Friday, June 12, 2009
Okay now for how I see it. First of all I only understand Iran by what my friends tell me and the little I have time to read. But in my defense I have been paying attention for a while now.
First of all, western reporters know way more Tehran intellectuals (Moussavi's base) than poor people from the countryside (Ahmadinajad's base). So I doubt the pre-election reporting was coming from a very representative sample. Combine this with the expectations generated from the Hezbollah loss it certainly would be possible for the western media to have totally botched the pre-election story, which anticipated a Moussavi landslide. Having said that, I still would bet its fraud for a number of reasons.
1) Pre-election the government did block facebook for a day or two (maybe they didn't know you could just ignore friend requests). What this tells me is that someone high up was -- at the very least -- thinking through all the dirty tricks that could be played.
2) In 2001 Khatami, a reformist, put together a coalition that was 78% of the vote. You're telling me that plummets to 32% just 8 years later? No way. Even Rafsanjani, widely seen as corrupt, got (was given) 36% of the vote 4 years ago.
3) You know the Hezbollah thing had to scare the hardliners. They had to come up with something fast. They went for a landslide victory be cause if you publish numbers like 49%-48% then people start thinking its so close there must have been fraud. While if you make it a landslide, well then, who can question that? Not having a second round would also be a plus. The lesson they may have learned from Ukraine is you can't wait until the second round to do the fraud.
However, what the world perceives is much less important than what the supporters of Moussavi perceive. Do they believe that the election was stolen? I would strongly bet they do. So then the question becomes what do they do about it. The reformists were deeply split after the 2004 parliamentary election as to how confrontational to be with the hardliners who had barred most of the reformist candidates. In the end Khatami (the reformist president at the time) decided against direct confrontation because he feared bloodshed and eventually the reformist movement gave way to apathy. Will Moussavi call people to the streets? By the way he declared victory, landing the first punch before the election commission announced the results for Ahmadinejad, tells me this is a man that is not going quietly. In situations like this, the fact that the capital city is also a bastion of opposition support (See Mexico City, Harare, and Kiev) will magnify the oppositions "people power." They've already got themselves a color: Green. Now that is thinking ahead. Unless I'm mistaken you are now mere hours away from "Green Revolution" headlines plastered in the western media, regardless of whether the Iranian opposition actually uses that phrase. However, Moussavi has to be careful not to overplay his hand. I doubt there are many in Iran that want street battles; is the level of frustration even above annoyance? You don't go from apathy 4 years ago, to revolutionary zeal now. Peaceful, yet dogged determination, goes over much better than pugnacious rabble rousing. Especially when you may be asking people to risk their safety in your cause. It is important to note that the state does not generate fear like it does in some countries; If people feel strongly, I have no doubt that they will make their voice heard. Don't forget about this dude.
What level of force will the government decide to use? They've always been more of a "lock em' up" than "take them out back" in their treatment of dissidents. But if this really is massive fraud then the stakes are a lot higher now.
In my estimation this is a time of possibility and peril in Iran and is only the beginning of an unfolding drama. What the real facts are I simply don't know, though I'm clearly not above guessing. But apart from all my speculation, I sincerely hope that this process will further the cause of peace between Iran and America and ultimately -- whatever the result may be -- for the people of Iran to have a government that its citizens view as legitimate; because that, after all, is what really matters most.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
So, in the end I still belive we need to stop piracy, but do we really need to hate them so much?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
My name is David Ferguson. I'm writing in regards to the Conflict Minerals Pledge. While I recognize that these materials are important components of many of the devices I use and when purchased responsibly can give a boost to local economy where they are mined, I also know that just like conflict diamonds the can also be a cause of instability in many countries including the Democratic Republic of Congo.
I currently own a toshiba tablet PC and an I-pod touch. I use them every day. My tablet is getting old however and soon will be in the market for a new one. I'm eventually going to get one of those smart phones too.
I want you to know that ethical considerations are an important part of my purchasing decisions. I'm the kind of guy that buys sweat free clothes, fair trade coffee, and free range eggs. (All growing in their market share). You can be sure that when I buy my next computer I will be looking for a product who's company has put measures in place to ensure that its minerals purchasing decisions are helping the communities where they are mined and not destabilizing them, in particular by signing the conflict minerals pledge. Oh, and I'll also be telling my friends if I can find a non-annoying way to slip it into a conversation.
I love my gadgets - I hope my next purchases will be with a company I feel is being responsible in its purchasing decisions.
Friday, July 29, 2005
We live in a shanty town of a city in the global south. That is if by 'we' you understand 'humanity' and you are talking in terms of the median person.
- How do we transform this situation? How do we change stagnant poverty into thriving empowerment?
Education is certainly a key factor, however I think the ideas of Hernando
Almost by definition ending poverty requires improvements to the vitality of the impoverished areas. In order to create a thriving market you need a degree of stability i.e. some rules that are consistently followed (typically laws) so that people are confident that if they take risks by investing, then they will be able to reap those rewards and won't have them stolen or otherwise undermined. However even once there is enough stability that people can profit by investing you still need access to capital in order to invest. Personally I can easily raise capital through education loans which I can use to further my education - investing in my future; but most of the worlds poor don't have that luxury. Even if they have an idea - like building a new chicken coop to increase egg production - that would enable them to lift themselves out of poverty (and possibly also provide a new service to their community) most people simply wouldn't have the capital to invest to make the idea a reality.
There are successful cases where poor people are given access to capital such as the gramin bank in
- Will it encourage more land invasions?
- Will people break their mortgages since they know their land won't likely be taken away?
- Would it work without an effective rule of law?
- How much is a little plot of land worth anyway?
Despite these questions the point that I am trying to make is that as people ponder the question of how to solve global poverty along with:
- Increased education
- More food/medical emergency assistance
- Decreased trade barriers
- Debt reduction
- Increased aid
- Fighting corruption and
- Improving markets
they also remember that important parts of the equation are:
- Property rights
- The rule of law and
- Access to capital.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
These questions are important not only because the Korean peninsula is a potential military disaster that would make Iraq look like a walk in the park, or because the people of North Korea are some of the most oppressed in the world. But also from a more academic perspective because before you can understand Freedom you have to understand North Korea. Any reasonable definition of a free society must exclude North Korea, yet many people there believe in the government and choose to support it. It is a bit exaggerated to do so but would someone else consider me to be similarly misguided when I proclaim myself free? Just how exactly do you draw that line? Education level? Non-Dogmatic belief system? How easy is it for a society to turn into a North Korea, and just how sustainable is it?
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
What does this mean? I'm not sure, but I just think that as we try to understand how to solve the problem of terrorism everyone should keep in the back of their head that Shahzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain, and Rashid Facha probably have a lot in common with Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
Friday, July 08, 2005
On the 3rd of May at ~2:10 the Fed released their comment on raising interest rates then ~4:50 they said they mistakenly forgot to add a sentence that said that long term dangers of inflation were not that great. Initially I think the market took the omission to mean that long term inflation wasn't a worry at all, so the market shot up. Then after the traders realized there had been a mistake it dropped back. You can see distinctive signals in the market data. It looks like the words influenced the markets about .5%. Thus words can change market valuation on the order of $100 Billion. It would have been good to have data on volume too, but still it's facinating. (Incidently it is amazing how closely the Dow and NASDAQ track each other.)
I wanted to find out the following. Surely the political heirs of Mao wouldn't be indifferent to a group of rebels fighting for Maoist principles. Anyway I wrote a reporter at the Washington Post trying to get the scoop. I even tried pleading a little to get a response -- didn't work.
Feb 4th 2005
Dear Mr. Lancaster,
I am a native of the DC area and am a longtime reader of the Post. I am writing in regards to the coverage of the royal coup in Nepal. One angle of the story that I haven't seen covered in news reports that I find particularly relevant to understanding the problem, is to what degree the Maoists are supported either militarily, financially, or ideologically by China.
I ask this because historically the ideology of communism was fundamentally expansionist embodied in the slogan 'workers of the world unite.' The support - or lack thereof - by china of the Maoist rebels would measure the degree to which modern china views the importance of exporting communist ideology and perhaps would also indicate the legitimacy that traditional communist thinking still commands among the Chinese leadership.
The following is a note I sent to a friend about North Korea. Along with Northern Uganda and Burma, there are all places where it is clear things could be so much better if just a few people weren't around to keep things all maniacal. I'm not particuarly proud of the below analysis but the letter states something that even in the face of Iraq needs to be said. Maybe I should have chosen Tanzinia invading Uganda or Dayton or something less loaded but the Civil War is just so epic:
Feb 3 2005
If I knew of a way to change the North Korean Regime without massive death and suffering, I would advocate for it. Unfortunately I don't. Do you have any ideas?
I know some people would say: "It's not your place to change
And to that I would say: "Yes that would be the ideal strategy and works in many situations." But I would also say: "I think such opinions have an overly pessimistic view of the motivations of outsiders, and their ability in extreme cases to truly act altruistically and to change things for the better (on average) in a society that is not their own."
As a historical example of an extreme case, offered as a proof of principle rather than for the clarity of the analogy, I would give the North and the South of the
Of course questions could be raised about what qualifies as 'extreme' and what degree of unfamiliarity the outsider can really have and still be effective; I mean
Okay, I guess this historical analogy would really be asserting that if there is really ever going to be positive change in North Korea, it wouldn't have to come from within, but at least it would have to come from South Korea.
Yet I still think this is overly pessimistic, because (though the sample size is really too small to reach such broad conclusions) something I learned while living in Namibia is that while societies are very different (though rapidly becoming more similar for better(?)
or worse(?)) I found people to be essentially the same.