Category: politics

Categories
freedom politics Yemen

ال يمن مجنون لكن مسكين

Last night, I had not one, but two friends tell me they wanted to go back to Yemen… right now. As crazy as that sounds, I do understand where they are coming from. Despite the tribalism that is starting to rip Yemen apart, there is something special about the place that makes so many westerners want to go back. As I remember, those two friends were more than a little crazy and ready to get the hell out of Yemen the last time I saw them. Another friend came and saw me three times in Yemen, each time he said it would be his last. He has been back since. An Australian came to Sana’a as part of her sweep up Eastern Africa expecting to stay 3 weeks. She was there 6 months. I was more than a little crazy by the time I left too, but I miss it.

I hope that whatever has been kept under wraps for 30 years can be sorted out somewhat quickly. I am dead set against any American involvement in whatever is to come in Yemen. Some say that Al Queda is too dangerous to allow them to get a foothold in Yemen. I’ll point to their fearsome success of blowing up a guys underwear and the shipping ink cartridge “bombs.” Their attempts in Yemen were pretty pathetic, the running joke was that none of their plans were coming to fruition because none of them wanted to give up their cell phone to act as a detonator. Yes, they attempted to bomb the American embassy, but they didn’t get close and only managed to kill some Yemeni troops and a single, unlucky American. Their crowning moment happened in 2000 with the attack on the Cole. Yes, Americans were killed, but the damage could have been minimized if even basic security procedures were followed. When a missile cruiser is damaged at all and deaths occur from an attack from an inflatable boat, someone fell down on the job. The Unabomber was a far more effective terrorist and yet we didn’t need a single Tomahawk missile or special ops group to get him. All of the same things that are being said about Yemen were also said about Somalia. As it turns out, a chaotic situation is not conducive to world-wide terror plots. Too much energy and time is spent on maintaining local power and influence. The crazier it is in Yemen, the less likely Queda will be able to mount any attacks at all. Even if they did, their attempts in recent memory have been laughable. 
More than any of that though, I don’t want us doing anything that gives Yemenis reason to hate us. It”s bad enough that we supported Salah all these years. We have to let them figure things out on their own and find their own balance. Raining missiles down on them or attacking them will not make us the good guys. Don’t give Queda recruiting fodder. I would like to go back one day, please don’t make the US the enemy.

Categories
politics

The mess in Gaza

Wow, the Israel/Palistine conflict never ceases to amaze me. I like to think that most Americans think the say way I do about this, namely that both sides are a bit crazy. The Palestinian authority, Hamas, Arabs, and Muslims in general seem to react with shock and dismay when Israel attacks Gaza after rockets launched from Gaza had been raining down on Israel. Israelis and their supporters don’t understand what all of the anger is about after they kill far more civilians than combatants… The cycle never seems to end, part of me wonders if they want it to end…

I was reading through some of the reactions from official spokesperson types and feeling even more angst about the situation. Predictably, there was a lot of empty talk about how Hamas needs to stop attacking Israel and how Israel needs to stop being so heavy handed. Of course, there was also the blanket condemnation of Israel (without acknowledging any of the mitigating circumstances) from the usual suspects.

The best reaction, IMO, was from the Vatican. “Hamas is a prisoner to a logic of hate, Israel to a logic of faith in force as the best response to hate.
“One must continue to search for a different way out, even if that may seem impossible.”

It does indeed seem impossible…

Categories
Culture politics Religion

Daily show funniness, but not 100% correct (cross posted with Life as I see it)

Here’s the Daily show’s take on the Mumbai mess (at the end, don’t know why there’s so much space…)I think that’s hilarious, I really do. John basically summed up my feelings when I was watching that on the news, I was yelling along too. There’s only one little problem, this violence was not about establishing a world wide caliphate. This was about Kashmir.

Usually, when something big like this happens, there are political motives rather than religious ones at play. The Kashmir issue is a political one although the parties involved are split along religious lines. The same could be true of the day to day demands and goals of Al-Queda. They want foreigners to leave the Saudi peninsula, they want the US to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. Those are all political issues. They use religion to attract and recruit people for political ends. We shouldn’t fall into the same trap.

There is indeed religious violence in the world. Men killing woman because they aren’t wearing hijab, wackos blowing up abortion clinics, etc. are all examples. Perhaps the attackers in Mumbai were indeed personally motivated by religious extremism, but the aim of the operation was to try to cause a conflict in Kashmir.

Here’s my bet. I bet that if these people were referred to as Kashmiri separatists instead of Islamic extremists, we in the US would not have heard nearly as much about it. We’re more willing to stomach political violence than religious violence. That’s why Hitler is so universally reviled while Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il and Mao are not thought about in the slightest.

Whenever we hear the media trumpet religious violence, we should take a step back and ask ourselves if the aim of that violence is actually political in nature. Violence should always be decried of course, but let’s blame the right problems, shall we?

Categories
freedom politics

"Tear down this wall!" and freedom in the middle east

I heard a clip of this speech the other day on the radio and I realized that I had never heard the entire thing. I made the effort and I’m glad I did. It’s quite the history lesson. It’s also good to hear the man himself instead of relying on fuzzy memories and modern critics. Listen to it here:

The first 30 seconds or so is a blurb about who is hosting the file, the speech begins after that. This wasn’t that long ago, a little over 20 years, but my how things have changed! Some of the more interesting bits IMO:

1) “The Soviet Union is pointing nuclear weapons at all of the capitals of Europe…” Wow, doesn’t that take you back? We were worried about nuclear war, and for good reason. Reagan has the reputation of being a war monger, but listen and you’ll hear a man that felt that he was doing what had to be done. he certainly didn’t seem to relish the arms race…

2) SDI. Yes, I can hear all of you groan from here. The “Star Wars” project was an infamous government waste of money. It was a waste insofar as it didn’t actually produce any sort of defense anything and cost an amazing amount of money. Believe it or not, there are more than a few historians that credit the SDI with the beginning of the end of the arms race. How? As early as 1968, Reagan had written that the best way to make the Soviet Union collapse was to make them spend a lot of money. His reading of Hayek made him realize that the Soviet system was inherently inefficient (despite all sorts of people, including a fair number of economists thinking otherwise). The American system could absorb many more losses and still function fairly well. History has born out both Hayek’s and Regan’s vision. SDI didn’t have to work, in fact I’m sure that Regan knew it wouldn’t work. All he had to do was convince the Soviets that there was a way to make it work given enough money. The Soviets couldn’t start that kind of research and keep up the ongoing arms race. It was the first crack in their armor, SDI is what made it clear that the US could afford much more than the Soviets, and they started to change…

3) Freedom. I know that use of “freedom” in a political speech is out of favor these days due to dub-ya’s mistakes in the name of it. But really, what Reagan said and what W has promised isn’t all that different, so why is Reagn’s speech moving and W sounds like a buffoon? I think that it was primarily what was causing the lack of freedom. Socialism was an organized, powerful, directed movement against liberty. The USSR was an easy target, and they were genuinely repressing people that wanted things to be different. Today is much different. Except for a few sad holdouts (N. Korea, Cuba), socialism is dead. There are still governments that repress their citizens of course, but none of them are large enough to pose a world-wide threat. They are also not large enough, or powerful enough to consistently fire up Americans… The freedom that W talked about was freedom at the point of a gun. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but that entire area seems to be disposed to autocratic rulers. My time in Yemen made it clear to me that they were not convinced a democracy like the US’s was in their best interests. Most of them preferred having a king…

In other words, the lack of freedom in the middle east was not so much dependent on governments (although there are more than a few repressive ones over there) as it was ingrained in their culture. If you ask them, they will of course claim to desire freedom, but that word has very different connotations to them than to people in the US usually. So the thing that limits freedom is not a monolithic, militarily powerful entity in that part of the world. It is instead diffuse, ingrained, and largely beneath the surface. How do you fight that? Trick question, you can’t “fight” that, you have to cultivate freedom.

So in short, I think that a lot of what caused W problems was the fact that there wasn’t a single thing that he could fight and “win” against. Today’s problems with freedom are quite a bit more complex than in years past. This last administration has been an absolute disaster in that regard. I really hope that Obama can get a feel for the real obstacles to freedom and act accordingly.

Categories
Culture politics Yemen

The fighting is over!

The president of Yemen has announced that the long standing fighting in the north has ended. Woo hoo! Now I can go back! Just kidding of course. I was talking with a friend of mine that I met in Yemen last night. I asked Dana if she missed Yemen. She said, “I did for a little while, but then I got over it. No really, I’m really over it…” I don’t think I’m there yet, but I can see that day approaching.

UPDATE

There is now a new press release (here) that says a couple of hours after the president made his declaration, the rebels seized a village where there has been sporadic fighting. I doubt that there will ever be a “neat” victory on either side, that part of the world doesn’t lend itself to that…

Technorati Tags:
, , , ,

Categories
Culture politics

Supreme court ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that the DC gun ban is unconstitutional today. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, DC essentially made it illegal to own handguns and it’s difficult to reconcile that with the second amendment without some pretzel-like contortions. What I don’t understand is all of the angst about this. This article seems pretty typical in its idiocy. He even entitled it “The Thugs won.” As he pointed out, the people who have been using handguns in DC will not be affected by the new ruling. But maybe the people that are afraid of the “thugs” will breathe a little easier now. I have read a half dozen articles saying that this decision will lead to shoot outs in the streets and that gun violence is bound to increase. None of them have mentioned the fact that the people causing the gun violence were (in many cases) in violation of the gun laws that were in place. The really restrictive gun laws didn’t save all of those people that were killed in DC since this law was in effect. If the police in DC, LA, Chicago, etc. weren’t going to save them (and they didn’t), why not let people defend themselves? It seems to me that the people who want to stop people from owning guns need to come up with a way of protecting people, the police are doing a pretty bad job of it.

I understand not liking guns, but there are some people (like the ones that brought the case against DC) that need them for protection. If you want more restrictive gun control you need to do two things. First, you need to get the second amendment repealed. The second thing you need to do is to find a way of protecting the people that are getting killed while waiting for the police. Good luck finding solutions to those things…

Technorati Tags:
, , ,

Categories
politics

Ron Paul

Yes, it’s the dreaded Ron Paul post… Dana and I were chatting and Ron’s name came up. “He’s crazy,” was her attitude towards him. I do think he’s a little crazy, I’m not sure where he comes up with his attitudes about the WTO, I think (think mind you, I’ll have to look at this more carefully) that I would want a more liberal policy in regards to immigration than he would want, and even though I am no fan of abortion, I am very leery of a national ban on them. So yeah, I do think he’s a little nutty, but it’s a kind of nutty I could live with.

Here’s why, he’s the only one that I’m not really afraid of. He’s the only one claiming that the federal government should have less power, not more. That’s a breath of fresh air after all these years under “W,” and is a far cry from the likes of Guliani and Hillary. “W” has set a precedent and I worry that future heads of the executive branch will be loath to give up what has already been granted. Guliani has made it known that he favors a very strong executive, and I believe with all my heart that Hillary would jump at any chance to take more control.

Another nice thing about Paul, love him or hate him, he is very different from all of the other candidates. Quick, can you outline the major policy differences between Hillary and Obama? Or how about between Guliani and Romney? Paul is an actual alternative, he is significantly different than all of the other candidates, regardless of party. He is certainly different from all of the other republicans. He’s no neocon, and that’s a relief. He’s known as “Mr. No” in the senate because he consistently votes against silly spending bills and anything that infringes on civil liberties. He was one of only 4 (I think) republicans to vote against the original Patriot Act and he was the only republican to vote against authorization to invade Iraq. Paul is the only one that is fiscally responsible, let alone conservative in the entire pack and I think he’s the only republican that is steadfastly a noninterventionist.

I don’t think he has much of a chance to go anywhere in this election, but don’t underestimate the power of a “The Government Sucks” platform in today’s political atmosphere. I think the more people that hear about him, the more will vote for him just because they are so fed up with the current government (legislative and executive). He has also set a one day record for fundraising. The really amazing thing is that neither he nor his campaign were the ones that organized it. It was a true grassroots effort organized by volunteers. I think that his best case scenario is to make some noise in this coming election if even in the primaries. With any luck, he’ll have a Goldwaterlike kind of influence. It’s been a while since anyone has run on a smaller government platform. The first Bush was really the last republican that even gave lip service to the idea, and Reagan was the last one that actually tried to do anything about it. Reagan and his cohorts were heavily influenced by Barry Goldwater. It was the election that Goldwater lost that got those ideas back into political conversations. With any luck, Paul’s campaign will make people thnk that there’s another possible type of candidate and maybe we’ll actually elect one of them one of these days…

tags technorati :
Categories
politics

Congress idiocy

There are two different things going on right now that are really giving me heartburn. Congress just passed an “anti-gouging” gas bill, and there is a lot of rumbling about imposing trade sanctions on China. The trade sanctions thing drives me CRAZY! Why should all of us pay for something that China is doing? If congress imposes sanctions on China to “punish” them for something, we will all pay more money for many many things. Let’s say they slap a 30% tariff on stuff from China. Great, that means all of our computers, TVs, lots of our clothes, and God only knows what else will be 30% more expensive. Why punish the American consumer? There’s some sentiment about the Chinese “taking our jobs” and sanctions are supposed to take care of that. The facts are that manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation much more so than to cheaper labor. Much of that cheaper labor is then replaced by machines in China. If sanctions go through, take a good, long look at who will be the actual beneficiaries of these new higher prices. It won’t be you and me, I can tell you that much…

As mad as the possible trade sanctions make me, the anti-gouging laws are much worse on the Isaac blood pressure scale. First off, the definition they gave, “Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act – Makes it unlawful for any person to sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates at a price that: (1) is unconscionably excessive; or (2) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage unusual market conditions or the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably.” is so vague that it is totally useless. I think we can all imagine who will get away with stuff and who won’t… Secondly, there is no such thing as “gouging.”

Supply and demand will determine the ballpark price for anything out there, and there are zillions of things that can affect those. In the end, it comes down to someone offering a product at a price and people deciding if they want it or not. People resent sudden spikes in prices during unusual circumstances, but they are ESSENTIAL to both ensure that there is an adequate supply and that more will come as soon as possible. This is especially the case when it comes to important things like gasoline. Here’s an example. Imagine there is some sort of disaster and no more gasoline will be able to get to the effected area for 3 months. As gas stations open back up, they continue to sell at the same price that they did before the disaster. All but one, he raises the price to $35 a gallon. People are outraged and refuse to go to his station. Well, due to both higher than normal consumption (more driving to find supplies, powering generators, panic buying, etc.) and no more deliveries, all of the other gas stations run out of gas in a week (I’m being generous here). The one charging $35 sells very little, but he does sell gas every day to the people that really need it, emergency services, people running dialysis machines with generators, keeping insulin cold, etc. These people that have a true, urgent need have ready access to gasoline. Granted, they are paying through the nose, but that is far better than going without insulin, dialysis, or the fire truck not being able to come to your house. The people that are not willing to pay that much make due some other way, it isn’t fun, but they figure out how to live the best they can without gasoline. Ideally, all of the gas stations would raise their prices. It would end up being higher than usual, but not quite as bad as $35. Why?

Whenever you are faced with more demand than supply you have to figure out how to distribute the goods. In the case of chewing gum, it’s no disaster if you screw up, but in the case of gasoline, there can be serious consequences. Obviously you would like to distribute the gas to the people with the most urgent need first, but how do you figure that out? You can’t rely on people just telling you in a general situation (as opposed to a family or friend situation), and it is far too costly to do surveys and whatnot. Price is the most effective rationing tool. Everyone has a price they are willing to pay for anything, as the need goes up, so does the price you are willing to pay. People that do not have a great need decide not to buy at the “outrageous” price and this opens up supplies for the more needy. “But then only the rich will be able to buy it!” BS, even someone who is really wealthy will not spend $350 on a tank of gas unless it was urgent. The poor will have to do some scrounging, no doubt, but that situation is far far better than having no gas at all. And make no mistake, that is the choice. Either sell at a higher price or run out of the product.

“But people make more money!” Yeah, so what? They are also supplying a needed service. Once again, what is important is that consumers have access to the things that they want. If someone makes money (or even gets rich) in the process, all the better. Let’s imagine our example with a slight twist, let’s imagine that gas could get to the affected area, but it would be difficult. If prices are forced to stay the same, the gas companies won’t have any real incentive to speed up the delivery process. If gas is selling for $25 a gallon, you can be sure that the companies will move heaven and earth to get more there. As the supply ramps up, there will be less and less justification for higher prices, so they will come down. The quickest way to get supply and price back to normal is to allow the prices to go as high as they can. Anti gouging laws (if they are enforceable at all) will only make sure that supplies run out in bad situations and that it takes longer to resupply. Bad news…

Categories
politics

The UN is a joke…

Zimbabwe has won approval to head the UN commission on sustainable development. I’m not kidding, check it out here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070512/ap_on_re_af/un_zimbabwe

Zimbabwe has gone from being the “breadbasket of Africa” to being one of the worst places in the world to live in about 12 years. The average life span there is now below 40 years old. The place really started to go downhill when Mugabe instituted land grabs, robbing white farmer’s farms and redistributing them to others. Harvest output plummeted and they have not recovered. Incidentally, Chavez in Venezuela is starting a similar program. We’ll see how much worse off they are in a few years. In any case, the UN is obviously not firing on all cylinders if this is the best candidate they could come up with. Unbelievable….

tags technorati :
Categories
politics

Salah and Bush

I’m sure that the meeting of Yemen’s president with the president of the US was front page news just like it was here, right?:-) Bush is being a big cheerleader for Salah, why not really. He’s at least saying the right things. Just to give you an example of how different the politics are here, there was a big story in today’s Yemen Observer about Salah exhorting religious scholars to denounce the rebels in the north. He said that it is everyone’s religious duty to keep the country together… Umm yeah, whatever…

tags technorati :