Monday, October 31, 2005

If it smells fishy and it looks fishy...

...it might be a scam.

There was a filing today by a Chinese company registered in New Zealand, but headquartered in Beijing, to purchase Exxon Mobile (XOM) for approximately $450 Billion US.

The BBC has a story on it, here. Thanks Genya for passing it along!

There are a bunch of fishy things, but lets start at the beginning. Don't worry, we don't have to go too far back. That's what's fishy. Here they are, from beginning until now:

  1. The Chinese Compnay, King Win Laurel, filed papers to become a recognized corporate entity on October 21st. In New Zealand.
  2. If it's the company I think it is, it's value is at about $1 per share. Today's volume topped out at 17,000 shares. Talk about a heavy hitter.
  3. Exxon Mobile-yes, the one that announced almost $10 billion in profits in a 3 month period--has a market cap. of about $350 billion. For the math un-inclined, that's $100 billion LESS than KWL is offering. Put it another way: the Chinese company that didn't exist 2 weeks ago is willing to pay Exxon about 30% more than Exxon itself thinks it's worth.
  4. King Win Laurel offered to incentivize the deal for Exxon shareholders, if the oil sale price exceeds $80 per barrel in the calendar year after the sale.
So how does a rinky-dink operation that filed papers exactly 10 days ago get the capital to offer a buyout? The speculation (I hesitate to elevate it to the level of rumor) is that there is Chinese government backing behind the offer. I don't think so. That wouldn't ever get through the SEC or Congress.

My guess, based on the language in the filing is that it's a joke by someone with too much spare time, and insufficient appreciation for how serious Wall Street types take this sort of thing.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

College, Redux

It's Saturday night. Prime Halloween Party time. So what does a good Washingtonian do? Go to a party!

What am I doing? Sitting at home working on a couple over-due projects, sitting in the same room as a friend working on gradschool applications.

That's right. Exciting life in DC.

But it's got me thinking: what makes sometehing exciting? Being excited about it. I think too many times we do things because they're supposed to be exciting, not because, as an individual, I feel it will be exciting. I for one have been looking forward to sitting at home on a Saturday night, doing little besides reading, writing, and rummaging through files.

For the 99.975% of the world who don't really know the way DC operates, it's a town cut into fours. There's a north-south, and an east-west line running through the Capitol. Conveniently, then, there is a NW, NE, SW, and SE area of town. There's something particular about the social culture in NW (the part where I live). It's home to Adams-Morgan, the Zoo, Dupont Circle, Downtown, and I guess technically, Georgetown (though it's sort of the 5th wheel).

Its something that I guess I had absorbed, but didn't really conciously recognize until last night: it's uncommon to interact with people sans-alcohol. Bars, liquor stores, neighborhood 'groceries' do superb business in this town. I noticed it last night because I was at a Halloween party at a friend's place in Wheaton--great party Rach! The thing is, Wheaton is far, far away from the house of wonks. About 8 or 9 miles away. It's metro-accessible, but not easily--and not if one of your roommates is wearing a 3x3 foot wrapped box, a bow, and the sticker "To: Women, From: God". What do you do in this situation? If you're me, you drive.

As driver, it means I wasn't in charge of depleting the party's beer supply. It was one of the first times I'd been out at night in this city and not had more than a beer or two. It's strange. There isn't pressure to drink necessarily, it's more that someone doesn't really feel like going home yet, and without a drink one oughtn't be in the bar. Like I said, it a cultural oddity.

Today, on the way to play frisbee even FARTHER away from the house, the topic came up with several other friends--one of whom had been wearing afore mentioned box the night before--and the consensus was that it is uncommon to NOT be drinking while socializing. And then last week's chili feed came up, and how it was a refreshing change from the unclear traditions around here.

Anyway, just wanted to give a little insight to DC culture--if that isn't too big of a stretch.

Friday, October 28, 2005

All hands abandon ship!

That's seems to be the order coming down from the Conservative Heights today.

What bad luck for the GOP. First, a highly qualified, straight shooting, independent minded jurirst with no ties to the Whitehouse is wrongfully torpedoed by those Howard Kurtz calls the, "conservative punditocracy" (aside: how's Punditocracy for the scarriest new word of the year?)

Now, in an unforeseen and never-looked for tragedy, I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby has been run over by the grandson of F. Scott Fitzgerald. At least that's what I think happened.

In other shocking news, rising stars in the GOP are beginning to question their faith in the all-powerful GOP. At least that's what Minnesotan's heard on the radio this morning:

On a day when DFL gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch locked up his third quick labor endorsement, an uncharacteristically downbeat Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty acknowledged that his party is "on the ropes" nationally and that he would consider himself "lucky to get reelected."
The cynical part of me can't help but think all of the theatrics surrounding the Rove-Libby-Cheney-Plame fiasco (some would go so far as to say breech of national security) are part of a semi-scripted, semi-ad libbed act by GOPers to show they are contrite, to show they are distancing themselves from the President, and will turn around in about 2 or 3 months (just in time for caucuses and early off-year primaries) to show a rejuvinated, energetic, perhaps even spry, GOP that is leaner, and if you can believe it, meaner.

We'll see.



Holy Headlines Batman

I'm getting worried about the state of Journalism. Not, I'm not worried about the "liberal media" or a "vast right wing conspiracy." I'm worried about stories that have no more depth than the headline.

Maybe it's because I've spent more time looking at economic analyses and situations in the past two years than I'd wish on anyone.. OK, almost anyone. The news about the "recovering" economy (or the ailing economy) for that matter totally misses the ACTUAL state of the economy.

Here's an example, from the Post:

"Holy Katrina! The economy weathered two major hurricanes and in spite of that showed accelerated growth," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "I think what this shows is that fundamentally the economy was and is in really good shape."
He's talking about an annual growth rate of 3.8% seen in the last quarter. Yes, that is a good number. So what? There are a lot of other numbers (and personal stories) that go into determining whether people's economic outlook is bright, bleak, twilight, or noon-like.

What about numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analyis (the same ones that calculated the GDP numbers) showing negative net savings? That means Americans spent more money than they earned, for the first time ever, a few months back. Translated into "newspaper-speak" this means we're paying Chase, Citibank, and China for our economic growth.

What about numbers showing that corporate salaries are something in the range of 150 times the earnings of the average corporate employee? What about a fiscal and economic environment that says its better to cut-down, pull-back, lay-off, and get out of a location rather than investing in people and communities that will in turn provide quality workers?

At best some of this makes it into a story, but reporters aren't covering news anymore, they're supporting headlines. And it's not helping any of us get a clear picture of what's going on. Just a whole bunch of pin-points of less smoggy air to look through.

Later this afternoon: Miers getting Borked, Scooter run over by a Reindeer, is rapture really as close as some think?

Thursday, October 27, 2005

All work and no play?

Originally, the idea of this blog was to be a bit about policy and a bit about a house full of policy dorks living in the Shangri la of policy dorks. This post is an attempt to move back towards a mix.

A couple weeks ago my mom sounded a bit concerned that I wasn't finding enough time to just have fun. (Yes, mom, I was listening.)

This is just to say, the past few days should have put that concern to rest. Tuesday evening was one of farce and absurdity. Met with the other newly arrived Minnesota-Mafia folks for happy hour, and then wandered to a friend-of-a-friend's place for a pre-"drag race" party.

For some sense of the event, think of several hundred men dressed as women having a street-race in high-heels. There are some photos at the bottom of this page. And for the record, I did not participate, only watched.

Then back to the party where dancing and crazyness with a Friday's zest continued. Long story short, I had a dinner of leftover Mac and Cheese at about 2 am.

Last night was frisbee night. Sadly, the last after-work game of the year. It's getting dark too early for us to get a game going, and with daylight savings kicking in this weekend, we're out of business.

To celebrate, the 6 of us who were there drifted a couple blocks from "our" field near the whitehouse and made most of the patrons in suits feel very uncomfortable as we were in various states of gym clothes.

One thing led to another and about 1030 I found myself in a Karaoke bar eating sushi. Thanks to Red for the 80s suggestion. Bon Jovi got left out, but Cook and I rocked Whitesnake. At least the table of women in front of us seemed to like it.

Here's perhaps the biggest shocker of the week: I ended up dancing...for the second time in 2 weeks. (Deep breaths, dad). Cook, myself, a friend and her roommate ended up dancing a while and then getting home late again. How late? Late enough that, after two days, I think my body has reverted to campaign-sleep-mode: sleeping fast and waking up ready to rumble.

So, no. It's not all work and no play. But much more of this kind of fun and I might need to get a busier job.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

China is Republican

Not republican, like Thomas's Paine or Jefferson. Republican like Thomas's DeLay or Clarence. They unafraid of going for the jugular like Karl Rove, and they're as unashamed of making money as Bill Frist.

But more significantly, China is Republican and the rest of the world is a bunch of Democrats.

China has a plan for what it wants to do, where it wants to be, and what it wants to become. The means it follows to get there? Secondary to actually getting there. It's no so much a question of being Machiavellian or if the ends justify the means. It's more about whether or not the cat catches mice.

China wants to be a world power. Not because it thinks it would be cooler if it was. It wants to be a world power because it's tired of being pushed around, cajoled, and strong-armed into things it doesn't like simply because it doesn't have the wherewithall to push back.

So it's pursuing it's interests. Cautiously when it has to. Boldly when it can. Here is an example of the latter. These are becoming more common all the time.

Why is the rest of the world like a bunch of Democrats, then? Because the world sees China's rise--economically and militarily, but doesn't know what to do about it. Of course the U.S. would like China to remain an incredible source of low-cost goods and labor, without having to worry about Chinese aggregate economic power. But it's not to be. The U.S. would like to be able to be the only 800 lb. gorilla in the world energy market, but it's not to be. We'd like to be financially autonomous and independent of foreign speculation in our securities markets, but it's not to be.

The first sign of a fall is when those who have power stop striving to innovate, create, develop and grow, and instead hunker down behind rules and formulations and platitudes to the status quo. Like "liberals" who's goal it is to "go back" to the glory days of the 60s, when government social programs were youthful and energetic, when labor unions were strong, and when every yard had a picket fence. Talking about how good things "should" be, if other people played by the same rules one wished is a far cry from taking steps to see that one's priorities are actually accomplished.

This is the difference between the Republicans and Democrats (respectively); and China and everyone else (respectively).

Planet Of the....

FERAL PIGS!

Wait. That can't be right.

Yes, yes. It's right. Feral pigs are taking over Wisconsin.


Just like they're more cinematically well-known simian comrades in the struggle against human-oppressors, these pigs are,

smart, fast, and aggressive.
As long as they don't develop opposable hooves, I think we'll be OK. After all it only seems to take a pile of rotting corn and a rifle to deal with these crafty underminers of the American way.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

The Cultural Divide

The Humanitarian Challenge

The ongoing saga between the U.S. and North Korea wouldn’t make a very good case study in, “how to make friends and influence people.” There are significant differences between the two on just about every possible issue. Down to issues so simple as to be totally ignored in the U.S.—something like, “which side of the table should we sit on?”

There are clear differences over how a legitimate government should behave, the importance of markets vs the value of stability, the concept of individual liberties and their conflict with state autonomy and social order.

The one common point I’ve been able to identify, watching from afar, is the value both nations place on their pride and how they are perceived around the world. For the U.S. this has to do with prestige, and its ability to enforce/maintain non-proliferation treaties, and uphold the status quo. For North Korea it has to do with showing they are independent, they are free to do what they choose, even in the face of “imperialist devils” like the U.S. or its allies.

There have been glimmers of what the west might call hope over the past 18 months or so, with more information coming out of North Korea, with more foreign reporters being allowed in, and with North Korea signing deals with South Korean companies and Chinese cities that come surprisingly close to free-market agreements.

But today I read of the UN’s Food Program closing down most of their operations, with staff remaining solely for “technical support” functions. I think this has little to do with food, or the supposed “better than expected harvest” this year, and more to do with yet another significant, and difficult-to-bridge difference between North Korea and much of the West: how to handle information.

In a society like the United States where information has always been the building block of our society—from the free press, to public education, to transparent government—the idea of withholding information is usually met with skepticism, if not distrust (ie: Bush withholding Miers papers). But for North Korea, the idea of a free-flow of information is anathema. The mere idea that it’s people might have access to information that is not carefully sifted, constructed, and packaged to fit a particular political ideology and purpose would be to jeopardize Juche and the past 55 years of the Korean Workers’ Party (KWP).

Now enter international NGOs, western trained journalists, blogging tourists, and the internet.

The result, public assertions by the UN Food Program (UNFP) that paradise on the Korean Peninsula might not be as great as the KWP claims. Because of pesky rules about transparency and disclosure, it comes out the UNFP has distributed 4 million tons of food in the past decade. Enough to feed 1/4 of North Korea’s population during that time.

Here’s the rub: North Korea doesn’t have the supplies or infrastructure it needs to ensure that its people don’t die in famine if anything should go wrong. Anything like, say, drought, or flooding, or a too-cool/too-hot summer, or a pest infestation. All the things that farmers deal with. Except in the U.S. (or Japan, South Korea, or even China) they have access to things like fertilizers, irrigation, and pesticides to help soften the blow from mother nature. Not so in North Korea. As many as 3 million people died of starvation in the 90s. That’s 1 in 7 North Koreans. Roughly equivalent to the U.S. losing everyone in Texas and New York. Not so good.

Here’s my challenge to all of you out there who want to be able to help the poor, starving, North Koreans, but don’t want to support an autocratic regime:
How can a Western-based or funded aid organization that has requirements about disclosure, book-keeping, and transparency, operate in a country where the existence of transparency results in the closure of business? Put another way: is it possible to affect change in North Korea without feeding North Koreans? Do you want to go down that road?

I’m not just posing this rhetorically either. I’m guessing there aren’t any people who read this who aren’t smart. I really would like to hear some ideas. I know I don’t have any.

Observatory, we have a problem

I broke down and did it. I gave the NYTimes page-counter a hit this morning. But I have good reason. While at the bakery buying (delicious, fresh-baked) bread this morning, I turned around and saw the top-right story in today's print edition:

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report

read it here

Apparently, Cheney told Scooter (love that name) about Plame working for the CIA a month before it came out. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like the Libster may have purjured himself earlier, then, when he said he heard about Plame first from journalists.

oh the tangled web we are being spun up in.


Correction: it's come to my attention that there was a problem with the Joseph Hazelwood link in an earlier post. This one should work. Otherwise, follow the link from "Exxon Valdez".

Monday, October 24, 2005

User-fees for living?

NEWSFLASH!

You're no longer autonomous. According to a new article in Science, 20% of the human genome has been patented. 63% of these are held by private companies. 28% by universitites. Apparently there are 9% that are "mystery genes."

I think I'm going to start patenting genes. Then I'm going to start charging monthly gene-based user-fees. I figure $1 per person per gene per month. If even 20% of Americans have a particular gene, that means I get $60 million a month for people having the audacity to contain genes in their bodies that I have been bold enough to risk resources to research and patent. I think it's a great idea.

Hopefully we'll live in a world like this soon. Because there's nothing like allowing corporations charge you for using your own biology. Maybe I'll patent bloodcells too. That might be a nice revenue boost. I'll get back to ya'll with more after I've consulted with my high-powered legal team.

Treading Water

In case you were wondering, Yes. I am trying to set a new personal-best for "9-5 posts".

Several people have asked how the interview was this morning. It was pretty good. Not great, but good. The woman who interviewed me--who is in charge of the office--seemed to be a good person, and would be decent to work for. She pushed me a bit on my lack of job-experience in the idosyncracies of that particular office, and since I don't actually have much experience, I didn't have a lot to push back with. Other than that my interests and qualifications seemed to sit well with her.

Now it's "wait and see" time. Made non-the-better by the interview happening in the morning. I mean, if it was afternoon, I could have done the interview, gone back to work for an hour or two, gone home and done something to relax. Not so. With the boss's presentations for his next couple endeavors already finished, there isn't a whole lot to do today--which makes the day go slow, and the waiting seem longer. No, I don't expect to find anything out (good or bad) before Friday at the earliest, but sitting in a location with little to do is not my idea of productive, fun, or useful. Patience, you have left me today.

So that was how the interview went.

Scooped again!

Oh drat! I've been scooped again. Normally I have to bow to the high and mightly like the Times, Post, BBC, or the Onion. This time though, by blog heavy-hitter Wonkette.

If any of you are wondering what could inspire such a vehement outburst from me, it was this story on the great and powerful Kay Baily Hutchison's comments that perjury really is a silly idea of a crime.

Not to dwell on the judicial system today, but it seems an odd argument from a Republican that perjury isn't really a serious crime, when it was sufficient to impeach a President. Oh, I forgot, he was of a different party.

Even if that part of the absurdity doesn't get you going, (and it's enough for me, today at work...as if the 4 other posts aren't testament enough) there's that small matter that this woman is likely going to vote on the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice in the next month.

WHAT!?

I know the axiom is "a people get the government they deserve," but I think it's a bit much to assert that the choices made by our government should be based on the idea that the juridical process of the United States should only be applied at times of political convenience.

And just in case anyone wants to say this is a political witch-hunt, a comparison: Clinton's Whitehouse appointed a "special prosecutor" who dug into just about every aspect of the Clinton's lives. Remember, not finding any wrong-doing in Whitewater, Starr then moved into other areas of Clinton's life...resulting in the Monica Lewinski-perjury problem that resulted in Clinton's being disbarred.

President Bush, by contrast? Has refused to release any documents of any kind involving either himself (military records), his office--governor or President, or those of people who worked inside the Exec. office of the President/Vice-President--John Roberts, Dick Cheney, Harriet Miers. Hmmmm

Jurisprudence by Faith Alone

Hoping the American people will be more understanding of him than our elected leaders, President Bush is calling for a new type of government. He won't do this directly, as the shake-up would be too great, but he does it indirectly in the way he pursues policies, and the way he addresses the nation. The most recent example comes from his statements today about Harriet Meir's nomination to the Supreme Court.

""Harriet Miers is an extraordinary woman. She was a legal pioneer in Texas. She was ranked one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States on a consistent basis." He added later, "Harriet Miers is a fine person, and I expect her to have a good, fair hearing on Capitol Hill.""
Hoping the American people will believe him that the only thing necessary to run a country well (or be prepared for disasters, or interpret the contstitution) is to be trusted by the President, Bush is refusing to release papers that would give the Senate some indication of what she did/wrote/thought while working for the White House.

It seems that the Senate has followed Bush's earlier advice, "Fool me once...shame on...shame on you. Fool me twice...can't get fooled again." It took them more than twice, but with the disaster on the Gulf Coast fresh in their minds, and with Michael Brown still defiant about any responsibility for the failed preparations, the Senate seems unwilling to simply accept President Bush as their modern day political savior.

Isn't it strange that it takes a Republican controlled Congress and an politically faltering Republican President for the Senate to begin to re-assert itself as a legitimate branch of the U.S. government?

I wonder what things would be like if we had two political parties that were willing to stand up to the abuse of power?

On Furtunes

For a while now, I've thought it would be great to have "bad" fortune cookies. You know, something to break up the saccharine nice-ness of the sayings in fortune cookies. Not because I'm looking for bad things to happen to people, but because the possibility of something other than, "you're days will always be bright an shining," would increase the excitement from fortune cookies.

Someting like, "bad things happen when you talk more than you listen," or, "There are great things to be done, but today, focus on the little things."

Today at lunch I got something close to what I was asking for. I went to "Lucky takeout" on U street. I ordered one of the "spicy" lunch specials, and asked for it extra hot. I'm pretty sure the store is run by Norweigians in disguise--still not hot.


But this was in my fortune cookie:

There is in the worst of fortunes the best chance of a happy ending.
I'm not really sure what I should read into this, though, since I picked up the take-out on the way back from an interview for a job I'm very interested in.

Apparently, "be careful what you wish for" is valid, even in this "Island, surrounded on all sides by reality."





Saturday, October 22, 2005

One Ping Only

Even though Ska is in town, and I'm supposed to help Sara and Brooke show her a good time, last night it just wasn't going to happen. A week of irregular meals, too much coffee, and not enough sleep caught up with me last night. I couldn't even muster the energy to go to the porch we share with our neighbors, and be social with them at their party. It was too far to walk out the front door.

After sleeping longer than I've slept in months, I woke up this morning to the oddest of sounds. You remember how Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin communicated in "The Hunt for Red October"?
"One ping only."
A sound vaguely reminiscent of a sonar ping echoing through my house. At least I thought it was the house at first. Now that I'm downstairs with my computer in the living room, I realize it's actually the whole neighborhood.

A quck peek out the window didn't reveal any Los Angeles, Seawolf, or Akula submarines, so I'm guessing there are no Joseph Hazelwoods captaining submarines right now, and even if they were, they wouldn't be able to get three miles inland to hang out on my block. So for now, the source of our active-sonar pings remains uncharictaristically unknown.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Who's a Rummy?

Rumsfeld has more to say in China.

The funny thing is, the Chinese are giving him far better coverage than the Washington Post.

Here's a quick example, note the bold:
Chinese:

"He also stressed that the two militaries should seek common ground while reserving differences and promote exchanges in the forms of academy education, personnel exchanges and fleet visits and that he has no doubt about China's military build-up. He was quoted as saying by Zhang Bangdong, director of the Foreign Affairs Office (FAO) of Chinese Defense Ministry, who participated in the meeting."
Washington Post:

"At a joint news conference, the Chinese defense minister, Gen. Cao Gangchuan, rejected U.S. assertions about the pace of China's military buildup and denied that the government has been understating its defense spending. He said Chinese resources were focused on reducing domestic poverty.

"It is not necessary or even possible for us to massively increase the defense budget," Cao said, though he acknowledged that "some funding" is excluded from this year's published budget of $30.2 billion. The Pentagon says true Chinese military spending could be as high as $90 billion."

It's like the Yankees going into the Metrodome and saying to the Twins, "We see you playing baseball in the same league as us, but we don't like how you're recruiting and training new players. We want you to stop doing that." WHAT?? OF COURSE China wants to play in the big-leagues, and do so on its terms.

Ignoring for the moment Chinese history texts' emphasis on the "century of shame and humiliation" caused by imperial agressors (The U.S., Great Britan, France, Germany, et. al) taking chunks of China and using them as play-lands, there's this little thing called national pride.

Honestly, what else would you expect from a country of A. 1.3 billion people, B. A history of regional and even global supremacy, and C. Insecurity being between several othe big, powerful countries (Russia, India, Japan).
And a country who brought us those silly innovations of moveable type, paper, gunpowder, and the bureaucracy.

What kind of resposne do you think Americans would give if Costa Rica up and said to us, "we're in charge, we're going to be in charge, and so you better stop trying to improve yourselves in order to stop us from being in charge."?



Carol in North Korea

I was itching for some asia news this morning, and got more than I bargained for. First there was a bunch of small-scale stuff about earthquakes in Japan, U.S. troop problems caught on tape in Afghanistan, the normal ho-hum of the Washington Post.

Not the BBC! I open up the BBC's asia-pacific page, and guess who's face is staring at me?





For those of you who are Steve, Natsuko, Ska or Amy, that's Carol (on the right). She, without knowing me or Steve, and only knowing Ska for about 2 days, put up a whole bunch of us in her apartment in Beijing for a couple of days. And now she's staring at the world from the webpages of the BBC. The internet makes the world a little wierd sometimes. Click on the photo for the BBC story.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The DeLay delay

A reader of North Suburban fame has asked, "when are you going to rant on DeLay?" He knew me in college, and had the misfortune of trying to sleep through many of my 3 am paper and rant-writing sessions. So he knows what he's talking about.

The problem is, I don't have anything to add on the DeLay front. I mean, if the guy's not guily, Bush talks gooder in the English language than most folks I'm knowing. But it doesn't matter. The Texas redistricting--that helped preserve a Republican Majority in the House--isn't going to be recalled, even if the state-elections that led to the redistricting were arrived at through fraudulent, illegal, unethical, and mechanisms even Machiavelli himself would have blushed, had "the Hammer" suggested them to him.

So there's that going against me ranting on DeLay.

There's also bigger news.

Saddam has switched bodies with Mel Gibson! Saddam met with President Vicente Fox of Mexico today and pledged $1 million to Mexican hurricane relief, while Gibson sat in the courtroom in Hussein's place during today's trial. What's amazing is I'm the first person to notice. I've got the scoop!

Don't believe me? Here are the pictures.

You tell me which one is which.


Tax the Blue States

In what can only be described as shocking, a Presidential advisory committee is going ahead with a plan that blue-staters should have expected all along: tax them into submission!

Here's the story in the Post. For those of you wanting me to link to more articles in the Times, get them to stop charging for the ONLY part of the paper I like: the Columns!

The panel has apparently suggested two significant changes in the tax system:

  1. Eliminate state and local tax deduction from federal taxable income.
  2. Move towards a more consumption-based tax system
I don't know how any of you feel about the tax system, but I'm fairly certain I know how David Strom feels about them. And if a panel were trying to create the perfect weapon for Strom to use to destroy the American system of government, this would be it.

Where do I get this idea you might ask? Well, because states that have high state and local taxes also tend to be blue states. The Federal government can't raise their taxes directly--that would be against the republican credo of "quit your job and max out your credit card". But they can eliminate the deductions that allow states that want to have silly things like successful education systems, or functioning roads, pay for them.

And yes, Blue States are subsidising Red states. Not just with taxes either. By and large, blue states give more to charity. Most of this is done through state tax money--which is why states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana have limitted infrastructure and low high-school graduation rates: because no one in those states pays for them.

Getting rid of the state and local deduction from Federal taxes is a great plan, if the goal is to get everyone to hate the government, but a bad way to improve the tax code.

I have an alternate proposal.

Let's set minimum standards for statehood. If you want to be a state in the most prosperous, powerful country in the history of the world, you have to actually meet standards that would indicate you belong. They would look something like this:
  • Highschool graduation rate of at least 93%
  • At least 27% of your state (over age 25) should have a college degree
  • Over a 10-year period, your state has to derive more of it's income from commerce, industry, and innovation than from military bases, tourism, or federal subsidies.
  • The leading cause of death for young men can't be homicide.
  • No population group can have a life-time incarceration rate of 20%

If we're the "best country in the world" lets start holding ourselves to that standard.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Tai Zaogao

Tai Zaogao, a Chinese phrase essentially meaning "too bad" usually in reference to something that was planned to happen, or something that could have happened but didn't. At least that's my rudimentary and non-dictionary use of it.

When I'm feeling blase about international missed-steps and Bush administration gaffes, it's often a word that comes to mind. As it did this evening when I was reading about Sec. Defense Donald Rumsfeld's trip to China (here is the article I read, the Post has a background piece).

At the first stop on his first China trip since becoming Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld chided the Chinese a bit for a lack of political freedom (no big shocker from a U.S. envoy of his rank) and also criticized the Chinese for inadequate transparency with their military and its budget (a long-standing beef between China and the West).

But what caught me the most was the mention of the Q&A and the opportunity he had to address differences between democracy in the U.S. and the system in China, in a straightforward, honest way, and score enormous points with average Chinese, and those Chinese who seek to broaden the scope of daily freedoms.

"During a question and answer session with students and faculty after his speech, a professor said China hears "different voices" from the United States about future relations with China

"I hadn't noticed that," Rumsfeld said in response."

Tai Zaogao!

Was this a direction he was coached to take the answers, or are administration officials so reflexively/instinctively/mechanistically against multiple points of view that the mere suggestion that a country with freedom of the press, 300 million people, and about 1,000 government officials who feel qualified to comment on international affairs with "authority," strikes the Secretary of Defense as objectionable?

If he wanted to "gain face" for one of the most hated American Administrations in China since Eisenhower, all he would have had to do is to respond to the question with a different tact. Try something in this direction, "You've been listening! Try governing in a country where everyone has a say, and often-as-not we disagree." Or how about--in good Chinese syntax, "In Our America we have a system that is a little different than in Your China. Many voices are heard in America, because we feel that is how we reach the best decision. When you're hearing different voices from America, you're getting an idea of how our system is different than some other systems in the world."

OK, maybe those push it a bit too far, but simply admitting there are different voices in the American political and civic discourse, and using it as an opening to talk to how it contributes to the strength of our democratic process, would have been a great opening. I guess admitting the existence of dissent in his country is too dangerous for a Cabinet member of a president elected by the overwhelming majority of 1% of the electorate.

Zai shuo yi bian; Tai Zaogao.

The Post isn't doing it, but why can't I?

The Washington Post seems to be afraid to do it, but I'm not. Signs in today's paper point to one thing, and one thing only:
The Sky is Falling

You might think I'm being an extremesit, or a pessimist, or worse, a doom-sayer, but this time I'm right. I have to be.

There's been talk of a budding inflationary tendencies in the economy for a while, and some loud-mouths have talked of the dangerous balancing act going on between Washington and Beijing, and the Bush-Hu-Greenspan triangle. But today, there are undeniable signs of danger for us, our economy, and even our way of life!

Wholesale prices have SKYROCKETED. Up 1.9% in September. Energy supposedly is causing the brunt of this, with energy prices having risen by 7.1%

BUT that's not the real reason.

It comes down to something far more fundamental, significant, and even vital to our way of life and the American dream:

EGGS!

The same article tells us that the price of "eggs for fresh use" Hurtled ahead, Millenium Falcon style, jumping 49% last month! This could be catastrophic for the near-term jobs and nutrition picture.

Eggs are in EVERYTHING. They're in bread, cake, and cookies..to name the staples. But they're also in other important dietary items: egg-fried rice; breakfast burritos; delicious bisquickified goodness; they're a tasty frill to good hamburgers.

Eggs are important for things besides eating: cosmetics; plaster; writing bibles by hand.

Go 'head. Try and imagine your life where each of these activities costs 50% more! That means if you were a young family of three just scraping by, and you wanted to take your whole family out for a delicious breakfast at Denny's, you'd have to be creative: no pancakes, waffles, or toast of any kind. Quiches, omlettes, souffles? Not this time. You could get a "Bacon, Sausage, Egg, and Toast" breakfast, without the egg or the toast, but how tasty would that be?

Time for Action

I don't know about you, but something this fundamentally dangerous to the American way of life calls for immediate action.

There are three simple steps that must be taken immediately to ensure America makes it through this penny-pinching, economic crisis:

  1. Repeal that pesky death-tax, where the government takes money out of your pocket, and stops you from buying eggs for your family.
  2. End corporate FICA (Social Security) taxes, because if you want to retire, you'll be smart enough to invest your own money. No sense hurting corporate profits right now for some silly boondoggle for the lazy that Democrats call "retirement". We need Eggs, dammit!
  3. Invade China. We must secure a stable, long-term source of eggs to maintain our economic, egg-based hegemony. China's production of eggs nearly trebled in the decade between 1990 and 2000. They are probably using their wiles to manipulate the egg-market and force average Americans to suffer through a period of egg-shortage.
Please join with me in calling on our elected representatives, and our President to take these bold but necessary actions before an entire generation of Americans grows up on egg-substitutes!

Monday, October 17, 2005

It's all coming together

I was sitting on my bed mulling over some ideas for blog entries for today, and one of them was "write about how excited you are for Genya's trip to Malaysia". Why? A bunch of reasons.
1. Genya is really cool.
2. She's one of the brightest bulbs I know
3. She's researching and working on exactly what she wants
4. She gets to do it in Malaysia, which--according to my friends Val and Larry--is a fantastic place
5. (this is the only bad reason) I don't get to go to Malaysia!

She's also that rare person who grew up on in farm-country, has the skills and ambition to do well in business, but her heart and mind are taking her in a different direction. That said, she still writes about farm-country issues from time to time, but like me, usually from a wonk point of view. About a week ago she wrote about farm subsidies, and--amazing for someone I know--with something other than warm glowing praise for the pastoral communities those subsidies supposedly support.

To get where I was going with this when I started a while ago, today in the Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby has a column where he talks about what the federal government is missing in it's big-issue, doom-and-gloom policy perspective.

"A lot of Washington debates are about managing bad stuff: war, terrorism, natural disasters, killer viruses, budget deficits, trade deficits, medical inflation, airline bankruptcies, imploding corporate pension plans. But policy also needs to focus on the good stuff: To figure out how we can accelerate progress."
Mallaby's talking about improving the quality of our education--bringing out math and science scores up from 15th and 24th in the world to something closer to what our children and our future deserve. He then makes the point that several new incentive programs including prizes for students who do well in Math, and increased pay for Math teachers would cost approximately $10 billion--or half the price of the farm subsidies Genya was writing about.

I'm not going to be nice like Mallaby was. Education is not simply an issue where more money from the federal government will be enough to make a difference. There is a responsibility for the states in all of this. It will take state and school districts establishing their own creative programs to get the right mix of incentives for students and teachers. The right mix of good curriculum, energetic teachers, students who are in school and ready to do more than just whittle away their time.

What are we doing as states, as communities, as individuals to ensure that all our children are given access to the type of education that prepares them to go out and improve the world. Not just push brooms or re-roof houses, but to innovate, create and strive for something. Why don't we really live life on the edge, and try to give our children something to dream of being besides movie stars, pop-singers, rappers, or professional athletes. We've been trying that for 25 years, and it doesn't seem to be working.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

One Nation, Under Beijing?

One of the trickiest dances in international diplomacy over the past 30 years has been the Taiwan two-step the U.S. has been engaged it. It doesn't help that there are three people dancing--and all are trying to lead. But to make it worse, the U.S. is trying to dance a dignified Waltz, China's trying for a zesty swing, and Taiwan keeps changing between Tango and the Can Can.

If you're not an avid follower of China, it basically boils down to this: China claims Taiwan as a province, and is leaving all of it's options open to "get Taiwan back". Taiwan is playing coy, not saying it's independent from China, but not conceding to Beijing the right to come over and "take charge." The U.S. wants to be friends with both, and has a historical military commitment to preserve the security of the island. (Taiwan is closer to China than Cuba is to the Keys.)

There's plenty of disagreement in Taiwan over whether it should assert it's independence, in Beijing about whether China should launch an attack to compel Taiwan to "the Mainland's" view, and in Washington over a whole range of issues.

Mostly, the concern is what happens when the disagreement becomes a conflict. There are many on all three sides of this loveless-but-passionate love-triangle who assume this to be the inevitable outcome.

I'm going to throw out a different option. Rather than worry about the independence/autonomy/sovereignty of Taiwan, why doesn't the U.S. do a combination of what it's been doing, but with a new twist. Most "hawks" in the U.S. see China as a strategic competitor who will likely challenge U.S. hegemony in coming decades. (I'll ignore for now that hawk-policies are actually hastening the Chinese challenge by weakening the U.S.) The hawks also see defense of Taiwan against godless communist aggressors as a sacred duty, and one that we might consider into taking preemptive action against China, just to "show them who's boss." Not something that sounds very good to me.

The doves are convinced that peaceful rapprochement will eventually allow Taiwan and the Mainland to come to terms and reunite like a big happy family. I don't really adhere to this view either. Right now, Taiwan has too much to lose in reunification with the Mainland--especially in economic terms.

However, if China were to attack Taiwan right now, it's economy would be destroyed (where do you think a great piece of China's foreign investment and international connections come through? That's right, the small pesky island of across the straits of Formosa.)

If the U.S. really was serious about expanding the rule of law, and democratic reforms in China, we'd be seeking a way to create indigenous pressures in this direction. Enter Taiwan. It's a budding democracy, forging it's own path into multi-party elections, rule of law, and all the other trappings of Modern democracy. If the U.S. wants to see these reforms spread in China, it should make sure they are successful in Taiwan. If there is complete (or near complete) buy-in on participatory government, independent judiciary, a vibrant civil society, and limited government in Taiwan, then one-way or another, it'll start creeping into China. All the faster if China and Taiwan resolve their sovereignty dispute and merge back to one.

Many "hawks" fear a "rapid decapitation strike" against Taiwan which would cripple the country before the U.S. could intervene. My thought? If democracy is institutionalized on a personal level, and people are engaged in a vibrant, thriving, and successful civil society, it won't matter. Because the resentment of a Beijing-style curtailment of rights and liberties would result in mass-uprisings. The removal of legitimately independent courts in favor of Beijing-beholden mouth-pieces would cause an exodus of economic and social capital that would make the 1995-1996 emptying of Hong Kong look like a trickle.

Long story short: if you want a democratic China, do everything possible to make sure Taiwan's democracy is succeeding first. Then the Taiwan issue itself becomes less significant.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Mr. Greenspan, we have a problem

With all the good economic news coming down on us in droves, it's sometimes hard to pull out the stuff that really matters. That's where good journalism, and newspaper-layout come in.

For example, the Washington Post's web version today, has as it's top story, "Social Security, other benifits, to rise sharply" as a result of Katrina-induced (among other things) inflation increases.

It's only a 1.2 percent increase for the month, says the article. But if inflation went up that much every month for a year, we'd have inflation rates that make credit-card's interest look consumer-friendly.

The more pressing problem here (besides costs going up for every household in America) is that federal expenditures, already well above what the government can afford, are going to go up more. So, combine the impact of spending for Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and Republican insistence that taxes are too high and must be lowered, and our debt goes through the roof.

Not so bad when China, Japan, and South Korea are willing to buy about 70% of it. But that's all slowing down. What happens if you want to sell something, but no one is buying? You sweeten the deal. With government debt, this means increase interest rates. When interest rates go up, available capital goes down. For things like building houses, starting/expanding businesses, or paying for kids' college educations.

For a long time, Alan Greenspan and the Federal Open Markets Committee, have been walking a tight-rope between stimulating the economy and catapulting inflation (therefore interest). Republican tax-cuts took away the safety-net built up by Clinton and Congress throughout the 90s. It remains to be seen whether cowboy-diplomacy and natural disasters will be enough of a breeze to knock our high-wire economic protectors into a free-fall.

I hope not, but one thing is clear:
Mr. Greenspan, we have a problem

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Morality vs. High-and-mighty

Who wants feisty?

There is a story in today's Minneapolis Star-Tribune about the increasing availability of Plan-B, AKA the morning after pill, in Minnesota and across the country. It does a decent job of presenting two divergent views on the appropriateness of making Plan-B an over-the-counter drug (which an independent study overwhelmingly urged, though the FDA has reservations).

Here's where I get confused:
Many religious and abortion opponent groups promote abstinence until marriage as the only moral form of birth control. And others say that making Plan B easily accessible promotes irresponsible sex and inattention to sexually transmitted diseases.

"Teenage girls are not going to go to the doctor if they don't have to," said Dr. Joe DeCook, a spokesman for the Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a national advocacy group that lobbies on reproductive issues. "But then they will not be having medical testing for [sexually transmitted diseases], and they are already epidemic."

First: the idea that birth control is a moral issue escapes me. Abortion as a moral battle-ground yes: is it about a baby or about a woman's autonomy over her own body. Both legitimate questions.

But birth control? I was raised Catholic. I know mother-Church teaches two main forms of BC: abstinence and the rhythm method. The Strib article says there are approximately 3 million accidental pregnancies in the U.S. every year. Without any research I'll guess about 1 million of them result from the rhythm method, and another 1 million come from people who are unwilling or unable to use birth control, but can't live up to the "moral imperative" of abstinence.

I know several Catholics of varying degrees of conviction read this, so I want to say I'm not trying to be offensive, I just don't get it. The Holy See and I don't see eye-to-eye on this one.

If birth control is such a moral issue, why aren't its opponents pounding away demanding condoms be removed from pharmacies, gas stations, and vending machines? Or at least require presentation of a valid marriage certificate at time of sale?

Why isn't there a push to ban "the pill"? I mean if there was one single invention that advanced the cause of a libidinous society, it was the one-bedroom apartment. But the second is certainly "the pill". Where is the moral outrage on those?

Or even Viagra, for that matter? Again, this is without any pretense of scientific study, but I'm willing to bet the majority of men who are prescribed Viagra are not married to their first wives.

Second: it's a preposterous idea that without doctors acting as gate-keepers on contraception, the (horrendous) problems we have in this country with sexually transmitted disease will somehow morph into an Avian Influenza-like problem, and we'll all start contracting herpes through unprotected discourse with the (presumedly promiscuous) cashier girl at Safeway.

If Americans were in any way serious about reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, slowing the spread of STDs, or generally improving the health and well-being of fellow-people (instead of chest-pounding and soap-box based righteous indignation at the slightest perceived affront) we'd take a lesson from several African nations.

ABC. It's not only slowed the progress of AIDS, in some cases it's even decreased transmission.

The crazy thing is, almost everyone, of every political and religious stripe can agree nearly instantaneously to the first two-thirds of the program;

Abstinence
Be faithful
use a Condom

Why is it so hard to concede to reality? People are animals. I said it, we are. Animals. Like Chimps (or bonobos...some of you get the reference), or cats, or salamanders. We're animals. Well, most of us aren't too much like salamanders. As a result, sometimes our Animal selves win out over our Moral selves-we were apes before we were people. We had survival instincts before we had ethics and philosophy.

Is it so hard to encourage people to behave "well" but give them the tools to cope when they "falter"?

Maybe we just want to see other people "screw up" and rather than extend them a helping hand, we'd prefer to ridicule.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Quote of the day

This was too brilliant not to repost. It comes from the discussion board attached to a blog of two friends of mine.

In talking about the evolution vs. intelligent design "debate" going on in Kansas, the following was posted:

"It's like Mr. Peabody set the Way Back Machine to 1909 in Kansas and now it's bleeding into the entire country. UGh!"

Thanks Opai!

The links are mine, the genius is borrowed.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

beauty is still free

and sometimes comes from surprising packages.

I saw this via a friend's blog, it's from yesterday's Post, but since I can't seem to get to it, check it out here. It's, of all people, George F. Will. Who rates right up there with Bill Bennett as a person who I don't like reading because I usually am utterly impressed by the depths of the reality-blinders he wears.

Not yesterday.

He poses some great questions about the nomination of Mier, and offers cogent responses to the same.

A little comment to President Bush: when you've got hippies like George Will shooting at you (from the right) you know you've lost your "base". And since you had such a strong hold on the other 49.7 percent of the country, it might be time to stop playing President, and start being President.

Wit and Wisdom

Don't worry, not from me.

But from an unusual source: the Washington Post. There's a post today in The Post by one of it's resident bloggers. I'm not normally prone to reading the bloggings of those with the pretension to do it for a major newspaper, but two words caught my attention in the front-page link today:

MAUREEN DOWD.

On the off-chance that there are a few non news-junkies out there, Ms. Dowd is a columnist of long-standing for....the NYTimes. The largest rival of the Washington Post for the 95% of Americans who can't afford the Wall Street Journal.

One paper putting the name of a columnist of a different paper on the cover? This must have some merit.

And it does. Remember how the NYT started charging one Sunday for something that had been free for a decade before? Apparently, the Post blogger thinks its silly too. And maybe, just maybe, so does Maureen Dowd.

In any case, keep fighting the power, and boycot the Times online. (notice lack of link).

PS. Random tidbit. Tuesday, I linked to a page in wikipedia about the commodore 64. A great piece of equipment for playing with Logowriter, but nothing fancy. Well. It's today's featured article. I guess I really am just ahead of the curve.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Group think writ-large

"I know her well enough to be able to say she's not going to change . . . Twenty years from now . . . . her philosophy won't change."

So said President George W. Bush about Harriet Miers, at a press conference this morning in the Rose Garden, according to the Washington Post.

Now, the last time I remember Bush giving such high praise to someone he nominated, it sounded something like this, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.”

And do we really want someone on the Supreme Court who is, “not going to change. . . . Twenty years from now. . . . her philosophy won't change.

Forget what specifically that judicial philosophy is (activist courts striking up prayer in schools, and government money for private religious programs; a shrinking role for government in protecting the weak, and a larger role for government in promoting the interests of the powerful), what scares me is that a President who’s administration has been the embodiment of rule-by-yes-men and a group-think that makes the Johnson White House's head-long rush into Vietnam look like the Oxford Debating Society.

Forget partisan politics, forget issue-focuses on reproductive issues, campaign finance, or whatever your pet topic is. Will the United States be better off with person on the bench whose primary qualifications are roughly equivalent to Mike Brown’s? She was Bush’s private attorney, and his Oval Office secretary. She was head of the Texas Bar, and worked in the White House Counsel’s office. But hasn’t proven a legal, juridical, moral or ethical qualification to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

For a person to be elevated from a position where policy impact is minimal, to monumental (whether activist, revisionist, constructionist, or originalist) ought to result in a significant shift in one’s worldview, and the way one approaches work. To say that a nominee’s main selling point is that, confronted with a very different operating environment (the Bench) combined with a 20-year time horizon for an evolving U.S., she will not change. That sounds like me trying to sell a Commodore-64 to NASA as an excellent piece of computing equipment because NASA will “know what it’s getting.”

President Bush, you may not take the American people very seriously, but many of your fellow-citizens do. Please stop patronizing us, and nominate people to the bench who are competent to be on it, not those who look like "

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Ode to Corporate Genius

**Author's note: the following is based on an experience at the Columbia Rd. Bank of America cash machine last night. It did not happen to me, but a friend I was with. I can only assume it's not an isolated occurance, because it happened to the gentleman at the cash machine next to us as well.

Bank of America, how I love thee.

I give you my money, and you work hard to keep it safe.
You work hard to make sure that the money I give you is never taken out inapropriately.
Not by thiefs.
Not by swindlers.
Not even by me.
You are nice enough to give me a debit card.
You make sure I have the PIN.
But you are wise enough to know I shouldn't be spending my money.
So if I put the card you gave me in the machine at your bank,
you know enough to take it.
And keep it.
And not give me my money.

I'm happy you help keep the economy strong
by creating jobs that other companies would simply overlook.
Like the person who will answer the phone and look into my claim
that the machine you use, that ate my card, didn't really dispense the $20
I asked it for.

I'm glad you try to single-handedly change
U.S. consumer savings trends.
Because when I can't get my money
I can't spend it.
And that helps America.

For all these great contributions
Thank You
Bank of America.
If I ever become
a self-absorbed
penny-pinching
efficiency-seeking
people-grinding
profit-focused
corporate leech

You will be my model.

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Week in review

It's been an exciting week in my small corner of the District. OK, not really, but I'll talk it up anyway.

Biggest news of the week: Last night I saw my first hockey since leaving civilization. It was only a pre-season Caps/Penguins game, and definately not up to WCHA standards, but when living in a foreign land, even approximations are good sometimes.

Other news: The house is likely going to be really quiet today and tomorrow as 2 of the roommates are out of town, and Ang just signed a lease with Joe a few blocks away. That means Smalls and Ange are out shopping for "apartment stuff" most of the time.

Then there's the new "job". I'm working at a place that does early childhood program development, and is possibly trying to break into doing more political advocacy work. It's a great mission and they're trying to and (seemingly for the most part) succeeding. It's officially a 3 week temp assignment, and I'm happy for something to do during the day, and a bit of income to help defray rent and other expenses. It's just "not my bag, baby"--thanks Mr. Powers.

I guess there are things I can understand having honest differences about when it comes to politics, economics, and the whole millieau. But not early childhood programming. Evidence is mounting on unprecedented scales showing how high-quality early-childhood programming is beneficial to children. The evidence also shows that it's disproportionally beneficial to under-priviledged, and poor children. This means that a society investing in early childhood programs is likely to make it's least-likely to succeed citizens MORE likely to be MORE successful.

That sounds like the first case of a rising tide that actually raises all boats that I've ever heard of. And that's why I don't think it's for me to push. I can't see any logical way for a local, state, or federal government to say, "No, those kids aren't worth investing in." It's basically like saying, "if kids want to succeed, they should choose their parents more carefully." Or, from a business-minded approach, it's like saying, "I'd rather spend a lot of money training under-qualified people to do jobs they are not likely to stay in very long, than I would spend a little money on training highly-qualified workers who are likely to stay for quite a while." Just bad business plan. And what happens to bad business plans in the medium to long term? They lose to good business plans.

So, to get off my soapbox, I'll work at this place for a few weeks, but I don't think I'll be there long-term. It's just too frustrating to see something that actually is clearly beneficial, and see it ignored because of a lack of political or economic leadership. I'd rather find other ways to be professionally frustrated.