Main | April 2006 »

The Corporation

Although I believe that free markets are currently the best way to empower people in developing nations and to raise them out of poverty, I must acknowledge that it is a way that is flawed and can and must be improved upon. I suggest to those who are interested in the global community to see the documentary “The Corporation”.

This is a critical look at the dominant social, economic and political structure of our time. It contains interviews with people one would expect; Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. It also features others that one wouldn’t expect. For instance, Ray Anderson is the CEO of Interface, the world’s largest carpet manufacturer. It is his goal that the company be 100% sustainable by the year 2020. That is quite something for a corporation of that scale.

The movie should be avoided by those who can see no fault in capitalism. Those who believe that there is something just not right with the world today will find much to consider and mull over in this film. It is not long on answers but it does a good job at expanding on John Dewey’s observation that “Government is the shadow cast by business on society”.

Posted by The Webtoad at 05:12 PM | Comments (0)

The Burden of the People

As much as is said about the dire need for politicians' to change their dirty ways, the burden of change lies solely with the American public. Lobbying scandals, fears of Social Security shortfalls, tax reform, energy policy and the War on Terrorism are issues that impact every American. If the people want these issues to be dealt with by the politicians in Washington then the people must first deal with the politicians.

This November, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one third of the seats in the Senate will be up for re-election. However, by most accounts, fewer than 40 seats in the house are considered “in play” and far less than 50% of eligible voters will go to the polls to cast a vote. If this bears out, incumbency will reign and all hope for change will be pushed out another two years.

The argument given for not voting by the average citizen of voting age tends to focus on two points. First, voters do not feel that the issues at hand affect them personally. Secondly, they cite a lack of understanding of the candidates and the issues as well as a dearth of time in which they could brush up on politics of the day thus feeling that they can not make an informed decision.

Quite simply, the issues that come before Congress do impact the lives of every single American not to mention many non-Americans around the globe. The best example of an issue that theoretically affects all voters is taxes. If you are an American and you work then you pay taxes. In short, this is money that is taken directly out of an individual’s paycheck by the federal government and spent as the lawmakers in Washington see fit. Many a person can be heard railing against the free spending habits of our elected officials but in all actuality, those officials are exercising the will of the people. Election after election, the voters send politicians back to Washington to serve another term. In doing so, the voters ask that politician to keep on doing exactly what it was that they were doing prior to the election. If the American Public really is fed up with politics as usual in Washington, then it’s up to the voters to change things. Politicians will rarely change so the public must change the politicians.

Addressing the second point raised by those who do not vote is entirely dependant upon proving the first. By showing that politics does play a part in their everyday lives, one can convince the voters that they must find the time to acquaint themselves with the issues and the candidates. In fact, most eligible voters will admit that they should become more vigilant in keeping up with current events. So long as they don’t however, only half of the voting population will dictate the issues and will choose those who vote on the issues. It is remarkable that people will leave such pressing issues in the hands of people that they don’t know and most likely do not agree with.

Posted by The Webtoad at 03:06 AM | Comments (0)

More On China

Enough can not be said concerning the impact of economic growth on the Chinese worker. The latest edition of BusinessWeek has an article reporting a labor shortage in China. That bears repeating: a labor shortage in China! Wages are on the increase and workers have the flexibility to leave one job for another with increased pay and benefits. This is causing the Chinese government to ease travel and relocation restrictions within the country to accomodate companies' need for more workers. If anyone doubts the importance of open economic relations with China, please read this article.

Posted by The Webtoad at 02:30 AM | Comments (0)

Warning: Sino Phobia Ahead

In the February 18 edition of The Economist, a story appears about the state of China bashing in this country. I thought it would be a good subject to reiterate in this blog. In short, the article tells of how both sides of the American political aisle have their reasons to beat up on China in the upcoming mid-term election. On the right, people are concerned about China’s militarism. On the left, labor and human rights are two issues that get people worked up. Both sides seem to think that the best solution is tariffs and sanctions depending upon the perceived grievance. However, any change in how America deals with China right now could be damaging not only to America’s economy but to the world’s as well.

Politically, China is not a very nice country. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not go in for civil rights; human rights; freedom of speech, just to name a few. Freedom is even a taboo word over there. The internet censors that the Chinese government has employed by the tens of thousands are supposed to be watching for that word (as well as many others) on any internet site that sneaks through the Chinese cyber nets. Doing business in China is also a tricky deal. As Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have found out, if you want to play in China, you have to play by China’s rules. That’s the way it is here in America or in the EU. That is not the best scenario but it is the current condition.

China is the largest market in the world and the Chinese government knows that. It also knows that America fuels the world economy. We spend more money on “things” than any other country (or group of countries) in the world. No self respecting global economic power can survive without access to American consumers. China does not want to cut America off from its goods and Americans do not want to be cut off from low cost Chinese goods. Raising tariffs on Chinese goods or placing trade sanctions on Chinese trade would have far reaching effects that most people can not even comprehend. How then do we deal with the justifiable complaints of both the right and the left in American politics? The way we have been for many decades.

China is where it is today because America chose an open policy with that country as opposed to the policy that we followed concerning Cuba. Both are communist countries but they are at this time in completely different situations. Cuba wallows in poverty as China grows by 10% a year. Castro tightens his grip annually while China continues to face growing scrutiny from the outside world. Granted one can not compare the populations of the two countries but it is very easy to argue that Cuba would be a vastly different place if we followed the same policy with it as was followed with China.

The short answer here is that America has gained more and more access to Chinese markets through a very slow and painful process. That process continues. Just by having Google in China, one can rest assured that more internet content will reach millions of Chinese people. China will be free one day but not by America choosing a path of inflicting tariffs and sanctions. Watch out for Sino phobia this summer and fall as politicians attempt to convince voters that their reason to fear China is a better reason than their opponent’s reason. The truly thoughtful politician will explain the benefits of the freest possible trade with China. My fear is that politician may not show up this year.

Posted by The Webtoad at 02:27 AM | Comments (2)

Give Hamas A Chance

(Originally written just after the Palestinian elections with some more recent modifications).

It is no secret that the western powers, America, Israel, and the EU, are critical of the outcome of recent Palestinian elections. In fact, Israel is so disappointed with the new government of the Palestinian Authority (PA) that it is withholding $55 million a month in revenues that it collects on behalf of the PA (The New York Times). Washington, Tel Aviv and its European allies no longer feel it is necessary to mask their ambiguous calls for democracy in the Middle East. The reaction of the governments of the so-called developed world is in accord with what many have known for years; democracy is good for the Middle East as long as the West agrees with the outcomes. The leaders of the developed world have borrowed from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s play book in which a government deliberately takes sides in elections it feels will directly effect that government’s interests. Unfortunately for the above mentioned leaders, they failed to notice how poorly this has worked out for Putin as evidenced by the Ukraine’s Orange Revolution.

Let us start with a little background for those unfamiliar with recent Palestinian developments. At the end of January, Palestinians went to the polls to elect members to the legislative body of the Palestinian Authority; the organization that oversees Palestinian affairs in the West Bank and Gaza. Since its inception, the PA has been dominated by the Fatah party, the political extension of Yasar Arafat’s PLO. Since Arafat’s death and the election of President Mahmoud Abbas (also of the Fatah party) last year, this faction of Palestinian politics has seen its popularity wane as Palestinians became increasingly frustrated with Fatah’s endemic corruption and self serving government officials. At the time that Abbas called for elections, however, there seemed no viable alternative to the ruling party; enter Hamas.

Discussing Hamas is a difficult endeavor in the least. First, the dark side of Hamas. Put simply, they are a terrorist group. Although they have recently observed a cease fire towards Israel, Hamas has waged a campaign of violence against Israeli military and civilian population. Hamas has perfected the use of the suicide bomber. It accepts money from both Iran and Syria, two nations bitterly opposed to the existence of Israel. Hamas itself, in its charter, calls for the crushing of the state of Israel. For most westerners, any discussion of Hamas must end here. This side of Hamas is repulsive but it is not their only side. If it were, Hamas would not have won an outright majority in the elections. Hamas’ other side is one of helping those Palestinians in need. Fatah may have ruled the politics of Palestine but Hamas has ruled the humanitarian efforts of the occupied territories. While Arafat et al were enriching themselves through the institutions they set up within the PA, Hamas was handing out food and clothing and finding shelter for the displaced in the aftermath of Israeli military operations in such places as Nablus and the Jenin refugee camp. Hamas has much to account for but they would not be the first “terrorist” organization to try its hand in the political arena or to moderate its stand with regard to its opponents. One needs look no further than Fatah and the PLO itself to study the transition of a terrorist group into a ruling party. Sinn Fein and the African National Congress are two other groups that quickly spring to mind.

So currently the situation in the occupied territories stands like this; the Palestinians have gone to the polls and democratically elected a party that Israel, the European Union and the United States all consider to be a terrorist organization. This creates a problem given that most western countries have laws in effect that bar its officials from dealing with any member of a group that the country lists as terrorist. So, any member of the American government who speaks to a newly elected member of the Palestinian Parliament who was elected on the Hamas ticket would be committing a crime punishable under American law. The same goes for the EU and Israel. That is a problem by itself. Factor in the amount of money that these countries contribute to the PA and the problem gets bigger. The PA receives money primarily from two sources; money collected as taxes by the Israeli government then transferred to the PA and through aid provided by the US and the EU all of whom have mentioned that they may withhold that money if Hamas form a government as it is scheduled to do this Saturday.

Without the money described above, Hamas will be unable to effectively run the government that it was elected to oversee. As mentioned earlier, Hamas will probably receive some money from other sources including Syria, Iran and other Muslim countries but it will fall short of the approximately $60 million that the PA requires each month to stay above water. Well over 100,000 Palestinians count on their salaries from the PA to support themselves and their families. With unemployment in the Palestinian territories conservatively running at 25%, this would be an unbearable burden on what is already a struggling economy.

Beyond the issue of money, Israel has a few other cards to play. It controls all border points between itself and the West Bank and Gaza (the PA is charged with governing two non-contiguous geographic areas). With this, Israel is able to control the movement of Palestinians from their homes in the occupied territories to their jobs in Israel. It also means that Israel controls the flow of all goods and services into the Palestinian territories including water and electricity. In short, Israel controls Palestine.

Given all of the above, it appears as though the West, including and especially Israel, is able to call the shots with regards to the occupied territories. Up to and including the recent election, Palestinians have done much of what the West has asked. The Second Intifada is a thing of the past, many of the militant groups have adhered to a cease fire and the Palestinian people have voiced their opinion concerning who they want as their leaders in the way that the West asked them to: democratic elections. Now it is time for the West to take a step in the direction of the Palestinians. Give Hamas a chance.

Just as the PLO, Sinn Fein, the African National Congress and many other formerly “terrorist” organizations have laid down their guns for a voice in the political process, so too is it possible for Hamas to do the same. It is by no means guaranteed. Hamas has proven itself to be a violent group capable of the murder of non-combatants (a term that Hamas does not recognize in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict). The West has further demands of Hamas before they acknowledge Hamas as a legitimate political party. These requirements include renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist. It can not be said that these points are outrageous but the Palestinian people have made some great strides recently and before they are asked to walk any further, they are deserving of being shown that the West too is willing to take a few steps in their direction.

Posted by The Webtoad at 03:19 AM | Comments (0)

A Case for a Third Party

“Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!” These parting words to The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” seem more appropriate each time I hear the song. The title itself is a battle cry for each election cycle which unfortunately ends with the American public scratching its collective head wondering how it is that it got fooled again. It never seems to occur to the talking heads and the public in general that having just two choices in politics is only one step away from having no choice. Regardless of whom one votes for and more importantly, regardless of whom wins, very little will change in national politics so long as there is such limited choice.

Take the last Presidential election for example. Had John Kerry won, it can easily be argued that America would still be in the same position that it is in today in Iraq, Social Security would be no closer to a fix, taxes (and their allocation) would be the same and the problems that give rise to global terrorism would still be ignored. The one thing that really seemed to set the two presidential candidates apart in the 2004 election was healthcare. John Kerry put forth the idea that the health plan that covers all federal employees should be opened up to the American public. It was a step towards caring for the 45 million Americans who are without health care and relieving some of the burden for the rest of the country that is affected by the outrageous cost of health care. It was not national health care. It was also not the final solution but it was at least a start. However, in all reality, it never would have come to fruition. Just like President Bush’s goal to reform Social Security, it would have run out of steam as Congress refused to move to help the people it was elected to serve.

And why should these lifetime politicians step up to do their job? Far less than 10% of the 535 elected officials on Capital Hill are ever in jeopardy of losing their jobs. These people know that as long as they make no egregious errors, their seat is safe. The voters prefer a legislator with seniority over one with ideas. Yet day after day, week after week one can hear any number of conversations lamenting the inactions of Congress and their failure to address the issues that face Americans today. But that is where the mistake is being made. Elected lawmakers are not serving the constituency most believe that they should. Congress is serving those who dole out the money; lobbyists, corporations, super rich individuals. A voter may offer a candidate his or her vote but that is not ultimately what the candidate needs or wants. The candidate of either of the two dominant parties desires money. That is what gets him or her elected.

This is a cycle that must and can be broken. By introducing more people into the political process, more ideas will come forth. As it stands, each elected position ends up as a contest between two people. That number needs to be increased. On the day of the general election, the voter should have three, four or more choices. Debates should bring forth the voices of not just two people but any number whose parties qualify (currently there are prohibitive restrictions for the entrance of alternate parties into the election process). It is imperative that the American voting process see a return of the vote as that most sought after commodity in the election market. Money must take a back seat to the voice of the individual American. Bring more voices to the debate and more and better ideas will come forward. Vote for the candidate with the best ideas and the strength to act on those ideas and change will come to Washington. Stick with the two party system and the only party will be the one thrown in Washington at tax payer expense. And the voter is not invited.

Posted by The Webtoad at 01:27 AM | Comments (1)

About this Blog

It often appears as though America has much to worry about from threats outside its borders. Are these threats real or just perceived? The world changes so fast these days that one must wonder if America feels threatened by what is changing or the mere fact of change.

This blog is designed to look at what is happening not only outside America but also at the upper levels of our government. This blog affiliates itself with no political party and is more often than not critical of both. It will take a view sometimes contradictory to “conventional wisdom” in matters of current events. It is this blogger’s belief that one must read and incorporate information from all over the world now to truly understand the major topics of our day.

The Webtoad has lived on the NH Seacoast for nigh on 30 years. He is educated entirely in this state having survived the Portsmouth Public School system and received a BA in History and Political Science from the University of New Hampshire. The Webtoad has laid claim to both sides of the American political spectrum and found disappointment at either end. Thus it is quite easy (and natural) to be able to critique the behavior America and all nations of the world community as they struggle through the complexities of a shrinking planet.

It is worth repeating that this blog is not an attempt to provide answers to the most intricate problems of our times. It is an endeavor to begin conversations.

Posted by The Webtoad at 10:35 PM | Comments (0)