Citizens Band

Support Democracy

2011-01-30T22:28:00.010-05:00

American interests are best served by promoting the pursuit of freedom and self-determination rather than supporting regimes reviled by their own people.

In the traditionally stagnant Arab world, events have moved at lightning speed in recent days. The unexpected revolt against the dictator Ben Ali in Tunisia, ignited by the self-immolation of one disaffected young man, has led to region-wide protests by citizens fed up with their own repressive leaders. Now, the area's most populous nation and most significant power, Egypt, is ablaze in revolution, and the 30-year-plus reign of aging autocrat Hosni Mubarak is on the brink.

Official U.S. reaction to the plight of key American ally Mubarak appears to be slowly adapting. Only a few days ago, Vice President Joe Biden rejected the notion that the Egyptian leader was a dictator, and his comments about the aims of the protests were lukewarm at best. This morning, in a sign that the Obama administration's position was evolving as Mubarak's position has weakened, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton spoke of "an orderly transition to meet the democratic and economic needs of the people", though no calls were made for Mubarak to step down.

As Egypt's police state falls into a state of chaos, the U.S. undoubtedly has a critical role to play. Although Mubarak has been aligned with American interests in the region, we cannot afford to be on the wrong side of the mass populist sentiment in the Arab world on this issue. We are witnessing a struggle to establish self-determination and democratic values, ideals that Americans cherish and ostensibly seek to promote--our allegiance here should be obvious.

The uncertainty of how this situation will play out is understandably worrisome for U.S. policymakers, but events of this past month are an obvious culmination of social and technological trends. Demographics in Egypt and other Arab countries now skew heavily to the younger generation, who are fed up with living in a repressive system whose establishment pre-dates their births. And in a 21st century environment connected by satellite TV, mobile phones, and the Internet, it has never been so easy for them to organize and spread popular discontent with corruption and lack of economic opportunities.

While it's too early to tell how Egypt's revolution will turn out, from my point of view, comparisons of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood to Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian clerics are overblown. And the apparent centralization of the anti-Mubarak protesters on Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, a secular diplomat and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, as their leader is quite encouraging. Certainly it appears the anti-Mubarak coalition recognizes the importance of selecting a leader who can be viewed with some confidence by the rest of the world to potentially run the country.

Going forward, the U.S. needs to be cognizant that propping up a ruler viewed as illegitimate by his people may ensure stability in the short-term, but it won't last. The desire for self-determination is inexorable, so instead of engendering a people embittered against America, we should show our support for these democratic uprisings. For countries like Egypt, Tunisia, and other future revolutionary spots (not just in the Middle East, but also Africa, where many entrenched strongmen preside over looted states), us being true to our values stands the greatest chance of having those countries produce workable partners rather than hostile extremists.

Business for Profit and Social Change

2010-11-13T16:19:00.005-05:00

Innovative business opportunities exist which can benefit corporations while serving the poor and middle-class in countries around the world.

One of the topics I have been most interested in over the past few years is innovation and entrepreneurship designed for non-traditional or under-served markets. Mohammed Yunus, the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, popularized the use of microfinance as a means of sustainably helping people lift themselves out of poverty. Today, microfinance has become one of the hottest areas in the NGO/development world.

The late C.K. Prahalad published a book in 2004 called The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid in which he talked about the potential business opportunities that existed to serve the world's poor (the "bottom" of the "financial pyramid"). Bill Gates described this as a way to "fight poverty with profitability". To me, this represents a far more effective method than simply handing out money, which is unsustainable and of dubious effectiveness. Involving the "bottom of the pyramid" in the modern economy, on the other hand, is win-win, with companies incented to provide goods and services to new markets, and those customers receiving access to what they need.

This kind of social entrepreneurship doesn't apply just to the very poor, but to those in, or on the cusp of, the burgeoning middle class in countries all over the world (the U.S. included). A comment by a Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee on a New York Times discussion board has stuck with me for several months: "The corporate world... [must] recognize and meet the needs of the low margin, high volume markets hidden in plain sight before them." Mr. Banerjee went on to point out that, over a century ago, Sears and Roebuck were early examples of this type of entrepreneur, and they played an instrumental role in the development of the American middle class.

I recently returned from a month spent traveling in Kenya and Tanzania, and of the things that struck me the most--aside from the view from the summit of Mt. Kilimanjaro, and seeing a cheetah kill a gazelle while on safari in the Masai Mara--was the popularity of the mobile banking system M-Pesa, which my friend and I used to effortlessly pay our safari operator.

M-Pesa, a joint venture between Safaricom (the Kenyan subsidiary of telecom giant Vodafone) and the government of Kenya, allows people to use their (basic, cheap, ubiquitous) mobile phones to make deposits and withdrawals, and send or receive money to anyone. M-Pesa eliminates the need for bank branches, using a myriad of common retail outlets to act as agents who process transactions while taking a tiny commission. Not only has M-Pesa been a huge profit driver for Safaricom (see numbers here, here, here), it has been widely effective in Kenya at providing bill payment and banking services, even in demographics that have typically lagged, such as in rural areas and among women.

(An interesting side note: this year, Vodafone rolled out the service in Afghanistan under the moniker M-Paisa. The Afghan National Police adopted the service to pay the salaries of its officers, and discovered that they had almost immediately eradicated systemic corruption. Many policemen thought they had received raises, but in reality, they were just receiving their full salary--under the old cash-model, much of their earnings had been pocketed unbeknownst to them.)

M-Pesa is just one of many examples of how social entrepreneurship--an admittedly nebulous term--is having a transformational effect that is still driven by old-fashioned capitalism. These new business models which are improving people's lives are important precisely because they are founded on more than altruism. They present one answer to the question of what the new drivers of global economic growth will be in the future.

Serious About Spending Cuts?

2010-11-03T03:00:00.009-04:00

Talk of slashing government makes for great populist campaign rhetoric, but meaningful cuts have to address defense and entitlement spending, not insignificant pork or agency budgets.

The election results are in, and this time there are no surprises. As predicted, Republicans have made huge gains, capturing the House of Representatives and significantly narrowing the gap in the Senate. They have ridden the dominant nationwide political trend of dissatisfaction with the performance of government and the Democrats who have been in charge of it. Soon to be House Speaker John Boehner declared tonight that the election was "a repudiation of big government" after earlier vowing to small-government-championing Tea Party acolytes "I'll never let you down".

Several of Rep. Boehner's party colleagues attained their victory tonight promising spending cuts. Yet the fact remains that while talk of slashing government makes for great populist campaign rhetoric, if politicians from either side of the asisle want to actually make real steps toward reducing deficits and reigning in spending, some difficult choices will have to be made. After all, the types of proposed spending cuts we have been hearing are nothing more than symbolic measures with little impact.

Congressional earmarks are much-maligned as evil "pork barrel" spending. Yet they accounted for only $16.5 billion of spending last year, under 0.5% of the $3.5 trillion in the federal government's 2009 budget. Other proposed cuts heard during election are so negligible as to be laughable (ex: federal funding for the oft-beleaguered National Endowment for the Arts and National Public Radio combined are well below $200 million a year). There are most certainly programs in the federal budget that deserve to be trimmed or eliminated, but even the most aggressive approach toward them would not be enough to make a significant dent.

What then makes up the vast majority of government expenditures? Three components--defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid--accounted for over $2 trillion, roughly 62% of the federal government's 2009 spending. (And that's excluding perhaps $200 billion in special off-budget spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.) Those aren't expenses that are going to go away any time soon--and entitlement spending will only increase. Worse yet, these expenses are all "sacred cows" with their own powerful, entrenched supporters, and proposing changes to them can be political suicide.

So the only realistic way to tackle enormous government outlays seems heretofore unfeasible given the lack of courage or incentive neither political party has shown for years. It has always been easiest to speak in cute sound bites about fiscal responsibility, and it has never been politically acceptable to make the sacrifices necessary to affect real change. Until our politicians reset our expectations of the political process by raising the level of sophistication in their debate--acknowledging that every hard decision is made with consequences, but that the greater good must prevail--our national political discourse will continue to be conducted on a debased level. And we will suffer for it.

Islam and Assimilation in America

2010-08-20T03:44:00.004-04:00

However improbable, over the past month the single dominant political issue in America has been the proposed creation of an Islamic cultural center near the former site of the World Trade Center in New York City. Far too much has already said about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque", somehow ridiculously conflated to constitute a threat to American values and an affront to victims of 9/11. Enough people have tried to point out the folly in denying this high-profile opportunity to display our country's tolerant and pluralistic virtue and prove that we recognize that Islam is not our enemy. I would also add that it is sad that many political leaders do not have the clarity on our country's principles, and the courage to speak out against hysteria fueled by misinformation and bad intentions.

Public opinion polls show the project is opposed by a large majority of Americans. The same polls indicate that an unfavorable view of Islam may not be confined just to a handful of bigoted (or opportunistic) politicians, but that it is reflective of a significant part of the population at large. This raises the troubling question of whether the Muslim-American community has in some way failed to be accepted as part of the broader mainstream American culture in general.

Typically, such a problem would be associated with one of several European countries who have had difficulty assimilating their (immigrant) Muslim populations, and have thus dealt with racial/religious tensions and social unrest. But this would not be true of the U.S., where we have a long tradition of successfully incorporating people of all races and religions into our fold, right? Well, if the tone of discussion that has prevailed in the past month--one marked by bigotry, misinformation, and ignorance--persists, I worry that the Muslim-American community could justifiably feel unfairly singled out, targeted, and persecuted.

How are we in danger of getting to a point where an entire group of people could feel so alien or detached from the broader, diverse American community? Ross Douthat of the New York Times had a great column earlier this week entitled "Islam and the Two Americas" where he discussed how the U.S. has successfully assimilated other religious segments, even those with illiberal tendencies or practices outside of typical American norms. Today, people of Catholic or Mormon faiths are an extricable part of American society, whether making up a majority on the Supreme Court, or being titans of politics, business, and sports. That, then, is the goal for Islam in America as well. Douthat argues it will take more vocal and demonstrative Muslim American leaders to convince Americans that they are on the same page when it comes to liberal democratic, secular, and moderate views.

I would argue humbly, too, that a major aspect is cultural--the truest way to be identified as part of the American way of life is to share in common experiences. Now, I am not Muslim, nor do I come from a Muslim family, so I can understand that some Muslim-Americans may bristle at the suggestion that they have to "try harder" to fit in. They should not be blamed for the ignorance and bigotry of others. Yet I noticed that when a Muslim friend of mine posted a link on his Facebook page to the TIME poll I cited above, it drew a sobering comment from a fellow Muslim friend of his. This guy wrote that given events of the past decade and "Muslims not doing much to connect with the country at large", the unfavorable public sentiment could have been worse. He added that for Muslim-Americans "mosques are badly functioning social clubs for specific ethnicities" and "they don't do outreach", so "what exactly should we expect?"

The fact of the matter is, the easiest path to mainstream acceptance (similarly with any minority group) is for more Muslim-Americans, especially young people and women, to be involved in public life in positions of prominence--such as more roles government and administration; more participation in the arts, entertainment, and sports; achieving distinction in the business world--and to be involved with and in popular cultural trends. (Heck, even having a Lebanese-American new Miss USA is a nice step, if only for showing that a range of orthdoxy of belief exists, much like any other religious tradition in the U.S.) Furthermore, a greater initiative to explain religious and cultural traditions is needed, so that "halal" is as recognized a term as "kosher", and the details of the annual Ramadan fasting period understood as well as Lent.

Given our country's ever-progressive track record, I have every confidence that the recent spate of anti-Islamic sentiment is a brief, ugly flare, whose significance has been over-amplified in a freak political debate. Also, several years from now when we look back, the idea of Muslims not being fully accepted in America will seem as quaint an idea as voters mistrusting John F. Kennedy for his Catholic faith.

Understanding "Financial Alchemy"

2010-02-28T00:49:00.002-05:00

As a result of the financial crisis, there has been a widespread vilification of Wall Street "alchemy" and the related realization that there is little understanding among the general public of what financial innovation has accomplished. Addressing these two points is an excellent short paper, "In Defense of Much, but Not All, Financial Innovation" by the Brookings Institution's Robert Litan.

Writing in an accessible style easily understood by a layperson, Litan provides a nice overview and examination of the finance landscape, from basics such as bank deposits, credit/debit cards, and mutual funds to the development and use of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and structured investment vehicles (SIVs).

Despite the prevailing anti-finance backlash of the moment, Litan reminds us that there has been a lot of financial innovation in recent decades that have been beneficial, such as ATMs, credit cards, index funds, and the rise of venture capital. Positive financial innovations have increased convenience for customers, improved access to credit, better allocated risk, and contributed to economic growth.

On the flip side, Litan identifies socially destructive inventions like the misuse of adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) with ludicrous interest rates; collateral debt obligations (CDOs) reliant on artifically inflated housing prices; and structured investment vehicles (SIVs) which were held off of a bank's balance sheet--thus circumventing regulation on minimum capital requirements--and reliant on the ability to rollover short-term debts.

Litan explains finance and the roots of the financial crisis very well, and his paper is full of interesting history and citations. For example, despite the popular reputation of private equity (PE) firms' as ruthlessly buying up companies, slashing jobs, and then selling the parts, research indicates that the majority of PE acquisitions are held long-term, that they maintain normal employment growth over time, and they contribute positively to economic growth.

In concluding, Litan argues that regulation shouldn't become so cautious as to stifle the creation of new financial innovation that could be socially useful--but that reactions to threats should be quicker. I agree. Check out his whole paper here.

Google Boosting IV

2010-02-27T19:44:00.005-05:00

The latest in a series of occasional attempts to manage my web presence on Google's search engine...

Jay Nargundkar - my blog, Citizens Band

Jay Nargundkar - summary of my professional experience on LinkedIn

Jay Nargundkar - Dreamfly is an international development organization I am volunteering for

Jay Nargundkar - archive of my opinion columns at the University of Maryland's student newspaper, the Diamondback

Jay Nargundkar, Jay Nargundkar - Brookings Institution online discussions I've participated in

Context Matters

2010-02-17T00:06:00.010-05:00

Recently, there's been a minor kerfuffle reported in the news over the use of the word "retard" by prominent newsmakers like Rahm Emanuel, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh. The ensuing controversy has led to a publicized backlash against the so-called "R-word". Amidst the hubbub though, this weekend in the Washington Post came a refreshingly level-headed column by Ohio State law professor Christopher Fairman, about the controversy. While his explanation of the evolution of "retard" from politically correct to incorrect is interesting, it's his examination of word taboos in general that I find most interesting.

Fairman points out what is obvious to most of us: that phrases like "that's so retarded" or "that's so gay" are typically not meant as insults to the mentally disabled or to homosexuals, respectively, but are meant as generic put-down words. I don't condone incivility or homophobia, and I don't think Fairman is granting a free pass to the users of those words--rather, just pointing out that the use of those words has a casual, inoffensive context (what he terms "readily identifiable alternative meanings"), and is not indicative of the user's personal insensitivity or bigotry.

We can all agree that reducing the frequency of saying phrases like the examples cited would be a good thing, making our discourse more polite. However, usage of the phrase is not by itself indicative of malicious intent. Given that we live in a culture that is all too often too quick to look for and take insult, it would be helpful to remember that words themselves are not the problem, but the meaning behind them

Context matters. That's what I thought a few weeks ago when I heard about NBC apologizing for its cafeteria menu offering fried chicken and collard greens on its Black History Month menu. Although I initially raised my eyebrows, I then asked myself, is this actually racist? Was there a malicious intent? Are those foods not historically associated with blacks in America, at least in the South? Would there have been similar complaints if Salvadoran History Month featured pupusa specials, or Indian History Month featured dosas? How exactly--if at all--do you want to teach a history lesson through a cafeteria meal? It turns out the NBC menu was personally created by the cafeteria chef, a black woman, who had specifically requested to have that offering for one day. Clearly there was no ill-will or patronizing stance coming from her.

All too often people forget about intent before crying "racism!" or whatever other grounds for offense they are taking. Again, to be clear, if ill will was actually meant and a person is purely spewing noxious hate, I am against that, and that kind of speech or action should be challenged. Regardless, I think it would be definitely helpful for people in general to not get offended so easily--toughen up mentally! Ultimately, words or ideas only have what power you accord them, and if you don't let the mere sight of one affect your psyche, then you immediately defuse its destructive potential. Put in simpler terms: shrug it off. Crisis averted.

Introducing Dreamfly

2010-02-09T00:18:00.004-05:00

A few months ago, I'd written about my search for volunteer organizations or NGOs doing work in Afghanistan which would provide a way for me to get involved. Not long after that, I got in touch with the founders of Dreamfly, a group founded in 2007 that is dedicated to empowering children and building sustainable communities in areas of conflict. Dreamfly has already founded a school in rural Pakistan and is currently working on setting up a school in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. There are plans underway to expand to India next.

It didn't take me too long to be immensely impressed by what Dreamfly had been able to achieve in such a short amount of time, as well as realize that I wanted to help out. Since initially discussing Dreamfly's use of social media and offering fundraising suggestions, I have gradually taken on a bigger role over the past few months. Currently, I am leading marketing and outreach efforts for Dreamfly, and am offering my input on strategic decisions related to business, technology, and communications.

Among my early outreach efforts has been an attempt to get Dreamfly covered by a major news media outlet. A month ago, I reached out to Nick Eaton, a reporter at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, explaining Dreamfly and its mission. I asked him whether he would be interested in covering us. After some email correspondence, we were able to set up a meeting between him and Dreamfly's co-founders, the amazing duo of Umaimah Mendhro and Mona Akmal. The resulting article was published Monday night, and I am thrilled! Read about Dreamfly, our mission, and blending non-profit assistance with social enterprise.

If you are interested in finding out more about Dreamfly, I urge you to get in touch with me. You can also take a look at our website, Facebook page (become a "fan"!), and blog. We are still a nascent organization run by a handful of volunteers, all of whom have other, full-time lives--hopefully this is an indicator of the passion we have for Dreamfly and how much we believe in its mission. If you would like to help, get in touch with me, and I'd be happy to talk with you about how you could get involved in a way you find meaningful.

Obama, Reloaded?

2010-01-27T23:51:00.014-05:00

Based on my initial reactions, President Obama's highly anticipated State of the Union tonight was not a tour-de-force, but it did at long last present the image of a hands-on, involved president that we have missed for the past year. If I'm hopeful of anything at all after this speech, it's that Obama will be much more visible and hands-on about his agenda for the rest of his term, and thus will be at least more effective than the feckless Congressional Democrats who have engendered so much ill will.

The president's speech didn't start off promisingly. Obama came out in full-bore populist mode, but sounded awkward and uncomfortable doing it. Channeling the anti-Wall Street sentiment, he mentioned levying huge fees on top banks--but left that explosive statement without any details on who or how. Yikes. Then came the announcement of the spending freeze, admirable given the government's ever-rising mound of debt, but hard to pull off during a deep recession. Perhaps this won't be significant; the president immediately excepted the major programs (two wars, Social Security, Medicare) from the freeze. I'm interested to see if Congress adopts "pay as you go" and whether Obama makes good on his threat of the veto.

For the first half of the speech, I was largely bored by the amount of vague and generic lines coming from Obama. I was off-put by the passive agressive Bush-bashing (never by name) that he repeatedly engaged in. Fine, I get it, you wanted to explain that you inherited massive deficits. But to keep harping on the previous adminstration? Come on. Actually, if Obama really wanted to show a lack of partisanship, and score points, when he came to the part on his speech where he was talking about America's support for freedom and democracy, he could have easily quoted George W. Bush. It would have been a nice gesture, practical, and would have earned him kudos from the other side of the aisle--just one short line!

But in the second half of his speech, Obama definitely got more comfortable, and had more interesting things to say. I like how he underscored the importance of infrastructure investment, noting for example, that we should have a high-speed rail network like France's or China's. (I'm still skeptical this happens, though.) I like how he punctured the pap around the fantasy expectations of his campaign mantra "Change", replacing the inarticulate with a palpable and urgent call to action.

I liked what I heard about developing more energy sources--mentioning nuclear energy and offshore drilling was a nice political compromise (and as a strong proponent of nuclear power, was happy to hear it!). He also demonstrated an awareness of the political landscape in acknowledging the health care bill's unpopularity (specifically calling out "all the lobbying and horse-trading"); telling Democrats that they have a large majority and have to be able to solve problems; and showing some backbone and common sense in admonishing Republicans that they just can't say no to everything. Especially with Scott Brown taking the Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Republicans really have to be a partner in governing the country, and Obama said as much.

In the most clear indicator of priorities, foreign policy and national security took a clear backstage to domestic policy (~90% of this speech). The president surely recognizes that the be-all, end-all for American voters right now is jobs. That unemployment figure, above 10% right now (and not including discouraged workers), has to come down if he hopes to be able to advance any part of his agenda. So while it may have been nice to hear him say he intends to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", or serve up crowd pleasers like college-loan forgiveness, they will all be forgotten if he doesn't take care of Issue #1.

Most importantly about this speech, more than any content, is that Obama came off as grounded and understanding of the American public's mindset as well as the political landscape. For too much of his first year, Obama has been seen as the detached president, one who, though smart and of level temperament, has not conveyed an image of personal leadership and engagement in major issues. Tonight he was able to display empathy, show that he was taking tangible steps to address the problems, and largely sound down-to-earth and reasonable. This, more than anything else, is what the public needed to see in the president: that he understand, that he cares, and that he can do something to fix it.

Upping the Stakes in Afghanistan

2009-12-02T23:06:00.003-05:00

Last night President Obama gave a speech announcing a large increase of American troops in Afghanistan and outlined a detailed strategy to achieve our aims in that country and have an eventual drawdown in our military presence. The easy comparison to this decision is President Bush's gamble on a "surge" of additional troops to Iraq announced in 2007, a move I supported then just as I now support Obama's decision, which he summed up as "a military effort to create the conditions for a transition, a civilian surge that reinforces positive action, and an effective partnership with Pakistan".

We can't easily expect that Obama's move will produce the same results as Bush's successful surge. Iraq, with its far more educated populace and modern society with decent infrastructure and civil institutions, may in fact seem like a cakewalk in comparison. To simplify greatly, Iraq just needed temporary security help to maintain order in the power vacuum that was created when the iron fist that had ruled them for decades, Saddam Hussein, was deposed. Now, a new ruling class has emerged, and a reasonable sense of order (relatively speaking) reigns.

Afghanistan, however, has few reliable national institutions, which is why I approve of the Obama plan's stated effort to build up the Afghan army and police. Those groups at least have a strong potential to receive significant support and trust from the local populace. Even so, there remains the pressing issue of getting the Afghan people to buy in to the central government. Hamid Karzai and company are widely viewed as inefficient and extremely corrupt. Further, vast sections of the country are virtually autonomous and see no need to pay fealty to the national government--why should they, when they don't interact much or receive anything from it?

In these areas, the governors or tribal leaders or village chiefs make their own alliances of convenience, and that often means allying with the Taliban. This doesn't mean they're in tune with all of the medievalism and brutality of the Taliban movement--often, these are just people who are doing what's convenient. They can switch sides frequently, and have done so back and forth, many times in years past. Navigating this dynamic will have to be an important part of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's strategy.

Establishing the government's legitimacy and enticing enemies into a big tent are key, but that leaves one other main issue, which traditionally has been the elephant in the room: tackling the Taliban at its roots in Pakistan. That's why I was heartened to hear Obama declare "our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan". He acknowledged the consequences of past U.S. policy with regards to Pakistan, which has had disastrous results, and pledged a new way forward. Will it be enough? I hope so, because cleansing Swat, Waziristan, and any other regions where extremists may lay is the determining factor in whether Afghanistan will have a viable future.

Yes, President Obama has taken a big gamble here. But it is a necessary one, and luckily, one he articulated for extremely well in conveying the necessity and urgency of the mission to the American people. Obama has done a good job of managing a tricky balancing act between committing to the mission fully, yet still finding a way to manage our costs and time frame, and pushing responsibility onto Afghans for their own long-term success. I can't say today that come 2011, the job will be done (and I don't believe Obama, as confirmed by McChrystal, sees that as an absolute deadline), but I think that because of Obama's speech, things will look a lot better then than they do today.

Mumbai, One Year Ago

2009-11-26T23:27:00.008-05:00

On this day, the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai (Bombay), India, I watched the excellent HBO documentary Terror in Mumbai. The film pieces together the complete chronology of the 60-hour attack and includes much footage of the terrorists in action as captured by CCTV cameras. Even more amazingly, the documentary presents much of the dialogue of the terrorists as they were carrying out their murders.

How? As it turns out, months before the attack, Indian intelligence had planted SIM cards in Pakistan with known terrorist group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, who would be revealed as the masterminds of the attack. When the attacks began, security officials realized that three of the attackers were using tagged SIM cards, and authorities were able to monitor their conversations in real-time!

Throughout, the terrorists were in contact with their Lashkar handlers, and Terror in Mumbai reveals the chilling details of these conversations. The terrorists--all young, naive kids--are heartlessly urged to kill as many people as possible, informed that their mission must end in their own deaths (or they won't go to heaven), and fed assurances that God will reward them for their actions.

For me, there was an additional personal reaction to watching the attacks replayed. My parents, sister, and I were in Mumbai, where my dad's family lives, only a few months before the attacks. We stayed in the famous Taj Mahal Hotel, perhaps the city's most iconic landmark. Watching footage of the attackers shoot up the lobby, throw grenades in the tower, and kick down doors to shoot terrified guests is still as surreal now as it was when I was glued to CNN last year watching it all unfold.

Terror in Mumbai, brief though it is (only about an hour long), is a revealing look at many things: the ambitious jihadi aspirations of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, their manipulation of impressionable youth into an ideology of hate and violence, the incompetence of the Mumbai police when the attacks started, the heartbreaking human toll of the attacks (including many Muslim victims), and a damning indication of how groups initally set-up by Pakistani intelligence (ISI) to serve as proxies against India in Kashmir have spiraled out of their handlers' control.

Given how simple it was for this type of terrorist act to be carried out (no hijacking of airliners, just gun-wielding young kids in t-shirts and jeans) it's scary to think how easily such a scenario could be replicated--in India, the U.S., or anywhere in the world. Fareed Zakaria, who narrated Terror in Mumbai, importantly points out that combating this enemy is about more than just foreign policy or military action. We also have to fight the conditions of hopelessness that allow our enemies to attract followers to nihilist acts.

The presence of a non-fundamentalist education to teach young people, and a society that provides gainful employment (and thus a viable future instead of a sense of failure) are as instrumental as anything else in the war on terrorism.

Time to Step Our Game Up

2009-11-19T13:18:00.004-05:00

Much of the coverage of President Obama's visit to China this week has reminded me that many in this country still view China through an outdated prism. Americans see China as many things: a burgeoning economic titan, a source of cheap labor and manufacturing, a communist dictatorship with a bleak human rights record and a zeal for censorship.

But what is often ignored is how the Chinese people see China. The majority see their country doing very well, with an economic transformation providing opportunities unthinkable a generation ago. David Brooks noted this week that "eighty-six percent of Chinese believe their country is headed in the right direction"! They see that China has a legitimate claim to deserving its traditional name as the "Middle Kingdom", or center of the world.

This is even though China's Communist Party has only provided incremental political liberalization for its people despite an embrace of modernization and globalization. Far from being a problem, the country's economic success has only emboldened its rulers and entrenched them in their positions.

Anyone who's been hoping since the end of the Cold War that Western-style democracy would come to China should realize that China will continue to go its own way. To me it's a silly question of semantics whether to drop the prefixes "potential" or "future" in front of "superpower" to describe China. Just note that the one undisputed superpower, the United States, is a debtor to China.

Anecdotally too, I've walked around the Pudong area of Shanghai and thought to myself "this is what the future looks like". That assessment, back in 2004, seemed primitive when I spent a week in Hong Kong last year, and was positively staggered at the cleanliness and efficiency of the city, their impressive new airport, the beautiful new bridges, and the sleek, intuitive MTR subway system that blows away the creaky NYC subway and even my beloved DC Metro. (If there's one pressing need I wish was the top of our country's priority list, it's the infrastructure, stupid!)

Of course, the U.S.'s major economic strengths--the fostering of innovation, commitment to free markets, and the best higher education system in the world--continue to make it the key player on the world stage. Nonetheless, data about income inequality or our country's struggling public schools, to name just a couple examples, should convince anyone of the need to step our game up.

How to do so is worthy of discussion in a future post. For now, I'd recommend reading Michael Porter--famous to business school students and consultants everywhere for, among other things, developing the "Porter's Five Forces" framework--who has the best succinct analysis of what we need to do that I've come across: "Why America Needs an Economic Strategy".

Defending "Goldmine" Sachs?

2009-11-13T15:17:00.031-05:00

Earlier this week, The Times of London published a much-read article on Goldman Sachs that featured an extensive interview with the company's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. Blankfein drew much attention for a quote in the article, said light-heartedly, in which he claimed to be "doing God's work".

Predictably, many people didn't see or care for the humor there--elsewhere in the article, an unnamed Goldman employee wryly notes, "We don't club baby seals. We club babies." Across the blogosphere and throughout the media, criticism of Goldman has continued to grow in recent months.

Because Goldman is indisputably the king of Wall Street, and because much attention has been placed on prominent ex-Goldman leaders in key government positions, the firm is a lightning rod for criticism during the current financial crisis. Yet, bombastic quotes aside, the main impression I came away with after reading the article was a sense of reinforcement in my belief that Goldman is simply smarter and better at what they do than anyone else out there.

Truth is, even before the financial system's implosion, Goldman was more successful and more competent than its competitors. Its acumen at realizing the severity of the sub-prime mortgage crisis early on is just one example--the article notes "When the credit crunch hit, [Goldman's] losses in the mortgage sector were only $1.7 billion, lower than any other big investment bank. UBS lost $58 billion." It should also be pointed out that Goldman never underwrote anywhere near the amount of bad mortgage debt as did competitors like Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, and Goldman still hedged its risk in order to limit its losses and avoid catastrophe.

Charges against Goldman of illegal market manipulation or of having sinister influence over government policy are pure paranoia. Yes, Goldman has benefited handsomely as a result of the banking industry bailout. But, as Blankfein points out, Main Street needs Wall Street in order to generate economic growth. Huge paychecks and bonuses? Well, Goldman makes gigantic profits, and the bonuses make up only a small percentage of those. Hey, Tiger Woods also makes a boatload of money.

Well, it's on that issue of compensation that I'm sympathetic to the critics, not just of Goldman, but of the entire banking industry. On the one hand, I believe that that these companies should be allowed to determine their own compensation plans and reward success as they see fit. On the other hand, the Wall Street banks make their huge profits (which enable their huge bonuses) by placing enormously risky bets--bets which they know are covered by the government if they bet poorly. Since the government can't afford to lose Wall Street, Wall Street can play fast and loose.

I think the issue at the heart of the matter is how we view our economy. We are comfortable with the idea of business offering tangible goods and straightforward services, relatively easy to quantify and categorize and explain. We are far less comfortable with the idea of money made on paper, from the endless buying and selling and re-shuffling of assets and debt and commodities and securities. To the casual observer, it's just money being created out of thin air. Forget slamming the mighty Goldman Sachs for being the best player at this game, the real question at hand is whether it's sound to have an economy so dependent on this type of operation.

I don't know the answer to that, but unfortunately I think there won't be serious discussion on this topic, or it will be drowned out by typical class-warfare sentiments.

Video Games are Big Business

2009-11-12T11:17:00.001-05:00

I'm not much of a video game player--I don't have an Xbox, Playstation, or Wii in my apartment, and my gaming is limited to a rare bit of Madden or the like at a friend's place. Yet in recent years, it's no secret that video games have gone from being the pastime of kids and nerds to being in the mainstream--titles like Madden, Grand Theft Auto, and Guitar Hero are all centerpieces of pop culture. Not only that, they're a big business.

My eyes popped at an AP headline today that said "'Call of Duty' game sells $310M in 24 hours". That is referring to a new game called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which apparently sold a staggering 4.7 million copies in North America and Britain on its first day on sale. The $310 million is revenue from only those regions, not even total worldwide sales, but it still makes this game the "biggest-selling launch in the history of entertainment".

Wow. That's a bona-fide blockbuster, and far more so than any Hollywood theatrical release. By comparison, the biggest movie opening of 2009 was Transformers 2, which made "only" $109 million its first weekend. It's the only movie released this year that has a total gross more than Modern Warfare 2's opening, so even though movies nowadays often rely on DVD sales for half their revenue, there's no question this game has put up some serious numbers. View this as a sign of a shift away from the traditionally dominant players in the entertainment industry.

Unsustainable Dysfunction

2009-11-11T16:46:00.003-05:00

In today's New York Times, Singaporean academic Kishore Mahbubani writes with barely-concealed smugness over the "retreat of the West", which is "quite inept at managing its economies", while America in particular has suffered a "loss of moral authority".

Though I believe it would be as presumptuous to count the West out now as were those who believed in Western unipolarity after the Cold War, one line in particular in Mahbubani's article troubled me immensely: "respect for Western practices will diminish, unless Western performance in governance improves again." Immediately I thought of my growing concern over the dysfunctional nature of American government. For some time now, I have become increasingly doubtful of our government's ability to tackle some of the most challenging problems our country faces.

In the current climate of hyper-partisanship, both major political parties and most of their prominent leaders treat their role in governing as if it were a game. The media is mostly complicit to this, when it's not an active participant. Rare is the elected official with a proper and coherent sense of purpose with the ability and desire to promote the national interest first. On issue after issue, there is a void of leadership and/or realistic solutions. Instead of constructive dialogue, the vast majority of what is said in Congress is a waste of everyone's time.

The current political battle over health care is just one example. Regardless of political views, anyone can agree that promoting access to health care for a greater number of citizens is a good thing--the question, of course, is how to achieve that goal. This weekend, the House passed a bill after overcoming months of dithering sidetracked not by the proposal of viable alternatives but by distractions that included (seriously) claims that "death panels" were out to execute senior citizens.

Now, the bill comes to the Senate, where it is... dead. Inaction is what the Senate is good for these days, where neither rigid adherence to ideological doctrine or compromise and negotiation is enough to muster up the 60+ votes actually needed to pass a bill. As the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein noted today, the perversity is that "it would take 60 votes to pass a bill that included the public option and 60 votes to pass one without it".

Health care is just one area where we as a country face challenges, but there are several others, and they are not limited to only one party's pet causes. Where is the political will to implement an energy plan that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and improves the environment? Who has the foresight to realize our national infrastructure and transportation system is aging, falling apart, and already inferior to several other countries? Where is the courage to meaningfully reform and improve the education system? Who has any realistic ideas as to how to deal with entitlement spending? Where is the concern over enormous budget deficits, enormous I.O.U.s to foreign lenders, and an increasingly competitive global economy?

Ultimately, of course, the blame for failure or the credit for averting disaster is not so much on the politicians as it is on the American public who elects them. At some point, the American public will have to decide it's time to Get Serious. For real. I don't know what it will take to bring about the change in attitude so that we can tune out the talk radio hosts and cable squawkeres and have sober, serious, meaningful action take place in Washington. I thought it would have been 9/11, but I was wrong. It could have been the "once in a generation" financial crisis, but that still produced an economic stimulus bill which was more like a discretionary spending wish list. So what will it take?

I don't think Mahbubani will be right about American decline. I certainly don't want him to be right. But I'm wondering how much longer we can continue to ignore and delay serious action on the greatest challenges this country is facing.

Do-Gooders for Afghanistan and Iraq?

2009-11-11T01:26:00.001-05:00

Among the ranks of my fellow recent college graduates are many, including some of my good friends, who have chosen to dedicate a year, two, or more of their lives to social improvement programs such as the Peace Corps and Teach For America. These people are among the best and brightest of their generation, not to mention the most motivated and unselfish.

Meanwhile our country is involved in massive reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As we have found out in both countries, the larger share of fighting a war has nothing to do with military combat at all. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a massive rebuilding effort is needed to tackle challenges related to infrastructure, education, public institutions, and human rights.

To me, it seems obvious that here is a situation that is fertile ground for civilian assistance (our military does a great job but they can't do it all!), particularly through the volunteer efforts of smart, motivated Americans, and especially young people. Yet while you hear plenty of stories about recent college grads volunteering in HIV clinics in Botswana or teaching English in Japan, I have not heard much about civilian volunteering in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Surely there must be a need on many different fronts, whether in schools, as office staff, working with youth, accounting, and so much more. Additionally, older, more professionally experienced volunteers like lawyers or civil service workers would surely be useful, no?

So if you're not in the military, how does someone my age who is willing help out? A Monster.com job search reveals only jobs working for private contractors, typically in security or involving machinery, or permanent positions with international organizations which require years of international experience.

Yes, the aforementioned Peace Corps is an option, though that is just one program, and a rigid 27-month one at that. I've done a lot of Googling to try and find non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with volunteer programs, and (especially for Afghanistan, my focus) found very little. In spite of the security issues and language requirements, I'm quite surprised at the dearth of large, reputable programs to place volunteers there, especially for shorter-range volunteer opportunities that would require anywhere from a few months to a couple years.

One of the few promising ones I have found out about which claims to be accepting international volunteers is a small outfit called Skateistan. This organization, focused on children in Kabul, promotes education, health, and cross-cultural interaction. They also have the unique idea of being centered around promoting a love of skateboarding--an idea so radical, it just might work extremely well! I'll be following their progress closely in the weeks to come.

If anyone reading this post does know of any interesting volunteer opportunities in Afghanistan or Iraq, please get in touch with me. I would be very interested to hear about it.

Obama for President

2008-11-04T10:38:00.013-05:00

After an interminably long election season which had become quite boring, frankly, the big day has finally arrived. In the past couple days I've even regained my sense of excitement. This was compounded by my first-ever opportunity to vote in a presidential election, which I did on Saturday by standing in line for 3.5 hours at the Arlington, VA courthouse.

Not only was this my first time being old enough to vote for president (missed '04 by a month), this year I also happened to be a swing state voter owing to my new Virginia residency! And for several months this year I was undecided between two candidates who I really liked. Back in December 2007, right at the outset of what turned out to be an enthralling primary season, I voiced my support for Barack Obama on the Democratic side and John McCain on the Republican side. (I also stated my "hopes...that [Joe Biden]'d be a VP candidate". Score!)

In my December post, I laid out the reasons for why I genuinely admired both men who would go on to win their party's nominations. Unfortunately, the potentially transformative general campaign that I and others imagined possible with these two candidates never transpired--I really wish Obama had taken up McCain on his offer to tour the country together and conduct joint town halls. I remained undecided for several months, until around early August (which was probably just as well, since it just preceded much of both campaigns' last-ditch ridiculous pandering and outrageous promises).

I had been drawing closer to Obama because of the need for generational change (that whole 21st century world thing), and as the campaign went on, his unflappable demeanor seemed to me to speak volumes more about his leadership ability in a crisis than the criticism of his lack of executive experience.

I still have an enormous fondness for John McCain and consider him a great senator and American hero. Unfortunately, the McCain of the 2008 general election was NOT (except in brief spots) the exciting McCain of 2000, or even the promising McCain of 2007. Yes, he was already at a disadvantage running against President Bush's unfavorable legacy. But this isn't just a case of McCain being beaten by Bush twice (the first time being 2000). McCain was also hurt by the diminished importance of him being right about the surge in Iraq given how the security situation in that country has improved. (And he should be glad he was right!) Most importantly, however, I think McCain was the victim of a poorly-run campaign.

Given the status of the economy, this year was not the year for a "culture war" campaign. I detest forms of close-mindedness: xenophobia, racism, bigotry, and the disregard of the importance of the world outside our borders. Luckily, I believe that the vast majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, do not subscribe to those views. And to McCain's credit, he did not go into that personally, and I like how he refused to make Rev. Jeremiah Wright an issue and how he (sometimes) tried to stop his party's uglier lines of attack. McCain comes out of this election still an honorable man.

But he did make mistakes. I never understood why he tried to play a Bush-like "anti-media, anti-elite" game, when this is a guy who used to affectionately call the press "his base". I still don't understand, after I withheld judgment for a long time, how he could pick Sarah Palin as his VP and why he would tolerate her anti-intellectualism, divisiveness, and petty attacks (thereby alienating independent voters, like myself).

I voted for Barack Obama. I'm not sitting here starry-eyed expecting him to usher in a wonderful era of bipartisanship and substantial transformation, but I do believe that he will be the smart, sober, serious leader that this country needs. I have also seen first-hand the effect he has had on inspiring people, especially many who had never cared about politics previously. Among the many official duties of the President of the United States, there is also his unofficial status as a symbol of this country. Barack Obama is a man Americans can be proud of to have as a president, and his only-in-America story is the perfect face to present to the rest of the world.

Necessary Freedoms

2008-08-12T16:00:00.011-04:00

This morning I was reading a highly thought-provoking column by David Brooks asking whether the success of China as an economic power validates the collectivist social model as a viable alternative to the West's individualistic model.

Coincidentally, this afternoon at work an argument broke out between myself and a couple co-workers about China's system of government. One argued that China's government is acceptable since it works for the majority of its people, while another conceded that China's model had successfully been able to create economic growth and generally make life better for its people.

While I certainly have my beef with China's authoritarian system of government and the methods by which they have enforced their rule, my biggest problem is that they deny their people the liberal freedoms that I believe are integral and the right of every person to enjoy. Regardless of China's economic productivity and the increasing standards of living their people are enjoying, they are an illiberal society that represses the individual.

It's the same problem I have with North Korea, Putin's Russia, and Iran. It's not a problem unique to autocracies and totalitarian regimes either--take Singapore for example, which is what Fareed Zakaria once termed an "illiberal democracy"...

I've never read East of Eden but I've long been familiar with and loved a quote from that book which perfectly encapsulates my viewpoint:

"This I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about."
-- JOHN STEINBECK

The most precious thing we have as humans is the space between our left ear and our right ear--we have control over our thoughts. No external physical force can limit or alter them. So it should not be a goal of government, even for the sake of stability, to try and repress the individual.

We in the U.S. don't live in a perfect society, but we've done a relatively good job at balancing the welfare of society and the rights of the individual. The rights we enjoy--things like free speech, an independent and vibrant press, etc.--stem from our culture's commitment to freedom of belief. It is that freedom which makes our society better, because it enables us each to more completely express our humanity.

Covering Obama

2008-07-21T18:37:00.008-04:00

I don't mind a little political mudslinging, mostly for my own entertainment value. After all, most of the attacks that draw breathless media coverage are too stupid to merit serious consideration, and are often ripe for humor.

Unlike most media critics, I cracked up when I first saw the recent New Yorker cover satirizing the Obamas as actually living up to every ridiculous caricature they've been assigned in this campaign.

One of those caricatures is that Barack Obama does not know how to "lead the country", whatever that means. So, the big headline news of the moment is Obama's big trip abroad, where he supposedly will pick up those missing credentials. The fawning media coverage of the event comes in sharp contrast to John McCain's recent trips to Mexico, Canada, and Colombia, which were largely ignored. I guess it's a much more compelling story to report on the legions of Europeans who are gripped by Obamamania.

[Aside: It's nice to learn that polls indicate the French and Germans--by ludicrously lopsided margins--want us to make history and elect our first minority president. Well, their opinion (for what it's worth) is noted, and any reduction in Bush-inspired America-hating would be welcome. Yet it seems hard to ignore the obvious fact that these same European countries have their own work cut out for them with regards to making progress in electing minority candidates.]

The longer this election season drags on, the more I agree with the characterization of Barack Obama as a Rorschach test--both his supporters (at home and abroad) and detractors have manufactured their own image of him that isn't accurate. Critics think he is a zealous ideologue and dangerously inexperienced, when actually, he's a pragmatic politician. And while he does have a short tenure in public service, he is a smart guy capable of thinking about the problems facing this country and offering plausible solutions.

On the flip side, and this is important, I don't get where the prevailing image of Obama as a transcendent political figure has come from. If I had a nickel for every time someone described his "post-partisan" politics....I'd be a rich man. But of course, that's an empty label. There's no way to prove that he'll have an easy time of forging bipartisan compromise while President.

And the idea of a candidate claiming to heal divisions is far from new. Then-Governor George W. Bush, before the 2000 election, also made much of his claim to be "a uniter, not a divider". Remember that?

Is It November Yet?

2008-07-21T05:21:00.005-04:00

Sometime last week my roommate and I were discussing our election fatigue--how tired we were of the endless parade of meaningless political stories dominating the news. Maybe, I wondered, because we're both only 21, we can't recall that the previous presidential elections in '04 and '00 were just as full of inanity.

Were we were too young to recognize it then? Did we not know that an election is an interminable popularity contest interrupted by the occasional gaffe made in a speech by the candidate, a candidate's staffer, or random supporter of that candidate? For variety, throw in the occasional rumor attributed to "the blogosphere" or "offensive" statement made by anybody.

I haven't turned cynical--I still think choices matter. You want to pick someone competent and hard-working, someone who can empathize with others and make decisions while handling conflicting opinions. Personality matters, not just because the president needs to "work well with others" to govern effectively, but because they are also a living, walking advertisement of our country, broadcasting a message to us and the world.

But I worry that the way campaigns operate and the way the media reports on them leads voters to:
a) make a decision based on factors that don't matter
b) misunderstand what the president actually does and what he directly affects
and c) fail to realize that differences between candidates aren't that significant in a practical context.

Especially with regards to that last point, it's always amusing to hear the country's-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket spiel each side claims will happen if the other is elected. In the event of something like a major crisis, chances are whoever's sitting in the Oval Office is going to respond in a similar way. And practicality, with regards to politics, media coverage, and just the weight of actually being president means that no one, despite their professed ideology, is going to do anything too radical. (Post-9/11 governmental excesses against the Constitution, one hopes, are the exception, and temporary at that.)

So for example, you can hold McCain's lack of economics expertise against him, but as president he just has to be able to understand his advisory council of PhD economists, his Treasury secretary, Ben Bernanke, or a good newspaper--and make decisions accordingly. You can criticize Obama for saying he would talk to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but if elected he wouldn't allow Iran to use nuclear weapons to threaten the safety of the U.S. or our allies.

Then again, who wants a sober, rational analysis of the candidates? Surely it's only a matter of time before Obama doesn't wear a Stars-and-Stripes lapel pin while giving a speech in France, and John McCain exiles another close surrogate whom 99.8% of voters couldn't pick out of a police lineup anyway.

...Ugh. Only about 15 or so weeks left to go!

Google Boosting III

2008-05-19T01:12:00.007-04:00

The latest in a series of occasional attempts to manage my web presence on Google's search engine...

Jay Nargundkar - my blog, Citizens Band

Jay Nargundkar - archive of my opinion columns for the University of Maryland's student newspaper, the Diamondback

Jay Nargundkar - TheStreet.com article quoting me when I was student manager of the Lemma Senbet Investment Fund in college (see also: print version, reprint at Entrepreneur.com)

Jay Nargundkar - video of me doing the world's highest bungy jump, in Macau (China) in April 2008

Jay Nargundkar - slideshow with pictures from my 14,000ft freefall skydive from August 2007

Int'l Microfinancier update

2008-04-30T16:59:00.008-04:00

Last year, I wrote about becoming a "couch potato humanitarian"--getting involved with a website called Kiva that allows you to use your PayPal account to make loans of as little as $25 to entrepreneurs around the world.

A year after I made my first loan, to an Azerbaijani butcher named Ilham Adbdulov, I was repaid my amount in full. His business appears to be doing well, and Kiva's field partner in Agsu writes:

Ilham is a young, friendly butcher who operates his business from a station in the Agsu bazaar meat hall. He’s one of about ten butchers who sell meat to the residents of this central Azerbaijani town. Early each morning he meets the rural animal breeders at the bazaar and bargains for his sheep. He can generally purchase a live sheep for about 100 Azerbaijani New Manat (~ 120 US$). He brings the sheep to his stand, butchers them, and has the meat prepared for sale by the time the bazaar opens to customers.

Ilham earns between 4 and 10 AZN (~ 5-12 US$) from each sheep. He used his Kiva-funded loan to purchase sheep, enabling him to offer more meat to the many customers that pass through the bazaar. Azerbaijanis eat a good deal of mutton year-round, so demand remains consistently high. Ilham enjoys his business, and would like to further increase the volume of his sales with future assistance from micro loans.

After my successful experience, I took the money I got back and contributed to a group loan for 15 Peruvian villagers from Yanapampa, ~115 miles northeast of Lima. The loan recipients are "involved in agriculture; care of livestock; sale of tara tree agricultural products, pigs, sheep, goats and cattle; and carpentry service." They plan on using the money to buy "fertilizer, sheep, goats, piglets, and tara trees."

The loan is for six months. I will report back with any interesting updates.

Engagement, Not Isolationism

2008-04-28T06:51:00.003-04:00

There are a number of reasons one could be excited about the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. The remaining applicants competing for the job are a politically battle-tested former first lady; a charismatic fresh face who has inspired many across generational and racial lines; and a former war hero with a history of political independence.

Each of these candidates has many positive attributes. Yet I remain dismayed that they represent political parties with many adherents who have profoundly incorrect worldviews. In both the Democratic and Republican parties, there is a general lack of confidence in our country’s abilities and a mistrust of those outside our borders.

Among Democrats, this view is manifest chiefly in its opposition to free trade. Hillary Clinton, whose husband’s advocacy of the passage of NAFTA was among his administration’s top achievements, has transformed herself into a champion of protectionism. Barack Obama, no less eager to appeal to heartland voters, sings a similar tune.

A New York Times editorial chastised both earlier this month, reminding them that “trade is good for the economy, providing cheap imports and markets for exports, spurring productivity and raising living standards.” The Times urged the candidates to “offer policies that will help American workers embrace rather than fear a globalized world”, such as increased investments in education and physical capital.

While in Hong Kong last week, I read an excellent column in the Wall Street Journal Asia by Rupert Murdoch in which he spoke out against the protectionist sentiment. Never mind the blathering idiots on his Fox News Channel, Murdoch rightly points out that refusing a trade deal with countries like Colombia sends the message that America does not see them as partners. Murdoch argues that we must help developing countries which share our values of democracy and capitalism achieve prosperity, which will enable us to benefit from their valuable alliance in the future.

Turning to foreign policy, I generally agree with John McCain about the U.S.’s two most important engagements abroad. I am an advocate of a continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and a sustained effort in Afghanistan. Yet I have come to detest the segment of the Republican Party that tosses around nonsensical phrases like “Islamofascism” and obsesses over a “war on terror” while ignoring the important economic and political challenges this country faces.

September 11, 2001, will forever be a day impossible for any American to forget. The fear and uncertainty we felt then were very real. It seemed as if that attack had ushered in a new world order. But it didn’t really—terrorism is just a tactic, not an ideology like communism which directly threatened our values of freedom and democracy. Thankfully we have avoided catastrophe since 9/11, and though it’s probably inevitable that we will be hit again, Americans go about their lives today feeling relatively secure.

Accordingly, I wish that certain Republican politicians and pundits would abandon their xenophobic impulses and look toward forging stronger alliances around the world. One thought Murdoch emphasized in his column was the importance of common values in a globalized era in which geography’s importance is diminished. So, for example, acknowledge the value of good relations with major European powers, and don’t dismiss the Muslim world as a breeding ground of anti-Americanism (it’s simply not true).

I think the U.S. can remain the leader of a global community, but to do so, we must embrace an optimistic mindset. We should be confident in our own abilities and we should believe that we can lead through engagement. That attitude, though tested at times, has served us best since 1776.

Chill Out

2008-03-06T04:45:00.006-05:00

My column on global warming in this past Tuesday's Diamondback uses several threads I've discussed on this blog in the past (the lack of scientific literacy surrounding the subject, pitfalls of alarmism). I expanded on those ideas to also address the fallacies of specific alternative energy proposals.

Sample grab:

...before wholeheartedly embracing ethanol as the fuel of the future, we should consider whether large-scale production of ethanol is feasible or if it even reduces net greenhouse gas emissions. (A recent, much discussed article in Science suggests it would not.) We have already seen how the ethanol-driven demand for corn has created an across-the-board rise in food and fertilizer prices, an unintended but serious economic consequence.

Columnist Ali Adler ("Path to Our Future," Feb. 12) advocates solar and wind power, but she fails to consider neither measure feasibly matches our country's energy needs. We should resist the urge to throw millions of dollars in government subsidies to ideas that won't work. (Personally, I think nuclear power is the way to go, but I will save that argument for another time.)

When it comes to tackling global warming, we should not, like the people of Emerald City, be blinded by "green" glasses. Some ideas are good, but most are over-reactionary or counter-productive, often both. Restraint may be our best option.

Click here to read the entire column. Then be sure to check out a rebuttal by a Ms. Rachel Bergstein, who says that "the current climate crisis is...a question of justice and equity" which "necessitates immediate action".

Stay in Iraq

2008-02-19T01:16:00.010-05:00

In today's Diamondback, I take on the former VP of the College Democrats in a debate over whether the the war in Iraq is still worth fighting.

I say, yes we should stay! Sample grab below:

A premature U.S. departure from Iraq risks the possibility of a failed state developing in the Middle East. It would be a dire threat to regional stability and a major security risk for the U.S. and its allies. Recall, for example, that when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan at the end of the Cold War, the ensuing vacuum was filled by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

...Although our endeavor is expensive and requires the sacrifice of a great many courageous Americans (and Iraqis), the potential for a modernized, democratic, pro-Western Muslim state in the Middle East means that this is a necessary fight.

Click here to read the entire column.

I'm no apologist for how the Bush administration's initial approach in Iraq. You may recall that back in August 2005 I said we needed to "change the course" and "put more of our guys on the ground". In December 2006, I said that "significantly more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security". Now, with "the surge" underway, I am cautiously optimistic and want to see it produce a successful result for the long term.

Also check out what my opponent in today's print edition had to say. Honestly, I thought his column was pretty weak. The Iraq war is a complex and divisive issue, and there are several compelling arguments as to why we should withdraw. Mr. Hiller offers none of these in his column, instead spouting some hokey pablum about the influence of "corporations".

Even though I believe we should stay in Iraq, I respect those who argue against the war on legitimate grounds, including the following:
a) the cost in human lives
b) we don't know when it will end
c) the strain it has put on the Army might make us less flexible to respond to a future threat
d) the money spent on the war could instead go to domestic programs or the war in Afghanistan.

These points are highly effective arguments against continuation of the war, and on which I think there should be vigorous debate.

Obama in College Park

2008-02-11T17:20:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama held a rally at the University of Maryland today. In my four years at College Park, I can't think of any event that was as hyped as this. You really had to see it with your own eyes to believe it: a line that stretched a mile long on a bitterly cold, windy Monday morning, full of people--students willing to miss class, older people dodging work and fighting traffic--excited to see a politician. There have never been lines like this for any speaker, concert, or basketball game in my time on campus.

The Comcast Center was packed with at least 15,000 people by my estimate. Obama was greeted with something just short of messianic fervor. Although I am not easily impressed, as he entered the building, I was definitely moved.

It's too bad, then, that I was let down by what followed. Although he is a very gifted speaker, he gave a standard stump speech that mostly seemed to just spit out bullet points as if lifted from a pamphlet. It didn't show off Obama's best asset: his ability to relate to ordinary people. Several friends of mine, Obama sympathizers or supporters, agreed.

By comparison, when I saw Mike Huckabee on campus Saturday, he was charming and engaged the audience very well. I know Obama could have better tailored his speech for the largely college-age crowd. Then again, he doesn't have to try too hard since he has MD (plus DC and VA) locked up for tomorrow's primaries.

Regardless, it didn't matter. The adoring crowd still roared its approval for everything he said. As I exited the building afterward, I heard a girl on her cellphone say that she had cried during Obama's speech because she was so moved. I don't get why, but wow...

I'm still of the opinion that Barack Obama would be a very good president and I want him to do well. But, like I said in my most recent Diamondback column, I don't know if his charisma, intelligence, and values are enough to convince me to vote him. When it comes to major issues, like the war on Iraq, I disagree with Obama. I am very tempted to vote for John McCain.

Currently my status is firmly undecided, and I hope I can take my time over the summer to make a choice.

All photos and video by Jay Nargundkar.

The Sports Stock Market

2008-02-01T22:26:00.000-05:00

My Diamondback column today proposes a merger of the financial markets and sports:

I think many athletes, especially those in junior leagues or fresh out of college, could hedge the risk on their contracts by selling shares entitling owners to a certain percentage of their future earnings.

Take our star junior linebacker, Erin Henderson, for example. Many experts think he could be a second-round pick in the 2008 NFL Draft. After leaving the Terps, Henderson could decide he wants to secure some money up front, and thus he could sell shares of himself equivalent to 2 percent of his career NFL earnings. His ticker symbol: ERIN … or better yet, STUD.

Henderson would get money right away and, assuming he gets signed by a team, additionally earn 98 percent of a still-hefty paycheck. Both player and investors have the potential to gain. For all you fantasy football gods out there who love to brag about your ability at finding the next best thing before anyone else, getting in on Erin early would be a terrific opportunity to make some money.

Read the rest here.

The Death of News?

2008-01-24T01:10:00.000-05:00

On my list of Unrealistic Things I'd Like To Do Someday (e.g. going into outer space, becoming a pro baseball or football GM) is owning a major newspaper (in my head, the Washington Post). I would love to be a part of something that holds powerful people accountable, unifies the community, and helps readers understand their lives and the world around them.

Last Sunday in the Post, David Simon (co-creator of the greatest TV drama of all-time, The Wire) wrote about the decline of the newspaper industry. The easy take on that subject is that the Internet offers free news to readers and that it steals advertisers away from newspapers, who then have to cut back on staff, coverage, etc.

The problem with that? Simon says: "When technology arrived to test the loyalty of longtime readers and the interest of new ones, the newspaper would be offering to cover not more of the world and its issues, but less of both."

He argues that newspapers have hurt themselves by not offering a quality, worthwhile product. Instead of cutting costs and replacing veteran staffers with cheap neophytes in order to survive, Simon would prefer "high-end journalism". He assigns great newspapers the sacred role of being the ones with the resources and the duty to provide the "consistent and sophisticated coverage of issues" that no one else can. I agree with him completely.

Simon's column has attracted a lot of criticism, which I think has mostly been off the mark. Slate's Jack Shafer pinned blame for the death of newspapers squarely on economic hardships, and said that "Simon fails to appreciate that the newspaper no longer enjoys the centrality to American life that it had through most of the 20th century." Well, why shouldn't it? After all, Simon is arguing for a way to make newspapers relevant.

Then there are the critics-in-cocoons who think that there isn't a problem. The Post published a rebuttal by Sara Libby, who basically tells us anecdotally that since she and her friends read the news, that must mean everyone still cares about newspapers. Not so fast, I'm afraid. I bet her survey sample is a little biased because she's a journalist; her conclusions don't necessary match my experience in college.

At school I have a subscription to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, but I can count on one hand the fellow students I know who get their own daily national papers. Sure, like Libby says, many young people get their news online. However--and now it's time for my anecdotal evidence--I would argue that most go for basic headlines and wire stories, not editorials, columns, and more nuanced reporting.

Before I start to sound like Grandpa Simpson, I want to point out that the old fogies do have at least one thing wrong: young people don't pursue "celebrity news" at the expense of real news. Most don't pursue it at all; I do as a supplement. The important thing is that not one person I know is obsessed with Paris Hilton, while most people I know are significantly interested in the upcoming presidential election. So the "death of news" should not be blamed on the "light fare".

Ultimately, newspapers (and related struggling fare like the nightly news programs) will not be saved by gimmickry. I think they need to convey to their audience, even through explicit advertising, how important they are. People need to feel they are getting tangible benefits from the news, whether it is an understanding of big-picture issues or just items of local or personal interest. Many people don't feel an incentive to follow the news closely. Simon's vision for newspapers is the one that will prove to them that they do need the news.

The Frankenstein Candidate

2008-01-16T00:20:00.000-05:00

Watch too much campaign coverage and candidates "debating" like I have recently, and your head will spin. There's only so much "change" rhetoric (on the Dems' side) and Freudian obsession with Reagan (on the G.O.P. side) a guy can take!

I feel like taking a step back from strategies, policies, and ideologies to instead think about what attributes I'd like to see in the President of the United States.

If I were Dr. Frankenstein attempting to create the perfect leader of the free world, here are the parts I'd like to cobble together:

* Strong management leadership

Going into George W. Bush's presidency, a lot was made about him bringing a Harvard MBA's mentality to the Oval Office. He was going to be the competent president-as-CEO. Even though this didn't quite pan out, the underlying idea is generally sound.

The president isn't an expert on every (or any) topic; his job is to surround himself with qualified, competent people, and to be "The Decider" based on the data he has. Of course, an effective manager has to also have people around who will tell the emperor when he's not wearing clothes.

Applicants to be president typically come from Congress or the state mansions. Senators aren't administrators, and their ability to manage and lead is unknown. Governors, whose experience is more in line with the presidency, typically have the inside track to the White House.

But I would take the head of a major multinational corporation. Give me a Fortune 100 CEO, give me someone who has led, delegated, dealt with pressure, juggled people and egos and diverse opinions. Give me someone who understands business and economics, someone worldly, someone with a track record of success.

Wait, does this sound like I'm asking for...Mitt Romney? I can't deny that he had a tremendously successful business career, and his background in management consulting (the field I will soon enter) and investments mirrors my own.

* Worldly, diplomatic, and inclusive

Given the ramifications of our foreign policy and our role in an increasingly integrated global economy, it would be nice to have a president who has traveled abroad and/or been exposed to different perspectives. We need someone who appreciates cultural differences and forcefully decries xenophobia. The Republican Party needs to divorce itself of Islamophobia immediately.

I want a candidate who has in-depth knowledge of conflicts around the world, someone who has the ability to have a dialogue with world leaders. I am a huge proponent of a strong military and defense, but that doesn't mean the art of diplomacy can't flourish.

At home, we need a president who realizes that there any many different kinds of American voters, each with their own priorities and needs. The president should not just be tending to a narrow base but should try to be as inclusive as possible. Policy should never be made at the direct expense of a certain group (e.g. Latinos, homosexuals). At the least, I appreciate Mike Huckabee saying recently that his religious beliefs are his own and that he does not expect or want anyone else to be compelled to share them.

* Down-to-earth

I want a candidate who, to put it succinctly, isn't full of himself. Granted, political life is not typically for such people, and the ones who run for president typically have the biggest egos and messiah complexes. Surprisingly enough, while watching several Republican debates in the past couple weeks, I've been thinking that only Fred Thompson doesn't come across as thinking of himself as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Is it so hard for the candidates to at least occasionally seem like real people? During tonight's Democratic debate/lovefest, both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards flubbed a basic job interview question: "What is your greatest weakness?" They both answered with variants of "Aw shucks, I just care too darn much", and I fought the urge to vomit. I'm crossing my fingers hoping that Barack Obama doesn't fall in love with his own hype in the coming weeks and months.

As a practical consideration, I don't want a leader who is so sure of his own infallibility--look where that's gotten us recently.

* Willingness to think unconventionally

I haven't mentioned Ron Paul at all on my blog, and while I disagree vehemently with a lot of his views, I definitely respect the guy. It pissed me off when Fox News tried to exclude him from the debates, and when they relented, they treated him like a lunatic. I mean, c'mon, the guy isn't Dennis Kucinich--Paul's been a fundraising juggernaut, and while he's never, ever going to win an election, his primary showings have been more respectable than Thompson or Rudy Guiliani.

And I think his presence is good, because it forces people to take a look at familiar issues in a completely different light. We all need that kind of reality check, even if it's only to assure us of our own positions.

More broadly, whoever becomes the next president is going to inherit a host of problems that need to be dealt with. Whether it's dealing with the deficit or the financial markets or the environment or foreign policy, creative new approached need to be concerned. Sacrifices may be required. Compromises are a certainty. Ideological purity is the antithesis of successful leadership.

Is there any wonder then, that "change" has resonated so clearly as a theme for both parties? John McCain has that bi-partisan appeal and Obama promises post-partisan politics. Whether either can actually deliver remains to be seen.

* More...?

There are certainly other elements that go into being a successful leader. A president won't be able to anticipate all the challenges he or she will face, so hopefully we elect someone who can deal with the unexpected and adapt to ever-changing circumstances.

Say No to Fuzzy Economics

2008-01-06T04:37:00.000-05:00

Heartland voters in Iowa rewarded the populist candidacies of Mike Huckabee (R) and John Edwards (D) this past week, giving the former a commanding win on the Republican side and the latter a solid 2nd-place finish among the Democrats.

In a devastating column in today's Washington Post, George Will assails both men for "encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria", and counters many of the beliefs that form the bedrock of the candidates' arguments. For example, concerning the much-bemoaned plight of the shrinking middle class, Will busts out this interesting fact:

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder."

Thus far, John Edwards' campaign storyline has fixedly been about economic inequality, and it should be treated with skepticism. Whereas at least Mike Huckabee's message is largely about social and moral responsibility, I have been increasingly dismayed by Edwards' one-track focus on "corporate greed". I fear his message, divisive at the least, incitation to class warfare at its worst, is reflective of an incorrect understanding of economics and an underestimate of America.

David Brooks, writing in the NY Times a couple months ago, had an excellent column decrying what he dubbed "Dobbsianism"--a view that holds the rest of the world as a threat to our economy. It is a view that has manifest itself as a growing backlash against liberal immigration policies and free trade, one that sees the rest of the world only as responsible for "lead-painted toys, manipulated currencies and stolen jobs." It is a dangerous, wrong, pessimistic, backward attitude.

Our economy is not under siege from the rest of the world. China and India are getting plenty of headlines in the news, but there is plenty we are doing right (as I first mentioned about two years ago). The U.S. leads the world "in a range of categories: higher education and training, labor market flexibility, the ability to attract global talent, the availability of venture capital, the quality of corporate management, and the capacity to innovate." Furthermore, the U.S. is the productivity leader in almost every industry. America has a high standard of living, high birth rates, a younger population than much of Europe and Asia, and low unemployment.

Brooks goes on to counter the outsourcing Chicken Littles:

90 percent of manufacturing job losses are due to domestic forces. As companies become more technologically advanced, they shed workers (the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs between 1994 and 2004). Meanwhile, the number of jobs actually lost to outsourcing is small, and recent reports suggest the outsourcing trend is slowing down.

He concludes, correctly, that "The U.S. still has much more to gain than to lose from openness, trade and globalization."

With regards to the upcoming election, here's my take: The anti-capitalist, anti-free market views that are gaining in traction are in the economic interest of a very narrow segment of voters. Everyone else should be looking for a sober, non-alarmist candidate who understands current economic realities.

Hate Us or Love Us

2008-01-02T00:56:00.000-05:00

In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Anne Applebaum points out that while the recently-assassinated Benazir Bhutto was a pro-Western leader with a lot of support in our hemisphere, she was also mired in corruption and a promoter of the Taliban. Significant elements in her own society were not enamored of her, whether for her liberal agenda (which the West focused on) or for her domestic failings (more noticed in her home country).

Applebaum links Bhutto with a long line of Western-backed foreign leaders unpopular in their own countries. Often times these leaders are "associated with domestic issues that we [the West] either don't know about, don't care about or don't understand." Unfortunately, their domestic unpopularity leads to anti-Western (anti-American) sentiment amongst their people, and thus Applebaum suggests it would be "wrong to invest too much" in them.

I think her point is only valid in some cases. Before getting into that, it's worth reflecting for a minute on how America is perceived in those countries. This summer, Moshin Hamid wrote a superb Post column entitled "Why Do They Hate Us?", in which he said:

"Part of the reason people abroad resent the United States is something Americans can do very little about: envy. The richest, most powerful country in the world attracts the jealousy of others in much the same way that the richest, most powerful man in a small town attracts the jealousy of others. It will come his way no matter how kind, generous or humble he may be."

So of course we can't please everyone. But before we pat ourselves on the back, check out what Hamid also noted:

"But there is another major reason for anti-Americanism: the accreted residue of many years of U.S. foreign policies...They form only minor footnotes in U.S. history. But they are the chapter titles of the histories of other countries, where they have had enormous consequences."

I conclude that there are certain foreign leaders who, based on their positive agendas, we have a moral imperative to back. In clear-cut circumstances, it is not a question about being concerned about our likability. If we believe in the universality of such values as human rights and representative government, then of course we support leaders who fight apartheid or authoritarianism. If we are promoting a good cause, then we shouldn't be concerned with stoking anti-Americanism.

Of course, many of America's most important alliances are with foreign leaders who are not easily seen as "good guys", so the U.S. has to avoid giving off the impression that it is benefiting at the expense of the local populaces. Realpolitik (practical considerations) dictates that we have to deal with corrupt dictators. So our goal is to show that first and foremost, we are not wedded to the leader, and we are not against the interests of the people of that country.

To do that we have to be always vocal in support of things like free speech and press, due process, and a government accountable to its citizens. We also need to show off our wealth and power through economic and humanitarian aid. Good example: after the devastating Asian tsunami a few years ago, American ships, helicopters, and personnel descended on the region--to help. We provided invaluable and inspiring assistance, and I don't doubt that we won many friends in the region who won't forget our contribution.

Other countries around the world don't have to like us, and it's OK if they don't. While acknowledging that, we should make sure that where we are disliked, it's for a good reason.

Candidate '08: First Look

2007-12-25T04:24:00.000-05:00

(Merry Xmas, all!)

The next presidential election only takes place in November 2008, 11 months from now. Maybe you've been following every poll, every stump speech, and every attack ad for months. Or maybe you'll do yourself a favor and not tune in until January...or September.

For what it's worth, here's my super-early take on the candidates. Of course, I can--and perhaps likely will--change my views in the comings months and weeks. As it stands currently, the candidates I like right now are John McCain on the Republican side and Barack Obama on the Democratic side.

Let's break down the Republican side first, where the fact that there might be up to five candidates with double-digit percentage support makes the race interesting.

Mike Huckabee has come out of nowhere recently and might even be the G.O.P. front-runner. He's a nice guy who, refreshingly, doesn't talk like a politician, but he is too socially conservative for me. A lot is being made about his public emphasis on his faith, and there are reasonable concerns that religion could play too much of a role in his decisions, but I can't fault him if voters really dig the evangelical bit--they are entitled to do so. That said, Mike Huckabee outright denies evolution-

The views of Mitt Romney during the campaign are so markedly different than they were from his gubernatorial days, I really don't know what the guy believes. Plus, his penchant for telling little white lies to embellish his image is starting to cause real trouble for his campaign.

I had really high hopes for Rudy Guiliani when his candidacy was announced, given his administratively successful and politically moderate experience as NYC mayor. He's run far to the right during his campaign so far, and while he may revert to form during a general election, the jury's still out on him.

Fred Thompson? Hahahahaha. He was supposed to ride in on a white horse as the Second Coming of Reagan...yet I'm still amazed at how little substance he's managed to put forth since. He also has built no image, other than that his wife Jeri is smokin' hot.

Which leaves my boy Johnny Mac, who's been one of my favorite political figures for years now. For a politician, he's relatively principled. His background as a Vietnam War P.O.W. turned congressman/senator is inspiring and admirable. His straight talk and sense of humor greatly appeal to me. Despite his age, he seems quite in-touch with mainstream America and young people of my generation (TV & movie cameos, Jon Stewart appearances, etc.). Bonus points for practicality: he has a penchant for being willing to cross partisan lines. In the past few years he has opposed the Bush administration on torture, created a bipartisan group that averted a crisis over judicial nominations, and been a leading moderate voice on immigration. He has a history of trying to reform campaign finance and attacking pork spending. And he's a smart, experienced foreign policy voice who, like me, supports continued military involvement in Iraq.

On the Democratic side, the two most talked-about candidates are Hillary Clinton and Obama. Sure, John Edwards could be a spoiler if he does well in Iowa, but I'm not a huge fan. Hillary trumps Edwards on experience, Obama trumps him on likability.

I have nothing personal against Hillary at all. She's smart, seasoned, and intimately familiar with the responsibility of the White House. I think she would make a very good president. Additionally, it would be great to see a woman leading America. However, in terms of electability, there are just too many people who don't like her. When half the country says they would never vote for you, that spells trouble.

A quick break from the plausible candidates coverage: Joe Biden, despite his occasional windbag tendencies, is a senator I really like. He probably has the most foreign policy expertise out of any of our elected leaders. An ability to understand and manage international affairs is the highest priority I'm looking for in a candidate, because I think that's where the president as an individual is likely to have the most impact. (It's hard to say what domestic issues are going to spring up as the hot-button cyclical flash point, and they anyway involve Congress and the media to a heavy degree.) If Biden was from a more electorally important state than Delaware, I'd get my hopes up that he'd at least be a VP candidate, but let's not count on it.

Snap back to reality...why do I dig Barack Obama? Well there are the "he's smart, charismatic, eloquent, inspiring life story" angles that you've heard before. Plus, I really like that he's of a younger generation than the rest of the candidates. To me he represents something of a fresh start. I have no naive assumptions of him being able to "change the system", but I do think that his age and his diverse background will enable him to reach a broad segment of Americans. (That is, unless his liberal politics interfere with his ability to reach across party lines.) It would be absolutely terrific for a black man (even more so than a white woman, I think) to become president of the United States. Certainly, it would be an impressive demonstration to Americans and the world of the richness of American society that Barack Hussein Obama could be elected our leader. Bet that would throw the Muslim world for a loop, too, hehe.

....That's my thoughts, for now. (Phew!) In the mean time, here's some further reading if you're interested:

Political positions of McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Yes, those links are to Wikipedia articles, so be sure that what you're reading has some legitimate sources. If that's too sketchy for you, check out the Washington Post's 2008 Presidential Candidates guide, with profiles, analysis, and criticism of all the contenders. You can also take a quiz to see who you might be inclined to support.

The Boomerang Kids

2007-12-09T17:04:00.000-05:00

My column in Monday's Diamondback deals with "boomerang kids", college graduates who go back to "Living with the 'rents". Here's the intro:

You might assume that an adult still living with his or her parents is a loser. The stereotype of a basement-dwelling comic book nerd or George from “Seinfeld” is not one most people aspire to be.

Yet many college students are doing exactly what you think they would dread after graduation: moving back in with their families. Monster, the job search company, reports in a 2007 survey that 48% of prospective graduates plan on becoming “boomerang kids”, i.e. returning home. Although many expect to just make a quick pit stop, Monster finds that “42 percent of 2006 graduates say they are still living with their parents”.

There are several good reasons to move back home. Foremost among those is that it allows recent graduates to save money. But in talking to friends and classmates who will enter the workforce soon, I have found that hardly anyone is returning out of necessity. So if affordability is not the issue, what is?

Click to read the rest of "Living with the 'rents".

Generation Zzz?

2007-11-26T09:20:00.000-05:00

My column in today's Diamondback is a response to Naomi Wolf's Sunday Washington Post column "Hey, Young Americans, Here's a Text for You", in which she bemoans young people's lack of involvement in the "democratic process".

I take exception with her attempt to paint all "young people" with the same stroke, while also explaining what is causing some people to tune out. At the same time, I agree with her that Americans need to have a greater awareness of and appreciation for the values and principles our country stands for.

Sample grabs:

One popular explanation for our generation's disinclination toward politics is the supremacy of pop culture today. Another is that there is a lack of focus on government in schools. The first point is rubbish. Even in the time of Grover Cleveland, people paid more attention to the latest hit march from John Philip Sousa. The point about education does have some merit, and I wish there was more of a focus on democracy, the Constitution and American history during the K-12 years. Yet I severely doubt that your average schoolboy in the 1800s knew his Preamble from his 11th Amendment, and he didn't even have Wikipedia to look it up.

...

What has gone relatively unnoticed, and quite disturbingly so, is a loss of confidence in the good that the United States represents. This is especially true among people our age, for whom patriotism is a lost cause. Never mind the unique freedoms that we as Americans enjoy or the richness of our diverse multi-cultural society, college students are more likely to cynically (and often ill-informedly) bemoan globalization and U.S. military power. I'm all for criticizing your own country to make it better, but I wonder if the cynics realize they have it better here than they would anywhere else in the world. The principles our country is based on are worth being informed about and worth defending.

Read my entire column here: Generation Zzz?

Fixing the Funnies

2007-11-23T11:57:00.000-05:00

Warning, nerd alert...

Just about every day, for almost ten years or so, I have been reading the daily comic strips that appear in the newspaper (first in the San Diego Union-Tribune, and for a long while now the Washington Post.) For me, it's the perfect thing to read with breakfast, on the Metro, or at night in bed before going to sleep.

Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an interesting analysis of the current state of comics pages, and the challenges editors face with regards to circulation and selection at a time when newspapers themselves are in deep trouble.

Adding to their problems, I've always felt, is that the comics pages feature so many boring and/or old strips that don't attract new readers. For every good long-running strip (e.g. "Pickles", "Baby Blues") or still-valued classic (e.g. "Peanuts"), there are easily many more terrible soap-opera comics (e.g. "Mary Worth", "Apartment 3-G") or well-past-their-prime clunkers (e.g. "Beetle Bailey", "Garfield", "B.C.")

So in the spirit of positive thinking, and on the chance that this might introduce some worthwhile strips, here are ten of my current favorites:

1. "Doonesbury" by Garry Trudeau
Though this strip debuted almost 40 years ago, it still manages to be fresh and feel "with it", while offering hilarious political satire and pop-culture commentary.
2. "Pearls Before Swine" by Stephan Pastis
Great for its lovable set of anthropomorphic animal characters, dark humor, self-awareness, and occasional satire of other comics. Its series depicting Osama bin Laden living with the Keanes' of "Famiy Circus" was priceless.
3. "Watch Your Head" by Cory Thomas
A newcomer to the Post, this has fast become a favorite of mine due to its college setting and a cast of characters easy to identify with.
4. "Lio" by Mark Tatulli
Another newcomer to the Post, this wordless comic featuring the adventures of a quirky young boy takes a little getting used to, but its (very) dark humor is hilarious.
5. "Brewster Rockit: Space Guy!" by Tim Rickard
Hilarious characters and plot-lines from yet another new comic, the strip often parodies of movies or books, or takes stabs at pop culture topics.
6. "Sherman's Lagoon" by Jim Toomey
This was always one of my favorite Sunday strips in the Post, and I was thrilled when they decided to run it daily.
7. "Single and Looking" by Matt Janz (formerly "Out of the Gene Pool")
Since this strip changed its name and focus in July, it has covered relationship humor and pop culture.
8. "Speed Bump" by Dave Coverly
There are many one panel daily comics out there, but this is the funniest and most consistent.
9. "F Minus" by Tony Carrillo
The only comic strip I regularly read that appears online only, it won an mtvU competition a couple years when the author was an undergrad.
10. "Non Sequitur" by Wiley Miller
Miller employs many different styles and the strip's traditional storylines are hit-or-miss, but its political satire and social commentary is usually terrific.

...and an honorable mention has to be made for "Foxtrot" by Bill Amend, which earlier this year ended its daily-run to become a Sunday-only strip. As I was reminded while reading my compilation Foxtrotius Maximus on the can earlier today, this is a damn good comic strip.

As to how to fix the funnies, I hope that newspaper editors can push aside worries--about costs and about the threat of receiving angry letters from senior citizens disgruntled by change--and start taking risks on adding fresh new comics. No knock on the old, "family-friendly" comics, many of which I like and/or think at least belong on the funny pages...but surely everyone can agree that "Mark Trail" and "Zippy the Pinhead" suck!

The Minority Rule

2007-10-29T01:44:00.000-04:00

Indian-American Bobby Jindal's victory last week in the Louisiana gubernatorial election prompted me to examine what I call "the minority rule" in my Monday Diamondback column. People like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Condoleezza Rice are proof that minorities have successfully infiltrated that last frontier--the apex of political leadership in this country.

Yet what they and Jindal have in common is what connects them with most politicians in high positions: their affiliation with a Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Simply put, being a woman or black or brown no longer makes you unelectable--as long as you still have the right religion. This, obviously, has some problematic repercussions:

"I definitely don't have any problem with religious people in politics, but I am concerned that religious people of non-Judeo-Christian faiths as well as atheist or agnostic people can be marginalized from the political process. I think the American public is definitely capable of judging a candidate on his or her merits and would not attach much importance to a candidate's religious affiliation. But because religion is talked about so much in the political arena, and because almost all politicians are Christians or Jews, I worry that others who would be great public servants are discouraged from running for office and thus never try."

Click here to read my new column. Also check out this interesting article from the Post about the generational divide between Indian-Americans' attitudes toward Jindal. The older generation (people my parents' age and up) are ecstatic at Jindal's win and proud to have an Indian-American in such a high position. They know how difficult it was for Indians when they first came to the U.S., and had a very different experience than people of my generation. The latter are much more likely to take Jindal's political considerations into account (and not vote for him just because he is Indian). They also are unhappy that Jindal distanced himself from his ethnicity during his run.

* * *

On an entirely separate note, take a look at my previous Diamondback column, in which I tried to explain what "love of the game" really is to a sports fan. It's everything and anything from the rollercoaster ride of following a team through its trials and tribulations with a community of like-minded believers, to the pride you feel when you see a player you saw as a rookie gradually grow into a living legend. And yes, allowing our moods to be affected by the performance of a group of highly-paid strangers is admittedly irrational, but that doesn't mean it's not worth the time and emotion. Read "Fan Feelings".

The "Goracle" Strikes Again

2007-10-13T06:26:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to Al Gore for winning the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday. I don't really think he should have won.

Nothing personal--I think Gore is a smart, experienced, and competent leader who probably would have been a good president. But a couple things trouble me about his win.

You could start by explaining to me the connection between giving PowerPoint slideshows about global warming and the award's ostensible purpose: the promotion of world peace. And I'm already reluctant to embrace an alarmist approach to global warming, an initiative which will likely gain more traction thanks to Gore's Nobel win. (For more on my take on global warming, see this previous post, or better yet, a superb article called "Chill Out" which ran in the Post last week).

It also seems to me that the Peace Prize, unlike the other Nobel awards in literature, physics, et al., is much more of a "fad" prize. The winners in those categories all appear to be octogenarian scientists or authors or economists who are recognized for their contributions several years after they were made, after sufficient time has passed that the magnitude of their accomplishment can better be appreciated. Not so with the Peace Prize, which seems inclined to more often make statements about the here and now.

Meanwhile, there is another current situation that is sorely deserving of the world's attention: the Burmese monks protesting the brutal military dictatorship in their country. The junta in Burma is already holding one worthy Nobel laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, under house arrest; they have prevented a democratically-elected government from ruling; they have engaged in vicious acts of torture, rape, and a host of other human rights abuses.

When the monks defied the junta and peacefully marched in public, thousands of ordinary citizens joined in, marching with the monks and serving as "human shields" against soldiers and police ordered to beat up or even shoot protesters. This inspiring struggle is still unfolding, and it could do with all the publicity anyone is willing to give it, so that the Burmese junta is held accountable for their actions. (For more details on the horror, see here, here, here, and here, for starters.)

...So, not to take anything away from Mr. Gore, who has had a remarkable career since he withdrew from the contested presidential election of 2000, but with a host of other worthy issues around the world in need of recognition, his just wasn't the name I wanted to hear announced on Friday.

Update 10/14

My friend Nikhil wrote to me defending the Nobel committee's desire to bring attention to global warming. In response to the "Chill Out" article I cited above, he said "I don't think it's right to base environmental policy judgments simply on cost. It's too utilitarian and undermines the point that you're actually trying to change something that is really hard to change." Nikhil also pointed out that "climate wars...actually happened this year in Africa--people were fighting for now-scarce arable land."

After writing this post, I came across a good article by Ronald Bailey in Reason Magazine:

"In any case, global warming is not the result of environmental sin; it is the result of human progress creating another commons problem. We do not need to "lift global consciousness"; we need to find a cheap, low-carbon source of energy. I have no doubt that man-made global warming is an economic and technical problem that an inventive humanity will solve over the course of the 21st century."

Amen. Read the whole thing here.

The Real World

2007-10-01T11:12:00.000-04:00

My column in today's Diamondback shines the spotlight on my tentative first steps toward graduating and entering the real world. It's not a smooth transition for unsuspecting students like myself, who quickly find that employers aren't just waiting to hand out fat paychecks to us so that we can plan our next exotic vacation.

An excerpt from "The Real World":

"If you happen to be a pre-med student, you just might be lucky enough to stay in school until you are 35. If you are choosing to go to graduate school, you must be commended because, without people like you, there would be no one to sit in Starbucks with a laptop to use the free Wi-Fi all day.

But for the rest of you soon-to-be alumni, expect to find a vastly different world out there...

In theory, the hardest part should be whether to spend your first paycheck on Redskins season tickets or a new 60-inch plasma HDTV to watch the Redskins at home. I've found, however, that getting a job isn't as easy as switching to GEICO. It takes way more than just one quick 15-minute phone call, and contrary to popular belief, it will do absolutely nothing to help you save 15 percent on auto insurance.

Employers, with an irrational need to find "qualified" and "competent" workers, require interrogations of prospective candidates. Apparently it's not enough that I've never taken steroids, financed illicit dog fights or attempted to enrich uranium for purposes of terrorism..."

Click here to read the entire column.

In Jena, Everyone Loses

2007-09-20T02:10:00.000-04:00

The 1960s civil rights movement was a decade that produced many heroes. Among them are Martin Luther King, Jr., Medger Evers, and John Lewis, the latter of whom led the marchers at Selma against brutal policemen with tear gas and attack dogs. I had the privilege of meeting Rep. Lewis at a lunch at the Capitol a few years ago, and hearing him tell his story at the table gave me goosebumps.

On the flip side, I've been deflated by recent coverage (as judged by the plethora of newspaper articles and Facebook petitions) of the "Jena 6", a group of black teenagers facing serious charges in the aftermath of racial tension and violence in their small Louisiana town. Unfortunately, without even delving into the details of this cause célèbre, it's hard to overlook the fact that there is nothing heroic or noble about a group of teenagers beating someone up.

As we've learned (or as the Wikipedia entry documents), this town sadly has a deplorable state of racial affairs between blacks and whites. I am disappointed to see that in the year 2007 there are still places in this country where bitter, overt, and irrational hatred exists. And I obviously feel bad that the Jena 6 may have had poor legal representation, and that they may have to face unimaginably long prison sentences that will all but ruin their lives.

Yet the fact that these six Louisiana teenagers are the face of today's civil rights crusade reveals a troubling detail. It used to be that we marched for messages of equality and non-violence. The kids that everyone is marching for today engaged in violent criminal behavior that was both a symptom, as well as a continuing cause, of racism. These kids, and other blacks and whites in the city, engaged in a relentless cycle of destructive behavior.

When the current trials are over, and all is said and done, will anything have changed in Jena, L.A.? Life for both whites and blacks will likely be worse than before, if that is even possible. This wasn't Dr. King's "Dream", this is a nightmare.

Google Boosting II

2007-09-14T00:38:00.000-04:00

Part two in a series of occasional attempts to manage my web presence on Google's search engine...

Jay Nargundkar - link to this blog, Citizens Band

Jay Nargundkar - link to a search for my Diamondback columns

Jay Nargundkar - link to the school-related investment fund of which I am the performance portfolio manager

Jay Nargundkar - link to a slideshow with pictures from my 14,000ft freefall skydive from August 2007

Jay Nargundkar - link to a Jan '06 Financial Times article I was cited by name in

Jay Nargundkar - link to a column I wrote that was highlighted by Gwen Ifill on her Washington Week show

Cancel "Big Brother"

2007-07-30T23:25:00.000-04:00

"It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time...You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

- George Orwell, 1984

Undoubtedly it's a little cliché and over-the-top to go running to Orwell's 1984 every time the issue of intrusive government monitoring comes about. But, hey, if the shoe fits...

A poll released yesterday shows that Americans support the increased use of public surveillance cameras by a nearly 3-to-1 margin. This disturbing data, if the poll is to be believed, shows that people are fast losing their appreciation for individual privacy.

The standard argument I hear--even from my mom--is that if you're not doing anything wrong, then what harm is there if you are being watched? Well, you might not feel so comfortable if you knew that your every movement and every interaction was being recorded and stored, perhaps in perpetuity, and you couldn't be sure who was using that information and in what way. If you're not worried about abuses from the people currently collecting the info, what about those whose hands it could fall into at any point in the future?

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face… was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…"

Admittedly, for the moment this sounds fantastical and paranoid, but since my aim is to caution about potential misuse, let me clarify two things:

First, I promise I'm not one of those privacy wieners that whine about everything. You could find out a great deal about me through Google and Facebook and this blog and myriad other sources, all of which I'm aware markedly decrease my own privacy. My very use of such sources decreases my own expectations of privacy, as would the increased use of surveillance cameras. But the latter is not something I'm entering into voluntarily and is something I feel much less comfortable with.

Second, this isn't some far-off, "someday the robots will turn against us issue". Such a system already exists in central London (the "ring of steel"), and a similar setup is currently being installed in New York City. There are already plans to expand the system to other major American cities.

For some reason, I don't hear too many people bring up the obvious folly of such a public surveillance system. Namely, that roadside cameras don't prevent crime, they relocate it. Obviously then, if criminals aren't plotting and executing crimes out in the open, they'll do so elsewhere. Do we then stick cameras in every workplace, every restaurant and movie theater, and finally, in every home? I see people being a lot more uncomfortable (I hope) with the implications of a surveillance system if they think it through.

Our society is predicated on a guarantee of the individual's rights, perhaps foremost among those being his freedom from unnecessarily being interfered with by the government. Before everyone decides to pursue security at any cost, we should all carefully consider the value of what we're giving up.

We're Americans. We Hold Ourselves to a Higher Standard.

2007-06-27T22:20:00.000-04:00

Last Sunday, 60 Minutes aired an update to its story on Joe Darby, the Abu Ghraib whistleblower. I hadn't been familiar with Darby's role in the scandal at the infamous prison, and the mortal danger he placed himself in just by doing the right thing.

He and his wife were forced to move from their hometown of Cumberland, MD, to an anonymous location because fellow soldiers, angry neighbors, former friends, and even some of the Darbys' own relatives might seek revenge.

Critics call him a "rat" and "traitor" for supposedly placing the welfare of "the enemy" before U.S. soldiers. They are idiots. What Darby did was place respect for the rule of law first, as it should be according to our country's principles. For those whom that's too abstract an idea, Darby explains his actions in a simple way that makes me really admire and respect him. "We're Americans," he says, "...we hold ourselves to a higher standard."

The idea that the U.S. is special for just that reason, because we expect a higher standard than merely what is convenient, is one that I have always cherished. It's what makes us the "good guys" and separates us from Putin's Russia or communist China. And it's why the U.S., since World War II, has been looked upon as a leader by the rest of the world.

Given the status of the Iraq war and other developments around the world, many people are arguing that the U.S. has lost its preeminent moral standing in the world. Such a claim belies the high esteem the American people are held in throughout most of the world, as well as the positive agendas our government is involved with (for example, democracy promotion, foreign aid, and the Bush admin's commendable effort to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa).

The major blemish currently on our record involves the Bush administration's handling of terrorism suspects outside of a traditional legal framework. At the least, it is burdensome negative PR and phrases like "waterboarding" and "extraordinary rendition" are awkward additions to the American idea of justice. Gitmo's defenders (see also) are somewhat convincing at making a technical argument for the legality of indefinte detainment and military commissions. I doubt that anyone wants to say much about the proliferation of CIA dark sites though. One can only hope that these are relics of a temporary and uncertain era, and the sooner that we can commit them to history's scrap heap, the better.

Which brings me back to Joe Darby's idea of the United States. We're not perfect. We did have slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, and other problems that persist today. But while America in practice has its blemishes, I'm proud that over the long run we always seem to be moving more toward America the ideal, a place where we set higher standards and serve as a great example of human potential.

On Global Warming, Let Cooler Heads Prevail

2007-06-06T10:43:00.000-04:00

NASA Chief Michael Griffin apologized today for his controversial remarks last week when he said in a radio interview: "I have no doubt that ... a trend of global warming exists. [But] I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”

Though he realized belatedly the minefield he was walking into, I have news for Griffin: I agree with you. I like to think I'm not an anti-science Luddite, so I hope you believe me when I say my beef with the global warming alarmists is about how climate science has been interpreted in the public dialogue.

Griffin was spot on when he said today about the global warming debate "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical." Given the poor level of insight that most politicians (and indeed, the public as well) have about climate science, I am extremely wary about the productivity of a political situation.

After all, it seems like "global warming" to most people means something bad that happens from buying Hummers and voting Republican--and if neither bad habit is curtailed within the next few years, we're all going to die. News flash, people: a warm weekend in January 2007 isn't a doomsday symbol, it's an "anomaly", i.e. a good day to have a picnic outdoors.

While we're in a period of warming right now (which, for the past 40 years or so has been fueled by greenhouse gas emissions), I don't want to hear anyone breathlessly exclaim how this year is hotter than last year or five years ago--that is statistically irrelevant.

Some obvious facts are too often overlooked. How many people know that global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer are two entirely separate issues? Or that the Earth has experienced warming and cooling in the past, cyclically and over long periods of time (hundreds of thousands of years)?

So yes, global warming exists. We should be working to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, for both environmental and geopolitical reasons. But that doesn't mean succumbing to the hysteria that has enveloped the global warming debate. Our planet is a strong and fascinatingly complex system, and it is not one so unstable that anything we do in the near-future is going to have a permanent, "tipping point" effect.

Whatever needs to be done to adequately address global warming (and I don't think that entails anything drastic), I don't want to see economically unfeasible pipe dreams pursued, or worse yet, see Sheryl Crow's "one square of toilet paper" rule enacted.

My sentiments may come as an inconvenient truth to some political agendas, but I think the use of scare tactics with regards to global warming is disingenuous and ultimately unhelpful.

Graphic: Neatorama.com

Check Out the View

2007-06-01T10:31:00.000-04:00

This week, Google introduced its new "Street View" feature, built into the Google Maps website. So now, in addition to the overhead satellite imagery of an area, you can get a ground-level perspective on things.

"The Street View vista appears in a little frame over the standard Google Map view. You can pan around the view or zoom in just by scrolling or double-clicking. Then, wander through the city by clicking the arrow icons that float over each street."

This is a pretty cool feature that I can see being especially useful for looking up directions to a destination. The view from the sidewalk is a lot easier to navigate from than a bird's-eye view.

Of course, you have to wonder what developments lie ahead for this kind of technology, which is sure to come to your cellphone or GPS device within months. Given that so many people use this feature for navigating, I suppose it's only a matter of time before the "Street View" offered is a live camera feed.

That'd be great for giving you a heads-up about traffic, but in providing an instantly accessible camera on potentially every street corner, you have to worry about privacy concerns. Already, several websites have posted pictures from "Street View" showing a man outside an adult bookstore, women sunbathing, and more.

Public privacy has been steadily shrinking for years as technology has gotten more advanced. But it isn't Big Brother who's been pushing to keep an eye on all of us--we've done that to each other. That distinction is of no comfort to me, but I guess we'll all just have to get used to it.

So smile, you could be on candid camera!

F--- the FCC!

2007-04-25T03:25:00.000-04:00

Below is a version of an essay I wrote for today's Diamondback (link) decrying FCC censorship of "indecency" as arbitrary, harmful to creative content, and a substitute for poor parenting.

Since the infamous 2004 Super Bowl halftime show revealed to America that Janet Jackson did, in fact, have a nipple on her right breast, the government has become increasingly strict about cracking down on broadcast “indecency”. By raising fines for infractions to obscene amounts, the government is bullying content providers into submission. Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission continues to expand its regulatory reach.

Unfortunately, the FCC uses a completely arbitrary determination of what constitutes indecency. They also employ overly-punitive measures which stifle creative content. Most troubling of all, this brand of regulation is yet another substitute for uninvolved parenting.

There are many examples of the FCC’s vagueness over what exactly constitutes indecency. When Bono used the F-word as an adverb at the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, the commission ruled he was not being indecent because he was not referring to sexual or excretory functions. The FCC changed their minds a year later, deciding that the F-word is totally off limits.

The status of other words or content is notoriously nebulous. It is generally accepted that using the S-word is acceptable (as famously demonstrated in the South Park episode “It Hits the Fan”), but in early 2006 the FCC declared that the same word with the prefix “bull” was “grossly offensive”. Oh, and you can’t say “dickhead”.

You might reasonably point out that our culture has already become so coarse, so it’s good that we take a stand. One problem with that is that the FCC enforces unwritten indecency rules. That’s right, TV networks don’t know what infractions they are supposed to avoid; it’s up to the FCC to decide. The FCC claims that they don’t publish specific rules because that would constitute censorship; rather, they only react when someone complains.

Of course, with extremist organizations like the innocuously named American Family Association around, someone always complains. (The AFA, by the way, sought to boycott the animated movie Shark Tale because it supposedly promoted gay values.) For some reason these busybodies actually get taken seriously as representative of the general public. Family Guy’s Peter said it best in the Emmy-nominated episode “PTV”, explaining that to the FCC, “one complaint equals one billion people.”

Thus, we have situations like the one last year where ABC affiliates refused to air the movie Saving Private Ryan for fear of drawing complaints. Complaints can be very expensive. Under current FCC rules, CBS affiliates would have been fined a whopping $32,500,000 for a single racy scene in an episode of Without a Trace last year. That’s more money than it costs to produce all episodes of the series for an entire season. Given that kind of climate, it’s no wonder Fox Entertainment head Peter Liguori recently described the “chilling effect” the FCC’s recent rulings have had on creative freedom.

I’m not going to deny that there are some clear-cut instances of content that is inappropriate for airing over network TV. But the FCC doesn’t just police the obvious violations and leave the rest to the good judgment of viewers. In fact, in a report issued Tuesday, the FCC announced efforts to broaden its regulatory scope and even start patrolling the cable channels that viewers intentionally pay to bring into their homes.

The sad fact is that all this is being done in the name of protecting children. Of course, the easiest way to protect children is for parents to do their job. If parents monitored their kids’ TV habits and/or used the V-chip, we wouldn’t have this problem of government intervention. Seriously, if they start messing with Eric Cartman and Tony Soprano, I’ll get really pissed.

Couch Potato Humanitarian

2007-04-11T02:19:00.001-04:00

From my D'back column today:

Most college students, myself included, often think that we as individuals can't do much when it comes to tackling a big problem such as world poverty. It's the kind of issue where creating Facebook groups, wearing colored wristbands, attending rallies on McKeldin Mall and yes, writing in The Diamondback don't have much of a real-world impact.

Time and money are generally what it takes to make a difference, and college students are short on both. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't have to worry about paying for tuition, housing and drinks at Cornerstone. And students don't have much time to think about changing the world in between classes, internships, homework, parties, the gym and so forth.

That's why it was with great interest that I read New York Times writer Nick Kristof's recent column, "You, Too, Can Be a Banker to the Poor." He wrote about a website called Kiva (www.kiva.org), which allows anyone to make direct loans through PayPal to specific entrepreneurs in Third World countries.

...

My first loan went to an Azerbaijani man named Ilham Abdulov, who owns a small butcher shop in a bazaar in the city of Agsu. He's a young, portly, jovial-looking guy who has run his shop for four years. Ilham needs money to buy more animals so that he can expand his business. He has agreed to pay me and the other lenders (several from across the U.S., but also one from Spain and another from Japan) back in 12 to 16 months.

...

If a lack of time and money aren't an excuse, then what are you waiting for?

Click to read the entire column.

Put the "Nappy" Controversy to Rest

2007-04-10T12:03:00.000-04:00

One of the major headlines of the past week is the controversy surrounding a remark by radio host Don Imus, who described the African-American women of Rutgers' basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." Initially, Imus brushed off criticism of his remark by calling it just an "idiot comment" he made. The furor has grown though, with Al Sharpton and others calling for his firing, and Imus has been suspended for two weeks. He is now in full-blown apology mode--the familiar I'm-not-a-racist, I didn't mean to be offensive routine.

I don't have any personal feelings regarding Imus; I've rarely listened to his show, and I doubt we would agree on very much. (Though he doesn't seem like a bad person, and much less reprehensible than, say, Rush Limbaugh.) But I am annoyed by the huge flareup over this comment. That isn't because I agree with his distasteful remark, but because I think his critics are misguided.

Yes, Imus made an off-color comment to a group that didn't deserve it--the Lady Scarlet Knights, who had a remarkable run to the NCAA finals after overcoming several early season losses. But I don't see how his comment is that big a deal. Those great women basketball players shouldn't care what he has to say about them. They just made it to the NCAA Finals. Should it matter at all to them what some cranky old radio host whom they've never heard of makes fun of them? Not at all.

What Imus thinks of the Rutgers team is completely irrelevant and in no way diminishes their accomplishment. His words should have no effect on them. And they wouldn't, were it not for this whole conflagration which is giving such power to Imus's comments. The Lady Knights had never heard of and didn't care about Don Imus a week ago--now it seems like everyone is expecting them to be the anguished, suffering victims of his words. Imus shouldn't have that power, and those players shouldn't be told to be victims--they're so much better than that!

Meanwhile, let Imus continue to make edgy comments and lame jokes. Unless he or anyone else is saying stuff that actually causes harm to their target, we should be very careful in declaring anything too "sensitive" for discussion or humor. While the intent may be to protect people, we instead wind up making a big deal out of things that aren't so.

UPDATE 4/14

I'm terribly disappointed that Imus has been fired from his radio show. I'm disappointed because of how much people read into and extrapolate from what was just a bad joke. That joke was conflated to be an example of the depth of Imus's shocking racist views, something I don't believe. Anyone with any familiarity with comedy, especially the commonplace edgy comedy of our times, knows that joke ≠ personal belief.

But nonetheless, since Imus's joke was viewed as his actual belief, I'm more disappointed at what this episode demonstrates about our tolerance for letting people air their opinions. Free speech isn't just an esoteric concept you can defend only at cherry-picked times or from cherry-picked voices. Let people make up their own minds and ignore/counter disagreeable or detestable speech on its own merits. That is much preferable to using censorship and making a sacred cow of some topic.

Pat Buchanan, of all people, had an interesting column on this subject where he raised a couple of salient points about the hypocrisy involved in this situation:

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

...

If the word "hos" is a filthy insult to decent black women, and it is, why are hip-hop artists and rap singers who use it incessantly not pariahs in the black community? Why would black politicians hobnob with them? Why are there no boycotts of the advertisers of the radio stations that play their degrading music?

I think even people who generally agree that this incident has been blown out of proportion are reluctant to defend Don Imus because of his forked tongue and checkered history of verbal offenses. But that's precisely the problem.

Pretty or not, we have to refrain from taking the easy solution (in this case mass condemnation, censorship). Confront the problem in a constructive manner (rational refutation of his remarks, and then moving on)--that's what's in the best interest of all parties involved.

Final words

A former head of Martin Luther King's SCLC asks us to "Drop the Race Card."

Meat, By Definition, is Murder (But I'm OK With That)

2007-03-26T05:07:00.001-04:00

Recently, famed chef and restaurant owner Wolfgang Puck attracted attention when he announced that his businesses were switching to the use of organic ingredients and meat from more humanely treated animals. He was commended by the NY Times for setting an example that reminded consumers of the "power of the choices they make," and for promoting the idea that "they can eat well and do right all at the same time."

This whole issue over treatment of animals that are soon-to-be-food is one I've always been a little confused about. For obvious reasons, we don't like bad conditions in slaughterhouses. Cruelty toward animals is a behavior that goes against our nature, and I hate it as much as the next guy.

Even taking that into account, most of us wind up rationalizing meat-eating along the lines of (1) it's natural for us to eat meat, (2) meat is tasty--very tasty, I might add, and (3) there are health benefits to eating meat--even if vegetarians can receive those same benefits through their diet and/or with multivitamins.

Whatever, to each their own. (Personally, if I was stranded on a desert island, the only two things I'd really want are a George Foreman Grill and a crate of bacon. My third wish would probably be for Reese Witherspoon.) But how exactly do Mr. Puck's actions, and campaigns like the free-range movement, have any effect on easing people's consciences? The farmer gives the chicken a couple more feet to run around, and all of a sudden you can eat well and sleep easy?

Whether cooped up in a cage or allowed to roam, whether fed too little or too much or just right, all of those animals are being raised for the express purpose of being killed for human consumption. Meat eaters have to come to terms with the fact that the basic moral argument aginst eating meat isn't resolved by treating dinner a little better before it's cooked.

Meat, by definition, is murder. Then again, I'm OK with that, and it's perfectly fine if you feel the same way.

Update - Thank you Neha, Andrew, and Greg for your insightful comments. After reading what you wrote, and thinking about the issue some more, I have become convinced that the killing of animals and the treatment of livestock are separate ethical issues. While I remain unopposed to the former as a biologically natural process (eating animals for the purpose of food), I now concur with the commenters' view that the humane treatment of animals raised for the slaughter is in fact a worthwhile goal.

Dawkins' God Delusion

2007-03-19T19:00:00.000-04:00

This past weekend I finished reading Richard Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion. Dawkins, for those who haven't heard of him before, is a well-known British biologist most famous as an outspoken advocate of evolution. (Yeah, he's the scientist spoofed on South Park having a relationship with Mrs. Garrison.) The God Delusion, which came out late last year, has been a fixture on the bestseller list and has raised a lot of controversy for its polemical criticism of religion.

I share his viewpoint that believing in the supernatural is irrational, and that religion is too often granted immunity from criticism. Dawkins' book is full of great quotes from people ranging from Douglas Adams to Thomas Jefferson that humorously buttress his points. Who knew, for example, how much that champion of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, detested the influence of the religious right?

The actual substance of the book, however, is uneven. As much as Dawkins is a witty and engaging writer--regardless of your views, the book is readable throughout--I doubt he accomplishes the stated goal of his book: to convert believers into atheists.

I've said before that telling people they are idiots and simpletons, or worse, is not generally the best way to persuade them of your cause. Dawkins' methods, which include using statistical improbability to show the improbability of God's existence, are not going to have the slightest effect on someone who does believe in God.

Dawkins attacks religion for engendering fundamentalism, bigotry, hostility to science, and other negative influences. Of course, it's easy to knock down such targets as the Taliban, homophobia, literal interpretation of the Bible, etc., but everyone is aware of these externalities and yet most people continue to believe in God!

A chapter on how meme theory might explain why religion is so widespread throughout human cultures was the least interesting. I guess it sounded too hypothetical. More appealing to me was Dawkins' later argument that humans can act morally without religion, which I agree with. His explanation for this is that we have nurtured altruistic genes (which better our odds of survival) through natural selection. Yet of course, while atheists are definitely capable of being good, that does not mean an absence of religion is the end of all conflict. (The aforementioned South Park episode featuring rival groups of atheists battling each others brilliantly showed how human nature inevitably leads to conflicts.)

Another point I agree with Dawkins on, though much less polemically so, is on the religious indoctrination of children. Dawkins repeats ad nauseum how a child should not be referred to as a "Muslim child" or "Christian child" because at that young an age he does not have the capability to decide for himself the matter. (No one would call a child a "Republican boy" or "Democratic girl".) I don't have a problem with children being brought up in the religious tradition of their family, but surely at some age it only makes sense that a child be free to decide for himself whether he wants to be part of that religion, another religion, or no religion at all.

Dawkins is at his best at the end of the book when he evokes the wonders of science to show how scientific inquiry reveals the universe to be even more awe-inspring and amazing than people (especially religious fundamentalists) give it credit for. I wish he had chosen to emphasize this approach more, because I think it would be the one that's most convincing.

A book like Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, which explains the scientific method and promotes rational thinking, or even the one I'm reading now, A Short History of Nearly Everything, does more to enhance science's stature and increase the general public's scientific interest. That is the best way for Dawkins to achieve his goal of a less fundamentalist, less anti-science world. Unfortunately the tone of his own book does not help.

Dissent is More than Just Saying No

2007-03-11T23:15:00.000-04:00

I was browsing Facebook earlier today when I came across the e-vite for an anti-war protest that several of UMD's lefty activist groups are putting together this week. Predictably, the message board for the event was filled with the standard back-and-forth between the "Bush lied" crowd and the "support the troops" crowd.

Despite my own views (I support continued U.S. military involvement in Iraq), I have a problem with views held by extreme members of both the pro- and anti-war sides.

A couple quotes of what passes as the less-shrill dialogue from the message board:

"The [Iraqi] people don't want us there. We have no right to be there. So the only logical thing to do would be to leave...I don't see how thousands of more deaths will 'clean up' the thousands that have already died." - Matthew L.

"Every red-blooded American knows what it takes to have peace--it takes people willing to do what's most difficult--pick up a weapon and fight for it...Understand that you are doing little for the good of the country that gave you the freedom and the education you needed to think up your silly ideas and whine about them in public." - Karen M.

War supporters get angry at the anti-war crowd for what they see as opposing actions undertaken in this country's best interest, and more importantly, as undermining the efforts of military personnel who are risking their lives. Pro-war people should stop impugning the anti-war crowd's patriotism, and not just out of respect for the sincerity of their convictions.

I want to avoid boring anyone by being trite, so I'll skip the part where I quote some Founding Father or eminent thinker's pithy comment on the value of protest. Instead, I'd like to remind the pro-war crowd that we need the anti-war crowd. We need them to legitimize America's military efforts, to show that our country is not some barbaric monolithic society. We need them to demonstrate the variety of opinion tolerated in our democratic society.

Dissent isn't just about them saying no. We need them to second-guess us and provide oversight for our decisions so that we can feel more assured that we are acting in a manner consistent with our values. The America I feel comfortable living in is one where people debate and disagree, not one where everyone is lockstep on every important issue.

With that admonition to the pro-war crowd behind us, I'd like to address the anti-war crowd as well. Here I mean to appeal to reasonable people--I don't waste time trying to address anyone who talks about conspiracy theories, evil corporations, or loosely throws around words like fascism or genocide. To the reasonable, principled section of the anti-war crowd (which I'm sure makes up the vast majority of that group), you also have a duty to do more than just say no.

Your country is at war. War is a serious issue that should not be turned into a political football. You may be against our country's military involvement in Iraq, but remember that our country is better off if we succeed, not if we fail.

To that end, if you care about the future of the Iraqi people, you can do more than just attend protest marches. After the Asian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina hit, so many people I know were involved in charity fundraising, efforts to rebuild houses, etc. I've found it strange that I never see any groups pushing to raise money to help Iraqi civilians, rebuild Iraqi schools and hospitals, etc.

Helping out by no means has to mean enlisting in the army or serving as a contractor in the rebuilding of Iraq's society. I was heartened by the response to the recently-exposed mistreatment of injured soldiers at Walter Reed--pro-war and anti-war supporters alike joined together to express their outrage and successfully push for change.

Realistically though, we are all college students, and the number of options we would actually pursue is quite limited. I think the best way each of us could do our part in the war effort is to remember to keep an open mind.

If you're against the war, good for you, but correct someone the next time they try to paint the war in political tones. Keep our country's best interests at heart, not those of your particular ideology. The same applies to the war's supporters, who need to remember that most anti-war protesters are more than just stupid hippies.

Support "Sweatshops"

2007-03-04T20:26:00.000-05:00

For my column in the Diamondback this Wednesday, I was going to tackle the issue of the third-world factory labor, something I touched on last year on the blog. Unfortunately for me though, another staff columnist drew the assignment and his column will run in tomorrow's newspaper, so I'm out of luck. I've reproduced my version below.

* * *

Last week the Diamondback reported a campus group’s effort to ban sweatshop labor used for school apparel and other gear. Never mind that no Terp merchandise has specifically been traced to factories with abusive labor conditions. It’s time to set the record straight. If you really care about helping third-world workers, you should be pro-sweatshops.

That’s not just me being irreverent. Jeffrey Sachs, the influential economist, says “My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few.” He means that international trade makes everyone better off over the long-run. Developing countries get to use their comparative advantage of cheaper labor to gain access to factories, jobs, and skills they could not otherwise get. Meanwhile developed countries get to specialize in other areas and receive lower prices at home.

You might expect liberals to have bleeding hearts over the plight of third-world workers, and conservatives to coldly favor Big Business. But this is not your typical liberal-conservative issue. Sachs is a liberal anti-poverty crusader who works with the U.N. and teams up with rock star Bono on Africa aid.

In fact, my first introduction to this subject came from reading a 2001 column by Paul Krugman, the well-known economist and dependable lefty. He wrote: “Third-world countries aren't poor because their export workers earn low wages; it's the other way around. Because the countries are poor, even what look to us like bad jobs at bad wages are almost always much better than the alternatives.”

Those alternatives that he speaks of are lower-wage jobs such as subsistence farming, menial labor, and prostitution. In 1997, UNICEF discovered that 5,000 to 7,000 Nepalese children turned to prostitution after the U.S. banned carpet exports from that country in the name of labor standards. Worse yet was the infamous Child Labor Deterrence Act of 1995, which UNICEF, Oxfam, and others have said led to tens of thousands homeless and forced into jobs like “stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution.” Yes, that’s a worse outcome.

Keep in mind next time you hear someone lay into Wal-Mart or Nike for paying $1.50 an hour, in most cases, that worker is glad for it. Not to mention it's probably a buck more than they'd be getting working a local job. NY Times columnist John Tierney wrote last year that third world factory jobs “may sound like hell to American college students” but that they “provide enough to lift a worker above the poverty level, and often far above it.”

Tierney cited a recent study of 10 Asian and Latin American countries, which had many insightful revelations. In Honduras, for example, the average apparel worker makes $13 a day, while nearly half the country’s population makes less than $2 a day.

Obviously I am not in favor of labor conditions that are actually abusive. There are several all-too-true examples of factories where workers are subjected to threats and beatings, prevented from going to the bathroom, required to be on birth control, etc. Those are abhorrent practices and we should wholeheartedly oppose them. However, those instances are in the minority.

Third world workers take factory jobs because it is their first step toward integrating into the modern industrialized world. They get away from their rural villages and into the cities. They support their families and provided a better upbringing and education for their children. Later on their children can take advantage of the more advanced jobs that have come to the country after the success of the initial low-level factory work.

If you really are serious about wanting to help third-world countries, think twice before you protest third-world factory labor. You could be doing more harm than good.

Holy Wars

2007-02-24T16:22:00.000-05:00

Among my friends and others, I have a reputation for sometimes having controversial or irreverent views. (Go figure, South Park is one of my favorite TV shows.) It seems to me that most of the time when people get offended, it's by something petty or trivial. I always want to tell them to stop and ask themselves "Are my beliefs or opinions really that fragile that I can't be presented with signs of other people's beliefs or opinions?"

It was in that mindset I wrote my recent column for today's Diamondback about how to strike a balance between secularism and religion in the United States. Given that I chided secular people for their hostility toward religious people, and the latter for constantly trying to push their beliefs on others, it was predictable that I drew fire from both sides. But I also found a lot of people who agreed with me, which was heartening in that it proves the polarized wings are not the majority.

Sample grab:

Despite caricature-worthy cases like the Westboro evangelists, crazy demagogues constitute a distinct minority of the population. The vast majority of religious Americans are good, decent, ordinary people. They should not be patronized, insulted or generalized as stupid folk from the South or Midwest.

Less hostility toward religion would go a long way toward defusing cultural tension. There is no need to continually deride obvious inconsistencies, outmoded thinking and immoral actions committed in centuries-old religious tradition. Regardless of the downside of rigid and literal interpretation, it should be obvious that the moral and humanitarian side of religion is a positive.

...I have several reminders for people of faith as well...one person's particular beliefs are not the only ones in existence. No one maintains a monopoly on what everyone should think. Respect the beliefs of people who belong to another religion, no religion or some religion.

I conclude by acknowledging that many aspects of America's values have been strongly influenced by religion but that the U.S. must remain a fundamentally secular nation. Click here to read the whole article.

Theory: Eat Fetuses, Gain Superpowers

2007-02-07T10:04:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since I've mentioned anything from my bi-weekly column in the Diamondback, the University of Maryland's independent student newspaper. Topics I've written about recently include money management for students and cultural cliques overdone. In my column today, I adapted a recent blog post to discuss the presence of science in pop culture. Sample grab:

...we have segments of the population dismissing evolution because they've never seen a monkey turn into a person, or because they think a "theory," to quote Isaac Asimov, "is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." (Recall the evangelist from Borat who insisted "I is what I is!") Pro-evolution people, meanwhile, make their job more difficult when they disrespect their opponents' religious convictions. For some reason, telling people that they are idiots with vivid imaginations isn't the most persuasive argument.

We have people who think that unless we all switch to hybrid cars ASAP, an ice age will wipe out coastal cities (and benefit the Republican Party, of course). We also have people who think that climate change can't be real because one guy wearing a lab coat out in Fargo, N.D., disagrees. (Hey, he sure looks like a scientist.) Thus, they say, there must be no consensus on global warming.

We have opposition to stem cell research based on "pro-life" beliefs, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of surplus blastocysts are routinely discarded by fertility clinics instead of having even a fraction of those used to try and save lives. We also have people who would mislead you into believing that the only thing standing between a disease-free world is big, bad President Bush. (I particularly enjoyed the South Park episode which showed the late paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve gaining superpowers from eating dead fetuses.)

Click here to read the whole article.

Dungy to Rest of NFL: Zeus Smites You

2007-02-05T01:23:00.000-05:00

This post is imported from my group sports blog, Da Sports Authority."

Does God hate the Chicago Bears? I can't seem to find the big fella's cellphone number to call and ask Him, so my best guess as to how He feels comes from statements from the Indianapolis Colts' camp.

After the Colts' Sunday victory in the Super Bowl, coach Tony Dungy attributed their success to "showing that you can win doing it the Lord's way." His comments echoed Colts' owner Jim Irsay, who said "we're giving it all to God again because that's what got us here."

People in the sports world invoking God is not news--it's done on a routine basis. But I always find it amusing that these athletes or coaches or whoever are presumptuous enough to assume that, if there is a higher being, God or Allah or Christina or whoever has a rooting interest in the outcome. Even if the Almighty deigned to choose a favorite squadron, it's probably not yours--that whole "meek shall inherit the earth" thing sounds a lot like it came from an Arizona Cardinals fan.

I'm fine with an athlete saying that his inspiration is due to his relationship with God--how you find motivation and balance in life is up to you. but it should stop there. Despite what Dallas Cowboys' fans might think, there is no such thing as "God's Team," and religion should be dealt with on an individual basis, not applied to a team as a whole.

Just in case I'm wrong though, I have no problem with Joe Gibbs' monthly tradition of sacrificing six goats and a virgin if it will help the Redskins back to glory next year.

Two Years of Citizens Band

2007-01-08T00:00:00.000-05:00

Exactly one year ago, I wrote about how this blog has expanded my awareness of politics and current events, improved my writing and persuasive skills, and given me the ability to independently analyze and provide context to important issues. One year later, all of that is more true than ever before. I feel like I've finally become comfortable writing at length and in detail in ways that offer a fresh perspective compared to what is heard from the media, public figures, or other blogs.

As I look forward to another great year on this site, I'd like to use the 2nd anniversary of Citizens Band to higlight below a selection of fifteen of my favorite posts since this blog was launched in January 2005:

Submission (to Fear) - Feb. 1, 2005 - In Europe, freedom of expression is under assault and multiculturalism is in decay.
Dude Where's My Freedom? - Feb. 20, 2005 - Freedom needs spreading here in the U.S.
Middle School in a Maelstrom - Mar. 13, 2005 - Marc Fisher unfairly attacks Takoma Park MS.
Durbin, Gitmo, and What Really Needs to be Said - Jun. 19, 2005 - Sidestepping a real debate over human rights vs. security.
Future of Terrorism Determined by Muslims - Jul. 9, 2005 - The Muslim world needs to deny terrorists' their sense of moral authority.
An Evolving Understanding of Our Origins - Aug. 13, 2005 - A reader debates intelligent design.
Crappy News Network - Aug. 21, 2005 - Sick of news stories about missing white women.
What They Don't Understand - Sep. 11, 2005 - Terrorism doesn't offer a constructive message for the future.
Google, China, and Do No Evil - Jan. 24, 2006 - A post that was quoted in the Financial Times.
Finish Your Homework! - Mar. 20, 2006 - We're not losing to China and India...yet.
Permanent Records - Apr. 17, 2006 - A D'back column on the ominous online archive.
On Elite Colleges and Success - May 27, 2006 - What advantages does a top-tier education have?
The Daily Subversion with Jon Stewart? - Jun. 28, 2006 - It's smart comedy, not propaganda.
Defensible Action by Israel - Jul. 16, 2006 - Readers debate the impact of the invasion of Lebanon.
Bush, Iraq, and the Missing Sacrifice - Dec. 5, 2006 - An ill-prepared public can't face a long haul in Iraq.

Popularizing Science

2007-01-07T03:45:00.000-05:00

This weekend, on my sister's recommendation, I read Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Armand Marie Leroi. Rest assured, the voyeuristic suggestion implied in the title is merely a narrative device that complements a thorough, thoughtful examination of genetic variations backed up by a lot of historical and cultural research. Although some of the science presented is at an advanced level (ectoderms, morphogens, and melanocytes are likely above the head of the average reader), it is all explained simply enough to be understood.

But my intent here is not to write a book review, but rather to introduce a subject that troubles me: the absence of science (meaning natural science, not social science) as a popular aspect of our cultural knowledge. Social sciences get their proper due--the shelves of bookstores overflow with bestsellers in history, politics, business, etc.--but never the "hard" sciences like biology, chemistry, physics, etc.

I am especially concerned about the dearth of scientific content aimed at the public that is both interesting and accessible to a broad audience. This is a concern given the insufficient scientific literacy of the average American, and the very real implication this has on public policy issues. I needn't remind anyone about the debates over stem cell research, global warming, teaching of evolution, and the space program, to name a few.

In fact, as the previous sentence illustrates, the only time that science seems to permeate the public consciousness is when an issue like evolution or global warming gets politicized and distorted. The media gives only a short shrift to anything that can't be framed by X-versus-Y screamfests.

Recall, for example, what surely must have been the most under-reported story of 2006: the suggestion by NASA in December that water has been flowing on Mars as recently as in the past decade (and perhaps even now.) Water! On Mars! Not in some distant galaxy a long time ago or on some moon on the outer reaches of our solar system, but right now on our very own planetary neighbor! This revelation was good for about one day in the headlines.

Publishers and producers are always looking for the Next Big Thing to push. How about something that has a built-in appeal to our sense of wonderment, something that allows us to discover more about ourselves and the world we live in? Those TV documentaries on the Discovery Channel are a good start, but we all know nobody watches those unless there's nothing else on.

Where are the 2007 Carl Sagans, some sort of physicist version of Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs, and Steel) or biologist version of Steven Levitt (Freakonomics) who will pen the latest title all the book clubs want? As evidenced by the success of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything a couple years back (which I hope to read soon), people are very curious about science. Combine a layman's earnestness with a charismatic, talented scientist-author, and I think you've got the formula for a *gasp* educational hit.

If any of you know of interesting, accessible books, magazines, websites, etc. written about natural or interdisciplinary sciences, please pass the recommendation on to me--and to others! That would be a real favor. The more that science enters into the public discussion, the better we as a society will be able to make informed decisions.

Saddam's Legacy

2006-12-29T23:26:00.000-05:00

Just over an hour ago, Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging for crimes against humanity. Now that the former tyrant is no more, both the U.S. and Iraq will have to see whether delivering justice to Saddam becomes a milestone toward national reconciliation or serves to further alienate Sunnis (his sect) from the Shiite/Kurd-led government.

The fact that Iraq today remains unstable and faces an uncertain future, three years after Saddam was overthrown, forces us to confront his legacy. In his absence, the sectarian rivalries and various factions vying for power that were quashed under his tyrannical rule have emerged and gone virtually unchecked, proceeding to rent Iraq asunder.

Certainly he was a vile and narcissistic despot who murdered thousands and brutally oppressed his own people. He was also a major threat to regional and world security, and we are better off having eliminated him. Nonetheless, his secular and pro-modernization attitude is one that we should hope is adopted by future Middle East leaders if we want to see strong, secure states emerge in that region. An emphasis on education and economic development, rights for women, and a legal system that doesn't consist only of arcane Sharia law is vastly preferable to the hostile, Islamist vision for the future that is gaining in popularity across the Muslim world today.

More pertinent to the immediate future of Iraq, given the country's ethnic and religious divisions, is the idea of Iraqi nationalism. Unlike many political players in today's Iraq, who wouldn't mind seeing their country partioned for the benefit of their respective groups, Saddam believed in the idea of Iraq the nation (although his belief rested on twisted, selfish notions.) It would not be in our interests or the region's interests to see Iraq carved to pieces, so we should hope for the emergence of Iraqi leaders who will put the interests of Iraq first--not Kurdistan, "Shi'astan", etc. Oh, and they have to do it without all the death squads, imprisonments, brutalities, corruption, paranoia, and self-interest that Saddam employed, thanks!

I Read the Iraq Study Group Report

2006-12-07T21:34:00.000-05:00

For the past nine months the ten person, bipartisan Iraq Study Group (a.k.a. the Baker-Hamilton Commission) of elderly public figures has met, and in the process their much-anticipated report was expected by many to be the last, best hope for fixing what's gone wrong with the war.

Well, the report dropped yesterday, and as can be expected, reactions were all over the place. Some hailed it as a bold acknowledgement of mistakes and a call for change, some were offended by perceived threats, and some yawned and suggested that the report was exactly the kind of thing that would be produced by a large group of people with opposite ideologies who are forces to come to a consensus. That is to say, a painting brushed with broad strokes, a lot of stating the obvious. That is what I was expecting, but I had to read it for myself, and I would encourage you to do so as well.

Instead of running out to Borders or clicking over to Amazon to buy the ISG Report for $10.95, you can do what I did and read it online for free. At about 60 pages excluding appendices and surprisingly easy to read, the ISG report is helpful even for those who are not too familiar with the details of the situation in Iraq. The report provides background on the security situation, sectarian conflict, political and religious leaders, legislative and judicial issues, economic implications, and more.

All the news reports have focues on the two main recommendations from the executive summary, which are described below:

The U.S. needs to ask its bitter enemies Iran and Syria for help in stemming the flow of insurgents and encouraging Iraqi national unity. This recommendation is already causing indigestion amongst many hawkish conservatives--a guest on the conservative blog PowerLine ridiculed the notion of getting "terrorists [sic] supporting countries involved in fighting terrorism." The ISG also generically recommends diplomatic initiatives to resolve tensions in Lebanon and provide a two-state solution to the Palestine-Israel dispute.
"Significantly" more troops should be sent to Iraq temporarily to help with security, but most American forces in Iraq could be withdrawn by early 2008. I agree with this position, but I know it's bound to draw fire from both critics and supporters of the war. The former will not want to send more men and women to die in Iraq, and the latter will refuse to give up on the mission or abandon the Iraqi people.

While the above two recommendations have generated much of the headlines, I found several interesting insights in the background assesment part of the report. What follows is the rather lengthy list I wound up jotting down (all emphases added by me unless otherwise indicated):

Props for not mincing words and stating the obvious from the get-go: the intro paragraph in the first section says "The level of violence is high and growing. There is great suffering, and the daily lives of many Iraqis show little or no improvement. Pessimism is pervasive." To its credit, the ISG denounced "staying the course," an acknowledgement that the war is going badly, and was equally disparaging to the idea of withdrawing immediately.
How bad is the security situation? "Total attacks [against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces] in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006...Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed every month."
On the sources of violence in Iraq: "Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency...It has significant support from within the Sunni Arab community." The Bush administration, by playing up al Qaeda's role, does not acknowledge the fact that the main troublemakers are themselves Iraqis. To be fair, although al Qaeda plays a small role, "that includes some of the more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, truck bombs, and attacks on significant religious or political targets." Its goal is to incite all-out war between Shi'a and Sunni.

The main problem, though, remains sectarian violence, which "causes the largest number of Iraqi civilian casualties." Shiite militias/death squads include two prominent groups: the Mahdi Army (which has "as many as 60,000 fighters"), led by Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Brigade, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, which is closely tied to Iran.
How are Iraqis being affected by the war? "The United Nations estimates that 1.6 million are displaced within Iraq, and up to 1.8 million Iraqis have fled the country."
We have trained and equipped 326,000 Iraqi security forces (police and Army). The Army is making "fitful progress"--it is described as "one of the more professional Iraqi institutions." That said, sectarian divisions run rife even here, and large parts of the Army apparently refuse to carry out their assigned missions. Then there's the whole lack of leadership, equipment, personnel, logistics, and support.

That's at least better than the police, who "cannot control crime" and who "routinely engage in sectarian violence, including the unnecessary detention, torture, and targeted execution of Sunni Arab civilians." The police forces are heavily infiltrated by militia members, assasins, and other thugs.
The report on the political and religious leaders in Iraq is bleak: Prime Minister Maliki is beholden to Sadr, who has built a political party within government and maintains an outside armed militia in a manner reminiscent of Hezbollah in Lebanon. The leading Shiite cleric in Iraq, the moderate Ayatollah Sistani, wants a unified Iraq, but his influence is declining. Iraq's third major ethnic group, the Kurds, want their own state--their leaders certainly don't care much for the idea of the Iraqi nation.
The Kurds already have their own autonomous regious, and the Shiites may press for one in the future. The Sunnis want a unified Iraq, but only with themselves as the rulers. There is no economically feasible independent Sunni state, because Iraq's oil reserves are all located in Kurdish or Shi'a areas.
Do these guys make Ken Lay look tame? "Corruption is rampant. One senior Iraqi official estimated that official corruption costs Iraq $5-7 billion per year."
Regarding the economy: "Growth in Iraq is at roughly 4 percent this year. Inflation is above 50 percent. Unemployment estimates range widely from 20 to 60 percent."
The cost of war for the U.S.: $400 billion so far. We are currently spending $8 billion each month! The ISG says the final bill could be as high as $2 trillion.

After the report concludes the Assessment portion, it moves on to recommendations. And you know how old people always love to give advice? This panel certainly did--79 recommendations in all, with perhaps the two most important described above.

Of the rest, they range from consequential to mundane, with some maddeningly generic. For example, they call for "significantly greater analytic resources to the task of understanding the threats and sources of violence in Iraq." In any case, I'm sure over the next week or two, we'll see more discussion and debate of the specific recommendations. At that time I might have more to say about them.

Bush, Iraq, and the Missing Sacrifice

2006-12-05T23:42:00.000-05:00

Sunday's Washington Post featured four academics trying to rate President Bush on the historical scale. Three of the four consigned him, to put it politely, to the rubbish heap--the judgment from the fourth, a former Bush speechwriter, amounted to "there's still time for him to upgrade to mediocre."

I'm not a fan of these "instant history" analyses, because perspectives can change dramatically over time--one article pointed out that Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, was once considered "near great." Today the man who vehemently sought to deny rights to the freed slaves, and later became the first president to be impeached, is rightly considered a failure.

That said, one thing that won't look rosier for Bush over time is his accomplishments on the domestic front--because they are slim. The economy has improved, but especially so soon after the "dot-com" era set the bar for booms, the more sane growth we've seen over the past few years is nothing to write home about. And I doubt that No Child Left Behind and tax cuts will be the subject of many breathless chapters in future textbooks. Perhaps if Bush had been able to achieve meaningful Social Security reform, he would have something to hang his hat on, but that didn't pan out.

This is not to suggest that the lack of significant, lasting domestic accomplishments is in and of itself an impediment to being considered a great president. In Bush's case, in fact, it became clear as early as 9/12 that his legacy would be determined by how he would confront the threat of terrorism and manage America's exercise of hard and soft power.

With respect to the former, Bush can proudly and justifiably say he that he has prevented another attack on the homeland. No, we can't say we're completely safe today, but we're certainly a lot better prepared. And while currently there are still deep divisions about measures like the USA Patriot Act, I think that history will eventually look forgivingly at the reaction of this administration to protect a shocked and wounded nation. Hey, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and they still built a statue to him in DC!

But let's not kid ourselves. The main prism that Bush is seen through today is the one that will people years from now will look at him through: Iraq. And in this case, there's no point in mincing words. Whether or not you still support the war effort (and I definitely do), two things are abundantly clear:

Iraq is in a civil war. This is one of the rare times that I, a self-described member of the "grammar police," will say that semantics should be thrown out the window. There shouldn't have to be one side wearing gray, the other side blue, and both sides marching in neat rows for us to realize a mess when we see one. Calling the situation in Iraq anything but a civil war is to deny its gravity.
The U.S. is currently losing in Iraq. Robert Gates, the nominee to be the new Secretary of Defense, should be applauded, for admitting this during confirmation hearings today on the Hill. Despite what any right-wing blog may say, we are losing in Iraq--if we were winning, this debate wouldn't be happening. Keep in mind though, that "losing" does not mean all is "lost"--let's figure out a way to win.

Administrative decisions, military strategy, and troop deployments are all matters for qualified experts, and I wouldn't have much to say on those issues. But for a long while now I have felt that there was another reason that our Iraq venture was doomed from the start: that the American public was never asked to make sacrifices or adopt a wartime mentality.

In today's Post, the always astute Michael Kinsley picks up on that reason to explain why the American public has lost its will to support the war in Iraq:

At first it seemed a brilliant strategy -- repellent, but brilliant -- to isolate most Americans from the cost of the war in Iraq. It's starting to seem a lot less so. As the deaths and injuries mount, more and more people are touched by the war -- and become understandably resentful of those who are not. Bush, in his speeches, is eloquent about what no one doubts -- the sacrifice -- but banal about what most people have come to doubt: the purpose.

The decision to wage the war on the margins of the public's consciousness might seem to make sense--it's applying a lesson learned from the Vietnam War that minimized exposure means minimized dissatisfaction. But if you go this route, things have to be going well. You can endure a mosquite bite on the back of your leg, but if it keeps getting bigger and more itchy, it will inevitably come to consume your attention.

President Bush didn't prepare the American public for a big, itchy bug bite. And there is where the whole problem arises from. Had he placed the public in a wartime mentality, they would be willing to put up with setbacks. And unlike Vietnam, the time was right to emphasize a struggle. The aftermath of 9/11 was a golden opportunity to make clear to Americans that life as we knew it was going to be different, that sacrifices would have to be made.

Bush instead sought to convey as much as possible that everything was business as usual, and it has become his undoing, because now we demand that everything be quick and painless. The post-9/11 months could have been used to kickstart a nation to transform itself, through heavily publicized programs like an increased gas tax, expansion of community service programs, foreign language requirements in public education, or any number of dozens of other ideas that would have constituted the message that it's a different world today with different expectations.

In other words, it was time for tough love. Instead, President Bush pampered the public, and now he has to live with the results of that squandered opportunity: constituents that are not willing to deal on his terms or his scope in Iraq.

Election '06

2006-11-08T16:40:00.000-05:00

Going into Tuesday, the prevailing wisdom was that the Democrats were in for a big day, a reverse '94 of sorts. The Dems were supposed to take the House and maybe even make it a close margin in the Senate. I didn't buy it--I didn't see how the Dems were supposed to take back the government without an identifiable governing proposal.

After all, in 1994, Gingrich and the Republican candidates had the high-profile "Contract for America," which was a draw for voters. In this election, you had some Democrats running as hard anti-war, some as social conservatives, and some with no discernible agenda except reflexive anti-Bush messages. So, at best, I figured the Democrats would get the House back with a net gain of around 18-20 seats, and pick up 3 seats in the Senate.

Well, obviously I was wrong, because in a tour de force the Democrats have picked up at least 28 House seats (11 undecided), and amazingly, they may even take the Senate (+6 seats) if Jim Webb's narrow win in Virgina stands. For good measure, the Dems have even taken back the majority of the governor's mansions, thanks to 6 new pickups. Here in Maryland, incumbent Robert Ehrlich, who has had generally good reviews (and was endorsed by the Washington Post), got thrown out in favor of Martin O'Malley.

As I watched CNN all night until 4 a.m., when I finally went to bed, it dawned on me how badly I underestimated how much the country was desperate for "anything but Bush/Republican establishment." So many veteran G.O.P.ers got sent packing even by lightweight challengers. It didn't necessarily help to be a moderate or distance yourself from the White House, as Rhode Island's Lincoln Chafee found out. Chafee, who many in his own party decry as a "RINO" (Republican in name only), had a cushy 72% approval rating, was against the war in Iraq, voted against the Bush tax cuts, supported stem cell research and gay rights, and was completely on the outs from the Republican establishment, still lost.

So though the Senate is not yet decided (but you have to at least assume the Dems have the upper hand there, because Allen must somehow get enough votes to make up the gap between him and Webb), we know one thing for sure: the Democrats have the House, and all of the chairmanships that entails, and Nancy Pelosi is the new Speaker of the House.

I've long been sharply critical of the Democratic leadership, namely Reid, Pelosi, and Dean, because they've been entirely focused on partisanship rather than ideas. The liberal talking heads on TV last night, such as Paul Begala, assure us that Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is a pragmatic politician who realizes now is the time to bolt to the center. I hope that's the case, because I don't want to see two years of just obstructionism--I'd like to see the government actually get things done. Bush-Pelosi needs to take a page out of Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill's relationship.

Meanwhile, we learned the immediate fallout of the Republicans' loss when the White House today announced that Donald Rumsfeld is out as Secretary of Defense, to be replaced by former CIA head Robert Gates. This result is to be expected, as Rumsfeld has been the piñata for the opposition. I hope the next two years see a conciliatory, not antagonistic White House, and that the Democratic congress will be constructive, not opportunistic.

I have faith that Bush, who is a more practical politician than most people would give him credit for, can make it work. And having made their statement by capturing both the House and Senate, Democrats no longer have a reason not to try and work with the president. Who knows, maybe the next 2 years could see the best climate on the Hill we've seen in a long time.

High Flying Hubble

2006-10-31T13:00:00.000-05:00

Great news today: NASA has announced that it will send a shuttle mission to rescue the Hubble Space Telescope, only recently left for dead. I say this with no small amount of pleasure because it is such surprising news--in the past few years, the HST program had become marginalized for a number of reasons, including a priority on the International Space Station, President Bush's Mars idea, and the Columbia space shuttle disaster.

I have always believed the HST to be vitally important not just because of its scientific impact--it has helped determined the age of the universe, and furthered understanding of dark energy, for example--but because of its appeal to the public. Those breathtaking pictures of deep space that everyone knows and loves have contributed significantly to the public's support (emotional support yes, but more importantly financial support) for space exploration.

I mean, let's face it, anyone from my generation was born at least a decade after the last Apollo moon landing. Since then, what else in the field of space exploration has been able to get people excited, especially in the 1990s and 2000s after the novelty of the space shuttle wore off?

As a result of today's decision, the Hubble will be repaired and improved in 2008 and will remain operational at least until 2013, when its successor will be launched. Props to NASA for making the right decision.


View of the Eagle Nebula pillars	View of the Tarantula Nebula

Google Boosting

2006-10-30T21:32:00.000-05:00

A recent NY Times article about how certain advocacy groups are using sophisticated tactics to manipulate Google's results on certain searches reminded me of that old "miserable failure" gag that pointed users to the official web site of President Bush. I got to thinking that I may as well try and exert some influence on my own Google presence by creating a list of favorable references to myself. So, as an experiment, here goes:

Jay Nargundkar - link to this blog, Citizens Band
Jay Nargundkar - link to my group sports blog, Da Sports Authority
Jay Nargundkar - link to my Blogger profile
Jay Nargundkar - link to a search for my Diamondback columns
Jay Nargundkar - link to a Jan '06 Financial Times article I was cited by name in
Jay Nargundkar - link to an online column by Marc Fisher of the Washington Post, referencing our then-ongoing battle over the Takoma Park MS Florida Trip

And for good measure, my headshot for the online version of my Diamondback column, in the hopes I can get this on Google Image Search:

I will check back in a few weeks and see if this has made any difference.

On Grameen & Helping the World's Poor

2006-10-17T23:57:00.000-04:00

Last week, the Nobel Peace Prize was announced to a most deserving candidate, Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank, for their pioneering use of "micro-loans" to help villagers in third world countries. In a year where the finalists for the prize reportedly included Cindy Sheehan and Bono of U2, it was nice to see a great cause receive world attention. Apparently Yunus had long been championed by his friend, former president Bill Clinton.

I read about Yunus, the founder of Grameen, in an international economics class I took last year. His simple but powerful idea--that even a very small amount of money could make a disproportionate difference to a poor person--sprung from the need to give villagers access to capital. After all, banks will loan to the middle- and upper-classes, but not the poor, because there is a great risk they will not be able to repay the loan.

Since Yunus gave out his first loan--$27 of his own money in Bangladesh in 1974--Grameen has been giving out small loans (typically less than $150) at reasonable interest rates to poor villagers. To help ensure repayment, the bank lends money not to individuals but "solidarity groups" of villagers, who apply for the loan together, act as co-guarantors together, and work together to make proper use of the funds. The idea has proved surprisingly effective--the bank reports a repayment rate of over 98%.

Another important feature of Grameen is that they predominantly lend to groups of women, helping empower them in a society where they are traditionally repressed. Over 6.5 million people have borrowed from the Grameen Bank, with over $5.7 billion given out in loans. It has enabled social transformation from the bottom up.

Congratulations to Yunus and the Grameen bank.

* * *

One observation I haven't seen in the news is the significance of another Muslim winning the Nobel Peace Prize. With all the contemporary tension between the Muslim world and the West (for example, recall recent Muslim anger at comments by Pope Benedict XVI), Yunus proves that there are real idols to look up into in the Muslim world (read: not Osama bin Laden) who are affecting positive change on their societies.

For the record, the past two winners of the Peace Prize have been Muslim: Yunus this year, and Mohammed ElBaradei in 2005. Don't forget three out of the past four have been Muslim--human rights activist Shirin Ebadi won in 2003.

* * *

In today's New York Times, John Tierney commends the selection of Yunus for the award before cheekily suggesting that Wal-Mart is even more deserving of recognition for its role in alleviating world poverty. Tierney points out that the thousands of third world villagers who gain jobs in factories make more than the prevailing labor rate in their home country.

"Making toys or shoes for Wal-Mart in a Chinese or Latin American factory may sound like hell to American college students — and some factories should treat their workers much better... But there are good reasons that villagers will move hundreds of miles for a job.

Most 'sweatshop' jobs — even ones paying just $2 per day — provide enough to lift a worker above the poverty level, and often far above it, according to a study of 10 Asian and Latin American countries by Benjamin Powell and David Skarbek. In Honduras, the economists note, the average apparel worker makes $13 a day, while nearly half the population makes less than $2 a day."

That distinction is one many people don't seem to grasp. Especially on a liberal campus here at the University of Maryland, it is common to see various student groups demanding "appropriate" pay for these workers, or for me to see a fellow student in one of my business classes go off and rip Wal-Mart (happened this evening, in fact).

Rest assured, I abhor sweatshops and abusive labor practices, but it's important to note what the facts are. This is not a liberal-conservative issue either; my first real introduction to the subject came from reading a Paul Krugman column in 2001 entitled "Hearts and Heads." Anyone familiar with Krugman knows he's a dependable lefty, so try this on for size:

"[T]hird-world countries aren't poor because their export workers earn low wages; it's the other way around. Because the countries are poor, even what look to us like bad jobs at bad wages are almost always much better than the alternatives."

Keep that in mind next time you hear someone lay into a Wal-Mart or Nike for paying a buck fifty an hour, remember that in most cases, that worker is glad for it. Not to mention it's probably a buck more an hour than they'd be getting working a local job.

More importantly, many people have shown (and I think I've read this either from Thomas Friedman or Jeffrey Sachs) that these type of factory jobs are the first step in the advancement of the poor in third world countries. As I recall, it works like this: rural villagers move to the cities and work in aforementioned factories, where they make more money than ever before.

They are able to better support their families and provided a better upbringing for their children, which includes a better education. Their children then can take advantage of the more advanced jobs that have come to the country after the success of the initial lower-level factory-type work.

Anyone see a problem with that, let me know.

File under: current affairs, economics, globalization

Sick of Fantasy Football

2006-07-27T23:57:00.000-04:00

This post was imported from my group sports blog, "Da Sports Authority."

This is going to sound sacrilegious, but take it from an "old timer": this country suffers from a serious Fantasy Football overload. How widespread is the epidemic? The USA Today reports "An estimated nine million Americans will play fantasy football this season...[and] will generate a $3 billion to $4 billion economic impact across the sports industry." (Emphasis added.) You know it's that time of the year when the sports magazine covers have headlines like Fantasy Preview and columnists are already weighing in on Fantasy Draft Day dilemmas.

Trouble is, that time of year seems to come earlier and earlier each year. Keep in mind that NFL teams are just opening training camp and that the start of the season is exactly six weeks away. Depth chart battles and preseason injuries are just getting started. Meanwhile, the fantasy season is chugging ahead. It might as well be midseason considering that Yahoo opened their popular leagues as of June 1!

I first began playing fantasy football in the mid-90s, assisting my dad with his team in his office league, before the Internet popularized the game and forever changed the way it was played. In those days, making transactions weren't about sorting a database by TDs scored and clicking "Add". There was no "StatTracker" or automatic scoring; the league's commissioner would spend Monday mornings going through the box scores in the paper and tally up each team's points. And someone, I'm sure, once drafted Ryan Leaf. God forbid. (Dinosaur rant ends here.)

Anyway, after a decade of playing, I've realized in the past few years that fantasy football has lost a bit of its luster. I don't know if that's because it's too popular now, or too easy to play, or because one guy will enter into a half dozen different leagues and rely only on luck, not skill. Perhaps worst is the way it's teaching a generation of football fans to watch the game: that it's okay for your hometown WR to drop a pass in the endzone because your opponent in one of your leagues has him on his fantasy team.

I can't pinpoint any one of those reasons as being the cause of my dissatisfaction with fantasy football. Many of the same arguments could possibly be made about fantasy baseball (although that game is vastly less popular), and I've been playing that for 6-7 years and enjoy it tremendously. Though I think there the fact that it's a 162 games as opposed to 16, and the action happens every day rather than every 7, forces players to be smarter and to be more involved, and less dependent on luck.

Then again, I'm still playing fantasy football this year, so some good part of the game must still have a hold on me.

CB on Hiatus

2006-07-25T11:37:00.000-04:00

Introducing "Da Sports Authority"...the new home for all my sports writing!

Not everyone who's noticed the protracted length since my last post is aware that I'm currently taking some time off of Citizens Band to work on another project. In late July, I created a sports blog called Da Sports Authority. Unlike the Citizens Band, which is really just a collection of occasional short essays, Da Sports Authority stays true to the actual concept of a blog, with daily posts, lots of links, and multimedia. Da Sports Authority is also a group venture; I've invited some friends who had no prior blogging experience to try their hand at sports writing on the site. Some have turned out to be great at this; others, not so much, and hence I'm still open to adding new contributors to the site.

It's actually been pretty refreshing to take a break from writing about serious topics in politics and current events and focus on sports and pop culture. That said, I intend to resume writing on Citizens Band at the frequency I did before, hopefully beginning around mid-September.

Defensible Action by Israel

2006-07-16T23:57:00.000-04:00

How quickly things change. It was only a year ago that Ariel Sharon was making a historic pullout from the Gaza Strip and it appeared to me that a future peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict was at least not an impossibility. Now, the Middle East is engaged in its worst crisis since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon a quarter-century ago. Just last month I was reading From Beirut to Jerusalem, a history of that conflict--now its deja vu on the front pages.

Surprisingly, many people are blaming Israel for this latest flareup, an accusation I believe is unfounded. I think the U.S. position that Israel has the right to stop terrorist attacks (while not using disproportionate force) is a correct one. The current situation is different from those in the past, when I would generally take a more moderate tone with regards to the players. This time the instigator of troubles is very clear--Iran is fully culpable for fomenting instability in the region. This comes after Israel has shown good faith with its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. This comes after Syria ended a decades-long occupation of Lebanon, giving that country its first chance for democracy and freedom to succeed.

But those signs of progress were too much to stomach for Iran and Syria, of course. Hence their war by proxy against Israel through the extremist groups Hezbollah (in Lebanon) and Hamas (in Palestine). Hezbollah, operating as an autonomous entity in Lebanon, makes a mockery of the institution of self-government in that country, and its actions bring suffering upon the Lebanese people. Likewise with Hamas, who lets it militant wing run unchecked while it neglects the basic operations of running a government.

Robin Wright writes in today's Washington Post that, according to U.S. estimates, Hezbollah receives "$100 million annually from Iran in goods, cash, and arms, including an estimated 13,000 rockets and missiles." That malevolent sponsor also happens to be closing in on attaining a nuclear bomb. Faced with enemies with capabilities like that, I echo David Brooks' incredulity that people think Israel is "overreacting." Israel should sit still and do nothing all this while? Of course not. And let's not act like the U.S. can't pick a horse to back here. The Islamist groups and their state sponsors hate the West and are impediments to the spread of freedom and democracy. Israel's actions against its enemies are in line with U.S. interests.

Yet it is important to remember the many, many innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians who are victims of this war. What is sad is that they are paying the price for the terrorists that operate from their land. These terrorists know full well the consequences their actions will have on their innocent countrymen, but that doesn't matter to them--only jihad does. Their destructive behavior dooms the people on whose behalf they claim to be fighting.

In this conflict, there is much suffering on both sides. When I see pictures of bombed out buildings and bridges in Beirut, I feel terrible, as I do when I see rockets landing in Haifa. That doesn't change the fact, however, that there is a clear right and wrong. Israel has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens by targeting its enemies. Those enemies aren't just Israel's enemies, they are the enemies of progress and a peaceful future in the Middle East, and everyone would be better off without them.

Is it possible that we can achieve that? Yes, but not with missiles and artillery shells. David Ignatius wrote in Friday's Post about the basic steps needed for a proper resolution to this mess. First of all, this conflict must not be the U.S. and Israel versus the Muslim world, because we are trying to bring the silent majority of moderate Muslims to confront the extremists in charge. The weak central governments that are being eclipsed by the non-state actors must be strengthened: a strong and responsive Palestinian Authority must exist so that it is not hostage to the Hamas militia, and an already pro-Western Lebanese government led by Fouad Siniora must be helped so that it can rein in Hezbollah.

The U.S. should provide assistance in this endeavor, because we--the U.S., Israel, and the Lebanese and Palestinian people--share a common enemy: the extremists. Once they are defeated, then we can look forward to a more hopeful future in the Middle East

Review: The One Percent Doctrine

2006-07-09T20:40:00.000-04:00

This past week I read Ron Suskind's best-selling new book The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11. Going in, I wasn't sure what to expect from the author of the first major book criticizing President Bush (2002's The Price of Loyalty, about then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, which I have not read). Yet the subject matter was compelling enough for me to pick up the book. Now that I have finished reading it, I can say that this book is important enough to be required reading for all Americans who want to understand the nature of the post-9/11 threat this country faces and how we are responding.

The titular "one percent doctrine" is a reference to a quote by Vice President Cheney, in which he opines that catastrophic threats to the U.S. pose such a great danger that our country's response must be to react those threats with a 1% chance of occuring as being a certainty. Hence, it follows, preemption, unilateralism, renditions, etc.

Probably the first question many people have regarding this book: is it a partisan hatchet-job? The answer is no, and I admit being a little surprised myself here. Suskind's reporting of America's struggle to combat al-Qaeda in the pre-Iraq War years should earn him a medal. He provides an unsurpassed amount of detail into all the successes and setbacks of various U.S. counterterrorism operations.

Some parts of the book seem like Hollywood thriller material. My favorite story involved a CIA operation targeting "al-Qaeda's banker", Pacha Wazir. Afer quietly arresting Wazir and his associates, the CIA sent a few of its specially trained agents of Pakistani descent for an amazing undercover mission. Passing themselves off as distant cousins of Wazir, and explaining the latter's absence due to a family illness, the undercover agents took over Wazir's bank and continued to receive customers. This fantastic operation resulted in the capture of dozens of key terrorists.

Yet tempering triumphs like those are maddening passages like the one detailing how the U.S. bungled the apprehension of the eventual architect of the British 7/7/05 bombings due to bureaucratic tanglings. Another troubling story concerns the capture of Abu Zubaydah, originally thought to be a major al-Qaeda leader and whose apprehension was hailed by President Bush. Problem was, Zubaydah was soon found to be just a menial agent, and worse, a certifiable schizophrenic. Suskind writes that despite this, "the United States would torture a mentally disurbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered." Zubaydah would conjure up several plot details about attacks on shopping malls, supermarkets, and banks, leading law enforcement to squander valuable resources. Even so, it must be pointed out that in what is perhaps a victory for advocates of "rough" treatment of detainees, Zubaydah finally told his interregators about Jose Padilla.

If there is any story arc to The One Percent Doctrine, it is that Suskind finds former CIA director George Tenet to be a tragic hero--he describes Tenet as being "the man most responsible, if anyone is, that America has not, again, been attacked" and laments how Tenet became the "fall guy" for the Bush administration over the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Suskind is a huge critic of the Iraq war, and toward the end of the book he takes leave of just-the-facts reporting to slam the White House (and then-National Security adviser Condi Rice especially) for the way they handled the runup to the war.

Considering that this book contains terrific reporting about so many things the American public doesn't know about the war on terrorism, I was a bit disappointed to see Suskind's personal viewpoint start to weigh heavier later in the book. Nonetheless, I stand by what I said before, that the book does not come across as overtly biased. There is definitely enough here for any open-minded reader to see both sides and come to their own conclusions.

My only other complaint about this book, one I made frequently though it is minor, is Suskind's penchant for "florid" writing. I think his terse and gripping account of terrorist plots or key Cabinet meetings would have been better off, from the reader's point of view, without being constantly interrupted by sentences like these "The connected planet creates all manner of loops, where knowledge spurs action, which is captured in image and word and then cycled back--the mythical perpetual motion machine comes to life."

Considering the insignificance of the criticisms I have mentioned, I would strongly recommend this book. Besides getting a front-row seat in the bleachers down at Gitmo Bay, I can't think of a way to feel more "in the know" about the war on terrorism than to read The One Percent Doctrine.

Jay's 2006 MLB All-Star Teams

2006-07-06T21:48:00.000-04:00

It's official. The 2006 MLB All-Star Game rosters have been finalized in time for the Midsummer Classic on July 11 in Pittsburgh.

So let's get right down to the nitty gritty. I've long been critical of fan voting in these things because the same big-market stars get selected to the game every year, regardless of whether they deserve it or not. Of course, the argument here is that the All-Star game is for the fans, so they should get to pick who they see. Nonsense. It's not like the TV ratings for these games is all that high anyway, so I think fans should at least be given a reason to watch--to see the best players in the sport as determined by the players and the managers.

Anyway, this year I actually thought the selected teams were decent. There weren't too many eye-popping travesties to take note of, though the omission of the young Minnesota Twins phenom Francisco Liriano was one unfortunate example. Other than that, I think a true All-Star team should not have taken a catcher from the NL this year (none were particularly impressive), and I find it also unfortunate that there was no room for Travis Hafner on the AL team this year. I'd change that if I could.

Removing myself from the constraint of that rule that each team must have at least one player represented (sorry, Kansas City Royals!), I present below the real NL and AL all-star teams. Enjoy!

* * *
Jay's NATIONAL LEAGUE

Italicized names were not selected to the real MLB roster.

Honorable mentions: Nomar Garciaparra, 1B, LAD; Chris Capuano [July 9 replacement], SP, MIL; Aaron Harang, SP, CIN; Billy Wagner, RP, NYM; Ryan Howard, 1B, PHI

Jay's AMERICAN LEAGUE

Italicized names were not selected to the real MLB roster.

Honorable mentions: Jim Thome, DH, CWS; Nate Robertson, SP, DET; Joe Nathan, RP, MIN; Alex Rios, OF, TOR; Vernon Wells, OF, TOR

I'd be remiss to not mention that the AL outfielders' group is spectacular this year. Names I didn't mention that are certainly deserving include Vladimir Guerrero, LAA; Magglio Ordonez, DET [July 7 injury replacement]; and Gary Matthews Jr., TEX.

* * *

Have a grievance on behalf of any of your favorite players or fantasy studs? Think I should have put Tad Iguchi or Jose Lopez at second for the AL? Am I one Tiger starting pitcher short? Was I too hard to Cincinnati sluggers with less-than-stellar batting averages? Did I insult Vlad Guerrero and Johnny Damon by not even mentioning their names? Feel free to inform me of any mistakes you think I have made.

Siegel on The Future for Investors

2006-07-04T00:22:00.000-04:00

I recently finished reading The Future for Investors (2005) by Dr. Jeremy Siegel, the well-known Wharton professor who authored the widely cited Stocks for the Long Run (1994). In his latest book, he outlines his methods for selecting winning stocks for the long-term in the context of current and future trends.

The major points of the book, as I saw it:

Beware the "growth trap"
In a nutshell, this means avoiding overpriced companies and industries.

According to Siegel, fixating on high-growth companies or pursuing technological innovation is a mistake. (The subtitle of the book, in fact, is "Why the Tried and the True Triumph over the Bold and the New.") Such stocks often have high price valuations that indicate substantial built-in investor expectations. Thus the difference between expected and actual earnings is less, producing lower returns.

The same factor can apply to industries, where he says fast growth causes increased competition amongst companies and too-high investor expectations, both of which negatively impact returns. "The financial and technology sectors expanded greatly over the past years [since 1957]," he says, "yet gave mediocre to poor returns." The three best performing sectors, Siegel says, have been health care, consumer staples, and energy--the latter of which has experienced a "significant contraction in market share."

Siegel extends the "growth trap" lesson even to the issue of emerging markets. He uses the example of comparing Brazil and China. From 1992-2003, Brazil's economy grew at only 1.8% a year, less than one-fifth of China's. China, Siegel points out, also had a stable currency, no inflation problems, and political stability; Brazil was the opposite. Yet investment returns in Brazil averaged 15% a year while in China returns average -10% a year. The reason: "low prices and high dividend yield."
Seek high dividend-yield stocks
"From 1871 to 2003," Siegel writes, "97 percent of the total after-inflation accumulation from stocks comes from reinvesting dividends. Only 3 percent comes from capital gains." Dividends are the Holy Grail of Siegel's investing strategy. Companies that pay dividends regularly, he says, inspire shareholders' trust in management. More importantly, high dividend yields lead to higher returns, where re-invested dividends act as a cushion from a decline in price They also, due to the increased number of shares now owned by the investor, accelerate returns once a stock's price turns up.

Siegel refers constantly to a list of the 20 top-performing survivor stocks of the original S&P 500. These companies, which beat the index over the past 47 years by between 2.8-8.9% a year, all paid dividends.

One important point to consider here is the role of taxes, which Siegel glosses over. Of course, if you are investing in an IRA or other tax-sheltered account, this isn't a problem.
Foreign markets will play a vital role in the global economy
The impending demographic crisis in the developed world, Siegel warns, will have consequences. With an aging population leading to more retirees (who are also living longer) supported by fewer workers, the assets of older people will decrease in value and force the retirement age upward.

However, Siegel thinks the answer lies in what he calls the Global Solution--"aging populations in the richer countries...supported by the young workers in the developing world." He posits that the growth of emerging economies like China and India will allow young people in those countries to purchase the assets of older people in developed countries, allowing the latter to enjoy "an ever-lengthening retirement without any reduction in the standard of living."

The emergence of China and India, along with other promising countries like Russia and Brazil, is not without precedent. Siegel points out that in terms of U.S. per capita income, Japan has gone from 20% to 96% in the past 40 years; Singapore from 14% to 58% in the same time. In the last 25 years, South Korea has gone from 17% to 50%. I found it interesting that he says China could achieve the same goal with a productivity growth rate half of what it has averaged over the last 25 years, meaning it's more than likely to happen.

Those were the topics in the book I found most interesting. Siegel also covers other investment strategies, which I am not advocating here, in less detail. The strength of his book, however, lies in its discussion of the aforementioned themes. If you already have some experience with the stock market, and are interested in a look at what lies ahead, I think you'll find it worth a read.

The Daily Subversion with Jon Stewart?

2006-06-28T22:47:00.000-04:00

Given the explosive popularity of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and the rise of its eponymous host as a preeminent social commentator, it was inevitable that some people would take exception with the show and its methods. Last month, two researchers published a study claiming that The Daily Show has "detrimental effects" on its (apparently impressionable) viewers, "driving down support for political institutions and leaders" among a demographic that is already often indifferent.

I disagree with their conclusions, and not just because I take offense with the notion of stuffy doctorates thinking that college students are all idiots. The study compared the reactions of two groups of students; one who watched 2004 election coverage from The Daily Show, the other from the CBS Evening News. Based on their attitudes afterward, it was determined that The Daily Show engendered "cynicism". Without even taking the researchers' dubious methodology into consideration, I find fault with their analysis.

Unlike these researchers (and Tucker Carlson from his Crossfire days), the viewers of The Daily Show don't take it too seriously. The 48% of college students who watch the show know that this is a program on Comedy Central, and they turn it on primarily to hear jokes, not get the news. Most people my age I know, while not hard-core followers of the news, at least get the headlines from online news sites. To those of us who are fans of the show, Stewart and his crew are still comedians, not televangelists.

As to a drop in voter participation rates, I think it's interesting that despite the supposedly corrosive effect of the ever-popular Daily Show among youth, the 18-24 demographic had its highest turnout (47%) in 2004. This was an 11% increase over the 2000 election, proving that when it's important, young people do come out.

More to the point, I think that The Daily Show's irreverence plays a valuable service that distinguishes it from "real news" programs. At a time when "spin" is a rule for politicians and the news media only infrequently provides hard-hitting journalism, Daily Show viewers are continually reminded to be skeptical of B.S. They become critical of poor performance by their public servants, and they expect more of their government and public institutions.

What's wrong with that?

Launch of 'District Apparel'

2006-06-19T15:03:00.001-04:00

An idle mind on summer break often comes up with the strangest ideas to occupy one's time. In my case, I recently had the idea to design my own brand of clothing. To do so, I set up an online store at CafePress.com, an online marketplace that allows you to create and sell all kinds of products. In my case I was looking for a place to design and store my clothing creations.

The end result? Well, Russell Simmons has his Phat Farm, and Jay-Z has his Rocawear, and similarly, Jay now has...District Apparel. The name pays homage to my adopted metropolis of Washington, D.C., which I feel is underrepresented on the hip-hop scene.

Feel free to look through the store--any advice you have on design or products to offer is appreciated. The designs are a bit simplistic because I have to work in the constraints of the free site, which mostly require me to stick to placing images on different kinds of white shirts. Although I don't plan on actually doing any sales and running the store, I figure that while I have some free time in the near future I will at least put a semi-serious effort into this. Thus, I'm still working on adding designs and more apparel to the store.

How do I intend to promote District Apparel? I'm not sure yet, but (as you can see in this post) so far my whiz marketing strategy consists of using crudely Photoshop'd fake celebrity endorsements. Hence you see golfer Michelle Wie, Black Eyed Peas frontman Will.I.Am, actress Natalie Portman, NBA star Shaquille O'Neal, and rapper 50 Cent sporting District designs.

None of them, presumably, have heard about my fashion line. Yet. (And none of their lawyers have seen this post. Yet.) But, like I said, I don't foresee actually selling any of these shirts, and I thought this would be a fun and challenging way to try and design something that I could myself conceivably see myself wearing.

Feedback welcome, tell me what you think.

Happy Father's Day

2006-06-18T23:25:00.000-04:00

Happy Father's Day to my dad! Representing the true blogging family, his Sunday reminisce focuses on the curious political alignments in our house.

For the rest of you, hope you had a good one. Check out the new Nike commercial in which Tiger Woods pays tribute to his own dad, who recently passed away. It's quite touching.

On a separate note, beware a blogger scorned, as this Pearls Before Swine illustrates (click to enlarge):

(Hey, we like comments.)

Two Minute Bush Quiz

2006-06-15T21:48:00.000-04:00

Time for a short survey. Take the 10 question George W. Bush Quiz (it won't take more than a minute or two) and find out your opinion of the president. Do you think he is a great president, or greatest president ever? Or perhaps is he a little less exalted in your eyes? (Careful, the NSA is taking names.)

After taking the quiz, post your score and the quiz's comment, along with the score you expected. I'm curious to see where you all stand. Consider that with Bush's approval rating at around 40%, we can assume that the average American would rate him a 4 of 10 on this scale.

And yes, I know the quiz is a bit poorly written and (more than) a bit biased, and that there's no real room for middle ground. Nonetheless, my results came out pretty much as expected. The quiz said I rated Bush a 6 out of 10, with the following comment:

"You're not the biggest fan of President Bush, but you think he has done a decent job as president. You may disagree with him on a lot of issues - and some facts you'd just as soon ignore--but he's the president, and you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Sounds about right.

Basketball Sabermetrics

2006-06-11T20:08:00.000-04:00

In honor of those who are more fixated on the NBA Finals than the World Cup, I continue my spate of recent basketball-related commentary. Be sure to read The NBA's Secret Superstars, an article by David J. Berri, an economist who has brought the field of sabermetrics, traditionally associated with baseball, to basketball. Berri and his colleagues developed an algorithm which incorporates every facet of an individual player's performance as a contribution, positive or negative, toward a victory. His resulting model calculates the "wins produced" by every player in the league.

Thusly he determines a player's real value to his team, and in doing so, finds out which players he says are overrated and underrated. Furthermore, by adding up the wins produced by each player on a team, Berri has a forecast for that team's performance in the standings. His model has been validated as a pretty accurate predictor, with an average difference of only 2.3 wins (for 82-game seasons) for a team in the 10 seasons he has been doing this.

Berri's conclusions match up with empirical observations. Multi-dimensional players like Michael Jordan and LeBron James have high numbers of "wins produced" under his algorithm, while overrated shooters like Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony have low scores. Tellingly, vital role players like rebounding extraordinaire Ben Wallace also produce a high number of wins in Berri's model, proving what most fans know at heart: winning teams excel at all aspects of the game, not just scoring. Taking this a step further, Berri concludes of Game 1:

...why do I think [Dallas center Eric] Dampier and [Miami forward Antoine] Walker were vital to Thursday's outcome? Dampier scored only eight points, but he was efficient: making three of four shots and adding seven rebounds. Walker, on the other hand, scored an impressive-seeming 17 points, but he took 19 shots and turned the ball over an astounding six times in the loss.

Relatively straight-forward observations aside, I think Berri's model could be an effective way of evaluating the contributions of lesser-profile players to their teams. Maybe it's time for a Bill James-like analysis of strategy and statistics in basketball?

NBA 'Seven-Year Hangover' Over

2006-06-07T23:49:00.000-04:00

Michael Wilbon has a great column in today's Washington Post on how this year's NBA playoffs are the best of the post-Jordan (Bulls) era. I share his sentiments, as these are the first playoffs in all those years that I have enjoyed so much, with so many good games in so many good matchups. It's a sign in and of itself that I've watched most of these games on TV, whereas in years past the only series I remember watching were Kings-Lakers or the Finals (and not even all of the latter; Lakers-Nets? Yawn!)

Even with my hometown Washington Wizards being bounced by the Cleveland Cavaliers in a heartbreaking first round loss, it has been a competitive and entertaining month and a half thus far. The first round, usually not worth your time, produced good matchups in Bulls-Heat, Wizards-Cavs, and of course Lakers-Suns. Unlike years past, Wilbon notes, the absence of big players hasn't hurt the playoffs. No Kobe, No 'Melo, No Iverson (whose team didn't even make the playoffs), no problem.

In the second round, three of the four series went to seven games and the game's newest stars--players like LeBron James, Steve Nash, and Dirk Nowitzki--demonstrated that they, like their predecessors from the NBA's golden era, can play playoff-worthy basketball. In the conference finals, good basketball was on display in both series, but when it was all over, the two best teams in the league found themselves playing in the NBA Finals, which start tomorrow.

But Wilbon notes importantly that this year isn't just about the success of certain individual players. After all, the NBA has been desperately trying to fill the superstar void created in the late 1990s with the A.I.s, Vince Carters, and T-Macs. This year happened to be when the right stars on quality teams became ascendant. Magic Johnson comments that "we're back to what we used to have instead of saying 'Stay tuned for Allen Iverson versus..."

Now, he says, "it's back to the team, and the guys are great within the teams. It's great and I love it." As do I, Magic. The three top teams in the playoffs, Dallas, Phoenix, and Miami, were all more than just the one star player. Dallas was not just Nowitzki but Terry and Howard, if not Stackhouse closing out games. Phoenix wasn't just Nash (who I spent most of the past month maligning) but Bell and Diaw, if not Thomas hitting clutch late-game shots. And Miami is Shaq and Wade with a host of veterans, of whom most important is the coach, Pat Riley.

The best part of all this, I think, is that this is not a one year fluke. We may be entering a new era in basketball where the big stars and upper echelon teams are clearly identified and consistent, where we can see the rivalries and competition escalate yearly. Magic specifically mentions Dwyane Wade and LeBron James, and Phoenix, Dallas, and San Antonio. How about the Wizards (wishful thinking on my part?), who are just a big man away from the top. I think the LA Clippers (who ever thought this day would come?) also have solid potential in the near future, and a couple other teams also could be close to making the jump.

If we're right that the NBA is experiencing a revival, it' s cause for celebration. For five or six years my interest as a fan had been drifting away, until I gradually started coming back in the past two years. Part of this may be due to a revival in the Wizards' own fortunes, but the major factor is the improved quality of the league's product. Here's to a new era in the NBA.

P.S. - Finals pick: Dallas. I think I'm going to really enjoy this series and both teams deserve to win. Still, in Miami's case, Wade can wait (still "too young"), and Shaq and Riley have done it. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, because if they do win, they definitely earned it, but let's give this one to Dirk and Avery Johnson!

Kaplan Audition: The Santa Menace

2006-06-07T21:43:00.000-04:00

Below is the text of the five minute speech I gave this evening at my audition for becoming a Kaplan SAT tutor:

Good evening, everyone. Tonight I have a slightly unusual topic to talk with you about. In the next five minutes, I am going to lay out a convincing case for why the U.S. army should invade the North Pole and overthrow its dictator, Santa Claus.

Now before we get started, let me ask you in the audience a question. How many of you all celebrate Christmas? Please raise your hand.

[Calling on audience members.] You there, do you get presents on Christmas? And you, you do too? Ok, very well.

So you probably think of this Santa fella as a benevolent, gift-giving old friend. You probably think there is no reason for us to go in and take over his operation, right? Wrong!

Allow me to present the principal reasons as to why Santa poses a threat to us.

Santa's intelligence-gathering apparatus
He knows whether every boy in the girl has been good or bad. Imagine how valuable that information could be to the people responsible for protecting our national security. We could utilize Santa's information collection tools to keep tabs on troublesome people around the world.

Is Osama bin Laden planning another attack? Is the president of Iran working on a nuclear bomb? What is Kim Jong Il up to these days?

We don't know. But Santa does. It's time he shared that information with us.

Santa’s superior technology
Two things here. One, that reindeer sled. We know that in one night, he can travel to every home in the entire world. That sled must be fast—faster than any bullet train or fighter jet we have. That kind of technology--reindeers--in the wrong hands could be terribly dangerous. It’s important that we invade the North Pole and secure control of those ridiculously fast flying reindeer.

The other thing: his elves. He has enslaved a magical work force that can outproduce laborers from any economy in the world. What if those elves were to turn from making Tickle Me Elmos to Tickle Me Nuclear Weapons? They could create the largest arsenal in the world, thereby endangering all of our lives.

Or, Santa could decide he wanted to become the new king of outsourcing and have all computer jobs sent to the North Pole, where his tireless elves would write machine code night and day. We can’t allow that to happen. We must liberates those elves, bringing them freedom and ensuring the job security of future young Americans.

My third and final point: he violates national sovereignty and parents’ rights

We mentioned that he travels to every home in the world via his flying sled. Well, in doing so he certainly violates the airspace and sovereign territory of the many nations in this world that have not given him permission to do so. Who knows, he could be flying over classified military establishments or spying on important trade secrets.

Not only that, but who appointed Santa the great arbiter of whether a child has been good or bad? Who made him the incentive for children to behave or not behave? Shouldn’t that be the responsibility of parents, who should decide for themselves whether or not their child has been good, and not leave that decision up to Santa? And shouldn’t children behave well out of an acknowledgment of the proper functioning of society’s rules rather than out of hopes of getting an iPod or new bicycle from that pervert Santa?

I sure think so!

That is why I have taken the time to make this presentation to you, because the truth matters. I hope you have found my speech enlightening. Go home and discuss this matter with your friends and family, because this grave problem cannot be ignored much longer.

Thank you very much.

* * *

I guess it worked out fine, because I got hired!

Dubya's Doldrums

2006-06-01T23:27:00.000-04:00

Political capital? What political capital? Everyone seems to have their own explanation as to why President Bush's second term, which had a lot of momentum at its outset, has ground to a virtual halt. While David Broder offers "scandal" as an answer in today's Washington Post, I think the administration's current woes can be summed up in one word: fatigue. No, I'm not referring to that theory popularly reported in the media some weeks ago that key Bush staffers weren't getting enough Zzzs. The problem as I see is it that no issue has been able to capture and hold the attention of the American public.

Of course, this has partly worked in his favor, as the attacks that he or the Republican Party have faced over a litany of sore spots seem to have come exclusively from newspaper editorial pages and the blogosphere. Meanwhile, the general public seems to have tuned out ever since they grew weary of being disgusted with the government's response to Hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, Iraq fatigue seems to have set in, as the latest headline news coming out of the country is being ignored by the public as more of the same. Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war crowd aren't active and getting press attention like they were a year ago. Reports of a possible massacre of Iraqi civilians by Marines in Haditha has not produced the same widespread reaction that the Abu Ghraib story did when it broke. And lastly, recent political developments in Iraq--both positive and negative--have been underreported.

That's just on the Iraq front however. Congressional scandal has hit both sides of the aisle, with Democrats getting their holier-than-thou image dealt a blow when stacks upon stacks of big-note bills (to the tune of $90,000) were found in the freezer of Lousiana Rep. William Jefferson. And how about the President's major initiatives? The big push for Social Security reform, which was touted over a year ago as necessary in order to avert a crisis, has been buried. In its place: immigration reform. While this issue has raised some passionate feelings on all sides, I think that most people, myself included, feel like this is another issue in which much discussion will take place and ultimately no meaningful legislation will pass.

On the subject of things blowing over, how about that domestic surveillance "scandal"? For the most part, the public has shrugged and looked the other way. Personally, I'm not given to public gloating very often, but humor me by recalling my December post "Spying Storm Will Blow Over." At the time I wrote "this is not going to be the major scandal some predict" and "most of the discourse will take place in the editorial pages of major newspapers and unfortunately not on the proverbial 'street corners.'" Told ya so!

It is too early to write off the rest of Bush's term. I want to see him rebound and get some meaningful accomplishments done. For his sake and the country's, it is important that we figure out how to get Iraq right, make sure Iran doesn't go wrong, steer the economy away from a slowdown, and deal with other foreign and domestic items on the agenda. Time is running out for you, Mr. President, but I don't think it's too late. Find a fresh way to get us all engaged again.

On Elite Colleges and Success

2006-05-27T00:50:00.000-04:00

In high school, I attended a prestigious magnet program where many of my fellow students were admitted to top-tier colleges like Stanford, MIT, and the Ivy League schools. On the other hand, I accepted a scholarship to my state school, the University of Maryland, where I just completed the second year of my undergraduate program. Although I am completely satisfied with my decision and I love being at UMD, I have often wondered what the impact on my life would be had I gone somewhere else.

I consider talent and hard work to be more important than any other factor as a determinant of success. Yet I can certainly see the advantages of going to a big brand-name school. Especially as a finance major I can see the benefits of having an established network, prestigious background, and a cohort of fellow successful students. That is why, I'll admit, I have long planned on getting an MBA from a Wharton or Harvard-level program.

It was interesting, then, to come across this article, which states that among "equally talented students who applied to the nation's most elite institutions", those who were accepted and those who were rejected and wound up going to less selective schools were earning the same income twenty years later! (Reader reactions to the article were also interesting; Laura Rowley also points out that only 10 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs have Ivy League undergraduate degrees. Though that number is not that small, and I would bet the total rises when including postgraduate degrees.)

The truth, as I see it, is probably that those of us who attend a school of lesser renown will have to work a lot harder initially to be on an equal footing with our colleagues at top-tier schools. After that, I trust, a successful career path is available to those who can seize the opportunity. There is where I hope the experience of having to work harder will give students like myself an advantage.

If I needed any further reminder of the importance of scoring a great job upon graduating, Aplia EconBlog discusses an article in Thursday's New York Times on getting a good start. According to the Times writer, "Graduates' first jobs have an inordinate impact on their career path and their 'future income stream,' as economists refer to a person's earnings over a lifetime." Aplia's William Chiu says that if you start out behind, you will perpetually be behind.

The central question remains though: what route offers the best method of landing the great job? More specifically, what specific advantages does a top-tier education have and are they a determining factor in assuring career success?

I'm interested in hearing from those of you who from both sides of the aisle. Tell me what you think.

Summer Reading Plans

2006-05-22T18:09:00.000-04:00

One of the best things about summer break for me is that I finally get a chance to read a lot of the books gathering dust on my bookshelf. Last summer I also read a number of very good books, including Aquariums of Pyongyang and Freakonomics. For this summer I'm open to recommendations, and I've already got a short list going.

Having finished final exams last week, I jumped into Thomas Friedman's first book from back in 1989, From Beirut to Jerusalem, the only one of his books I haven't yet read. I'm a third of the way through it, but thus far it is very good. It describes his experiences as a Middle East correspondent, where he became stationed at the outbreak of the Lebanese civil war, and is considerably more action-packed than any of the future books he would write as a more high-profile journalist. Reading about Friedman's close calls with car bombs, kidnapping attempts, and rifle-toting guerrilas may lead you to have more respect for the mustachioed proponent of globalization.

There's lots more on the agenda. Presumably next up is Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq, which is supposed to be a comprehensive and non-ideological review of the Iraq war. Also today I received an Amazon.com shipment of three books: One Billion Customers and Mr. China, on the recommendation of Dr. Howard Frank, Dean of the Smith School of Business, and Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, which looks like an interesting treatment of recent history.

Visiting Google's homepage today and seeing their stylized logo, I realize that today also happens to be the birthday of one of my favorite authors, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The complete volume of his Sherlock Holmes stories are the most entertaining, enthralling mysteries ever written. One of the highlights of my trip to England back in 2000 was seeing the actual 221B Baker Street apartment.

Many people are familiar with the well-known short stories in Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and the novel Hound of the Baskervilles, but there are many others that will draw you in. Among my favorites are A Study in Scarlet, about a gang of murderous avenging Mormons, and the underrated Valley of Fear, a dark tale about the infiltration of a secret society. If you ever have a really long plane ride and can only take one book, make it The Complete Sherlock Holmes.

Hopefully, I'll do a lot of good reading in the next few months. Hit me up if you have any suggestions!

Would You Like a Curry Pan With That?

2006-05-09T23:07:00.000-04:00

Check out "Brand Magic in India", a great article in BusinessWeek about how popular American consumer brands are adapting their products to appeal to the Indian market. Some have more success than others. Kellogg found that Corn Flakes didn't fly in a country where people just don't like to start their mornings off with cold milk. Due to that cultural quirk, the product was doomed. Pizza Hut struggled to sell pizza with what we think of as traditional toppings--then introduced a "Tandoori Pizza" tailored to the local palate, and saw store traffic quadruple.

"The best brands," author Brad Nemer says, "are confident enough to adapt without compromising their core strengths. When faced with a new technology or market, they can translate the value proposition in meaningful ways that are consistent with both their heritage and their potential."

Consider the case of McDonald's, whose beef-centric product line was rendered useless in a country where cows are sacred to the Hindu population. You won't find pork products in Indian McDonalds either, so as to not offend Muslim sensibilities. Not only that, but a good number of Indians don't eat meat at all. What to do? Offer a vegetarian line, and a non-veg line free of beef or pork, of course. Vikram Bakshi, McDonald's managing director of India North, says "Today 70 percent of our menu is 'Indianized.'"

Top seller is something called the McAloo Tikki, described on the McDonalds India website as "Fried breaded potato & peas patty that is flavoured with a special spice mix, fresh tomato slices, onion, and veg. tomato mayonnaise between toasted buns." Don't miss the Paneer Salsa Wrap, Veg McCurry Pan, and the Chicken Maharaja Mac, all of which are favorites on the menu.

And yes, you can still get fries with that.

So Long to Sodas in Schools

2006-05-04T23:55:00.001-04:00

During my Wednesday morning commute, I came across this most unlikely headline in the Washington Post: "Sugary Drinks to be Pulled from Schools". The announcement that soda companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Cadbury Schweppes are pulling their unhealthy wares from elementary, middle, and high schools was a huge surprise to me. After all, I recall that my high school had an exclusive contract with Pepsi. Our school was stocked with Pepsi vending machines and the scoreboard on the football field had a big Pepsi billboard. And the soda companies, which were raking in tons of money, didn't seem to be in a position where they needed to compromise.

(Interestingly enough, the University of Maryland also has a contract with Pepsi which prevents rival Coca Cola products from being sold in the diners. My roommate helpfully informs me that the McDonalds in our student union is one of only two locations worldwide to serve Pepsi products instead of Coca Cola, the fast-food chain's traditonal partner.)

Anyway, so the terms of this voluntary agreement appear pretty stringent:

The agreement calls for eliminating sales of sodas, diet sodas, sports drinks, juice drinks, apple juice or grape juice in elementary schools. Water and more healthful juices such as orange juice could continue to be sold, but in only eight-ounce or smaller containers, according to sources who were briefed yesterday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan had not yet been announced.

In middle schools, the same drinks will be offered but in containers as large as 10 ounces.

In high schools, the drink size will be limited to 12 ounces. No sugary sodas will be sold, and half the drinks offered will be water or a low-calorie beverage, such as diet soda, diet lemonade or diet iced tea. Sports drinks will be allowed, as will juice drinks as long as they have fewer than 100 calories per serving.

It's about time. I remember seeing far too many kids in high school who needed a Mountain Dew just to get through the morning. These days, those kinds of unhealthy dietary habits are starting at an even younger age--just look at the childhood obesity rates. I wish that these sorts of measures were unnecessary, and that children were smarter about their eating decisions. But it's clear that at school and away from their parents, many kids just don't know how to make the right decisions.

I applaud this move by the beverage industry. Of course, the impact on their profits is negligible, they don't have to worry about brand recognition, and these companies can now push their juice and sports drink lines. They don't really have anything to lose. Now we'll have to see how kids react when they can't wash down their lunchtime feast of powdered donuts with a Code Red.

Not Business as Usual

2006-05-01T12:55:00.000-04:00

(Click to enlarge.)

Bummed out by layoffs, corporate scandals, and outsourcing? Chin up, there's good news too. Readers of this blog will recognize a combination of ideas from a couple of previous posts last month in my newest Diamondback column, "Finish Your Homework". Here I acknowledge the threat of international competition in the "flat world" but point out why the U.S. needn't be too worried. Space restrictions required my magnum opus to be trimmed a bit, but I think it still gets the point across. An excerpt:

...several factors stand in the way of either China or India knocking the U.S. off its preeminent perch. Let us not forget the world’s most important and admired businesses today — companies such as Apple, Starbucks, Google, eBay and Goldman Sachs, to name a few — are distinctly American. I would tell my fellow Robert H. Smith School students it is probably unnecessary to bone up on Mandarin (though it couldn’t hurt) and we should not worry about spending our careers chasing after jobs in New Delhi or Shanghai. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: There are a lot of people on other continents out-hustling us Americans. While for now they might only represent a minority of their populations, more of them are springing up daily to take advantage of increased opportunities.

Click here to read the rest.

School without Schooling

2006-04-24T20:07:00.000-04:00

School without classes, homework, or grades. It's a common wistful refrain from students of all ages, from elementary school to college. The whole "getting an education" thing sure does get in the way of socializing and having a good time with friends. Nonetheless, virtually every student realizes the practical value of having a structured, formal education.

The Washington Post today reports on the minority that don't believe in such a regiment. The cover story "Learning on Their Own Terms" looks at the Fairhaven School, a private school that offers no courses, grades, set daily schedule, or official state accreditation, and which audaciously charges $6,680 a year for enrolled students. The idea behind the school is to remove the constraints of a traditional education and allow students to do whatever interests them--even if that means showing up to school at noon and spending the day playing video games and . Ultimately, the school relies only on the threat of boredom to spur its students to actually do anything.

Nonetheless, I understand why this might seem like a good idea to some. As a lifelong participant in the public education system, I can attest to its many flaws. A lot of what I did in school was unproductive, uninteresting, or meaningless. Yet I always realized that my education was a practical requirement for a future career.

The kids at Fairhaven do not come out of their school equipped with the skills necessary to be an engineer, doctor, or investment banker. Fine, not everyone wants to be one of those, and there many career paths from which a traditional education is not a necessity. The article states that alumni include "a professional skateboarder, a waiter and a librarian". It just seems to me that schools like Fairhaven and others in the "school without walls" genre are doing a disservice to their students by narrowing their potential career choices from such an early age. Fairhaven's youngest students are 5 years old, far too young to have their life options so limited.

If anyone has any dissenting opinions or can explain the practical benefits of such a non-traditional education (keep in mind that even home-schooled kids follow a set curriculum), I would love to hear from you.

Permanent Records

2006-04-17T13:37:00.000-04:00

My column in today's Diamondback focuses on the downside of the permanent digital archive that is the Internet. Through blogs, AIM profiles, and sites like Facebook, not to mention the ubiquitous Google search, you can basically unearth a college student's entire life. Employers and law enforcement are already relying on such techniques, and there could be trouble for us if the person on the other end doesn't like what they're seeing.

From "Permanent Records":

Some time in or around the year 2030, I am sure I will be awakened one morning by the ringing of the hologram phone. The president — whether it will be Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton, I don’t know — will say to me: “Jay, I have bad news. You can’t be Fed Chairman/Secretary of War/Supreme Overlord after all. The opposition party’s got some dirt on you, and you’ll never make it through the confirmation hearing.”

As I sit there, dealing with my crushing rejection, I’d wonder what did me in. Was it the away message back in 2014 that said: “Skipping work today. At the baseball game”? Did my uncle violate U.N. sanctions by selling pop tarts to the Libyans — and then brag about it on his MySpace? Or did Sen. Chuck Norris threaten a filibuster over my membership in a Facebook group that claimed he is Jack Bauer’s girlie little sister?

Click here to read the column.

South Park vs. Cowardly Central

2006-04-14T22:52:00.000-04:00

Having been laid out sick in bed for most of the past week, I finally got around to watching the recent, much talked-about South Park take on the Mohammed cartoons. And I have to say that the two-part "Cartoon Wars" episode was undoubtedly the smartest, most biting take on the controversy I have seen--better than any blog, op-ed column, etc. I'd also like to observe that just a few weeks after being ridiculed for pulling a South Park episode that poked fun at Scientology, Comedy Central has again stuck its head in the sand.

In the South Park spoof, America is gripped in fear when Family Guy (the stand-in show for South Park within the episode) decides to broadcast a cartoon of Muhammad. A terrified American public tries to avoid responsibility by burying their heads in the sand--quite literally. The few voices of reason who argue in favor of free speech are ignored. And the airing of the Muhammad cartoon in the U.S. is met by reprisal from Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden--who decide to produce their own offensive cartoon.

(On an unrelated note, the fact that Parker & Stone made a brilliant, funny satire while relentlessly lampooning Family Guy, a show I have soured on for the exact reasons South Park cites, made it twice as sweet.)

Of course, by now everyone has heard that Comedy Central censored the episode, removing South Park's innocuous depiction of the prophet Muhammad, a move anticipated by show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. While the frame with Muhammad was cut out, mirroring in fact the plot of the actual episode, Comedy Central had no problems running a purposely gratuitous scene involving President Bush and Jesus defecating on one another. How's that for a demonstration of the difference in tolerance?

Find a neighbor who Tivo'd it, and watch this episode!

Middle of the Road

2006-04-03T13:24:00.000-04:00

My column in today's Diamondback is a quixotic quest to end partisanship and an appeal to increase political literacy. I also reveal why I don't like to be described as a moderate. From "In the Middle":

My conservative friends consider me a liberal. My liberal friends call me a conservative. I think I like it that way. Am I a “moderate”? I suppose so, but I’m not sure I like that term. It implies one can’t have strong opinions or one must take practical stands instead of principled stands. Obviously, that shouldn’t be the case. People should be free to take firm stances on issues important to them. I just ask that you consider the legitimate arguments the opposite side makes. On every contentious issue, practice arguing from both sides so you can get an understanding of where the other guy is coming from.

Click here to read the rest.

$2 Billion for Facebook?

2006-03-29T21:15:00.000-05:00

This week's BusinessWeek report that Facebook, the online networking site, could fetch up to $2 billion in a sale doesn't seem to have raised enough eyebrows--and that has me worried. The proposed sale to a media giant like Viacom seems to me to be yet another example of "Old Economy" types paying outrageous sums for "New Economy" technology and companies they don't really understand.

Yes, Facebook is enormously popular. In little over two years, www.facebook.com has become the 7th most visited site on the Internet. For those not in the know, Facebook is an online directory and networking site for college students (the site also recently expanded to high schools). There isn't a college student in America who hasn't heard of Facebook, and virtually all off them are users of the site. Facebook has transcended noun status to become a verb as well. On campuses, to "Facebook" someone is easily as common as the verb "Google" is in popular culture.

But for those of you above the age of 30 and not in the know, Facebook allows users at each school to post profiles and link to friends, classmates, and people with shared interests. My profile, for example (see right), has a picture of me along with details like my major (finance), contact info, clubs and jobs, and favorite music ("hip hop, classic rock"), books, movies, etc.

All this makes the company sound like a worthwhile investment. Rupert Murdoch certainly thought so. Last year, his News Corp. paid $580 million for MySpace, an online journal site which has been in the news lately because some people on the Internet--gasp!--publish lewd content or misrepresent themselves or prey on underage children. None of this has hurt MySpace, and Murdoch has been lauded for his forward-thinking. (Reuters CEO Tom Gloceg called the acquisition a "turning point", adding "Sites like MySpace are rebuilding our world.")

Yet I've heard no one propose any avenues for Facebook's continued growth over the years. Right now, its revenue comes from the advertisements on the site. I think, however, that advertisers will find that most high schoolers (and middle- and elementary- schoolers if Facebook goes down that route of Kids Without Credit Cards) aren't exactly the type to buy products online. Currently the site gets a lot of page views from its college students, but now that its presence is established, growth will level off.

All things considered, I just don't like the idea of a company which makes its money exclusively through advertisements. Google may seem to defy this notion, but at least that company has tremendous room for expansion. Even then, I thought Google CFO George Reyes delivered a long overdue announcement last month when he announced "Our growth rates are slowing... We are going to have to find new ways to monetize the business." Shareholders didn't like to hear that news, but I'm glad management is confronting a future challenge.

I've told college friends in the past that Facebook, were the company to ever go public, would be the perfect IPO to get in on and ride for the short term. When even people like David Brooks give inches in their newspaper column trying to understand this online fad (he declared Facebook "rollicking but respectable"), you know the company has drawn a lot of attention. But "fad" is a good keyword here. I can't identify a sound fundamental reason why it'd be a good idea to pay an outrageous sum of money to own this company. Facebook, for its command of the young demographic alone, is worth something, but my figure would be a fraction of that $2 billion. Sumner Redstone, consider this your warning!

The Ink & Dead Tree Business

2006-03-28T11:56:00.000-05:00

The recent sale and impending dismantling of the Knight-Ridder publishing empire seemed to be yet another sign of the unhealthy state of the newspaper industry. Yet in Monday's Washington Post, Robert Kaiser argues against that prevailing wisdom, saying "Newspapers have become some of the most profitable businesses in modern America."

While Kaiser argues, justifiably, that he prefers a newspaper to be privately held so as to be shielded from "Wall Street pressures", he says that most newspapers are nonetheless beating the 5-10% profit margin that traditional manufacturing industries like.

Is he right? I decided to look up how some leading newspaper publishers did in 2005, and for fun, compare that to the performance of some top companies in other industries. Check it out:

(Profit margin = net income / revenue)

All data via 2005 income statements from Yahoo! Finance.

* - General Motors has not released fourth quarter results from 2005, so data is through three quarters. Starbucks fiscal year is Oct. '04 - Sept. '05.

So while Kaiser was exaggerating a bit, it does appear that newspapers are holding their own. The six publishers above are, in order, the largest newspaper publishers by market cap, and each of them are turning decent profit margins. (Though Knight-Ridder was just bought by McClatchy, who intends to sell a number of the KR papers.) Tribune stacks up favorably against Dell, a company with revenues in the same ballpark. Gannett can arguably be compared to Apple.

In this light, reports of the demise of the "ink and dead tree" business appear to be unfounded. What remains to be seen is how newspapers adapt to deal with competition from other mediums that are stealing advertising and providing alternative content.

The Bright Side of American Business

2006-03-27T20:26:00.000-05:00

Last week, I talked about foreign competition to U.S. business, citing reasons why countries like China and India are succeeding in the New Economy. But in closing, I also provided reasoning for why the U.S.'s strengths will allow it to maintain its superiority. For example, I offered that our "service-oriented economy" was equipped for the globalization era and pointed out that "our country is second to none at fostering an innovative and entrepreneurial environment."

In today's Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby picks up where I left off to argue that "the heyday of American business may actually be now." Among the factors he lists are worker productivity, companies' return on equity, American management techniques, and better business practices. The "X factor", he says, is that we can meet contemporary challenges.

American business excels at managing service workers and knowledge workers: at equipping these people with technology, empowering them with the right level of independence and paying for performance. So the era of decentralized "network" businesses is the American era.
Moreover, America's business culture is perfectly matched to globalization. American executive suites and MBA courses are full of talented immigrants, so American managers think nothing of working in multicultural firms. The immigrants have links to their home countries, so Americans have an advantage in establishing global supply chains. The elites of Asia and Latin America compete to attend U.S. universities; when they return to their countries, they are keener to join the local operation of a U.S. company than of a German or Japanese one.
So the shift from manufacturing to services; the gallop of globalization; and the rise of information technology that flattens corporate hierarchies: All these forces come together to create an American moment.

Read the whole article; it's an interesting counter to the popular notion that America's competitive edge is in decline. And, if you're discouraged by news stories about companies like Enron and GM, check out the newly released BusinessWeek 50. Apple, Halliburton, Amgen, Goldman Sachs, Starbucks, and a plethora of energy companies, among others, highlight the best that American business has to offer today. For now, it appears Uncle Sam is doing A-OK.

The Evening News...Brought to You by Pepsi

2006-03-24T20:58:00.000-05:00

Today, Matt Drudge links to recent commentary by legendary news anchor Walter Cronkite on the state of nightly newscasts today.

Walter Cronkite has castigated producers of the network nightly newscasts for including stories about "your health and mine and your backyard and mine and all that kind of thing" at the expense of more substantive reports. "It doesn't belong in the evening news," Cronkite said during an interview...

"We're the most important nation in the world ... and there are these other very important stories in a very complicated world that we need to cover. We can't do that in 15 or 16 minutes." Apparently suggesting that the television networks ought to dispense with commercials during their nightly newscasts, Cronkite remarked, "The networks should be giving us the full half hour... It's ridiculous to have as little time as we have."

Cronkite, who knows a thing or two about real news coverage, is spot-on in identifying the problem with today's evening news. The networks, seeing a shrinking and again audience, run a news program with only 3 or 4 stories a night, interspersed between two long commercial breaks and a couple of "fluff" pieces. Despite the power of the medium, there's no doubt that people are better served by the more in-depth coverage of newspapers and the Internet.

Which really is a shame, considering that TV has the power to get the news across better than either of the aforementioned. I wonder why the evening news programs don't consider getting a corporate sponsor. Edward Murrow's See it Now program, portrayed in Good Night, and Good Luck, was sponsored by Alcoa. Today, as long as the corporate sponsor agreed to have no say in the content of the telecast, I think it would work. Take a cue from sports half-time shows and call it "ABC World News Tonight by IBM", have the logo featured on the set, and run one of their commercials mid-way thru the program.

Since it's primarily only old(er) people who watch the news anyway, maybe a company like Proctor&Gamble or Pfizer would see it in their interest to sponsor a show aimed at their target demographic? And with a guaranteed sponsor, the newscasts wouldn't have to stack their shows with "health and backyard" stories in order to attract an audience. I don't know if the economics of this idea make sense to a sponsor company or the networks, but it seems worth considering.

Unless things get of hand...

(Click to enlarge.)

Tags Calls it Quits

2006-03-20T23:32:00.000-05:00

The announcement today that NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue will retire this summer after serving for the past 16 years was a bit of surprise to most. "Tags", who succeeded the legendary Pete Rozelle, has been at the helm of the NFL for almost my entire life. And what a terrific job he did!

Football today is the indisputable favorite sport in America today, and none of the three other professional leagues comes close. Baseball may be the "national pastime", but casual baseball fans started deserting that sport a decade ago, and even serious fans today see a sport diluted by scandal and lack of excitement. Basketball's popularity peaked in the mid-90s, but following the retirement of the superstars of the Michael Jordan generation, went into a malaise that it is only now slowly coming out of. And hockey...haha, well that never had a chance.

I read with appreciation Dan Wetzel's remembrance of Tagliabue's contribution to the game. As we wait for the announcement of his successor, I have only one thought--sorry Condi ($), you're "under contract" till '08!

Finish Your Homework!

2006-03-20T01:28:00.000-05:00

The popularity of the "flat world" idea and the notion that China and India will be eating our lunches in the not-too-distant future rank among the reigning themes discussed over the past few years. During this time, Thomas Friedman's book, Bill Gates' analysis of the American brain drain, and worries about outsourcing have permeated the popular consciousness. On the flip-side, counter-arguments have emerged in recent months which claim that America's preeminent status is not in jeopardy. See, for example, David Brooks ["The Nation of the Future" ($), 2/2/06] and Robert Samuelson ["A Phony Science Gap?", 2/22/06].

While I'm not one to turn alarmist from a few anecdotes about Beijing or Bangalore entrepreneurs, I do think that there is something to be concerned about here. The most important lesson on this subject that I have taken away comes from a story that Friedman relates:

"When I was growing up, my parents would tell me 'Finish your food, people in China and India are starving.'

I tell my kids 'Finish your homework, people in China and India are starving for your job.'"

Innumerable factors currently stand in the way of either China or India outstripping us, but one thing is clear: there are a lot of people in both of those countries that are out-hustling us Americans. While for now they may only represent a minority of their population, more of them are springing up daily to take advantage of increased opportunities.

For a taste of the radically different work culture in those countries, check out this recent Fortune article on Infosys, the Indian software services company. The talent pool is staggering--1.3 million applicants for full-time positions last year, and only 1% of those were hired. The new hires receive rigorous training in state-of-the-art educational centers which house rooms like the "Gordon Moore Room" or "Jeff Bezos Room". Captains of industry, it appears, are to the outsourcing industry what Kelly Clarkson is to the American public--the real Idols.

For now, the lure of higher salaries and brand-name jobs in the U.S. may draw a lot of the immigrant talent pool, as it did with my parents 25 years ago. But with increased prosperity and the prospects of "boundless growth" back in their native countries, how much longer will those smart foreigners keep coming here?

I'm willing to believe that the American optimists are correct when they assure us that we still do produce enough engineers and scientists, that because our country is second to none at fostering an innovative and entrepreneurial environment, and because we are a service-oriented economy anyway, that we can remain successful in the New Economy. But does that mean we should nevertheless continue with business as usual, not worrying about the fact that the rest of the world is working night and day to whittle away at our lead? I don't think so.

Better finish that homework.

Gatorade: "Winning Formula"

2006-03-17T20:18:00.000-05:00

What if Michael Jordan had missed "The Shot" against the Cavaliers in 1989? Or if Derek Jeter's flip to Jorge Posada in the 2001 MLB playoffs didn't get Jeremy Giambi at the plate? Or if Dwight Clark dropped "The Catch"?

Gatorade's new "Winning Formula" commercial is one of the most clever ads I have seen in a long time. In a similar vein to Burger King's amusing series of commercials featuring "the King" edited into football highlight reel plays, Gatorade has edited some of the most memorable moments in sports to show you what they would have looked like had they gone wrong. The computerized manipulation is flawless--if you've never seen the original plays, you wouldn't know the difference!

I hit rewind on my Tivo twice to watch this commercial again--it's that good. Click on the play button below to view:

I hope they turn this into a series of commercials featuring even more altered sports moments. Very cool!

Rooting Against Barry

2006-03-08T13:49:00.000-05:00

It should have been Griffey, if anyone. That's what I've been saying to myself in recent weeks as the 2006 baseball season draws nearer. The biggest storyline going in, of course, is Barry Bonds' pursuit of the all-time home run record. It's a given that Barry, with 708 career HRs, will surpass #2 Babe Ruth (714), but true baseball fans also appear resigned to seeing Barry displace Hank Aaron (755). You'll forgive me for rooting against Barry I hope, regardless of how futile my efforts may be.

Barry Bonds is just not the guy I want to see holding what is perhaps the greatest individual accomplishment in American sports. He's a royal jerk. He admitted to a grand jury in 2003 that he took the steroids "cream" and "clear", though he says he did so "unknowingly". OK, fine, I've agreed with giving him the benefit of the doubt and calling him one of the greatest players of all time. But let's face the facts. In the first half of his career, as a home-run hitting speedster, Barry was a great player. But he became legendary through his power resurgence of the past six years, which began as he was a ripe old 35!

What's the explanation for the dominance of this second Barry? The answer might come from the upcoming book Game of Shadows by the reporters who broke the BALCO steroids scandal. The book alleges frequent, systematic use of steroids by Bonds since 1998. Read the length excerpt in Sports Illustrated here, or get the lowlights here. It's grotesque, fascinating reading, and it's virtually assured now that the primary topic of baseball conversation isn't going to be the Nats' new stadium or the exciting games being played in the World Baseball Classic.

Six or seven years ago, I anticipated seeing the home run record being broken by a star outfielder of the time. That player was Ken Griffey Jr., the greatest baseball player of the '90s. For the record, I calculated the HR totals of Griffey and Bonds at the end of the 2000 season. Bonds had 445 HRs, Griffey 438--with the former being 5 years older and having played 3 more seasons. Of course, since then injuries have derailed every one of Griffey's seasons, while Barry Bonds has (most likely) been injecting, swallowing, and rubbing. (Or, as Kornheiser puts it, "Bonds was taking all of Aisle 7 in the Rite-Aid!")

Good for Barry Bonds if he gets the record. I'll be watching, but I won't be cheering.

CB Archive:

"Too Late to Say It Ain't So, Raffy" (August 3, 2005)
"'Roid Rage" (February 14, 2005)

Defending Bush on the Ports Deal

2006-03-01T12:17:00.000-05:00

Richard Cohen emerges as another unlikely Bush defender over the UAE ports deal. (His Post colleague David Ignatius and the New York Times' Nick Kristof have also written columns this week taking a similar stance.) I cut out the article and highlighted the following few paragraphs to show to Muslim friends:

The politic thing for a president with a dismal approval rating (about 40 percent) would have been to join with the critics, get ahead of the anti-Arab wave and announce that he, too, was concerned about the deal, which was the fault, now that he thought about it, of pointy-headed bureaucrats, Democrats and the occasional atheist. Instead, the White House stuck to its guns, ordering a symbolic retreat -- more study -- but continuing to back the deal.

That Bush has done this should come as no surprise. As a bigot he leaves a lot to be desired. He has refused to pander to anti-immigration forces, and shortly after Sept. 11, if you will remember, he visited Washington's Islamic Center. He reassured American Muslims and the worldwide Islamic community that neither America nor its government were waging war on an entire people.

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam," Bush said back then -- and he has since repeated this message over and over again. That very year -- in November 2001 -- Bush invited 52 Muslim diplomats to a traditional Iftar dinner, breaking the daily Ramadan fast, and he has occasionally cited purported racism as the reason some people doubt the Muslim world will, as Bush so fervently wishes, make progress toward democracy. They think people whose skin is "a different color than white" are incapable of self-government, he has said.