Monday, January 25, 2010 at 10:41PM ARTICLE: A Ponzi scheme that works, The Economist, Dec 17th 2009
A nice paean to America-the-magnet-of-immigrants, something I believe in deeply.
I have little doubt we'll be a one-billion-plus union before the end of the century, especially as new states join.
(Thanks: Jarrod Myrick)
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 10:39PM ARTICLE: Civilians Train in 'Afghan City' in the Midwest, By MARK LANDLER, New York Times, December 20, 2009
The inevitable next evolution, proceeding apace, in the development of a robust SysAdmin capability.
One of the many bits of data I cite over the years regarding the rise of the SysAdmin industrial complex.
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 10:35PM ARTICLE: Revolutionary Ayatollah, BY MEHDI KHALAJI, Foreign Policy, JANUARY 19, 2010
The essence of the revolution's moment of failure right now in Iran.
An entirely predictable evolution, if you've tracked revolutions in the past.
But it's why I consider Iran to be settling into a rather conventional threat role, and hence my non-obsession with its reach for nukes.
We have seen this package before, and we know how to deal with it, either containing/engaging like with Brezhnevian USSR or breaking through with post-Cultural Revolution late-Mao PRC.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 10:33PM OP-ED: A Little Respect, Please, By SUAT KINIKLIOGLU, New York Times, January 22, 2010
An implicit and sensible defense of Turkey's reorientation of its foreign policy and how that has soured its previously positive relationship with Israel.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 10:30PM OP-ED: Single-Party Democracy, By ROGER COHEN, New York Times, January 21, 2010
Cohen beginning to wrap his mind around the logical pathway that is a single-party state in China that slowly democratizes from within.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Monday, January 25, 2010 at 2:45AM 
It's taken as gospel by most pundits today that we live in an increasingly dangerous, deadly and unstable world -- with Haiti's horrific earthquake serving as the latest, irrefutable data point. We are told that ours is a planet at perpetual war with itself, locked in a global conflict that is not only cast in civilizational terms, but superimposed over a landscape chock-full of never-ending combat and ever-rising death tolls. The end of the Cold War superpower rivalry, rather than pacifying the world, actually unlocked a Pandora's box of tribal hatreds. In retrospect, the Cold War has even taken on a nostalgic hue, reminding us of simpler, more manageable times.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 11:17PM ARTICLE: Aid Groups Focus on Haiti's Homeless, By RAY RIVERA and DAMIEN CAVE, New York Times, January 21, 2010
The creation of tent cities was inevitable, but it will raise a host of follow-on issues, and security will be a big one:
"You are sleeping and people reach their hands in and try to take your stuff," said Jimmy Jean Philippe, 33, who has been living in the camp since the quake. "That's why we need security."
In a blink, Haiti's economy has been deformalized far more than it was beforehand. By that I mean, suddenly, everyone is reduced to living in an environment where no one can prove their ownership of anything, so everybody is forced to play security-guard, squatter-style, all the time.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 11:01PM COMMENT: "An unholy alliance at war with Obama's foreign policy," by Philip Stephens, Financial Times, 15 January 2010.
LEADERS: "Time to get tough: Barack Obama's first year has been good, but not great--and things are going to get a lot harder," The Economist, 16 January 2010.
COMMENT: "Why America and China will clash," by Gideon Rachman, Financial Times, 19 January 2010.
Stephens' main point:
The president must push back. Those who claim diplomacy has "failed" should be invited to offer credible alternatives.
Quite well said. Many critics act like Obama's diplomacy to-date should have solved all the world's problems, and because it hasn't, must be declared a failure. But to be replaced by what? A return to the unilateral bossiness of Bush-Cheney I? Since that was largely abandoned in Bush-Cheney II, I'm not sure what that would accomplish.
Obama's first year, as the Economist points out, focused on stabilizing and repairing structure, relationships, reputation. In that, Obama did amazingly well, given all the problems he inherited.
But that approach only satisfies, much less inspires, for so long. If you behaved badly and then apologize, great. But standing there, frozen, with that anticipatory smile on your face quickly gets weary, if no additional actions/leadership/new behavior is offered. Bush-Cheney II seems like ancient history at this point.
Plus, we're naturally reaching an era of heightened contention with China, which has read its own press for so long--and ours--that its government seems convinced it can master any issue using the crude techniques of the past covered by incessant
"smiling."
And so we're now treated to a steady stream of "clash" predictions, as if pundits everywhere are suddenly realizing that Chinese and American national interests are not identical! (OMG!)--"superfusion" yielding to superfracturing.
The hyperbole here is a bit much, because the underlying structural interdependencies haven't changed one whit.
As usual, we in the West make a change in tack seem like a recovery from a mental breakdown ("What were we thinking?" "They were all myths! Myths, I tell you! And now we finally confront the truth!").
Seriously, helping China grow into a responsible world actor was always going to be a contentious affair, and most definitely non-linear. As will be its evolution toward internal pluralism, which the Chinese themselves will drive--not Washington, not Google, not anybody on the outside.
Alas, our need to freak out is never-ending.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:46PM ARTICLE: U.S. to Make Stopping Nuclear Terror Key Aim, By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCMITT, New York Times, December 18, 2009
Bit ho-hum after all these years, but gives you a sense of how slowly the bureaucracy in national security changes.
Fine and dandy to pursue. Just don't pretend like that constitutes an overarching grand strategy.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:44PM ARTICLE: Seeing Nazis Massacred, Followed by a Discussion, By PAUL VITELLO, New York Times, December 17, 2009
Just got the DVD and digital copy of "Inglourious Basterds" and went through all the extras.
Judging by the reception here (very similar to Tarantino's description of the screening in Berlin), Quentin achieved exactly what he was looking for.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:43PM ARTICLE: Projections Put Whites in Minority in U.S. by 2050, By SAM ROBERTS, New York Times, December 17, 2009
Old news but a reminder nonetheless.
The post-Caucasian world looms. Be afraid!
Then again, look who's talking. I will be living in a post-Caucasian family soon enough, as Europeans will constitute only half our children!!!!!
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:38PM OP-ED: Israel must get used to the new Turkey, By Suat Kinkiloğlu, Christian Science Monitor, January 20, 2010
An intelligent argument that says, in effect, Turkey is usefully usurping what should be U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:34PM ARTICLE: Haiti's elite hold nation's future in their hands, By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times, January 20, 2010
An amazing realistic piece on how Haiti either will or will not recover, based on how the dominant biz families choose to behave.
Are they to blame for Haiti's fate? Absolutely, but if you think that "fixing" Haiti's government is the pathway to success, you're wrong.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:32PM ARTICLE: Report slams U.S. for building power plant Afghans can't run, By Marisa Taylor, McClatchy, January 20, 2010
Classic problem of foreign aid: building stuff that the locals cannot sustain or afford.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:20PM OP-ED: Some Frank Talk About Haiti, By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times, January 20, 2010
Interesting for the citation of Paul Collier's report to the UN that the best step forward, developmentally, in Haiti would be to set up a garment industry--meaning, in cruder terms, sweatshops.
Ah, but that would be "shock capitalism" of the Naomi Klein sort, would it not?
Better to flood the place with aid instead of paychecks.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 10:12PM ARTICLE: Diplomatic Hand Extended: Furor May Erupt if Shaken, By ROBERT F. WORTH, New York Times, January 21, 2010
Worth remembering when we contemplate the titanic global power that is Iran: Tehran's government freaks over the idea that one of their ministers might have actually shaken the hand of an official Israeli counterpart.
Oh yeah, that's big-time all right.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 1:26PM Nice piece in Packer Plus by Bud Lea (a true old-timer whose coverage goes back to Lombardi) where he says there's a myth being perpetuated that most Packer fans remain in deep mourning or anger over Favre's departure and subsequent success this year with Minnesota. In truth, the population has moved on with surprising ease.
How is this possible?
I can only give you my own path of self-discovery as reference: when you disaggregate all your emotions about this whole process, you realize that you really love the Packers and that Favre was a huge part of that love for a very long time. But once gone, the guy doesn't really shift over into some opposite hatred (still got my Favre jersey, autographed football and bobble head--the last two prominently displayed in my home office). The simple truth is, you hate the Vikings no matter who's playing for them, and you still love the Packers, no matter who's not playing for them. Plus, underlying all this, you realize that you're incredibly happy with Rodgers, the first QB ever to throw for 4,000 yards in his first two seasons, while also--in unprecedented fashion--playing alongside a 1,200-yard rusher both seasons and two 1,000-yard receivers in both seasons. So what exactly are we supposed to be unhappy about regarding Favre's departure? Would we have had a better team, play-wise? Hard to see. Our fall last year was all about the D, and our rise this year was also all about the D. Our limits this year in the playoffs was also all about the D.
So yes, I wish Brett all the worst on Sunday, and if he makes it to the Super Bowl, I hope the Vikings' unblemished record will remain intact, thanks to the greatest QB in NFL history (and yes, the match-up would be priceless). Or the Saints keep playing phenomenally and the Jets surprise the world again and we forget all this.
Anyway, I will be at the Colts game on Sunday, wearing my Harrison jersey (a player I truly admired for many years--he was what I would have tried to be as an NFL receiver--many TDs and good at avoiding hits!), and then I and Vonne (she wears Manning) will return home to cheer on the Saints, which I would like to see, for historical reasons, finally reach their first SB (oh, and because I really do hate the Vikings).
Why the obsession with the Vikes versus the Bears? Just the history I've lived. It's always been very close with the Vikes since I started watching seriously in the early 1970s (yes, the timing of my birth sucked!), whereas with the Bears it's been one side or the other dominating for long stretches, to include Brett's long domination of the Bears (until that MNF game late in the season, I duly note as a Viking-hater).
In the end, you have to understand how fiercely Packer fans love their team, primarily because there's no good economic reason for the Packers to have remained in Green Bay--unless you know the history of my grandfather and the rest of the so-called "Hungry Five." Watching Favre in purple is one thing, but watching the "Los Angeles Packers" take the field (Lambeau's dirty dream that was thwarted by the Five) would be an entirely different thing.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 1:17PM 
View from our Stub Hub seats.
Stella Artois 30 yards away.
Stella! Stelllllllaaaa!
KO after 2nd TD our endzone.
Big cluster Jet fans nearby.
Tense!
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 12:53PM + HG's World linked Thomas P.M. Barnett's long view of how to revitalize Haiti.
+ And linked Do we require catastrophic failures to change?, Haiti's cultural poverty and Shocking capitalism! It actually helps after disasters!
+ The Future of Integral said Haiti needs the SysAdmin.
+ And talked about Tom WRT the Integral view of the world.
+ ADM J. C. Harvey, Jr said 'I'm very familiar with the Barnett book [PNM]; it's thought-provoking and has much to recommend it.'
+ Critt Jarvis linked Now they're fighting to build the truck nobody wanted to build--or buy--previously.
+ Naval Leadership linked The Awakening of Robert Gates.
+ unfitblog embedded the TED video (and got some interesting comments).
+ Opt Out En Masse embedded it.
+ Canuck_Centaur linked it.
+ So did daftandbarmy.
+ So did Hillel Aron (in a longer piece about Haiti, including the concept of the SysAdmin).
+ Chris Brogan retweeted it (from julien).
+ scottalbro tweeted Afghanistan is a chance to teach the Chinese something.
+ jamescrabtree compared the Walled World map (World's Top 50 Quality of Life Cities + heavily-guarded borders) with The Map.
+ Machen Libertarians linked PNM.
+ James Denselow mentioned the Leviathan.
Sunday, January 24, 2010 at 12:32AM A couple of days ago, I cited two WAPO pieces that suggested Haiti was dissolving into lawlessness (not uncommon after a major disaster--looting, vigilantism and score-settling all tend to pop up to some degree after a System Perturbation of this magnitude).
To counter this impression, reader Shane Deichman relays an email from Eric Rasmussen, CEO of inSTEDD, an IT-focused group that works to improve post-disaster management. The electronic missive presents an on-the-ground perspective highly at odds with WAPO's reporting (and my post's too-enthusiastic amplification). I'm almost certain I know Eric from a past life (he was Navy for a long time), because his name is quite familiar.
Anyway, here's what Eric wrote in a broadcast email:
Friends,
I've just returned from driving all over PaP. We stopped and talked. We were in the national park, the palace grounds, up in Delmas, and around the airport. The place is calm, sad, and massively under-resourced. That is no surprise - we're ramping up - but there is an important issue skewing the response a little.
In more than two hours of assessment, I saw two SAR teams and one water truck. I was in the hardest hit areas. No food aid visible. One water truck. The rumor is that security - a force protection requirement - is impeding aid delivery.
If there are security concerns I'm not sure what is driving them. There are isolated incidents, but Port au Prince is a city of more than 1.2 million. Delmas has more than 400,000. There is going to be crime, stupid people, angry people, but they're isolated. This is an impressively controlled crowd and they are TRYING to be well-behaved so that aid will flow. There are more than 20,000 in the Palace Park alone. They fully recognize the risk if they tolerate violence.
My driver offered to wrap every medical worker in 5 Haitians to make sure they'd feel safe.
I saw untreated open fractures. Obvious head trauma. Obvious psych trauma. Major avulsions. No medical surveys evident on the street. Hospital clearly overloaded. I have photographs.
Can we please ensure that we avoid looking like we're hiding from poor, weak, injured people who need help? The perceived security posture is getting quite a bit of play in the community and may not serve anyone well. The transcript below is locally discussed. As it happens I know Chris Elias, CEO of PATH, and he hires good people. I suspect the interview content is accurate.
Eric
What is the exact truth? Both descriptions may hold, depending on exact location and time (the doc's impressions are based on a two-hour tour), but Rasmussen's experienced eye suggests that WAPO's reporting was too extrapolating. Still, note that the pivot on his logic is a "rumor," so you don't want to replace one bad extrapolation with another (as simpler reasons for slow aid-flow are easily imagined). You just want to balance your perceptions suitably until better, more compelling data accumulates.
Remember, we live in a MSM world where the election of one senator from MA is described as an "earthquake" creating "chaos" within Congress! So hyperbole tends to rule, and my mistake was in passing it on too uncritically.
