Life Question #1:

If you were determining who could immigrate here, would you let in those you thought would contribute the most to our country or those most in need of refuge?

*Note:  This is the first of many posts I will be making entitled "Life Questions".  Generally, these posts will be shorter than my regular posts.  These questions come from a book I have entitled The Book of Questions.  See it here.  The sole purpose of this book and my blog is to stimulate conversation.  Please feel free to write your comments in the section below, however short or long you'd like!  

-------

 

The best solution would be to have some of both – immigrants who could bolster our economy and those in serious need of refuge.  Because our immigration laws are so convoluted and dysfunctional, our system that doesn’t allow many people from either category in.  Ideally, I’d like to see all immigrants who study at an U.S. college or university and who have earned a graduate degree the opportunity to remain in America.  Too often we educate immigrants in our finest institutions, simply to turn them away after graduation.  They return to their home country (often in Asia) to start a new business, innovate or invent.  It’s wonderful that the U.S. still has the finest institutions of higher education in the world, but I’m afraid that won’t last long if we continue to send the best and brightest immigrants back home. If this trend continues, precocious Chinese students will decide to stay in China rather than coming to the U.S.  This would be terrible for the United States. 

With regard to the issue of refuge, I believe that the United States has a responsibility to provide refuge for those in need.  It’s easy to say that the U.S. should accept all refugees, but this isn’t realistic.  It’s probably impossible to make any comprehensive and objective requirements for the conditions that the refugees must be escaping from in order to enter our country.  Therefore, it must be treated on a subjective basis.  This is quite frustrating because it will make enforcement difficult.  Regardless, the bottom line is that some refugees will not be allowed into our country legally.  

Simply put, the issue of immigration shouldn’t be ignored.  Not only has it literally built our nation, but it continues to be one of the most important drivers of the economy.  Without it, we would have very modest population growth – like most European countries.  I think the Obama Administration would have tried to tackle the immigration issue after health care if it hadn’t inherited such a terrible economy and been impeded by Congress.  In the end, there is no easy solution.  If one existed, we’d have already found it.  

Occupy Our Homes

Throughout the past few weeks cities throughout the country have removed Occupy protesters from their encampments.  What are they going to do now?

Occupy has responded to these ejections by changing its focus from public spaces toward private property: foreclosed homes.  Recently, CNN.com published an op-ed by Sonia K Katyal and Eduardo M. Penalver.  Read it here.  They recently co-authored a book called Property Outlaws: How Squatters, Pirates and Protesters Improve the Law of Ownership.  In their article on CNN.com they argue that Occupy’s change in tactics – from occupying parks and streets to occupying foreclosed homes – might very well work to their advantage. 

One reason that this might be a successful endeavor is because it could remedy the movement’s most cited shortcoming: a lack of political agenda. Moreover, it can help connect current members of the movement to working-class Americans.  If the Occupy movement is going to be successful (it’s already changed the framework of political discussion) then it will need to have closer ties to unions and working class Americans.  Aligning their causes with foreclosed homes can help the Occupy movement to do just that. 

Possessing physical spaces has had success throughout American history.  Katyal and Penalyer argue that “a straight line runs from the 1930s sit-down strikes in Flint, Michigan, to the 1960 lunch-counter sit-ins to the occupation of Alcatraz by Native American activists in 1969 to Occupy Wall Street”.  They argue that the sit-down strikes arguably laid the groundwork for the enforcement of federal labor laws; the lunch counter sit-ins led to the enactment of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Alcatraz occupation paved the way for a milestone reversal in Federal Indian policy, leading President Nixon to support tribal self-determination.  For the sake of my country and world, I hope that the Occupy movement has these sorts of success.  We’re in desperate need of them.

-------

The Takeaway: In the end, occupying foreclosed homes might strengthen the Occupy movement by presenting a tangible political demand and forging closer ties to working-class Americans. 

Havana Nocturne: How the Mob Owned Cuba…and then Lost It to the Revolution

T.J. English’s book is a fascinating one.  It chronicles the “Havana Mob” and how they controlled most aspects of Cuba, prior to the Revolution.  In the post-World War II years Cuba received nearly $1 trillion dollars in American investment.  That’s truly incredible for a country roughly the size of Tennessee.  Unfortunately, all of this financial capital didn’t go towards ameliorating Cuba’s problems including hunger, illiteracy, subhuman housing, high infant mortality, and vast rural poverty.  Instead it was used to fill the pockets of corrupt politicians and American investors.  These two groups were commonly referred to as the “Havana Mob”. 

The book is filled with interesting anecdotes about celebrities and politicians.  One that caught my eye was a story about John F. Kennedy, then Democratic Senator from Massachusetts.   He was quickly gaining national attention for his political achievements as Senator and his Pulitzer Prize winning book Profiles in Courage. He travelled to Cuba many times, but it was his first trip that made into the pages of Havana Nocturne.  Notorious mobster Santo Trafficante knew that Kennedy had an appetite for women and decided to set him up with several prostitutes.  As it turned out, the orgy would take place in a suite at Trafficante’s Hotel Comodoro.  The mobster installed a two-way mirror that allowed Trafficante and his friends to watch Kennedy’s escapades with the prostitutes.  Trafficante later said that he regretted not filming the orgy so that he could use it for blackmail.  Yikes…

The Takeaway:  Havana Nocturne is busting at the seams with these sorts of stories.  I recommend it for everyone who’s interested in history.  It’s a fun and relatively easy read.   Enjoy!

Is Pirating a Real Problem?

Everyone scoffs at adverts before movies warning viewers of the seriousness of electronic piracy.   Are  SOPA and PIPA – two pieces of federal legislation aimed at combating this problem – the teeth that officials need to reduce piracy or do they go too far in limiting the freedom of internet users? (note: much of the following information was taken from http://bit.ly/zCsGDg)

So what exactly are SOPA and PIPA?

Media companies are always looking for new ways to fight piracy. They've tried suing individual users, getting Internet service providers to take action against subscribers, and working with the U.S. government to shut down domains based in the United States. But none of those actions can stop overseas websites like The Pirate Bay and MegaUpload from infringing copyrights, or prevent Internet users from accessing those sites.

Enter SOPA, in the U.S. House of Representatives, and PIPA, in the U.S. Senate. Both bills are aimed at foreign websites that infringe copyrighted material. The bills are commonly associated with media piracy, but may also apply to counterfeit consumer goods and medication.

Originally, both bills provided two methods for fighting copyright infringement on foreign websites. In one method, the U.S. Department of Justice could seek court orders requiring Internet service providers to block the domain names of infringing sites. For example, Comcast could prevent its customers from accessing thepiratebay.org, although the underlying IP address would still be reachable. This ISP-blocking provision was a major concern among Internet security experts, and both SOPA and PIPA have dropped it.

The other tool would allow rights holders to seek court orders requiring payment providers, advertisers, and search engines to stop doing business with an infringing site. In other words, rights holders would be able to request that funding be cut off from an infringing site, and that search links to that site be removed. The site in question would have five days to appeal any action taken.

Although the House and Senate bills are similar, SOPA is the more extreme of the two. It defines a "foreign infringing site" as any site that is "committing or facilitating" copyright infringement, whereas PIPA is limited to sites with "no significant use other than" copyright infringement.

Arguments Against SOPA and PIPA

Opponents of SOPA and PIPA believe that neither piece of legislation does enough to protect against false accusations. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation argues, provisions in the bill grant immunity to payment processors and ad networks that cut off sites based on a reasonable belief of infringement, so even if claims turn out to be false, only the site suffers.  Because this can get pretty technical, I'd suggest checking out the PCworld.com link above for more details on this. 

Meanwhile, sites that host user-generated content will be under pressure to closely monitor users' behavior. That monitoring already happens on larger sites such as YouTube, but it could be a huge liability for startups, the EFF argues.

Arguments For SOPA and PIPA

SOPA and PIPA supporters argue that tales of a broken Internet are overblown. Cary Sherman, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, writes that SOPA clearly defines infringing sites based on Supreme Court holdings and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and requires rights holders to follow a strict set of rules when trying to get payment cut off to an infringing site.

What’s Next?

Support for both bills has waned this week.   The authors of the bill have decided to remove the provisions that require Internet service providers to block the domain names of infringing sites. SOPA, has stalled.  Voting on PIPA, however, is scheduled to begin in the Senate on January 24

The Takeaway:   The idea behind SOPA and PIPA – that copyrighted content shouldn’t be stolen – is a good one. Unfortunately, the way that SOPA and PIPA are written, there could be serious unintended consequences if they were passed.   It was only a matter of time until issues like ownership and free-access collided in the cyber world.  Moving forward, this struggle will most likely continue, albeit in different forms.  However, for now it seems that SOPA and PIPA will not pass.

Back to Work

How has the America’s anti-government ethos evolved over the past four years?  

I got Bill Clinton’s new book Back to Work for Christmas and have just now been able to pop it open.  The opening section in his first chapter is wonderful.  He outlines how America’s growing opposition to the role of its own government doesn’t jive with reality.  Clinton writes that the 2010 midterm elections – which were the manifestation of such anti-government sentiments – “seemed to occur in a parallel universe of inflated rhetoric and ferocious but often inaccurate attacks that shed more heat than light”.  Republicans, or at least those that turned out for the elections, argued that the financial crash and the recession that followed, as well as the failure of the U.S. to fully recover from it less than eighteen months after the economy bottomed out, were caused by too much government taxing, spending and regulating, and that life would be restored if the government got out of our way.  As Clinton argues, these attacks were effective, but not all together accurate.  Here are three reasons why:

First, the financial meltdown happened because banks were overleveraged.  In other words, banks had too many risky investments, especially in terrible mortgages called “subprime” mortgages.  There simply wasn’t enough government oversight to prevent the banks from being too risky. If you want to understand the concept of leverage in the banking industry in two minutes click here. 

Second, the meltdown didn’t become a full-scale depression because the government acted to save the financial system from collapse.  The Federal Reserve made massive investments of about $1.2 trillion to stop the financial collapse.  Many people criticize the bailout, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), because of its cost.  In reality it didn’t cost much at all.  It was originally authorized to spend up to $700 billion.  In the end it only spent about $400 billion.  That’s still quite a bit you say?  As it turns out all of it has been paid back!  In fact, we’ve actually made a profit.  How many people walking down “main street” know this?  See Treasury article here.  Criticizing TARP for its cost just doesn’t match with reality. 

Third, according to most economic studies, the stimulus and the rescue of the auto industry succeeded in keeping unemployment 1.5 to 2 percent lower than it would have without it.  Most people inaccurately think that the stimulus was designed to restore the economy to normal levels.  This is partially the Obama Administration’s failure to effectively communicate with the America people. The stimulus wasn’t designed to do this. After the financial meltdown and damage that ensued, the total net loss was several trillion dollars.  The stimulus was $800 billion.  Once again, it wouldn’t make sense for a stimulus to return the economy to normal levels if it is less than half the size of the “hole” it’s trying to fill.  Rather, the stimulus was designed to put a floor under the collapse and begin the recovery. 

It’s an old argument now so I’ll keep it short, but it’s important to remember that those who are “anti-government” now, were painfully silent during the Bush Administration’s tenure in Washington.  They cut taxes and increased spending at roughly twice the rate that it had increased during Clinton’s eight years (thought I know these eight years were marked by unusually high economic growth for some reasons that might have been out of political control).    Also, by the end of Bush’s eight years we had doubled the national debt.  This all occurred before the financial meltdown.  I’m not writing this to blame President Bush.  I am simply asking where the anti-government enthusiasts were for those eight years.

The Takeaway:  While this is probably old news to a lot of you reading this, I bring it up because it is impossible to get out of the economic conundrum we’re in if we don’t understand how we got into it. 

World's Worst Dictators

            2011 saw the fall of four dictators: President Honsi Mubarak of Egypt, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Kim Jong-Il of North Korea.  Still, there more than 40 countries that remain under authoritarian rule.  It got me thinking.  Who are the worst of the worst?

I recently found two articles discussing this topic.  One is from Parade Magazine and can be read here.  The other is from MSNBC.com and can be read here.  I’ve decided to rearrange the order somewhat, and my results can be seen below.

Robert Mugabe, (Zimbabwe, 31 years in power): Mugabe, 87, keeps a stranglehold on his people, who face a staggering unemployment rate of more than 85%. In 2008, Mugabe agreed to hold an election, but it became clear that he would accept the result only if he won. His supporters launched attacks on the opposition, killing 163 and torturing or beating 5,000. He ultimately signed a power-sharing agreement with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, but since then Mugabe has broken its terms and installed his own people at the head of every ministry. Meanwhile, health conditions have reached crisis levels. Thousands of Zimbabweans have died from cholera in recent years.

Isaias Afewrki (Eritrea, 20 years in power): Afewerki, 65, once led Eritrea to independence, but today he deprives his citizens of all freedoms. There is no formal constitution, and every male starting at age 18 must enter “national service,” which is forced labor of indefinite length (evaders are jailed or killed). People with unsanctioned religious beliefs are imprisoned and tortured, as are journalists and activists. More than 50,000 Eritreans have escaped to refugee camps in Ethiopia. Western officials allege that Afewerki is aiding Al Qaeda–linked militants in Somalia.

Bashar al-Assad (Syria, 11 years in power): Assad, 46, a trained ophthalmologist, succeeded his father as Syria’s tyrant in chief. As part of the Arab Spring, Syrians began revolting in March, and he responded by ordering the military to bomb and fi re on crowds. Over 3,500 demonstrators (including more than 250 children) have been killed, with over 10,000 jailed or missing at press time. The U.S. and Europe have condemned Assad’s actions, imposing sanctions and calling for his resignation. In an unprecedented move, the Arab League placed economic and political sanctions of its own on member nation Syria after Assad refused to end attacks and to let in monitors.

Omar al-Bashir (Sudan, 22 years in power): Although al-Bashir, 67, took power in a bloodless coup, his reign has been marked by extreme violence. Some progress occurred in 2011—the country was successfully partitioned into two entities, Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan—but the strife continues. In regions under dispute with South Sudan, al- Bashir’s military has bombed civilians, killing untold numbers and causing at least 100,000 to flee. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has charged al-Bashir with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur, where an estimated 300,000 have been killed since 2003. The ICC also alleges that he has embezzled billions of dollars.

Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan, 21 years in power): Raised in an orphanage, Karimov, 73, rose through Communist Party ranks to control this former Soviet republic. Activists, journalists, and anyone practicing a religion other than the accepted form of Islam are often jailed, and about 7,000 prisoners are currently being held and tortured. Each fall, university students, teachers, civil servants, and children as young as 9 are forced to live in barracks and harvest cotton under in humane conditions. Karimov’s health is thought to be poor, and some believe his eldest daughter is being groomed to rule.

Thein Sein, (Myanmar, 50 years in power): Since seizing power in a coup nearly 50 years ago, a succession of juntas made up of present and former high-ranking military officials have brutally mismanaged this country and its economy, with its 55 million inhabitants living in starvation. Ethnic minorities continue to suffer—beatings, rapes, bombings, even murder—at the hands of the authorities. But recently the leaders of the Asian nation seem to be taking tiny steps in the right direction. Last year, they held elections, which, although neither free nor fair, resulted in retired General U Thein Sein becoming president and iron-fisted dictator Than Shwe stepping down. (Some observers believe that Than Shwe still wields considerable influence behind the scenes). A parliament was also convened for the first time in 20 years. What’s more, the government has somewhat eased up on the press, rebel groups, and activists like Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, who was released in November 2010 after nearly 20 years of house arrest. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton—the first American in that position to visit in nearly 50 years—traveled to Myanmar and met with Suu Kyi and with the country’s leaders about reforms and improving diplomatic relations. However, soon after she left, the government’s talks with the Kachin, a minority ethnic rebel group, fell apart, leading to violent clashes, displacing some 26,000 people, and demonstrating that any progress in Myanmar is halting and uncertain.

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, (Equatorial Guinea, 32 years in power): Mbasogo, now 69, became president after he overthrew his own uncle, another dictator, in a bloody coup. Under his rule, he has funneled the country’s wealth into private bank accounts which he and his son, the country’s current Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, spend on mansions in the U.S., fast cars in Paris, and the one of the world’s largest super-yachts. While this oil-rich country’s per capita GDP is comparable to Denmark’s, a shocking 80 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day and it has the second-highest child mortality rate in the world, according to a 2010 report from the University of Washington. Elections are periodically held, but the outcome is inevitably rigged.

Raul Castro (Cuba, 5 years in power): Raul, 80, the younger brother of frail Fidel, 85, has generally maintained his sibling’s legacy of repressive leadership. Raul was named acting President of the Council of State of Cuba in July 2006, assuming presidential duties, and he was officially elected president of Cuba in 2008. The Communist Party of Cuba controls all aspects of the government, and there is no free press. The island nation’s 11.3 million citizens are not allowed to leave the country without permission, which is often denied. However, the number of political prisoners has decreased significantly in the last couple of years, and Raul has introduced some economic reforms, including privatizing some agricultural land and other real estate. Yet unjustly punitive laws persist, including a selectively-enforced prohibition on the unauthorized assembly of more than three people, which is punishable with up to three months in prison and a fine, and a “dangerousness” provision that allows the government to imprison people who seem like they might commit a crime in the future.

Hugo Chavez (Venezuela 12 years in power): In 1992, the first time Chavez tried to take over the government of Venezuala, he was put in prison. Upon being released after serving two years, he founded the Fifth Republic Movement, a socialist democratic party, and he was elected the country’s president, taking office in February 1999. Since then, he has built a military dictatorship in an area that has been historically plagued by them. Now 57, Chavez has largely squelched freedom of the press, persecuted members of the political opposition by arresting and jailing them, stripped power from once-autonomous universities, and turned the independent judiciary into an instrument to hand down heavy sentences to political opponents. Although reportedly suffering from some form of metastatic cancer, Chavez has shown little sign of slowing down and intends to run for re-election next year.

-------

The Takeaway:  Throughout the world, 2011 was a transformational year for the balance of power between people and their governments.  Hopefully in 2012 we’ll take another step in this rebalance.