Some words of Christian wisdom from John Danforth

So how much of this will fall on deaf ears? How much will generate heated (likely accusatory) responses from the "holier than thou" crowd? My favorite parts:

In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

[...]

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

[...]

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two. To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

Amen, Mr. Danforth.

Telling it like it is....

I read an interesting report from Marketwatch today. Now...I'm no economist (matter of fact, I'm about as far from an economist as one can get...but that's beside the point). But I DO have an eye and an ear for history. From that perspective, I find the blunt message, buried in the midst of another review of jobs data, quite interesting:

What might the markets be seeing that most of the rest of us, at least consciously, are overlooking? Richard Russell, editor of Dow Theory Letters, believes at least part of the answer traces ultimately to the disparity between wages in this country and what is paid to workers elsewhere in the world.

"China, India and Asia have suddenly entered the global economy, and they confront us with a huge disparity in wages, an enormous, willing work force, and steadily rising skills and technical know-how. Plus, I should add, a fierce work ethic almost unknown in the US and Europe today. Asians don't work for the good life or for luxuries. At this stage of history, Asians (China, India, Asia) work for three meals a day to survive."

As a result, Russell is sure that "the standard of living in the West will decline, while the standard of living in Asia will rise. There's going to be what I call 'the great equalization.' At first it may be subtle, almost invisible, but in due time it's going to burst out into the open. It has to. To my mind, what I say in this paragraph is as sure as two and two equals four."

Hey...there are people out there who have not gained from the wealth generated by Western nations since the colonial period of European history. Now, the playing field is leveling and the natural effect is obvious: talented people who are willing to work hard are rising to the top. If they also happen to consider $3000 per year a great salary (as opposed to $30,000), then the work is going to go there. With time, wages will continue to rise - as wages begin to stagnate in the richer nations. So is the answer economic nationalism? An attempt to dig in and prevent wages from rising in those countries? I think not. In the end, that's not much of a choice anymore anyway. Globalization has tied to economies of too many countries too tightly together for nations to begin erecting high trading barriers. Of course, now we move out of the realm of spotting historical trends and into the realm of presenting approaches designed to deal as best we can with this levelling. I imagine I'll have to leave that to the economists....

Highlighting the difficulties

I read an interesting report on the progress of the Iraqi Army in the WaPost today. The reporters went out with a 'unit' of Iraqis from Baiji. As I would have expected from one of the 'homegrown' units raised from within Sunni territory, the unit is a mess. Unfortunately, unless those same Post reporters spend more time viewing the progress of the Iraqi army as a whole, they will only be reporting a small piece of the story.

Depending on where one visits...and where/how the individual Iraqi units were trained, the story can be quite different. Those units trained, equipped, and organized in Baghdad over the last few months are quite professional, with a core of good leaders who understand their mandate and what is at stake. For those units hastily formed prior to about 6 months ago, life is hard. The units are poorly trained and disciplined. They are under-equipped. If stationed near their homes, their lives and the lives of their families are constantly at risk.

For those 'recruited' from locales in which the insurgency runs strong, the job means little more than a paycheck...and views of the U.S. are skewed by their perception of Saddam's era as positive. The story from those units recruited from Shia and Kurd regions...or from the newer units that have been properly trained, equipped, and integrated is entirely different. And until more of those 'real' units complete training and begin taking their place in the order of battle, U.S. soldiers are left doing what they can with the hostile audience described in the Post story.

So what does all that mean? #1, it means the Post story only covers a fraction of the issues over here. #2, it means there is still a long way to go in establishing Iraqi sovereignty in traditional insurgent strongholds. #3, it means we are likely to see a continuing string of negative stories by reporters exposed to the weak units - or seeking the weak units out as they seek to provide a 'truth' they suspect is lacking from official military information sources. #4, it means the 'truth,' once again, lies somewhere in the middle. Iraqi security forces have become more proficient. It has been a slow process. There are currently setbacks to counter many of the gains made. But, at least in Baghdad, the tide is beginning to turn. And as Baghdad turns, we can expect morale to increase among Iraqi forces.

All that being said, in many neighborhoods where memories of Saddam are not quite so 'glorious' (to put it lightly), the ultimate 'unprejudiced authority' remains U.S. or other MNF troops. Until more Iraqis start to believe in their own security forces (and are given reason to do so), the fight remains difficult. We will never build an army in Iraq to rival our own - or likely even to rival the army being built in Afghanistan. The factionalism remains too strong, the distrust of central authority (be it the U.S. or the transitional government) remains too deep, and the cultural divide too broad. That DOESN'T mean we can't plant the seeds for a stable, democratic Iraq...it just means the 'tree' that sprouts from those seeds will take some extra nourishing, even as it grows in directions we never expected.

Bring it on

MSNBC posted a story (from AP) regarding a possible offer of amnesty for Iraq's "homegrown" insurgents (in contrast to foreign jihadis). Also included within the story was a "live vote" - in favor? Opposed? No opinion? Surprisingly, 42% were opposed. Me? Full support, baby. As many in the military here understand, this war isn't going to be won through military action (on either the part of the insurgents or the Coalition). It's going to be 'won' by people who make a deal to bring an end to Iraqi vs. Iraqi fighting. The winners will be Iraqis allowed to give peace and reconciliation a chance...AND the U.S. if we are able to withdraw, leaving the country in the hands of a stable government anchored by support from Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd alike. I'm sure there will be ugly compromises necessary to cement such a deal - but peacemaking is all about ugly compromises. No one gets exactly what they wanted...if they did, there probably wouldn't have been such serious disagreements that one side or the other chose to take up arms, right? On another note, I'm tired of listening to the stories from the press regarding a 'slip into chaos' in Iraq. The country is far more stable than it was a year ago - and generally improving. The insurgents have been forced from direct confrontation in most provinces back to hit and run terror attacks. People have increasingly begun to turn to both Iraqi security forces and Coalition forces as a source of protection and support - the insurgents offer no coherent political solution. The worst damage being done is caused by extremists from out of the country - but even they are forced to fall back on a terror campaign designed more to gather news coverage than actually convince Iraq's populace that they have a chance of 'winning' anything other than martyrdom. So...yes. I vote yes. Let's figure out a way to bring the Sunnis into the big tent, go after the suicidal jihadis seeking to prevent any degree of law and order so they can ease their sexual frustrations in 'paradise,' and start getting Americans home with the pride of looking back on a mission accomplished rather than a mission abandoned.

Tags:

Iraq
Insurgency
Amnesty

Quite the read

I just finished reading Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat. Great book...and I'm not just saying that because I find that many of the ideas he expresses I've touched upon in my previous blog entries. Hey...great minds think alike. AND me and Tom. Er, right?

One thing I'm sure critics will take issue with (or perhaps already have) is that he only talks to the people who already have the skill sets, education, and smarts to survive and adapt in a rapidly changing world. Makes for great success stories to illustrate his points...but it doesn't necessarily help those who don't have the resources, faculties, time, or abilities to constantly adapt. It's the reason you DO (contrary to his assertions) see a lot of moaning and groaning about "the good old days" among those left behind in such places as the former Soviet Union. To a lot of folks who were happy with a menial job if it meant surviving with some creature comforts, the harsh brutality of a constantly shifting work environment seems far more threatening.

When I look at the recent rejection of the EU Constitution by France and the Netherlands, the increasingly unlikely passage of the Central American Free Trade Area, and the growing anger toward China from both the EU and the US over recently lowered textile trade barriers, I can't help but think that, perhaps, the vision Tom sees is the minority view. Unfortunately, the majority view is often accompanied by surging nationalism and anger toward immigration and immigrants.

While people continue to discuss increasing the amount of government aid given to poor countries (a method of generating economic growth that has been historically ineffective), the idea that open markets will force a change in the comfortable lives of the rich West as it builds a base of prosperity in the Global South is too great a sacrifice. In other words, many are willing to ask their GOVERNMENT to make sacrifices (in terms of finding money within a limited budget to devote to foreign aid), but far fewer are willing to accept sacrifices themselves to support a method proven to pull others out of poverty.

Thomas Friedman
The World is Flat

Go with what you know, Mr. Elving.

I read an interestingly uninformed article from Ron Elving on NPR's site today. Perhaps the title of his column should help him in determining when he actually knows what he's talking about - "Watching Washington." Certainly not watching Iraq. Because if he HAD been watching Iraq (from the inside rather than from the sidelines...in Washington), he'd see the difference in the insurgency from where it stood a year ago. Throughout most of the country, direct fire attacks on coalition forces have been abandoned by the insurgents due to unacceptably high losses. IED attacks have decreased in effectiveness as better-protected vehicles have reached the theater. While last year there were large sections of Baghdad in which US forces could expect heavy contact whenever they ventured through, the threat has changed to much smaller pockets where insurgents furtively place IEDs before slipping away. What remains of the insurgency are skilled, hard-core terrorists - much smaller in number than a year ago. The favorite attack? Suicide bombers - again, largely ineffective against Coalition forces but great for convincing those on the sidelines that the battle is worsening rather than improving. The Japanese did not resort to Kamikaze attacks until other means of resistance had proven futile. Remember that point, Mr. Elving.

Oh...that's rich

Wesley "my ego is bigger than the planet" Clark has decided to weigh in on the debate concerning base closures. My favorite part of his "Hello, Mr. Kettle. My name is Pot" statement?

“Personally, I don’t like bullies,” he added. “Just because you outrank somebody doesn’t mean you don’t respect them and their judgment.”

Greed, gullibility, and Ghana

Have I got the deal of the century for you! My new-found friend Ngama just sent me this e-mail:

Dear

I got your contact during my search on the Internet. My name is Ngoma Kamara, a manager of a branch of the International Commercial Bank LTD here in Ghana. I am a Ghanaian married with two kids.

I have packaged a financial transaction that will benefit both of us. As the manager of the bank, it my duty to send financial reports to my head office also in the capital city of Accra. On the course of the last year 2003 end of the year report, I discovered that my branch (Kaneshi, First Light Branch) in which I am the manager made Two Million five Hundred Thousand US Dollars (2,500.000.00) of which my head office is not aware of and will never be aware of it. I have since then PLACED this fund on a SUSPENCE ACCOUNT without a beneficiary.

As an officer of the bank, I cannot be directly connected to this money thus I am impelled to request for your assistance to receive this money into your bank account. I intend to part 30% of this fund to you while 70% shall be for me. I do need to assure you that there are practically no risks involved in this. It going to be a bank-to-bank transfer. All I need from you is to stand as the original depositor of this fund.

If you accept this offer, I will appreciate your timely response.

With regards,

Ngoma Kamara

Wow! Sounds like a great deal, eh? Let's see what others have said in response to this offer:

I am quite flattered that you have asked me to participate in this business venture which I am very interested in. I have been somewhat dissatisfied with my life recently and am ready for some action. I went to a psychic the other day and she said I was a violent person that liked to escape from reality by watching a lot of television. Well, that pissed me off, so I promptly slapped her down, then went home and watched that annoying series “The Anna Nicole Show” for two hours. Why would I watch two hours of that stupid show to escape my reality? You know what I’m saying Ibro? Stupid psychic.

Anyway, give me some idea of what you have planned. No problem keeping this confidential. I don’t kiss and tell, right baby? Not that I’m implying I want to kiss you, just using a metaphor... sweet-cheeks.

Let’s swap spit and get this thing started (the business deal)! And give my best to your family as well.

With warmest regards,
- Ben Dogzine

P.S. My friends call me “Dog”. Please feel free to call me by this name as I now consider you a close friend....

I highly recommend visiting Dogzine and checking out the rest of the correspondence...amusing to say the least.

Tags:

Ghana Email Scam

What are you reading these days, Tim?

Good question. I just finished Not a Good Day to Die last week and I'm about halfway through The Pentagon's New Map right now. Both are great books. I imagine my next book will be something offering a counterpoint to the Core-Gap theory presented in Map.

Of flat worlds and digital citizens

Thomas Friedman has a new book out - The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. I find the premise quite interesting because it ties into something I've been noticing quite a bit recently as I've started taking a look at smaller blogs (stuff that often qualifies more as a personal journal than what is now commonly defined as a blog) from residents of places such as China and Iran.


The feeling I get when reading many of those blogs (although I am obviously limited to reading those in English) is that there is a new (and growing) class of people who are connected by the Internet, a strongly technical background, and by a common language (English). Borders mean little to these people...and for many, having always lived within an oppressive regime, government means little. They view government as a burden rather than a solution. Their lives have far more in common with other members of the "digital culture" who live across the world than with the majority of their own country. And while I've only specifically mentioned China and Iran, the same clearly applies to the US. Does a technology-savvy web designer in San Francisco have more in common with another web designer in China or Iran (or India or Korea or the Philippines for that matter) than he/she does with someone living "off the web" in rural America? I think so. And as technology progresses, it grows increasingly easy to develop stronger ties that bind between those with this common avocation than those with a common nation.


Now keep in mind...this is still a small minority we speak of. How many people read/write weblogs? How many even have access to the appropriate technology to immerse themselves in this new culture? In many ways, the race between nations has become just that...developing the necessary technical infrastructure to allow a greater number of citizens to access the tools of this culture.

But I don't think the ruling elite in many of these countries understand the consequences just yet. Why should they? Most are far too busy to see the digital connections that are growing between members of nations that are "officially" hostile to one another. They don't understand that, for many of the technically proficient members of their society, it is easier to converse with someone in another nation than with a neighbor.


I wrote a college term paper (some time ago) regarding the Islamic resurgence and the ability to forge a worldwide Umma connected through technology and shared beliefs. But for some reason, it never occurred to me that it really doesn't even take that level of shared values and beliefs to build a worldwide community these days.

Hm...I just noticed that this post is only two or three removed from a post elaborating upon the rise of nationalism within Asia. I'm not sure if this means I can't make up my mind, if it means digital citizens are a distinct minority, or if it means I've got as much of a split personality as nationalistic countries with a core of digital citizens....



Tags:

Digital Roots
Thomas Friedman
The World is Flat