Rubin's humiliating fate no surprise

By MARGARET WENTE

(This is an extended excerpt from Canada's Aug 27 Globe & Mail. I referred to the story briefly on PC Watch on August 31. The whole story is available to subscribers only)

"Hospitality will be your first lesson," my diversity trainer told me with a smile. I had offered her a coffee before we sat down for our session, and as it turned out, I was mighty glad I did. Many people do not, and that, she informed me, is a sign of cross-cultural insensitivity. The coffee offered my instructor an opening to explain the value that different cultures place on hospitality and the differences between individualist cultures (ours) and collective cultures (lots of other ones). This is the kind of thing they send you off to learn about when you screw up. And Jeffrey Rubin, apparently, screwed up.

Mr. Rubin is chief economist for the World Markets division of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Every month he issues a research report on world trends that is aimed at the bank's sophisticated investing clients. Monthly Indicators, as it's called, is distributed to a few thousand select readers, and is posted on the bank's website. Despite the deadly dull title of the publication, Mr. Rubin is widely respected for his sharp mind, and his writing is unusually colourful for an economist. Perhaps too colourful for the times we live in now.

Because of a passing comment most people wouldn't pause to notice, Mr. Rubin was found guilty of insensitivity by his own employer, which issued a public apology for his misbehaviour. To signal its sincere contrition, the bank also instructed him to attend a training session in cross-cultural diversity, devised especially for him. The bank's instant climb-down was a triumph for the offended pressure group, an increasingly powerful outfit called the Council on American Islamic Relations - Canada, or CAIR-CAN. And it was an embarrassing humiliation for one of its star employees, whom friends describe as a decent, thoughtful -- and, yes, sensitive -- man.

The offending passage appeared last April 5, in a report predicting that oil prices would keep rising: "The first two oil shocks were transitory, as political events encouraged oil producers to seize full sovereignty over their resources and temporarily restrict supply," Mr. Rubin wrote. "This time around there won't be any tap that some appeased mullah or sheik can suddenly turn back on."

A few days later, the bank received a letter from CAIR-CAN. The organization keeps a close watch on the media, as well as on government agencies, businesses, universities and other institutions, for signs of bias against Muslims. It says it received several calls complaining about the passage in Monthly Indicators. "We are gravely concerned that Mr. Rubin is promoting stereotyp-ing of Muslims and Arabs in a CIBC publication," executive director Riad Saloojee wrote in a letter to the bank. "We request that Mr. Rubin and CIBC World Markets issue a letter of apology and undergo sensitization training regarding Muslims and Arabs."

The bank responded to CAIR-CAN's demands with remarkable alacrity. "Let me state that we take the concerns expressed in your letter very seriously," wrote Mr. Rubin's boss, Brian Shaw, who is the CEO of World Markets. "While the comments were in no way intentional or meant to offend anyone in the Muslim or Arab community, we agree that, in hindsight, the comments were insensitive." He added, "We have taken immediate steps to address this issue. We have reviewed all aspects of the matter with Jeff Rubin and we will be providing him with training to ensure that this situation does not occur again in the future."

On April 20, CAIR-CAN proclaimed victory in a triumphal press release.

The bank says no one thought twice about the offending words at the time. But, according to a bank spokesman, it realized that "in hindsight this could be viewed by some as being insensitive." The decision to apologize was made at the senior executive level. The bank would not say whether anyone raised the possibility that CAIR-CAN's concerns were overblown, or that many Muslims would find nothing wrong with Mr. Rubin's comments, or that it had an obligation to defend a valuable, talented and widely respected senior employee from frivolous attacks on his reputation. It would not say whether anyone asked any hard questions about CAIR-CAN, or took the trouble to learn a bit about its aggressive tactics. It would not say whether anyone raised the possibility that the language used by Mr. Rubin was, in fact, defensible.

The incident drew no further notice, until a Globe and Mail reporter ran across the press release on CAIR-CAN's website, under the headline, "CIBC apologizes to Canadian Muslims for 'insensitive' comments." The story made front-page news and was picked up by TV. Many people thought the bank had wildly overreacted. But other people heard only the TV news, which referred to Mr. Rubin's "gaffe."

It is Never Going to Be Enough!

By Arlene Peck

Living here in Los Angeles, in the very heart of the entertainment industry and having a celebrity television talk show myself, I have become used to the excessive behaviour that passes for normal around here! I know women who are plastic surgery freaks. They seem to always be going back to a better surgeon for yet another nip and tuck. The same priorities consume the crowd at the gym. They pump iron for hours, live on lettuce and are always striving to lose that delusional last five pounds!

That, folks, is exactly how I perceive the attitude of the Arab world to be, when it comes to any and all concessions that have or are ever likely to come out of Israel. Nothing is going to make a difference! It will never be enough! The Arab world has a plan for Israel. And the rest of the world, and all the “nips and tucks” the so-called Palestinian State receives by way of concessions, cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Their local plan, of course, is Israel's destruction, their global plan is world domination and submission of any and all religions to theirs!

Already, the rabidly anti-Semitic Los Angeles Times is publishing its ‘editorials': “Israel Leaves but Gaza is Hardly Free!" and articles decrying “...how isolated they are in Gaza now, from the outside world, (not to mention the West Bank and Jerusalem) and as subject to Israeli domination as before”. Further on in their propaganda, the dreaded concept ‘collective punishment’ is invoked “Nearly half of all Palestinians live below the poverty line of $2 a day. The World Bank’s assessment of the cause of this dramatic deterioration in Palestinian living standards is unequivocal.”

In other words, following their impeccable logic, the fault lies, as always, with the usual suspect, Israel! Because the limited work force entering Israeli is no longer as infiltrated with terrorists, sabotaging everything in sight, blowing themselves and countless civilians to pieces with monotonous frequency, Israel has caused suffering to the Palestinians.

Wow, could it be that the Jewish state really doesn’t have responsibility for seeing that Arab living standards are raised and maintained? Maybe someone should have a serious talk with Suha Arafat, Abbas, and their cronies and somehow convince them to open up the secret Swiss vaults, take out some of that 8-11 BILLION dollars still hidden from the US, EU and United Nations 'donors' and do something constructive towards aiding the plight of their own people. Palestine does not need any more rocket manufacturing plants, it needs sewerage and water treatment plants. They don't need any more schools, they just need to clean up the ones they have. They do need hospitals if only to improve the lives of their people, rather than have the Israelis fix up the broken bodies. Actually, these donations in Suha's purse have come from nearly everyone but the Palestinian's own wealthy Arab brothers, who, for so long, have decried the deplorable refugee camps they placed them in, yet continue to do nothing about them except urge more killing.

The L.A Times article further states, “The Separation Barrier prevents the free flow of Palestinian economic transactions; they raise the cost of doing business and disrupt the predictability needed for orderly economic life.” Well, gol-ley, do you think that somewhere we just might want to mention that this ‘separation fence’ also keeps the residents of Israel (both Jewish and Arab) a lot safer than before? How about grasping that it’s not Israel's responsibility to do what their Arab brothers have never done, that is, share some of the oil money they have by virtue of location and not invention. Correct me if I am wrong but it certainly seems that everyone is concerned about the Palestinians except their "concerned" Arab brothers, their own kind and kin, who have never come to their aid in showing some of that compassion they force on the rest of the world. Recall last year's tsunami? Who gave the least? The Muslims nations, particularly the Arab ones! Who needed money the most? Other Muslims! Who gave first? Israel. But, I digress.

Interesting, though, how they portray the situation. “The Precipitator of this economic crisis has been ‘closure’, a multifaceted system of restrictions on the movement of the Palestinian people and goods, which the government of Israel argues is essential to protect Israelis in Israel and the settlements.” Well, yeah, it does tend to keep down the savage barbaric actions of their Arab neighbors who seem to now be giving that same 7th century lifestyle to the rest of the world, which, incidentally, doesn't seem to like it on their home grounds (but found it OK on Jewish soil).

Could I just ask, where does it say that Israel is legally obligated to conduct business with a known enemy? Surely a free nation like Israel can decide who it will support or not? Hell, Jews aren't even allowed in their countries, yet the United Nations meets regularly to censure Israel for "collective punishment" for not hiring these terrorists and bringing them into Israel. What in the world is this about creating employment opportunities for people who want you dead and are at war with you?

Media like the L.A. Times are always looking for the “bottom line”, so here’s my take on it. Bottom line, all the press statements issuing from Arab leaders and much of the world press is constantly declaring, “This is not Enough”, it is only the beginning. Dr. Condoleezza Rice is in full press conference mode, saying how nice the Israeli gesture was, but it is just not enough. Well, yeah, it’s not enough. It’s never going to be enough, until they have the entire country of Israel under Muslim control and things are back the way they were when Jerusalem was under Arab control way back when. They liked it when they were able to use the marble headstones from Jewish cemeteries to pave their roads and line the toilets of their new hotels, as the Intercontinental Hotel once did.

This is acceptable behaviour, apparently, and the people who consider it acceptable have the weight of the world’s press behind them, screaming, “Now the West Bank, now your ancient Capital, the Holy of Holies”. Of course, that would satisfy them….wouldn’t it?

Can I ask, where is the Palestinian strategic plan for evacuating the Israelis they displace? There is one, isn’t there? Of course there is. The PA has shown how sacred it considers even one Jewish life. Mass burial, that’s the PA Plan for Israel, extermination and deja vu all over again.

I remember visiting Israel before 1967 and not being able to visit the Jewish holy places. Oh, “The Wall” was still there but under Jordanian control and, what a surprise, Jews were not allowed in! Now, their cry is Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital! And, the terrorist-biased media is running headlines demanding that Gaza must not be isolated and that Israel must allow them free rein and unfettered access into Israel to do what they have to do. That being, of course, more terrorism! I fully expect the cry to be “Good-bye Gaza. Hello Hamas!”

One of the more recent L.A. Times headlines informed its shocked readers, "Israel says it will annex Palestinian Land!” Could they have been talking about the homes belonging to the residents of the settlement of Maale Adumin, which is only a rifle shot away Jerusalem?

Has anyone ever looked at a map of the surrounding 22 Arab nations, which, between them, possess vast tracts, literally millions of acres, of uninhabited land and enormous wealth-generating deposits of oil? Is anyone else unable to refrain from bursting out in hysterical laughter when they see that Palestinian leaders are now calling emergency meetings over the "seizure of 22 acres in the village of A-tur, where Israeli homes are to be built.” In their own land and country!

I wonder, has the word "thank you" ever been in the vocabulary of this "peaceful culture"? Because I’ve never heard it uttered once where Israel is concerned. Now, as the Arabs are getting ready to move into the fertile oasis that the Jews' passion carved out of barren land over the past generations, Saeb Erelat, their 'wonderful' Palestinian chief negotiator, is already criticizing how "...we are looking for hope and peace, but the step (the annex of 22 acres), this disastrous decision, undermines any attempt to resume meaningful negotiations." Sound to me like an excuse, that being to justify the violent terrorism that is surely on the way.

Hey, maybe I’m wrong. At last, the ball is in their court. It’s their choice. They can get cooking and actually set up a democratic government; build roads, infrastructure, and factories; tear down those wretched refugee camps they've been milking for PR purposes all this time; and even print their own stamps. They certainly have the money for it. However, want to make a bet on how long it's going to be before we see them rampaging through the streets, cheering their black-hooded Hamas terrorists in lock-step?

As I said, I could be wrong. In this instance, I really, really, really want to be wrong, I really want my Israeli brothers and sisters to finally be at peace with their new neighbor. Having said that and hoping it will happen, I doubt it will come to pass. Why? Because, in the case of these vermin, killing and death are more important than living and life. I’m all for giving them the death they revere.

IT'S CALLED "COURAGE"

When American journalist Steven Vincent was murdered in Iraq, American academic Juan Cole wrote as follows:

"Was American journalist Steve Vincent killed in Basra as part of an honor killing? He was romantically involved with his Iraqi interpreter, who was shot 4 times. If her clan thought she was shaming them by appearing to be having an affair outside wedlock with an American male, they might well have decided to end it. In Mediterranean culture, a man's honor tends to be wrought up with his ability to protect his womenfolk from seduction by strange men. Where a woman of the family sleeps around, it brings enormous shame on her father, brothers and cousins, and it is not unknown for them to kill her. These sentiments and this sort of behavior tend to be rural and to hold among the uneducated, but are not unknown in urban areas. Vincent did not know anything serious about Middle Eastern culture and was aggressive about criticizing what he could see of it on the surface, and if he was behaving in the way the Telegraph article describes, he was acting in an extremely dangerous manner."

Steven Vincent's Sicilian-American wife replied:

Mr. Cole -

(I refuse to call you professor, because that would ennoble you. And please change the name of your blog to "Uninformed Comment", because that is precisely what the above paragraph is.)

I would like to refute this shameful post against a dead man who can no longer defend himself against your scurrilous accusations, a dead man who also happened to be my husband. Steven Vincent and I were together for 23 years, married for 13 of them, and I think I know him a wee bit better than you do.

For starters, Steven and Nour were not "romantically involved". If you knew anything at all about the Middle East, as you seem to think you do, then you would know that there is no physical way that he and she could have ever been alone together. Nour (who always made sure to get home before dark, so they were never together at night) could not go to his room; he could not go to her house; there was no hot-sheet motel for them to go to for a couple of hours. They met in public, they went about together in public, they parted in public. They were never alone. She would not let him touch her arm, pay her a compliment, buy her a banana on the street, hyper-aware of how such gestures might be interpreted by the mysogynistic cretins who surrounded her daily. So for you brazenly claim that she was "sleeping around," when there is no earthly way you could possibly know that, suggests to me that you are quite the misogynist as well. Cheap shot, Mr. Cole, against a remarkable woman who does not in any wise deserve it.

This is not to say that Steven did not love Nour - he did. And he was quite upfront about it to me. But it was not sexual love - he loved her for her courage, her bravery, her indomitable spirit in the face of the Muslim thugs who have oppressed their women for years. To him she represented a free and democratic Iraq, and all of the hopes he had for that still-elusive creature. And he loved her for the help she gave him - endangering herself by affiliating with him because she wanted the truth to come out about what was happening in her native city of Basra and the surrounding area. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that it is possible to love someone in a strictly platonic way, but I assure you, it can happen - even between men and women.

And yes, he was planning to to convert to Islam and marry Nour, but only to take her out of the country to England, where she had a standing job offer, set her up with the friends she had over there, divorce her, and come back to New York. He had gotten her family's permission to do so (thereby debunking the "honor killing" theory), but more importantly, he had gotten mine. He called one night to say that it had been intimated to him that Nour's life was essentially going to be worthless after he left; since he was an honorable man (a breed you might want to familiarize yourself with), he then asked what I thought he might do to help her. I told him to get her out of the country and bring her here to New York. However, the only way she could have left Iraq was with a family member or husband. Since her family had no intention of going anywhere, Steven was her only recourse, and it would have been perfectly legal for him to convert, marry her, then take her out of Iraq to give her a chance at a real life. (Now that that avenue is closed to her, I have made inquiries to the State Department about the possibility of my sponsoring her in America. Do you perhaps labor under the misapprehension I am such a spineless cuckold that I would do put myself out thusly for the woman you believe my husband was traducing me with? If so, I'm guessing you don't know much about the Sicilian female temperament.)

As to your claim that "In Mediterranean culture, a man's honor tends to be wrought up with his ability to protect his womenfolk from seduction by strange men", it may perhaps have escaped your notice that Iraq does not abut, in any way, shape or form, the Mediterranean Sea. Italy is a Mediterranean culture, as are Spain, Greece, Southern France. In none of them is "honor killing" an accepted form of "protecting womanhood". As to the southerly lands like Morocco and Algeria, they are not, in the general scheme of things, considered Mediterranean cultures - they are considered Arabic, a whole different beast. For you to seemingly be unaware of this, and then to say that my husband "did not know anything serious about Middle Eastern culture" again begs the question, just where do you get off? If you cannot differentiate between Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures, how is it you feel qualified to pontificate so pompously?

How often have you been to the Middle East, Mr. Cole? In 2000 Steven and I spent almost a month in Iran on vacation. In 2003 we spent 10 days over Christmas in Jordan. In the last 2 years he had made not one, not two, but three trips to Iraq, and at the time of his death had about 7 months of daily living there under his belt. Can you offer comparables?

How much Arabic do you speak, Mr. Cole? Steven had been learning Arabic for the last two years, and was able to converse simply but effectively with the people he came into contact with. He had many expatriate friends in the Muslim world from whom he was always learning. As I sit here writing this at what was his desk, I can look at the literally dozens of books he devoured about Islam and the Middle East - each one thick with Post-It notes and personal observations he made in the pages - as he sought to comprehend and absorb the complexities of the culture and the religion he felt, and cared, so deeply about. If you would like a list of them, please email me back and I will be happy to send you a comprehensive accounting.

Yes, Steven was aggressive in criticizing what he saw around him and did not like. It's called courage, and it happens to be a tradition in the history of this country. Without this tradition there would have been no Revolutionary War, no Civil War, no civil rights movement, no a lot of things that America can be proud of. He had made many friends in Iraq, and was afraid for them if the religious fundamentalists were given the country to run under shari'a. You may dismiss that as naive, simplistic, foolish, but I say to you, as you sit safely in your ivory tower in Michigan with nothing threatening your comfy, tenured existance, that you should be ashamed at the depths to which you have sunk by libeling Steven and Nour. They were on the front lines, risking all, in an attempt to call attention to the growing storm threatening to overwhelm a fragile and fledgling experiment in democracy, trying to get the world to see that all was not right in Iraq. And for their efforts, Steven is dead and Nour is recuperating with three bullet wound in her back. Yes, that's right - the "honorable" men who abducted them, after binding them, holding them captive and beating them, set them free, told them to run - and then shot them both in the back. I've seen the autopsy report.

You did not know him - you did not have that honor, and you will never have the chance, thanks to the muerderous goons for whom you have appointed yourself an apologist. He was a brilliant, erudite, witty, charming, kind, generous, silly, funny, decent, honorable and complex man, who loved a good cigar, Bombay Sapphire gin martinis, Marvel Silver Age comic books, Frank Sinatra, opera and grossing me out with bathroom humor. And if he was acting in a dangerous manner, he had a very good excuse - he was utterly exhausted. He had been in Basra for 3 months under incredibly stressful conditions, working every day, and towards the end enduring heat of 135 degrees, often without air conditioning, which could not have helped his mental condition or judgment. He was yearning to come home, as his emails to me made crystal clear. But on August 2nd, two days before my birthday, he made the fatal mistake of walking one block - one - from his hotel to the money exchange, rather than take a cab, and now will never come back to me. I got a bouquet of flowers from him on August 4th, which he had ordered before he died, and the card said he was sorry to miss my birthday, but the flowers would stand in his stead until he made it home. They are drying now in the kitchen, the final gift from my soulmate.

I did not see your blog until tonight. I was busy doing other things - fighting the government to get Steven's body returned from Basra days after I was told he would be sent home, planning the funeral, buying a cemetary plot, choosing the clothes to bury him in, writing the prayer card, fending off the media, dealing with his aging parents, waking and then burying him - but I could not let the calumnies you posted so freely against two total strangers go unchallenged.

You strike me as a typical professor - self-opinionated, arrogant, so sure of the rightness of your position that you won't even begin to consider someone else's. I would suggest that you ought to be ashamed of yourself for your breathtaking presumption in eviscerating Steven in death and disparaging Nour in life, but, like any typical professor, I have no doubt that you are utterly shameless.

Sincerely,

Lisa Ramaci-Vincent

The above letter is to be found in the "Comments" here, together with more background on the matter.

The sentimental value of wealth

The article by Bina Brown below appeared in the Saturday, August 20th issue of "The Australian" newspaper but does not appear to be available online other than here

We have never been wealthier, but does that mean we are happier? Happiness and what drives it might have been exercising the minds of philosophers for years, but economists? It seems there is a growing debate among economists on the possible link between and the implications of, economic growth and consumerism.

For several years now our Government and others have focused on improving gross domestic product (GDP) or economic growth, in part because of the long-standing belief a strong economy will help generate jobs. If people have a job from which to generate income they can then go out and spend it on things that make them feel good, be it a house or a new car.

But it has been well researched that despite obvious material gains in developed countries over the past 50 years, happiness or people's feeling of general well-being have not improved commensurately. Richard Layard, the founder-director of the British-based LSE Centre for Economic Performance, has for years been studying happiness and the insights of economics, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy. His research on what makes people happy includes income, work, private life, community, health, freedom and a philosophy of life. He says GDP is a "hopeless" measure of welfare. This is because since World War II GDP has shot up by leaps and bounds, while the happiness of the population has stagnated - where stagnant happiness is confirmed by rising trends in crime rates. the diagnosis of depression. suicide rates and drug abuse.

Shane Oliver, head of investment strategy and chief economist at AMP Capital Investors, believes it is more than a coincidence that the debate on happiness has grown with the increasing interest in spiritual pursuits and awareness of environmental impacts at an individual level. The big question is that if consumption is not associated with increased happiness, then is the focus on economic growth and consumerism misplaced? Oliver says a shift away from consumerism and economic growth would have major implications for investors. Slower growth would make it harder for growth assets to provide good returns.

Then there are wider issues. "While economic growth may not contribute to increased happiness in rich countries, and the focus on consumption could possibly be distracting people from attaining lasting happiness, it is highly debatable whether government policy should be used to make people work less, stop competing and seek enlightenment." Oliver says.

"While seeking enlightenment or inner contentment may have merit. this is up to individuals, not government." He also believes that rising material wealth may not permanently boost happiness beyond a certain level because we adapt to it. "When we get a new car we might love it initially, but then we get used to it. As living standards rise, so do expectations."

Oliver says there is evidence to suggest that we are born with a genetically determined level of happiness to which we invariably gravitate after both good or bad events.

The problem is this process of adaptation may apply to many other things such as leisure, marriage (the honeymoon effect) or even religious activity. "Hence, policies designed to reduce work and the focus on income in order to boost happiness could flounder if they just redirect people to other things that have the same problems as money, that is, people just become accustomed to them," he says.

Then there is people's desire for advancement and the inquisitive nature of humanity. "For many. motivation stems from the sense of achievement derived from work effort as opposed to the material goods it provides. "Adopting policies to reduce effort - by suppressing the desire to produce something better, work hard or simply advance -- may actually reduce happiness by denying a sense of achievement." Oliver advocates that the growing debate on happiness, along with the increasing interest in spiritual pursuits and awareness of environmental impacts, may be a pointer to where rich countries might go next.

One theory is that if investors become more mindful about what they buy, then they will be helping companies who are more environmentally or socially aware. Only time will tell if this logic will drive investors to increasingly favour socially responsible investing.

Closer to home, there is evidence that consumption is starting to slow after a period of record spending and borrowing, although it could take a while to affect economic growth.

Craig James, chief equities economist with CommSec, says if happiness is measured by consumer sentiment then Australian's look to be upbeat. "Consumers are happy about the state of their finances and the overall economy," James says. "Unemployment is at the lowest levels in a generation, inflation is well contained and interest rates are stable. Income and wealth levels are healthy and people are starting to take stock after a bit of a binge. "Whether that puts a smile on their dial is another question."

CHINA, CHIPS AND GLOBALIZATION

In 2004, more than 40 tech companies staged public offerings of their stock on Wall Street. Ten were domestic Chinese firms. A microchip company led the way; in one of the largest initial public offerings of the year, China's Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. raised $1.8 billion. If chip industry experts across the globe weren't already obsessed with China, SMIC's IPO riveted the attention of the remaining holdouts. Five years ago, China hardly had a chip industry to speak of. Each year since then, led by SMIC, production has exploded. Today, China makes about 8 percent of the world's chips; by 2010, that number may be up to 20 percent.

From nowhere to world domination has been the story of China and globalization for the past decade. Textiles, toys, televisions and cellphones -- one global industry after another has been battered by Chinese competition. Why should chips be any different? Because the chip industry can be an example where globalization works right.

Predictably, China's increasing economic power has sparked a sustained anti-China backlash in the United States. In the last week of July, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would make it easier for U.S. companies to seek restrictions on Chinese imports into the United States. And over the past month, U.S. politicians mounted an extraordinarily successful campaign to oppose a Chinese energy company's bid to buy the U.S. oil and gas company Unocal. There's no mystery why: If you're looking for examples of the downside of globalization, China offers them in abundance. China's low-cost workers are depressing wages for manufacturing employees all over the world. Its incredible appetite for raw materials and energy has warped commodity prices and raised fears of a global struggle for resources that could lead to the 21st century's defining showdown.

China's emerging push into chips would seem to jack up the stakes and has fed the growing backlash. Chips are a crucial link in the global tech economy, essential to nearly every modern electronic device but also critical to national defense and the entire global digital infrastructure. The chip industry's health is symbolically resonant, a marker for high-tech prowess. In the 1980s, Japanese inroads into chip manufacturing provoked an orgy of alarm and self-criticism in America. Today, the Chinese high-tech push is being compared to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, which set off the fabled space race in the 1960s.

Defense hawks are now warning that the United States may soon be dependent on a potential enemy for the production of next-generation chips and are calling for increased controls on the export of advanced technology to China. (Last week, the Bush administration appeared to heed those calls as it announced plans to significantly tighten such restrictions.) U.S. chip company executives, even as they pack their bags to move yet another part of their operations offshore, decry Chinese government help for domestic chipmakers (while holding out their hands begging for their own government's assistance). Labor advocates fear that more good, high-paying jobs for American workers are set to vanish.

But there's a little fact that gets lost in the larger to-and-fro over China: Right now, in the face of a vast trade deficit with China, chips are one of the few sectors in which the United States enjoys a surplus. Thanks to China's emergence as the world's manufacturing headquarters for high-tech devices -- computers, DVD players, cellphones, iPods and just about everything else -- U.S. companies currently sell far more chips to China than they buy from that nation. The United States is at the top of the food chain in both chip design and chip-making equipment, and China is potentially its largest growth market.

It is entirely true that Chinese ambitions have no limit, and given China's astonishing surge forward as a high-tech powerhouse, perhaps one day China will rival the United States. But increasing controls on technology exports or pumping up protectionist tariffs is likely to do little more than slightly slow China down, say economists and China experts, while simultaneously hurting American consumers and companies doing business with China. In the meantime, the anti-China crusaders may be missing the real threat, the enemy who lives at home rather than across the Pacific.

In a perfectly working global economy, each country prospers by doing what it can uniquely do best, by, in technical terms, relying on its "comparative advantage." For decades, the United States' comparative advantage has been the excellence of its own science and technology. The chip industry offers a classic example -- U.S. chip makers maintain their edge by pouring high percentages of revenue into research and development.

But federal spending on basic science and R&D in the United States, as measured by its percentage of the gross domestic product, has been flat or in decline for 30 years. So too has federal support for science and engineering education. As a result, the basic infrastructure that supported fantastic achievements in science and technology for generations is fraying.

At the same time, U.S. corporations and investors are pouring billions of dollars into China. And if last year's IPO statistics are a sign of what's to come, the flow will only increase. By itself, that might not be a bad thing. But in conjunction with the U.S. failure to nurture its own comparative advantage, the China gold rush presents quite the paradox of globalization. The United States has done more to push global markets and free trade than has any other nation. But now it seems to be forgetting how to play its own game. Instead of looking to punish China for doing well, policymakers should be looking at the U.S. chip industry, figuring out why it is thriving and applying those lessons to the rest of the economy.


(The above article originally appeared in Salon -- showing that not all Leftists are economically illiterate)

EXCLUSIVE: WAS IT SUICIDE?

Why did they buy return train tickets to Luton? Why did they buy pay & display tickets for cars? Why were there no usual shouts of 'Allah Akhbar'? Why were bombs in bags and not on their bodies?

By Jeff Edwards

The London bombers may have been duped into killing themselves so their secrets stayed hidden. Police and MI5 are probing if the four men were told by their al-Qaeda controller they had time to escape after setting off timers. Instead, the devices exploded immediately. A security source said: "If the bombers lived and were caught they'd probably have cracked. Would their masters have allowed that to happen? We think not."

The evidence is compelling: The terrorists bought return rail tickets, and pay and display car park tickets, before boarding _ a train at Luton for London. None of the men was heard to cry "Allah Akhbar!" - "God is great" - usually screamed by suicide bombers as they detonate their bomb.

Their devices were in large rucksacks which could be easily dumped instead of being strapped to their bodies. They carried wallets containing their driving licences, bank cards and other personal items. Suicide bombers normally strip themselves of identifying material.

Similar terror attacks against public transport in Madrid last year were carried out by recruits who had time to escape and planned to strike again.

Bomber Hasib Hussain detonated his device at the rear of the top deck of a No 30 bus, not in the middle of the bottom deck where most damage would be caused.

Additionally, two of the bombers had strong personal reasons for staying alive. Jermaine Lindsay's partner Samantha Lewthwaite, 22, mother of his one-year-old son, is expecting her second baby within days. Mohammed Sidique Khan's wife Hasina, mum of a 14-month-old daughter, is also pregnant. Our source disclosed: "The theory that they were not a suicide squad is gathering pace. They were the weakest link. "We think it's possible they were told that when they pressed buttons to set off timers they'd have a short time to abandon the bombs and get away before the blast. Instead, the bombs exploded immediately." Another intelligence source added: "Whoever is behind this didn't want to waste their best operatives on a suicide mission. Instead they used easily recruited low-grade men who may have believed they'd walk away."

At least 54 people were killed in the 7/7 blasts. Khan, 30, of Dewsbury, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, of Leeds, and Jamaican-born Lindsay, 19, of Aylesbury, Bucks, detonated devices on the Tube at Edgware Road, Aldgate and King's Cross. Hussain, 18, of Leeds, blasted the bus at Tavistock Square. The Tube explosions went off almost simultaneously. But the bus went up an hour later.

Yesterday, Hussain's family told of their horror at the teenager's involvement in the massacre. They said in a statement: "We are devastated over the events of the past few days. Hasib was a loving and normal young man who gave us no concern and we are having difficulty taking this in. "Our thoughts are with all the bereaved families. We have to live with the loss of our son in these difficult circumstances. "We had no knowledge of his activities and, had we done, we would have done everything in our power to stop him. We urge anyone with information to cooperate fully with the authorities."

Police are urgently investigating the missing 81 minutes between Hussain arriving from Luton in London and the time his bomb went off. His device may have malfunctioned. He may have lost his nerve. Or he may have panicked when he discovered the Northern Line, on which he is thought to have been due to travel, was suspended. Officers want to discover if Hussain met anyone else who either strengthened his faltering resolve or reset his flawed bomb.


(The above article originally appeared here on July, 16, 2005. I have reproduced it as newspaper articles ofen stay online for only a short time)

LEFTISTS ROMANTICIZE COLLECTIVES BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD AT THEM

An interesting email from a reader that points to Leftist ego as a barrier to collective effort

I've lately been having this thought sort of echoing through me, and I thought it might be of interest to you...

There is the belief that libertarian/conservative ideology is based on "individualism" and that leftist thought is based on "collectivism." You've had some recent posts of the work of some social scientist who seems to think that leftists are going from some kind of instinct towards collectivism. The libertarian response is that this may be true, but it's some kind of stone age quirk that we just need to outgrow.

I'm a bit skeptical of that libertarian formulation because I'm generally skeptical of any ideology that seems to suggest that it represents a somehow more "evolved" outlook. I'd guess that we do have collectivist impulses, not merely from the stone age but from our very nature as primates. People do have a desire to live in communities, to be attached to others, and so forth.. none of this is particularly bad.

What strikes me most about leftists is NOT that they are collectivists. In fact, I'd say that so much of leftist thinking and attitudes are, in fact, the anti-thesis to collective action. To merge into a collective, be it a church, a military, a club, or even a community requires to some degree a minimizing of one's ego. My observations seem to indicate that people who are unable to get along well with others tend to develop an inflammed, problematic ego as a result. (Which is the cause and which is the result clearly become complicated as egoism seems to initiate cycles of social failure leading to more stupidity.) So much leftist thinking, from the worst elements of romanticism to the love of criminals and so much else seems to be a celebration of the very people who are unlikely to have the personal traits that allow them to merge into productive (and personally rewarding) collectives.

Increasingly, I'm not viewing leftism as collectivism so much as the antithesis to it. And conservatism is not obsessive individualism but the very values that make voluntary collectivism possible and desirable. Leftists generally draw most of their fire towards existing collectives which they seek to "smash", "end", and "destroy." You could say that Leftists do want collectivism, AS LONG AS THEY ARE IN CHARGE. And I'd agree with that. But it's that very kind of attitude that makes collectivism difficult. These people aren't for anything. They're just against things.

On Conspiracy Theories, "Neoconservatives" and the War for Iraq

A libertarian defence of the Iraq intervention by Sam Wells (ewillers@swbell.net)

The exaggerated role of some "neoconservatives" in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been a central theme of certain populist and hard left conspiracy theories about the Bush Administration. The "neoconservatives" have been described over and over as "carrying the water for Israel's Likud Party" in conspiring to drag the U.S. into military involvement in the Middle East in general and in Iraq in particular. Some populist-left-wing conspiracy theories would even have us believe that the entire impetus for the Bush Administration's decision to send troops to Iraq to topple the corrupt Saddam Hussein regime was totally engineered by "neocon" plotters. Yet, the more I look at it, the more I am convinced that it is much more complex than that simplistic scenario. While it is true that some neoconservatives have been writing about just this sort of agenda for more than a decade, the assumption that U.S. military intervention in the Middle East would necessarily benefit Israel is questionable -- especially if the whole efforft backfires by Iraq becoming a shi-ite ally or client state of Iran and Red China.

When I read the articles and books of the "neoconservatives" (Podhoretz, Kristol, Perle, et al), I discern an almost naive crusading optimism about both the possibilites for and salutary results of something they call "democracy" all over the world in general and in the Middle East in particular, despite the cultural and religious differences involved. This naive idealism about the spread of democracy in the Middle East -- and its consequences necessarily being supposedly in America's long-term national self interest -- is something apparently shared by President Bush after having read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. (It was apparently this book rather than anything written by our domestic neoconservatives that moved Bush to such an optimistic scenario.)

Now, of course, as libertarians, we champion freedom and capitalism rather than democracy if by "democracy" is meant majority rule across the board; however, as is often the case in political discussions, when Sharansky and others use the term "democracy" they seem to mean more than majoritarian tyranny. He apparently means some combination of freedom and some kind of "representative" government. Certainly the relative elements of freedom and capitalism imposed on or developed by Japan after its defeat in World War II have benefited greatly both the Japanese people and the rest of the world -- and made Americans safer from attack than before. But can such traditions as private property rights, the rule of law, constitutonalism, due process, etc. be successfully grafted onto a culture very different from that in which those values and institutions developed in 18th Century England, Holland, and the United States? Can Douglas MacArthur's feat be duplicated in Iraq? That remains to be seen, of course. Any rational American can at least hope that it can succeed to some extent or another.

So, is it conspiracy or unintended consequences? Or a combination of both? But wait -- it's even more complex than even that. The choice to invade and liberate Iraq is part of a wider geopolitical strategy to put pressure on other regimes which have been involved, directly or indirectly, in supporting or sanctioning terrorist activity -- such as the Saudi soft policy concerning the extremist terrorist Wahhabist cult. While it is not true that Saddam had anything directly to do with the attacks of 9/11/01 -- a connection which the Bush Administration never claimed -- there was definitely evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, as documented by Stephen F. Hayes (The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America) and others. But even without such connection, there were still more hidden geopolitical strategic reasons for American liberation of Iraq as part of this wider game plan of pressuring our "friends" in Saudi Arabia to do more in helping in the war against terrorism..

Given the immense complexities in the Middle East, it is clear to me that neither the neocons nor anyone else could know with any degree of certainty what would be the result of U.S. military intervention in Iraq. No one can know for sure whether Operation Iraqi Freedom, costing over $100 billion, will result in a more peaceful situation for either the Middle East in general or Israel in particular -- or even ultimately be in the interests of Americans. It was a gamble. We probably won't know whether the gamble paid off or not, in terms of a more peaceful and less terrorized world, for several more years, perhaps decades down the line. There is complex geopolitical strategy at work behind this operation as well as the more simplistic "neoconservative" zeal for spreading democracy into places heretofore thought by many "White folk" to be too primitive or culturally immature to support such institutions and values. But, just as Japan has turned out to be a resounding success story, so may be the case in the Middle East.

This complexity and uncertainty causes me to cast serious doubt on the left-wing / populist conspiracy theory that suggests that neoconservative crypto-zionists or Likud partisans manipulated U.S. foreign policy to get us into Iraq to somehow help out Israel strategically. If that was the original intention of some, it certainly has not panned out so far to be much of a boon to Israel, as far as I can see. It is far too easy for the anti-American Left and the pro-American populists to blame the Jews for everything that goes wrong in the world. That kind of thinking lacks credibility. Plus, it should be kept in mind that a true conspiracy exists as a secret operation, but those who have advocated liberation in the Middle East for over a decade have not made their views any kind of secret but have published them for any and all to see. Some "conspiracy"!

But as far as whether Bush or anyone else had a legitimate and moral justification for using force to drag Saddam Hussein off the back of the Iraqi people, there is no question in my mind that he did have such justification. Saddam had initiated coercion against others all over the place -- including his own fellow Iraqis as well as the people of Kuwait. According to libertarian principles going back to John Locke and America's founding fathers, he had thus lost -- totally forfeited -- his right to be left alone long ago. Contrary to what some libertarians seem to believe, it is not necessary for Saddam to have initiated forfce against the U.S. itself to make it a legitimate target for forceful overthrow -- any more than you have to be attacked if a mugger attacks your girlfriend (or a complete stranger for that matter), you still have a right to step in and use your own violent force to defend her from that attack even though the mugger never attacked you personally. If a big bully is beating up on a little kid on the school grounds, there is nothing in libertarian philosophy that says no one -- either a teacher or another big kid -- should intervene forcefully by dragging the bully off of his victim. Once coercion is initiated on anyone, the initiator forfeits (loses) his right to be left alone by the coercion of others. This is basic libertarian rights theory going all the way back to Locke's Second Treatise. (The only libertarian thinker I know of who disagreed with this was Robert LeFevre, who explicitly denied the idea that rights are ever forfeited no matter what acts a criminal may commit.)

Moreover, Saddam was in violation of the terms of the peace/cease fire following the first Gulf War. He was obviously playing a shell game with the international inspectors concerning development of weapons of mass destruction. There is no question that anyone had a moral and legal justification to taking out Saddam's regime. If the U.S. Government chose to do so for its own perceived strategic reasons, so be it!

And those who claim that Bush "lied" about the existence of WMDs in Iraq conveniently forget that the previous Clinton Administration, as well as the British and other European governments, shared in the same belief that Saddam possessed WMDs or was working on them. We had good reason to believe he at least had bio-chem weapons because the U.S. had sold some of those materials to Saddam back when he was at war with our enemy the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran -- with the stipulation that he only use them in that war and not against his own people or his peaceful neighbors, both terms of which he violated. So, whether the belief that Saddam had WMDs was based on faulty intelligence or global incompetence among intelligence agencies or even if anti-Bush Democrat partisans within the CIA were trying to set Bush up, the fact remains that there were reasons to believe Saddam had WMDs -- wherever they may be today. Whether they were buried in the sand or moved (with the help of the Russian military) elsewhere is not known by the West. But even if there were never any WMDs at all -- which is nonsense -- the Bush Administration still had moral and legal justification for its action there.

What about the "international community" you ask? Well, if by "international community" is meant the corrupt United Nations, then it should not be forgot that Saddam Hussein was in violation of several UN resolutions as well as the terms of the cease fire.

So, any way you want to look at it -- basic classical liberal or libertarian principles or international law -- the Bush Administration has as much right as anyone to overthrow Saddam and his regime. (For the Objectivists among us, it then only becomes a question of whether it is self-sacrificial or not, and that is something that is not always easy to judge. Whether it will be considered worth it or not in the long run -- or one of the biggest miscalculations in modern times -- is yet to be determined. But, again, given the complexities of the Middle East, no one now knows for sure what the outcome will be.)

The only other possible objection to Bush's sending of troops to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein is one of a constitutionalist nature -- that some have claimed that Bush should not have committed troops to what amounts to a war without an explicit and formal declaration of war -- using the word "war" -- by Congress. Yet, others disagree, citing the War Powers Act and amendments thereto as sufficient warrant from Congress. Certainly, at the time Bush committed troops, the vast majority of both houses of Congress supported him in that action.

It seems to me that since Libertarians are divided on the issue of the war in Iraq, that it is better that we should agree to disagree on that for now instead of pretending to the public that there is a party unity that does not exist on that issue.