anti-Americans have to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the envy arising from the US being the only country with the means to invade multiple medium-size countries in other continents and still sustain very few casualties.  No other country currently is even near having the ability to project military power with such force and range.  Mere nuclear weapons are no substitute for this.  The inability of the rest of the world to do anything to halt genocide in Darfur is evidence of how such problems can only get addressed if and when America addresses them.

Cardseal1_1 4)  Have major universities that are household names, that many of the worlds top students aspire to attend.  17 of the world's top 20 universities are in the US.  Until top students in Europe, India, and even the US are filling out an application for a Chinese university alongside those of Harvard, Stanford, MIT, or Cambridge, China is not going to match the US in the knowledge economy.  This also represents the obstacles China has to overcome to successfully conduct impactful scientific research. 

5)  Attract the best and brightest to immigrate into China, where they can expect to live a good life in Chinese society.  The US effectively receives a subsidy of $100 to $200 billion a year, as people educated at the expense of another nation immigrate here and promptly participate in the workforce.  As smart as people within China are, unless they can attract non-Chinese talent that is otherwise going to the US, and even talented Americans, they will not have the same intellectual and psychological cross-pollination, and hence miss out on those economic benefits.  The small matter of people not wanting to move into a country that is not a democracy also has to be resolved. 

200pxgoogle_logo_transparent_2 6)  Become the nation that produces the new inventions and corporations that are adopted by the mass market into their daily lives.  From the telephone and airplane over a century ago, America has been the engine of almost all technological progress.  Despite the fears of innovation going overseas, the big new technologies and influential applications continue to emerge from companies headquartered in the United States.  Just in the last two years, Google emerged as the next super-lucrative company (before eBay and Yahoo slightly earlier), and the American-dominated 'blogosphere' emerged as a powerful force of information and media. 

180pxnemotheatrical7)  Be the leader in entertainment and culture.  China's film industry greatly lags India's, let alone America's.  We hear about piracy of American music and films in China, which tells us exactly what the world order is.  When American teenagers are actively pirating music and movies made in China, only then will the US have been surpassed in this area.  Take a moment to think how distant this scenario is from current reality. 

Images_18)  Be the nation that engineers many of the greatest moments of human accomplishment.  The USSR was ahead of the US in the space race at first, until President Kennedy decided in 1961 to put a man on the moon by 1969.  While this mission initially seemed to be unnecessary and expensive, the optimism and pride brought to anti-Communist people worldwide was so inspirational that it accelerated many other forms of technological progress and brought economic growth to free-market countries.  This eventually led to a global exodus from socialism altogether, as the pessimism necessary for socialism to exist became harder to enforce.  People from many nations still feel pride from humanity having set foot on the Moon, something which America made possible. 

China currently has plans to put a man on the moon by 2024.  While being only the second country to achieve this would certainly be prestigious, it would still be 55 years after the United States achieved the same thing.  That is not quite the trajectory it would take to approach the superpowerdom of the US by 2030.  If China puts a man on Mars before the US, I may change my opinion on this point, but the odds of that happening are not high. 

9)  Be the nation expected to thanklessly use its own resources to solve many of the world's problems.  If the US donates $15 billion in aid to Africa, the first reaction from critics is that the US did not donate enough.  On the other hand, few even consider asking China to donate aid to Africa.  After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, the fashionable question was why the US did not donate even more and sooner, rather than why China did not donate more, despite being geographically much closer.  Ask yourself this - if an asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth, which country's technology would the world depend on to detect it, and then destroy or divert it?  Until China is relied upon to an equal degree, it is not in the same league. 

300pxtianasquare10)  Adapt to the underappreciated burden of superpowerdom - the huge double standards that a benign superpower must withstand in that role.  America is still condemned for slavery that ended 140 years ago, even by nations that have done far worse things more recently than that.  Is China prepared to apologize for Tianenmen Square, the genocide in Tibet, the 30 million who perished during the Great Leap Forward, and the suppression of news about SARS,every day for the next century?  Is China remotely prepared for being blamed for inaction towards genocide in Darfur while simultaneously being condemned for non-deadly prison abuse in a time of war against opponents who follow no rules of engagement?  The amount of unfairness China would have to withstand to truly achieve political parity with America might be prohibitive given China's history over the last 60 years.  Furthermore, China being held to the superpower standard would simultaneously reduce the burden that the US currently bears alone, allowing the US to operate with less opposition than it experiences today. 

125pxflag_of_the_united_statessvg Of the ten points above, Europe and Japan have tried for decades, and have only achieved parity with the US on maybe two of these dimensions at most.  China will surpass Europe and Japan by 2030 by achieving perhaps two or possibly even three out of these ten points, but attaining all ten is something I am willing to confidently bet against.  The dream of anti-Americans who relish the prospect of any nation, even a non-democratic one, surpassing the US is still a very distant one. 

A point that many bring up is that empires have always risen and fallen throughout history.  This is partly true, but note that the Roman Empire lasted for over 1000 years after its peak.  Also note that the British Empire never actually collapsed since Britain is still one of the the top seven countries in the world today, and the English language is the most widely spoken in the world.  Britain was merely surpassed by its descendant, with whom it shares a symbiotic relationship.  The US can expect the same if it is finally surpassed, at some point much later than 2030 and probably not before the Technological Singularity, which would make the debate moot.   

That writing this article is even worthwhile is a tribute to how far China has come and how much it might achieve, but nonetheless, there is no other country that will be a superpower on par with the US by 2030.  This is one of the safest predictions The Futurist can make. 

May 17, 2006 in Accelerating Change, China, Economics, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (209) | TrackBack (4)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008 - Part II

A few more points are worthy of mention, after Part I of this article. 

1) The vocal opposition to the War in Iraq from France and Germany has subsided, after Europe has experienced its own string of terrorist attacks.  Germany dumped the anti-US Schroeder for the pro-US Angela Merkel, and France has opted to side with the US on the matter of Iran's nuclear program.  All this makes the campaign in Iraq easier to execute.

2) The fifth column in America has tried every underhanded trick to sway public opinion, but has used up their ideas at this point.  From the repetitious portrayal of Abu Ghraib abuse as a crime comparable to those of a Nazi Death Camp, to the use of the mother of a fallen soldier as a figurehead to legitimize any criticism of America (only one out of 2400+ such mothers was willing to be used in this way), to the insistence that Iraq is in a 'civil war' even though only 0.001% of Iraq's people are dying each month, the fifth column has tried everything they can.  There is just about nothing new they can fabricate to portray the war in a worse light than they already have.  In the meantime, most Iraqis, including almost all Kurds and Shiites, are still in favor of the direction their country is moving in. 

3) The terrorists in Iraq have tried everything in their power to derail Iraq's progress towards a functioning democracy.  They still manage to kill 30-80 US troops and 100-300 Iraqi troops each month, but are unable to increase that rate even with both Al-Qaeda and Iran's full support.  Zarqawi is not even able to operate freely in Iraq anymore.  The video of him bumbling with his weapon was actually filmed outside of Iraq, in Syria. 

4) Iraq's Human Development Index is not currently calculated, but since its political freedom score is already much higher than the countries that surround it, there is reason to believe that by 2008, a strong economy will bring Iraq to a score of as high as 0.650, a level that is comfortably within the range of a stable, functioning society.

5) The costs of deploying wireless cellular and Internet access continues to drop greatly every year, and getting access to most parts of Iraq by 2008 will be inexpensive.  This will greatly help the free flow of information across borders, and continue to inspire the citizens of Syria and Iran to rise up.  Syria and Iran won't be able to cause trouble in Iraq when they will have to try harder and harder to keep a lid on their own domestic uprisings. 

All this combines to make 2008 the year in which the pieces fall into place for Iraq, despite the wishes of anti-Americans worldwide. 

May 14, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (38) | TrackBack (1)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008 - Part I

What does it take to win in Iraq?  How do we know when we have won?

The Brookings Institute has the latest Iraq Progress Report, which All Things Conservative has summarized nicely.  Let's look at the data a bit more closely to see where key inflection points may emerge, and where Iraq will be in the next few years.

The first and most important projection is that Iraq's GDP will grow 16.8% in 2006 and 13.6% in 2007, making it the fastest growing economy in the world, and many times faster than the world average of around 4%.  This huge surge will snap Iraq out of its long misery (the US snapped out of the Great Depression in the same way with massive WW2-driven economic growth in 1942-45).  Many Iraqis are set to see their financial situations improve dramatically, and as stated by PR master Bill Clinton, "It's the Economy, Stupid".  Appeal to people's prosperity, and much else works itself out.

By 2010, Iraq will settle into a growth trend of about 7% a year, which is comparable to other developing countries in Asia - a trajectory that exudes the same optimism people have for, say, India or Malaysia due to such a growth rate.  Plus, on the Index of Political Freedom, Iraq has the fourth highest score of the 20 countries in the region, and scores much higher than any of its neighboring countries, with Iran (16th), Saudi Arabia (18th), and Syria (19th) scoring much worse.  How long will the citizens of those nations be quiet about not having the same freedoms as Iraqis? 

As individual Iraqis attain more prosperity, they have more of a vested interest in the stability and health of the socioeconomic system they live in, and simply have more things to enjoy in life.  More non-extremists will contribute towards reporting and fighting the destabilizing extremists in their midst.  There is a strong case to be made that as the prosperity of a society rises, its tolerance for chaotic violence drops greatly, and once nations cross certain thresholds of freedom and prosperity, they almost never engage in wars with other nations of similar caliber. 

On the metric of violence in Iraq, it appears that about 80% of Iraq has a murder rate no higher than in the roughest neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, or Miami.  This is worthy of being classified as 'violent criminal activity' rather than 'civil war'.  The remaining 20% of Iraq has a higher rate of violence, but no higher than it was two years ago.  Note that life expectancy in Iraq has actually risen. 

Lastly, it appears that 64% of Iraqis believe that Iraq is going in the right direction, and 77% are still glad that Saddam was removed.  If one excludes Sunnis from the polls, the figures above rise to 83% and 96% respectively.  Given that Shiites and Kurds are the ones Saddam had killed millions of, these high approval numbers are a surprise only to anti-American fanatics, who the Iraqis are obviously not listening to.  This shows that Iraqis have learned that a section of the Western public is rooting for them to fail, and that group is to be ignored.  It is only a matter of time until some articulate Iraqi blogger rises up and attacks the anti-American crowd's secret desire for the failure of Iraq, and receives massive visibility for doing so.  Now that will be fun.

So why will victory take all the way until 2008 if things are going so well?  Because victory cannot be declared until their is a perception of victory.  Part of this is President Bush's fault.  If he did a better job of advertising exactly the successes highlighted by the Brookings Inst. and repeated them often, this would uplift American morale, British morale, Iraqi morale, etc., and we would already have created the perception of victory in the world.  Instead, the thresholds of violence prevention, economic prosperity, and functioning government now have been set higher, and these will only be reached in 2008. 

In other words, Iraq can't just be as safe as Germany was by 1949, it has to become safe enough for American tourists to go for vacation in decent numbers (just as they currently go to Israel, Tanzania, or Thailand).  That is a very high bar to attain, but unfortunately one we have to meet in this political climate.  Only then will the fifth column no longer be able to deceive the fashion sheep that the war is a failure, and a broad perception of victory can emerge.  In total, it will have taken 5 years (2003-08) and 3000 US troops lost to hostile fire, but the majority of Americans (and Iraqis) will agree that we have won. 

Be patient, we are two-thirds of the way there.  Continue on to Part II.

Related :

The Winds of War, the Sands of Time

Who Hates America?

Zarqawi and the Anti-American Fifth Column

These are the Best of Times

The Psychology of Economic Progress

An Easy Way to Expose Concealed Anti-Americanism

Update : In the comments section, some have taken extreme offense to the suggestion that 75% of the data from Iraq is trending well, and just 25% is trending badly.  Then again, these same people are opposed to the War in Afghanistan after 9/11, so it is safe to say they are strongly anti-American (even though they are ashamed to admit it).  We will see these fifth-columnists become increasingly shrill and fanatical as Iraq progresses further.

May 10, 2006 in Accelerating Change, Economics, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (71) | TrackBack (5)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

More on the Decline of Europe

Joe Katzman at Winds of Change has an amazing article on the disastrous confluence of forces that have brought Europe to the precipice of disaster, and threaten to take the United States along the same path unless we learn from Europe's mistakes.  Of particular note is the observation that a society is decadant when futility is accepted, and the absurd seems normal. 

Related : Europe is giving up on the future. 

May 07, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Invite Illegals from Mexico to Join the US Military

Here's an idea : The Pentagon can offer a program where an aspiring young man (or woman) from Mexico or elsewhere can earn US citizenship by serving for 6 years in the US Military, provided their service is with honor.  This is essentially a new class of visa, just like an H-1B, but is open to anyone who is young enough, able bodied enough, and determined enough to make this sacrifice to earn a US passport. 

The military will have to start with a small intake for this program, and eventually build up the infrastucture and processes to take in a quota of around 200,000 a year.  The US will have to organize bi-lingual officers (of which there are many) to manage these divisions of troops at first, and also organize some classes in which to teach them basic English as part of their basic training, but this is not too difficult.  After these classes during basic training, however, these troops should be mixed among US born troops.  Those who violate the miltary code of conduct should be discharged, and deported.

This is attractive for the illegal immigrants, because :

1) Being an enlisted soldier in the US military carries a salary of around $20,000 a year, plus several benefits that continue after military service ends.  It is a more attractive package than they are currently getting by doing unskilled manual labor in the US. 

2) When they emerge as US citizens after their 6 years of service, they will know a fair amount of English, and will be able to get much better jobs in the US, than they could have gotten before their service.  They could even go to college.

3) The soldiers that do well may choose to continue their military career path, and rise up to higher officer ranks over time. 

This is very attractive for the United States, because :

1) It will be a way to separate out which illegals from Mexico truly want to become Americans and contribute positively to American society.  This will be a structure through which they can learn English and assimilate in American society with honor.  This may even lead to some of them going to college, and contributing to the US economy at a higher level. 

2) It will be a way for the US to boost troop levels, in case a major military operation is upon the US in the future. 

3) It will irritate the corrupt elite in Mexico, as the people who otherwise were a burden on the public services in the US will now be strengthening America, and may even gain the political clout to influence change in Mexico in the more distant future. 

4) It will infuriate military-hating anti-Americans who deride this as a scheme to cultivate cannon fodder, even as Mexicans who participate will have done so by choice.  The same anti-Americans who were previously advocates of unrestricted illegal immigration will now oppose this, and will alienate them from Mexicans who were previously easily manipulated by these extremists. 

This program is far from perfect, and many more details have to be worked out.  But among available options, this could be a very attractive one.  At the very least, there should be a program where people who want to risk their lives for America can earn US citizenship through a clearly defined path.  I suspect the number of people who sign up would be large. 

May 01, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

The Psychology of Economic Progress

The human brain may not have evolved significantly in the last 35,000 years, but the human mind has evolved greatly in just the last 200, in many parts of the world.  This is apparent once we observe the world through Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. 

Abraham Maslow was an eminent psychologist in the 20th century who realized tthat the spectrum of human needs is more universally straightforward than it might appear, irrespective of culture.  He constructed a hierarchy of human needs based on each level of prosperity and satisfaction, and the Maslow hierarchy became a foundation of modern psychology.  He categorized each bracket of need-driven behavior as follows (sometimes, there are five levels).

  1. Survival : The most basic human urge to survive is one where a person may disregard courtesy, culture, or religion in the pursuit of urgent necessities. An otherwise normal person may become unreasonable or even violent when his survival itself is uncertain. Animalistic behaviors may manifest themselves in the most desperate times.
  2. Belonging : Once a human has progressed to a level where his most fundamental needs are no longer a cause of daily concern, then he seeks to be part of a community, whether it be his place of work or his social community. Harming another person to seize his possessions is no longer tempting or worthwhile.
  3. Esteem : Once a person is secure in his career and community, and has progressed beyond the need to feel accepted by his friends or respected at his workplace, he strives to excel in multiple areas of his life. Building and maintaining an ego become the most important priority. Thinking of new ways to entertain himself is high on the priority list of the person at this level, and surplus money translates into materialism.
  4. Self-Actualization : A person who has reached a level where his means greatly exceed his requirements of material contentment then may choose to focus his energies on activities that permit him to achieve his full potential.  He is no longer concerned with pure material gain or enhancing the quality of his recreation, nor does he feel he needs to impress others beyond the extent that he already has.  He seeks to become everything that he has the potential to become, and any time not spent pursuing this is treated as a waste. He seeks the company of other actualized people, and in such groups respect is gained from intellectual or artistic accomplishment. 

In centuries past, killing another person in order to take his belongings was common.  Today, the downside risk to one's career of even petty theft or minor fraud is enough that most people in the US today don't consider it.  As the world economy accelerated from centuries of slow growth to a period of rapid growth starting from the middle of the 20th century, we have seen a general decline in violence and disorder in developed societies, and also a decline in large-scale warfare in general.  Simply put, when more people have a stake in the stability and health of the system, they are more interested in maintaining and strengthening it, rather than disrupting it or trying to bypass it.

At the same time, a large segment of US society is stuck within the third level, esteem.  The pursuit of fancier cars, bigger homes, and more material status symbols is seen as the ultimate achievement in life, through a belief that quality of life improves in direct proportion to the degree of conspicuous consumption.  Relatively few have broken out of esteem and rise to actualizaton, the level where the great ideas that move humanity forward can emerge. 

In the US, perhaps 3% still reside in survival, 65% in belonging, 30% in esteem, and just 2% in self-actualization.  There is no country in the world with any more than a tiny minority attaining self-actualization yet, and such a nation would have to emerge in order to surpass the US in global power and influence.  Similarly, some cultures make it difficult for individuals to rise out of survival or belonging at all, ensuring that some nations have systems that cannot reduce poverty or nurture knowledge-based businesses. 

This is why globalization can benefit the world greatly.  While anti-Americans deride the spread of American culture, this also means that people in cultures that inhibit upward psychological advancement are now presented with a guide on how to rise until esteem.  The rapid growth in India and China, despite their cultures being heavily organized along belonging to a family and a community, has featured young people rising to embrace American-style esteem.  Thus, massive reductions in both monetary and intellectual poverty are underway.  At the same time, the complacent Americans stuck in esteem are forced to compete harder with India and China to prosper within globalization, which could induce more Americans to innovate their way to self-actualization. 

As we evolve into an information economy, where more and more people are occupied in knowledge-based careers, self-actualization will be attainable for millions of people. Through actualization arises the greatest examples of social innovation, entrepreneurship, and charity, and these forces will be the key to creating the wondrous new technologies and robust economic growth that we expect in the 21st century. 

This is a vast subject, on which more articles will follow. 

April 30, 2006 in Accelerating Change, Economics, Politics | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Europe is Giving Up on the Future

Two events on April 10, 2006 pushed continental Europe closer to the irreversible extinction of their civilization. 

In France, a very modest law to let employers terminate underperforming employees before the age of 26 was scrapped after socialists rioted in protest.  This could have been the first step in halting France's slide down the economic and demographic slippery slope they are on, but rioting socialists proved they can intimidate the government.  No business started in France in the last 40 years is among France's 25 largest corporations.  A culture of low birth rates, aspirations of mediocrity, and segregation of angry Islamic immigrants spells disaster for France before 2020. 

In Italy, one of the last staunchly pro-US leaders in Europe, Silvio Berlusconi, may lose his bid for re-election.  Italy, like France, also has a sluggish economy and birth rates far below replacement levels.  His opponent, Romano Prodi, is bound to continue and even increase socialist practices such as 4-day workweeks.

The leftward shifts follow in the footsteps of Spain, which, in reaction to the March 11, 2004 Madrid Train Bombings, chose appeasement over counterattack, and voted out a pro-American government in favor of an anti-American socialist government.  Predictably, Spain also has a sluggish economy, anti-business labor laws, and a severe shortage of new children being produced.

There are still small pockets of hope in Europe.  Germany voted out anti-American Gerhard Schroeder and voted in pro-American reformist Angela Merkel.  Denmark stood firm in the cartoon controversy.  But these events, unless they cascade into much larger movements, are not enough to shift the center of gravity of European culture away from the path to demise.  The hope some had for Europe to fight for their future fell into the abyss on April 10, 2006. 

Remarkably, for the high opinions that many Europeans have of their culture, they have little interest in continuing that culture through producing new Europeans.  When many Europeans are asked about this, they don't even want to think about it.  Try a small experiment the next time you get a chance to ask this of anyone from continental Western Europe.

"In Europe, far fewer children are being produced to replace the existing population of Europeans, even while immigrant Muslims have many children.  How can European civilization continue, under these circumstances?"

Try it, and see what happens.  Notice how their answer will avoid the question posed and somehow deviate into a criticism of America.  Anti-Americanism is not merely their fashion, but now a drug that they use to distract them from their self-inflicted troubles.  The European Union, formed to be an economic couterweight to the US, still produces just half of the new wealth that the US produces, and has a growth rate much lower than the world average.  By 2020, the EU will not even be a counterweight to China or India, let alone the US.   

It is sad when a civilization with a rich history and culture stops making an effort to build a future.  Perhaps, in a Darwinian sense, we are seeing evolution and extinction at work, where societies than can't adapt to new realities are unable to take action to continue their survival. 

Cox and Forkum puts a thousand words in a picture.

060411whinemakingx

April 11, 2006 in Economics, Politics | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

The 2008 Presidential Election - Immigration and The Third Party Wild Card

The recent debate over immigration into America (both legal and illegal) has thrown the entire political status quo into disorder.  The American political map has been shown to be not just a horizontal axis of Left and Right, but also a vertical axis of globalizaton or isolation.  Allow me to explain. 

Before, the most heavily debated issue was Iraq.  The Democrats, despite many of them voting for the Iraq War in 2002, managed to collaborate with the anti-Bush media and persuade single-sentence-depth fashion sheep that either 'Bush lied about WMDs', or 'Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda', or 'The war is for oil'.   Logic and facts could be ignored, as the 'Right' was the clearly defined enemy, and the end of opposing them justified the means. 

Most Americans neatly found homes on one of two sides of this issue, and the prominent generals of both armies were clearly defined and recognized.  One could predict what a particular person's position on the Iraq War was merely by hearing their opinion on tax cuts or Supreme Court Justices. 

Then, along came an issue that entirely scattered the ideological bastions of both hordes - the issue of how America should deal with and categorize those who would seek to come immigrate here.  On the venerable conservative magazine National Review, Larry Kudlow and Rich Lowry, joined like Siamese twins on every other pillar of conservative thought, had entirely opposing articles on immigration, on the same day.  Lou Dobbs, previously disdained by conservatives as an isolationist, is now praised by some conservatives and smeared by leftists as a racist.  Pat Buchanan and Tom Daschle, thought to be opposite extremes, agree with each other wholeheartedly at panel symposiums on C-SPAN. 

Why have the battle lines been blurred?  Because the vertical axis of globalization and isolationism splits political ideologies into 4 quadrants, effectively four rather than two columns of fighters. 

The only predictable column is the fifth one. Anti-American fifth columnists (8-10% of the US population) invariably support the position that hurts America, but they are not sure how to use this particular issue to do that.  Other than demand bilingual public schools, in-state college tuition for illegals, and support fringe separatist groups, they are unable to figure out what other indisputably harmful schemes they can inflict upon America within this issue. 

The fifth column only has power when the media, and hence the 35-40% of the US population that are fashion sheep, side with them (as in the case of the Iraq War).  But in the same way, it is difficult for the fashion sheep to determine what view, in fact, is fashionable. 

Is it fashionable to say that businesses need cheap Mexican labor for jobs that Americans won't do?  Is it fashionable to declare that India and China are producing more engineers than the US, and so the US needs to import as many engineers as possible?  Is it fashionable to say this is eroding the wages of the American middle class?  Is it fashionable to say that politicians are pandering to the 'Hispanic' vote?  If so, which party is it fashionable to criticize?  Is it fashionable to accuse people of racism, even if the celebrity in question opposes the Iraq War?  Fashion sheep are bewildered by the complexity of this issue, and will not come to agreement on what fashionable statements they can collectively unite behind to memorize.  Thus, they will not unify behind one position solidly enough to be a factor in this debate. 

The only fashionable nuance that has permeated this debate is the deliberate refusal of the American public to distinguish between :

Legal immigration, and

Illegal immigration. 

This cognitive dissonance is astonishing, and is at the source of the massive galaxy of contradictory one-liners flying around the stadium of political discourse.  Herein lies the soft underbelly of America's future as we head to the crossroads of our civilization, the 2008 election. 

When the public demands something they don't fully understand, that neither party can address without offending large groups, while there is so much confusion about what benefits America and what hurts it, the climate is ripe for a third-party candidate to emerge and cannibalize voters from the other two parties.  The passions are running high enough that a candidate running solely on the issue of sealing the southern border could easily siphon 6% or more of the popular vote, leaving a major-party candidate with 47% to garner more electoral votes, and defeat an opponent with 46%. 

This has already happened in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections, where a third party ensured that the winning candidate had less than 50% of the popular vote.  The question is, would such a candidate in 2008 siphon away more voters from Democrats or Republicans?

Therein lies the true unpredictability that the vertical axis introduces.  Unions oppose immigration but classical liberals and university intellectuals support it.  Evangelicals may see Catholic Mexicans as undesirable non-adherents, or as prospective converts.  Uneducated illegals consume taxpayer resources, but white-collar immigrants effectively subsidize the US economy to the extent of $200 billion a year by being educated at the expense of another country.  Legislation that Mexicans in California welcome, Cubans in Florida might vehemently oppose, particularly as stereotypes of Mexicans also engulf them.  Agribusinesses benefiting from inexpensive illegal labor will be in opposition to Silicon Valley knowledge businesses seeing their California taxes rise.  Which party comes out ahead in forming a conglomeration to appease more of the above lobbies than their opponent?

Throw the large and powerful 2008 blogosphere into the mix, and we can expect a maddening political pandemonium ahead of us. 

April 06, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Jimmy Carter is Angry - a Barometer of Good News

Jimmy Carter has predictably slammed the Indo-US nuclear deal.  This is more proof that this deal is fair, moral, helpful to the security and economic growth of the world, and that Indo-US relations are progressing on precisely the most favorable path.

Carter is unhappy that India and Pakistan are no longer being treated as equal violators of nuclear non-proliferation by Bush.  His worldview of moral equivalence requires that a large, vibrant democracy not be considered as a safer custodian of nuclear weapons than a dictatorship known to harbor many well-known terrorists.  In Carter's view, if Israel has nuclear weapons, Hamas deserves to have them too.  Carter's worldview is also an indirect reason that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons today.  America's enemies know this of Carter, which is why Iran was bold enough to keep American hostages for 15 months, and the Soviet Union knew they could invade Afghanistan at merely the price of the US boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics. 

Decades of anti-capitalist policies championed by Indian politicians seeking a pat on the head from the likes of Carter resulted in great poverty for India.  The Indian public has had enough of this, and is the reason why India today is the most pro-US and pro-Bush country in the world.  President Bush's free-market embrace of India, and praise for India's success as a secular democracy, have helped win the US a powerful economic, military, political, and cultural ally for the 21st century. 

Given that Jimmy Carter has a post-Presidential approval rating lower than any other President of at least the last 50 years, his outrage over an issue is a good litmus test of the merit of it. 

Bravo, President Bush, for helping flush moral equivalence on nuclear proliferation down the toilet of history. 

Also, read this article from the Indian media, praising Condoleeza Rice's rejection of the Carter-era status quo. 

March 30, 2006 in India, Politics | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Protesting for More Work, Protesting for Less Work

A strange world we live in.  In the US, there were massive protests of illegal immigrants in many major US cities, including a march of 500,000 participants in Los Angeles.  It is unheard of that so many people who are in a country illegally could assemble in a major city and wave the flags of another country while making demands for more rights from their host nation.  American flags were even taken down in one or two instances, even though these people are strongly opposed to returning to Mexico. 

As absurd as this outrage is, it could be far, far worse.  What if the Los Angeles protests were not peaceful? 

In France, economic stagnation and unemployment rates of 22% for young people (and up to 50% for immigrant Muslims) have brought French society to a nightmare worse than most Americans could even imagine.  In an attempt to make just a small dent in this problem, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin suggested that employers should have to power to terminate underperforming employees under the age of 26.  The job security of underperforming employees over the age of 26 are not even being discussed yet.  This would enable businesses to feel less cautious about hiring a new employee, knowing that they could discharge the employee for poor performance.  In turn, this would permit more young people, particularly underpriveleged Muslim youths, to earn a living.  But the culture of entitlement and rationalization of sloth in France is so great that even this minor dose of capitalism provoked upper-class French youths into riots, with cars being torched and riot police having to use teargas.  It is telling that so many of these upper-crust people want guaranteed job security even at the cost of creating a fertile climate for small businesses and decreasing the unemployment of Muslim youths.  What about being entrepreneurs themselves?  What about egalite and fraternite?

Captsgedyq50290306072704photo01photodefa A few months earlier, Islamic youths rioted in France for a host of reasons including their 50% unemployment rate.  In essense, they are fed up with bearing the brunt of the government-supported laziness of the upper-class students mentioned above.  Over 4000 cars were torched over the 16-day uprising. These two groups are on a collision course for an explosive confrontation in the near future. 

The anti-business entitlement mentality has doomed French society, and that of continental Europe as a whole.  Crushing taxation and stagnant wages have made it prohibitively expensive to have children.  Socialized medicine has made doctors apathetic, which led to the deaths of 15,000 people in France and 20,000 in Italy from a heat wave.  Economic growth is shameful, with the entire EU producing only half as much new wealth as the US, despite a larger population.  US unemployment has not been above 10% in the last 25 years, even as Europe has experienced this for most of the last decade. 

It is almost too late for Europe to reverse its population decline and its invasion by hostile, unassimilable foreigners.  Sure, if Europe slashed its tax rates by a third, overhauled labor laws to be more pro-business, and incentivized young couples with a reward for having three children, they could save themselves.  But if even a tiny reform like Villepin's provokes riots, then the psychology of young Europeans is not ready to begin the process of self-criticism and sacrifice.

Europe is on the precipice of doom.  America, by contrast, has people who came here illegally to work, and still has an unemployment rate that Europe can only dream of.  The biggest obstacle for the American people is internalizing what the difference between legal and illegal immigration is; hardly as insurmountable of a challenge as changing a society's entire attitude towards work, competition, entrepreneurship, and reproduction. 

March 29, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (1)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

The Winds of War, The Sands of Time - Part II

Refer to Part I for the reasons behind the rapidly declining proportion of warfare being conducted in the world as time progresses.  As more nations achieve prosperity and democracy, the costs of war outweigh the benefits.

To predict the future risk of major wars, we can begin by assessing the state of some of the largest and/or riskiest countries in the world.  Success at achieving democracy and a per-capita GDP greater that $10,000/yr are highlighted in green.  We can also throw in the UN Human Development Index, which is a composite of these two factors, and track the rate of progress of the HDI over the last 30 years.  In general, countries with scores greater than 0.850 have met the aforementioned requirements of prosperity and democracy.  There are many more countries with a score greater than 0.850 today than there were in 1975.

Let's see how some select countries stack up.

War_risk_2

China : The per-capita income is rapidly closing in on the $10,000/yr threshold, but democracy is a distant dream.  I have stated that China will see a sharp economic slowdown in the next 10 years unless they permit more personal freedoms, and thus nurture entrepreneurship.  Technological forces will continue to pressure the Chinese Communist Party, and if this transition is moderately painless, the ripple effects will be seen in many other communist or autocratic states that China supports, and will move the world strongly towards greater peace and freedom.  The single biggest question for the world is whether China's transition happens without major shocks or bloodshed.  I am optimistic, as I believe the CCP is more interested in economic gain than clinging to an ideology and one-party rule, which is a sharp contrast from the Mao era where 40 million people died over ideology-driven economic schemes.  Cautiously optimistic. 

India : A secular democracy has existed for a long time, but economic growth lagged far behind.  Now, India is catching up, and will soon be a bulwark for democracy and stability for the whole world.  India is only now realizing how much the world will depend on it.  Very optimistic.

Russia : A lack of progress in the HDI is worrisome.  It could yet undo the peaceful transition from the Soviet system that the world benefit from.  Hopefully, energy and technology industries can help Russia increase its population growth rate, and up its HDI.  Cautiously optimistic.

Indonesia : With more Muslims than the entire Middle East put together, Indonesia took a large step towards democracy in 1999 (improving its HDI score), and is doing moderately well economically.  Economic growth needs to accelerate in order to cross $10,000/yr by 2020.  Cautiously optimistic.

Pakistan : The divergence between the paths of India and Pakistan has been recognized by the US, and Pakistan, with over 50 nuclear warheads, is also where Osama bin Laden and thousands of other terrorists are currently hiding.  Any major terrorist attack will inevitably be traced to individuals operating in Pakistan, which has regressed from democracy to dictatorship, and is teetering on the edge of religious fundamentalism.  The economy is growing quickly, however, and this is the only hope of averting a disaster.  Pessimistic.

Iraq : Although Iraq is not a large country, its importance to the world is disproportionately significant.  Bordering so many other non-democratic nations, if Iraq can succeed, the pressure on its neighbors to adapt will be immense.  The destiny of the US is also interwined with Iraq, as the outcome of the current War in Iraq will determine the ability of America to take any other action, against any other nation, in the future.  Cautiously optimistic, but depends on America's resolve.

Iran : Many would be surprised to learn that Iran is actually not all that poor, and the Iranian people have enough to lose that they are not keen on a large war against a powerful coalition.  However, the autocratic regime that keeps the Iranian people suppressed has brutally quashed democratic movements.  The secret to turning Iran into a democracy is its neighbor, Iraq.  If Iraq can succeed, the pressure on Iran exerted by Internet access and globalization next door will be immense.  This will continue to nibble at the edges of Iranian society, and the regime will collapse before 2015 even without a US invasion.  If Iran's leadership insists on a confrontation over their nuclear program, the regime will collapse even sooner.  Cautiously optimistic, pending Iraq. 

So Iraq really is a keystone state, and the struggle to prevail over the forces that would derail democracy has major repurcussions for many nations.  The US, and the world, cannot afford for Iraq to fail.  If we succeed, the world of 2015 will have stamped out belligerence from yet another formerly notorious region.  At this point, all remaining roads to disastrous tragedy lead to Pakistan.

As long as Pervez Musharaff runs Pakistan, he may manage to keep it from flying apart into fanatical fragments.  But the fact that the father of Pakistan's nuclear program was selling nuclear secrets, and that the likes of Osama bin Laden have found sanctuary in Pakistan, makes for a very worrisome combination.  The ultimate 'day of infamy' could be upon us long before Pakistan has any chance of attempting to restore democracy or achieving economic prosperity.

But smaller-scale terrorism is nothing new.  It just was not taken as seriously back when nations were fighting each other in much larger conflicts.  The 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 241 Americans did not dominate the news for more than two weeks, as it was during the far more serious Cold War.  Today, the absence of wars between nations brings terrorism into the spotlight that it could not have previously secured. 

Wars against terrorism are a paradigm shift, because where a war like World War II involved symmetrical warfare between declared armies, the War on Terror involves asymmetrical warfare in both directions.  Neither party has yet gained a full understanding of the power it has over the other. 

Flag_1A few terrorists with a small budget can kill thousands of innocents without confronting a military force. Guerilla warfare can tie down the mighty US military for years until the public grows weary of the stalemate, even while the US cannot permit itself to use more than a tiny fraction of its power in retaliation.  Developed nations spend vastly more money on political and media activites centered around the mere discussion of terrorism than the terrorists themselves need to finance a major attack on these nations. 

At the same time, pervasively spreading Internet access, satellite television, and consumer brands continue to disseminate globalization and lure the attention of young people in terrorist states.  This unrelentingly and irreversibly erodes the fabric of pre-modern fanaticism at almost no cost to the US and other free nations.  The efforts by fascist regimes to obstruct the mists of the information ethersphere from entering their societies is so futile as to be comical.  Bidirectional asymmetry is the new nature of war, and the side that learns how to harness the asymmetrical advantage it has over the other is the side that will win.

It is the wage of prosperous, happy societies to be envied, hated, and forced to withstand threats that they cannot reciprocate back onto the enemy.  The US has overcome foes as formidable as the Axis Powers and the Soviet Union, yet we appear to be at a stalemate against a pre-modern, unprofessional band of deviants that does not even have the resources of a small nation and has not invented a single technology.  The new war is thus ultimately not with the terrorists, but with ourselves - our complacency, short attention spans, and propensity for fashionable ignorance over the lessons of history.  Whether we awaken to the advantages we do have over our enemies before or after the terrorists get a bit too lucky and kill a million of us in a day remains to be seen. 

March 21, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack (1)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

The Winds of War, The Sands of Time - Part I

300pxww2_iwo_jima_flag_raising_2Given the massive media coverage of the Iraq War, and the pop-culture fashion of being opposed to it, one could be led to think that this is one of the most major wars ever fought.  Therein lies the proof that we are actually living in the most peaceful time ever in human history. 

Just a few decades ago, wars and genocides killing upwards of a million people were commonplace, with more than one often underway at once.  Remember these?

Second Congo War (1998-2002) : 3.6 million deaths

Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) : 1.5 million deaths

Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89) : 1 million deaths

Khmer Rouge (1975-79) : 1.7 million deaths from genocide

Bangladesh Liberation War (1971) : 1.5 million deaths from genocide

Vietnam War (1957-75) : 2.4 million deaths

Korean War (1950-53) : 3 million deaths

This list is my no means complete, as wars killing fewer than one million people are not even listed.  At least 30 other wars killed over 20,000 people each, between 1945 and 1989.

If we go further back to the period from 1900-1945, we can see that multiple wars were being simultaneously fought across the world.  Going further back still, the 19th century had virtually no period without at least two major wars being fought.

We can thus conclude that by historical standards, the current Iraq War is tiny, and can barely be found on the list of historical death tolls.  That it gets so much attention merely indicates how little warfare is going on in the world. 

Why have so many countries quitely adapted to peaceful coexistence?  Why is a war between Britain and France, or Russia and Germany, or the US and Japan, nearly impossible today? 

300pxusafb2spirit750pix We can start with the observation that never have two democratic countries, with per-capita GDPs greater than $10,000/year, gone to war with each other.  The decline in warfare in Europe and Asia corelates closely with multiple countries meeting these two conditions over the last few decades, and this can continue as more countries graduate to this standard of freedom and wealth.  The chain of logic is as follows :

1) Nations with elected governments and free-market systems tend to be the overwhelming majority of countries that achieve per-capita incomes greater than $10,000/year.  Only a few oil-rich monarchies are the exception to this rule. 

2) A nation with high per-capita income tends to conduct extensive trade with other nations of high prosperity, resulting in the ever-deepening integration of these economies with each other.  A war would disrupt the economies of both participants as well as those of neutral trading partners.   Since the citizens of these nations would suffer financially from such a war, it is not considered by elected officials. 

3) As more of the world's people gain a vested interest in the stability and health of the interlocking global economic system, fewer and fewer countries will consider international warfare as anything other than a lose-lose proposition.

4) More nations can experience their citizenry moving up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, allowing knowledge-based industries thrive, and thus making international trade continuously easier and more extensive. 

5) Since economic growth is continuously accelerating, many countries crossed the $10,000/yr barrier in just the last 20 years, and so the reduction in warfare after 1991 years has been drastic, even if there was little apparent reduction over the 1900-1991 period. 

This explains the dramatic decline in war deaths across Europe, East Asia, and even Latin America over the last few decades.  Thomas Friedman has a similar theory, called the Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention, wherein no two countries linked by a major supply chain/trade network (such as that of Dell Computer), have ever gone to war with each other, as the cost of war is prohibitive to both parties.  But what can we expect in the future?  Stay tuned for Part II tomorrow. 

March 19, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (42) | TrackBack (2)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Who Hates America?

An interesting survey by the PewResearchCenter, cited in The Economist, asks the citizens of several countries for their opinion of the United States.  Comparing this to the socioeconomic history and current characteristics of each of these nations allows some corelations to present themselves.

America_2 In the US itself, 17% view their country negatively.  I have claimed earlier that 8-10% of the US population comprises of active or semi-active fifth-columnists, who seek to undermine American strength and security, yet cannot bring themselves to openly admit this deeply held belief, nor move to another country.  This survey appears to offer further evidence of this fifth column. 

Next comes the big surprise.  Most Americans are entirely unaware that the most pro-US foreign country in the world is India.  It is also one of the only countries where George W. Bush is more highly regarded than in the US.  The reason for this is that during the period of Indian socialism and economic isolation (1947-91), Indians were fed a constant diet of anti-American, anti-capitalism propaganda. The utter failure of India's socialist policies, combined with the emergence of the Indian-American community as the wealthiest ethnic group in the US, led to a deep appreciation for a socioeconomic system proven to empower Indians.  As a democracy, Indians could understand America more readily than the Chinese or Arabs could.  All this has led to a nation with 3 times the population of Europe trending towards becoming one of America's closest economic, political, ideological, and military allies. 

Other pro-America nations such as Poland and Russia have also made the assumption that anti-American, socialist practices failed to deliver economic benefits for decades, so the opposite approach must be more beneficial. 

Anti-Americanism does dominate among many non-English-speaking European countries.  Americans may be saddened by this, considering how American sacrifices in troops and resources have saved Europe twice in the last 65 years.  Most of these countries have declining populations and a shortage of children being produced.  It is ironic that people such as the French and Germans, who consider their societies to be so great, have little desire to continue it through producing another generation of French and German people.  Their crushing entitlement programs and demographic time bomb have doomed their societies, and the unwillingness of America to follow them down this path has caused great envy towards America among 55-70% of the population in some European countries.  Read this article from Germany's Der Spiegel, authored by a rare European with a sense of historical context. 

Lastly, the most staunch anti-Americanism is present among undemocratic Islamic societies.  This is not a surprise.  However, not included in this survey are Afghanistan and Iraq, where pro-American sentiments are slightly dominant. 

The next time a fashion-parroting ignoramus or fifth-columnist informs you of how 'the rest of the world hates America', forward them this article, and remind them that India has more people than Europe and the Middle East put together.  The delusions of fifth-columnists represent merely their fanatical hatred of a society that celebrates meritocracy, strong families, a powerful and proud military, and a great thirst for achievement. 

Also refer them to this superb article by Victor Davis Hanson on how America can judge itself on the character of societies that exhibit anti-Americanism, and how most of their rhetoric masks a deep shame at being dependent on America.  He states :

When Europe orders all American troops out; when Japan claims our textbooks whitewash the Japanese forced internment or Hiroshima; when China cites unfair trade with the United States; when South Korea says get the hell off our DMZ; when India complains that we are dumping outsourced jobs on them; when Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians refuse cash aid; when Canada complains that we are not carrying our weight in collective North American defense; when the United Nations moves to Damascus; when the Arab Street seethes that we are pushing theocrats and autocrats down its throat; when Mexico builds a fence to keep us out; when Latin America proclaims a boycott of the culturally imperialistic Major Leagues; and when the world ignores American books, films, and popular culture, then perhaps we should be worried. But something tells me none of that is going to happen in this lifetime.

Nicely put.  Also read why America will still be the only superpower by 2030. 

Update : Some anti-Americans have exhibited racism towards Indians in the comments section, frustrated that a group of dark-skinned people can be economically successful and pro-American.  They have also said that the survey has been rigged to falsely show that some countries are pro-US, but simultaneously claim that the same survey has not been rigged in countries that turned out to be anti-US.  These anti-Americans, as usual, cannot answer simple questions posed to them.  Read all about it in the comments section. 

March 13, 2006 in India, Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (119) | TrackBack (4)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Patriot Act Renewed by 89-11 Senate Vote. People with Common Sense are Not Surprised

The Senate renewed the Patriot Act by an overwhelming 89-11 margin of votes, including favorable votes from 33 out of 44 Democrats.  Note that the Patriot Act had passed by a 98-1 margin the first time, back in 2001.  Reasonable people would interpret the overwhelming bipartisan support of the Patriot Act, in two instances over four years apart, as evidence that this was never a controversial issue among thinking people.  They would be right.

Yet, there is a lot of noise outside the mainstream about how the Patriot Act is a bad thing.  Let's apply basic logic to deconstruct these arguments for what they really are :

1) "It reduces our civil liberties.."  There are many possible problems that could theoretically occur, just like the US military could theoretically take over the country and enforce a police state, but there has been no example of an abuse actually occuring under the Patriot Act.  Most of the people who claim this are the same people who feel convicted child molestors should not be punished for their 'misunderstood' lifestyles.  Therefore, you can pin them back to the real world :

"Please give me specific examples of liberties you have lost.  No hypotheticals, just actual examples of events that have occured"

Your opponent will have no answer and will seek to hastily change the subject.

2) "The Patriot Act was passed in haste after 9/11.  Most Senators did not read it."  Each Senator has a support staff that summarizes large documents for the Senator.  Some may have skipped over the material, but to suggest that *all* of the 48 Democrats who were part of the 98-1 vote in 2001 in favor neglected to read the summaries provided to them by their staffers, is absurd. 

Even if that were the case, then how does one explain the 89-10 vote to renew the Patriot Act in 2006, over four years after the first vote?  Ask your opponent about this in a way that puts the burden of explanation onto them (which they will hastily retreat from) :

"Why did Senators Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Reid, and Obama vote to renew the Patriot Act in 2006, even after years of protests over it?  They had time to think about it, yet it passed 89-10.  Why?"

_____________________________________________________

Of course, we know that there are two types of people who oppose the Patriot Act :

1) The 'Fashion Sheep' or 'Useful Idiots', who like to be told what to think.  They listen to one statement on television, memorize it, and feel secure that their opinion is a sufficiently informed one. 

2) The 'Fanatical Anti-Americans', the fifth-columnists who view America as a force of evil, and truly are rooting for the terrorists. 

Opposing the Iraq War can be a reasonable position for a patriotic American to take, if that person offers alternative, practical suggestions on how to aggresively fight terrorists.  But, if you find someone who opposes both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, yet offers no alternative suggestions on how to fight the terrorists, then it is logical to conclude that some of these people are part of group 2), and are not actually on America's side.  Normal Americans wrongly give these fifth-column fanatics too much of a benefit of doubt, and fail to judge them by their actions while assuming that they value their own lives more than their hatred of America.  They do not, and are more than willing to die in the process of obstructing any efforts to fight terrorism. 

This fifth column comprises 8-10% of the US population, and we cannot win the War on Terror until we recognize and thwart this internal enemy.  The Patriot Act is a strong tool to do this, as it is a lightning rod by which many anti-Americans expose themselves. 

More on the opposition of the Patriot Act as a barometer for Anti-Americanism is here.

If you seek to genuinely learn about the PATRIOT Act, go here.

The comments section here will be entertaining, as fashion sheep will repeat the same points already deconstructed in the article, and will flee when questioned about alternative methods to fight terror.  Enjoy.

Update : This article is criticized on Daily Kos.  Read their views too, but the reply is precisely what is anticipated in the article above, and the author has refused to answer the same two questions when posed to him.  He is proud to be opposed to something that passed 89-11 in the Senate, so clearly lies far outside the mainstream of American society.

Also, this person does not seem to have any interest in actually stopping the operations of terrorists.  I will change my opinion if he condemns the terrorist attacks in New York, London, Madrid, Delhi, Beslan, Bali, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. and offers suggestions on how to prevent such attacks. 

Patriot Act, 9/11, anti-terrorism, anti-Americanism, leftists

March 02, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (95) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Nuclear Deal Signed with India, American Diplomat Killed in Pakistan

President Bush's critical visits to India and Pakistan were bound to be anything but dull, and two events have occured in the last 12 hours that signify not only the diverging brand images of both India and Pakistan, but also how many issues of global importance converge on this region. 

India and the US have signed a nuclear energy agreement.  This not only helps world oil prices by easing India's demand for oil, it is essentially a stamp of approval for India as a responsible, democratic chaperone of nuclear weapons. 

This cartoon from Cox and Forkum says it all. 

060228singhalongx_1

Things are not so rosy over in Pakistan.  A US diplomat was killed by an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber, an attack strategically planned to complicate Bush's visit there later this week.  Additionally, a major terrorist commander was captured in Bangladesh, a country that used to be part of Pakistan until 1971.  The mainstream media barely mentions this. 

As India's brand image evolves to one of a globally influential democracy with rapidly growing, knowledge-based industries, the brand image of Pakistan continues to degenerate into that of a state full of Al-Qaeda terrorists and those sympathetic towards them.  This cannot be attributed to Islam alone, as India still has about the same aggregate number of Muslims as Pakistan, yet Indian Muslims rarely have been the cause of such suicide-bombings. 

This is also apparent in this Pew survey, indicating that India has a higher opinion of the US than almost any other country, whereas Pakistan is at the other end of the scale, mostly viewing the US negatively. 

We are witnessing a divergence in the fortunes of India and Pakistan (and Bangladesh), which were all one country until 1947.  Can Pakistan change from a dangerous path to join Indian on a productive one?  For the future of the world, it must.

India, Indo-US ties, India nuclear deal, Indian economy, India outsourcing

March 02, 2006 in India, Politics | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack (1)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

President Bush to visit India

President Bush is set to visit India (and Pakistan) for the first time tomorrow, and is the first Republican President to visit India since Richard Nixon.  In between, Carter (1978) and Clinton (2000) had also visited India.

Indo-US relations were lukewarm at best for the entire period from 1950-2000.  India, despite being an English-speaking democracy, foolishly chose to participate in the so-called 'Non-Aligned Movement' (more accurately a Non-Importance Movement), yet subsequently decided to make an even worse choice and aligned with the Soviet Union and adopted a socialist economic model, complete with Soviet-style 5-year plans. 

The magnitude of this blunder is apparent when comparing India's economic progress against that of nations that chose free-market policies in 1950.  The per capita GDP of South Korea, Taiwan, and India were approximately the same in 1950, but with South Korea and Taiwan residing under the US free-market umbrella, both reached per capita GDPs of $15,000 in 2000, while India languished at merely $500.  Multiply this by India's vast population, and an opportunity cost of trillions of dollars reveals itself.  That a country containing a sixth of the world's people has, between 1970 and 2005, won merely six Olympic medals, and has been visited by a US President only three times, is a further barometer of the utter failure of India relative to what could have been. 

Unlike Democrats Carter and Clinton, who would simply praise India as the home of Gandhi and Mother Teresa and give low self-esteem Indian politicians the validation of having an important white person pat them on the head, Bush's visit could be the watershed event for a new era of joint cooperation.  During Bush's visit, the agenda will focus on genuine economic and military synergies between the world's two largest democracies, with many new trade and military treaties almost certain to emerge.  India's new generation of citizens is better educated, less self-loathing, and more practical than their embarassing predecessors, and this bodes well for a new era of rapid economic and political cooperation with the US.

Interestingly, India is one of the only countries where the 2004 reelection of George W. Bush was received as overwhelmingly positive.  The accumulated frustration of younger Indians from having to suffer through decades of leftist-socialist policies and the condescending multiculturalism of Western pseudointellectuals has whet a great appetite for advancement.  India's brand image is already rapidly improving through the efforts of fed-up younger Indians.

India and the US will be great and mighty allies against Islamic terrorism, Chinese Communism, and leftist multiculturalism.  The beginning of this new era starts now.

February 27, 2006 in India, Politics | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

What is the Real Reason the Government Refuses to Seal the Southern Border?

Arguably, the one issue on which the US public and elected officials are most disconnected from one another is the porous US-Mexico border, and the 11 million illegal immigrants who have migrated to the US through it. 

At least 70% of the US population wants the border to be sealed, and immigrants to, at the very least, come here through legal means.  Any politician who takes strong action on this matter is bound to gain tremendous popularity, from voters of both parties.  So why does nothing happen?  None of the popular explanations hold up, as there are just as many politicians, lobbies, or corporate interests that would oppose each as would support them.

1) The border is open because businesses want cheap labor. This cannot be, because illegals use hospital emergency rooms and trauma centers for free, without having paid taxes into the system.  This causes the cost of healthcare to rise, and premiums that corporations have to pay for their employee medical insurance rises.  These costs are huge, and more than offset any savings from being able to hire these illegals at low cost.  Corporations that don't employ many low-skilled workers, such as software companies or investment banks, would thus oppose this.

2) The border is open because 'of the Hispanic vote'.  This is obviously not the case, as in the 2004 election, Hispanics voted 39% for Bush and 61% for Kerry.  That would give the GOP, which controls both houses of Congress, a strong incentive to seal the border, if anything.  But they are making only minor efforts. 

Furthermore, the suggestion itself is derogatory to law-abiding, legal Hispanics, who certainly don't want illegal immigrants coming here any more than non-Hispanics do.  Do whites want illegals from Canada?  Do blacks want illegals from West Africa?  Then why would Cuban-Americans or Puerto-Rican Americans want illegal Mexicans to come here, just because of a common language (not even a common race, in many cases)?

3) The border is open because to seal it would be racism.  Vicente Fox has said as much, even though every single person of power in the Mexican government is white.  Fox has also said that Mexicans in the US do work that 'even blacks will not do'.  Mexican postal stamps show caricatures of blacks that would be a national scandal in the US. 

There are a number of extremist groups that want to push a radical agenda of creating Mexican states-within-a-state, where US laws and language do not apply, and eventually return the US Southwest to Mexico's possession.  The number of American's that would oppose this is far larger than the few fifth-column proponents of it.  Plus, non-white politicians could push the agenda.  Plus, law-abiding Hispanics don't want this to happen either. 

Bogus accusations of racism from fringe groups have not stopped our War on Terror.  Why is it stopping this? 

4) The border is open because sealing it would ruin our relationship with Mexico.  Mexico is a nation where drug trade and corruption have created a wealth distribution that is among the most skewed in the world.  The poor underclass has no employment options, and Mexico wants them to go to America not only to get rid of them, but also because they remit $50 billion a year back to their families in Mexico.  Mexico's entire economy is dependent on this flow of money.

There is no other country in the world which has the luxury of dumping the poorest 10-15% of its population into another country, and get $50 billion per year injected into its economy in return.  Despite this, the US acts as if it has no leverage over Mexico.  It is a colossal failure of the US State Department that despite the huge dependency that Mexico has on the US, the US is not even a position to ask Mexico for basic favors in America's hour of need, such as a contribution of 5000 troops to our coalition in Iraq.  They can't even do that much for us?

Angry yet?

So why does America do nothing to seal the border?

I thought and thought about it, and finally an explanation dawned on me.

After the birth of the baby boom generation concluded in 1964, the number of babies born in the US dropped.  Furthermore, Roe v. Wade passed in 1971, and since then, 43 million Americans who may have been born, were not.  This resulted in a demographic pit, where the number of babies born was suddenly and permanently lower than in prior decades.  Whether abortion should be allowed or not is a separate issue, but what is indisputable is that there are millions of fewer people as a result of it. 

Many things that support the US economy, from rising real-estate prices to social security, depend on the US population growing 1% per year, and the ratio of young people to old people remaining fairly stable.  European countries are already on the brink of catastrophie due to the shortage of young people in their societies. 

US politicians of both parties might have made a sacred agreement to keep the border open so that young Mexicans, born after 1971, can come here and fill the demographic gap that exists in the US.  US politicians don't reveal this to the public, because it is too difficult to explain and would result in pressure to overturn Roe v. Wade, lower taxes, provide incentives to families with children, and other political minefields.

That is why they let this continue.  This is the best explanation I can think of.  Why else would both parties choose to do nothing, despite so much public pressure, yet not explain why?

This is also the worst possible way to solve the demographic shortfall problem, as the current practice :

1) Encourages people to break the law.  If they broke one law to get here, why not break more after coming here?  In California, one third of the prison inmates, each costing the taxpayer $50,000 per year, are illegal immigrants.

2) Has ensured that much more than 50% of the 11 million illegals are male.  Women are less inclined to go to the lengths of crossing miles of parched desert, hide in car trunks, or be smuggled in by drug dealers.  The gender imbalance only leads to more crime and social problems within these communities.

3) Has ensured that these illegals are concentrated in border states rather than spread throughout the nation, thus making it harder for them to assimilate into American society.  Legal immigrants do go to all major cities and college towns, and thus assimilate, but these illegals instead become a majority in towns near the border, changing them into being more like Mexico and less like America.

4) Has ensured that the majority of immigrants are from one language and culture.  If this goal was pursued through a policy of legal immigration, then we would have gotten Chinese, Indians, Russians, Brazilians, etc., who would have to interact with each other and the only language they could do it in would be English.  Assimilation would be automatic. 

The US may have avoided a massive demographic collapse like what Europe is tumbling into, but the same could have been achieved in so many better ways.  This policy of achieving a demographic goal through condoning massive illegal immigration of mostly men from one country will cost American society for decades to come. 

What will ultimately result in the border being sealed?  One of two simple things :

1) If the US government decides that enough young people to fill the demographic gap have arrived, and no additional illegals are needed, then the border will be quietly sealed under the guise of some other reason.

2) If a large terrorist attack occurs in the US, and it is found that the terrorists arrived through the porous border with Mexico, then it will be sealed almost immediately, through popular demand by a furious public.

Hopefully, reason 1) occurs before reason 2).

February 20, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack (1)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Anti-Americanism Goes Even Further

It is one thing when a herd of smelly, misshapen hippies form a protest and carry signs saying 'America is a terrorist nation'.  It is quite another when a former Vice President, who came within 538 votes of being President of the United States in 2000, goes out to Saudi Arabia and issues statements that make the US government look like a villain in the eyes of Saudis and other Arabs. 

A full analysis and list of blogs is here.  But I don't want to just jump on the right-wing attack bandwagon, so I have tried to assess this as objectively as possible.

First Gore says, "The U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment."  OK, this appears reasonable at first.  But, as usual, criticism of America is based on a utopian standard, rather than a realistic assessment of the circumstances at the time, in relation to how other societies in the real world might have reacted to the same. 

But then Gore says, "Arabs have indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order"  Now, this is where I have to say that he has gone too far.  He is openly saying that violation of immigration law (overstaying a visa or not having a renewed greencard).  And not just for some harmless Mexican laborer, but for people who fit the demographic profile of the 9/11 hijackers, right after 9/11.  If terrorists were to conduct another strike, the first thing they would do is let their immigration paperwork expire, so that they are no longer tracked in the system while they plan an attack.

What are his solutions on what should have been done to prevent another attack? 

Yes, Gore says, to an audience in Saudi Arabia, that catching such people is wrong.  At other venues, no doubt he will suggest Bush did not do enough to prevent the 9/11 perpetrators from conducting their attack.

So for a speaking fee of a few hundred thousand dollars, Al Gore is willing to inflame more hatred against the US, that will invariably increase the chances that some Americans get killed. 

From a moderate in the 1980s, Al Gore has drifted further and further to the left under the belief that this faction constitutes a sizable and worthwhile political base, even as the left has become synonymous with anti-Americanism.  As anti-Americanism becomes the world's second superpower, more high-profile names will accept payment to speak negatively about their country, the way Al Gore did. 

On a brighter note, if Al Gore was considering running for President in 2008, he has probably thrown his chances away with this speech.  Plus, if Hillary Clinton is running in 2008, since her main strategy would be to claim that her election would bring back the happy days of Bill Clinton, the indirect association with the now disgraced Al Gore would be a heavy piece of baggage. 

February 14, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

The Biggest Event of the Last 15 Years : The Stunning Defeat of Socialism

What is the biggest transitionary world event of the last 15 years?  The dot-com boom and bust?  The War on Terror?  Nope, even those don't get the grand prize.

The most profound event of our time has been the transition of three of largest non-capitalist countries of the world, Russia, China, and India, away from communism and/or socialism and towards free markets and capitalism.

Russia was part of the communist USSR.  China is still run by a communist party, but is pursuing capitalistic wealth creation with great zeal, even using slogans like 'To get rich is glorious' to motivate the acquisition of wealth.  India, while a democracy through the last 50 years, still used draconic, Soviet-style central planning measures that choked economic growth for four decades.  In India in the 1970s, it used to take 6 years to purchase a scooter or get a telephone line.

These three nations are home to 2.5 billion people, and possess three of the world's four largest militaries and two-thirds of the world's nuclear weapons.  All have moved towards free markets, and as a result, all now have economies growing at greater than 6% a year, and all three now have better relations with the US than they did 15 years ago.  The decline in global warfare over this period is also a very good side benefit of this.

The number of people benefiting from this is so immense, that it amounts to no less than the center of gravity of world economic thought moving decisively away from socialism and towards free markets.  There truly cannot be a bigger defeat for socialism than this. 

One could argue that this would have happened anyway, particularly since the growth rate of the world economy is accelerating, and the huge populations of these countries would have to participate in rapid growth just to keep the world economy going on the exponential growth trendline.  If that is true, then it means the trend is truly irreversible, and new countries would also get pulled into the train of higher economic growth.  Afghanistan and Iraq are likely candidates.   

Communists, socialists, and anti-US leftists are now only left with a few pockets of validation in North Korea and Cuba.  They cheer the coverage of Hugo Chavez in the media, but Venezuela has about as much chance of moving the world back towards socialism as Jimmy Carter has of being regarded as a great President.  They scream about the need to 'fairly' distribute wealth, never admitting that wealth has to be created first.  They have been exposed as being consumed by little more than juvenile envy of the most productive and enterprising members of society, and their ideology has been rejected by 2.5 billion more people. 

The world has chosen the path of enterprise and meritocracy.  Period. 

Update (6/1/07) : There more socialist the country, the more smart people choose to go elsewhere. 

February 12, 2006 in Economics, Politics | Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

An Easy Way to expose concealed Anti-Americanism

There are two superpowers in the world today.  The United States of America, and anti-Americanism.  Anti-Americanism is very powerful, as it is the sordid glue that holds the UN, fifth-column Americans, Euro-socialists, the world's fashion elite, and terrorists together.  It is the invisible force that forces the US to withstand massive double standards that have been there for so long that they are taken for granted.

Interestingly, with the exception of terrorists, such individuals go to great lengths to conceal their anti-Americanism, pretending to stand for 'nonviolence', 'peace', 'equality', the 'world community', etc.  This begs the question of why they don't feel comfortable with declaring their dislike for the US.  Maybe it is due to the guilt of knowing they are being unfair, or guilt that they are opposing a force of liberty and prosperity in the quest to be fashionable.  Maybe it is all this plus juvenile envy of success and power.  In any case, having a strong dislike for America, yet not having the integrity to be honest about one's true feelings, makes such a person easy to defeat through skillful debate.

There are many ways to do this.  Two examples are below.

Option 1 :

While many who say this are merely fashion-parroting sheep rather than committed anti-Americans, if someone you believe to be a genuine anti-American says they oppose the Iraq War because "there were no WMDs" or "Bush lied about WMDs", then you can merely ask :

"So if WMDs were found, would you support the war?"

They can either answer "no", to which you can say "So why do you present the absense of WMDs as your primary objection to the war, if you still would have opposed it anyway?  That appears rather phony on your part."

Or they can answer "yes", to which you can ask them "But Iran and North Korea are openly admitting to the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and are threatening to use them.  By your logic, invading them is fully justified, is it not?" 

They have thus revealed that they merely avoid taking difficult decisions, in order to criticize from hindsight and mask their anti-Americanism in pseudowisdom.  Either way, they are trapped.  This is so simple, yet very effective.  In reality, they oppose any action by the US because they oppose the very ideals of the US.  Yet, they are too ashamed to admit it, and so hide behind phony guises. 

Option 2 :

If you are the one who wants to initiate the debate, you can openly declare that "I feel that America, despite many flaws, has done more to benefit humanity than any other nation existing in the world today."   If your opponent is a secretive anti-American, they may react with sputtering outrage (blowing their cover).  They will point out various acts of evil that America has done (some true, some imagined), but it will become apparent that they are judging America to some utopian standard, rather than in relation to other countries existing in the world today.  To this you can merely reply :

"Which country do you feel has done more for humanity than the US?"

or

"If an Asteroid were on a collision course with the Earth (never mind which country's instruments detected the asteroid), which country would be expected to take the lead in an effort to destroy or deflect the asteroid?"

In either case, the anti-American will be cornered, and seek to change the subject, or become visibly annoyed. 

Expose their anti-Americanism, and you will gain a greater understanding of this shadowy second superpower. 

Prediction : Anti-Americanism will become more pervasive and tightly unified, with many Western anti-Americans moving from merely condoning the activities terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, to engaging in covert yet active support of such groups. 

Update : Read the comments section.  Many fashion-parroting anti-Americans have come by, have been posed simple questions about their principles, and have fled without answering, for fear of revealing their anti-Americanism.  It is quite entertaining. 

February 10, 2006 in Political Debate, Politics | Permalink | Comments (185) | TrackBack (1)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Saddam's Removal - 1991 or 2003?

Among those of us who agree that Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power, a debate that often crops up is whether he should have been removed during the first Gulf War in 1991, or whether the 2003 removal was indeed a more suitable time, or if even a later date would have been preferable. 

It is hard to predict what an alternative timeline might have looked like, but if we list out the reasons in favor of removal for both 1991 and 2003, we might be able compare the two scenarios more accurately.

The reasons in favor of removal in 1991 :

1) The United States had 500,000 troops already deployed to the region, and six other countries had each contributed over 10,000 troops, unlike in 2003 where the US had only 135,000 troops and only two coalition members contributed over 3000 troops. 

2) The United States had UN approval for the first Gulf War, while France, Germany, Canada, and Turkey were all coalition allies.  In 2003, all of these nations and the UN were opposed to the US-led war.

3) The Soviet Union had just collapsed, and the free world, particularly Europe, was relieved to see the end of the Cold War.  Anti-Americanism was not a popular ideology at the time, so the US would not have had to face the severe media opposition it faces due to Iraq today. 

4) The sanctions that existed during the 1990s achieved little but to cause 500,000 Iraqis to starve and corrupt officials to profit from the Oil-for-Food Scandal.  A full-on invasion would have killed far fewer innocent Iraqis, and would have concluded this matter in a shorter time, 

5) American society may have been more willing to withstand 3000 or more US casualties in 1991 rather than 2003. 

The reasons in favor of removal in 2003 :

1) Globalization was much less extensive in 1991 than today.  The greater integration of Russia, India, Turkey, and others into the global economy exerts 'gravitational pull' onto Iraq's economy, allowing the newly free Iraq the possibility to rapidly conduct trade with many fast-growing nations, and get pulled along into high economic growth as well.  There was much less economic momentum in nearby countries to latch onto in 1991.

2) There was no Internet like today in 1991.  In a post-2003 reconstruction, Iraq could rapidly be wired with modern Internet access, permitting Iraqis to immediately gain access to the outside world, thus absorbing the principles of democracy more easily.  It would thus be easier to establish a free, independent media in 2003 than in 1991. 

3) Saddam had a greater capability to use chemical weapons in 1991 than in 2003.  He could have killed thousands of American troops while making his last stand in 1991.  In 2003, he did not, and possibly no longer had the capability.   

There are many more points that can be made for either case, and many unforeseen consequences that could have occured in the event of a 1991 removal.

What are your thoughts on this debate?

February 06, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

What are the Real Reasons Some People Oppose the Patriot Act?

People disagree with how the War on Terror is being waged for many reasons.  One criticism is that we should not be sending US troops overseas to engage in a multi-year occupation of a foreign nation.  Another is that wars such as the one in Iraq are just too expensive ($150 billion spent so far).

While I don't agree with these opinions, they are valid positions to take, provided that the person taking them is being genuine.

However, this would imply that a preventive approach to the WoT, involving greater powers given to law enforcement, while sending no troops abroad, and costing very little money, should be wholeheartedly endorsed by the same critics. 

But it is not.  It exists already, and is called the Patriot Act.  Active opposition to both our overseas activities and the domestic Patriot Act is a good indicator that the person holding these opinions actually does not want America to win the War on Terror.  How can someone oppose all these things, and still be on America's side? 

If you want concrete examples of what the Patriot Act has achieved, go here.  Meanwhile, no example of violated civil liberties has occurred (unless you count apprehended terrorists as having lost their 'civil liberties'). 

Under the phony guise of 'losing civil liberties', the pro-terror fifth column that exists in America seeks to undermine even this crucial element of protecting American lives.   When they complain of lost civil liberties, they mean the civil liberties of the terrorists.

Until the American mainstream wakes up and recognizes that an active fifth column exists in America, that has already made the War on Terror longer and more difficult than it needed to be, we cannot win.  We cannot win with an enemy within. 

February 01, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

When Worlds (and Centuries) Collide :

An article from Winds of Change :

A cartoon from Cox and Forkum :

060131imageproblemx 

Is this fair criticism, or unfair stereotyping?  How offended should Muslims be about the above cartoon?  If they are offended, what constitutes an appropriate protest?  Are people afraid to say what they really think, which is even more revealing?

January 31, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

India's Economy grew at 7.5% last year

India's economy is now the second-fastest growing of any large country in the world, albeit still much slower than the 9.9% that China recorded in 2005.  What is interesting is how quickly the mainstream media went from having a blind spot on India to speaking of it in the same sentence as China.

As recently as 1998, most of the mainstream press was spoke of China as an emerging superpower, while India was still spoken of merely in the context of its nuclear tests, rivalty with Pakistan and its poverty.  Most articles spoke of India and Pakistan under a suggestion that they were equals. 

Now, almost all articles about China being a rising economic superpower also include India.  India has, in just eight short years, changed its entire 'brand' from being one of austere poverty and an intractable, stalemated dispute with Pakistan, to being one of the two rising superpowers in this world, a place with an endless supply of knowledge workers promises to reshape the global economy. 

That there are even articles like this, which compare India and China to see which has more promise, is telling.  Such comparisons were nearly unheard of in the late 1990s. 

What has enabled a country as large as India to revamp its entire 'brand', its perception in the eyes of the world, so completely, in such a short time?

I attribute this to four factors :

1) The rise of Internet usage and bandwidth speeds, permitting more business collaboration between India and the United States.

2) The War on Terror, where a stable, thriving democracy, containing 150 million Muslims, is seen as a model and positive influence on nascent democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, thus receiving indirect moral support from the US, UK, and Japan.

3) The Indian community in the US reaching critical mass.  Their numbers have more than doubled from 1990 to 2000, and continue to grow.  They are also the highest-income ethnic group in the US, and are developing many business ventures between the US and India. 

4) The gradual, ongoing replacement of older generation Indians with a new generation that is globally aware, tech-savvy, better educated, less xenophobic, and has higher self-esteem.  Older generation Indians kept India under socialist stagnation for decades, and kept Indian society at a lower level of Maslow's hierarchy for far too long.  They were, frankly, an embarassment in many aspects of human existence, and their passing on can only lead to massive progress. 

Prediction : India becomes the foremost economic and political 'fad' of 2006, with at least five cover stories on India in major magazines, in 2006.

January 31, 2006 in Economics, India, Politics | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Alito would tilt the SCOTUS to the Right, Rightfully

Some perspective is in order on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the US Supreme Court.

From 1994 to 2005, the nine justices comprised of three conservatives, two moderates, and four leftists.  Seven were appointed by Republican Presidents, and two were appointed by a Democrat, Bill Clinton.  Both of those two, Breyer and Ginsberg, are leftists.

So seven Republican Presidents appointed three conservatives, two moderates, and two leftists, while a Democrat reliably appointed two leftists, not even any moderates.

Which party appears to place more importance on ideology on a nominee, rather than sheer judicial qualifications?

Now that Alito, a conservative, is replacing Sandra Day O'Conner, a moderate, the balance of the Supreme Court is like this : four conservatives, one moderate, four leftists. 

This is hardly an overwhelming bias to the Right.  It is merely a removal of the tilt to the Left that has existed for so many years.  Given that conservatives outnumber liberals in the United States population, this is still not a reflection of the general population. 

Prediction : The American public will continue to demand a rightward shift in the Supreme Court, expecting one of the four leftist Justices to be replaced with a conservative, when the time arises.  The actions of Congress will reflect this, no matter how much pressure far-left groups exert. 

Update : Dick Morris on Why the Left can't sink Alito.

January 30, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (15)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Ridiculous Socialist Propaganda - "Women are hurt more by globalization"

I am by no means a staunch right-winger, but sometimes a headline comes along that is so incredibly dishonest and biased in its propaganda that it warrants special ridicule, and hence this exercise to dismantle it. 

Yahoo! News, which goes so far to put socialist and anti-US spin on the headlines of news articles it collects that it makes CNN and USATODAY seem quite moderate, put out a headline titled "Women are hardest hit by globalization".

This is very unprofessional and dishonest, yet typical journalism by the person at Yahoo who writes these headlines.  Notice how multiple leftist shibboleths are sneakily pre-assumed to be truths :

1) That globalization is harmful and exploitative is a well-established fact.

2) That in most developing countries, even though women don't have nearly the power parity with men that they do in the US or Europe, it still is wrong for us to place any blame on these cultures for this outcome.  It is, again, the fault of the US in general and large American corporations in particular (even if those corporations have many female executives). 

3) That there is no possibility that the lower income of women could be due to them staying at home to raise a family (a practice still common in the developing world). 

4) That the people in these countries who work at the multinational corporation (often having competed with hundreds of other applicants for the job), have somehow been forced to do so involuntarily. 

I won't even get into how countries that globalize more efficiently have higher human development.  That is a topic for another day. 

The later part of the article does present an opposing point of view, where blaming outside forces for the problems women face within a poor country is not fair, but this rebuttal is placed at the very end of the article.  And right after that, an anti-US quote from.... Fidel Castro!

The article could just as easily have this rebuttal placed at the top, and be spun with a pro-capitalism title of "Socialists and Multiculturalists try to misplace blame for gender inequality on developed nations".  The same content, just a different take on it.

But it isn't.  That, my friends, is leftist spin...

January 27, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (2)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

Alito receives a majority of votes in the Senate

Judge Samuel Alito appears headed for a seat on the Supreme Court without any last-minute surprises.  Of the 86 Senators that have voted so far, 55 have voted in favor and 31 against. 

Of the few Democrats that have voted in favor of Alito, notable among them is Robert Byrd, the seniormost Democrat of them all.  Byrd summarized the inappropriate politicizing of judicial nominees as follows :

I regret that we have come to a place in our history when both political parties, both political parties exhibit such a take-no prisoners attitude. All sides seek to use the debate over a Supreme Court nominee to air their particular wish list for or against abortion, euthanasia, executive authority, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, corporate greed, and dozens of other subjects.

All of these issues should be debated but the battle line should not be drawn on the Judiciary. It should be debated by the peoples' representatives right here in the legislative branch. However, too many Americans apparently believe that if they cannot get Congress to address an issue then they must take it to the Court. As the saying goes: "if you can't change the law, change the judge."

This kind of thinking represents a gross misinterpretation of the separation of powers. It is the role of the Congress, the role of the legislative branch to make and change the laws. Supreme Court justices exist to interpret laws and be sure that they square with the Constitution and with law.

Byrd's rejection of the stance taken by other Democratic Senators makes a filibuster all but impossible.

Another dimension of the nomination of Alito (age 55) and John Roberts before him (age 50) is reality of a seat on the Supreme Court being a lifetime appointment.  As life expectancies are rising and medical knowledge is doubling every 8 years, it is incorrect to assume that Roberts and Alito will only serve until age 75 or 80, like their predecessors did.  It is quite possible that both of these men could live until age 100, and, should they choose to continue serving until death, could remain on the bench for another 45 to 50 years. 

The news for the left is even worse than they may have thought.

Prediction : The US Supreme Court will never go further to the left over the next 50 years, than it was from 1994-2005.

January 26, 2006 in Politics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

China's Economy grew 9.9% in 2005

China was once again the fastest-growing large country in the world, with 9.9% growth in 2005 on top of 10.1% growth in 2004.

This incredible surge, which began in 1979 or 1991, depending on how you look at it, has lifted over 400 million Chinese out of poverty, helped China rise greatly in almost all meaures of human development, and kept the world economy growing at a higher rate than that of the United States.  At the current rate, China will become a developed country (a country with a Human Development Index score greater than 0.800) by 2010, putting China roughly at the level of human development the United States had in 1960. 

However, I also submit that China will have to evolve into a genuine democracy to advance their society beyond that level in the decade following 2010.  I submit that to truly become a wealthy nation, China will have to foster innovation, creativity, and self-determination at the grassroots level, and cannot achieve this as long as the Chinese Communist Party controls Chinese society this tightly. 

China thus cannot become a superpower without evolving into a Democracy, contrary to what the fashionably anti-American crowd would have the world believe. 

A bit of perspective is in order. 

Consider that America is still condemned heavily for slavery that ended in the 1860s (sometimes even from countries that had slavery until well past that period), yet China is criticized relatively less than that for their invasion of Tibet during the 1950s and their Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, just 17 years ago. 

Consider that when there is a tsunami in the Indian Ocean or an earthquake in Pakistan, America is criticized for not providing enough aid soon enough.  Few voices are even asking the supposedly emerging superpower on the same continent for aid.

America is criticized for not proving enough humanitarian aid to Africa, despite the billions already provided.  How often do you hear anyone suggest that China should also donate aid to Africa?

As the world's lone superpower, America carries a heavy burden.  Being held to a standard that no other country is held to, and being criticized for solving only a few, rather than all of the problems in the world, is something Americans have grown accustomed to.  Those who are so quick to conclude that China will achieve parity with or even surpass America have to consider just how many burdens China has to be prepared to carry before it can occupy the same echelon.

Prediction : China evolves (perhaps with several painful incidents) to a democratic model by 2015, or its growth rate slows down dramatically after 2015, to a rate not much faster than that of the US.  The two are mutually exclusive, so one of the two must occur. 

January 25, 2006 in China, Economics, Politics | Permalink | Comments (5)

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us

«

Search

Ads

Categories

  • Accelerating Change
  • Biotechnology
  • China
  • Comedy
  • Computing
  • Core Articles
  • Economics
  • Energy
  • India
  • Nanotechnology
  • Political Debate
  • Politics
  • Science
  • Space Exploration
  • Stock Market
  • Technology
  • The Misandry Bubble
  • The Singularity

Recent Posts

  • Why Baby Boomers Will Have a Troubled Retirement
  • Recessions vs. Depressions
  • US Recession Has Begun
  • The End of Petrotyranny
  • It is Time to Expose Misandry
  • Why Republicans Will Not Shrink Government
  • Carbonara
  • Taxation and Recession
  • The TechnoSponge
  • The Carnival of Creative Destruction
Subscribe to this blog's feed

Site Meter


Resources

  • The Economist
  • Instapundit
  • KurzweilAI
  • NextBigFuture
  • MIT Technology Review
  • Thomas Friedman
Add me to your TypePad People list

Archives

  • March 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • July 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • January 2010

More...

FeedBlitz

  • FeedBlitz
    Enter your Email


    Powered by FeedBlitz