Mornië Alantië (A Promise Lives Within Us Now)

These may seem like darkness has indeed fallen, when Americans are being attacked while exercising their most fundamental freedom to protest, and the attackers are the agents of their own government. There have been some violent protests with destruction of public and private property, and a disproportionate number of attacks by heavily armed police on crowds marching to protest, ironically, the excessive use of force by the police. The president of the nation, in words reminiscent of Tsarist Russia or any absolutist government of your preference, has threatened to unleash the military against the civilian population, in the name of restoring "law and order"; one's attitude to this proclamation depends strongly on one's existing trust in his leadership. But a good sign of his true thoughts were revealed when he advised the states' governors that they needed to "dominate" their citizens through use of overwhelming force. Even more telling, however, was his statement in that same meeting that failure to crush the protests would make the governors look weak and foolish. And, so even as Washington DC is flooded by faceless but heavily armed paramilitary forces to help the president show his strength and courage, even as police cars mow into crowds of civilians, even as peaceful protesters are subjected to pepper balls that are not technically "tear gas" despite having much the same effect, even as crowds of Americans are attacked by police with batons and pepper spray, even on those nights when the nation burned and the shining city on the hill tethered on its foundations (seemingly made of sand, rather than the rock we always imagined), even in these darkest of times, I could not help but feel that things were never better, and was already smiling in anticipation of a much brighter tomorrow.

Let me start by saying that it's much easier for me to brush past the institutional racism suffered by most Black Americans. As an Indian, and a graduate engineer, I enjoy a position that is denied to black Americans who have been born in this country. But I am rejoicing not for myself, but for all victims of injustice in America. This is not the hopeful dream of a perennial optimist, but a reading of reality. As an outsider, I have the advantage of seeing the bigger picture in a way that is hidden to those living, and suffering, through the actual events. As a person, technically, of color (a term that I have the privilege to brush off without consequences, a privilege denied to black or Hispanic Americans), I do not suffer the burden of white Americans who struggle with the guilt of not having solved the obvious issues of racism and injustice, with the guilt by association of having family and friends who voted Donald Trump into power. Neither black or white Americans are free enough of their involvement in this tragedy unfolding before them to see that the dark clouds enveloping them have not a silver lining but that in fact the dark cloud is but a spot in a much larger bank of dazzlingly silver clouds.

The world has changed tremendously in the last dozen years. For black Americans, and for white Americans who are capable of human empathy, it may seem that the last eight years have seen nothing but a wall of shame covered with a mosaic of murdered Black men and women, people cut down for the crime of being black rather than any crime they may have actually committed. No crime deserves a death sentence, much less one executed before trial and with chilling finality. Eric Garner was selling cigarettes illegally,  Michael Brown had stolen a box of cigars using force, Walter Scott had an outstanding warrant over child support payments but not since medieval times have we executed people for such minor crimes; Trayvon Martin was walking home when a (non-police) vigilante followed him and an ensuing scuffle ended with him being killed, Philandro Castile was shot in a routine traffic stop, Tamir Rice was shot and killed for playing with a toy gun, Breona Taylor was shot in her home by police executing a "no knock" warrant (at the wrong place, just to make it worse, but that detail shouldn't even be important). On the face of it, George Floyd may seem like just another name on a long, endless and shameful list. But each death has moved the weight of public opinion towards its watershed moment. For the dead, for their families and for many in the communities that suffer and fear each day, the movement may seem glacial, and long overdue, and I cannot deny the justice in that sentiment. But I prefer to look at how the majority of the country is waking up to the injustice perpetrated in their name and finally they stood up and said, "No more!"

When Ferguson, MO exploded in anger, the right-leaning press could highlight that the race of the protesters and use that as rationale for ignoring their demands for justice. When Baltimore burned after another Black Man was shot by police, President Trump could insult the whole city and its black citizens and despite some objections, he could get away with it. But today, there are white people marching in the streets besides their black brethren. Liberal stalwarts of course have spoken up in the past, but too many other people sat quietly and allowed a matter of justice for all become by default a matter of the color of one's skin. When whites and Asians sat on the sidelines, the only voices raised in a demand for change were black and it was easy for their opponents to recast this as racial battle and racial issues make everyone uncomfortable and so too many of us walked on by like the priest on the road to Jericho. But not this time! Finally, we have seen that this is not just a matter of race, it is a matter of justice and equality and simple humanity. Of course, race played a role in the events that led to the murder of George Floyd and Breona Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery but they deserve justice, not because they were black or their killers white, but because no one should be killed the way they were murdered and finally America has realized that we are only as good as the worst of our responses. And so a chorus of new and powerful voices joined those who have struggled alone for years. Taylor Swift, once raised up as paragon of white womanhood by white supremacists (without her consent and against her desires) has gradually thrown of the shackles of fearful silence. She has found her voice now and leaped to the front lines (metaphorically) adding the power and reach of her enormous pulpit to spread the message.

One of the most uplifting and hopeful stories came from Minneapolis after the first nights of violence. A Bangladeshi immigrant restaurant owner saw his life's work burnt to the ground, and his response was, "let it burn, we need justice for George Floyd". He understood that the violence was not against him, that this fight was not just the fight of the blacks but a struggle for justice and as such it was  fight for all Americans - and coincidentally his restaurant was named Gandhi Mahal, honoring the greatest apostle of non-violent advocacy in modern history. The same sentiment was articulated by Hasan Minaj, in one of the rawest, most powerful segments of his Patriot Act I have ever seen. Now Hasan is not a surprising supporter of justice and equality but he turned the spotlight inward and challenged each of us, especially those with brown skin, to face up to our inner racist. Racism is not an easy issue, and is rarely defined in black and white, or between blacks and whites, but all Americans are now thinking of this, and only good can come from this introspection.

When Colin Kapernick knelt to protest police brutality, he was pilloried as unpatriotic and somehow the fight for justice morphed into respect for the troops. The only men who stood with him were black and white America complained that they did not want to see their football sullied with such unpatriotic behavior. That was three years ago, but today the world has changed and we have Carson Wentz and Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady speaking up for justice, voices that were conspicuously absent in the past. White coaches in the NBA like Greg Popovitch and Steve Kerr supported their black athletes, but the NFL remained tightly focused on their bottom line. Till today! Now we have thoughtful statements from a long line of football executives from Bill O'Brien to Brian Flores to John Elway admitting the mistake of their past silence. The few discordant statements from Vic Fangio and Drew Brees have been contested and since withdrawn - to be clear, they have every right to have their opinions, but they have been challenged and corrected on facts and have been forced to acknowledge reality. College coaches too have added their voices in support of change. For decades, the colossus that straddles the professional wrestling world has been a bastion of conservatism, and Vince McMahon has never been shy about casting all political positions he dislikes as unpatriotic and using the theater of the ring to humiliate those fictionalized and conveniently buffoonish enemies. But today a legion of his stars are standing proudly for justice, and some of them have marched in solidarity with the protesters. Like the NFL, other corporations are flocking to be counted on the right side of history, from Amazon to Nike to Uber and Lyft and United Airlines and Target and Snapchat and Twitter.

The swing in sentiment in Corporate America is telling. Corporations, and the NFL is one of them, have no moral compulsions, they do not make decisions because they are morally right. It is not a knock on corporations, per se - they are (with deference to the US Supreme Court) not people, they are amoral entities designed to maximize profit. They have not joined the calls for change because it is the morally right thing but because they realize that to oppose it, or even pretend that the problem does not exist, is against their own interests. The NFL and every other corporation are soulless but they depend on their workers and patrons and they have seen the signs - the public mood has shifted and it is time to align with the new winds of change or suffer loss of both staff and consumers. The change in the corporate mood is a sign that American sentiment has moved towards the light and the smarter and more nimble corporations are proving that reality.

The final, and most important proof that change has come, that it is now inevitable, is provided by no other than President Trump. His determination to crush the protests, his insistence on demonstration of strength stem for sheer terror on his side. He is scared, frightened that he can no longer bully the country nor gaslight them into apathy and his every move proves his weakness. When George Wallace threatened blacks during the civil rights movement, when Hosni Mubarak sent his army into the streets of Cairo, when Ferdinand Marcos did the same in Manila, when Indira Gandhi suspended the Indian parliament in 1975, when the Communist Politburo attempted a coup against Gorbachev in 1991 as the USSR crumbled, they were none of them acting as leaders secure in their position and they all fell before the strength of popular protests. Donald Trump is scared, as all those leaders were scared and his fantasies (and may they remain fantasies) of unleashing the military against American citizens stems from his knowledge of his own weakness, not matter how he may try to dress it up as strength. Strength never needs to strut and demonstrate its nature, a strong government has no fear of its own people. And in a democracy, the strength of a government derives from the support of the governed, not from the number of jack-booted stormtroopers it can line up in the streets.

Sometimes, governments manage to crush their people, as Deng Xiopeng did in Tienanmen Square. But the United States is still a democracy and I believe in the American Experiment. Despite all the damage done over the last three years, I believe in people and I believe that today a critical mass of the population has moved past sitting silently and passively while their fellow citizens suffer. And with each act of violence by the police, the case for change is made ever more clear. Perhaps Trump will survive this, perhaps the protests will dissipate, but I do not think it will be that easy. Change is coming and in the words of Viktor Lazlo (Casblanca), "This time I know we will win!"

When the night is overcome, may you rise to see the sun!

Contrary Trade Winds

This morning brought news that the United States and China have declared another "truce" in their on-going trade war and resolved to resume negotiations on a final agreement. This is both good and bad news, since an escalating war between the world's biggest economies and trading partners can never end well, not just for the direct protagonists but for everyone else no matter how removed from the original quarrel. But having entered into this war, we have little option but to prosecute it vigorously now and eke out the best deal possible.

Unfortunately for that latter aim, we need a clear and well-defined strategy, and at least at the highest levels of our government, we seem lacking in clarity and defined goals. Or rather, the defined goals do not match up with our rhetoric or demands. I admit, freely, that I am not a fan on this current administration and that my dislike of their policies and politics may well cloud my judgment of their approach to trade. However, I think that on the whole I may muster a reasonably balanced and objective review of their trade policy and its consequences, seen of course from the viewpoint of a layman.

My first and foremost criticism of President Trump's trade policy is that he conflates trade deficits with unfair trade practices. Deficits by themselves are not a problem, especially for the US - if we import more than we export, it's because other nations have goods we desire at a cost that is better than what we could manage domestically. It ensures that we enjoy cheaper products locally and fuel our own consumption. I may be mistaken, but given that these goods are imported by private companies, the US government has no direct loss if we import more than we export as long as the US dollar remains the global currency. Governments of other nations may suffer in similar situations since the payments drain their foreign exchange reserves, something the US clearly doesn't face in the present or foreseeable future. But the president is fixated on trade deficits as a marker for other countries exploiting the US and enriching themselves at our expense. No major (or even minor) economist has endorsed his opinion on deficits, but that has not deterred him. Critically he has tied the trade deficits in manufactured goods to the loss on American jobs, especially in the Rust Belt states. But as critics have pointed out, US manufacturing output has increased steadily over the years, even as the total number of jobs in that sector have fallen. Even if we stop importing all those products - iPhones and shirts, LCD displays and toaster ovens, solar panels and MAGA hats - the number of jobs would not recover; the only reason we do import so much from China, and Vietnam and Bangladesh, is that those countries can produce goods cheaper than we can do here. Forcing manufacturing back into the US must lead to inevitably higher costs for us, without the higher paying jobs needed to afford them.

Now there are definitely many things that fuel trade deficits and many of those do tilt the field against the US. But the Administration has barely mentioned items such as lax environmental laws or working conditions that enable other nations to undercut our prices, except to seek to reduce our own protections. There is a political side to this position, since many modern conservatives dream of gutting our own environmental protections and returning workers to an utopian slave-like status; to push other countries to enact laws like our own would undercut the GOP position and stem the evisceration of unions in the US. So these issues are not part of our trade position, or at least are not a prominent or strongly held position in our negotiations.

China, more than our other partners, cheats in the realm of intellectual property rights and uses their government muscle to force one-sided deals on their corporate partners. These corporations, lacking the same government support on their side, acquiesce in order to gain a foothold in the largest emerging market, but in doing so hobble themselves for the future.  So we have a German company handing over Maglev technology to the local train corporation in return for the contract to build the Shanghai Maglev, or Google agreeing to government censorship in return for access to the Chinese internet. But these are private corporations selling out their future and/or their principles for short-term gains. By principle, the US has limited interest in these deals and it would be smarter for international companies to make common cause against such Chinese policy; something they will not do, since our current markets reward short-sighted temporary gains over long-term losses.  Other Chinese laws, or lack thereof, allow trademark piracy and open theft of intellectual property. On this front the US can and should fight back, and yet it is precisely this issue that is left on the backburner and given little importance in the Trump trade war.

Possibly a major reason for talking about deficits over intellectual property rights is politics and perception. The president views everything through the prism of reality TV and ratings and he knows that ranting about manufacturing job losses plays well to his supporters, even if he doesn't know or doesn't care that no trade deal is going to bring those jobs back to the country. Moreover, the deficit in absolute numbers makes for an achievable aim in a trade war, even if it has no meaning in the long term prosperity of the US, and in fact may hurt the US should we succeed.  In many ways it is hard to believe that the president is serious about a real deal for the US as a country or he would have followed a very different course. To start with, he would not have demonstrated from the start that he sees treaties and deals as meaningless. He talks of negotiating a new deal with China, even as he tore up a free trade zone deal with Canada and Mexico and renegotiated it with threats of wrecking the economies of all three nations if they didn't agree. (Fortunately for him, his bluff worked, though it's hard to say if anything new or substantively better for the US was actually added to the new deal - Canada and Mexico worked out a deal largely similar to the last with some concessions rather than wreck their own economies to make a point), But in the end, even if he should succeed in negotiating a deal that is tilted in the US' favor - and make no mistake, despite all the talk of "fair" agreements, Trump's insistence on bilateral rather than multilateral agreements makes it clear that he wants to bully smaller economies into one-sided trade deals (only his overly simplistic view of global economics stands in his way of actually blowing up global trade) - there is nothing to keep China from tearing it up as soon as conditions favor them in a tough negotiation. Trump has made clear that as in his personal business dealings, he sees nothing binding in an agreement and that the only right is the power to get away with one's actions, legal or otherwise.

It is a safe bet that this president has never read the teachings of Sun Tzu or Lao Tzu or he would never have chosen to follow quite the course he has so far. If he really wanted to address the true unfair trade practices in China, he would have made common cause with Europe, Japan and Korea to maximize pressure on the one lawbreaker instead of opening wars on every front. Pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a treaty designed by previous US trade representatives to constrain Chinese intransigence, was short-sighted to say the least and a signal to the world that the US had no long-term strategy to trade. Criticism of the WTO is a similarly strange approach to achieving one's aims, but all part of Trump's muddled view of global trade and economics. He has continually conflated different issues, most recently pushing the idea that some Chinese companies pose a cyberthreat to national security - how stupid would the UK feel if they followed US urging to expel Huawei from their markets, only to see today that in Donald Trump's view those dire claims were just a negotiation tool and that today he is perfectly willing to raise US sanctions on that company as part of a trade deal. Canada must be definitely feeling cheated having aided in the arrest of Huawei's chief executive and drawn the ire of the Chinese government in return, only to see the US hang them out to dry while negotiating with China. If this company poses a threat to US security, that should be a redline in talks with China, possibly not even included in the trade negotiations. But the US government has mixed all these issues together, robbing them of separate importance and actually ceding an advantage to China. China after all has some issues that are much less open to negotiation and we would need much more pressure to force changes in their policy. But we not only fail to understand these issues (at the highest level, since I think our career officials at the Commerce Dept understand the case better), we make it clear that we see most issues as equal and that all that matters to us is the overall trade deficit and rise of the stock markets. In effect, we have signaled to China that we will accept any deal that reduces the trade deficit, an issue that they will gladly cede in return for the chance to continue stiff-arming foreign companies and benefiting off the intellect of the rest of the world. The stock market of course will rise on any agreement that ends the danger of a trade war and not care about the long term risks to the US - it is neither their interest or job to worry about how we hamstring ourselves, nor do they care about one country over the other. So we may well give China what it wants most in return for mere window dressing, concessions that they will feel quite willing to cede if they hold their core interests. Meanwhile, we have weakened the entire world trade system and handed our allies over to China's power to be dealt with at leisure once the war with the US is done. Sun Tzu couldn't have plotted it better - for China.

For Water as Well as Blood

Blood is thicker than water, as the old platitude reminds us, and last week, Senator Rob Portman provided striking proof when he became the latest and possibly highest profile member of the GOP to change his views on marriage equality for all. Approximately two hundred members of his party have preceded him, but that list is sadly lacking in influential names or currently elected members. In that sense, Sen. Portman's change of heart is welcome, adding greater weight to that list of conservatives and putting his political future on the line to some extent.

Yet, in a sense his conversion leaves much to be desired. It's true that he's changed his mind, but his conversion was aided by the fact that he has a gay son, a son he loves and who has made him realize that being gay is a natural and unchangeable part of of some people. He has certainly been a good father, accepting and loving him for who he is, and changing his own views rather than attempting to force his son to change. But it took a very personal circumstance to get him to reevaluate his position, and realize that denying rights to gays is inhuman and unfair. In his many years in politics, he has undoubtedly met gay people (surely he has met Liz Cheney, or members of the Log Cabin Republicans), yet he never changed his views till they affected his flesh and blood. Or if his views had evolved, he kept them strictly to himself and allowed the hatred and discrimination against gays to continue unabated within his own party.

Some supporters have defended him, pointing out that even President Obama only recently changed his views and that Vice President Biden preceded him. Joe Biden invited some scorn from those people for suggesting that his views evolved from watching the portrayal of gays on "Will and Grace". Certainly, the president's leadership was less than stellar, and he probably waited for the opinions on his side of the ideological fence to mature ahead of him. His belated announcement was far less politically risky than it could have been. On the other hand, the ability of both Obama and Biden to change based on their interactions with people outside their immediate family reflects to their credit. Portman's change of heart, while important because of his prominence, also seems almost cowardly, coming after the winds of change had already swelled to near unstoppable levels in the public square and had begun to sweep through even his own party.

Before the 2012 election, Portman enjoyed tremendous stature in his party and was considered as Romey's running mate. To his credit, he did not hide his son's homosexuality during the vetting process (though on the flip side, it's unlikely that he could); to Romney's credit, this apparently did not weigh against Portman during the search process. What does count against both men, especially Portman, however is that knowing what they did know, they still supported a party platform that strongly opposed marriage equality. He held his peace and did not follow the president's lead in those months before the election. Did Portman change his mind about his son's right to marry a partner of his choice in just the last three months? That is a possibility and the more charitable explanation, but one cannot help but reflect on a missed opportunity to fundamentally change the direction of his party had he reached his epiphany just a few months prior and ridden out to fight the demons of ignorance and prejudice within the social conservative side of his party. In retrospect, it may even have aided the GOP heading  into an election where they painted themselves in the most conservative and uncompromising of colors.

The far greater sins of commission and omission came in the senator's announcement of his change of heart. He now calls for a repeal of the federal law outlawing marriage equality, but would like the states to retain the right to outlaw it all the same. Perhaps this is the belief of a staunch federalist, but I can't help but question his logic. If marriage equality is right, then it's right in every corner of the country, and should be extended even to those states that passed contrary laws in less enlightened times. These constitutional amendments against equality have lost popularity steadily each year, and in 2012 voters enshrined equality through popular vote for the first time in four states. Yet the restrictions remain on the books in many states and it will be many years, at best, before they are finally repealed. Portman would strong more empathetic if he had combined his federalist beliefs with a wholehearted plea for those states to reverse their laws. the midwest is moving quickly towards equality; shouldn't those rights be extended to every American? Equally important was the lack of contrition for his role in the original and terribly misnamed Defense of Marriage Act. Extensive self flagellation is not critical, far less helpful, but surely an apology is warranted to the many gays who were treated as less than equal citizens for the past twenty years. Portman acknowledges that equality is right; it follows then that the discrimination against them was, and is, wrong. If President Clinton could apologize for his less than willing role in those laws (mostly his failure to fight them), then those who played more active roles in crafting them should do no less.

Insuring Gun Rights

It appears as though the window for meaningful regulations of guns has closed, if indeed it were ever open more than a hair's breadth. The well organized lobby called the National Rifle Association, with help from some other organizations, has moved to quickly re-frame the debate on its own terms, and using a mixture of false fears and misinformation to obscure facts and drown out voices of moderation. From a purely academic standpoint their polished demolition of a majority viewpoint is as nearly perfect as anything I've seen, and only my deep disagreement with them keeps me from leaping to my feet with full fledged approbation.

I have mentioned in my earlier post on this topic that the NRA is not an organization that represents gun owners, despite all their posturing to the contrary - it represents the interests of gun manufacturers and gun sellers. Unfortunately, the strong hatred for the political players lined up on the side of gun control blinds people to this very obvious fact. Nothing in the NRA's actual position aids law-abiding gun owners, but the various changes in legislation that they have supported - fewer background checks, no inventory keeping by gun sellers, exempting gun shows from laws on background checks and waiting periods - all help in selling ever more guns to a country that already outguns most of the world (it speaks volumes when Somalia may be one of the few nations that can claim better gun penetration across its population, pun unintended). The NRA taps into an irrational fear of the federal government, maybe even into deeper and darker parts of the mind, when they argue that gun sellers should be allowed to destroy records of gun sales within a day; no other industry has anything approaching that attitude towards records. Tellingly, the fear that the government will use this information to find those who would oppose its potential tyranny does not extend to outrage over, say, warrant-less spying on one's communications or the fact that health insurance companies and credit rating companies (to cite but a couple of examples) collect a lot of information about us and for most part, we don't even question what they know about us or with whom they share this information, including possibly the much maligned federal government. What the NRA does achieve is a world in which it is easy for criminals or straw buyers acting for criminals to freely obtain guns - so much for protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens!

One of the tropes advanced on many forums debating gun control was the argument that more people die per year in auto accidents than from gun homicides, so cars should be banned before guns. This is a false argument on many different levels, since it starts with a conflation of accidental and intentional killing. But more interesting in the choice of this analogy is that these partisans would have been hard pressed to find a more regulated segment than automobiles. They are strongly regulated from the design and manufacturing phase, through every step thereafter. There are laws against driving while drunk, driving and texting, driving underage, driving with an expired license, for starters. One cannot legally drive without a license, and to obtain a license one needs to demonstrate one's expertise in driving. When stopped by the police, for any actual transgression or suspected problem, a driver has to show his license, or face strictures for that failure even if nothing else is blameworthy. And every driver is required to maintain insurance to cover damage that he may, or may not cause while driving. This is actually a perfect idea, and I owe the plan I lay out below to the gun rights advocates who first drew my attention to the level of regulation we accept on cars and the parallels that they see between car and gun ownership. (Not surprising perhaps, given the Bushmaster advertisement that suggested owning an assault rifle conferred a man card upon the owner; in another version, that would have been a Mustang, Camaro or pickup truck).

If there is one thing the Roberts Supreme Court has upheld consistently, it is the power of corporations and their status above individuals. While I strongly disagree with the idea philosophically, I see an opportunity to use this concept towards regulation of guns, along with the concept enshrined in the Court's ruling regarding the Affordable Care Act. Simply put, I suggest that all guns be insured against the damage that they can potentially wreak. Let me clarify that the insurance is on the gun, not the gun owner. The key reason is that the gun must be insured from the moment it rolls off an assembly line (if locally made) or the instant it enters a US entry port. The moment the weapon is sold to a gun dealer, the onus for maintaining insurance can be transferred to the dealer or retained by the original party - I do not forsee many companies choosing that option, even less their insurance companies. Similarly the dealer is free to transfer ownership of the insurance policy along with ownership of the gun to his buyer, or he may choose to trust his buyers will never use their guns on other people without good and unimpeachable cause. The same rule holds for any sale of the gun, with no exceptions.

Some advantages of this are immediately obvious. Libertarians who fear the reach of the government and its intrusion into their private lives have fewer qualms over the same power in the hands of private companies and corporations. The level of regulation required over the sales will now be determined not in Washington but in the opaque boardrooms of Omaha and Charlotte and Wilmington. The greatest fear of Constitutionalists, that their right to bear arms enshrined in their reading of the Second Amendment, will be set at rest, since the law does not prevent anyone, not even Son of Sam, from buying a gun, so long as he or she can pay the insurance rates on it.  In my mind, the actual intent of the Second Amendment can be further strengthened by offering waivers or reduced insurance needs for militias that can meet the definition of "well-regulated"; in essence, weapons for the police or National Guard would not need to be insured to the same level as those in the hands of the Hutaree. 

However, in fairness to Branch Davidians and their ilk, the insurance amount on guns will be predicated only on the gun itself, not the owner. There is a challenge in determining the correct amount of insurance required, especially when the aim is to keep the amount within reason that can be serviced by private insurance companies. My starting thought for this would be the potential destructive power of the weapon. Obviously a small handgun, a shotgun or a hunting rifle have limited use in mass killings and would carry a smaller coverage than the now infamous AR-15 Bushmaster. Determining a good coverage amount is a job for actuaries (maybe?) and underwriters, and I have no doubt that they will crunch through the numbers and figure out a formula that combines population, per capita gun ownership, annual gun homicide rates, lost earning due to premature death and tooth fairy taxes. This amount would then be applied to every privately owned gun in the US, and to every gun being manufactured, offered for sale or being imported. In the event that a weapon is used in any crime, the insurance would be shared amongst the victims and/or their next of kin. One advantage, one that would really bring lawyers over to support this, is that even accident victims like Dick Cheney's unfortunate hunting partner would stand to gain when mistaken for a quail and shot in the face.

I appeal to the free market supporters on this idea. The insurance companies can evaluate the risk of say a large gun dealership, look at their safety methods and attention to inventor keeping and set a very low rate or a high rate that reflects the risk that a weapon will be sold improperly. This provides an incentive to the dealer to follow better practices and sell only to those customers who can take over the weapon liability. In turn, when seeking to buy a gun, an individual would have to convince his insurance company that he is not a risk. He may be required to provide mental health certification, and private insurers may ask for periodical certificates - it's important to emphasize that these checks would be between the individual and his insurance company only. If an insurer wishes to ban its customers from carrying their guns out of their houses, that too would be between the two private entities, and the government's role would start and end with requiring that the gun be insured at all times. As I said before, if a dealer trusts his strawbuyer client, he may retain ownership of the insurance, but he would face claims if any of those weapons was used in a crime subsequently - his insurance company may require a much higher premium for the risk involved or may refuse him permission to sell without transferring liability. On the flip side, the insurance company may very well offer big discounts for a dealer that has a waiting period on purchases, or performs detailed background checks, or one that ensures the buyer has insurance before handing over a weapon. (In part the need for waiting periods and background checks are based on the idea that dealers, similar to car dealerships, may offer a 30 day insurance period to the buyer).

In much the same vein, the individual may obtain discounts on their insurance by showing that they keep their guns securely. I envision insurance rates for existing gun owners being very low if they can show a long and responsible history of ownership - in other words for most gun owners. I also imagine most hunting weapons and smaller caliber pistols being either waived or covered for very low rates, given that they can be used in homicides (see the latest high profile case from Arizona and the on-going hostage standoff in Alabama), but they cause comparatively less death and destruction. I also foresee insurance companies offering reducing rates (similar to auto insurance models) based on history and discounts for people who can demonstrate safe practices and attendance of gun safety classes, again similar to auto insurance discounts for defensive driving classes and the like.

No proposal would be universally hailed, and gun owners would likely grumble at any rule that increases their bills for owning weapons. But given that this neither constrains one's rights under the Second Amendment, nor increases the role of government in our lives, I see it as the simplest means to reducing gun violence. It would have a very small impact on the vast majority of gun owners, but it would go a long way to reducing the vast number of guns available to criminals. I will, I admit, increase the cost of owning a gun, but that may be a small price to pay for reducing the overall level of gun violence.

Betrayed By Expectations

Normally one might expect a commentary on the political ramifications of a major presidential election in the week or so after said election, but this has been a strange year, culminating in a strange election, one that was overtaken almost instantly by news that befuddled both friend and foe alike. And as an exceptionally talented leader departed following the elections, I was left to ponder whether the failure was not in the man who stood shamed before the world but in the expectations of the public who first deified him and then recoiled in horror at his humanity.

General David Petraeus was a man, and like many men before him, he happily accepted the pleasures that life offered him. Even now, three weeks after the scandal of his extra-marital affair forced him from office, there is little evidence that he had allowed his personal life to affect his efficiency in his professional duties; yet the strange Puritan attitude that passes for wisdom in modern America demands that he leave in disgrace, preferably flagellating his back as he crawls away to hide. Perhaps he needed to go once the affair was publicly known, for the rumors, the publicity and the non-stop chatter of twenty four hour news television would have made it impossible to execute his duties as head of the CIA anymore. Yet, that begs the question: why is his bedroom life of any importance to us?

Of course, as the chief spy, his personal life is of some importance, since he might have fallen prey to the wiles of Mata Hari. Even given that the "other" woman was no security hazard, perhaps the normal pressures of an intimate but secret and (using the term in a very limited sense) illicit relationship might lead to unwitting breaches of security (there is some speculation already on that score, though nothing has been revealed as fact as yet). Such arguments I could understand, but they have been put forth but mildly. One might even argue that Petraeus was never as good as his admirers claimed, and that his background in ground operations and counterinsurgency, no matter how stellar, do not make him an ideal fit as head of a spy agency, and that his work was not to the level expected or required. This again is an discussion worth having, since it can be rationally discussed; and again, it is a discussion swept aside in favor of the weakest, least defensible reason to end this man's tenure. The moral case against him carries the day, as it has in so many other instances, yet this is a unique case that it should have had least weight.

America argues that its leaders, even its masked spy chiefs be paragons of virtue. One can certainly demand that in one's leaders and their appointed servitors, but is that very wise or realistic? Morals, apart from being notoriously subjective, are but one facet of the man (or woman) - more on that later. Good moral character, that bedrock of resumes, is not the only, and not even the most important aspect to seek, especially in the head of a spy agency. Intelligence, innovation, management skills and more, these are all things to look for in a leader, elected or appointed, and we need to ask ourselves if it is more important to have an ascetic but intellectually slow general leading our forces than a smart philanderer. We may wish that the best of all desired virtues are met in one man, but if that highly unlikely man be impossible to find, or unwilling to answer our call, what do we consider more important in available candidates for that position. Kindness to animals in need is a very commendable trait, but would we really care if our CIA director tosses all letters from PETA and the ASPCA directly in the trash? Sharing the burdens of marriage equally may raise a man in the eyes of his peers, but would we disqualify a man who refused to help his wife with the dishes?

We need to really think about what we want in our leaders, and more importantly perhaps in the men who serve our elected leaders. And especially we need to drop the idea that a vaguely defined moral code should be imposed upon a person who has never signed onto that code (I recognize that General Petraeus might still have been subject to the military's code of conduct, which he had accepted when he signed up, but the role as CIA director was not subject to that Code). The whole morality question is especially ridiculous when you consider that killing unarmed men, and even more so women and children, is strongly proscribed in nearly any moral code; yet the head of the CIA will unleash the instruments of death based on incomplete information and with far less proof than we would accept in allowing our police to stop Hispanic car drivers to demand proof of residency. Lying is universally seen as an act of low moral character, yet the CIA director will not only instruct his agents to practice subterfuge and misinformation, but will even lie to the public on occasion. I don't argue that there isn't a case for such action - though I feel it's largely overstated to protect laziness in proving a case for action - or that these actions are inherently immoral. My point is only that we already accept suspension of moral codes in some areas, where to follow the code would be impractical or counterproductive. And this in in the case of principles that are scarcely debatable. Yet in the more morally ambiguous case of an extra-marital affair - was it a brief weakness, did it really hurt anyone, do we know anything about the details of the marriages of the people involved, and is it any of our business anyway - we have invoked that code and our self-righteous outrage at its flaunting to end a man's career, (and subject a trio of young children to publicity about their parents that they certainly didn't request or deserve) and leave a key government agency without its leader.

We can chase the chimera of the perfect candidate and crucify those who fail to live up to the standards of the most voluble, or we can step back and challenge ourselves to identify what we really need in our leaders and then accept the best candidate available, warts and all. And then, perhaps, we will also quit our foolish habit of beatifying our leaders (or at least those from the "correct" side of the political spectrum) and save ourselves the mortification of discovering their feet of clay.

Ring Out Wild Bells To The Wild Sky

It's traditional to use this last day of the year to collect one's thoughts, and reflect on events, ideas and important moments of the dying year before ringing out the old. While Tennyson, whose poem inspires my blog post title, may have dreamed of ringing in an era of peace, I am less sanguine  - I suspect we will see more of the thousand wars than the start of a thousand years of peace. One hopes, at the very least however, that each year finds us further ahead in our quest for improvement.

This was a year dominated by three major geo-strategic events, viz. the fall of several long-established despots in the Arab world, the general changes in the political map of the middle east and the stutter dance of the Euro zone leaders struggling to find a voice and policy in the face of stubborn economic depression and the rise of a new counter culture against the Establishment and power of the oligarchy in America. The big stories sometimes obscure other less visible, but equally important trends and the challenge for an amateur student of geo-politics is to identify those obscured threads and understand their significance in the wider picture.

By far the greatest story has been the continued turmoil in the Arab world, with the fall, and death of Col. Qaddafi in Libya, the elections in Tunisia and Egypt, both won by religious parties, the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq and the continued squabbling between the Iraqi leaders and the war of words between Iran and the world. But by far the most important story from this part of the world is the increasingly bloody civil-war-in-all-but-name in Syria. While the violent civil war in Libya absorbed American attention far more, mostly because of the involvement of American military forces, the events in Syria may have far greater ramifications. Libya certainly had a lot of involvement in the affairs of her neighbors, but compared to Syria, Qaddafi was a model of non-interference. Syria not only dominates the political scene in Lebanon, but also housed the leadership of Hamas and was locked in an unresolved state of war with Israel. Less spoken about but equally important is Syria's role in stability in both Iraq and Turkey, involving Kurds in both countries as well as Assyrians in northern Iraq, a role that greatly increased after the end of Saddam Hussein's government and the influx of refugees including Iraqi Baathists into Syria. And of course, Syria is an unapologetic ally and conduit for Iranian pretensions, especially vis-avis Hezbollah. While the government of Bashir Assad has seemingly lost legitimacy, at least in the eyes of the western world, it's worth recalling that the government has never had any greater legitimacy in the past, and if it survives this challenge to it's survival, the world will happily forget this phase and bestow upon it all the blessings of legitimacy again. And while the Obama Administration is reportedly working with European allies to plot an exit strategy for Assad and his coterie, the greatest fear is a collapse of Syria into chaos, a fear of the unknown that animates not just Washington and Brussels, but also Ankara, Tehran, Baghdad and Tel Aviv, and likely terrifies Beirut. No one really knows what would happen should Syria collapse: how would that affect Lebanon, how would their government and Hezbollah, a state within the state, react to Hezbollah's loss of both patron and critical supplier? how will the Palestinians react to the loss of their patron? will they stand on the sidelines, or will they choose to join in? will the loss of sanctuary push Hamas into  accommodation and compromise, or will they hew to a more hardline stance? will a flood of refugees into northern Iraq destabilize an already unstable arrangement between Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians and Sunni Arabs? will Kurds from Syria flood into Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan, challenging tenuous arrangements in both countries? and most important, faced with the loss of power, will the Baathists around Assad seek to divert attention by confrontation with Israel, a tactic they may have already tried once before this year? Most importantly, we know very little about the Syrian opposition, just as we knew little about Libya's rebels, or the thousands who flooded Tahir Square to confront Egypt's Mubarak. We believe they are secular and likely friendly to us, but the longer the violence continues, the more radical groups will replace the moderate voices. The Arab Street has so far confounded all expectations, but the stakes in Syria are greater than anywhere else, and managing a soft landing in Damascus may be the greatest challenge to the world going in to this new year.

Europe's financial woes are well documented and analyzed past comprehension; it is not my intent to try and add to the discussion, especially in a subject I barely understand,  but the long drawn-out struggle has exposed and exacerbated other wounds within Europe that make a highly intriguing story as well. Most attention has focused on the economic problems, the austerity measures and the wealth disparities between north and south Europe, but there has been relatively little discussion about the social fissures in almost every European nation. It's a fairly accepted fact that extreme economic problems feed radical and often xenophobic political movements; Europe has a rich history of such movements, and plentiful targets in the numerous ethnic minorities that reside in, but have not become a part of, their societies. The past sixty years have been largely peaceful, and one may argue that it's not due to just the massive destruction and dislocation of two world wars, but the security of their welfare states that tamped down the historic urges to lash out in violence against outsiders, both within and without their borders. Now the safety net is fraying, and Europe's anger is likely to be unleashed again. So far that anger has been focused on the governments pushing austerity on the middle class, but it is only a matter of time before the anger turns towards the "outsiders" as a society wrenched from the comfortable life they'd come to regard as a birthright seek easy targets for their sense of disenchantment and grievance. The only good news is that Europe has been softened by easy living, to a point where they are less danger to the world than ever before, with a shrinking native population (and xenophobia makes it a lot harder to harness the energy of their immigrants) and atrophied armies that are mere shadows of the Grand Armee or Wehrmacht of yesteryear.

There have been many other stories this year, from the Occupy movement and the discordant yet passionate reaction to the excesses of capitalism and the power of the oligarchy represented by Wall Street, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the weakening of the original al-Qaida coupled with the rise of many more radical Islamic groups inspired by but not affiliated with bin Laden, the earlier than anticipated change of guard in North Korea with all the unknowns that entails. But for my money, the biggest under the radar story is the changes in China. Things are changing fast in the Hermit Kingdom, and how the Chinese government manages the slowing growth and increasing expectations in a world that is harder to control will shape the future of the world. I've argued before that China's facade hides many structural weaknesses and that the fundamental political flaws in an undemocratic society make it harder to navigate through difficult times. An aging population, increasing competition in low-level manufacturing as wages rise, lack of a social security net and healthcare system, unrest amongst ethnic minorities, a rising demand for higher quality of life - the list of demands facing China is extensive, and the government while seemingly aware of the dangers has not always shown that they know how to address them successfully. Recent rebellions have illuminated both the cracks in the structure and the uncertainty in the ruling circles about how to respond. Above all China is flirting with danger as they stoke nationalist fires to keep society behind the government, for those demons once released are nigh impossible to control. China's government has a critical year looming, and their success or failure in addressing the challenges before them will largely shape the chances for peace in the region and the world.

Occupying Left Field

Since my last blog, I've been following the Occupy Wall Street movement with a little more interest, fueled in part by segments on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and last week's series with Citizen X in Doonesbury. While I had an instinctive sympathy for the protesters from the start, the cacophony of messages and disparate agenda made it harder to understand their aims. But once I delved a little deeper, and read a little more about them, I realized that these protesters, for all their reported elitist demeanor, are driven by the same angst that animates all of us. they are everyman, in a sense.

I suppose, though I still cannot understand them, that the Tea Party tapped into the same deep anger. Of course, one would have expected that anger at the economic mess that President Obama inherited would have been directed at the architects of the financial system's collapse. Yet strangely enough, the Tea Party galvanized opposition to the president, and in truly unfathomable twist, made the Affordable Healthcare Act the central point of their campaign against Big Government as personified by him, even as they rallied in defense of his perceived attack on Medicare, the epitome of Big Government, one would say. Stranger yet, the men elected with the support of the Tea Party wish to balance the budget by slashing Social Security; surely if Medicare is sacrosanct and not to be shrunk, especially by the government, the same would hold true for the other pillar of the Great Society.

Perhaps, the one lesson the Tea Party has taught us is that logic and rationality in the message are far less important than passion. That should enthuse the Occupy Wall Street movement, since passion is in no shortage amongst them. Their critics may watch the early snow storms and gleefully hope that the protesters will disperse before winter's iron fist, much like the Grand Army. But the fact is, whatever the message, most OWS protesters have a genuine grievance and are less likely to turn and limp away, when they have little to return to. Conservative critics may lampoon them as over-privileged over-indulged kids who don't want to work; the reality is that no matter how willing both spirit and flesh may be, there are precious few jobs on offer, much less to graduates fresh out of college with no work experience or those who have fallen victim to the recession and been out of work for months on end. Franklin Roosevelt could put America to work building the infrastructure that transformed a nation but today there are no comparable programs to absorb those thousands or millions of unemployed. Where then shall they go?

And the common target for that popular anger are the barons of Wall Street. Though many of the worker bees of Wall Street may not quite fall into the 1% category, their general refusal to accept their role in destroying the wealth of a generation marks them for dislike, loathing and even hate. I fully expected that in 2008, as the extent of their malfeasance came to light that we would see, metaphorically, mobs with torches and pitchforks. I misunderstood the power and extent of the control Wall Street exerts over the levers of government. Not only did the President and his advisers do much to avoid demonizing them (and still drew shrill rebuke for any remarks that were less than flattering to those titans of finance) but more importantly, the bailouts were tailored to protect their investments and profits at the expense of the taxpayer. It's instructive that Europe's negotiated bailout over the Greek debt involves a fifty percent write off by the banks. Contrast that with the hundred percent return that Wall Street was guaranteed on their poor investments and one may begin to understand the frustration and anger that's building amongst those who have seen their lives destroyed by clueless wizards waving their monetary wands and causing billions of dollars to vanish in the blink of an eye.

The Tea Party rode their passion to a huge Congressional victory, and today shape the future of the nation as they walk the halls of government. So far the OWS movement shows no interest in turning into a political beast. That is both its strength and ultimate weakness, for the soldiers on the frontline of this struggle will never know when the fight is over, much less will they reap any benefit personally, even when they force change as in the case of Bank of America and its now-aborted attempts to levy debit card fees on their customers. Those of us on the sidelines will win much as the OWS movement shapes the public discussion and hopefully nudges the spectrum back towards the middle and towards sanity. But they, the protesters who took to the streets of the financial world seeking to shine a light on the great disparities and twisted realities of the American Nightmare will fade from view and be forgotten. For them, victory will bring no success -  I only wonder if they know it. And how we will look upon them as this saga plays out. With nostalgia, with mild surprise, or sideways at them as we stand beside them in the trenches?

Occupy and Change

This weekend, the "Occupy Wall Street" movement went national, even international, with protesters taking to the streets in cities across the world in sympathy with the original activists in New York. I very nearly did go downtown to watch and gauge the movement firsthand after a I met a fellow fay spirit while lunching at my favorite Scandinavian bistro. As it happened, I did not head down to see the activists, so my information about their aims remains dependent on the mixed messages reported in the news media.

One of the interesting things about this mixed bunch is their lack of leaders and unified message. In that sense they are not so very different from the Tea Party activists who seemed to appear out of nowhere in a short period of time to oppose a host of President Obama's policies, starting with the healthcare reform bill and growing into a potent political force that dragged the Republican party strongly to the right and changed the conversation profoundly in the run-up to the mid term elections. The OWS protesters coud not be more different in outward appearance, or tactics, and despite some liberal hopes that this ragtag army will restore equilibrium to the political world, I strongly doubt it. First and foremost, the Democratic party has not really decided what to do about this movement, just as the GOP initially hesitated in their approach to the Tea Parties. It's true that Nancy Pelosi has expressed some support, as has Al Gore, but they are certainly far less on the fringe than their counterparts on the right who rode the Tea Party wave; Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House and currently Minority Leader and Al Gore, former Vice President and ex-Senator are a far cry from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Critically, the protesters have not targeted any political party, but seem more inclusive in their approach - if they have a common ideal it is the power of rich corporations to control the political process. And that power of corporations is exercised through minions in both political parties and corporate dollars flow into the coffers ot all politicians. This group of economically disenfranchised activists is wary of all politicians; even if they probably dislike the GOP more than the Democrats, it is only a matter of degree.

While the liberals tended to disparage the Tea Party - for one, we could and still cannot understand why they would oppose policies that succored them in favor of the corporations that seem to enjoy the fruits of our labors, or rant against the government being involved in healthcare while vociferously defending their Medicare entitlements - the right wing press has naturally attacked the motives, methods and hygiene of the OWS activists, while also portraying them as losers who wish to deny the titans of Wall Street their honestly won wealth. In this, they are joined by the citizens of Wall Street, one of whom mocked the protesters with a sign in his office window. And yet, that single act might do more to galvanize this protest and turn it into a surging movement - Wall Street and its financial companies haven't just nearly destroyed the world economy, but they do not understand or accept the mistakes they made nor the debt of gratitude they owe the US taxpayer. They have been bailed out from their own mess with billions of tax dollars, yet they have paid not a single cent in return. Instead they have reaped massive profits even as the rest of the economy has sputtered. Their fancy derivatives have protected their profits (when guaranteed by the US Treasury), but not the actual assets, the houses and the people who own them have continued to sink into a sea of debt and the same banks that created this problem have reacted with incredible myopia and insensitivity. And in many cases, with less than legal or at least ethical methods. They have taken our money but given us nothing in return. Now the OWS movement demands that the system be straightened out and the balance between workers and management be restored. In many ways the situation today is not so very different from the days of the robber barons, minus the Pinkertons with rifles. But we have a system where all the profits are kept by a small sliver of the populace, though all of us suffer their losses. Corporate power has grown to ridiculous levels, and controls all aspects of life. Not in a sinister "Big Brother" style, but certainly very completely. We can no longer trust any news outlet without wondering what their motives are - Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, NBC by GE, ABC is part of Disney Corp. These companies are not inherently evil and do not actively censor the news. But they are amoral corporations dedicated only to maximizing their short term profit and the media they own will naturally reflect their preferences.

Human costs simply do not enter into the calculations of corporations, and in the end that recognition is all that OWS needs to achieve in order to be considered successful. But getting their message across to the wider public while opposing the very organizations that own the media is definitely going to be a challenge. In this respect, the diffuse system of leadership, or lack of central leadership to be more honest may actually be an advantage. Speaking with a million different voices, espousing many messages, some that match and some that seem rather diverse, actually makes it impossible to block sans a concerted and illegal operation by many different corporations. And the corporate world while united in profiting on our dime, is no single entity capable of mounting such an exercise. Millions of opinions and messages flowing across the many social media cannot be stopped or controlled, except by heavy handed and ultimately counterproductive actions, a la Egypt's Mubarak. And with the activists standing loosely allied, and beholden to no single political party, the message itself, of equality and fairness, cannot be easily subverted or subsumed into a short term election agenda. This message will endure, no matter the outcome of the US elections, no matter who is president and who controls Congress. And ultimately, one hopes, a more equitable world will emerge, as it did back in the 1930s through the New Deal.

Immigrants Behaving Badly

Last month the President decided to bring immigration reform to centerstage once again, if only to highlight the obstructions raised by his political opponents. Since then, interest has languished again and the moat and alligator business I'd hoped to start up may have to wait a whiles till funding to build the same is approved by Congress. But meanwhile I thought I'd dust off some old thoughts on immigration and publish them in this snazzy blog that is such a credit to some unknown developer. This is actually part of a two-chapter posting on different aspects of immigration and let me lead off bu discussing this article in the Washington Post from a few years ago that illustrated a very interesting aspect of Hispanic immigrants and explodes several negative myths about their role in US society. Distilled down to the essentials, the various studies show that Hispanic immigrants don't act according to stereotype.

I know a little bit about immigrants who don't fit stereotypes. Immigrants are supposed to stick with others from their ethnic group, they are supposed to speak the language of their home country rather than English, they are supposed to go mostly to their particular ethnic restaurants and celebrate their own particular religious and secular days. I can testify that every morning I see a would-be immigrant who doesn't fit the mold. Sure, he looks like typical immigrant and judging from the reaction of others, sounds unlike the average American. But it just goes to show that appearances can be deceiving. Or rather that stereotypes are, more often than not, totally wrong.

Returning to the article, studies show that as generally perceived, a majority of first generation Hispanic immigrants do fall below the poverty line and also tend to earn significantly lower wages than Americans in the same job. However, the wage gap between immigrants and natives tends to close quickly. Far more interesting however is the revelation that these immigrants do not think of themselves as poverty-stricken, nor do they behave as such. It seems like someone forgot to tell these immigrants that they are supposed to be different, that they are supposed to drag down US society. Instead, in their ignorance they react positively, in much the same way as every other immigrant community that ever called America home.

These are people who earn less than the $20,000 annual salary that the US government defines as dividing the poor from the rest. And, these poverty level salaries are typically earned in urban (and expensive areas). While many settled natives might think that it is impossible to live on around $11,500 a year (or barely $225 a week), these people beg to differ. They manage and their attitude is that of the middle class - they manage the best they can in education for their children, manage to save a little (!) and nearly always manage to send some money back to their families and relatives in their native country. Imagine that – they are supporting not just themselves, but also large extended families. Several economies south of the border are heavily dependent of these remittances. And since this money comes without IMF-mandated conditions or high interest rates and repayment timetables, every last penny goes into improving the lives of the recipients. These immigrants have discovered so many truths - you don’t need a 52-in plasma TV or a TV in every room, or a night out on the town every night, you don’t need to drive the latest model car or have the newest computer or I-pod, there is life without a Playstation or Xbox. And they are living out the economic theory that just won the Nobel Peace Prize, creating economic and social development from the grassroots, and actually alleviating the conditions that force so many to immigrate to America in first place.

According to the article, a majority of immigrants own or plan to own their own homes and businesses. They are working hard to improve their living conditions and provide a brighter future for their children, and they expect fewer government handouts than many natives (think about the corn farmers or oil companies). Sounds familiar? It should. It could describe any previous immigrant community. It could describe the American Dream.

This study was focused on Hispanic immigrants, who are right now the target of most negative myths and stereotype, but I'm willing to wager that other prominent immigrant communities are similar. In fact, I'm so sure of this that like Oliver Twist's interest acquaintance, Mr. Grimwig, I'll eat my own head!

Union of Interests - A Different Way Forward

Better than the common platitude, "United we stand, divided we fall", is Benjamin Franklin's more powerful statement, "We must hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately". And as the public service unions of Wisconsin attempt to hang together, it's worth considering the alternatives, should Governor Scott Walker and his fellow conservatives win their way.

Growing up, I had a rather negative attitude towards unions. India, in the eighties, was in the thrall of the unions and they ably demonstrated everything that was worst about unions with too much power. Yet, looking back, the problem was not so much the unions, though they were no angels, but the byzantine mix of laws that rewarded lack of initiative and thwarted any spark of entrepreneurship. The unions and their leaders were willing collaborators, but they did not set up the massive state-run companies that had no incentive to turn a profit, that were treated as a way to buy political support. As I embarked on my journey across the world, I began to see unions in a new light.

The recently beatified former President Reagan won great acclaim for breaking the unions, and since then, his disciples have built on his victories to roll back the power of unions, and more importantly changed the public perception of unions and their members. In America today, unions are victims of their own successes in the past century. The inhuman working conditions and powerless position of the workers in early twentieth century America is now little more than a bad dream and generations raised to regard basic health-care and forty hour weeks as the norm forget that none of these luxuries were gifted to us by the magnanimity of our employers, but were won by furious, often bloody, battle by the much maligned unions. Yet today, they are reviled and distrusted as agents of a socialist Dystopia, somehow alienated from their neighbors, their fellow citizens. It's easy to see the battle over unions in simplistic black and white terms - the liberals want them, the conservatives hate them, the Democrats support them, the GOP wants to eliminate them.

But reality is rarely if ever that simple. I'm greatly conflicted over unions, in part because of the poor example they've set, in part because the anti-unionists have sold a seductive counter argument, and in part because I can't join one any more. The "right to work" is a slick piece of marketing, of a piece with "pro-life" - it sounds really great and reasonable and would work great, except that it doesn't. The pro-life brigade is busy imposing their moral view upon everyone else using a reasonable sounding term - who's anti-life after all? - to deny people the right to believe differently from them. In much the same way, the "right to work" has absolutely nothing objectionable at first blush. To be honest, I always thought that the idea that everyone who joined a unionized workforce had to join the union seemed unfair. Of course, on reflection it's obvious that once non-union labor is introduced, it becomes fairly easy for the management to weaken the union and destroy it. Likewise, seeing a portion of my payroll sucked away as union dues didn't seem too attractive an option either, which was a large part of why I opposed the unionization of the graduate students who were teaching assistants while at school. In the end the unions have to recognize that the world has changed over the last half century and they can no longer rest on their past laurels. Their time has passed and now has come the moment for a new idea.

Unions, at the their best, represent the most important part of a company. Let's be honest, if a company could survive without its labor, they would do it in a heartbeat. But the fact is, the workers are what makes or breaks a company. It is a common theme that the owner brought in the capital that made the company possible, which is a fair enough idea. But capital without workers is as meaningless as workers without an employer. Labor and capital need each other, no matter how much the pretend otherwise. It's time for both sides to forge a new relationship and it will need a lot of adjustments from both sides. Let's start by dropping the term "union' with all it's negative connotations - I propose that alternate terms like "Workers' Guild" (a shout out to the World of Warcraft) or "Workers' League' be adopted. But more importantly, all workers not invested in the company be made a part of this new association. The old distinctions between blue collar and white collar made sense, when the white collar workers were few and were usually treated as part of the company management. Today, when the line between the two has blurred and vast numbers of white collar workers struggle with less rights than their blur collar fellows, it's just another idea whose time has passed. And if  the professional players in the NFL can band together to bargain with their employees, why not the rest of us? Obviously, shareholders in the company cannot be a part of the association, since their interests are nominally at odds with those of the workers, but all others can and should be free to join this association. Of course, I see no role for "outsiders" in this association - only workers in the company can be in the association. And of course the positions would carry no additional salary - if the janitor won the job, he'd sit on the board of directors as a representative of his fellow workers, but he'd still draw a janitor's paycheck. And he'd still have to fulfill his janitorial duties.

However, it's critical to note that in fact, labor and owners are not on opposite sides of a zero sum game. And that is where the greatest adjustment is required in thinking. The worker's association, as partners of the capitalists need to have a role in company policy, not during wage negotiations only, but at all times. We live in an era of short term gains and myopic worldviews, when the CEO and his fellow Board of Directors earn a hundred times more than the average employee, and where those decisions on company policy and CEO compensation are never discussed with the people they impact most and who contribute every bit as much as the CEO or owner. In fact, for an established company that raises money largely on the stock market, the capital is so diffused that there is hardly a single person contributing overwhelmingly to the company's coffers and the workers are probably far more important. Ownership is the great American Dream, so let's make the workers equal partners in the company.

Now such an idea could be dismissed as socialism. So be it; if this is socialism, I embrace the concept, Comrades! But it's worth remembering that Margret Thatcher executed something fairly similar in Britain during her initial terms when she sold off state-owned corporations, often to the workers. I've heard of small company founders selling their company's to their employees when they wish to retire, so it's neither a revolutionary or ground breaking idea, really. I just suggest that this be implemented on a wider, near universal scale, and that the workers have a voice in all company policy. That would include the association having access to the company books, and all the same information as the rest of the Board. It will not end bad decisions - Hummers would probably have been built even under this system - but it will make the labor part of the solution. There are many other problems that would definitely remain, but workers invested in the long term health of the company would probably make reasonable accommodations on salaries and benefits and assume a fair share of the pain during the bad times, so long as they also reaped the profits during the good. Naturally workers who choose not to join the association would have that right and would still enjoy the benefits of any labor agreements negotiated by the association, but only association members would share in the decisions of the Board and in the profits - or losses - that flow therefrom.