Mormon soldier to US army: Stop the proselytizing!

In his recent resignation letter, former US State Department employee Matthew Hoh wrote, "Eight years into war, no nation has ever known as more dedicated, well trained, experienced and disciplined military as the U.S. Armed Forces."

It's considered patriotic to say stuff like that about the military.  But is it the whole truth?  

There are two reasons I am asking this question.  First, at a time when President Obama is seriously considering a massive escalation of US involvement in Afghanistan, nothing should be taken for granted.  Second, I cannot get Joe's words out of my head.  

Joe, a Mormon, returned to the US from active duty in Afghanistan in early 2009.  At a party I recently  attended Joe shared some observations about his experiences over there with me.*

The thing that had most disturbed Joe about his time in Afghanistan was witnessing what he described as the "proselytizing"  activities of some of his fellow soldiers.

"I do not agree that soldiers should be distributing religious pamphlets," Joe said in the middle of our conversation.    

I could not believe my ears.

"You mean they were handing out Christian religious materials to the Afghans?!"

Joe nodded.

"Doesn't that sort of defeat the whole mission?" 

"Look, I did not agree with it." Joe said,  "And I wished that someone would have stopped them." 

"So the commanders approved of this kind of activity?"

The question was met with silence.  Joe was now behaving as if he might have blurted out something regrettable. I suspected that Joe did not want to say something that might betray the army.  Or maybe it was that Joe didn't know me.  Whatever the explanation, Joe quickly changed the subject.

It was clear to me that, as a Mormon and a soldier in an inhospitable land, the prospect of Evangelical soldiers proselytizing to the locals had made Joe uncomfortable.

Some other things I learned from my conversation with Joe.

• "Most of our time was spent on base," said Joe, adding "there were occasional firefights when we were attacked."
  
• Joe said that "don't ask don't tell" (concerns gays in the military) was a ridiculously  discriminatory and ineffective policy.  "You can't stop human nature," Joe said.
  
• "By far, the most professional soldiers I met in Afghanistan were the Canadians" Joe told me.  "I can't say enough good things about those soldiers.  Their high standards.  I was impressed by the respect they showed toward one another."
  
• On torture:  "In the army, all of us have to follow the field manual.  The army does not torture." When I asked about water-boarding, Joe replied,  "How is water-boarding torture if we subject our own people to these same techniques during training?" 
  

It was Joe's remark about "proselytizing" that left my head spinning -- a revelation that seemed to have come up during our conversation as a "slip of the tongue."

Of course, such allegations have surfaced in the past (see here and here).

Such reports beg the question as to whether Americans have the foggiest idea what they are doing over there.  
___
*Not his real name.

Matthew Hoh's resignation letter

 Excepts from the resignation of Matthew Hoh, a US diplomat assigned to Afghanistan:

I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan. I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end....

...Our support for this kind of government, coupled with a misunderstanding of the insurgency's true nature, reminds me horribly of our involvement with South Vietnam; an unpopular and corrupt government we backed at the expense of our Nation's own internal peace, against an insurgency whose nationalism we arrogantly and ignorantly mistook as a rival to our own Cold War ideology.

I find specious the reasons we ask for bloodshed and sacrifice from our young men and women in Afghanistan. If honest, our stated strategy of securing Afghanistan to prevent al-Qaeda resurgence or regrouping would require us to additionally invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, etc. Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons.

Full text of letter here.

Will desalination solve the water crisis?

Ben Sparrow and Joshua Zoshi, founders of Saltworks Technologies, appear to have developed a truly low-cost desalination technology.   These Canadians have discovered a way to use the heat of the sun to power the process, reducing the cost of desalination by 80%. The Economist reports that the beauty of their system is that ".... the only electricity needed is the small amount required to pump the streams of water through the apparatus. All the rest of the energy has come free, via the air, from the sun."

Continued. . .

They even took Curious George

Here's an excerpt from a recent interview.  Can you guess where this bizarre "search and seizure" happened?

Accused: ... I’m an author. I’ve written fiction. I’ve written lots of nonfiction. I’m an anarchist, so I’ve written lots of political works. So they not only grabbed all of my works, and they grabbed anything that they felt like grabbing from our pretty large library.

Interviewer: And they apparently took photos, as well, posters—

Accused: Yeah.

Interviewer: —from the walls, one of Lenin and one of Curious George, apparently?

Accused: Yes, yes, and they took Curious George stuffed animals. They took magnets from the refrigerator. They took a needlepoint of Lenin that my wife’s grandmother had made, a whole variety of bizarre things that they’ve taken. 

Answer -- and background -- here.

Mystery photo

Is a famous actress pictured in this Jotman photo?   A reader thinks so.

World's most efficient solar home

Some of the world's most innovative solar homes were featured at the biannual Solar Decathlon on the Washington Mall which ended last week.   Twenty teams from US, Canada, Germany, and Spain competed to see which university could build the most livable and efficient solar home.   I walked around all the homes, and I took pictures of the ones I liked best.

The experimental homes averaged about 750 square feet, and cost between $200 and $800 thousand to build. Corporations at the cutting edge of solar technology donated solar power technology.   

Germany's team won mainly because it blew away the completion in the critical "net metering" category.    The Germans, who were defending their 2007 victory in the Solar Decathlon, had brought a secret weapon to Washington this year: thin film. 

1.	Team Germany		150.000
2.	Illinois		137.236
3.	Team Ontario/BC		109.911
4.	Team Spain		109.216

The Economist reported, ""the decathletes of Team Germany, who designed the winning house, bragged that its north façade was covered in panels that could convert even indirect sunlight into electricity."   The "modernist box" had walls that were "covered in solar cells made with thin coatings of silicon and other materials in the place of expensive slices of crystal. Thin film, as this technology is known, is still less popular than crystalline cells and its move to the mainstream has been a year or two away for a decade. But its time may have come at last."   

The winning house by Germany is the sleek black box on the right:

In terms of architecture, my personal favorites were Germany, Ontario/BC, Cornell, and Virginia Tech.   The Virginia Tech entry (below, top photo) featured sliding shade screens over a pond -- and it even came with its own wheels!  

Final results for the architecture category:  

1.	Team California		98.000
2.	Rice		95.000
3.	Virginia Tech		94.000
4.	Team Germany		94.000
5.	Team Ontario/BC		91.000

Ranked by architecture scores, the above photos show 3rd-scoring Virginia Tech; 16h place Cornell in the foreground with 4th place Germany behind; and 5th place BC/Ontario.

Europe holds a Solar Decathlon on even-numbered years.  Madrid will host the next Solar Decathlon in June 2010.  Team Spain's entry in this year's decathlon, which ranked 14th overall, is shown in the top photo.

Interestingly, the last-place finisher in the expert judged-contest, University of Louisiana, actually won the "people's choice" public poll.   Although the Louisiana entry fared poorly in many categories, it came first in the "market viability" category, and fared well in terms of comfort, home entertainment and appliances.  Unique among the entries, this home featured "hurricane protection" sliding.

Update: a video from America.gov shows the winning entry from Germany.   It seems that Germany's team from  the Technische Universität Darmstadt adhered to something called the Passive House building standards.  More on the TUD here.

Does American television cause terrorism?

Updates
I just read the top story at CNN, which asks whether a major explosion at at  Puerto Rico oil storage facility was "arson or accident?"    When I first heard about the explosion a couple days ago, the possibility of sabotage occurred to me.

The recent general strike in Puerto Rico was not widely reported in the mainstream media.    That strike -- which involved 150,000 - 200,000 people (5% of the island's population) -- did not receive much coverage. Nor, prior to the strike, did the MSM appear to have adequately reported either Puerto Rico's alarmingly high rate of unemployment (16 percent) or the governor's recent decision to lay of 17,000 civil servants.*   My awareness of these events came mainly from Global Voices, a website that tracks international blogs.    

Of course, we don't know if the explosion at the oil refinery was an act of arson or not.  Moreover, as far as I know there is absolutely no evidence linking the two events.   Nevertheless, when tens of thousands of people go on strike in an American territory, and the US news media fails to adequately cover the story, at some point angry people are going to ask themselves: to what lengths must we go to get attention?

As newspapers continue to decline in readership, and television news further degenerates into sensationalism and celebrity gossip, more groups -- both in the US and abroad -- may find themselves tempted to go to ever more extreme measures to get the attention of the American public and political leadership.
___
Related post: "How to interview terrorists."
* In the US territory, almost twice as many people depend on the government for jobs as the national average.
Update 1: As originally posted a paragraph got chopped off.
Update 2:  The LA Times reports Tuesday: "The average weekday circulation of nearly 400 dailies slid 10.6% from April to September, compared with a 7.1% decline during the previous six-month period."

The real cost of an ASEAN summit

The picture of ordinary Thai lives put at risk by ASEAN delegates is probably not how Thailand's government wants last week's ASEAN summit in Hua Hin to be remembered. 

America's UFO in a coal mine

The US news media's orgy of self-righteous indignation at the alleged crime of Richard Heene and his family of UFO enthusiasts is getting old very fast.  I'm talking about the spectacle of overpaid TV journalists harping on a guy with a high school education who at the very least has gone to a lot of trouble to interest his kids in science.

I watched television news analysts discuss how the "balloon boy" incident wasted the time of so many Americans.  They should know about that, I thought.  I watched them complain about having been duped by "fake news."  That seemed ironic.  It seemed  to me that Richard Heene's low-budget stunt was both more creative and amusing than any story Fox News had manufactured lately.   Heene's fake event posed far less danger to civilization than the constant stream of programmed sensationalism that one encounters daily in the news media. 

A news network anchor posed a question to the correspondent:  "Will the sheriff be able to recoup the money for the rescue effort from the Heenes?"  The reporter replied that Heeney did not seem to have any money, that was unlikely.  "I suppose the county might attempt to garnish Richard's future wages," he added.

But this much is certain: in terms of entertainment value for the taxpayer dollar, "Balloon Boy scam" was a better deal for Americans than the ongoing "bailout of Wall Street scam."   The cost of Richard Heene's stunt needs to be put in perspective.

Because there is a serious side to the story.   One which -- quite predictably -- most real American journalists have shown no interest in exploring.   The question is:  what would drive an American father to put his family through such madness?

I suspect Robert Thomas, a former Colorado State University student who worked for Richard Heene, nailed the answer in an article he wrote for Gawker:

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I think in this case the desperation was too much for Richard to bear. Richard's construction business wasn't doing too well. It's hard to find people interested in spending money on the aesthetics of their home when they're worried about their mortgage.

The family of  the boy who wasn't in the UFO is a modern day "canary in a cage."  It signals a people in crisis.

Obama's good values -- and the king's

The way the Wall Street bailout went down, the unwillingness of American politicians and the mainstream media to hold those responsible for the financial crisis to account, the appalling lack of tough new regulations for derivatives traders, simply boggles the mind.    Frank Rich, writing in the NY Times, points a finger at Goldman Sachs:

As the Reuters columnist Rolfe Winkler wrote last week, “Main Street still owns much of the risk while Wall Street gets all of the profit.”  The idea of investing in the real economy — the one that might create jobs for Americans — remains outré in this culture. Credit to small businesses remains tight. The holy capitalist grail is still the speculative buying and selling of companies and the concoction of ever more esoteric financial “instruments.”

At the end of his column, Rich sums up the questions "disappointed Obama fans" are asking about Obama:

Those Obama fans who are disappointed keep looking for explanations. Is he too impressed by the elite he met in Cambridge, too eager to split the difference between left and right, too willing to compromise? As he pursues legislation, why does he keep deferring to others — whether to his party’s Congressional leaders or the Congressional Budget Office or to this month’s acting president, Olympia Snowe? Why doesn’t he ever draw a line in the sand? “We know Obama has good values,” Jeff Madrick said to me last week, “but we don’t know if he has convictions.”

On what bases does Jeff Madrick claim to know that Obama has good values?  Indeed, why should anyone take it for granted that Obama has good values?   Because Obama won the presidency?  Because Obama's speeches have inspired people?  Because Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?

In certain Asian countries, it is believed that kings rule on the basis of rajadharma, or the virtues of kingship -- of which there are said to be ten.   Bangkok Pundit, in a recent post concerning the future king of Thailand, asked:  "The more pertinent question is, who decides whether the monarch has all the 10 virtues? A referendum? Parliament? Or Sondhi L as the sole arbitrator?"  Without beating an eye, many Thais would respond to the question: "The king has the 10 virtues because he is the king."  

It's one thing for Thai royalists to believe in the goodness of their king, it's quite another thing when the citizens of a republic make such a claim about a political leader.

Russia's real class problem

Russia's real class problem is not what many Westerners tend to assume, including the most insightful of New York Times op/ed writers.

In an alarming op/ed in today's NY Times, Leon Aron describes the perilously high unemployment facing Russia's major factory towns ("monotowns"), home to 25 million Russians. Aron calls these cities "ticking time bombs."  He believes that many of these cities could explode simultaneously in massive unrest that could take down Putin.

JOTMAN.COM Russian contributor Sanjuro, having read the op/ed, responds: "Sad, but true in most details (I saw the Pikalevo story a few month ago)... Except that company town residents are not always as immobile and passive as described in the article. Given a prospect of a better future, they are often quick to move."

Yet, Sanjuro believes that Russia's real problem is not what the article seems to presuppose:

What really makes this issue complicated is that these "monotowns" have not only working class people, but many other residents that collectively far outnumber the working class.

Russia's main problem are not the working class people - although their genuine grievances occasionally result in a great turmoil. I'd say, the more important problem is the lack of working class people, or, rather, the excessive proportion of government bureaucrats and public service employees of all kinds.

You might say, what's the difference? Industrial production is dying anyway, here in the West you have most people employed (or unemployed) in some sort of service industry, isn't government almost the same thing? I'd say, government in Russia is a thing in itself, like a foreign object in a body, its purpose is not to serve the society, but to intimidate it, it's "us against them" - a mindset of a medieval invader or a feudal landlord. It's not intended to be humane or effective or efficient, it's not supposed to look into the future. Its sole purpose is to reproduce and to support its existence by eating everything within its sight:

"...Chudische oblo, ozorno, ogromno,

Stozevno yi layai..." *

"...A monster, portly, playful and giant,

Has a hundred mouths and barks.."

* V.K. Trediakovsky (1766) // A.N. Radischev (1790)

Interesting to imagine Twenty-First Century Russian bureaucrats in a position roughly analogous to the feudal landlords of old Russia.

The Afghan Friend Test

Given that Obama is considering whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, I would encourage everyone to watch the new PBS Frontline documentary.

Then, putting political considerations aside, take the "Afghan Friend Test." 

Jotman's Afghan Friend Test

You get a call from Kandahar.  Mohamed Akbari, your dear Afghan friend says, "I don't know what to do.  Should I work with the Americans or should I try to keep my distance from them?" 

"What concerns you?"

"I have seen the latest poll numbers," Akbari says.  "American public support for the war is wavering -- big time. I fear that even if Obama gives the go-ahead, Americans will eventually decide to cut and run anyway. My question:  if I support the Americans, do you suppose they will still be there for my family five or ten years from now?  Or do you imagine they will eventually give up hope of victory and leave me and my burka-burning daughters to the Taliban?"

What would you advise your friend to do?  Should he openly cooperate with the Americans?  Or should he keep his distance?  

Your friend asks you another question.

"Let's say I openly support the American war effort, but suppose the Americans then decide to leave prematurely.   What are the chances the American government will grant me and my daughters refugee status in the US?"

Can you assure your friend Akbari that the US will stand behind true friends like him? Supposing worst came to worst, do you you feel confident that you could successfully lobby the US government to compassionately act on your friends behalf? (Before you answer this question, you might want to familiarize yourself with the timeline of Rahman Bunairee's really bad summer.)

What would your advice be?   This is your friend Mohamed Akbari and his family we are talking about. 

Americans are good at sales and marketing.  Most of the debate in Washington is about whether the Afghans can be won over.   The Afghan Friend Test supposes that this is the wrong question.

Investigate the Buddhists!

Salon's Glenn Greenwald thinks it "might actually be the most despicable domestic political event of the year."   WaPo reported this morning that a "group of House Republicans is calling for an investigation into whether a leading American Muslim advocacy group tried to "spy" on congressional offices by placing interns on key security committees."

Greenwald responded:  "They stand accused of plotting to influence members of Congress and trying to help interns obtain positions in Congress in order to advance their political agenda.  That's consistent with what virtually every political advocacy group in the nation does; it's normally called activism and democracy."   Pointing to a pie chart, Greenwald noted:

[Muslim] representation on the chart (the green section) is so small they're practically invisible.  Muslims comprise .6% of the American population.  Yet these people are running around screaming about the imminent "Islamization of America" and imposition of Sharia law and calling for criminal investigations because a few interns on Congressional Committees -- American citizens -- might be Muslim and are therefore "spies." 

My reaction?   Well, if you look at Greenwald's pie chart, there are almost as many Buddhists as Muslims in Congress.

Think about it: Buddhists comprise a similarly small fraction of Americans (0.7%), but they too presume to influence US policy.

Imagine what would happen if the Buddhists -- widely believed to be "peace-loving" -- gained influence over Congress.    

What most Americans don't know is that the Buddhist take-over of Congress is already underway.   Regular Jotman readers know that I have the photographs to prove it.

Motivated citizens need not apply

I just read a spooky article on the perils of a would-be employer googling you.   But it's not frightening to me in a personal sense.  Rather, what I find truly scary is one of the proposed "defenses" against the likelihood that you will be googled by a future employer.

The article proposes "five ways to build a digital footprint that won't scare away future employers"   Point four, "Avoid joining groups or engaging in online activities that could embarrass or restrict opportunities," states:

Of course, during a job hunt you should consider your overtly controversial activities such as political, religious or social movements, Merritt says.

No, the above paragraph was not translated from the Russian out of a 30-year-old issue of Pravda.  I found this article on CNN's website!   "Point four" continues:

It's all part of the online picture of you, so make sure it is the most accurate and flattering view. And it sounds obvious, but travel tips, book reviews and online gaming advice might not paint the picture of a "nose to the grindstone" kind of person, Merritt says.

During a job hunt. Not exactly a rare event in most peoples' lives these days. The phrase is a practically meaningless qualifier.  Moreover, since just about every movement gets organized online these days -- remember BarackObama.com -- the offline world increasingly seems like an adjunct of the online universe.  In fact, the meaning of the warning couldn't be more clear:  stay clear of political groups, and avoid social movements or causes. 

Needless to say, to the extent citizens take this advice to heart, society loses.  Sociologist Robert Putman's book, Bowling Alone, published in 2000, defined the peril. Putnam observed that with each passing decade, fewer Americans were choosing to join groups of any kind.  The consequence was a loss of "social capital" -- the glue that had made American civil society so prosperous in the post-war era.  The bonds of trust between individuals were growing weaker according to most of the social surveys which Putnam analyzed.  A leading indicator: Americans were no longer joining book groups, bridge clubs, political associations, etc.

For a time, the Internet seemed to hold the promise of reversing this trend.

One can no longer feel assured of that.

Is it any wonder China's Uighurs are unhappy?

Kuerbanjiang Saimaiti, a twenty-something Uighur photographer, blogged:

. . . I found an internet cafe near the hotel and went up to the service counter.

“I need to use the internet. How much is the deposit, please?”
“Ten yuan,” the clerk said straight away without looking up. “I need to see your ID card.”
I got out my ID and said, “Here you are.”
“Sorry, your ethnic group can’t use the internet.”
“Why not?”
“State regulations.”

There was nothing I could do but laugh about it and leave. I went to another internet cafe and the reply was the same….

Translated by Black and White Cat  (h/t GV).   Xiao Qiang of CDT -- who also translated the post -- explains that the line "Sorry, you're ethnic group can't use the Internet," has been the talk of the Chinese blogosphere in recent days.

Related posts:

• Map of minority population regions of China
• China: new rules restrict practice of Islam 
• Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang in solidarity with Tibetans
  

Are US civil servants paid too much or too little?

One moment its immigrants, next its unions, then immigrants again. . . .    You know it when you see it.   But whoever writes the Lexington column in the The Economist obviously doesn't:

Meanwhile, [the public] can see that one group of Americans has been practically unaffected by the recession: government employees. Their hours have not been cut, their benefits are gold-plated and they are almost impossible to sack. . . 
One should not overstate the rage of taxpayers against public servants. Most Americans admire firemen, teachers and cops. They like receiving government benefits, too. And roughly half of them will pay no federal income tax at all this year. The problem is that this is not sustainable. 

Where did Lexington discover America's civil servant problem?  From "Arthur Brooks, the head of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank." 

Lexington does not bother to mention something obvious:  not only is such finger-pointing commonplace, but serves it serves the right-wing agenda.   Their mission is to provide the American public with an easy scapegoat for its problems.  The right wing does not want those people who actually caused the collapse of the global economy to take the blame.   Hence, the need for scapegoats.

Moreover, the new line of reasoning - that US civil servants have it too good -- only makes any sense if you think governments can attract top talent without paying for it.*   For example, top civil service posts in places like Hong Kong and Singapore pay far better than comparable positions in the US.   These countries are at least -- if not more -- capitalistic that the United States.

There is every reason to believe that civil servants in the US make far too little relative to what similar jobs pay in the private sector. 

If the SEC had been able to attract top legal talent, then perhaps Wall Street would not have ran circles around the regulators.  The financial crisis of 2008 might never have happened.   Certainly clowns like Bernie Madoff would have been arrested years ago.  If the US civil service paid better, Americans might well be $7-8 trillion richer today.

It should also be remembered that those who fill many highly paid private sector occupations -- from the Wall Street banks to the health insurance companies -- contribute little if anything to the welfare of society, and yet continue to prosper despite the deep recession. 

The bottom line is that if the The Economist still wants to be taken seriously, it should stop disseminating outrageous myths about American firefighters and cops having it too good, while turning a blind eye to the source of the problem.
__
* One way by which the right wing can demonstrate that the public sector -- government -- cannot solve the country's problems is by lobbying to keep government salaries sufficiently low.  This way top talent won't take government jobs, and government begins to fail society. A kind of self-fulfilling prophesy is thereby created and fulfilled.

Outcome of Bangkok Climate Change Talks

A Guardian article written well before the Bangkok talks ended in disarray -- without any resolution in sight -- remains a concise summary of where things more or less stand:

So Guardianistas, here is the official state of play with just a few weeks to go until the final round of talks which begin in Copenhagen on 7 December. So far, the UN has said rich countries need to cut their emissions by 25-40% by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels) to stay within the 2C rise which the scientists say is the upper limit of what Earth can take. But the UNFCCC secretariat (the people running the climate talks) reckons that the combined cut from pledges made by rich countries so far adds up to just 16-23% - and that's excluding any cuts made by the US.

The Alliance of Small Island States (made up of the countries who stand to be drowned in a few years and which have as their motto: "1.5 to stay alive") say that if the US joins in with its expected target of about 4-10%, that would give an aggregate global cut of just 11-18% in emissions. If so, that means that we, the rich, intend to cut our emissions by a measly 6% more than what we pledged - but failed to reach in 2002. And with carbon offsets - which we can pass on to poor countries - that means we need do next to nothing at all at home. Indeed, we could probably increase emissions and carry on building coal power plants. No wonder the EU and rich countries are hiding from the press and the developing countries are furious!

The main positive outcome of the talks was Norway's pledge to reduce its emissions by 40%, putting other rich countries like Canada to shame.

Irony or strategy?

3 UPDATES (which tell the story)

Yesterday I blogged:

Perhaps the hope is that awarding Obama the prize now will encourage Obama to take a step back from the precipice; that it might alert this young president not to continue his steady drift toward the Dark Side.

If so, the prize does not come a moment too soon.  The Obama presidency may be only a few weeks away from being inexorably squandered.   A decision on General Stanley McChrystal's proposal to escalate the war in Afghanistan looms.  The US seems to be standing in the way of progress at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks. 

Naomi Klein, interviewed from Bangkok for Democracy Now, also picked up on the irony of Obama winning the prize in view of the American negotiating position at the Bangkok Talks:

....one of the things that the Obama administration is being rewarded for with this prize or what Barack Obama is personally being rewarded for in this prize is his supposed breakthroughs on international relations. What we’re actually seeing, as we speak, in Bangkok—this is the final day of two weeks of climate negotiations—has been extraordinarily destructive behavior on the part of the United States government, on the part of the Obama administration, absolutely derailing the climate negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen. Developing countries are absolutely shocked by what US climate negotiators have done. They have gone into these talks saying, you know, “We’re back. We want to reengage with the world.” What they’ve actually done is made a series of demands that would destroy the Kyoto Protocol and the binding emission architecture that was set up under Kyoto. So, to reward the Nobel Prize in the context of destroying the climate, where the US is destroying the climate negotiations, or threatening to, to me, is just shocking.

Have any mainstream media commentators taken any notice of this remarkable coincidence?  Not to my knowledge. For more on the talks, see my post: In Bangkok US talks "green eggs and ham"

UPDATE 1
Earlier in the week, shortly before five Norwegian parliamentarians would award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, Norway stepped up the ante at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks.  On Oct. 8, Oxfam reported in a media release from Bangkok:, "“Today, Norway has entered this debate and set a target of 40 per cent below 1990 levels, so we know what leadership looks like.” 

A Huffington Post story explains why the Norwegian initiative at the Bangkok talks matters:

Because Norway is the first developed nation to make any solid commitment on this front and it has the potential to break through a major impasse. Up until this point developed nations - like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France and Japan - have been unwilling to bring anything to the table on this point.

This announcement from Norway, a major petroleum producing country, testifies that the Norwegians take climate change question extremely seriously.

UPDATE 2
On Friday, after the Bangkok Climate Talks had  ended in an atmosphere of recrimination, The Guardian reported:

Global climate change talks came to an end in Bangkok today in an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination, with the rift between rich and poor countries seemingly wider than ever. After two weeks of negotiations there have been no breakthroughs on big issues such as money or emissions cuts.

With just five days of negotiating time now left before the concluding talks in Copenhagen in December, delegates said it appeared a weak deal was the most likely outcome, and no deal at all was a possibility.

However, President Obama's expected visit to Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize in the middle of the climate talks raised hopes that he would make the short journey to Copenhagen to galvanise governments.

"World leadership is now vital if the talks are not to fail completely. It is inconceivable that Obama could now ignore the climate change talks," said one diplomat.

One striking connection between the Copenhagen Climate Conference and Obama's Nobel Prize Award concerns the calendar:

• Nobel Peace Prize award ceremonies in Oslo: Dec. 10, 2009
• Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: Dec. 7-18.

Obama's Nobel Prize would seem to raise the expectations for the United States at Copenhagen. Might the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama have been a strategic last-ditch attempt to, in effect, corner the Obama Administration?   Is it conceivable -- as per my suspicion  yesterday -- that the Norwegians on the prize committee were not exhibiting Eurobamania, but had actually thought this one through -- -strategically?  

UPDATE 3 
If you were to get all your news from mainstream US media, it would be hard to comprehend the extent to which Europeans, Scandinavians in particular, consider climate change to be the issue of our times.

I would venture to say that when Americans hear the words "Nobel Peace Prize" they think about their country's wars.  But my hunch is that this year in particular, the Norwegians would have been thinking about their Peace Prize in terms of stopping climate change.  Copenhagen is a big deal. To understand why Obama got the prize, it makes sense to consider Norway's position on the climate change question.

How to read a WSJ editorial

Krugman:

.... when reading WSJ editorials you need to bear two things in mind:

1. The WSJ editorial page is wrong about everything. 
2. If you think the WSJ editorial page is right about something, see rule #1. 

After all, here’s what you would have believed if you listened to that page over the years: Clinton’s tax hike will destroy the economy, you really should check out those people suggesting that Clinton was a drug smuggler, Dow 36000, the Bush tax cuts will bring surging prosperity, Saddam is backing Al Qaeda and has WMD, there isn’t any housing bubble, US households have a high savings rate if you measure it right. I’m sure I missed another couple of dozen high points.

I forgot where I heard it, but I like this explanation as to the WSJ's popularity with its target demographic: "whereas the news section tells executives what they need to know, the editorial page gives them what they want to believe."   Before Murdoch bought the WSJ, I often felt compelled to buy the paper -- for the long stories with in-depth investigative reporting.   But under the new management, there appear to be fewer of those.

Re: email from Barack Obama

Today I received another email from President Barack Obama.  I must have received a dozen such emails since he won the office.

Because this particular email is a testimony to the power of humility, I thought that now would be a good time to bring up something that's been bugging me. 

Friend --

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize....

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

That is why I've said that I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations and all peoples to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. These challenges won't all be met during my presidency, or even my lifetime. But I know these challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

This award -- and the call to action that comes with it -- does not belong simply to me or my administration; it belongs to all people around the world who have fought for justice and for peace. And most of all, it belongs to you, the men and women of America, who have dared to hope and have worked so hard to make our world a little better.

So today we humbly recommit to the important work that we've begun together. I'm grateful that you've stood with me thus far, and I'm honored to continue our vital work in the years to come.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Great great email, gracious, hits all the right notes for the occasion.   Most importantly, Obama acknowledges what we all -- deep in our hearts -- know to be true: that this American president has not yet earned this prize.  

Only one thing bothers me about the email.   That's the signature line:   

President Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama always signs his emails to me this way.  It annoys me.  I know he's the president.  Since his email represents something of a milestone in terms of presidential humility, I will take this as an opportunity to implore that the president consider signing his future emails "Barack Obama."

Certainly, now that he has won the Nobel Peace Prize, everyone now knows his job title.

Why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Obama has given moving speeches on disarmament and mid-east peace to be sure.  But are memorable speeches sufficient?  Is it fitting and proper to reward mere words, where a man is positioned to accomplish great deeds?

The prize comes at a moment when the president seems to be wavering on a number of peace related issues: Iran, Afghanistan, global warming, the continued absence of regulations in the financial industry, non-adherence by the US to the Geneva conventions which mandate war crimes prosecutions, the president's call for the indefinite detention of War on Terror suspects. Moreover, it comes as another prize winner, the Dalai Lama, has been wandering around Washington this week.  Obama won't meet with Tibet's spiritual leader out of fear of antagonizing the Chinese.   On the domestic front, lobbyists continue to run amok.  Every day, more of us are asking: is the American presidency merely a bully pulpit for powerful corporate interests?

Perhaps the hope is that awarding Obama the prize now will encourage Obama to take a step back from the precipice; that it might alert this young president not to continue his steady drift toward the Dark Side.

If so, the prize does not come a moment too soon.  The Obama presidency may be only a few weeks away from being inexorably squandered.   A decision on General Stanley McChrystal's proposal to escalate the war in Afghanistan looms.  The US seems to be standing in the way of progress at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks. 

What could come of awarding the prize to President Obama?   Conceivably, it could put the heat on Obama to use his presidency toward great ends, encouraging him to take political risks in the pursuit of tangible achievements worthy of the Peace Prize.   The decision to ordain Obama as a peacemaker, bolsters this   president -- one in which the world has put so many hopes. It gives him a credential -- an international mandate -- to make peace.

The Blue Dog House

The blue dog house sure has a foul smell about it.

I took this photo one week ago.  It shows the Finance Committee of the United States Senate.  The senators are marking up the Senate's health care reform bill.  Max Baucus, chair of the Finance Committee is shown standing in the photo.  In the foreground sits a journalist.   Behind me, dozens of of health insurance lobbyists tap away on their blackberries. Others read Politico (which reads like it is mainly written for people like them).

The bill that finally emerged out of this committee hearing late the following night would mandate that most American citizens purchase insurance from corporations, yet do nothing to limit the cost of that insurance to consumers. The senators on the committee include many so-called conservatives Democrats or "blue dogs." 

However, labels like "conservative" can be misleading, as the editors of the Nation explain:

The Blue Dogs parade as "fiscal conservatives" and "moderates," false advertising that the mainstream press mindlessly echoes. In fact, they are the epitome of a Washington captured by moneyed interests. They aren't working to ensure that healthcare reforms are paid for; they are laboring on behalf of insurance companies to protect their obscene profits. The Blue Dogs are maneuvering on behalf of Big Pharma to make sure the government won't negotiate reasonable drug prices. They're doing their best to derail reasonable tax hikes on the affluent, hikes that would make insurance affordable for working- and middle-class families.

In other words, a blue dog is loyal to his master. 

The Finance Committee blue dogs have now  done just about they can to reward the insurance companies. Next on the committee agenda: giving away money to polluters and oil companies in the guise of writing climate change legislation.

Politically correct conservatives?

Surely the most irritating manifestation of political correctness is the myriad attempts to rewrite the Bible using politically correct language.   My objections to such political correctness are neither to political nor religious, but historical and aesthetic.

Continued here.

How Obama is not regulating derivatives

In a recent blog post I quoted from a Bloomberg report:

The Obama administration sent Congress proposed legislation last month that would require the most active contracts in the $592 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market to be backed by clearinghouses and traded either on an exchange or on regulated systems.

Then I commented:

They waited until August -- one whole year -- to introduce legislation that would regulate, not prevent the trading of CDS, and not all kinds of CDS at that!

According to Clinton Administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich, the kinds of CDS to be regulated is of paramount concern. Reich blogs:

. . . . the draft has gaping loopholes that will let most financial firms escape — such as one that exempts corporations that deal in financial derivatives from any requirements for capital, business conduct, record-keeping, and reporting if they use derivatives for the purpose of “risk management,” which is the very thing they all claim they’re doing. Neither the draft bill, nor the Committee, nor anyone on the Hill having anything to do with financial regulation, is raising what I consider to be the two key reforms necessary for avoiding another financial meltdown — resurrecting the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial from investment banking, and applying antitrust laws to the remaining five biggest Wall Street banks so none is “too big to fail.”

Of course, banks have gotten bigger not smaller since the financial crisis broke, using taxpayer funds to buy-out smaller competitors.   And it was the largest, most irresponsible banks that the US taxpayer helped, not smaller, more cautious regional banks.

Matt Taibbi writing in RS explains the relevance of Glass-Steagall:

In 1999, Gramm co-sponsored a bill that repealed key aspects of the Glass-Steagall Act, smoothing the way for the creation of financial megafirms like Citigroup. The move did away with the built-in protections afforded by smaller banks. In the old days, a local banker knew the people whose loans were on his balance sheet: He wasn't going to give a million-dollar mortgage to a homeless meth addict, since he would have to keep that loan on his books. But a giant merged bank might write that loan and then sell it off to some fool in China, and who cared?

Robert Reich on Waxman-Markey climate bill

Robert Reich blogs about the inverse relationship between politicians' sound and fury and helpful results.

Continued here.

In Bangkok US talks "green eggs and ham"

Guardian reports:

The US threatened to derail a deal on global climate change today in a public showdown with China by expressing deep opposition to the existing Kyoto protocol. The US team also urged other rich countries to join it in setting up a new legal agreement which would, unlike Kyoto, force all countries to reduce emissions.

In a further development, the EU sided strongly with the US in seeking a new agreement, but said that it hoped the best elements of Kyoto could be kept. China and many developing countries immediately hit back stating that the protocol, the world's only legally binding commitment to get countries to reduce emissions, was "not negotiable".

Oxfam's representative at the talks claims this tactic marks 'a detour" from the "road map" agreed to at the Bali Climate Change Talks.

According to the Guardian report, the US negotiator is boasting about an "80 billion green economic stimulus package."  That kind of talk sounds really disingenuous -- it's spin to my ears.  I thought the point of the talks was to discuss actual targets and actual achievements, not boast about domestic spending programs which may or may not produce the intended results.   Personally, I think taxes are the only way to ensure the market is behind green policies, not green pork (Green eggs and ham?).

Meanwhile, on Capital Hill the Democrats have already given away 85% of pollution permits in the propsed US cap and trade bill to the country's biggest polluters.   

Continued here.

Muslim population of the world

One in four of us is a Muslim according to a recent Pew Study.

The study notes that "previously published estimates of the size of the global Muslim population have ranged widely, from 1 billion to 1.8 billion."  The Pew study pegs the number at 1.57 billion (23 percent of the total global population of 6.8 billion). There are 2.25 billion Christians.  Some facts about the world's Muslim population might surprise you: 

• India has more Muslims than any country except for Indonesia and Pakistan..
• China has more Muslims than Malaysia (or Syria).
• Germany has more Muslims than Lebanon.
• And Russia has more Muslims than Jordan and Libya put together.
• 15% of all Muslims live in sub-Saharan Africa and another 15% live in Southeast Asia. 
  

This is also good to know:

Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shias (between 68% and 80%) live in just four countries: Iran, Pakistan, India and Iraq.

In four countries - Iran, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Iraq - Shia Muslims make up a majority of the total population.

Graphic: Pew designed an impressive interactive map -- see here.  A "weighted" map is here.

Montesquieu on global citizenship

"If I knew something that would serve my country but would harm mankind, I would never reveal it; for I am a citizen of humanity first and by necessity, and a citizen of France second, and only by accident."

~ Montesquieu

Did the Economist inadvertantly kill globalization?

It would be quite the irony if the choice of cover illustration for the world's most stalwart free-trade publication created a kind of "ripple-effect" that brought this "golden age of globalization" to an early end (Perhaps not so golden to you, but golden from the perspective of the Economist).

James Fallows blogged that "the mainstream economics press had gone (predictably) berserk in overreacting to the shock-horror nightmare of the Obama administration's tariff on imported Chinese tires."   Fallows explained:

There is not now, and there never was, a serious possibility that this would escalate into some sweeping, self-intensifying, global-recovery-threatening "trade war."  The many publications and commentators who raised their hands in "Oh no! It's Smoot Hawley again!" horror need to calm down -- and to have their tendency toward over-reaction noted for the record. Yes, I'm talking about you, Economist magazine cover-designers (last week's cover image, below), but you had tons of company.

That was my reaction.   The story seemed way overblown.   But the question begs to be asked: might such overreaction on the part of the mainstream media water the seeds of discord in otherwise barren soil?     I no longer think this question is mere speculation.

On Sunday the Indian state of Kerala erupted in massive protests over the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement.  The FTA is viewed by many Kerala farmers -- including rubber plantation workers -- as a threat to their livelihoods.   This commentary by V.R. Krishna Iyer, formerly a judge of the Supreme Court of India, published in the business section of The Hindu, caught my attention:

... Kerala’s rubber sector, in particular, will vanish if the free import of rubber from outside India under the FTA is allowed. Pepper, coconut, plantation products and similar commodities which form the backbone of Kerala’s economy will die, too.

When Chinese tyres offered at fabulously cheap rates threatened the American tyre industry, President Barack Obama imposed 30 to 40 per cent duty on the import of tyres in order to save the American tyre industry. The same Obama strategy of imposing heavy import duties to protect the farmers of the State ought to be instantly imposed here. And to that extent, the ASEAN agreement should be made subject to nationalist conditions.

I protested as part of what was called a human chain against the FTA that was organised across Kerala on October 2, out of concern for swaraj, agriculture, and the peasants and workers of Kerala. Why not copy Mr. Obama in this matter: India is readily adopting America in many other matters, after all.

____
Photo WorkersForum h/t Ida

How should the US engage Burma?

How should the US engage Burma?  How best can the US help the people of Burma? 

This post is based on my jots from the recent Senate hearing on US-Burma relations.   (For an overview of the hearing see, "Burma is not Vietnam." See also "Burmese slam Senate hearings" and "US Senate AWOL on Burma.")

The first step towards engaging Burma is to convince the country's paranoid junta   that you have no plans to invade or bomb their country.  Given that the US has done plenty of invading and bombing over the years, that's a tough sell.  Especially to a group of generals who live in a fortified bunker-city deep in the jungle.   Anyway, this problem was the focus of an exchange between the senator chairing the meeting and the Dep. Sec. of State. 

Sen. Webb asked Dep. Sec. of State Kurt Campbell about "covert funding to exile groups."

Campbell replied, "Another forum would be a better place to address that issue."

"We shall pursue that in another forum" replied Sen. Jim Webb.

Sen. Webb asked Campbell if he would like to comment on any exile groups that might want to overthrow the government; Webb asked whether Campbell had had made it "clear" during his recent meetings with Mynamar "that we have no military objectives to overthrow their government?"

Campbell replied that "we need to make it clear" to the Burmese through "dialogue" that we "have no intention to overthrow the government."
.
Thant Myint-U, an author and scholar, stressed that key opportunities had been missed.  New leadership had brought in satelite TV, and so on, the government had sought engagement but the US had not reciprocated.    Had we not stood in the way of gradual change, there would have been more change for the better.

Myint-U said that "a new generation of leaders, aged 40-50, is coming up in Burma.  They lack combat experience."  Myint-U explained that the transition to the new constitution will coincide with a change in Burma to a new, younger group of leaders.

"Unexpected changes" are likely, he said, especially as constitutionally mandated change coincides with changes within the ranks of the army.

Thant Myint-U emphasized the importance of "elite exposure."  He said we need to influence the minds of the officer corps.  Myint-U made several other suggestions:

• use disaster risk reduction towards this ends 
• lift the ban on the import of garments.
• encourage the shift from military to civilian rule by increasing the competency of civilian technocrats.

David Steinberg of Georgetown University spoke of the need for "helping people."  He said that although this includes democracy and human rights, it encompasses other issues as well.   The choice, to Steinberg, was between short-term Vs. long term focused policy.  Beyond a point, insistence on immediate or short term political reform and  progress on human rights issues could come at the cost of important efforts that could yield long term positive results.

Steinberg suggested that the US and Burma relations were at a "critical nexus."  And, asking what might be done, listed five things, but emphasized that the US needs to "set its sights as changes occur in society, and the country becomes  more open."

1. A US ambassador to Burma needs approval, confirmation by the Senate.
2. Humanitarian assistance needs upgrading.
3. Minority questions are paramount, and must be addressed.
4. Rohingya problem is tops.  "These stateless people on the Burma-Bangladesh border are the most deprived of all Burma's minorities."
5. Restrictions on NGOs dating back to 2006 need to be lifted. 

Steinberg urged the Obama Administration "not to depend on any individual or group for the development of US foreign policy."     He further recommended the government "prepare to answer criticism that you are 'giving legitimacy' to the government.of Burma.  Steinberg said, "If we can help the people of Burma, then this benefit overrides any minor increase in legitimacy."

David Williams of Indiana University spoke of the Karin as the  Scotch Irish of the hills, a fiercely independent people.  "They need our help," he said.

Williams spoke of "suffering on a Biblical scale" along Burma's borders.  He described an epidemic of rapes.    "Reading individual accounts of women is excruciating" he said, describing one woman who was raped while reaping rice. 

Williams said the US should supply cross-border aid (not just to refugees on the Thailand side), demand an end to these attacks on civilians, and initiate trilateral talks which include both the NLD and the military junta.
__
Photos: by Jotman.  Top left, Sen. Jim Webb. On the right is Kurt Campbell.

Police brutality at the Pittsburgh G20

Sullivan wants to know why Pittsburgh "looked more like Tehran in June than America in September."   Radley Balko of Reason posted a fairly comprehensive overview of the way police handled civilians during the G20 in Pittsburgh.  Balko notes, "the disquieting ease with which authorities are willing to crush dissent—and at the very sorts of events where the right to dissent is the entire purpose of protecting free speech. That is, events where influential policymakers meet to make high-level decisions with far-reaching consequences."   Of particular concern to Balko is the observation that police were apparently dressed in military fatigues (I'm not sure how we can be certain they were't military, since thousands of Iraq-hardened reservists had been deployed for the summit).  Video:





Balko's piece overlooks some points that had struck me as significant   I was concerned about the precedent set in Pittsburgh of the police using sonic weapons against the public.  I was also startled -- saddened really -- by Obama's reaction to the G20 protests.  

Commendably, grad student Emily Tanner live-blogged the Pittsburgh protests and their aftermath.  

Credit Default Swaps still going strong

One year ago today I blogged a post about Credit Default Swaps.  These have widely been blamed for the financial crisis.  "The instruments themselves are at the heart of this mess," said one expert at the time.

A recent Bloomberg article begins, "A year after the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., credit-default swaps have lost their stigma for disaster and are contributing to the growing confidence in the credit markets."

Some opinions from the article:

“A functioning credit-default swaps market contributes to more efficient extension of credit” by giving investors and lenders confidence that the industry won’t implode, said Alexander Yavorsky, a senior analyst at Moody’s Investors Service in New York. The consequences of Lehman’s failure “were astronomical, broadly speaking, but the CDS market worked well,” he said.....

(A heroine addict needs to shoot up every day too.  This gives the adict "confidence" to continue his self-destructive lifestyle.)

“The only market that I know of that seems to have worked virtually every day has been the CDS market,” Eraj Shirvani, chairman of ISDA and Credit Suisse Group AG’s head of fixed income for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, told reporters yesterday at the industry group’s regional meeting in New York....

(No matter how bad things get, the market for drugs never shuts down.)

 George Soros says the market is still unsafe. The 79-year- old billionaire investor said in an interview that credit- default swaps are “toxic” and “a very dangerous derivative” because it’s easier and potentially more profitable for investors to bet against companies using them than through so- called short sales.

I don't know about you, but I'm inclined to listen to Soros, one of the few guys who anticipated the whole  meltdown.  On the other hand, why would anyone pay any attention to what anyone associated with either Moody's or Credit Suisse has to say?   Why does Bloomberg even bother to quote these people?  Rating agencies like Moody's are under investigation today because they failed to inform investors of the true risks.   Credit Suisse Group lost billions. 

So what's being done?

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo began investigating whether credit-default swaps were manipulated to spread rumors about financial companies and drive down stock prices, a person in his office who asked not to be identified by name said at the time. 

 (Doesn't sound like that investigation was too serious.)

President Barack Obama said in a June 17 speech on his plans for finance industry regulatory reform that credit swaps and other derivatives “have threatened the entire financial system.”

(He gave another speech).

U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced a bill in July that tried to ban credit-default swaps because she said they permitted speculation responsible for bringing the financial system to its knees.

(Lots of bills get introduced.)

 The Obama administration sent Congress proposed legislation last month that would require the most active contracts in the $592 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market to be backed by clearinghouses and traded either on an exchange or on regulated systems.

(They waited until August -- one whole year -- to introduce legislation that would regulate, not prevent the trading of CDS, and not all kinds of CDS at that!)

 The story ends on this depressing note:

“'The industry is starting to feel the future is not looking as bleak as it was in terms of what regulations would be imposed,' said Jeremy Jennings-Mares, a partner in the capital markets group at Morrison & Foerster LLP in London...."