Provoking Thoughts...

Kiva's Troubles...

Ahhh…global citizenship. What does that term mean? Defining the term global citizen affects the debate as to whether such a goal is obtainable, or reasonable. The strength, and weakness, of the concept of a global citizen, is that every individual has a different opinion as to what constitutes a global citizen, and how they should act.

I don’t define a global citizen as someone who puts others before themselves. Martydom is, by definition, an unsustainable economic model. What is important is a recognition that economics is not a zero-sum game and that responsibility for actions is not a concept that pertains only to individuals, but also to companies and nations.

Andrew Leonard posted an entry in How The World Works, on July 17, 2008 that illustrates some of the concerns about the idea of global citizenship. Kiva.org, an internet micro-finance company provides loans to individuals in developing countries and by doing so, makes it’s lender’s money (with risk) and helps to develop economic infrastructure in developing countries. However, Kiva has recently been having problems with loans defaulting in Africa:

“Kiva has been forced to shut down operations with five different local field agencies, three in Kenya, one in Cote d'Ivoire, and one in Uganda. The reasons have ranged from mismanagement and misrepresentation to outright fraud, but Flannery writes that there is something of a common theme:

'Behind each of these break-ups, there is a story. Usually, there lies a patriarchal figure who viewed his organization as an extension of himself and a Kiva which was way too naive.”

On the surface, it is a perfect example of starry–eyed idealists having their goals crushed by the harshness of reality. Yes, Kiva was naïve; it is an arrogant, and misguided notion to feel that a single idea or organization will alight in Africa and “clean up” all the problems that have accrued over 200 years of colonialization, corruption, and warfare. But Kiva was also correct. The concept of micro-finance as a mechanism for broad economic and social change can still be sound.

Any sort of progress will have missteps; life, unfortunately, is not a steady linkage of successes. Kiva’s ideas, however, can still ultimately prove transformational and an important step toward "middle-finance", or SME's.

So, what does Kiva have to do with global citizenry? I think they are an excellent example of what a global citizen can be, and the problems that a global citizen can encounter.

By helping others to succeed Kiva creates markets where there weren’t any previously, and promotes the creation of new products and ideas. Corruption and crime will be problems in all of the developing economies (and the developed ones) around the world. Kiva’s experience is unfortunate, but not surprising. Like any business, they will adapt to the environment, readjust their plans and proceed.

That is what is asked of any business, or any entity in this world; to behaving responsibly on a global scale...ie. to be a global citizen.

-SWL

Why Obama Will Win

Pundits, Politician, Wonks, and Columnists can dissect and analyze campaign platforms, values, economic and health plans ad nauseum and it won't do any good. In the end, a presidential election is too chaotic, too convoluted, and too complex for logic to win. People end up voting with their gut.

Although elections should be about substance over style, they haven't actually evolved past a sixth grade popularity contest. We learned that with JFK versus Nixon and had it proven again, and again by Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. It's even the reason Bush Jr. was elected. He was the candidate the voters wanted to have a beer with. Obama is that candidate this time... well, a beer, or a cappuccino.

An ideal polling demographic for this "Friend Factor" is... children. Who has the "coolness" to captivate the kids? Between McCain and Obama, everyone knows the answer, and it doesn't bode well for McCain.

This link demonstrates it better than I can.

-SWL

In Defence of a Global Citizenry

James Poulos blogs at DoubleThink Oniline and wrote an entry about the logical and moral folly of Obama's call for "global citizenship."

His points are elegantly excoriated in a growing commentary section. Here is a paragraph excerpted from his post:

Our yearning for pan-human solidarity is an absurdity, the absurdity of the human condition, and the most utopian of all utopian ideas is the idea of a Brotherhood of Man: because the human race is not a family, just like it isn’t one big polity. We are stuck with differentiation; there is no metaphor that allows us to redefine humanity as a closer relationship than it is. That doesn’t mean we can’t be friends. Indeed, the only trope that allows us to develop closer amicable relationships with strangers is the trope of friendship, and the only way to close the relationship with a stranger is to make friends. Not to ‘make citizens’; not to ‘make brothers’. This is crazy European talk — the discredited language of the bloody French and German experiments in various kinds of border-busting solidarity

Nice, subtle reference to Nazi's at the end. Always a solid way to prove your point.

He misses on a couple points, first that friendship isn't the only trope, or metaphor, capable of accurately describing relationships with strangers, what about a "business partner." The world is more economically intertwined than during any other time in history and it becomes more so every day. Countries and governments try to slow this change with tariffs and other trade limitations, with incomplete success. It is this selfish, economic drive that will propel countries around the world to cooperate, not high falutin' moral goals of a utopian humanity.

His second shortcoming is in reference to "strangers" only being able to relate through "friendship." That doesn't make sense. Strangers would be more likely to be interested in a business partnership and less likely to want to be "friends." Even, for argument's sake, assuming he is correct, there are still a couple flaws with this.

First, he assumes that the people of the world will always be "strangers" with each other. That was true when the philosophers and politicians that Poulos emulates wrote their ideas. Even 25 years ago, communication and travel was onerous enough to make a "world view" a rare commodity. That is no longer the case. Secondly, once two people become "friends" their outlook on competition and cooperation with each other changes. This fundamentally affects how they will work together. He belief that strangers can become friends, but friends can not act as "citizens" doesn't seem to sense.

Perhaps, at the heart of this debate is the definition of "citizen." Poulos implies that a global citizen somehow sheds all personal concern and only looks at the world with an unselfish, idealistic view. Others (Reagan, Bush Jr., Obama) view a global citizen as an entity that continues to work in their own best interests, but recognizes that more can be accomplished working with others, than alone. Sometimes that may mean giving, in order to receive, after all, compromise is the heart of realpolitik.

-SWL

Obama's Speech in Berlin

I just watched Obama’s Berlin speech on youtube.com and I think we can expect more complaining from McCain’s followers about Obama’s empty rhetoric.

Unfortunately for McCain supporters the speech was, as we’ve come to expect, outstanding. In fact, the speech was so good, the only method they have for attacking it is to claim it is full of empty promises and unworkable solutions.

In just over twenty five minutes, Obama solidifies his position as a international political powerhouse with more than enough presence and prestige to shoulder the mantle of President of the United States. At the end, even if one disagrees with his views, there is no doubt that Obama can command respect on an international stage.

However, if republicans choose to decry Obama’s speech for its lack of prescriptive content, they won’t be wrong. The speech was not a “step-by-step” breakdown for international problem solving. However, what it did accomplish, in a very public way, was to extend a hand to Europe and to offer cooperation as a paradigm for the future.

It is this outlook that, interestingly, provides division between Americans. For many, Bush’s go-it-alone, “bring-it-on” style of diplomacy was, and still is, exceptionally appealing. It is the quintessential expression of American individualism, ruggedness, and patriotism all mixed together and poured for the media with a twist of Texan drawl. If it had worked, it would have made an entire nation feel drunkenly omnipotent.

However, it didn’t work and Obama, with some humility, spoke not just to Germans, but to the world, describing how today's problems are too great for any one country to confront.

I think he is correct. The increasing ease of transportation and the increasing ease of information flow means that all problems, including those previously considered local, such as the political deterioration of Zimbabwe, rioting monks in Myanmar, or the economic frailties of Latin America, are global ones.

We have moved into a new era, one where the world isn’t dominated by one or two super powers. Whoever is elected to lead the United States should, in turn, have America lead the world as a responsible global citizen.

-SWL

Fortunate Foreign Policy Flip-Flop

The Bush administration is finally waging diplomacy…and winning. For years Bush has firmly stated that America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists, rogue states, or members of the Axis of Evil and he has stuck by those words, choosing gun barrel diplomacy over discussions for those countries his administration feels unworthy of America’s attention.

Recently however, President Bush has quietly (and wisely) flip-flopped. Christopher Hill spent a grueling 5 days last week negotiating with North Korea in six party talks where, as Mr. Hill stated, an agreement was reached for “one phase of denuclearization.” All parties agree that negotiations with North Korea will continue to be difficult, but some progress is better than no progress.

Condoleezza Rice also spent last week negotiating, however her conversations were with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Ohlmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Ms. Rice is officially speaking with the same Palestinian Authority that recently signed a power sharing deal between the Fatah party and the Hamas party, a terrorist organization the United States has previously refused to acknowledge. Did anything come from these closed-doors-conversations? Nope. But any negotiation needs to start, or re-start, somewhere.

For the last six years the Bush administration has acted like an international bully. With the assumed righteousness of being the world’s only super power, Bush has dictated terms, refused to negotiate, and invaded countries based on a policy of pre-emptive defense. The problem is it didn’t work.

The past few years have been a wonderful example of why the concept of a “benign dictatorship” is a fantastic impossibility. Since 9/11 America has been as close as we have ever come to that mythical govenment system since FDR, because congress acquiesced it’s role as a balancer of executive power, and the media was either brow beaten into submission or infiltrated and manipulated.

There were no checks for the Bush administration’s plans except for one. Failure. The failure of Iraq and the growing failure of Afghanistan are a harsh reality for policy makers in the current administration. Our inability to fix the messes or even predict the problems that will arise in the Middle East exposes the United States as a “paper tiger.” We were stronger before we invaded Iraq because the world assumed we were a sincere military threat. Now they wonder. So we have to begin licking our wounds and looking around for help, finally agreeing to speak to the same people we refused to recognize even one year ago.

The other President Roosevelt, Teddy, said, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” However, President Bush has shown us that size doesn’t matter. In a world where the idea that “Might Makes Right” is no longer true, having the strongest conventional military isn’t worth nearly as much as having the world’s respect.

-SWL

If I Was Rich, You'd Have Sex With Me! Part 2 the Hottie Quotient.

…See Part 1 from earlier today…

Wow! I love this topic. It seems to get at some deep-rooted idea for males (and females). Basically, that us males are being judged on some productivity/security standard that is reminiscent of caveman times. Except, instead of animal parts being the proof of one’s success, it is now measured with money and the display of that money through conspicuous consumption, a concept first described by Thorstien Veblen in the late 19th century.

Wealth and sex, they do seem to go together but a “better” sex life involves much more than being rich. Such a complex psychological and physical process involves a lot more than a simple “They rich. Me shag,” input and response.

So, as a way to further condense the complexities of human sexuality, I want to propose the Hottie Quotient. That’s right. The Hottie Quotient is a handy equation that can be kept in your BlackBerry, Treo, or, if you’re truly cool, your iPhone for simple calculations of how lucky one might get or how much to lust after your drunk co-worker.

It’s a simple calculation based on my rich fantasy life and limited actual experience. The Hottie Quotient says that how much a person will want to jump your bones is a product of how attractive you are and how famous you are, with attractiveness being a sum of physical beauty and confidence.

The Hottie Quotient then, looks like this:

Hq = F^2 * (C+B), [note: F is squared for those wondering]

Where Hq is the Hottie Quotient or the Lust Factor, F is Fame or notoriety, C is Confidence, and B is Beauty.

Some things to consider:

(1) You can compensate for Beauty with increased Confidence.

(2) Fame is a powerful hotness multiplier. A little bit goes a long way, hence the ability of relatively minor celebrities, such as local weathermen, to get laid.

Further investigation shows that the Confidence factor (C) is a product of your Abilities (A) and Successes (S) based on those abilities, along with Luck (L) and (for some) Insanity (I),

C = (A + S + L)^I. [Yup. I'm raising it to the power of I]

What this equation means is that some people’s Confidence is due to their Abilities (and a little Luck) leading to Success, however, Luck could be the main driving force behind their Confidence.

Then, there are those people who are just nuts. They have an amazing level of Confidence that is founded on very little Ability or Success. That is taken into account by the power of Insanity.

An important point is:

(1) If you have few skills or successes, a narcissistic insanity can still make you very appealing to others (see David Koresh).

Ms Grove’s survey said that wealth leads to “better” sex and, for males, “better” means more partners. However, as I’ve shown with the Hottie Quotient and the Confidence factor, men can get laid by just having cool skills, a mild amount of success, and a small amount of local notoriety. Or, if those fail, being crazy helps.

-SWL

If I Was Rich You'd Have Sex With Me!

Mo' money, mo' problems... or is it more nookie? A survey conducted by Hannah Grove, a business consultant, which I found in an article by Thomas Kostigan, looked at high net worth individuals (average net worth of $89 million) and surprisingly found that being rich and having better sex seems to be more true for women than for men.

According to the survey,"Some 84% of rich women and 63% of rich men say having money means having better sex."

There were two other points Mr. Kostigan discussed, which were even more interesting. The first related to a recent book, "The Monogamy Myth," which said that 60% of men and 40% of women have extramarital affairs. Grove's survey found that rich men had affairs at a similar incidence (53%), but rich women had affairs at almost twice the general population's rate (73%). Why? Hard to tell. Is money empowering women or do you have to posess an unconventional, out-of-the-box approach to life in order to become a wealthy woman? The survey doesn't address that question.

The second point of interest is what defines "better sex." The men surveyed equated "better" with a greater number of partners, including the holy grail of male sexual fantasy, the "threesome." Basically, being rich allowed them to swipe their platinum (or titanium) American Express cards between women's thighs and...PRESTO..they open.

For women it was the opposite, "better" meant a higher quality of sex with fewer partners. It makes me wonder if confidence in one's sexual self is the main determinant for the level of sexual quality and money is simply a quantitative way to reaffirm one's confidence.

The survey piqued my interest, but it did not not actually determine whether wealth causes better sex. Ms. Grove is a consultant interested in helping companies target high net worth individuals; she is not a scientist. As such, she doesn't need to determine whether wealth causes better sex, only that the two are associated, so such knowledge can be used for targeted marketing toward rich people.

I tried to access the actual survey on Ms. Grove's site, but couldn't. I think a copy is being emailed to me, along with (I'm certain) a lifetime subscription to more spam. I'd like to know how many poor, middle-class, and upper-class-but-not-super-wealthy people were surveyed to determine that the wealthy have better sex. Were the wealthy just expected to think back to what sex was like before they became rich and make a comparison? What if they were born into wealth?

Anyway, I'm not going to get too distraught. I can see money and sex as associated, but not necessarily causally linked. I continue to believe that "better sex" (both quantity and quality) has more to do with one's confidence in and comfort with one's self, rather than the size of one's bank roll. Having money may help, but in the end confidence is sexy...and free.

Just to be safe, though, I'm gonna keep working...hard.

-SWL

America Doesn't Want Capitalism in Iraq?

Iran continues to amaze me. Or, more accurately, the United States continues to amaze me with how inept we are about predicting and countering Iran. The New York Times reports that Iran has now started to use capitalism against us by planning to open an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of Baghdad, further binding the two countries and strengthening Iran’s influence.

Mr. Qumi, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, said

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”

It seems the Iranians have a much more fundamental understanding of the concept of winning “hearts and minds” than we do. What would be an equivalent move for the U.S., finding a couple pro-American Islamic clerics, and building them mosques in Baghdad?

Of course, pro-American clerics in Baghdad would be completely transparent puppets and, although Iranian bankers may also be puppets, it is much more difficult to arrest and deport bankers than spies. Proving that difference just became more difficult for the United States.

With this announcement, the Iranians have created a situation where we will have to sit down and ask them, “please don’t help capitalism flourish in Iraq.”

Amazing.

-SWL

Bush's Bad Dreams

I hope President Bush is having a hard time sleeping at night because I sure am. His “nightmare scenario,” which he described so vividly during his State of the Union address, is more worrisome than Freddy Kruger at a convention for narcoleptics.

That is unless he doesn’t actually believe his own rhetoric. It does sounds a little reminiscent of how he was able to garner such bipartisan support for starting the Iraq War: his “You’re-either-with-us-or-against-us” sales pitch. By creating a false choice between two options, Bush focused support for the option he preferred. Initially, what he wanted was a war against Iraq, now he wants an escalation in the number of troops actively trying to stabilize Iraq three years after the invasion.

However, the “more troops, or failure” option is a false choice. This situation is frighteningly complicated and can’t be boiled down to a simple binary option. Bush’s spin-doctors are trying to scare us with the false impression that we have two choices – his way or calamity and we don’t want calamity, do we? For something this important, all the options deserve to be considered. Even the one’s he has condescendingly brushed aside as “ways that lead to defeat.”

Which brings up another point, one where the President is absolutely right. This war is important. We should be trying everything we can to stabilize the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, we are not.

It seems as if the planning for this war was done by a bunch of Gen-X “slackers” who wanted to see if they could get away with the least amount possible. We didn’t follow the Powell Doctrine and send in an overwhelming number of troops as General Shinseki recommended, instead we tried the least number of troops we could. In addition, except for military families, as Jim Lehrer pointed out during his interview with President Bush, the American public has been asked to make no sacrifices. Instead, we’ve been encouraged to go shopping. Now, we are finally asked to get behind a plan to add more American troops to Baghdad and Anbar Province, but again, not so many more that it is uncomfortable.

At this point America shouldn’t be holding anything back. There won’t be a second chance for this clean up operation. The situation in Iraq has gotten so bad that the White House has even stopped chiding the media for not reporting on all the “good things” that are happening in Iraq. If this escalation doesn’t work, by the time we realize it has failed, it will be difficult to ever put the pieces back together again.

So why are we continuing to approach this in some half-baked manner? If the President truly believes that his nightmares could come true and we are in a “struggle for civilization…the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”, why are we still trying do “just enough?” Why aren’t we mobilizing civilians for volunteer work and starting a draft to bolster our military strength? Because making those moves would enflame the country’s smoldering distrust and dislike for this current President, very likely leading to impeachment. So, although Bush says he wants to win this war, it evidently isn’t important enough to win at ALL costs.

We do need a plan to change the course of developments in Iraq. However, that plan needs to take into account the entire strength of America, civilians and military, in order to work. Trying to get Congress and the public to buy into that idea may be President Bush’s real nightmare.

Sweet dreams.

-SWL

Who's Afraid of the Globalization Wolf?

Ah, globalization. It seems that the bitter taste of outsourcing isn’t the only byproduct of globalization that some countries find hard to swallow. Andrew Leonard comments in How The World Works that the military led Thai government, which recently took control during a gentle coup, is now attacking foreign intellectual property rights and capital investment within Thailand:

“In November, Thailand's Ministry of Public Health announced its approval of a compulsory license allowing the Governmental Pharmaceutical Organization to break the patent on the AIDS retroviral drug, Efavirenz. Then this week, the news broke that the government would issue two more licenses for two more drugs, one for treating AIDS and one for treating heart disease.

At the same time, the Ministry of Finance has engaged in a series of moves aimed at restricting the flow of investor capital, in part to bolster the value of the Thai baht, and in part to limit the ability of foreigners to control Thai companies through proxies.”

These developments are on the heels of Hugo Chavez’s announcement that the United States ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, may get the boot for comments demanding “fair compensation” for the private owners of a telephone company slated for nationalization by Chavez’s government.

Is every one scared of globalization? America is concerned that developing countries could chip away at our economic strength by outsourcing and shifting manufacturing plants, while those same countries have a similar fear that a completely porous economic border will let them be financially bullied by the US and others.

Right now, world leaders are treating globalization like a restaurant menu, trying to pick an al la carte selection of the most economically tasty treats. We’ll see how this goes. Currently oil rich states, such as Venzuela, have a short term advantage, the world still needs their product. How long they may be able to effectively dangle that carrot is up for some debate.

Other countries, such as Thailand, who didn’t win the natural resource lottery may be in for a surprise. Annoying and isolating themselves from the rest of the world may mean that come dinner time, no one saved a place for them at the table.

-SWL