Sunday, June 28, 2009

Iran: Losing by Winning

It appears that the power structure has successfully put down the election dissent and destroyed the opposition. They have won the battle with brutal and unflinching repression, but have they lost the war? As averred in an earlier blog, successful repression often just drives dissent underground and undermines public respect and affection for the law. When the dissent was driven by a core population group and involved enduring issues, the successful repression frequently strengthens opposition in the long run. Will that turn out to be the case in Iran?

Take this tidbit from an International Herald Tribure article about Iran and the collapse of dissent:

Like many others who spoke, Mahtab said she was depressed by what she had
seen since the election. She said that she was not a political person and had
not even voted June 12, but that the repression on the streets was “beyond
belief.”

“I am disgusted, and wish I could leave this country,” she said.

She said she had seen a paramilitary officer outside the shop hit a
middle-aged woman in the head so hard that blood streamed down the woman’s
forehead. When Mahtab and her colleagues tried to leave the shop to go
home, she said, the forces began clubbing them while shouting the names of
Shiite saints. “They do this under the name of religion,” she said. “Which
religion allows this?”

Daily life has also been affected. Although people are still going to
work, some parents have been reluctant to take their children to day care,
fearing that unrest on the streets would prevent them from picking up their
children. University exams have been postponed and many families have traded
parties for small get-togethers, where the election is a constant topic of
conversation.

“People are depressed, and they feel they have been lied to, robbed of
their rights and now are being insulted,” said Nassim, a 56-year-old
hairdresser. “It is not just a lie; it’s a huge one. And it doesn’t end.”

Mahtab and Nassim must be American agents or sympathizers, if the Iranian government is to be believed. No, they are ordinary Iranians who were not involved in demonstrations or even sympathetic to the opposition, but they are shocked and dismayed by what they witnessed their government do to people they know are ordinary Iranians. The government believes it can discredit the dissent by blaming it on "outside agitators", that tired old refrain, but do you think it will fool Mahtab and Nassim?

The next time dissent breaks out in Iran, a whole lot of Mahtabs and Nassims will be more likely to support the dissent, either tacitly or actively. It may not look like it now, but the Islamic Republic's legitimacy within Iran has been damaged more by its victory in battle than by the issues that sparked the protest.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Big Night on the Big Stage

Man of the Match, Landon Donovan
Landon Donovan has been the most visible American soccer player for a decade, and he's still only 27 years old. Often lauded, more often maligned, the California Golden Boy of US Soccer is the leading scorer in USMNT history, and was the best player on the pitch in the biggest win ever by the Americans. It gives him the chance to cap perhaps his best international tournament ever by leading the USA to the championship over the Brazil/South Africa winner.
I've never agreed with the Landon-bashing. It probably started when he decided he didn't want to stay at Bayern Leverkusen and forced a loan back to MLS and the San Jose Earthquakes. I always respected his reasoning. He wasn't getting to play, and he wanted to be back in California. His girlfriend was connected there and he wanted to be with her. So he went back to California. True, it wasn't the best move for his soccer development, but it was the best move for his life, according to his priorities. A lot of American soccer fans acted as if he had personally affronted them by choosing to prioritize other things over his soccer development. Those people were out of line.
Landon was outstanding against Spain. I thought he was the best player on the pitch that night. He played his normal role of main offensive generator, but he was also central to the defense. He played a complete game. He has been the star of this tournament even though he is not scoring goals in numbers. Because of his leadership and the play of the team as a whole, the USA has a chance to win a FIFA tournament for the first time.
This tournament appears to be where the US national team finally found the proper role for Landon. Playing out on the wing he can use his speed and fitness, his ball skills and aggressiveness. He can make his off-the-ball runs that he does better than anyone else in a US uniform. He runs at defenders. He gets into space and creates for others. It works for us.
Brazil is the next challenge. The Brazilians will probably roll us, but clearly the US has a chance. Losing Michael Bradley on a bullshit red card hurts, but Benny Feilhaber and Jose Torres are capable players. Feilhaber will probably get the nod so Donovan can stay on the flank. If the back four can be as solid as it was against Spain, and Donovan and the other attackers work together as well as they did vs Spain, clearly the US can win.
If the US does defeat Brazil, Landon Donovan will probably be Man of the Match.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Recovery Without Recovery

The Great Recession is old news by this point. The housing crash, the financial crisis, the Gas Shock of 2008, the great economic crisis of the twenty-first century has rocked all of us. But there is good news, they say. Economists point to a rebound in the stock markets and an increase in consumer spending in the last couple of months and tell us that the recession may have bottomed out and the recovery begun.

Only one problem with this recovery: it's not producing any new jobs, and unemployment is expected to keep going UP even as the "recovery" gets underway. It's not until well into the "recovery" that unemployment is expected to start going down, and not for FIVE YEARS until unemployment is expected to be back down to its pre-recession levels.

What this means is that the winners of the recent boom are going to be the winners of the recovery as well. Those whose participation in the boom was purchased with borrowed money are going to lose, and those who lost their jobs after borrowing into the boom are going to be catastrophic losers. These losers are now probably going to be forced by law to purchase health insurance they can't afford and that won't provide coverage, while health care costs continue to spiral upward. My reading of the "health care reform" process does not leave me feeling good. The protected interests are going to stay protected, and what comes out is just going to put more controls, more burdens, more restrictions on the lower classes.

The Washington Post article buries the most worrisome issues in the bottom third. I will bring them forward now:

Since the recession took hold in December 2007, the U.S. economy has lost
5.7 million jobs, a rapid decline that caught administration and other
economists off guard. In recent months, the velocity of job losses has slowed
substantially, which, combined with a rising stock market and increases in
consumer spending, has offered hope that a recovery is beginning to take hold.

But employers still cut 345,000 jobs last month, while the nation's growing
working-age population requires the job market to expand by 125,000 to 150,000 a
month just to keep the unemployment rate stable.

The dynamics of the modern economy further dim the employment picture. Job
growth was weak for years after the past two recessions, in 1991 and 2001.
Employers have grown increasingly slow to rehire workers, and steady advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with fewer workers.

While the recession has touched workers across the spectrum, "many of the
job losses are in manufacturing and construction, affecting less-educated workers and immigrants," Zandi said. "It is going to be hard for them to find their way back into the workforce quickly."


Meanwhile, the current recession has been characterized by the
implosion of the housing market and the near collapse of the financial sector
and automobile industry. Despite huge federal interventions, many of the jobs in those industries are gone for good.



The bolded sections carry the salient messages. The "recovery" will result in the owners of the means of production reaping increased profits, with existing workers working harder than before the recession, and fewer new jobs created. Meanwhile, the bailouts of the financial and automobile industries will allow the managers and owners to get back on their feet and go on to profit in the future, but the workers who lost their jobs are out of luck. I remain unconvinced that the bailouts were necessary or in the public interest. More corporate welfare.

But the two crucial questions that I have been asking for a long time without ever receiving an answer are hinted at in the above section. They become more urgent, but with no more indication that anyone is interested in an answer. These questions are:

1) In an age where technology allows for businesses to produce, distribute and administer their products with a minimum of workers and reap huge profits, allowing fewer and fewer people to control more and more of the wealth, how are we to provide for the needs of the majority? It is my contention that in the last 15 years, debt has masked this shift.

2) With the economy shedding all the well-paid muscle occupations, what are those who are unsuited for brain occupations supposed to do? Huge numbers of people do not have and never will have the education and/or mental capabilities required to succeed in technology occupations. In the past, the economy presented occupations for these people that would allow them a decent standard of living. In the new economy, those occupations are disappearing. What are these people to do? A lot of them are going to divide their time between jail and the streets/flophouses, because a lot of them have child support obligations based on what they used to be making, and courts are notoriously unsympathetic to obligors who lose their jobs.

Nobody seems to care about those two issues. But the future is going to look like all those dystopic movies (Bladerunner, Judge Dredd, etc) if good answers are not found. Life in America is very expensive, and fewer and fewer people can afford it.

The mess left to us by the Reagan-Bush-Clinton power structure is either going to make Barack Obama the most unpopular president, or the most revered president, in a very long time. He's either going to take the blame for the crashing down of consequences, or take the credit for great leadership steering us through to the new prosperity. May it be the latter.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Was the Election Rigged?

The linked article from the Washington Post uses numerical analysis -- the frequency of particular digits in the last place of the reported election results, and of last-two digit combinations -- to state with scientific certainty that the Iranian election results were fraudulent. He may be right. The analysis is persuasive, and very likely the announced vote tallies were phony.

But does that mean the election was rigged, or that it was "stolen" from Mousavi? That is a different question. One might counter with "why manufacture election results if not to change the winner?" Good question, but one might have compelling reasons to manipulate the numbers even when the desired candidate won on the real, fair numbers.

The first possibility appeals to my love of irony. One could anticipate charges of election fraud and decide to manipulate the results to inflate the margin of victory, on the theory that a wide victory margin is perceived to be less susceptible to abuse than a close one. In order to prevent critics from claiming that Ahmadinejad's 51-49% margin was provided by a few fake votes, the election authorities make it look like a landslide. This attempt has backfired, of course, if that is what they were trying to do.

Another possible reason to manipulate election results without changing the victor would be to provide a more powerful mandate for the new president. If the truth is that he was elected largely on the votes of one or two population factions but was heavily opposed by others, his ability to rule could be compromised. The country would be polarized. But if it looks like his appeal was widespread, cutting across demographic and ideological lines, a broad mandate can be crafted for him. Under this theory, the election fraud was designed to persuade undecideds and moderate opponents that the winner has broad appeal and to be supportive, and to bludgeon opponents into submission (resistance is futile).

We probably won't know until the Islamic Republic falls and its archives are opened what really happened in the Election of 2009, and if the results were manipulated, why. The relative popularity of the different candidates is a matter of debate. The consensus seems to be that Ahmadinejad is the favorite of the poor and working classes, religious conservatives, and the conservative rural communities, while Mousavi was favored by the upper classes and the educated urban populations. It's a bit of a throwback to late 60's America, with Nixon's "Silent Majority" and the noisy youth.

If this picture is correct, then I am inclined to believe that Ahmadinejad (I'madinnerjacket is a hilarious nickname) did, in fact, win the election. The populations presumed to prefer Ahmadinejad tend to be much larger than the elements given to Mousavi. They draw far less attention to themselves, however, because they are not out in the streets, and they typically do not express themselves eloquently. Church-going farmers aren't often appearing on TV or writing op-ed pieces and blogs.

My take on the election is not unique. I read an analysis piece in the Post a week ago from a "policy expert" opining that Ahmadinejad probably did win. His explanation was persuasive. It fit with my educated intuitions about the political makeup of most populations. This analysis is probably behind the Obama Administration's cautious response to the election controversy. It would not be wise for the U.S. Government to proclaim its moral outrage over a stolen election that frustrates the will of the people when the announced election results really did reflect the will of a majority of the people -- even if fraudulent.

Iran will be interesting to watch. There clearly is a high level of discontent with the established order in the country. I doubt the majority of protestors care so much about Mousavi himself. He was merely the candidate around whom the dissatisfied could coalesce. The crisis is more about the Iranian political order than the election of 2009. So far, the ruling elite is responding in a classic fashion, a fashion that more often than not promotes a more committed, disciplined, widespread opposition over the long-term. When repressive regimes respond to popular discontent with repression -- how else can they respond? -- that response tends to be successful when the discontent is from a discrete minority group or about a transient issue, but extremely unsuccessful when the discontent is from a substantial portion of the dominant group and over fundamental political issues. That bodes ill for the Ayatollahs.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

The Rebirth of a Renaissance Man

Welcome to my new blog. The Peripatetic Mind. Look up "peripatetic" and you find that it means "walking or traveling about; itinerant." However, it also has a more focused definition, "walking or traveling about to teach." A "peripatetic" is a wanderer, or more specifically, a wandering teacher -- a wandering muse, if you prefer. Yes, the Peripatetic Mind is a wandering teacher.

Capitalize it and Peripatetic means "of or pertaining to Aristotle or the Aristotelian school of philosophy." A "Peripatetic" is "a follower of Aristotle." Aristotle, of course, was the wandering philosopher of ancient Greece. He gave us Socrates, a fellow who committed a self-righteous suicide for the sake of reason, not faith.

All of the above definitions will animate this blog. Each of the above definitions provides clues as to my purpose. The blog will touch on many subjects. It will go places to learn, and then to teach. It will be informed by philosophy. It will be an attempt to find guidance in reason and logic. Brought up a Roman Catholic by parents who were "born again" and moved toward nondenominational fundamentalism (despite being intelligent people otherwise), I am not big on faith. Faith opposes questions. It denies answers. It is antithetical to reason. During my adolescence I stumbled upon the choice between Faith and Reason, and I chose Reason. Why? Because Reason welcomed difficult questions and explored for answers.

My wandering mind has been a weakness of mine when it comes to making a career. It makes decisions as to which path to follow more difficult. I am constantly looking to switch courses. As a result, I drifted into the career I inhabit, and it does not suit me as I would like. This blog is an attempt to turn that weakness into a strength, to capitalize on it by Capitalizing it.

ONCE UPON A TIME, I went by Joyce Junior. It was one of my first online personae. That was before the World Wide Web (WWW) was developed. It was in the world of BBSes. Joyce Junior used a 2400 baud dialup modem. The USRobotics 19200 modem was a revolution. Now I am going by Jefferson Junior.

Joyce Junior was the nom de plume of Sam Adams for his rabble-rousing. Joyce was some English revolutionary "long ago" when Adams was inciting crowds in Boston. Joyce Junior was a firebrand, a polemicist, a trouble-maker for the cause of American liberty.

Jefferson was a mature revolutionary. He looked to philosophy and law. He was a revolutionary who also governed. He created the Library of Congress. He founded the University of Virginia, my alma mater and still the home of my mind. He was an architect and a designer, an inventor and a gardener. He was also a financial failure. Most of his projects went unfinished, he was always in debt, and he died poor. His library became the seed for the Library of Congress when it was sold off to pay his debts.

The change from Joyce Junior to Jefferson Junior reflects my maturation process. I am no longer interested in rabble-rousing and intellectual trouble-making (non-violent methods were always central to my theory of revolution). Now I am interested in philosophy and architecture, governance and gardening. I am also, fittingly enough, a financial failure. Permanently in debt and likely to die poor. Most of my projects go unfinished. But I have a deep passion for the correct governance of my people and desire to be part of the Great Conversation.

I am a man in my early forties with two children from a first marriage, about to enter my second marriage. I left my wife two years ago for reasons that will remain private, and in less than a week I will marry my 20-year-old fiancee. My 10-year-old daughter will lead her down the aisle. In my past I took many drugs, but I still made it through undergrad and law school. I am hounded by debt collectors; some of "my buddies" call ten times in a day. I have no health or life insurance. I have stumbled and bumbled my way through life, but somehow I have progressed to a place where I am happy. I feel younger than I did at 22. I am taking on new challenges. I look ahead and see a future. I am crafting a new life, and this blog is part of that. It is the Rebirth of a Renaissance Man. General Sherman is my inspiration.

Welcome to my blog. It will grow and develop. I have a Road Map for Peace in my head. The blog will touch upon many subjects repeatedly, subjects like Israel, Iran and the Middle East, Russia, Europe, populist socialism and drug wars in Latin America, China and great power hegemonic struggles, the Drug War and marijuana liberation, the culture of narcissism, health care and insurance, environmental and energy policy, family law and the state of boys in this country, and probably a miscellany of others as well, including World Cup soccer (I am a despairing fan of the USMNT). Don't worry, I will keep it organized.

I hope your mind will find a rest stop here. I don't want to be your "home page." I'm not Google or Yahoo or MSN or any of the other major players in cyberspace who want to dominate your Desktop. I just want to be a place you stop in for a beer (a Sam Adams Boston Lager perhaps?) and good conversation, or perhaps for a little revolution-making.