Earlier, Ann and I got a call from a dear friend who wanted to share joyful news that a long friendship has burst forth into love, and that a career-shifting job is in the offing. Many of you will try to guess but we will neither confirm nor deny about whom we're talking; that's not the point. This post is not about our friend or about such news, but about how good it feels to receive a call to unguardedly share elation and joy.
Ann and I are grinning still, an hour later. The call confirms the caller's care about and trust in us -- to share elation without reserve. And we know the caller knows how much we care, in turn. The other side of the coin, of course, is a call to openly share sadness and despair. Such calls have come -- and will.
But for now, have joy? Share it...!
Monday, April 9, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Rain, Rain, Go -- For God's Sake, Go ...
… some place you are needed. Seattle got 7.2 inches in March – twice the average March since data collection began in the 19th Century -- and half-again more than March, last year. Even the most sodden Seattleite is fed up. Yes, I know, weather isn’t climate and No, this isn’t another column about polar bears – but wouldn’t it be just plain prudent to act as if human behavior was partly responsible? Dick Tompkins and Bryna Webber, dear photographer friends, have been documenting global water issues – in Iceland, Bhutan, Kenya and Antarctic
a; that’s a Masai herder boy moving his family’s skin and bones cattle to Tanzania after this three-year drought in Kenya.
The water issue? Distribution – too much here, too little there. And water issues are dangerous issues – while men may fight over alcohol, they kill over water.
A second thing Seattle is famous for is entrepreneurial opportunity. We’ve got a lot of smart guys – smart water guys over at Bill and Melinda’s new place; Bezos is a smart distribution guy. The world’s two largest boring machines – that’s boring machines, not boring machines – just punched though under Capital Hill and the Federal Cut to bring light rail to the UW. There’s an idea thirty years late; we turned down Federal money back then to bring light rail to Seattle. Portland was next in line; now they have real light rail, not those cranberry-colored toys running around Amazon’s new neighborhood. Meanwhile, we are building a huge plant to dump fresh water run-off into the salt water of Puget Sound. Federal dollars are available for boring machines and pipelines and storm-water run-off plants.
Why don’t some smart guys and Federal money start piping rain, if not to Africa, at least to Nevada or Texas? A lot more friendly than piping oil – and just as many jobs.
a; that’s a Masai herder boy moving his family’s skin and bones cattle to Tanzania after this three-year drought in Kenya.The water issue? Distribution – too much here, too little there. And water issues are dangerous issues – while men may fight over alcohol, they kill over water.
A second thing Seattle is famous for is entrepreneurial opportunity. We’ve got a lot of smart guys – smart water guys over at Bill and Melinda’s new place; Bezos is a smart distribution guy. The world’s two largest boring machines – that’s boring machines, not boring machines – just punched though under Capital Hill and the Federal Cut to bring light rail to the UW. There’s an idea thirty years late; we turned down Federal money back then to bring light rail to Seattle. Portland was next in line; now they have real light rail, not those cranberry-colored toys running around Amazon’s new neighborhood. Meanwhile, we are building a huge plant to dump fresh water run-off into the salt water of Puget Sound. Federal dollars are available for boring machines and pipelines and storm-water run-off plants.
Why don’t some smart guys and Federal money start piping rain, if not to Africa, at least to Nevada or Texas? A lot more friendly than piping oil – and just as many jobs.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
My Dwindling Faith in Democracy
Throughout adulthood, I have clung to my belief in the ultimate wisdom of the American public: that in the end, their collective judgments on potential leaders, on policies, on national priorities will prove right. The source of this faith in our democracy? Perhaps my fifth grade civics teacher; certainly my father’s dedication to national service and responsible citizenship; to a fundamentally idealistic belief all will turn out well.
But more and more, crude realities intrude on my romantic vision of our civic process. Last spring, when my Olympic Club friend Jerry Carlson asked me what grade I would give our democracy, I started out thinking around a “C+” and wound up, upon reflection, giving us a “D” (see Grading Our Democracy, May 20, 2011.) In these last few months, my assessment and mood have only become bleaker. Sliding into a D-. Consider, in no particular order:
• That citizens of capability and potential as leaders – city, county, state, national – recoil from any suggestion that they run for office rather than submit themselves and their families to the grinder we now put candidates through. Only aberrant wanna-be’s offer themselves to us.
• That 30% of people under 30 in a recent study cannot name two nations we fought against in WWII.
• That in a 2006 poll of Americans under 30, 63% could not locate Iraq on a map of the middle east, 75% couldn’t find Iran, and 88% couldn’t find Afghanistan.
• That a tiny, unrepresentative handful of Americans (white, ultra-conservative, older) in primaries and caucuses are selecting one of the two major candidates between whom some 130mm of us will select our next President.
• That while our roads, bridges, rails and airports rot away to third-world standards, we argue about gay marriage and contraceptive pills.
• That one candidate accuses his opponent of speaking French – and is applauded for it.
• Anonymous voices, through super-PACs, have pre-empted candidates and parties in articulating political views and ideas to the public.
• That 40% of social security recipients answer “no” when asked if they receive any support from the government.
• That candidates for legislative offices proudly proclaim that “compromise” is a sin they will never commit.
And you can make up your own list, I’m sure.
Those Founding Fathers about whom Sarah Palin loves to prattle distrusted democracy. They established a system of limited enfranchisement, sequential layers of representation, and counter-balances between political bodies. Responsible judgment was what they sought; they did not share my naïve faith in communal wisdom, but sought to winnow out popular passion and protect the minority from excesses of an enflamed majority. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, we gradually replaced representative government with direct democratic participation, eventually enfranchising all citizens regardless of sex, material stake in society, education, whatever.
On paper that looks good. But, if, as it appears to me, we are becoming more narrow, more stupid, more malleable to populist crap, more polarized, are we not unworthy of the gift of democratic participation? Is this how we ought to govern ourselves?
We attempt to prohibit the mentally ill from owning guns. We demand drivers be licensed after demonstrating that they can operate a car with some prospect of not harming fellow citizens. But what of voting? Is not the vote a powerful weapon with which to inflict damage on fellow citizens? We entrust young people with the vote before we trust them to drink wine. Any citizen has access to this weapon – with no qualifications re thoughtfulness, sense of history, judgment, values or anything other than having attained the age of 18 and having been fated to be born of an American parent.
Or, of course, having been naturalized; a strong argument can be made that the naturalized American is likely a more thoughtful and qualified voter than their by-birthright fellow; at least they studied and were examined on our history, structure of government, constitution, and the like.
We register to vote. Why not impose a voter qualification test at the same time? Ten or so simple questions about our history, government structure, constitutional rights and obligations, party systems, world affairs and so on might underscore that this voting is serious business, that the right is precious, and at the same time screen out those whose ignorance and thoughtlessness should disqualify them from the right to a ballot.
That’s only a part of revitalizing our political process, of course; we need constitutional constraints on super-PACs, equitably affordable campaigns, limits on non-constituent contributions, maybe even a return to more brokered party conventions which balance party leaders’ assessments with popular support for candidates. Undemocratic? To be sure -- but then, so was the Golden Age of Athens, the Roman Republic, and the societies that produced the Enlightenment thinkers who so influenced the works of our Founding Fathers.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his new (and recommended!) book, Strategic Vision; America and the Crisis of Global Power, argues against the inevitability of American decline, citing six inherent assets that we can marshal to meet our domestic and global challenges. But to capitalize on any of these six requires a leadership to energize us and marshal national will. To develop such leaders, it seems to me, we need to look with fresh, realistic eyes at our entire system of democracy, and not take on faith my fifth grade civics belief that “democracy” is the panacea that inevitably generates progress.
Is a voting test a good idea? Probably not. It would be highly divisive, subject to abuse, take a constitutional amendment to establish, and so on. But it galls me to realize that my vote counts just the same as some yahoo’s who believes the world was created 6,000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, who thinks France is our enemy, who doesn’t know who fought whom in Korea, and whose answer to foreign frustrations is to bomb the bastards back into the stone age. D- for democracy.
But more and more, crude realities intrude on my romantic vision of our civic process. Last spring, when my Olympic Club friend Jerry Carlson asked me what grade I would give our democracy, I started out thinking around a “C+” and wound up, upon reflection, giving us a “D” (see Grading Our Democracy, May 20, 2011.) In these last few months, my assessment and mood have only become bleaker. Sliding into a D-. Consider, in no particular order:
• That citizens of capability and potential as leaders – city, county, state, national – recoil from any suggestion that they run for office rather than submit themselves and their families to the grinder we now put candidates through. Only aberrant wanna-be’s offer themselves to us.
• That 30% of people under 30 in a recent study cannot name two nations we fought against in WWII.
• That in a 2006 poll of Americans under 30, 63% could not locate Iraq on a map of the middle east, 75% couldn’t find Iran, and 88% couldn’t find Afghanistan.
• That a tiny, unrepresentative handful of Americans (white, ultra-conservative, older) in primaries and caucuses are selecting one of the two major candidates between whom some 130mm of us will select our next President.
• That while our roads, bridges, rails and airports rot away to third-world standards, we argue about gay marriage and contraceptive pills.
• That one candidate accuses his opponent of speaking French – and is applauded for it.
• Anonymous voices, through super-PACs, have pre-empted candidates and parties in articulating political views and ideas to the public.
• That 40% of social security recipients answer “no” when asked if they receive any support from the government.
• That candidates for legislative offices proudly proclaim that “compromise” is a sin they will never commit.
And you can make up your own list, I’m sure.
Those Founding Fathers about whom Sarah Palin loves to prattle distrusted democracy. They established a system of limited enfranchisement, sequential layers of representation, and counter-balances between political bodies. Responsible judgment was what they sought; they did not share my naïve faith in communal wisdom, but sought to winnow out popular passion and protect the minority from excesses of an enflamed majority. Throughout the first half of the 19th century, we gradually replaced representative government with direct democratic participation, eventually enfranchising all citizens regardless of sex, material stake in society, education, whatever.
On paper that looks good. But, if, as it appears to me, we are becoming more narrow, more stupid, more malleable to populist crap, more polarized, are we not unworthy of the gift of democratic participation? Is this how we ought to govern ourselves?
We attempt to prohibit the mentally ill from owning guns. We demand drivers be licensed after demonstrating that they can operate a car with some prospect of not harming fellow citizens. But what of voting? Is not the vote a powerful weapon with which to inflict damage on fellow citizens? We entrust young people with the vote before we trust them to drink wine. Any citizen has access to this weapon – with no qualifications re thoughtfulness, sense of history, judgment, values or anything other than having attained the age of 18 and having been fated to be born of an American parent.
Or, of course, having been naturalized; a strong argument can be made that the naturalized American is likely a more thoughtful and qualified voter than their by-birthright fellow; at least they studied and were examined on our history, structure of government, constitution, and the like.
We register to vote. Why not impose a voter qualification test at the same time? Ten or so simple questions about our history, government structure, constitutional rights and obligations, party systems, world affairs and so on might underscore that this voting is serious business, that the right is precious, and at the same time screen out those whose ignorance and thoughtlessness should disqualify them from the right to a ballot.
That’s only a part of revitalizing our political process, of course; we need constitutional constraints on super-PACs, equitably affordable campaigns, limits on non-constituent contributions, maybe even a return to more brokered party conventions which balance party leaders’ assessments with popular support for candidates. Undemocratic? To be sure -- but then, so was the Golden Age of Athens, the Roman Republic, and the societies that produced the Enlightenment thinkers who so influenced the works of our Founding Fathers.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his new (and recommended!) book, Strategic Vision; America and the Crisis of Global Power, argues against the inevitability of American decline, citing six inherent assets that we can marshal to meet our domestic and global challenges. But to capitalize on any of these six requires a leadership to energize us and marshal national will. To develop such leaders, it seems to me, we need to look with fresh, realistic eyes at our entire system of democracy, and not take on faith my fifth grade civics belief that “democracy” is the panacea that inevitably generates progress.
Is a voting test a good idea? Probably not. It would be highly divisive, subject to abuse, take a constitutional amendment to establish, and so on. But it galls me to realize that my vote counts just the same as some yahoo’s who believes the world was created 6,000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, who thinks France is our enemy, who doesn’t know who fought whom in Korea, and whose answer to foreign frustrations is to bomb the bastards back into the stone age. D- for democracy.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Tank Thinking in America. How do I get in on this? Where’s my tank?
You’ve seen the talking heads on TV – On the News Hour: Professor so and so from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. On Charlie Rose: Ms. Michael so and so from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. On 60 Minutes, Dr. Edward So and so of the Rand Corporation, a defense policy think tank.
What the hell is a think tank anyway? Is it a real entity or just a term to pump up our perception of this “thinker” or to add gravitas to his or her institution?
The American Heritage Dictionary (my favorite) says a think tank is “a group or institution organized for intensive research and solving of problems , especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy, or armament.” Wikipedia pretty much concurs, and notes that “most think tanks are non-profit organizations.”
There are more than 4,500 think tanks world wide -- in countries as disparate as Israel, Venezuela, Russia, Jamaica, even Uzbekistan has one. In US, more than 1300 are listed on Wikipedia, an incomplete list they say.
Think tanks vary by ideological perspectives, sources of funding, issue focus and audiences they aim to influence. All sorts of think tanks:
~Independent, civil society think tanks
Some ideologically identifiable, e.g., Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, The Center for American Progress
Others not, e.g., The Center for Strategic & International Studies
~Policy research institutes located in or affiliated with a university, e.g., Hoover Institution at Stanford University
~Governmentally created or state sponsored think tanks, e.g., The Rand Corp
~Corporate or trade association think tanks
And lots more.
Let’s look at some examples, via their IRS form 990’s, mainly for 2010.
A government funded think tank, The Rand Corporation
Rand was formed with a 1946 USAF grant to Douglas Aircraft, and later spun off as a free-standing corporation. Charter: “To help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.” Revenues (2010): $261.9million, up 5% from prior year. (Not bad, in an austerity environment.) Government grants made up $226million of that – not sales, not fees, grants. That’s what justifies this 1700-person corporation being tax exempt. Yes, it’s a non-profit, losing $849,000. CEO James A Thompson earned $733,900. (There are some CEO’s of for-profit corps ten times larger that don’t earn that.)
A conservative, civic think tank, The Heritage FoundationCharter: “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense.” That’s a mouthful. Revenues of $78.3mm, up 14% from prior year. (Wow, +14% in a recession.) But a loss of $2.1mm. Despite that dire deficit, CEO Edwin Fuelner had a good year: compensation, $1,096,000. For a $78 million operation!
Let’s cross the aisle:
A liberal think tank, The Center For American Progress“Dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action.” Revenues: $38.6mm, up 35% from prior year. What? 35%! And, they made a surplus: $7.0mm. Perhaps this think tank couldn’t think up ways to spend it fast enough. CEO John Podesta made (a modest) $238,000.
A libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute“To broaden the understanding of public policy based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.” Revenues $40.4mm, up 26% from prior year. +26%! And these libertarians know how to sock it away: surplus of $16.8mm! 40% of revenues! They put away $9.7mm the year before. CEO Edward H. Crane earned $488,200.
And what about non-partisan, non-ideological think tanks?
The Center for Strategic and International Studies“Dedicated to analysis and policy impact.” Short and sweet: think and make a difference.
Revenues: $39.1mm, up 35% from ’09. Surplus (yes, another sock-it-away year) of $9.0mm. CEO John J. Hammer earned $414,000.
(Incidentally, I subscribe to CSIS’s Critical Questions service; I highly recommend these occasional e-mail updates on what lies behind little-noted but significant current affairs developments. Go to www.csis.org and sign up.)
These think tanks appear to be recession-proof. CEO’s of for-profits would kill for these revenue increases and operating surpluses – and be tax exempt, to boot.
So, who does the thinking in these think tanks? Fellows. Fellows are authors, scientists, scholars, physicians, politicians, columnists, diplomats -- just about anyone who can think. From scanning through 990’s, it appears that the going rate for a Fellow is around $185,000 – $250,000. And of course, most of these Fellows have regular day jobs as well; think tank pay is pin money to supplement their income.
Think tanks themselves are becoming subjects of thought. The Hudson Institute – a think tank -- is holding a conference next week entitled “Are Think Tanks Becoming Too Political?” The 2012 Winter edition of National Affairs leads with an article entitled Devaluing Think Tanks.
Well, when institutions begin holding seminars on themselves, then you know that this is an industry. And given those double-digit revenue increases in the midst of recession, this is a growth industry. And, folks, with those surpluses and those paychecks, this growth industry of think tanking appears to be one sweet racket.
So my question is, how do I find a tank that will pay me to think? If any of you have a suggestion, don’t hesitate -- Please -- Help me find a tank to think in.
What the hell is a think tank anyway? Is it a real entity or just a term to pump up our perception of this “thinker” or to add gravitas to his or her institution?
The American Heritage Dictionary (my favorite) says a think tank is “a group or institution organized for intensive research and solving of problems , especially in the areas of technology, social or political strategy, or armament.” Wikipedia pretty much concurs, and notes that “most think tanks are non-profit organizations.”
There are more than 4,500 think tanks world wide -- in countries as disparate as Israel, Venezuela, Russia, Jamaica, even Uzbekistan has one. In US, more than 1300 are listed on Wikipedia, an incomplete list they say.
Think tanks vary by ideological perspectives, sources of funding, issue focus and audiences they aim to influence. All sorts of think tanks:
~Independent, civil society think tanks
Some ideologically identifiable, e.g., Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, The Center for American Progress
Others not, e.g., The Center for Strategic & International Studies
~Policy research institutes located in or affiliated with a university, e.g., Hoover Institution at Stanford University
~Governmentally created or state sponsored think tanks, e.g., The Rand Corp
~Corporate or trade association think tanks
And lots more.
Let’s look at some examples, via their IRS form 990’s, mainly for 2010.
A government funded think tank, The Rand Corporation
Rand was formed with a 1946 USAF grant to Douglas Aircraft, and later spun off as a free-standing corporation. Charter: “To help improve policy and decision making through research and analysis.” Revenues (2010): $261.9million, up 5% from prior year. (Not bad, in an austerity environment.) Government grants made up $226million of that – not sales, not fees, grants. That’s what justifies this 1700-person corporation being tax exempt. Yes, it’s a non-profit, losing $849,000. CEO James A Thompson earned $733,900. (There are some CEO’s of for-profit corps ten times larger that don’t earn that.)
A conservative, civic think tank, The Heritage FoundationCharter: “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values and a strong national defense.” That’s a mouthful. Revenues of $78.3mm, up 14% from prior year. (Wow, +14% in a recession.) But a loss of $2.1mm. Despite that dire deficit, CEO Edwin Fuelner had a good year: compensation, $1,096,000. For a $78 million operation!
Let’s cross the aisle:
A liberal think tank, The Center For American Progress“Dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action.” Revenues: $38.6mm, up 35% from prior year. What? 35%! And, they made a surplus: $7.0mm. Perhaps this think tank couldn’t think up ways to spend it fast enough. CEO John Podesta made (a modest) $238,000.
A libertarian think tank, The Cato Institute“To broaden the understanding of public policy based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace.” Revenues $40.4mm, up 26% from prior year. +26%! And these libertarians know how to sock it away: surplus of $16.8mm! 40% of revenues! They put away $9.7mm the year before. CEO Edward H. Crane earned $488,200.
And what about non-partisan, non-ideological think tanks?
The Center for Strategic and International Studies“Dedicated to analysis and policy impact.” Short and sweet: think and make a difference.
Revenues: $39.1mm, up 35% from ’09. Surplus (yes, another sock-it-away year) of $9.0mm. CEO John J. Hammer earned $414,000.
(Incidentally, I subscribe to CSIS’s Critical Questions service; I highly recommend these occasional e-mail updates on what lies behind little-noted but significant current affairs developments. Go to www.csis.org and sign up.)
These think tanks appear to be recession-proof. CEO’s of for-profits would kill for these revenue increases and operating surpluses – and be tax exempt, to boot.
So, who does the thinking in these think tanks? Fellows. Fellows are authors, scientists, scholars, physicians, politicians, columnists, diplomats -- just about anyone who can think. From scanning through 990’s, it appears that the going rate for a Fellow is around $185,000 – $250,000. And of course, most of these Fellows have regular day jobs as well; think tank pay is pin money to supplement their income.
Think tanks themselves are becoming subjects of thought. The Hudson Institute – a think tank -- is holding a conference next week entitled “Are Think Tanks Becoming Too Political?” The 2012 Winter edition of National Affairs leads with an article entitled Devaluing Think Tanks.
Well, when institutions begin holding seminars on themselves, then you know that this is an industry. And given those double-digit revenue increases in the midst of recession, this is a growth industry. And, folks, with those surpluses and those paychecks, this growth industry of think tanking appears to be one sweet racket.
So my question is, how do I find a tank that will pay me to think? If any of you have a suggestion, don’t hesitate -- Please -- Help me find a tank to think in.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Two Items in Today's NYT Have Jolted the Ruminator Out of His Holiday-induced Dormancy
First, the DOD has announced that it will proceed with sale to Iraq of F-16’s, M1A1 Abrams tanks, cannons, armored personnel carriers, body armor and helmets, and lots more. This to a government led by Nuri al-Maliki who in the past couple of months has had 700 Sunni opposition leaders and local officials arrested; issued a warrant for arrest of his nation’s Vice President (a Sunni) who is being sheltered by the Kurds; refused to honor his pledge to appoint independent ministers of defense and internal security, thus centralizing power in his sole hands; has fired his Kurdish attorney general for looking too intently into corruption; and is openly supporting Assad in Syria!
We are watching an attempt to create a Shiite autocracy, much to the liking of Iran. Who knows whether Maliki has the cojones to pull it off. And Maliki is being openly challenged by a would-be Ayatollah, Muqtada al-Sadr, who believes even more strongly in a Shiite, theocratic autocracy – also much to the liking of Iran.
What the hell are we thinking?!? Arming this instability is like selling hand guns to drunks and mental deficients. (Oh, oh that’s right. We, uh, we do that don’t we -- as American as apple pie and Mom’s Glock.)
Second item: the Egyptian Central Bank, like the ECB, needs funds to lubricate a near-stall speed economy and encourage its commercial banks to start lending again. Solid, American-style economic thinking. So, who has come forward to supply funds to the Egyptian Central Bank? The Army! No, not ours, theirs. The Egyptian military is lending $1 billion to the bank. What the….?
Imagine if the Pentagon had lent the Federal Reserve $100 billion during the financial crisis of 2008. That would be the equivalent, but even if it had been only $1 billion…. Mightn’t that have raised some eyebrows!
What sort of government has this Egypt? Who’s in charge over there? And this is the same military that yesterday raided 17 foreign NGOs suspected of helping establish civilian control, three of which are US funded, and that for three decades has been the second largest recipient of US foreign aid.
Perhaps the proper question is what sort of government have these United States? This all is enough to drive a sane man to Ron Paul….
We are watching an attempt to create a Shiite autocracy, much to the liking of Iran. Who knows whether Maliki has the cojones to pull it off. And Maliki is being openly challenged by a would-be Ayatollah, Muqtada al-Sadr, who believes even more strongly in a Shiite, theocratic autocracy – also much to the liking of Iran.
What the hell are we thinking?!? Arming this instability is like selling hand guns to drunks and mental deficients. (Oh, oh that’s right. We, uh, we do that don’t we -- as American as apple pie and Mom’s Glock.)
Second item: the Egyptian Central Bank, like the ECB, needs funds to lubricate a near-stall speed economy and encourage its commercial banks to start lending again. Solid, American-style economic thinking. So, who has come forward to supply funds to the Egyptian Central Bank? The Army! No, not ours, theirs. The Egyptian military is lending $1 billion to the bank. What the….?
Imagine if the Pentagon had lent the Federal Reserve $100 billion during the financial crisis of 2008. That would be the equivalent, but even if it had been only $1 billion…. Mightn’t that have raised some eyebrows!
What sort of government has this Egypt? Who’s in charge over there? And this is the same military that yesterday raided 17 foreign NGOs suspected of helping establish civilian control, three of which are US funded, and that for three decades has been the second largest recipient of US foreign aid.
Perhaps the proper question is what sort of government have these United States? This all is enough to drive a sane man to Ron Paul….
Friday, December 2, 2011
Fletch's Instability Index
So who will next feel the sting of Arab Springers or Wall Street Occupiers? Turkey? Spain? France? These demonstrations have resonated around the world: dissatisfied, educated young people, mainly men in the vanguard, threatening the status quo. To some, welcome; to others, unwelcome – but to all, disquieting because who knows what might emerge from such instability?
Among my Olympic Club chums there is the full range of reactions and predictions. “Significant” “Meaningless” “World awakening” “Nothing will change” As I reflect on it all, it seems to me that in the yeasty brew of underlying causes, there are four main ingredients: youth, education, unemployment, and mal-distributed income. This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but I wondered if one could quantify these into a single measure of a nation’s predisposition to instability. Hence, Fletch’s rudimentary “Instability Index.”
My numbers are provocative. Using Japan as a base (100) my instability index suggests that the US,with an index of 242, is two and a half times more potentially unstable than Japan. Our neighbor Canada is only at 167 because its median age is a bit higher than ours and its income more evenly distributed. I used Japan as base because it has relatively mild youth unemployment, a relatively balanced society by age, and a reasonably fair distribution of income. Here are some of the highs and lows of the 59 countries for which I calculated my Instability Index.
High rel. to Japan
South Africa: 479 Algeria: 407 Jordan: 361 Spain: 357 Iraq: 340
Puerto Rico: 318 Columbia: 316 India: 304 Ireland: 290
Low rel. to Japan
Thailand: 53 Netherlands: 59 Austria: 70 Switzerland: 72
Norway: 73 Germany: 81 Ukraine: 81 Turkey: 84 Denmark: 87
I mined the CIA Worldbook for my raw data. (An invaluable resource, one of the few admirable and public services the CIA provides; if you don’t know of it, give it a try -- www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.) I derived a “youthfulness” measure by taking male median age relative to male life expectancy. To that, I applied the literacy rate among men (in mid-east countries, especially, there are distressing differences between men’s and women’s literacy.) Also equally weighted was the unemployment percentage for men 15 to 24. Lastly, I applied with equal weight the Gini index, i.e., the measure of how unequally distributed is family income in the society.
My simplistic theory is that the higher the proportion of young men, educated but without a job, and aware of how income is mal-distributed in their society, the more likely they are to destabilize that society by acting out their frustrations and discontent.
What I find in examining the numbers is that unemployment and mal-distribution of income drive the results. Of course, my numbers are dependent on how one weighs the factors. And that deserves debate – which I hope you, dear reader, will engage in with me by commenting below. I will e-mail the spread sheet to any who wish it. Just give me your e-mail address in the comment section below.
For wonks, like me, the raw data are fascinating. For example, Asian nations, especially the poorer ones like Bangladesh, India or Viet Nam, have very low unemployment rates. Perhaps in such societies one is either working or perishing. (Accordingly, I have tossed them out of the table above; apparently they don’t have the luxury of demonstrating or occupying.) Another item: male life expectancy is pretty even across cultures and between developed and developing societies, running from the low to upper 70s, suggesting that medical advances are well shared. But three shocking exceptions: Ukraine (62), Russia (60), and South Africa (50!) Another item: as we know, the US is an outlier when it comes to the Gini index; no other developed nation among the 59 has a more unequal distribution of family incomes.
Of course, many unquantifiable factors either moderate or exacerbate the potential for instability. A cultural pattern of acceptance of autocracy or the momentum of improvement might deter acting out. In other societies, demonstrations may be a way of life. Thus, we might not expect to see demonstrations and unrest in Saudi Arabia at a 204 or Morocco at a 213 whereas the UK at 213 has already had its share of disturbances and occupiers.
Crude as it is, this index exercise stimulated interesting speculation: where do we go from here? Jordan? Turkey? Spain? Where is the next tinder likely to be lit by frustrated young men and women who are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore? Stay tuned, for our world isn’t getting any duller.
Among my Olympic Club chums there is the full range of reactions and predictions. “Significant” “Meaningless” “World awakening” “Nothing will change” As I reflect on it all, it seems to me that in the yeasty brew of underlying causes, there are four main ingredients: youth, education, unemployment, and mal-distributed income. This is an oversimplification, to be sure, but I wondered if one could quantify these into a single measure of a nation’s predisposition to instability. Hence, Fletch’s rudimentary “Instability Index.”
My numbers are provocative. Using Japan as a base (100) my instability index suggests that the US,with an index of 242, is two and a half times more potentially unstable than Japan. Our neighbor Canada is only at 167 because its median age is a bit higher than ours and its income more evenly distributed. I used Japan as base because it has relatively mild youth unemployment, a relatively balanced society by age, and a reasonably fair distribution of income. Here are some of the highs and lows of the 59 countries for which I calculated my Instability Index.
High rel. to Japan
South Africa: 479 Algeria: 407 Jordan: 361 Spain: 357 Iraq: 340
Puerto Rico: 318 Columbia: 316 India: 304 Ireland: 290
Low rel. to Japan
Thailand: 53 Netherlands: 59 Austria: 70 Switzerland: 72
Norway: 73 Germany: 81 Ukraine: 81 Turkey: 84 Denmark: 87
I mined the CIA Worldbook for my raw data. (An invaluable resource, one of the few admirable and public services the CIA provides; if you don’t know of it, give it a try -- www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.) I derived a “youthfulness” measure by taking male median age relative to male life expectancy. To that, I applied the literacy rate among men (in mid-east countries, especially, there are distressing differences between men’s and women’s literacy.) Also equally weighted was the unemployment percentage for men 15 to 24. Lastly, I applied with equal weight the Gini index, i.e., the measure of how unequally distributed is family income in the society.
My simplistic theory is that the higher the proportion of young men, educated but without a job, and aware of how income is mal-distributed in their society, the more likely they are to destabilize that society by acting out their frustrations and discontent.
What I find in examining the numbers is that unemployment and mal-distribution of income drive the results. Of course, my numbers are dependent on how one weighs the factors. And that deserves debate – which I hope you, dear reader, will engage in with me by commenting below. I will e-mail the spread sheet to any who wish it. Just give me your e-mail address in the comment section below.
For wonks, like me, the raw data are fascinating. For example, Asian nations, especially the poorer ones like Bangladesh, India or Viet Nam, have very low unemployment rates. Perhaps in such societies one is either working or perishing. (Accordingly, I have tossed them out of the table above; apparently they don’t have the luxury of demonstrating or occupying.) Another item: male life expectancy is pretty even across cultures and between developed and developing societies, running from the low to upper 70s, suggesting that medical advances are well shared. But three shocking exceptions: Ukraine (62), Russia (60), and South Africa (50!) Another item: as we know, the US is an outlier when it comes to the Gini index; no other developed nation among the 59 has a more unequal distribution of family incomes.
Of course, many unquantifiable factors either moderate or exacerbate the potential for instability. A cultural pattern of acceptance of autocracy or the momentum of improvement might deter acting out. In other societies, demonstrations may be a way of life. Thus, we might not expect to see demonstrations and unrest in Saudi Arabia at a 204 or Morocco at a 213 whereas the UK at 213 has already had its share of disturbances and occupiers.
Crude as it is, this index exercise stimulated interesting speculation: where do we go from here? Jordan? Turkey? Spain? Where is the next tinder likely to be lit by frustrated young men and women who are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore? Stay tuned, for our world isn’t getting any duller.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Embattled Israel -- Our Most Dangerous Foreign Policy Conundrum
A frustrated Palestinian attempting to tend his olive trees ... is he the potential trigger of the next mid-east conflagration? Could he be a Palestinian "Bouazizi" who sets off a new war? The West Bank is poised like a bead unstably perched atop a wire loop; one small push and down it slides, a reaction far stronger than initial push. And in this case, some of the potential reactors are nuclear armed.
One by one, Israel's peace partnerships are coming undone.
~ Egypt: poplar opinion is forcing the junta to moderate both their support of the peace agreement and their constraint of Hamas in the Gaza. After the elections, there will be a lively debate about Egypt's commitment to the peace, no matter who wins.
~ Jordan: two prime ministers fired in six months. Much empathy on the street with West Bank Palestinians. A youthful, literate, unemployed tinder box of instability.
~ Turkey: already turned hostile to Israel’s handling of Gaza. Turning its face away from Europe and Eastward toward its Arab neighbors again.
Yet rather than dampen, Israel insists on enflaming Arab populist outrage. My nephew and his fiancé , Ged and Kelleigh, spent a couple of months last summer working on a Palestinian farm in the West Bank, then traveling in Jordan and Turkey. They paint a grim picture.
One Palestinian land owner with whom they worked was attempting to plant an olive grove on his land bisected by the wall. They helped him transport water to nurture the new grove -- expensive water, for the Israeli authorities forbid the drilling of wells or construction of cisterns to catch the rare rains in the West Bank. Forbid, that is, the Palestinians from doing so; no restrictions on settlers' tapping and catching valuable waters. West Bank Israelis annually use 1,450cubic meters per capita vs. 83 per Palestinian -- yes, 83!
Another scene: settlers of an illegal settlement covet an adjacent Palestinian pistachio and olive grove. When the Palestinian owner and his work party, including Kelleigh and Ged, come to tend and water the grove, the armed settlers harass them with taunts and threats. The Israeli Defense Force arrives to separate the adversaries and maintain peace. "Maintain peace" by ordering the Palestinians off their own land, and hurrying them on their way with stun grenades and tear gas, to the delight of the settlers.
Just one small incident in a sea of such mis-matched confrontations.
Netanyahu is intent on flooding occupied land with Israelis, making a mockery of the notion of a free-standing Palestinian state. Regional, indeed, world-wide opposition to and disdain for Israel grows apace.
So what is our policy? To veto Security Council endorsement of statehood recognition? To hang with Israel no matter how isolated they become? To withdraw support from UNESCO – an organization dedicated to defusing world tensions by fostering understanding and exchange? To stand by and watch an embattled Israel, armed with nuclear weapons, turn increasingly defensive, intransigent, feel cornered and desperately deluded that they are always in the right?
Why not abstain when the Security Council votes? Why not begin supplying West Bank Palestinians with supplies, water, agricultural aid -- in effect, countering at least symbolically Israel's real politick investiture of the land? Lecturing Netanyahu hasn't accomplished anything; isn’t it time to demonstrate that our support is conditional and that we can back words with actions that demonstrate even-handedness?
Do we have the political courage to become even-handed? No Republican will do so in this polarized environment, especially given the evangelicals' embrace of Eretz Israel. (Evangelicals believe the second coming will happen only after the Promised Land is fully returned to the Jews. Of course, in the second coming, non-Christians will be wiped out; so much for their empathy with Israelis.) Nor will Democrats support even-handedness, fearful of driving away knee-jerk Israeli supporters. Perhaps a group of "wise men" like those used by Johnson, or Bishop Tutu's “The Elders”, could speak objectively and persuasively. Maybe the specter of nuclear armed instabilities like Pakistan, No. Korea, Iran and Israel will bring some hard thinking and stiffen the spines of our "leaders." Shocked to put Israel in the same company? Ask yourself: are they truly acting more statesmanlike and rational than the others?
Only when we begin to see and listen and think hard about being dragged into another conflagration, one conceivably of mushroom proportions, will we have the courage to change direction and act even-handily and hard-headedly. Israel is our toughest, most dangerous foreign policy conundrum, far harder to deal with than Pakistan, Iran or North Korea where the world sees it our way, because we are alone and stuck in our prior position. But we may be at the two minute warning – little time to find our own, new way in this increasingly dangerous and unstable part of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
