Welcome to the global jihad

Canadians try to digest the idea of terrorist plotting in Canada...and aimed toward Canadian targets.

Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Transforming Risk Into Opportunity

An excellent expose on a couple of class A crooks who bilked the government, screwed over their employees, and still can't seem to see what they did wrong.

WSJ.com - Bush's Competitiveness Agenda Is Tested

The WSJ takes a closer look at issues delaying the implementation of Bush's "Competitiveness Agenda" - and includes an interesting graphic disputing some of the biggest worries regarding China and India:

Voters opt for change in S. Korea | csmonitor.com

Interesting political sea change in South Korea. Although the last change of leadership (from conservative to liberal) was a close-run thing, Western press has typically dwelled upon what is often referred to as rising anti-Americanism within South Korea.

Although I saw a great deal of national pride, a bit of racial pride, and a softening in the general attitude toward North Korea while I was living in Seoul, I never saw much in the way of deeply (or widely) felt anti-Americanism (other than the occasional student riots around military bases or the US Embassy downtown).

These and future elections may offer better clarity on just where the Korean silent majority truly stands right now.

Bush energy plan whacks conservation | csmonitor.com

I have mixed feelings on this one. I agree with the CATO statement from the article that many of the strict energy efficiency programs will likely develop from private investment as energy costs increase and it begins to make more sense for businesses to adopt different policies and develop different products to deal with the new reality.

As for distributed energy...I think it's a great idea, a great program, and doomed without government support because large energy companies are likely to use their leverage to prevent smaller companies (or individuals) from breaking into their turf.

This could grow even bigger, I'm sure

Imagine home schooling networks hiring tutors to instruct larger blocs of children on subjects outside of parents' expertise. With some polishing, this could allow students or their parents to build very customized courses of study that would likely be unavailable within the majority of public schools - a further dent in the mass production model of education.

Low prices, as the article mentions, certainly bring more tutoring expertise down to a lower income class. That's a point that is hard to argue.

As usual, those who would be most harmed by a system that expanded choice down more deeply into the middle class price range would be the lowest classes - those who are often at the mercy of underfunded public schools, low-quality teachers (and their union that would resist supporting a tutor system that undercuts their own role - even if they often fill it poorly), and parents either too uneducated themselves or too busy to make smart decisions in preparing their children for the future.

I would imagine these low cost tutoring programs would benefit low income students the most if aggressively utilized by public schools...a very unlikely occurrence if the teachers' union has its way.

The ultimate in simplified welfare?

Over at TCS Daily, Tim Worstall discusses the idea (not for the first time...) of a simplified welfare system that strips away all of the agencies designed to provide aid to the poor and simply doles out cash - in the case of the article $10k per adult. It sounds reasonable, fits in well with the libertarian ideals of simplified government while dealing with the reality that there will always be some method of income redistribution within the United States.

The problem? Well, he actually sums it up in the last line of his work...probably without realizing it:

The Plan reduces the perverse incentives of the current system. And best of all, it will cause mass unemployment amongst bureaucrats.

Exactly. Mass unemployment amongst bureaucrats...who also happen to be backed by a powerful union. Who also believe that their jobs are some of the most 'stable' available within the United States as our economy shifts gears to compete with the rest of the world. Many of the jobs he waves away are, at heart, welfare themselves. Jobs with little accountability, few responsibilities, and a guaranteed advancement often irrespective of performance.

The Moderate Voice - T-Shirt Controversies Put Capitol Police On S-List

The Moderate Voice presents a well-reasoned discussion on the issue(s) surrounding Cindy Sheehan's removal from the State of the Union address. A couple things I think are off base in the post, however.

#1 Let's keep in mind that cops are cops. They are generally conservative, they are generally inclined to overreact to what they perceive as threats to "public order" and, like any other people, they are prone to occasionally misinterpret guidance they receive to fit their own notions.

Trying to turn this back on to the Administration is similar to the efforts to tie all of the fault in the federal response to Katrina back to one man. It can't be done. It shouldn't be done. It ignores the realities of human nature.

#2 Just because the blogosphere is 'self correcting' doesn't mean individuals within the blogosphere are self correcting. That's never been the case. The correction is supposed to come from the rapid responses from sites like this when they see errors have been made. If we expect anything more than that...well, we're just going right back to ignoring the realities of human nature.

Managing information in the age of unlimited information

Dan links together two excellent (but long) articles dealing with the management of information in the age of unlimited information. It reminds me of my own efforts to sort through these issues. I’ve blogged about the idea of competing worldviews and the easiness with which folks can now gather information to support their conclusions, the different worldviews expressed by different cultures’ media sources, and discussed the idea of a “Global Umma” – the idea of a large sub-culture built around religious beliefs and tied together through technology. Their views are guided by the lens through which their larger community chooses to view the world. When we see Islamic communities within Europe that refuse to adopt the standards, practices, or beliefs of their adopted homes, we are seeing an example of this subculture taken to the extreme where they feel the government has less power to influence their lives than their chosen subculture. Below is a brief sampling from my discussion of the developing Global Umma (simply one example of many fast-developing sub-cultures that create more “ties that bind” than the state):

Since the end of the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, several events have served to further bind the Islamic world community together, while continuing the Islamic resurgence. These include continuing violence between Palestinians and Israelis; continued repression in undemocratic countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as leaders act to prevent a repeat of the Iranian revolution; the September 11, 2001 attacks on America; and the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Perhaps most importantly, members of the Umma can increasingly take advantage of global communications technology to share ideas, views, goals, and concerns across any distance. Issues that in the past would have been of nothing more than regional concern now take on international importance as members of the Umma reach out to other Muslims across the globe. As Daniel Pipes elaborates,

"Unity among Muslims is the paramount political goal of Islam. Ideally, a single state should extend the breadth of Dar al-Islam; failing this, Muslim governments should be at peace with each other. The many differences between believers - geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, racial, tribal, class, and ideological - must not prevent them from viewing each other as brethren in faith, nor should it get in the way of friendly, cooperative, and peaceable relations. Islam acknowledges the variety of its adherents but ascribes them no political significance; the chasm separating Muslims from non-Muslims alone matters - and it affects all politics."

Regional differences, the practical reality of distance between states dominated by Muslims, and the majority belief among Muslims that war is not an acceptable answer preclude the notion of a single Islamic state. However, the resurgence of a Muslim identity that carries greater loyalty than the bonds to political bodies or nations; the global information revolution; and the weakening of authority this engenders in nation-states create an environment in which the 'the Umma' serves as a powerful non-governmental organization capable of swaying the decisions of governments across the globe. While there are no official 'leaders' of this organization, there are individuals, nations, and organizations (many of which have been covered in the previous pages) able to profoundly influence this body through their actions and ideas.

But is placing subculture above predominant culture or State really that unusual anymore? Not really. In fact, Martin Van Creveld wrote an entire book in which he discusses the decline of the state.

In the end, it comes down to people attempting to figure out just how to deal with the information available…and what all that information really means. The running debate between Google and Yahoo right now revolves around how to filter the information. For Google, it’s all about employing technology. For Yahoo, it’s about social networking – picking those whom we trust to help us manage information and shape into something coherent.

THIS is what we call propaganda...?

Look...I understand the concerns regarding 'telling the truth' but we have to look closely at how war is waged in the world we exist in today. A factual story that provides a more favorable view of the Iraqi government and U.S. actions is considered bad? WTF?

I have an idea. Let's take a look (with the help of Bill Roggio at ThreatsWatch.org) at the recent stories regarding an "Uprising in Ramadi" so we can see what propaganda and false reporting REALLY look like:

The reported “mini-Tet offensive” in Ramadi has turned out to be less than accurate. In fact, it has been anything but. The Associated Press reported a massive citywide insurgent attack, and Reuters and other news outlets quickly picked up on the story.

Captain Jeffery Pool, Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division, disputed the claims in the harshest of terms, and rebuked the media for its mis characterization of events. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse.”

So...is it worse to pay Iraqi papers to run stories that present the Iraqi government and American forces in a positive light...or to run stories that are blatantly false based on information provided by an enemy that feels no need to be constrained by the truth...?

Tags:

Iraq
propaganda
journalism