Dave's blog

Shultz said

George Schultz would have opposed the 700 billion bail outs for financial firms last year.

The basic principle he puts up against that is that when you have skin in the game, you take care of the money you manage. In the past year, this has certainly become cliche to say that.

But he also said that if a company is too big to fail, then it shouldn't be allowed to get that big. Here are the two mechanisms he would use to go about doing that.

Christmas lights

While he recognizes that some companies will have interests in becoming big, parts of their company should be individualized such that if one parts fail, not all of it fails. If the financial products department of AIG would have been allowed to fail without bringing down the healthier insurance department, that would have been better. 

He used the analogy of Christmas lights. Before, when one bulb went out, the whole chain would go out and it took a long time to figure out which light bulb was bad the longer the chain got. Manufacturers created a serial mechanism whereby one bulb can now go out without bringing the whole chain down.

The bigger you are, the bigger your social responsibility

He also said another measure should target large financial institutions while leaving aside the smaller ones. Mainly, a big company should have larger capital requirements.

Rare Earth

Rare Earth minerals are a key element in many new green technologies. They are used in the batteries of hybrid automobiles (up to a Kilo per vehicle) and in magnets used in wind mills, for example.

50% of the world's deposits are in China. China also produces 95% of it after it moved aggressively in the market in the past few years.

Issues:

- Rare earth is experiencing growing demand world wide not only for current uses but potentially for technologies yet to come

- While Rare Earth is linked to renewable energy, it is very polluting to extract it

- Supplies may be shrinking fast. China is already trying to limit its exports to conserve the resources for internal use

- Advocates for developing Rare Earth supplies outside of China claim that the West may be replacing one energy dependency for another

Thanks to the PBS Newshour for bringing this story to my attention.

Nasheed

Here, below, is perhaps the best nasheed that I have heard so far. While I'll always be an opponent of religion at large - and especially its worst consequences, I can appreciate the beauty in a song such as this and feel the emotional serenity and quietude that it expresses.

On Wikipedia, you can read that a nasheed is "an Islamic-oriented song. Traditionally, it is sung a cappella, accompanied only by a daff. This musical style is used because many Muslim scholars interpret Islam as prohibiting the use of musical instruments except for some basic percussion."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFj_aCd61LE

Note that it has over a million views. There are countless such videos on youtube, many of which are about jihad.

After Obama's thoughtful Peace Prize speech about the Just War, it is important to remember that muslim extremists also firmly believe that they are fighting a just war. Nobody does evil willingly and there lies a great source of complexity in human conflicts.

Iran's bomb

I just watched a 1 hour interview with Turkey's PM Erdogan so I'd like to talk about that in particular and you will see why its relevant.

Like China, they have large commercial interests in Iran and are not ready to jeopardize that. On top of that, Turkey shares a long border with Tehran which happens to be kurdish territory. Turkey launched a series of raids inside Iraq a few years ago to attack kurdish villages and they consider the PKK a terrorist organization. Erdogan mentioned that Turkey has a treaty with Iran regulating their relationship going back to 1636! They will thus support a strong Iranian government no matter who's in power. Erdogan has called Ahmenidejad (sp?) his "friend" in the past; he clearly doesn't want to estrange his neighbour. 

Turkey also feels like it's been treated unfairly over the past 50 years in its petition to integrate the EU. Today, it seems to have grown out of that phase. It is enjoying economic prosperity despite of it and is now looking around the world for partners and allies in a more even fashion. Luckily for Turkey, the world is now becoming more multi polar and they can more easily choose who they dance with. Look for it to regain a more influential role in the Middle East in the years and decades to come as well. Thus, above all, Turkey wants to remain independent. They are likely to continue to refuse moving closer to the US or other NATO countries on Iran nuclear issue or other similar agendas just like they did in 2003 when they were asked to play a greater role in the Iraq invasion. They are not about to align the faith of their country with what they see as american or israeli interests as they witness the turmoil it has created in a country that has gone down that route, Pakistan.

So while China and Russia have shown some leniency to the US on the Iran issue if we go by the latest Security Council resolution, Turkey might be a tougher sell. Turkey wants more diplomatic efforts to be done which they believe haven't been exhausted yet. 

What is the relevance of Turkey? It is a secular country by constitution, it is the only working democracy in the muslim world, it is very prosperous especially by middle eastern standards, it is a NATO country and aspires to become an EU member. This is a natural ally for the US in the region, one that isn't tainted by oil resources, or hasn't been forced through conflict to become an ally. While the main issue for the US must be ultimately to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, attitudes of countries such as Turkey must be considered. This is something that the Obama administration does infinitely better than the last one. They must continue to do so, and cherish and nurture deep and wide diplomatic ties with as many countries as they can.

So what's going to happen with the nuclear issue in Iran in 2010?

El Baradei, the now retiring IAEA head, has said for his departing words that we were "at the end of the road" with Iran. But short of an Israeli or American aerial strike in 2010, I think the new direction will be tougher sanctions - if that. Some sanctions that are being discussed could be crippling from the Iranian economy and many people will want to try that first. This is what the international community will settle for unless conditions change drasticially. While Israel is the only country facing a survival issue in this whole affair, they would be foolish to act militarily on their own. This is especially true considering the enduring political turmoil within Iran as I write this which is one of the major condition that could change very rapidly in the months to come. A revolution within Iran could render the nuclear issue moot, so why spend more political capital now if the indications are Iran is still a good way away from a bomb?

The last thing I'd like to add is about Iran's intentions for nuclear energy. 

When you are faced with an enemy, the natural, instinctual thing to do is to assume that that enemy is in the business of deploying all of its energy solely to do you harm, particularly in the most evil, vicious way. The problem is that those assumptions are not only always different from the truth, but they enhance themselves in a vicious circle because your enemy will entertain the same rationale (Indeed, the tragic all-out-war, downward maelstrom of militaristic schedules and attack contingencies that was WW1 was in fact a direct consequence of this rationale considering the rather limited, regional original event that started it). The fact is the "death to america" rhetoric that we often hear coming from Iranian Friday preachers or officials is mostly targeted at domestic audiences, and is fringe in nature. At best - or at worst? they are the Glenn Becks of Iran. Neither the iranian military nor the clerical council (whichever you believe to be the real authority within Iran at the moment) would have on top of its to-do list on day one of acquiring a functional bomb to drop it on Israel. 

Iran and other similar countries who want, or wanted the bomb in the past, do so for two reasons. First, the bomb is seen as a symbol of power and prestige. It would transform its relationships with neighbors, add more weight to their negotiating capabilities internationally, and enhance the national sentiment at home. Second, and this one is less obvious, Iran and many other countries, still feel the weight of the post colonial historical legacy. They have the need - no the urge, to break away from it. They feel that the anti-nuclear pressure exerted against them is patronising. Ask any people on the street of those countries why they want the bomb and chances are they will tell you: "You have it, why not us?"

Reactions to Obama's Afpak strategy

Although the solution is going the right way, it lacks creativity and seems to fail to recognize the fundamental issue that you cannot establish a balance of force between regional agents by fighting the war on one side while taking all of it's war fighting responsibilities upon you. This is compounded by the fact that you need to go away sooner rather than later.

Turning over tasks to the afghanis: The Obama plan has the right idea. We must turn over tasks gradually to the Afghanis while the US can remain for years to come as the "cavalry over the hill" (Gates). However, the starting date is only in July 2011, and the rate could turn out to be very slow. 

My question is, who needs to teach an afghani how to use a rifle? And where have the Northern Alliance gone since 2001? The turning over of tasks to the Afghani - whether to the central gov or, bypassing that, to provincial and local institutions, is the key to having a fast and long standing resolution of the conflict in Afghanistan. As I have said several times on this blog, the civil war within Afghanistan and the Pashtuns is in limbo as long as the Americans and their forty odd allies act as the protector of a regime who doesn't have to fight for itself, and who doesn't have to establish a rapport with the taliban and other discontent entities. We are focusing too much on training programs and creating central militaristic control and administration while we should be focusing on finding and creating allies on the ground to fight with.

The unknown: there are a portion of the Obama plan we do not know about, particularly concerning intelligence, special forces operations, and none the least, possible secret agreements with Pakistan, India or Afghanistan

Disalignment of interest in the region: the afghans must do more and the Obama plan seems to fall short. Obama has decided to fight with American blood and treasure a full fledged anti insurgency.

Disalignment of national interest in the world: Iraq and Afpak have taken way to much of our lives, material, diplomatic efforts, national attention in the past 10 years for what they represent. The big game is national economic competitiveness and development in the face of a changing world. The economic power of our nation is what allows us to carry FP the way we want and server our national interests. This is the old Thucydide's truth: Money is the lifeline of war. There is a danger than the US will be sinking in regional legacy embroilments around the world that will only draw on its power, treasure, and political will over the long term.

It is important to "finish the job" (Obama), but any specific FP action must be put in rapport with the greater context of the global landscape. Indeed, "the size of the footprint is less important than what you do with it" (McCrystal), and I fear the Obama solution doesn't fully embrace that.

Taliban destruction: While perhaps going beyond his national interest duty and perhaps spending too much than he would need to, the 30,000 troops he chose, I support. I do so in as far as it will help to do one thing: destroy the Taliban and the other groups we usually confound together. Thanks to the Pakistani there is a 1 to 2 years the window of opportunity for taliban destruction. That the Pakistani keep pressure on the Taliban over the next year or two is VITAL to the success of the mission.

Confusion about the deadline: There is general confusion in the media and apparently in the region as well over the deadline of July 2011. People remember the old debate over the surge in Iraq in 2007. Back then, many people believed that the war was lost and that a firm date to extract the troops was now necessary. Today the situation is different. People do not believe yet that the war in Afghanistan is lost but they still equate the troops drawdown as equals. The commitment by Obama is clear. July 2011 is the "beginning of a transition process" (Gates), and an "assessment" point (Clinton). It sets a target for all actors to see. The Bush administration had targets as well, they just decided against making them public. Whether or not it is wise to do so is up for debate, but much confusion has arisen.

The realism of Obama: The core of Obama's party is in disagreement with the troop surge. Obama might have been as well had he not been in power (although he did say the war in A was the "just" war way back in campaigning). The truth is there isn't that much change in executive policy for america because of structuralist reasons whether it comes from a Republican or a Dem administration. The powerful prefer to use force while the weak favor multilateralism, the strong do what they want, the weak do what they can, etc.

The personification of lifeless entities and animals

Take the following sentence:

China doesn't care about anything in the world right now but it's own economic growth.

China is used as an argument for the word care. The question is, doesn't care and similar words only apply to people? We do this a lot in our every day language for a large quantity of things actually. The first step that we often take is with animals. We'll attribute emotions or intentions to animals sometimes to great and just effect, but sometimes to abusive effects where we are lured by the meaning of a word to believe the animal must have everything that comes with it while it doesn't. (contorted sentence)

What's really at work here? There are two ways to start I think.

First, the standpoint of the science of what is.

Second, the standpoint of language analysis.

(...)

The Common Sense Approaches

There are multiple positions in different disciplines that call themselves the "common sense" position on a problem or in a field. For ex. in foreign policy advocacy and in moral philosophy.

I would like to take some time to look at what they all have in common.

First thing they are prescriptives rather than descriptives positions. You don't have a common sense position in the purest physical sciences. Perhaps you do in some fields of mathematics today, but it won't be about the properties of a number. Rather it's going to be about, let's say, the strategy and heuristics used in machine control or complex equation solving.

Secondly, they seem to appeal to our intuition to solve the problems. If we could put their attitudes into a quote, it would be something like "Away with the theory (for now)! Your principles lead to faulty conclusions when submitted to our common sense inspection. The answer is obviously this or that". In this case, we say "obviously" and not "deductively", and we use "our" since common sense isn't common at all otherwise.

A reliance into the obvious feeling is not something new at all. Indeed, in the elaboration of any theory you need to start with something that is manifestedly obvious - at least regressively if it isn't directly stipulated in the theory in question. Sometimes, the words "self evident" are used to describe what we take to be true as the starting basis of our models.

So the common sense approach does not necessarily reject any model or theory as a guide to daily actions: it can also be the acceptance that inspection by common sense supersedes any findings obtain by a deliberative method, ie a theory. The common sense approach can interpose itself against rational results as well as empiricist results. For example, the common sense approach can reject the results of a statistical "truth" by claiming the interpretation of the statistical intake of data is faulty by inspection of common sense.

Ouverture: there are varying degrees of certainty of intuition and it is also notable that we can create an intuition for just about anything. At one end, there is the self evident mathematical axioms, and at the other, there are the gut feelings of a king going or not to war. We need to differentiate these (...)

Suppression of beliefs

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125947451116668259.html

The Swiss project to ban minarets raises the question if we should target religious groups to diminish and eventually eradicate religion as it exists today in our societies. 

I can't confirm the motivation behind the law project in SW. It could be from an antagonist pro-christian, or pro-tradition position; or it could be from a secularist stand point. I hope it is the later.

In defense of the Swiss if they are adopting a secularist stand point. 

To the Swiss, the muslim elements pose a greater threat to the type of intellectual spheres they are trying to rear and defend than the christian religious groupings within their country. While christianity has subdued into the outer fringes of public intellectual galaxie in the west, islam is for  many people accross the world a mean to view the world, govern their daily actions and inform their political wills. When such a view "taints" the political discourse within their country, the Swiss would act to counteract and eliminate such a force. This is called "hard" secularism.

In the scope of the planet, it would be an interesting experiment for a small country like Sw to make a choice to go down that alley. To effectively repress an unwanted way of thinking within its population.

 

Then, the question arises: on what ground can one authorize such a thing?

Ideologies taking over countries

Is secularism taking over our countries like christianity took over the Empire 17 centuries ago, or communism Russia 90 years ago? Is secularism a transitory ideology just like the rest of "gies" relegated to history? Are people going to look back on us and consider us antiquated, or worse, erroneous in the future?

A few quick points to answer the question:

-  First, some of those ideologies inscribed in the timeline of history are not eliminated fully; indeed they evolve, co-evolve with others, and are eventually passed on to their ideological descendants.

- Secondly, secularism is a special case. Indeed, just like certain values in the theory of numbers acquire unique caracteristics that differentiate them from a multitude of their number set equals (think of a limit, or 0, etc), secularism is the expression of tolerance and also scientific principles*.

- Secularism really saw the day with Greece. When the ancients started making their cosmogonies and rejecting the poet's work, it was only a matter of time for this method, this change in attitude and stance, captured the lifestyle(?) sphere, ie the artificial and social. That change came with Socrates and the sophists, and it's principles have continued to be refined down to our day. Then we can ask the question is there only one secularism? Is there only one scientific method only evolving and shifting? (*How to caracterize the "scientific method"? What has perdured down to us? What was the original revelation? Evidence, Fact, Logic.)

(...)

Defn of Secularism: was Saladin secular in tolerating christian institutions in Jerusalem? No. This is religious tolerance. Secularism rather, is the rejection of religious beliefs into governing for a state. It is also, for an individual, applying secular principles to action in general, but particularly to political actions. 

Term defining

[Unrevised]

Above all other constraints about what Obama should do, 2 should prolly stand at the top and then all the parameters coming later can modify that original state.

1st :  do things right. listen to your international partners and work with them. That means all actors involved in the region, in particular the cent gov of a., the pakistanis, the indians, and even the taliban. don't listen to home demagogues. Doing the right thing does not mean pleasing everyone: that's impossible. It should be done however with a regard to how history will perceive our actions - as much in the west as in the east. There's also "short" history. 

2nd : Seek to reduce costs and resource involvement consistently, constantly, and insistently but without compromising the security or effectiveness of your troops on the ground.

If he sends 40k, it will be very costly and counter to your long term goals

If he sends 10-15k, hawks will say it's too little to do anything.

What he can do is free 5 to 10k troops from NATO command and use them directly. Other nations can step in as international security in the safe areas.

Create a force to hammer the Taliban with. Gain this number by the move on NATO, and by adopting a different strategy in Afghanistan that includes today handing over to a local leader that needs interact with the central gov on some basis.

Universal Values

I am usually someone who is anti-progress when looking at the sequence of historical events. IE, I do not think that as a whole, human culture progresses in a moral way. I'm not saying that it is constantly deteriorating either; I'm saying that progress applies to things we ascribe a plan for. For example, an athlete can progress as he follows his plan of becoming a professional player. 

However, there are values that we can probably all agree on more or less 

- Keeping the peace

Everybody wants peace whether as individuals or as nations.

Individual: formule de politesse a way to keep the peace. ex: birtish house of commons session

- Living justly

perceived injustices can break down social cohesion

- Living freely

Freedom can mean two things: negative freedom which is the absence of regulatory rules (as opposed to constitutive rules) or positive freedom which means according to a positive set of principles.

[- Protection of personal beliefs and non interference in choice of personal beliefs]

- ...

Notice that non of these categories apply more to one moral persuasion than another, whether it be the religious extremists, political liberalism, or your system or my system.

While everyone can agree on keeping the peace, not everyone agree on when it is acceptable to disturb it. While everyone wants to live justly and freely, not everyone share's the same version. For a fundamentalist, living according to an interpretation of the bible or the coran corresponds to living freely, for example. Preventing him from living that way creates an obstacle on his ability to live the way he wants to, ie live freely.

Moral Neutrality

My moral neutrality on historical progress does not interfere with my capacity to be a historical actor. For example, I often take the view point of the US here on this blog simply because others around me do so. If I lived elsewhere, my allegiances would lay elsewhere.