Find Insurance Online

I contend that thinking outside the box can go a long way in getting past the stalemate on Israeli-Palestinian relations.  The key, I believe, lies in relativizing the conflict by shifting the paradigm by looking outward, at the region as a whole. If the autocracies in the Middle East are indeed on the way out--to be replaced by true republcs not in name only--then, at least according to federal theory, they could form a federal union somewhere on a spectrum with the AU, EU, and US. For example, one would not expect it to be as consolidated as the EU. Even so, Israel might just feel more comfortable with there bieng other democracies in the region, such that it might agree to join a union as long as there are strong minority rights (yet without too many areas subject to vetos, which tend to render a union impotent).  In short, changes going on in the Middle East, at least as of early 2011, could have impliations (and opportunities) for loosening up what had been a seemingly intractable problem there.

 As in the case of the EU and US wherein avoiding conflict between the respective states is part of the rationale, the creation of a Middle Eastern Union (MEU) could mitigate conflict between Israel and its neighboring states.  Such a union would of course have its own particularities. The EU and US have theirs too.  Whereas giving each state a veto, such as in a senate or council, would eviscerate the MEU, machinery giving Israel a limited veto would be legitimate and warranted as it could fear being ganged up on by the other states. Such a limited veto concerning Israel’s security could be removed by unanimous consent once greater integration and mutual security is achieved.  The assumption that there would be one major division in the union is rather simplistic, however, as there are other divisions in the region that don’t involve Israel.  For instance, the Turks and Arabs have had their mutual distrust.  So the factions in a MEU would perhaps allow for Madison’s argument that the multiplicity of factions in a large union protects, in effect, a minority from an oppressive majority.  As an aside, a MEU with Turkey as a state would also resolve the problems around whether Turkey should become a state in the EU.

I propose a federal union of semi-sovereign states with governmental machinery including a court, legislature and president(s).  The EU has more than one president (e.g., president of the EU Commission and president of the European Council).  The MEU could arrange that each state has representation in each branch.  Furthermore, a qualified majority voting scheme could add to the protection of minority positions without hamstringing the union. In terms of the balance of power in the federal system, the MEU would doubtless not be as consolidated as is the US.  Relative to the US (nearly consolidated), the EU (the states have more power than the union) and the AU (the states are effectively sovereign in the confederation), the MEU should be between the US and EU. The MEU government would have to have enough power to resist the forces pushing the union apart, yet not so much power that an unhappy state leaves for lack of any influence.  Given the conflict, both the state governments and that of the MEU would have to have power.  In effect, this would create a system of checks and balances that would allow the contentious issues to be worked out with due regards to the interests of the region and to the rights of each state and citizen. To help maintain a viable system of such checks, the federal system would be designed such that both the state governments and that of the union would have the wherewithal to resist encroachments from the other.  Ironically, both Syria and Israel, for example, might find themselves working together in the same coalition in the senate or council (representing the state governments) in resisting a power-grab from the MEU’s executive branch.  Conflicts which seem insurmountable now may be trumped by others wherein the coalitions for and against are constantly changing.

Jerusalem would be akin to the District of Columbia in the US.  That is, it would be a federal district, with the states of Israel and Palestine being like Virginia and Maryland. I submit that this plank would be the most valuable plank in this proposal, at least immediately.  Jersualem would be a united city—the jewel of the union. In the course of time, the enhanced economic and political integration would mollify the current disagreements and prejudices as contact between now-different peoples increases.

To be sure, thinking outside the box occasions inevitable inside-the-box nay-sayers.  “It would never work.”  “Pipe-dream.”  “They would never agree to do it.”  Und so weiter …   However, true statesmen and stateswomen can rise to the occasion and look beyond their immediate interests to the greater good. Even if in incremental steps such as has been the case for the EU, Middle Eastern integration can gain a momentum of its own.  However, given the historical tendency of acts of violence in the Middle East to arrest peace-talks, I think an approach closer to that of the US would be better.  That is to say, delegates from all of the Middle Eastern states (or those interested in such a proposal) could meet in a summit (or convention) to formulate the structure of a MEU.  Theoretically, it would then have to be ratified in the states, though it is possible for a government to cede some of its governmental sovereignty (the process of amendments in the US and EU have involved both).  Given the utility here of statesmanship, determination by referendum is not necessarily advisable in this case.  The democracy purists could ponder the alternative of continued violence. Where a state’s officials are elected, the absence of a referendum is more palitable.

In summary, the principle I am invoking in this proposal to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essentially that where countries are states in a union, it becomes less important which state one is in because all the states share some commonalities (such as some basic rights).  Whether one lived in New York or Connecticut became less important, for example, once both were part of the United Colonies (and then the United States). So too, the differences between Israel and Palestine can be contained in a common union and mitigated by establishing channels of conflict-resolution.  To be sure, no one state would always get its way.  Also, each state would be taking a risk.  However, such is the ground of statesmanship.  It is possible to rise above even one’s immediate interests and achieve an enlightened self-interest. Lest problems be seen at this level, one has only to entertain more of the status quo, ad infinitum.

Even though people the world over instinctively recoiled as reports came in of Gadhafi's violent retaliation against Libyan protests on February 21, 2011, the official reaction from the US Government was muted at best. The refusal to act on an intuitive response to immediately remove the Libyan dictator's ability to wantonly kill people resisting his right to rule may have come from concerns that the mounting tumult of a change of government in a major oil-producing region of North Africa could cause even just a disruption in the supply of crude. Indeed, even the mere possibility was prompting a spike in the price of oil (and gas)--what one might call a risk premium. Even the prospect of an ensuing nasty electoral backlash from consumers having to face a possible increase in their largely non-discretionary gas expense was not lost on their elected representative in chief at the White House.  Even five days later, after some serious press on the rising price of gasoline hitting American consumers, the most the president would do is proffer a verbal "demand" from afar that Gadhafi leave Libya.  "When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now," the White House said in a statement. The dictator must have been shaking in his boots.  In actuality, Gadhafi had lost his legitmacy to rule five days earlier, and by the day of the statement the American administration could have been actively involved with willing EU states in stopping him inside Libya. Given the progress of the protesters-turned rebels and the behavior of Brent crude that week, the interests of the American consumer (and Western oil companies, as well as the business sector over all) were by then firmly in line with an enforced regime change in Libya.  Oddly, the old dogma of an absolute governmental sovereignty was colluding with an inherently excessive risk-averse corporate political risk methodology to hold America back from acting as midwife to a new political awareness breaking out in the Middle East.

On the day of Gadhafi's self-vaunted shooting spree, Brent crude benchmark vaulted past $108 a barrel (settling at $105.74, a two-year high).  On the following day, it rose to $111.25. On the first day of March, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 168.32 points, or 1.38%, to finish at 12058.02, its third triple-digit decline in the past week. Oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange, already up 6% this year, jumped 2.7% to settle at $99.63 a barrel.  Brent Crude in London hit $115.42 a barrel, the highest settlement since Aug. 27, 2008.The graph below shows the change in oil, though the change looks astounding in part simply because the graph only goes to 15%; were it to go to 100%, the picture might seem less dramatic.

The Wall Street Journal had reported already on February 21st that the rise was "driven by increasing unrest in the Middle East." Specifically, worries that the turmoil in Libya was curtailing output of that country's oil were said to be driving the price climb. However, USA Today cites Darin Newsome, an energy analyst at DTN, as pointing to the role of speculators around the world as propelling the price of oil. "The flow of money plays an enormous role in the direction, speed and volatility of these markets." In fact, the market mechanism itself may be flawed because speculators could push commodity prices out of sync with the underlying supply of the respective commodities. Turmoil in Libya cannot be blamed for the ensuing “creation” of artificial value (such an increase, by the way, had fueled the housing bubble in the US that came in for a hard landing in 2008). In fact, the rise in world oil prices began before the final third of 2010—before the prospect of widespread popular protest in the Middle East was realized. Indeed, the climb during the last third of 2010 looks a lot like that which took place in the first third of 2009 (during a recession). It was not until well into February, 2011, that the turmoil in the Middle East appeared, according to MSNBC, “to pose limited risk to global oil supplies. Neither Tunisia nor Egypt produce oil or gas.” Such “limited risk,” besides being mitigated, cannot very well be projected back well into 2010 to explain the rise in the price of gas.


Incidentally, another interesting feature of this graph is the sustained drop in 2008, before the financial crisis in September (and the U.S. Presidential election in November!).  The “V” pattern at the end of 2008 is classic “electoral.” It suggests that the price of gas may be very attuned to the electoral interests of those in power, and therefore to government policy. My contention in this essay is that this dynamic was alive and well in Washington when Gadhafi was turning on his own people.

In any event, The Wall Street Journal observed on the day after the massacre that rising oil prices "could have big implications for the U.S. economy." Although perhaps overreacting from the day's news, it is true that the price of oil has a big impact on a consumer-driven economy. Energy expenses, like food, are nondiscretionary, Howard Ward of GAMCO Growth Fund told MSNBC. “And they’re now poised to take a bigger share of wages than we’ve seen in several years. That will have a dampening impact on discretionary spending. We still have an economy that is 70 percent consumer spending.” In such an economy, how could politicians turn a blind eye to domestic consumer interests, even at the expense of defending human rights abroad? Arjun Murti, an oil analyst at Goldman Sachs, told The Wall Street Journal that even as people "put so much emphasis on the U.S., . . . what is going on in the rest of the world matters as much if not more."  However, elected representatives are inclined by their desire to stay in power to put world news through the prism of their constituents' pocket-books, and thus to frame foreign policy to protect their consumers. In other words, an elected representative is apt to be more finely attuned to the grievances of his or her electorate than to stopping human rights violations abroad. Perhaps it is such politics that keeps heads of democratic governments from agreeing on an intergovernmental or international military mechanism that would act to stop a regime once it has violently turned on its own people.

Besides the political implications from consumers being even potentially shell-shocked by higher gas prices, the business sector can be expected to be averse to political instability in a region of the world in which so much oil is produced.  This aversion is, in my view, overly risk averse. As MSNBC points out, it is unlikely that any new regime in an oil-producing country would withhold supply as a matter of policy because “any new government would badly need those oil revenues.”  Libya produces only 2% of global supply of crude, and the Saudi-controlled OPEC cartel would make up for any loss.  “OPEC is ready to meet any shortage in supply when it happens,” the Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, said at a news conference after an OPEC meeting, according to The New York Times on February 23rd. “There is concern and fear, but there is no shortage.” In my view, the minister’s statement reflects the excessive risk aversion in corporate political risk departments, for while fear is perfectly understandable for a protester who is being gunned down in the streets, the emotion represents or points to an over-reaction among managers assessing the political risk in financial terms from the vantage point of their carpeted offices in the steel fortresses of the modern cities.

In another piece in The New York Times on February 23rd, Clifford Krauss put forth the argument that the relative quality of Libya’s reserves magnified its importance in the price spike.  Saudi Arabia has more than 4 million barrels in spare capacity, but it includes “heavier grades of crude that are higher in sulfur content and more expensive to refine.” Larry Goldstein, a director of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an organization partly financed by the oil industry, argues that “Quality matters more than quantity.”  Furthermore, should Europe need to buy sweet crude from Algeria and Nigeria, that could push prices higher. “Nigeria and Algeria are already producing flat out so they can’t come up with another million barrels a day,” Michael Lynch of the Strategic Energy and Economic Research consultancy firm, said. “That means there will be a scramble for lighter crude supplies.” The last time there had been a shortage of sweet crude (in 2007 and early 2008), oil prices soared to more than $140 a barrel, although the cause then was spiraling demand. Moreover, placing quality before quantity seems questionable to me  in looking at supply as it interacts with demand. Furthermore, the analysts are discounting the impact of the Saudis and OPEC to counter for any increase in costs by increasing supply. The New York Times reported on February 23rd that “Tom Kloza, the chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, estimated that the Saudis could pump an additional 1 million to 1.5 million barrels in a matter of days.” Additionally, OPEC has “a reserve capacity to deliver an additional four million to five million barrels to the world markets after several weeks of preparation. That is more than twice the oil that world markets would lose if production were halted completely by unrest in Libya.”  In other words, in the wake of Gadhafi’s massacre as Brent crude hit $110, the business analysts should have realized that the Saudis would have to virtually agree or otherwise go along with any cost-induced spikes. Or course, the political risk analysts have also argued that the Saudi royal family could fall, given the spread of protests throughout the region. To be sure, that is a possibility, but not necessarily as the analysts play it out or with a cut off in Saudi oil.

On March 2nd, The Wall Street Journal ascribed the previous day's market jidders to fears of unrest intensifying in Saudi Arabia as authorities there arrested a prominent Shiite cleric who had been calling for political reforms. "If there are problems in Saudia Arabia, we will feel it and that's causing concern, obviously," said Marc Pado, a U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald. Also, Iran reported clashes between protestors and security forces in Tehran. Concerning Saudi Arabia, which seems to have been the epicenter for the worry, analysts believed at the time that the political instability in Bahrain meant that Saudi Arabia itself could be at risk. Indeed, the political risk argument may have come down to this contingency.  Kloza points out that unless the unrest were to spread to the streets of Jeddah and Riyadh, “I think it’s a very manageable situation and prices are closer to cresting than they are to exploding higher.” Even he could be overstating the risk, for besides discounting the financial appetite that a republic in Arabia would have in selling oil, his analysis projects too much based on a kinship between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The New York Times article also points to oil experts who argued at the time that the “island nation has a majority Shiite population with cultural and religious ties to the Saudi Shiite minority that lives close to some of the richest Saudi oil fields.” However, there are a number of “ifs” that must first be satisfied before this fuse could have gone off.  For one thing, Saudi oil fields are well defended. Also, that a majority population might do something does not mean that as a minority population it would do likewise (and in a different and much larger country). Were the unrest sweeping the Middle East to hit Saudi Arabia and turn it too into a republic, it would be a part of the broader sweep. In other words, I think the analysts overstate the significance of Bahrain and, moreover, miss the bigger picture (i.e., the transformation of the Middle East into democracies from autocracies). Such a historical transformation of the entire region could well be happening. but that doesn't necessarily mean that a significant sustained cut-off in the supply of oil would result. Indeed, such a conclusion ignores a basic fixture in human nature: greed. It is ironic that political risk analysts in business would miss that element. In short, they are over-reacting via over-projecting.

Going overboard in making projections is one indication of an excessive aversion to risk in a personality.  I suspect that this bias in corporate political risk analysis comes not only from like personalities, but also from corporate culture, which eschews controversy of any sort. In the rarified corporate office, conflicting values are willowed away in favor of the hegemony of efficiency and the associated business technique. This cultural aversion to uncertainty impacts business practice, including political risk analysis. A well-run corporation would have someone in that department saying, in effect, “hey, loosen up, guys.”  When it really is bad, such as it was in September, 2008 when the financial system almost collapsed, business is typically caught off guard just like the rest of us.  In terms of the protests in the Middle East, we can take it to the bank that business was on the side of political stability, and thus, the extant regimes.

The price of oil affects so many industries that virtually any industry can be expected to lobby for foreign policies that give priority to the stability in the status quo (rather than to revolution).  That is, both consumer and business interests could be expected to have pressured elected representatives in the U.S. Government to resist giving too much support to the protesters in the Middle East. For example, President Obama’s policy was that Mubarak should stay in power through the transition even as events in Egypt were rapidly forcing him out of office. Whereas strategic interests such as the Suez canal might have been foremost in Obama’s calculation regarding Egypt, oil, and thus American consumers and business, might have been primary in his muted statements in the wake of Gadhafi’s retaliation. This sets up an interesting dilemma. While the immediate reaction of most people worldwide who were recoiled in horror at the atrocities in Libya on February 21^st was for something to be done right away to stop Gadahfi even if it meant more chaos in the short-run, business political risk analysis proffered an alternative course--that of reducing the turmoil immediately even if that meant retaining Gadhafi in power. Whereas proponents of democracy and human rights viewed the protests in Libya as a good thing, such people would be surprised to find the activity portrayed from the business standpoint in negative terms even in our midst. For example, USA Today reported Peter Beutel, of Cameron Hanover, as saying, "We have all the wrong things working together at the right time: an economic recovery, (stocks) making new highs, a lower dollar, strong seasonal demand and unrest in the heart of oil production" (italics added).  Libyans putting their lives on the line is also unrest in the heart of oil production. It is the starkness in the vector of valuation (i.e., very good vs. very bad) that is striking here. That a person in one house could have been viewing the spreading protests in the Middle East as instantiating a much overdue development in government while a person next door was disdainful of all the unrest attests to how differently the same event can be viewed.

 From the standpoint of the environment of international business, standing on human rights is not as much of a priority as an observer might want. In other words, what is good for GM is not necessarily good for the world.  The theory that increasing international business (e.g., trade and foreign direct investment) leads to or guarantees peace suddenly looks insufficient as a sufficient philosophy of international business.  An implication is that if corporate lobbyists have real sway over governments, the latter can be expected to shy away from policies and actions that would increase short-term political instability even where such turmoil were a good thing from the standpoint of democracy and human rights. Politicians who allow themselves to be controlled by corporate executives can be expected to overstate stability and shortchange leadership (and real change).  It may be that even the very existence of large corporations in a republic could thus be problematic from this standpoint. Corporations, and even ironically elected representatives, may be predisposed to advocate policies that are at odds with expanding democracy in the world.

In general terms, I contend that both toady politicians and the timid business executives who do not want to rock the boat for financial reasons are short-sighted even by their own rather narrow criteria.  In the case of Libya, were an overwhelming multinational military force to have descended on Libya as Gadhafi's men were ravaging Libyans on the streets rather than waiting for the U.N. Security Council to act, Gadhafi could have been stopped in his tracks in short order and thus order and civilians preserved (i.e., oil supplies undisturbed and a slaughter averted). Of course, as with any military action, things can go wrong.  To be sure, military action is always risky. For example, Gadhafi could sabotage the Libyan oil wells as Saddam did in Iraq in the first Gulf War (1992). However, the failure of the world to take first initiative could have given Gadhafi time to set up explosives ready at the touch of a finger in Tripoli. Indeed, there were reports on the day following the massacre of Gadhafi intending to blow up the oil wells anyway.  So the destruction of Libyan oil production could have come either from the world acting or failing to act in the wake of Gadafhi's violence against the protesters. Given the ambiguity of such risk, corporate political risk analysis would probably still come down in favor of retaining Gadhafi because the status quo is typically presumed to proffer the most stability. This I would call the fallacy of the status quo, which I believe dominates bureaucratic and state department thinking.

Instead of placing corporate political risk analysis on center stage, I submit that business is not the focal point of society (or politics). At the societal level, the hub and spokes stakeholder framework must be replaced by a web-structure wherein there is no central entity. Corporate political risk analysis from this broader perspective should be consulted without being allowed to become dominate. Therefore, governments around the world ought to overcome the presssure from their respective corporate political risk analyses in favor of human rights to place real limits on governmental sovereignty backed up by an international or multinational force on permanent stand-by, with a mechanism for activation agreed to before any occasion.  Such a leap would of course take principled leadership. Such leadership could be partially reconciled with more immediate strategic political interests by making the mechanism go into effect after the present term of office. While not optimal, this method would indeed deliver (eventually). 

Hence, even after five days of carnage in Libya and worsening volitility and price spiking of oil, as well as gasoline and jet fuel, at the expense of the American consumer and business firm, the Obama administration--the regime of real change--could only muster a statement and a freezing of assets. "When a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule and needs to do what is right for his country by leaving now." It would be almost a month after Gadahfi had turned on his protesting people that the U.N.'s Security Council brought itself to act in authorizing all necessary means for member countries who want to step in to protect civilians in Libya. By that time, the protesters had become armed rebels and Gadafhi's military had been on the roll, killing rebels and civilians alike. A clean cut would have been better than a period of indecision.

Sources:

Jerry DiColo and Brian Baskin, "A Stealth Comeback for $100 Crude Oil," The Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2011, pp. C1, C3.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704506004576173961240139414.html?mod=ITP_moneyandinvesting_0

Gary Strauss, "If Unrest Spreads, Gas May hit $5", USA Today, February 22, 2011, p. AI.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41739499/ns/business-personal_finance/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/business/energy-environment/24oil.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/business/global/23oil.html?ref=todayspaper

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41785849/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/africa/18nations.html?hp

Our galaxy, the Milky Way, has a black hole. If this is news to you, there is no need to go hide under a rock. It turns out our black hole is not the biggest by far, and it doesn't spew out a lot of excess energy that falls into it. Even so, it is ours, and we can be glad that we have one of our very own even if it isn't the biggest one on the block. In case you are interested in seeing it’s baleful look in a picture, I’ve got bad news for you; it is invisible. No light can bounce off it.  You are probably wondering how the scientists found it.  Well, they knew that black holes are in the center of galaxies, so the crafty lab coats used ultraviolate light to find our center because there is too much gas there for much there to be visible to us.  The scientists noticed that the speed of stars speeds up around a certain point and posited the existence of a highly-dense black hole.

Using the phenomenon of black holes as an analogy, political "scientists" might investigate whether power, whethere in business, government or society, tends by its very nature to consolidate. In the Micheal Moore documentary on capitalism, two members of congress point to the immense power of an anti-democratic corporate banking elite that was able to turn around the House vote on the bank bailout (TARP) using the democratic leadership as runners. If so, such power was invisible to the public. Likewise a black hole is of course invisible. In the case of the banking elite, we couldn't point our fingers at who exactly gave the marching orders that turned around the no-questions-asked government loans to the banks too big to fail.  Nor do we, or will we, know who told the U.S. Senators: hands off meddling in foreclosures.  Indeed, we shall have no idea whether a power behind the throne told Congress not to even debate the alternative of giving the TARP money directly to home borrowers in trouble.  That this was not seriously debated for foreclosures involving mortgages that banks and mortgage companies should not have given in the first place hints of the existence of a massive albeit hidden political black hole. Finally, such a black hole may have been behind the administration's decision not to push for banks too big to fail to be carved up while extant rather than simply "orderly liquidated" once they have fallen under their own weight.

Neither the American people nor the American media companies go far enough in investigating even the existence of invisible black holes in the American political universe, let alone what damage they do from the standpoint of the public or common good.  Micheal Moore suggests that Citibank and Goldman don’t fear popular election much because they expect the 1 person, 1 vote thing won’t turn on them because most people think they could be in the elite too. The financial elite is 1% of the vote; 1% of the population holds 90% of the wealth, so if the other 99% happen to wake up and notice, they might take back the reins. The big business would be worried, but, alas, Wall Street is not shaking in its golden boots. As to why, I would add to Moore’s explanation by pointing to the extent to which Americans are manipulated without even knowing it.  Lest it be missed, the gaint media companies are corporate too.

Is it an accident, for example, that so many stories on Afganistan pop up when it is in the interest of the defence contractors? Are they simply using the people to urge Congress to support a surge?  I would call this “direct manipulation” because we are being summoned to debate what has been put on the table for us.   The other kind is “indirect,” which involves a political black hole keeping an issue or policy-option off our radar screens.  President Obama’s suggestion, for example, that the banks too big to fail be reduced in size (and money) so they would not be so dangerous in failing, quietly went away. In looking for indirect manipulation, the important thing to notice is the absence of  any visible event or change that could explain the removal of a proposal by some new issue being covered by the media. We ought to be examining what political black holes do not want us to talk about because of private interests. For instance, we now know that health insurance companies gave their surrogates "death panel scare stories" to fan out discussion of a public alternative in health insurance.  Scaring a proposal off the radar screen is among the silent weapons used by political black holes.  Again, the source of such weapons is invisible.

So like sheep, the American people is led to debate or focus on something or to forget something else, In the process, we are unwittingly giving up, or failing to grasp, our democratic power, which can be used for the public good. To be sure, there are excesses and drawbacks in democracy and these too should be discussed, but there are hidden dangers to political black holes, and we miss these if we do not even know that such things exist.  That is to say, the democracy we do have may be rather wan in comparison to the gravity of the political black hole at the center of our political society.

Perhaps the question on your mind is:  So how do we get it back?   It might involve nothing short of waking up out of the Matrix.  So many of us don’t realize how much we are being manipulated.  Realizing it, and not tailoring our thoughts and discussions along its lines will wake others.   Once people start waking, we can start to look for candidates who do not, like Obama, take a $1 million from Goldman after promising real change.  We need candidates willing to forego being bought out by the elites who sense that democracy might possibly get the upper hand in an election.  Pay particular attention to the matter of teeth in such candidates’ proposals with respect to big business…and ask at their speeches whether they are taking money from the establish that has a vested interest in the status quo.  Don’t buy the “I’m not influenced by money.”  …which should be treated as a laugh line.   If you find genuine candidates willing to effect systemic change even where it is at the expense of the big corporate players, know that the elite will offer such candidates so much if the elite view the candidates as viable and  not under their control.  Control, by the way, can be more subtle than using a leash.  This is perhaps my major point here…political black holes are invisible and yet their anti-democratic gravity is HUGE…even as it is in a tiny space, or office.

In the Roman Empire, the games in the arena (which means “sand” in Latin) were a devise to distract as well as mollify and entertain the masses.  Today, we have American Idol and the Super Bowl, as well as the World Series.  Besides their entertainment value made possible by the talent involved, these idols are effective in gravitating popular attention…and this can be useful to the extent that the US is a plutocracy (i.e. ruled in the interest of the top 1% of the wealth) and vested powers fear the 1 person, 1 vote power of democracy.  But as Micheal Moore points out, Citibank and Goldman Sachs can rest easier knowing that many of us don’t use the power of the vote to take from the banks because many of us believe we might be among the plutacracy one day. 

I would add that we tend to be easily manipulated into following the media’s current (which, kein Zufall, tends to move around the interests of the major houses so as not to disturb the islands of capital).   We stop wondering about the distant promises to do something about the banks too big to fail because the media has conveniently stopped reminding us.  We forget that an option is to break up the banks too big to fail (which, by the way, have gotten bigger since September, 2008 and are still active at the casino).  We unthinkingly join the media in debating Obama’s banking consumer protection proposal, as though that were primary.  In other words, Goldman Sachs, which was Obama’s largest campaign contributor according to Micheal Moore (over $1 million), is content to have us debate a potentially pain so we will be appeased by Obama’s pledge of “real change” and not ask, demand, or VOTE to apply anti-trust law to financial houses.   In short, we allow ourselves to be dupped and we don’t even know it.  We don’t even realize we are taking our eyes off the eight ball.  Goldman lets Obama have four more years and 1 person, 1 vote is once again not a threat to either Goldman or the change agent that the bank bought.  Don’t expect Obama to rock the boat in bringing any real change that is not in the interests of the most powerful of the corporations.  Obama’s challenge is to show us just enough that looks like real change while not acting outside the interests of his corporate backers.  However, aren’t real change and status quo vested intersts mutually exclusive?  If so, how does Barak Obama get around this?  He gives us just enough to appear…   Meanwhile, the systemic change that is needed on the players at fault in September, 2008, goes by the wayside and we remain vulnerable even though We the People are convinced that a new consumer protection agency will do the trick.  The trick, ladies and gentlemen, is on us–and we don’t even know it.  We don’t know what we don’t know…while we presume we know it.

In 2009, Moammar Gadhafi of Libya gave a speech  at the annual opening of the General Assembly at the UN in New York City.  Substantively, he pointed to the drawbacks in having the UN remain in New York.  He also advocated a permanent seat for the African Union in the Security Council.   Fifty-three states are represented in that Union.  In an interesting twist, he remarked that the US contains fifty countries, so Africa too deserved a permanent seat.  I was utterly surprised that the man who was disorganized and sporatic in his delivery (and whose government would kill hundreds of unarmed protesters in 2011) could grasp the nature of the US in terms commensurate to the AU. He added that the EU should have a seat.   This makes a lot of sense because it is not fair for three of the EU’s states to have seats while all of the 50 United States have one. It occurred to me in listening to his speech that he understood the nature of the US as an empire-scale polity better, actually, than most contemporary Americans do. This is a bad commentary on the condition of civics classes in American high schools.  So I was surprised to find the mainstream media report the speech simply as “disorganized" without reporting any of the substance, as though there had been no serious content whatsoever.   Someone must have wanted to discredit Qaddafi for political or economic reasons.   The summary verdict was so immedate and total that none of Qaddafi’s content was covered.   The media’s treatment had all the footprints of a hidden strategy--that is, of a black hole's pull.  If I am correct, I’m left surprised that the subterfuge itself could be so blatant.  For a journalistic standpoint, the reporting was really bad.   Alternatively, the journalists could have reported what the man had said (as well as on his style and approach) and have left it to the readers to decide whether the content should be dismissed due to the style.   Something else was going on.  I’m just not sure what. I contend that something else typically goes on in terms of what is debated in the public discourse via the media. The invisible source steering and pruning what travels across our public radar screen is none other than a political black hole: a very dense concentration of private power functioning akin to an invisible elephant in a small living room. One person senses a trunk--another a leg--but we as a people miss the very existence of the elephant.  We are too distracted, and this is no accident, as it manifests by the very black hole that we do not suspect exists.

In short, both the content and frequency of topics reported by the media bear traces of the black whole that they are orbiting. As long as the source of the gravity is invisible, the black hole will continue to be quite useful.  Put another way, as long as Americans take the press reports as simply journalism, we will miss what is going on behind the scenes and therefore continue to be subject to being manipulated.  Micheal Moore asks: when will democracy ascend over the power of big business?  It is possible, but not probable.   This, by the way, is the expression that Immanual Kant uses in discussing his Kingdom of Ends (treating rational beings as ends and not just as means). Beyond the latent or actual subterranean power of corporate America over our public airwaves and legislative chambers, we ought to reflect on the threat to a republic in there simply being political black holes.
  
See: Nova on Black Holes (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/)

"In Beirut, gunfire broke out and crowds of people waved Egyptian flags. In Yemen, they gathered in front of the Egyptian Embassy chanting, 'Wake up rulers, Mubarak fell today.' In Gaza, they fired shots in the air and set off fireworks. . . . [However,] in a telling sign of the divide between the rulers and the ruled, the region’s leaders, presidents and monarchs remained largely silent." This depiction by The New York Times of ripple effects across the Middle East in the wake of the resignation of Egypt's Mubarak in February, 2011 intimates the hoped-for and feared possibility that the popular unrest could spread.  Moreover, the entire world, which had been been glued to the events unfolding in Cairo, wondered if a domino effect might be in store in countries under autocratic rule. Indeed, The New York Times wrote of a possible domino effect quite explicitly: "The popular uprising that started . . . in Tunisa had claimed its second autocratic government, this time in the largest country in the Arab world. With more protests planned in coming days, some governments were clearly worried they could be next." But do autocratic governments fall like dominos?  That is, is revolution contagious? Fawaz Traboulsi, a prominent Lebanese writer and columnist, thought so in the days following Mubarak's resignation. “All the regimes are shaking now . . . They are becoming more and more fragile. This is just the beginning.” In Bahrain, King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa apparently thought so too, for he ordered the equivalent of $2,650 be given to every Bahraini family a few days before a planned "Day of Rage" protest. “Arab people discovered their ability to make change,” said Nabeel Rajab, a human rights activist in Bahrain. “And with Egypt in the leadership once again, the change will reach all the Arab world.” In Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh announced he would suspend constitutional amendments that allow him to remain in his office for life. He also raised salaries for the military and civil servants and cut income taxes in half. In Algeria, the government promised to lift the state of emergency that had been in effect since 1992. To be sure, nineteen years is a rather long time for an emergency.  Such efforts can be likened to building up wetlands or widening a beach to take the wind out of the hurricane out at sea should it hit. In other words, it appears that there was "revolution watch" in effect for the Middle East in the wake of the fall of the Egyptian regime. One might reasonably question, however, whether revolutions are contagious.

It could be that autocracy itself had been weakened by the success of the protests in Egypt.  On the other hand, there had been revolutions before and dictatorship was not evicerated from the face of the earth. The belief that the Tunesian and Egyptian revolutions were the start of a wave that would flood all autocratic powers in the Middle East (or the world) might also consider that even autocratic states differ in their respective internal conditions. To use the hurricane analogy, some beaches are better protected than others. If the unrest in Tunesia and Egypt were linked in such a way that other countries could be impacted internally, the ensuing domino effect could perhaps be compared to that among Wall Street banks in September 2008.  The collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch as independent or viable going concerns contained a momentum that was beginning to bring down Morgan Stanley and threaten even Goldman Sachs when the ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs at Treasury effectively pushed for the construction of a fortified sand-dune (TARP) a.k.a. an infusion of funds into the remaining banks from the U.S. Government and the Federal Reserve.  As a result, the force of the strengthening winds ceased to intensify and began to diminish, leaving the economy in a long rainy season (i.e., a recession and a subsequent nearly jobless recovery).

In the wake of the fall of the Egyptian regime, were the other regimes in the Middle East like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs after Lehman Brothers declared bankrupcy?  In other words, are autocratic regimes subject to a "run on the bank" in another? If so, there would still be a notable difference between the big banks and the governments.  Namely, the banks were deemed too big to fail, while the autocratic rulers were deemed too powerful to rule. That is to say, the continued viability of the Wall Street pillars was deemed essential to the world economy, while it was thought in the wake of the Egyptian regime of Mubarak that the world was better off less one autocratic regime. Hence there would not be likely to be a TARP program arranged to prop up dictators. Even with this difference noted, I contend that both big banks and big dictators are too big to exist in a world that values freedom and individual rights. Perhaps we ought to have been cheering the domino effect on Wall Street just as we cheered the fall of the Tunesian and Egyptian dictators. In both cases, destabilization that could lead to the collapse of the global economy and civic order would of course need to be avoided.  However, I contend that the U.S. Government could have intervened to maintain order on Wall Street by assisting as the big banks split into pieces, none of which being too big to fail and thus more in the public interest than retaining the big banks as such.  In the case of public autocratic regimes, their demise and replacement can typically be handled domestically, as in the cases of Tunesia and Egypt, rather than by an international organization such as the U.N.

In general terms, the "run on the bank" in Tunesia and Egypt may or may not be contagious in its nature, yet a consideration of the possibility of a domino effect can remind us of the domino effect that we witnessed in September of 2008 on Wall Street. Making this connection might prompt us to ask whether autocratic governments and big banks aren't both too big to exist. In other words, the collapse of one badly run bank after another and the subsequent need to deal with the question of such banks as going concerns can perhaps be likened to the collapse of one badly run government after another.  Was the world finally noticing around the end of the first decade (and the beginning of the second) of the twenty-first century that enormous concentrations of private capital (and thus power) and of public autocratic authority were not necessarily givens, and thus could, and perhaps should, be taken down? In other words, were long-standing givens finally seen as replacable?  The world was stunned when huge investment banks that had been around for more than a century were suddenly collapsing, just as the world was stunned when the government of the largest Middle Eastern country suddenly fell after two weeks of popular protests. Pillars, even those that are thought vital, can indeed fall, and the world can discover through the experiences that they are not essential--and they might even be bad for the public good. Surely this is the sense of the free world concerning autocratic governments, yet we are less convinced concerning the danger in continuing to allow banks too big to fail to continue to exist as they have for decades. In both cases, the domino effect may be natural and good, provided it is managed so public order does not collapse in the process. 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/world/middleeast/12arabs.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

The Senior US Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, said the following just before one of the votes on the health-care insurance reform legislation in December, 2009:

“Thirty million Americans who currently don’t have health insurance  have the peace of mind of knowing that they have health insurance,” Mr. Durbin said. He added, “This is a real debate over whether or not health care is going to be a right or a privilege in America.”

My first reaction after reading this quote was one of perspective—specifically, on how far from this central question of “right vs. privilege” the debate on the health-care legislation had gotten in the obsession over a “public option.”  Health-care can be a right, whether implemented through private, non-profit or public sector organizations (the government funding the poor regardless).   The fundamental question in mandatory health-insurance coverage is whether something that is needed to survive (medical treatment for the sick) is a political right in a society.  If so, then the government has a responsibility to make sure that every citizen has insurance regardless of income.   I suspect that there are many citizens in the US who would say that health-care should not be a right because that right involves economic redistribution.   I believe one poll showed that 87% of Americans who were satisfied with their health insurance said they do not agree to pay for others who would not otherwise be able to afford insurance could have it.  The costly emergency room visits of the uninsured may mean that the insured pay more to have uninsured in society; even so, my point is that we can not assume that rights bearing on sustenance and involving economic redistribution are recognized as rights (rather than as “tax and spend”).   Essentially—and perhaps surprisingly—some people would say that others do not have the political right to life (though some of the same people would say that unborn fetuses have it!).   Unfortunately, given how the debate on health-care insurance has gone, it is difficult to know whether there is a sizable portion of the American society that does not want to recognize that every citizen has a right to basic necessities.   Is political discourse such that it inherently leads to a spirallying out on a tertiary aspect of an issue, rather than on the eye?  If so, how are we to discuss just what are the limits on rights in our society?  Are the rights recognized in law to be byproducts of discussions on implementation (i.e., by business, non-profits or government organizations)?   Furthermore, is a focus on implementation a case of putting the cart before the horse…and letting the horse wander off? 

Thinking of the health-care insurance debate this way—as focused on implementation as if that which is to be implemented follows from it—I submit that there are limits to public discourse.  Hence, Congressional representatives who are led by polls and newspapers may well be a case of the tail wagging the dog.  At the very least, such legislators would not be debating the central questions.   It is dangerous, if not utterly unwise, to legislate this way.   Yet as our system of government becomes more and more democratic (i.e., tailored to the public discourse and polls), we risk running ourselves into a ditch—not looking at where we are going.   Rarely, if ever, did I hear or read references to health-care as a right in the debate.  I heard a lot on process and implimentation, but little on whether a new right that involves redistribution ought to be recognized.  Moreover, we missed an opportunity to debate whether rights that require redistribution are actually rights as distinct from economic egalitarianism.    Not even our elected representatives, who are supposed to act as abuffer to direct democracy (i.e., pulse of the people at the moment), were able to focus on these questions.   Clearly, chasing tails is not the way of leadership.  

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/health/policy/23health.html?_r=1&ref=us

In December, 2009, Abdullah II, King of the state of Jordon,dismissed the prime minister and replaced him with a palace aide and loyalist, dissolved Parliament and postponed legislative elections for a year.   For all the defects of a representative democratic system, it is far superior to autocratic rule, especially by one.   It is natural for people to resist preemption. “The nature of humans is they want democracy,” said Ali Dalain, an independent member of the Parliament that was dissolved. “One person cannot solve all problems and cannot make everyone happy, so people must share in determining their fate.”   These quotes are revealing from the standpoint of human nature and political theory.    In reading “one person cannot solve all problems,” I thought of the imperial US presidency—not only at the expense of the governments of the republics within the US, but also of the Congress.   The health-care insurance reform legislation, for example, is said to be Obama’s, even though he is in the executive rather than the legislative branch (having only a veto, which can be overridden, in the latter).   It would seem to me that the Speaker of the US House and the Majority Leader of the US Senate ought to have their own agendas—that the Congress should not simply be led by the president’s agenda.   Foreign policy is perhaps the one area where the Congress ought to defer—but only in terms of agreeing to consider what the president has negotiated abroad.  Had the UN climate talks in Copenhagen produced a treaty in December, 2009, the US President would have asked the US Senate to consider it.  Were the Senate to routinely ignore the President’s negotiations, it would be very difficult for the US to negotiate internationally.   In terms of foreign policy, however, one person does not hold a monopoly of wisdom or truth.  So in general, we could take a lesson from Jordon, even as we pride ourselves on our having a representative democracy rather than a monarchy.  I think perhaps we discount too readily the vestages of one-person rule in the US.  A unified long term vision is nice, but stepping back to see and enunciate it is different than deciding what it shall be and imposing it. 

In terms of the American presidency, there may even be a bit of hero or idol worship that has held on from ancient king-worship, as if eons of practice etched it in the human genome.  It is evinced not just when a president is sworn in, but also when he gives the State of the Union address—should I capitalize this?   Honor in the office, it is said, but the president is just a man.   The media obsesses on his every move, including what he is doing on vacation.  This obession gives us the illusion that we know the person.  Who is that behind the curtain anyway?   Do we really know, as we watch the screen? 

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/world/middleeast/23amman.html?ref=world

Today, the term ”professional” is commonly used to mean “does X for a living” (other than what, a hobby?).  Actually, the word properly refers to being sufficiently high skilled that one is subject to the industry self-regulation of one’s peers rather than to a manager who is not a peer from the standpoint of the skills.  Modern management is taught in business schools under the premise that a person can apply managerial skill to anything.  However, where a given vocation is highly skilled and a manager doesn’t have that skill (having instead managerial skill), a manager is not qualified to manage the highly skilled professionals.  Put simply, the professionals know so much more about what they are doing that managerial skill alone cannot be a basis for competency in decisions that involve the highly skilled.    The subversion of the term “professional” is meant to democratize the true professionals beyond physicans, dentists, priests, professors and lawyers—the professional class.  That is, the misnomer is actually a rejection of there being higher classes based on skill.   There is an overreaching involved in the common usage.  In Nietzschean terms, it evinces the herd animal claiming a dominance without the requisite strength.  In other words, democratication can be a case of overreaching and presumptuousness borne out of a resentment towards the wealthy and higher skilled.  The misnomer is a case of passive aggression.  I submit that the incorrect use of the term points to a tension within modern society wherein two distinct groups of people do not respect each other.  The highly skilled and the highly educated dismiss the people using the misnomer as pretentious idiots, while the non-professionals dismiss the distinction based on the skill or education.  “I’m a professional too!” the salewoman proclaims while the lawyer replied, “No you aren’t.”  Mutual dismissiveness.  The culpability is not symetric, however.
Fundamentally, the misnomer is rooted in the non-professional’s presumptuousness and resentment.  These qualities are no substitute for continuing one’s studies in graduate school to become a scholar or turning to a second bachelors degree in a professional school by earning a first degree in  law, divinity, or medicine (business is a professional school but managers are not professionals).  That one degree in law or medicine is typically presumed (mostly in the US) to be a doctorate even though it is the first rather than the terminal degree in the school (the latter degree requiring it as a prereq)  is an instance of the democratization of “professional”—but here it is the professional’s credential that is overstated.  That is to say, it is a case of a lawyer or physician rarifying herself beyond her professional grade as if a lateral move to another field were equivalent to getting two graduate degrees (a masters and doctorate) on top of a first degree. 

The professionals who are accustomed to claiming more than they have actually earned educationally may be motivated to overreach here because their professional standing is in turn being claimed by overreaching pseudo-professionals, such as managers (or bankers).  Not unexpectedly, marginal universities are turning some of their skills-oriented masters degrees (such as physical therapy)  into doctorates by adding a year of study without the required doctoral comprehensive exam of the entire discipline and book-length dissertation of original research, which are required for the Ph.D., D.Sci. M, DBA, DD, and JSD— these are the doctoral degrees of Liberal Arts & Sciences and several of the professional schools (Medicine, Business, Divinity and Law, respectively).  Two years (roughly) of survey courses and a year of senior-level seminars in a professional school does not a doctorate make.  The move is lateral from the first bachelors.  Yet the presumptuousness of the physican and lawyer claiming to have doctorates by virtue of their first degree in medicine and law, respectively, are missed by society in the effulgent gloss of “professional,” which comes to be applied by the society further and further down its chain of vocational being.   The emperor is not wearing any clothes, yet fawning crowds marvel at the cloth and claim to be wearing like material themselves.

Does this make me an elitist—pointing out that the cloth is not as refined as we have been led to believe by those claiming to wear it?  Admittedly, my argument may seem elitist prime facie.  My use of big words doesn’t help. However, it may simply be a case of good old-fashioned truth-telling in the midst of some dandy fibbing to the unknowing, who do not realize that they are being lied to by people with a vested interest in the lies.  Surely it is an act of kindness to tell a man, “excuse me, your fly is unzipped,” or to tell a woman, “there is something in your hair in back.”

Democracy is great; it is the overreaching pretentiousness whereby the demos takes itself for something more that it is—something unearned and thus undeserved—that is pernicious and nefarious.