By most measures, I'm just a typical common or garden-variety environmentalist or at least a person who would rather see environmentally friendly policies than not. I'm a member of the Sierra Club, I recycle religiously, drive a Prius, support a gas tax and more public transportation and would rather sit in front of my TV on a Saturday morning than burn gasoline driving out to some beautiful scenic trail in the middle of nowhere. So, it was with some surprise that I reached the conclusion that it's time to turn right about in our position on exploration for and exploitation of oil resources in continental America.
Naturally, I don't endorse a no-limits "drill, baby, drill" approach where we simply hand the pristine wilderness over to the oil companies. Safeguards, the most rigorous environmental safeguards, would be an indivisible of this new drive to tap our resources. But tap them we must. If the Deepwater Horizon tragedy taught us one thing, it should be that our demand for oil will simply force drilling in ever more challenging regions. And if renowned companies like BP can fail so spectacularly, it would be naive to imagine that something similar or worse will not happen in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Cuba. Cuba is especially dangerous, given their desperation for petrodollars and our continued short-sighted embargo, even to the point of threatening oil companies with sanctions if they work in Cuba; we have simply cleared the more experienced players from the field and left it to companies from India or China, companies with less expertise and technology as best and fewer safeguards or concerns for the environment. Companies in USA and Europe may not have any inherent interest in environmentally responsible practices, but they are forced to follow them nevertheless, while companies from elsewhere may not operate with the same constraints.
Perhaps the greatest issue for me however is not the risk that the beaches of Florida may be threatened by an accident in Cuba. Great as that tragedy would be, the sad fact is that other areas stand at greater risk or are even now suffering the effects of crude methods of oil extraction. Brazil has planned deep sea exploration every bit as dangerous as Deepwater Horizon; the Amazon jungle and especially the Niger delta have been under attack for the past decade, to the point that damage may be past repair.Do we care about environmental degradation only when it happens on our yard? More pertinent, perhaps, should we care? We know well that the ocean currents care not for our maritime boundaries around Hispaniola and hence we fret about Cuban wells, but the damage farther off the horizon may escape our notice while causing as much damage to the world as a whole.
We occupy a crucial, unique position in the world. By virtue of our enormous consumption, approximately a fifth of the total world's output, we enjoy leverage over the producers as much as they enjoy over us. The difference is that OPEC has consciously used that power to further their own interests, while we turn away from our power. The time has come to embrace our power and embrace reality. Environmentalists would like to believe that we can shed our dependence on oil and sustain ourselves on green energy, and perhaps someday we will get there. But that day is not today, nor even tomorrow. And as long as we pursue cheap gas as state policy, there is little incentive to make the switch. But we may change that if we wish. For starters, we must tap our domestic oil producing capacities to the fullest. I know this idea is almost criminal in environmentalist circles, but I prefer a wider worldview; we can force the companies to protect the environment here and work in a responsible manner (assuming a political will to enforce the laws) while we have next to no control over the depredations of the Niger. And while the arctic ecology may be delicate and easily damaged so is nearly any natural ecosystem and we can minimize the damage at home, keep the wells away from the wildlife reserves.
But this is the season of grand bargains, from debt ceilings to professional football, and increasing domestic production is but one leg of my proposal. In addition, we would introduce a higher gas tax, sufficiently large to generate significant revenues and nudge consumer behavior, with the revenue being used partly for mass transit systems and partly for more green energy. But, truth be told, if petroleum based solutions become more expensive, investment will automatically seek out greener solutions. And I am enough of a believer in markets that I think the government should not be betting on a specific technology but should simply signal a general shift away from oil and let the market find the best solution - it may be totally different from anything we've imagined so far.
But the real power of our top consumer status lies in the third leg of my strategy - we need to impose a green tax on all petroleum products imported into the US, based on how the company produces it's oil. If it's destroying the environment in Africa or southeast Asia, we would impose a higher tax on them than if the oil came from the North Sea. Exactly how we would rate the oil sands of Canada or the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico is debatable, but I suspect they would fall somewhere in between. Companies may seek to get around the system by claiming the oil they give us is produced from "good" locations while the bad stuff is sold to other countries; we can combat that trick easily enough by basing the tax on total production of the company, with a company that has more responsible methods attracting a lower tax rate. The other trick would be for a company to sell it's "bad" stuff to a company that produces "good" oil and let the second company sell to us at their low tax rate. Again, a little vigilance would go a long way to negating this trick, with the "good" company getting tainted since a part of it's total production would now include the "bad" stuff it bought and it would still attract the same higher tax rate as the original bad producer.
The other argument to address is the danger that companies facing a "green" tax will place an embargo on us. I would counter that it is precisely there that our power of consumption comes into play - companies simply cannot refuse to sell to us, we are too important to their balance sheets. Unlike the seventies and the oil embargo, we are talking about private companies driven by profit, not states that can live with financial losses in pursuit of a strategic objective. When you control a fifth of the market, no one can ignore your demands. The many leading oil companies that are based in the US or Europe already possess the technology to operate in a responsible manner but see no reason to to so in the less regulated corners of the world. At the risk of being a global cop again, we are going to make it less advantageous to destroy the environment, no matter where. Further I think, with companies vying for the newly available lucrative drilling contracts in the US, objections will be somewhat muted. The net result will be more revenue for mass transit and greener gasoline for everyone. As a bonus, dearer gasoline will also nudge all of us towards more responsible driving choices, be they smaller cars, gas-sippers instead of guzzlers, occasional bicycle rides in place of the SUV and maybe a rediscovery of the advantages of city life over the suburban experience.
If the original Mad Hatter had a blog, everything would start with "T". This is what his views might have been.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Not Quite a Sunscreen Song
As I drove into work the other day, I heard the "Sunscreen song", played to mark the end of most college semesters and as I listened to the best commencement speech never given, my thoughts drifted to the increasing number of articles I've seen questioning the value of a college education. I've ignored those articles for most part, since they are too late to influence my choices in that direction, but the very fact that such ideas are even being debated is disappointing in many ways. I've always considered my college years as the best times of my life, and it's sad that the next group of high schoolers will forgo that rite of passage in favor of plunging straight into the workforce.
It's possible of course, that the debate is less about skipping college and more about focusing on a more practical, and quicker, post-high school education that will prepare one for immediate entry into the job market without a lot of unimportant courses. Perhaps the traditional college degree isn't for everyone, just as it wasn't for everyone in the past. A person with absolutely no interest in education would obviously be wasting his money on a college degree. And it is certainly worth asking if education costs are worthwhile, when the average student will incur a cost of over $100,000 for a degree at any major school. But again, it's worth remembering that college does not have to include the big schools - a degree at a community college can be as good and, if the NBC sitcom is any barometer, far more fun than I ever had at school.
Those are valid questions that every student needs to face and answer for themselves. But today, I want to address the more insidious suggestion that college education in general is unnecessary. It is beyond doubt that college education, as high school education includes a lot of subjects that seem to have little bearing on our normal lives and that will be rarely if ever used in our careers after graduation. How many Wall Street wizards use their knowledge of history of European art as they craft toxic financial instruments? Will a knowledge of ancient or modern Chinese assist a mid-western farmer? Will intimacy with differential equations aid a trucker as he rolls across the length of America? Perhaps not, but with the vast range of courses available at any major college, well counseled students can pick a bouquet of useful and interesting classes that will broaden their understanding of the world around them and open new vistas to explore. We live in an increasingly connected world, and an understanding of the culture and motivations of people beyond our immediate circles is actually an increasingly critical and sought after skill in resumes.
But beyond the obvious and visible advantages of courses that apply to the world around us, college offers a chance for students to mature, to learn critical social skills, to broaden their critical thinking abilities and to generally acquire well rounded characters. Schools may do their best, but in the smaller student bodies, students face less diversity, not just racial or economic, but also cultural and intellectual; it's colleges that provide the microcosm of the real world that prepares students for the maelstrom they will soon face. Even without a variety of courses - my engineering course included none of the humanities or liberal arts that are mandatory in the US - I can still say that I came out of college a vastly more mature and developed person than the callow youth who entered four years previously. In the end, it was not engineering that was the most important of lessons learned, but the discipline and concentration I developed there, along with such intangible skills as working with people very different from me and learning to solve problems, involving both mathematical and people; the mathematical ones were the easy ones.
And finally, all practical advantages aside, college is the crucial time when we come of age, when boys become men (girls usually grow up earlier). It's a last time to enjoy life with few responsibilities and the knowledge that those responsibilities hover just beyond makes the joys of college all the sweeter. It's fun with a tinge of adulthood, carefree enjoyment with the edge of real life. Some people miss it for reasons beyond their control - Dafur or Congo being just two places that come to mind - but for kids here in the US, it would be a crime if they chose to turn their backs on this gift that's theirs for the taking, and a crime if they were advised to forgo college by people who have enjoyed it themselves. It's a last magical idyll and no one should miss out on the experience.
It's possible of course, that the debate is less about skipping college and more about focusing on a more practical, and quicker, post-high school education that will prepare one for immediate entry into the job market without a lot of unimportant courses. Perhaps the traditional college degree isn't for everyone, just as it wasn't for everyone in the past. A person with absolutely no interest in education would obviously be wasting his money on a college degree. And it is certainly worth asking if education costs are worthwhile, when the average student will incur a cost of over $100,000 for a degree at any major school. But again, it's worth remembering that college does not have to include the big schools - a degree at a community college can be as good and, if the NBC sitcom is any barometer, far more fun than I ever had at school.
Those are valid questions that every student needs to face and answer for themselves. But today, I want to address the more insidious suggestion that college education in general is unnecessary. It is beyond doubt that college education, as high school education includes a lot of subjects that seem to have little bearing on our normal lives and that will be rarely if ever used in our careers after graduation. How many Wall Street wizards use their knowledge of history of European art as they craft toxic financial instruments? Will a knowledge of ancient or modern Chinese assist a mid-western farmer? Will intimacy with differential equations aid a trucker as he rolls across the length of America? Perhaps not, but with the vast range of courses available at any major college, well counseled students can pick a bouquet of useful and interesting classes that will broaden their understanding of the world around them and open new vistas to explore. We live in an increasingly connected world, and an understanding of the culture and motivations of people beyond our immediate circles is actually an increasingly critical and sought after skill in resumes.
But beyond the obvious and visible advantages of courses that apply to the world around us, college offers a chance for students to mature, to learn critical social skills, to broaden their critical thinking abilities and to generally acquire well rounded characters. Schools may do their best, but in the smaller student bodies, students face less diversity, not just racial or economic, but also cultural and intellectual; it's colleges that provide the microcosm of the real world that prepares students for the maelstrom they will soon face. Even without a variety of courses - my engineering course included none of the humanities or liberal arts that are mandatory in the US - I can still say that I came out of college a vastly more mature and developed person than the callow youth who entered four years previously. In the end, it was not engineering that was the most important of lessons learned, but the discipline and concentration I developed there, along with such intangible skills as working with people very different from me and learning to solve problems, involving both mathematical and people; the mathematical ones were the easy ones.
And finally, all practical advantages aside, college is the crucial time when we come of age, when boys become men (girls usually grow up earlier). It's a last time to enjoy life with few responsibilities and the knowledge that those responsibilities hover just beyond makes the joys of college all the sweeter. It's fun with a tinge of adulthood, carefree enjoyment with the edge of real life. Some people miss it for reasons beyond their control - Dafur or Congo being just two places that come to mind - but for kids here in the US, it would be a crime if they chose to turn their backs on this gift that's theirs for the taking, and a crime if they were advised to forgo college by people who have enjoyed it themselves. It's a last magical idyll and no one should miss out on the experience.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
The Tide is Turning
Last night, New York became the sixth state in the Union to legalize marriage for all human beings. The world did not end, the earth did not rend, spewing forth molten magma and swallowing the citizens of modern day Sodom. Nor did celestial trumpets blare forth a paean of triumph. It could be just another proof that there is no god directing our destiny. Or more charitably, it may be proof that an omnipotent deity concerned with the creation and ordering of the entire cosmos has far better things to do that wonder about whether men should lie with men and that our lives, our futures and all we aspire to is up to us. Whatever the truth of god's existence, there is no doubt that we are at our best as human beings when we look within ourselves for the answers we seek and find the strength there to do the right thing by our fellowmen.
It took a pair of Republican senators to join the other thirty one in favor of allowing all citizens of New York the same marital rights; the sadness is that twenty nine remain obdurately opposed to what seems a self evident truth to all of us on this side of the line, but one can only hope that they will realize that the world belongs to all of us, even those who may not share our sexual predilections, and they deserve the same rights and freedoms as us. It is not a an act of kindness on our part, it is not our benevolent magnanimity that we finally suffer them to live like us; it is our shame that we have taken so long to recognize the reality and stop withholding what was their birthright as much as ours.
Today, New York pats itself on the back for having done the right thing. There is no point in harking back to their failures in the past, but it is nevertheless pointing out, even if it means being cavalier that they are late to the party, and that the real turning points were reached some time ago. It started in Massachusetts, but for me the biggest win was Iowa. Before Iowa, opponents of universal marriage could argue that this was a movement born in the liberal strongholds of the coastal strip and did not reflect the bedrock values of the heartland, whatever those may be and wherever that mythical place may be. But Iowa changed that. Iowa, in the heart of the Midwest can never be dismissed as a socialist bleeding heart liberal enclave. If a state epitomizes the imaginary "true" America, it may well be Iowa. Known for early primaries and corn, rather than a burning desire to right the wrongs of society, Iowa legalized universal marriage with a typically Midwestern lack of excitement, with none of the hype and noise and beating of breasts that accompanied New York's entry into the enlightened club.
I do not know which state will be next, though it seems likely that the first push will come out of New England before the conservative center begins to feel the pressure. And though marshaling logical arguments in favor of universal freedom is unlikely to win over the opponents, it is nonetheless worth addressing one of the most widely touted fallacies, that allowing same-sex marriage undermines "traditional" marriage. If one were to ask these adherents which precise tradition they yearned for, it is unlikely that they would have a common answer, for the traditions of marriage are as diverse as the cultures that spawned them. Likely though that the conservative defenders of traditional marriage believe that there is something sacred about a marriage between a man and a woman and they cling to the notion that the god they worship has sanctioned this marriage.
In fact, marriage had little to do with religion and everything to do with strictly secular and material concerns like property and money. It is no coincidence that elaborate marriage was required only amongst the upper classes and nobility of medieval Europe, and that such marriages included lengthy settlements dealing with decidedly material issues, with religious authority mostly invoked only to prevent untimely dissolution of unions that guided the destinies of the land. It's worth recalling that Henry VIII split the Catholic church because he was denied an annulment of his marriage. Mormonism, growing rapidly in America, has a traditional marriage based on polygamy; is that the "traditional" marriage opponents of modern marriage yearn towards? Ancient Jewish custom recognized polygamy, and also treated the women as mere child producing chattels, possessions of their fathers and husbands. There was a moment in early Christianity when marriage was wholly dissuaded, in favor of universal celibacy. But perhaps even the most devout traditionalists would shy away from a tradition that is not even marriage at all.
In the end, tradition is just tradition and if we do not eat as our ancestors did, nor travel as they did, nor speak as they did why should we choose one random tradition and raise it above the others and demand that it be maintained. Slavery was also a tradition, as was serfdom, and burning witches as the stake. If traditional marriage is sacred, then surely we need to simply decide which period we aspire to and throw out everything, every aspect of our lives that does not conform to that tradition. Which reminds me that we have a construction project starting soon - we need to find a virgin to sacrifice and bury in the foundation to appease the gods and ensure the safety of construction. It's tradition!
It took a pair of Republican senators to join the other thirty one in favor of allowing all citizens of New York the same marital rights; the sadness is that twenty nine remain obdurately opposed to what seems a self evident truth to all of us on this side of the line, but one can only hope that they will realize that the world belongs to all of us, even those who may not share our sexual predilections, and they deserve the same rights and freedoms as us. It is not a an act of kindness on our part, it is not our benevolent magnanimity that we finally suffer them to live like us; it is our shame that we have taken so long to recognize the reality and stop withholding what was their birthright as much as ours.
Today, New York pats itself on the back for having done the right thing. There is no point in harking back to their failures in the past, but it is nevertheless pointing out, even if it means being cavalier that they are late to the party, and that the real turning points were reached some time ago. It started in Massachusetts, but for me the biggest win was Iowa. Before Iowa, opponents of universal marriage could argue that this was a movement born in the liberal strongholds of the coastal strip and did not reflect the bedrock values of the heartland, whatever those may be and wherever that mythical place may be. But Iowa changed that. Iowa, in the heart of the Midwest can never be dismissed as a socialist bleeding heart liberal enclave. If a state epitomizes the imaginary "true" America, it may well be Iowa. Known for early primaries and corn, rather than a burning desire to right the wrongs of society, Iowa legalized universal marriage with a typically Midwestern lack of excitement, with none of the hype and noise and beating of breasts that accompanied New York's entry into the enlightened club.
I do not know which state will be next, though it seems likely that the first push will come out of New England before the conservative center begins to feel the pressure. And though marshaling logical arguments in favor of universal freedom is unlikely to win over the opponents, it is nonetheless worth addressing one of the most widely touted fallacies, that allowing same-sex marriage undermines "traditional" marriage. If one were to ask these adherents which precise tradition they yearned for, it is unlikely that they would have a common answer, for the traditions of marriage are as diverse as the cultures that spawned them. Likely though that the conservative defenders of traditional marriage believe that there is something sacred about a marriage between a man and a woman and they cling to the notion that the god they worship has sanctioned this marriage.
In fact, marriage had little to do with religion and everything to do with strictly secular and material concerns like property and money. It is no coincidence that elaborate marriage was required only amongst the upper classes and nobility of medieval Europe, and that such marriages included lengthy settlements dealing with decidedly material issues, with religious authority mostly invoked only to prevent untimely dissolution of unions that guided the destinies of the land. It's worth recalling that Henry VIII split the Catholic church because he was denied an annulment of his marriage. Mormonism, growing rapidly in America, has a traditional marriage based on polygamy; is that the "traditional" marriage opponents of modern marriage yearn towards? Ancient Jewish custom recognized polygamy, and also treated the women as mere child producing chattels, possessions of their fathers and husbands. There was a moment in early Christianity when marriage was wholly dissuaded, in favor of universal celibacy. But perhaps even the most devout traditionalists would shy away from a tradition that is not even marriage at all.
In the end, tradition is just tradition and if we do not eat as our ancestors did, nor travel as they did, nor speak as they did why should we choose one random tradition and raise it above the others and demand that it be maintained. Slavery was also a tradition, as was serfdom, and burning witches as the stake. If traditional marriage is sacred, then surely we need to simply decide which period we aspire to and throw out everything, every aspect of our lives that does not conform to that tradition. Which reminds me that we have a construction project starting soon - we need to find a virgin to sacrifice and bury in the foundation to appease the gods and ensure the safety of construction. It's tradition!
Sunday, June 5, 2011
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!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Time to Negotiate Tough - Send for Shatner or The Rock
For the past week, the biggest issue relating to the killing of Osama bin Laden has been the one no one wants to confront directly: did the Pakistani government know of bin Laden's hideout and what do we do next? It's an issue that is likely being furiously debated at the highest levels of the US government and every other level besides, including the very inefficient waiter at the pizzeria by my office who told us he was a cousin of Leon Panetta. It is equally clear that Pakistan must be pondering the same question and wondering what the fallout for them will be.
Pakistan would have us believe that they had no idea that bin Laden was hiding just a short journey from their capital, a neighbor almost to their military academy. In a nation that has suffered multiple vicious and bloody attacks by terrorists committed to destroying the status quo and Pakistani state, it certainly stretches credulity that a large compound could be maintained so openly without the slightest knowledge of the government. Now, it is likely that the Pakistani intelligence service is no KGB or secret police service, that they are far from omnipotent, no matter what the Indians and Afghans may claim, and they may not have had the ability or even the mandate to investigate that mysterious complex. But one thing that makes hiding in south Asia so difficult is the pervasive corruption. I do know that the local police would have known there was something strange about that compound and would have suspected that it was either a mujaheddin commander, either Pakistani or Afghan, or a drug dealer. In either scenario, they would have expected to be bribed to stay silent. And the most troubling question is whether they could be bribed or coerced into silence regarding the world's most wanted man, that never once did they allow the news to slip out, say in hope of snagging that American reward. If the local security forces were willing to keep secret of this magnitude from the federal government in Islamabad, that may be far scarier than the possibility that the government was sheltering bin Laden. It suggests that even in a seemingly peaceful oasis, the government writ has ceased to run and from greed or fear, the local authorities answer to a different power. For the safety and survival of the Pakistani state, we must hope that is not so.
For the same reason, it is time for India and Afghanistan to face the truth they would rather not: fun as it is to crow over Pakistan's discredited government, we all need that government to remain stable and survive for none of us want to see a failed state with nucleur weapons in the hands of the boldest rather than the sanest claimant. There is but a small window of opportunity now and it will take the greatest act of statecraft since Disraeli bought the Suez canal, but the US must seek to bring Pakistan, Afghanistan and India to the table together. India has till now resisted all attempts to engage with Pakistan on the larger issues of the region, retreating into a shell of Cold War hostility and knee jerk reactions, opposing even having Special Envoy Holbrook's title mention them at all. But India is deluding themselves, as much as the US does. The three countries, linked by common heritage that predates even the Mughal invasion of the Indian subcontinent, cannot address their issues bilaterally, when the issues go way beyond bilateral interests.
India likes to see all issues with Pakistan through the prism of their conflict over Kashmir. Afghanistan sees Pakistan interference in the Pushtun areas as a mischievous precursor to annexing the southern provinces. And so India plays Afghanistan against Pakistan, cultivating the Tajik and Uzbeks against the Pushtun south, while Pakistan supports a pushtun based insurgency against the Afghan government to remain relevant in Afghanistan. Back in 2001, the US offered Pakistan a stark choice, to join our war on the Taliban or become our enemy. We forced them to drop their tool against India, the strategic depth they desired and then were surprised when they kept their back channels open to their erstwhile clients. We offered the Pakistani government military aid in return, but in doing so we robbed them of all legitimacy in the eyes of their people. And with each drone strike, we further emasculate their government, even as we destroy common enemies. It is this failure to appreciate the nuances of the south Asian imbroglio that has most hampered US interests. We asked Pakistan to act against their own perceived strategic interests to further our own needs and never stopped to ask what the cost for them would be, And equally strangely, we pretended that a dictator ruling by proclamation represented the will of Pakistan when he paid lip service to our demands.
The only way to solve this problem is by ending the three way struggle between India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. By now, even Pakistan's most chauvinistic leaders must know that they will never gain all of Kashmir, just as the most bloody minded Indian knows that no matter what they call the northern part of Kashmir under Pakistani rule, it's never becoming a part of India. And no matter how much they harp on the UN mandated plebiscite, at this stage India knows that no Kashmiri north of the Line of Control is going to vote to join India. Since neither nation is going to give up territory to the other, much less allow an independent Kashmiri nation, it's time for them to quit pretending and convert the Line of Control into a permanent border. Once they drop claims on each other's territory, it will be a lot easier to stop supporting insurgencies in the opponent, and the need to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan will also decrease. If Pakistan accepts that they no longer need the strategic depth to the north, and India no longer seeks to encircle Pakistan, it will become a more straightforward battle in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, there are deeply entrenched attitudes that will make such a bargain difficult to achieve. Pakistan has since its inception worked on the assumption that India seeks to destroy them; the claim on Kashmir is as old. Changing that mindset is only part of the challenge, since even an elected government must now fear the reactions of the fundamentalists as well as the military whose very raison d'etre is based on the existential threat of India. A bargain would have to involve the government as well as most of the centrist opposition. Winning over the military is best achieved by clearly showing them the cold hard facts and their own interests rather than trying to bribe them as we've done over and over in the past. India is no easier to deal with, stuck in some ways in Cold war prickliness to any American "interference". But in reality, few Indians want the rest of Kashmir as part of India - the last thing they want is more Muslims, much less a group that has no wish to be in India. Strategic needs have long since receded - after all, India has managed without Kashmir for most of its life as an independent nation and the current generation do not even know a time when Kashmir was not a bomb wracked battleground. The diplomatic equivalent of a hard shake and a presentation of harsh reality may actually be so unusual an experience for India that it just might work. And secretly, both India and Pakistan know that their continued conflict helps no one and costs both of them enormously in lost economic possibilities. It's not going to be easy, but if we want to ever get out of Afghanistan and not see another bin Laden rise, we're going to have to engage all the players, even those, like India, who want to pretend that they aren't playing.
Pakistan would have us believe that they had no idea that bin Laden was hiding just a short journey from their capital, a neighbor almost to their military academy. In a nation that has suffered multiple vicious and bloody attacks by terrorists committed to destroying the status quo and Pakistani state, it certainly stretches credulity that a large compound could be maintained so openly without the slightest knowledge of the government. Now, it is likely that the Pakistani intelligence service is no KGB or secret police service, that they are far from omnipotent, no matter what the Indians and Afghans may claim, and they may not have had the ability or even the mandate to investigate that mysterious complex. But one thing that makes hiding in south Asia so difficult is the pervasive corruption. I do know that the local police would have known there was something strange about that compound and would have suspected that it was either a mujaheddin commander, either Pakistani or Afghan, or a drug dealer. In either scenario, they would have expected to be bribed to stay silent. And the most troubling question is whether they could be bribed or coerced into silence regarding the world's most wanted man, that never once did they allow the news to slip out, say in hope of snagging that American reward. If the local security forces were willing to keep secret of this magnitude from the federal government in Islamabad, that may be far scarier than the possibility that the government was sheltering bin Laden. It suggests that even in a seemingly peaceful oasis, the government writ has ceased to run and from greed or fear, the local authorities answer to a different power. For the safety and survival of the Pakistani state, we must hope that is not so.
For the same reason, it is time for India and Afghanistan to face the truth they would rather not: fun as it is to crow over Pakistan's discredited government, we all need that government to remain stable and survive for none of us want to see a failed state with nucleur weapons in the hands of the boldest rather than the sanest claimant. There is but a small window of opportunity now and it will take the greatest act of statecraft since Disraeli bought the Suez canal, but the US must seek to bring Pakistan, Afghanistan and India to the table together. India has till now resisted all attempts to engage with Pakistan on the larger issues of the region, retreating into a shell of Cold War hostility and knee jerk reactions, opposing even having Special Envoy Holbrook's title mention them at all. But India is deluding themselves, as much as the US does. The three countries, linked by common heritage that predates even the Mughal invasion of the Indian subcontinent, cannot address their issues bilaterally, when the issues go way beyond bilateral interests.
India likes to see all issues with Pakistan through the prism of their conflict over Kashmir. Afghanistan sees Pakistan interference in the Pushtun areas as a mischievous precursor to annexing the southern provinces. And so India plays Afghanistan against Pakistan, cultivating the Tajik and Uzbeks against the Pushtun south, while Pakistan supports a pushtun based insurgency against the Afghan government to remain relevant in Afghanistan. Back in 2001, the US offered Pakistan a stark choice, to join our war on the Taliban or become our enemy. We forced them to drop their tool against India, the strategic depth they desired and then were surprised when they kept their back channels open to their erstwhile clients. We offered the Pakistani government military aid in return, but in doing so we robbed them of all legitimacy in the eyes of their people. And with each drone strike, we further emasculate their government, even as we destroy common enemies. It is this failure to appreciate the nuances of the south Asian imbroglio that has most hampered US interests. We asked Pakistan to act against their own perceived strategic interests to further our own needs and never stopped to ask what the cost for them would be, And equally strangely, we pretended that a dictator ruling by proclamation represented the will of Pakistan when he paid lip service to our demands.
The only way to solve this problem is by ending the three way struggle between India, Afghanistan and Pakistan. By now, even Pakistan's most chauvinistic leaders must know that they will never gain all of Kashmir, just as the most bloody minded Indian knows that no matter what they call the northern part of Kashmir under Pakistani rule, it's never becoming a part of India. And no matter how much they harp on the UN mandated plebiscite, at this stage India knows that no Kashmiri north of the Line of Control is going to vote to join India. Since neither nation is going to give up territory to the other, much less allow an independent Kashmiri nation, it's time for them to quit pretending and convert the Line of Control into a permanent border. Once they drop claims on each other's territory, it will be a lot easier to stop supporting insurgencies in the opponent, and the need to fight a proxy war in Afghanistan will also decrease. If Pakistan accepts that they no longer need the strategic depth to the north, and India no longer seeks to encircle Pakistan, it will become a more straightforward battle in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, there are deeply entrenched attitudes that will make such a bargain difficult to achieve. Pakistan has since its inception worked on the assumption that India seeks to destroy them; the claim on Kashmir is as old. Changing that mindset is only part of the challenge, since even an elected government must now fear the reactions of the fundamentalists as well as the military whose very raison d'etre is based on the existential threat of India. A bargain would have to involve the government as well as most of the centrist opposition. Winning over the military is best achieved by clearly showing them the cold hard facts and their own interests rather than trying to bribe them as we've done over and over in the past. India is no easier to deal with, stuck in some ways in Cold war prickliness to any American "interference". But in reality, few Indians want the rest of Kashmir as part of India - the last thing they want is more Muslims, much less a group that has no wish to be in India. Strategic needs have long since receded - after all, India has managed without Kashmir for most of its life as an independent nation and the current generation do not even know a time when Kashmir was not a bomb wracked battleground. The diplomatic equivalent of a hard shake and a presentation of harsh reality may actually be so unusual an experience for India that it just might work. And secretly, both India and Pakistan know that their continued conflict helps no one and costs both of them enormously in lost economic possibilities. It's not going to be easy, but if we want to ever get out of Afghanistan and not see another bin Laden rise, we're going to have to engage all the players, even those, like India, who want to pretend that they aren't playing.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Playing the Wet Blanket....As Usual
It is the unfortunate but vital task of killjoys to shine at moments when most people would like them to fade away and hide. This week, as Osama bin Laden was executed in a scene that came straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, it was obvious that it was time to get out the old water hose and reprise the familiar wet blanket impersonation.
When I saw the first headlines, I thrilled and exulted as much as anyone around. While bin Laden never threatened me personally and I didn't lose any relatives to his terror, nor risked that loss, he has declared a war on the West in general, and the USA in particular and having chose to make my domicile in these more temperate climes, I consider his declaration of war a threat to my personal comfort at the very least. I never believed he could win, unless his intended opponents allowed him to win through fear; there were moments when I feared that America would hand the man greater success than his achievements ever warranted. Fear was what bin Laden dealt in, and America increased his stock and infamy every time they reacted in fear to the actions of his minions. America striped herself of freedom and dignity in a vain attempt to guard themselves against a terrorist who actually posed almost no threat whatsoever, and for that I help bin Laden responsible. He did not cancel our rights against government eavesdropping or spirit us away to secret prisons, but he inspired a fear in the population at large that condoned such actions in a false search for safety. He was the boogieman, the monster under the bed at night, and missteps had built him to a level that only defeat or capture could ever change that mindset. My one fear, greater than any fear of another terrorist attack, was that he would die quietly in hiding and we would never vanquish our fear of him.
And so when I heard that a US commando raid had invested him in a few pound of parabellum and stamped his exit visa, as I said, I was happy. Bin Laden finally got to personally experience the martyrdom he craved for others and that alone was cause for happiness. Not flag waving, chest thumping happy - for one thing thumping my chest leads only to a dull cottony sound, and I leave that atavistic form of behavior to our great ape cousins, while descending into the streets waving the flag to which I nominally owe allegiance would likely get me shot, something I fear I may be allergic to. As the news spread and scenes of tumultuous celebrations poured in, I began to feel a sense of disquiet. This was not the mature closure I hoped for, this was Rome watching Vercingetorix in chains and screaming for blood. To be sure there was plenty of restraint on display, but on every forum they were jostled equally by jingoistic posts claiming exceptionalism, and damning bin Laden to the innermost circles of hell.
President Obama spoke, as always, in measured terms, striking a great balance between triumph and somber realism, but his words were largely drowned out in the din from the population in general and the talking heads of television and politicians fighting for a share of the reflected glory. Two issues struck me above all. Firstly, this was almost universally declared an act of justice and it fell to a lone writer at Slate.com to point out that this was anything but. Amazingly, for a man declared our most wanted terrorist, bin Laden was never charged with the attack on the World Trade Center, much less tried and sentenced for his crimes. To be sure, he claimed personal responsibility, but so do terrorists often for the acts of others. And that omission by our arm of justice troubles me of many levels. If we intended to capture bin Laden, as George Bush promised immediately after the Towers fell, what would we do to him? Were we so afraid of a single man that we were going to lock him away in a secret prison to never see the light of day again? What does that say for us as a nation and a people that a scruffy old man, with little charisma and no towering intellect, terrifies us to the point that we would not dare try him for the crimes we accuse him of committing? Do we accept the concept of two levels of justice, one for citizens and another one for people who scare us? Today that person is bin Laden, but it could be expanded to include others, as it has in the past. We were too scared to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and forced the Obama administration to drop their plans to finally try the one terrorist we had from the WTC attack. We locked away dozens if not hundreds of suspected al Qaida supporters - not all terrorists mind, just supporters - and took years to determine if they were even threats to us. Sixty years ago, we locked up thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in an action that was eventually acknowledged to be wrong, yet we've not learned from Roosevelt's admonition that there is nothing to fear than fear itself. We tried Slobodan Milosevic for his crimes in Kosovo on the reasoning that shining a light on his barbaric actions would rob them of the power to terrorize and would bring liberation and closure to his victims. But in the end, for all our brashness and chants of "USA" and braggadocio, we were as scared of bin Laden as the puniest kid confronted by a bully in a dark street. Killing bin Laden exorcised our fears for a day, but the near hysteria in our reaction is a pointer to the deeper fears that will only be buried and never confronted.
The other troubling factor was the return of the supporters of torture. They still dance around the term and hide behind the fig leaf of "enhanced interrogation techniques" but I fear very much that the day when America accepts torture as a legitimate police action has just become so much closer. When the debate first began, torture was justified in vague terms about the need to collect urgent actionable information that would save American lives. It was easy to blast aside traditionalists by invoking the safety of these imaginary victims; who would shed tears for a few dirty terrorists when their hours of pain would save lives? It was impossible to prove that torture was not needed, because the debate was argued within the framework defined by the supporters of Torquemada. But till now they shied away from calling torture by its true name and cited it only as a final resort to be used in direst need. Last week, they were emboldened to claim that the execution of bin Laden was justification for torture in wider circumstances. If torture of al Qaida operatives in 2007 led the SEAL team to his lair four long years later, that alone should suggest that it was never needed in first place. that there was never the urgency that was used to justify it in first place. Add in the fact the actual actionable intelligence was collected not under torture, but months later by regular interrogation and one would imagine that the case for torture would be weaker than before. Yet in a bizarre reflection of the world we live in, just the fact that the men who gave up information on bin Laden had been tortured at some point previously is now justification that torture works. It doesn't, and this should prove it. More importantly, we should be rejecting torture as a method, irrespective of its efficacy. Today it's a technique talked about in the abstract, to be used against unknown others, who are mostly Muslim, Arab and non-American citizens, but when we legitimize the idea we open the door for all of us to share that fate in future. And by then it will be too late to object.
When I saw the first headlines, I thrilled and exulted as much as anyone around. While bin Laden never threatened me personally and I didn't lose any relatives to his terror, nor risked that loss, he has declared a war on the West in general, and the USA in particular and having chose to make my domicile in these more temperate climes, I consider his declaration of war a threat to my personal comfort at the very least. I never believed he could win, unless his intended opponents allowed him to win through fear; there were moments when I feared that America would hand the man greater success than his achievements ever warranted. Fear was what bin Laden dealt in, and America increased his stock and infamy every time they reacted in fear to the actions of his minions. America striped herself of freedom and dignity in a vain attempt to guard themselves against a terrorist who actually posed almost no threat whatsoever, and for that I help bin Laden responsible. He did not cancel our rights against government eavesdropping or spirit us away to secret prisons, but he inspired a fear in the population at large that condoned such actions in a false search for safety. He was the boogieman, the monster under the bed at night, and missteps had built him to a level that only defeat or capture could ever change that mindset. My one fear, greater than any fear of another terrorist attack, was that he would die quietly in hiding and we would never vanquish our fear of him.
And so when I heard that a US commando raid had invested him in a few pound of parabellum and stamped his exit visa, as I said, I was happy. Bin Laden finally got to personally experience the martyrdom he craved for others and that alone was cause for happiness. Not flag waving, chest thumping happy - for one thing thumping my chest leads only to a dull cottony sound, and I leave that atavistic form of behavior to our great ape cousins, while descending into the streets waving the flag to which I nominally owe allegiance would likely get me shot, something I fear I may be allergic to. As the news spread and scenes of tumultuous celebrations poured in, I began to feel a sense of disquiet. This was not the mature closure I hoped for, this was Rome watching Vercingetorix in chains and screaming for blood. To be sure there was plenty of restraint on display, but on every forum they were jostled equally by jingoistic posts claiming exceptionalism, and damning bin Laden to the innermost circles of hell.
President Obama spoke, as always, in measured terms, striking a great balance between triumph and somber realism, but his words were largely drowned out in the din from the population in general and the talking heads of television and politicians fighting for a share of the reflected glory. Two issues struck me above all. Firstly, this was almost universally declared an act of justice and it fell to a lone writer at Slate.com to point out that this was anything but. Amazingly, for a man declared our most wanted terrorist, bin Laden was never charged with the attack on the World Trade Center, much less tried and sentenced for his crimes. To be sure, he claimed personal responsibility, but so do terrorists often for the acts of others. And that omission by our arm of justice troubles me of many levels. If we intended to capture bin Laden, as George Bush promised immediately after the Towers fell, what would we do to him? Were we so afraid of a single man that we were going to lock him away in a secret prison to never see the light of day again? What does that say for us as a nation and a people that a scruffy old man, with little charisma and no towering intellect, terrifies us to the point that we would not dare try him for the crimes we accuse him of committing? Do we accept the concept of two levels of justice, one for citizens and another one for people who scare us? Today that person is bin Laden, but it could be expanded to include others, as it has in the past. We were too scared to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and forced the Obama administration to drop their plans to finally try the one terrorist we had from the WTC attack. We locked away dozens if not hundreds of suspected al Qaida supporters - not all terrorists mind, just supporters - and took years to determine if they were even threats to us. Sixty years ago, we locked up thousands of Americans of Japanese descent in an action that was eventually acknowledged to be wrong, yet we've not learned from Roosevelt's admonition that there is nothing to fear than fear itself. We tried Slobodan Milosevic for his crimes in Kosovo on the reasoning that shining a light on his barbaric actions would rob them of the power to terrorize and would bring liberation and closure to his victims. But in the end, for all our brashness and chants of "USA" and braggadocio, we were as scared of bin Laden as the puniest kid confronted by a bully in a dark street. Killing bin Laden exorcised our fears for a day, but the near hysteria in our reaction is a pointer to the deeper fears that will only be buried and never confronted.
The other troubling factor was the return of the supporters of torture. They still dance around the term and hide behind the fig leaf of "enhanced interrogation techniques" but I fear very much that the day when America accepts torture as a legitimate police action has just become so much closer. When the debate first began, torture was justified in vague terms about the need to collect urgent actionable information that would save American lives. It was easy to blast aside traditionalists by invoking the safety of these imaginary victims; who would shed tears for a few dirty terrorists when their hours of pain would save lives? It was impossible to prove that torture was not needed, because the debate was argued within the framework defined by the supporters of Torquemada. But till now they shied away from calling torture by its true name and cited it only as a final resort to be used in direst need. Last week, they were emboldened to claim that the execution of bin Laden was justification for torture in wider circumstances. If torture of al Qaida operatives in 2007 led the SEAL team to his lair four long years later, that alone should suggest that it was never needed in first place. that there was never the urgency that was used to justify it in first place. Add in the fact the actual actionable intelligence was collected not under torture, but months later by regular interrogation and one would imagine that the case for torture would be weaker than before. Yet in a bizarre reflection of the world we live in, just the fact that the men who gave up information on bin Laden had been tortured at some point previously is now justification that torture works. It doesn't, and this should prove it. More importantly, we should be rejecting torture as a method, irrespective of its efficacy. Today it's a technique talked about in the abstract, to be used against unknown others, who are mostly Muslim, Arab and non-American citizens, but when we legitimize the idea we open the door for all of us to share that fate in future. And by then it will be too late to object.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)