Profits & Prophets

Wearing your heart on your sleeve (or wrist)

It used to be colored ribbons on your shirt or lapel.  Nowadays, everyone wears colored wristbands to indicate their support for various causes.

Though I don't tend to go for such things, I recently jumped on the bandwagon and donned a green wristband to draw attention to the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.  These wristbands aren't as widely distributed as Lance Armstrong's LIVESTRONG wristbands or the ONE wristbands so I had to order them myself.

Well, long story short, they only come in bags of 10 or more.  Though several people in my office have already claimed some of the extras, I still have four left.  If you would like me to send you one (no cost - but a donation to one of the organizations working in Darfur would be nice), just e-mail me and if you are one of the first four to respond, I will pop one in the mail to you.

America: The World's 97-lb. Weakling

Sorry I've been incommunicado so far this week - I had a new business trip to Tampa yesterday and spent Monday prepping like crazy.

On the flight back last night, I read a great article in the current issue of Fortune.  In the article, Geoffrey Colvin lays out the current economic and geopolitical situation facing the U.S. and how we are ill-prepared to maintain our world leadership in a future of globalization.  It is a very good (if unsettling) articulation of the conventional wisdom/buzz in the business world today that the U.S.'s days as economic world leader may be numbered.  The article also lays out some of the changes we need to make as a nation to reclaim a bright future.

As an aside (and as you can see on the Fortune cover), the article is illustrated with frames from the old "97-lb. weakling" advertisements that used to be in the backs of comic books in the 1970's (reworked to present the U.S. as the 97-lb. weakling and China as the beach bully).  Unfortunately, the online version is not as richly illustrated as the hard copy so get access to a hard copy if you can.

Say it ain't so, Rove

I've always thought Karl Rove is a genius.  As I watched the way he masterfully orchestrated the last election for President Bush, I commented a number of times that Rove could get the American public to elect a cinder block if he wrapped it in the American flag and set it on a Bible (extra points if he could somehow work in that it was the cornerstone of the World Trade Center).  So as more and more evidence comes to light that Rove was the source who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, I am quite literally shocked that someone as brilliant as Rove could have been so impolitic.

Equally as shocking is the hypocrisy of the conservative Republicans who have yet to call for Rove's head after such a breach of national security.  If this was a member of President Clinton's administration, the angry roar of conservatives would have echoed throughout the land.  Heck, members of my own family argued that the fact that President Clinton lied under oath about having sex with Monica Lewinsky indicated that he had no compunction about lying in general and that he was a threat to national security.

Not only are conservative pundits not calling for Rove's head, some are actually defending him.

This is just the latest example of the fact that our nation's political parties and the polarized factions they have created/been created by care more about their own agendas than the good of America.  In this case, it is the conservative Republicans who are willing to sweep a national security breach under the rug since it was committed by one of their heroes but both ends of the political spectrum are guilty of allowing their agendas to override their morals and the good of our country.

How much longer will we as a country settle for political agendas masquerading as morals?

UPDATE (7/13/05): The Republican National Committee has issued a "talking points" memo for the Party's defense of Rove.

G8 does good (but not great)

It's hard to know how much the terrorist attacks yesterday in London caused the G8 leaders to take their eyes off the ball, but as the G8 Summit wound down today, it's apparent that Tony Blair and many of us are a little disappointed with what was ultimately accomplished.  Some of the more concrete and/or higher profile results in a nutshell:

• G8 leaders agreed to double aid to Africa from $25B to $50B, but didn't go the next step to match Blair's challenge to commit 0.7 percent of their nations' incomes to foreign aid by 2015.  The EU agreed to that level of support but the U.S. balked - the U.S. is currently giving 0.16 percent of national income, the smallest percentage of any of the G8 nations.
• The leaders agreed on a deal to cancel the debt of the world's 18 poorest nations, 14 of which are in Africa.
• The G8 members agreed to work toward freer trade with poor nations, including ending farm subsidies that make it very difficult for poorer nations to export their agricultural goods to richer nations (the details will be worked out at the WTO meeting in December) - this may be more important to Africa's future than the debt relief.
• G8 leaders tried to reach a consensus on reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions, but again, Bush balked at a firm number.  On the plus side, Bush admitted that global warming is an issue and that human activity is partly to blame for climate change; positions he has previously resisted.
• The leaders committed $3-9B aid to the Palestinians which may have a positive effect on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process.

It's a shame that the G8 did not achieve the full scale of the goals that they had set out to accomplish, and an even bigger shame that the U.S., the richest of the G8 nations, was the roadblock to two of the more important goals (aid to Africa as a percentage of GNP and greenhouse gas emission reduction), but the aid and trade deals, combined with the concomitant better governance from African leaders, is a big step in the right direction for Africa.  It will be interesting to watch what happens over the next few years as a result of this G8 Summit.

Blair Ascendent, Chirac Descendent

London has won its bid to host the Summer Olympics in 2012, beating out long-time favorite Paris.  Though the exact reason for the upset remains to be determined, I wouldn't be surprised if Jacques Chirac's recent derogatory jokes about English and Finnish food left a sour taste in the IOC's mouth.

Kudos to Tony Blair for taking the high road and remaining focused on the weighty issues before him and the rest of the leaders at the G8 Summit.  You are deserving of this Olympic honor and benefit.

Though the U.K. only half-heartedly reelected Blair in his last election, his recent global leadership on issues of poverty and climate change combined with ability to secure the Olympic bid must have his constituents feeling a renewed sense of pride in their leader right now.

Jacques Chirac, on the other hand, must be feeling pretty dejected as he prepares to sit down to dinner with the other members of the G8 Summit.  On NPR this morning, I heard an e-mail from a listener in Singapore asking whether Chirac will be able to sell his agenda at the G8 since his recent track record hasn't been so good (he wasn't able to sell France on the EU Constitution or the IOC on Paris).

Land of the Free?

Sorry it has been so long since I posted - it has been crazy busy around here.  Anyway, enough excuses, let's post.

Since it has been so long since I posted, I could comment on any number of recent events:

• Cheney's comments on the tropical vacation that is Guantanamo (thank you, Akemi, for the suggestion)
• The Supreme Court's decision expanding the powers of eminent domain (thank you, Andy, for the suggestion)
• The fact that Congress won't get anything else done this Summer/year since Sandra Day O'Connor, who coincidentally was a dissenter in the eminent domain case, decided to retire
• The Deep Impact probe's rendezvous with Comet Tempel 1
• The G8 Summit
• Live 8
• Etc.

But I decided to choose a topic that's been on my mind on this day after Independence Day.

Around the 4th of July every year, we hear about how the U.S. is the "land of the free and home of the brave."  We wrap ourselves in warm thoughts of living in the most free nation on Earth.  And yet, as our nation continues to adjust to a post-9/11 world, often choosing conservative thinking and easy security over open-mindedness and the challenges of freedom, I can't help but wonder if we aren't all living some nostalgic memory of a time that has past - especially since it isn't difficult to look around the world and find societies that are equally or more free than the U.S. (e.g., Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc.).

Benjamin Franklin's words come to mind as I think about Congress debating the Patriot Act and the likelihood of President Bush nominating an ultra-conservative candidate to the Supreme Court (in the interest of a little conservative "judicial activism"):

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It is interesting to me that during Bush's presidency, I have felt the most patriotic I have ever felt (in the days and weeks after 9/11) as well as the least patriotic I have ever felt (pretty much since the 2004 election).  I know it has been said before, but the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by the 9/11 terrorists made America stronger.  It was our subsequent, small-minded reaction to that destruction that made America weaker.  To quote another great American, Pogo:

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

The Yin and Yang of Capitalism in Vietnam

President Bush is meeting with Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai today.  The main agendas will be strengthening ties between the U.S. and Vietnam, Vietnam's desire to enter the World Trade Organization and the U.S.'s desire for greater religious freedom and human rights in Vietnam.

Though Vietnam is still a communist country (with a stereotypically repressive leadership), in the past five years, it has been taking steps toward capitalism and a free market economy.  As it makes this transition, Vietnam is trying to create a society that captures the best of both communism (e.g., free education and health care) and capitalism (e.g., higher wages and standards of living). For a very interesting snapshot of the interaction between communism and capitalism in Vietnam, read this week's article from David Batstone in SojoMail, Sojourner's weekly e-newsletter (seriously, read it, you won't regret it).

Vietnam is still in the early stages of its free market experiment.  Over the next few years and decades, it will be interesting to see how well it balances the yin and yang of capitalism as well as whether pressure from global markets will have a positive or negative impact on human rights in Vietnam.

Biting the hand that feeds you

Hi folks.  As Jim Anchower would say, I know it's been a couple of days since I rapped at ya', but I've been busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest.

Anyway . . .

Apparently the Sri Lankan government has decided that it hasn't received enough bad publicity from the Sinhalese/Tamil civil war.  Today, the BBC has a story about how the government has just reinstituted import duties, which had been suspended after the December tsunami to enable aid to efficiently reach the affected populace (31,000 people were killed and half a million people were rendered homeless in Sri Lanka by the tsunami).  The problem with reinstituting the import taxes is that the relief efforts aren't complete yet. Oxfam International, for example, is still hard at work rebuilding Sri Lanka.

As a result of the reinstituted import duties, Oxfam had to pay the government $1M in fees for the Indian-manufactured vehicles they need in their reconstruction efforts.  The government's rationale?  They needed to reinstitute the duties to promote local procurement and prevent "market distortions."  Fair enough.  You don't want to complete the reconstruction of your country only to find out that you've destroyed the country's economy in the process.  To encourage the use of locally-manufactured vehicles, the Sri Lankan government is charging Oxfam import fees for their Indian vehicles.

The only problem with the government's rationale is that there are no automotive manufacturers in Sri Lanka.  Oxfam couldn't buy Sri Lankan-manufactured vehicles even if they wanted to.  This is simply the government taking advantage of terrible circumstances and the good will of the rest of the world to secure additional tax money.  Granted, the government is probably going to need additional money in the months and years to come, but this isn't the way to secure it.  This is biting the hand that feeds you.

Pakistan: A Questionable Ally in the War on Terrorism

The U.S. has a history of working with less than admirable countries and governments because they benefit our global policies in one way or another.  Recently, we supported China's entry into the WTO with little more than a hand slap for its dismal record of human rights abuses because it fit our economic interests.  We continue to support Sudan and turn a blind eye to the government-supported human rights abuses in western Sudan/Darfur because the Sudanese government is helping us in the war on terror.  Today, Nicholas Kristof reports in his New York Times column on how another ally in the war on terror, Pakistan, has decided that human rights are not a very high priority.

I first heard about Mukhtaran Bibi last year (probably in Kristof's column).  She is a woman whose brother supposedly committed a crime of some sort.  As a result of his crime, she was sentenced by a tribal council in Pakistan to be gang-raped by four men.  Afterward, she had to walk home in some state of undress in front of a taunting crowd of villagers.  The story was supposed to end with her committing suicide, but she bravely worked with a local Islamic leader to fight back, testify against her persecutors and win six convictions.

She won a fair degree of international fame as a result of her story.  She used her fame and subsequent global donations to found and expand schools, create a battered women's shelter and provide healthcare services in her village and region.

A few days ago, she was scheduled to come to the U.S. on a speaking tour but President Musharraf and the Pakistani government, in Kristof's words, "went berserk:"

On Thursday, the authorities put Ms. Mukhtaran under house arrest - to stop her from speaking out. In phone conversations in the last few days, she said that when she tried to step outside, police pointed their guns at her. To silence her, the police cut off her land line.

After she had been detained, a court ordered her attackers [the gang rapists and their supporters] released, putting her life in jeopardy. That happened on a Friday afternoon, when the courts do not normally operate, and apparently was a warning to Ms. Mukhtaran to shut up. Instead, Ms. Mukhtaran continued her protests by cellphone. But at dawn yesterday the police bustled her off, and there's been no word from her since. Her cellphone doesn't answer.

Apparently, President Musharraf doesn't want bad publicity for Pakistan and is hoping to silence Ms. Mukhtaran - she is now being held without a lawyer in a secret location in Islamabad.

How can the U.S., a nation that has a foundational document stating that, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," keep working with and even praising abusive regimes in order to achieve worthwhile goals, but goals that are less important than basic human rights?

Joe American: "The Downing Street what?"

As reported in today's Washington Post, the Downing Street Memo story continues to gain world-wide momentum even while most Americans are unaware of its existence (due to a lack of coverage by the U.S. media).

Perhaps the media's a bit reticent to take on the Bush administration after its recent highly-publicized and hyper-politicized reporting errors (e.g., Newsweek, 60 Minutes, etc.) and in the face of an American public that trusts its government more than its free press.  Or perhaps it's because none of us are very surprised by the memo's contents.