15 Days later

Since my last post the Chinese have invaded the U.S., Iraq has changed very little, Europe is in turmoil and Iran is even closer to a nuclear bomb.

My suggestion today is to read the "Leaders" from the previous issue. I know a new economist came out today.

Some points and questions:

Israel is a fascinating political problem. I think the internationalization of Jerusalem would have been and still is a great solution to the problem. Making it a safe tourist attraction is a much better option then turning it into the Berlin of 2006.

France is basically under mob rule. Perhaps the anti-French sentiment was deeper than their dislike for action in Iraq.

Aren't the headlines in the Economist great?

We should make Jimmy Buffet the head of NASA (We spent 90 jillion dollars trying to get a look at mars/ I hear universal laughter ringing out among the stars)

Northern Ireland may have given too much credence to terrorist/freedom fighters, but it has worked pretty well.

Maybe Genesis is actually reversed. Perhaps man was made from a women's rib.

The point of our existence

PREFACE: I apologize again for the lack of posts as of late. I have finally gotten my computer back and I am ready to roll, all the way through exams.

I won't say much about this story. There is an even better story about "Paternalism", but it is not available for free on the economist.com. However, I will say that no matter what you believe, the main difference between humans and most other creatures is that humans are able to make decisions. Taking away that freedom to make decisions goes against the man teachings of most modern religions and agains human nature.

Blog Hiatus

The hard drive on my computer is being replaced as we speak, so my postings this week will be few and far between. Thanks for understanding.

Government is too Important for Politicians

This Leader talks about how the future Prime Minister has failed in the past few years to bring about reforms of budget that England would be proud of.

The larger theme of the article is to once again show that the governing of citizens is too important of an issue to leave to politicians to figure out. Important decisions such as national debt, governmental reforms and the education of our children should not be left to people whose only qualification is that they have convinced people to vote for them. A popularity contest is not how large decisions should be made.

Look at the current immigration reform controversey going on in America. Of course Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are going to protest more strict regulation of immigration, but is it right to give in to the few that protest? We need to remember that many of these people are protesting in order to stay in the country. I would protest just about anything if it helped my cause to stay in this country.

Sexy Underwear, Where?

See Also: http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5582874

As usual, the final letter published to the Economist this week was quite amusing. In a previous article The Economist discussed Turkey's role in the underwear trade. Interesting article and it confirmed a story I had heard once from a first generation Iranian-American. She said that on visits to the Middle East sexy undergarments were quite popular. It seems that while many in that area of the world dress overtly conservative (Bee-keeper suits as Bill Mahr would say), they are quite unabashed in the bedroom, for their husbands.

Sex sells in America, but the intrigue of sex seems to sell in the Middle East.

Ownership: the beginning of the end?

China has had a heck of a time with its peasant farmers. It has taken their land and rights, but that is nice compared to the slaughter of millions of people by Chairman Mao.

After reading this article, I feel as though China is wrong in not giving farmers land, but the government is acting in its own interest. If they give the farmers their land, they are giving them power. If they give them power they will rise up like a good proletariat should. Now one could say that this prevents a proletariat uprising, but I think in a place like china that has such a large central government, the more power they give to the people, the more of a threat that the government will fall.

The Chinese government is looking out for itself in this situation. That may be good or bad, but a large uprising in China is not what the world needs right now.

The Dragon Died Before He Could Be Slayed

Slobodan Milosevic was probably the closest thing my generation has seen to Adolph Hitler. He caused an unnecessary death and encouraged horrific ethnic cleansing. It is too bad that he died quietly in a jail cell, rather than being burned (or boiled) to death.

Every week the economist chooses one death to write an obituary about. It is a nice feature and as a younger fan of politics, I enjoy it quite a bit when trying to understand the past. In this case, I remember the horrors of Milosevic, but it was interesting to learn of his early life and how the suicides of his two parents seem to have sparked his evil.

However, I think the man's evil was underdeveloped. Perhaps the writer did this on purpose (the opening sentence makes reference to the Roman tradition of only mentioning good things about the dead), but I think it is a bit misleading when writing about the 1990 version of Hitler.

Blair

On the cover this week is an omnious photo of Tony Blair with the words "The Final Days of Tony Blair". The Leader article compares Blair's current situation with former Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Wilson resigned at the top of his game. Like a John Elway, a Jim Brown or a Walter Payton he went out while he was ahead. The Economist suggests that Blair do the same thing.

I love British politics, Prime Minister's Question Time and Tony Blair. He is well-spoken and well-educated, but is a proven political snake. Even his recent victory with his education reform bill, while some see as weakness, I see as a strength in his ability to get Conservatives to vote for the bill and save it from a Labour mutiny. I will admit that it does show that Blair's policies and reforms right now may not conform exactly with the beliefs of future Prime Minister Gordon Brown and those in the Labour Party that would rather pledge their allegance to him.

I think the suggestion of the Economist is reasonable. Tony Blair has been a great Prime Minister and his legacy should not be tarnished by staying in office too long, gettting involved in political squabbles. However, there is important work to be done and his ability to work with the Convservative party may allow him to build a coalition that will allow him to push through some amazing reforms as a "lame duck". Something his friend on this side of the Atlantic has not been able to do.



P.S. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Clinton and Blair got together after Blair retires. They could work towards some solutions for some of the world's most serious problems.

People like Sports

Sticking to my word, the above link is to a story about the economist from two weeks ago. It is about the World Baseball Classic. I personally think the World Baseball Classic is a good idea; spread the word of the baseball Gods throughout the world. However, it should be played in the winter, not a week before opening day.

With that out of the way, I wanted to move to a more pressing issue: time wasted by employees paying attention to the NCAA tournament and other athletic events. As my headline says, people like sports. Also, people love distractions. Combine these traits with some good ol' corporate job and you have this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188043,00.html . The article talks about the $4 billion that American businesses will lose because of March Madness.

WHO CARES?

Humans are social animals. We like to talk, ask about common interests, etc. NCAA pools, the Superbowl, other sporting events give people something to talk about and an experience to share. If people were not distracted by the NCAA pool, they would be distracted by something else. I worked in a cubicle for a long time before coming to law school and if there was not something to be distracted by, I would find something. I think the company that did this study is wasting time by studing the time we waste.

Are American Students Apathetic?

As a student in America, I have noticed that my "colleagues" (other college/law school students) are a bit apathetic when it comes to, well, anything. They are not willing to put the work into the projects that are neccesary for success. I include myself in this group; I don't want to be accused of calling the kettle black. Compare this story: 1000 Protest War in Iraq ( http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32202 ) to the one linked below.

It seems the passion behind protestors, especially students is gone in the U.S. Living in DC for four years, I witnessed many "protests" and the main thing I took away was how peaceful, calm and not disruptive they were. It seems to me that if you want to change something, you need to make a huge effort that actually brings change. The students in France have shutdown many of their colleges and they have gotten the attention of parliment. That was not the case in America as some commented on how weak the recent protets were: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3618103 .

Protests, like mass e-mails seem to have become useless. I am not siding with either protests, but if you want to change something, you better be willing to sacrifice.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!!!

In honor of my third favorite holiday (1. Christmas, 2. Halloween) please check out this brief story about Ireland. Ireland experienced massive growth recently because of it tax-exemptions for foreign companies, especially in the technology sector. The comments on the lack of workers and minimal infrastructure are interesting and combine that with the high taxes on second household incomes and it seems Ireland must figure out how to balance taxes, government expenditure and economic expansion. Ireland is a success story like none other. It overcame civil war and a dismal economic situation to become a power in Europe, but can it continue?

Free-dom May Not be the Way to Go

The internet is freedom. Anonymity and information on demand provide for one of the purist forms of anarchy on the planet. As a classic libertarian I enjoy the internet and the freedom that it provides and promotes. When I first heard about "net neutrality" I felt as though it was an easy policy decision for me. The internet should remain free. However, "net neutrality" goes against that freedom. The idea behind net neutrality is that the internet should be an open network where everyone is the same and can work at the same speed. Some companies want to offer various services such as guaranteed delivery or higher speeds for a price. Many feel that this will create two internets and limit the creativity that the internet was founded on.

We need to remember that it was innovation that created internet and innovation must continue for it to be a success. Faster speeds, guaranteed delivery and other innovations (even if they cost money) will maintain this innovation on the internet. Maitaining a free enviroment on the internet is what we need. Regulating the internet with "net neutrality" is not.

First Day of Spring Break

Just got the Economist today and it was the first day of my spring break. I will post tomorrow morning.

Bush and Peter Sellers

Three things today.

First, go to economist.com and just look at the cover. It is precious.

Second, the cover story in this weeks economist is very important. Ever since the end of the Cold War between Russia and the U.S. the world has been relatively relaxed about Nuclear proliferation. It shouldn't be. Although the world has been quite peaceful since the end of World War II (the last time a nuclear bomb has been used against humans), more nuclear bombs is not always a good thing.

Right now we have a balance of power in terms of nuclear bombs. There are treaties and controls that regulate its use for peaceful purposes and wartime uses. When parties (like Bush and the U.S.) begin to violate these controls, then we will return to a pre-Cold War state of chaos.

In a perfect world of responsible government, everyone would be able to have nuclear weapons. Without getting into it (post a comment if you want to) nuclear weapons and a proper execution of Mutually Assured Destruction will prevent major conflict and put more of an emphasis on diplomacy. Bush's violation of our nuclear treaties is not a move to that end, it is a blatent violation of international treaties and should not be approved by congress.

Third, in general this will be a business day blog. I will not post on weekends and I will not post on most holidays. If I am not going to post on any other days, I will let you know.

Death

I apologize for the late post, but I was attending my great aunt's funeral. She was a great woman, living until she was 86. Suffered horribly through the death of a husband, son and grandson. Her life came to an end when, after suffering from Alzheimers for the past few years, she got locked out of her house, confused and wandered in her yard (perhaps heading to a neighbors), fell, could not get back up and froze to death. A horrible story, I know.

It seems that many around the world have also been suffering horrible deaths. Between the execution-style murders of people in Iraq since the bombing of the most holy Shia mosque, Askariya, and the torture and murder of Ilan Halimi, a Jewish man in France, the international news has been quite gruesome. While the death of my Aunt was horrible accident (I guess the best way to put it) her death was not because of her religion. The murders of people based on their beliefs is, of course, horrible.

However, it should effect all of humanity more. When one hears the story of a man killed because of his beliefs, our hearts must feel sorrow, just as I felt sorrow for my aunt. The actions of purposefully killing someone because they pray to Allah Shia-style v. Allah Sunni-style are a blow to all of humanity. I have noticed that the sectarian violence in Iraq has almost been accepted. The American people immediately stated they felt civil war is soon to come in Iraq. However, our original feeling should not be of civil war, but of unification and sympathy. No one, in the name of religion, can kill anyone else and still maintain their religion. There is not one single religion that allows for the murder of another. No true Shia or Sunni Muslim can defend the bombing of Askariya or the execution of member of the other sect. The people in Iraq should not go to the streets to protest the bombing of Askariya, they should take a page from the French playbook, going to the streets and showing unity against all violence, especially violence sparked by ethnic or religious differences. If we isolate and rise above violence, the violent will no longer be powerful.

Anger Leads to Hate

George W. Bush is not a conservative. He is not a Libertarian, Liberal, fascist or Communist. He is a Republican. He has sacrificed about everyone of his principles in order to gain political victories. Love it or hate it (most hate it as poll numbers now show), he is a two-term president and has been successful in staying in office and bringing justice to the terrorists and the man who tried to kill his father.

The economist reviews a book this week taking on this exact subject. Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy, by: Bruce Bartlett. I have not read the book, but The Economist says, "From steel tariffs to spiraling regulation and profligate spending, Mr Bartlett tears into every aspect of Mr Bush's economic policy. Page after page denounces the administration's lack of principle, the president's lack of interest in the policy process, and the White House's general inaptitude. This book is a sobering reminder of just how much the Bush team has got wrong: from the failure to veto a single spending bill, however pork-laden, to the crass recklessness of serially cutting taxes while introducing the biggest expansion of a government entitlement program's in decades—the inclusion of prescription-drug coverage in Medicare, the government health plan for the elderly."

That sounds nice enough. An interesting read for a diverse group of Bush-haters. However, The Economist says that Bartlett fails to add anything, but snow to the snowbank. "Though it is unlikely to win him many conservative friends, Mr Bartlett's analysis of America's fiscal prospects is compelling. Unfortunately, his overall indictment of the president is less compelling than it should be. That is mainly because, like many other Bush-bashing authors, Mr Bartlett is too often driven to hyperbole." This sounds like just another political book, written by people who understand politics, but not principles.

One thing you should take from this book review is that principles matter. Add substance to debate and don't grandstand like Bartlett does (just that name brings me wishes that The West Wing was true life and not a TV show) or sell your soul the political devil like Bush did. Political politicians are bad, but angry talking heads are worse.

Covering What We Should Know, Not What We Want to Hear

One of my favorite things about The Economist is his (I reference the magazine like this, because this is how all of its letters begin) comprehensive coverage of important issues that are often under reported, misreported or just not reported by the American press. The genocide in Darfur is a perfect example. The Economist has been talking about the horrendous situation in Darfur years before it was ever mentioned in the American media.

http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5580439

This story on the web and in the print edition of The Economist (meaning it can be found on Lexis and WestLaw) is a great example. It continues to hammer home the importance of the Darfur situation, while expressing fresh consequences if the international community continues to ignore the genocide and general civil war in the country.

Stability has never been Africa's strong suit, but if the war and genocide in Sudan spill over into Chad, there will be serious consequences. A country as poor as Chad is not in a position to start a war with another African country. However, the question to be asked here is can the international community handle devoting more resources to another conflict and should this become more of a diplomatic and peacekeeping issue before it turns into a multinational war? Perhaps that question should have been taken on prior to the death of 400,000 people and the displacement of two million.

This blog has been created to discuss, interpret, comment, debate and deliberate the stories, coverage and general attitude of The Economist Magazine and economist.com. I will be making daily positings of articles and/or commentary. Please feel free to comment or post anything in response or original. Enjoy.