A Simple Game of Chess

As we approach the one hundred day mark of the Obama presidency, there will be no shortage of media critics, writing the comprehensive report card on issues they hardly understand, but whose singular ability to place a letter grade next to the President’s actions identifies them as an expert. And there exists no shortage of events and actions to grade. The beginning of this administration has been simply amazing in the amount it has done, whether good or bad, in response to an unfortunate number of issues. However, in looking back on all he has done, some of the more important and consequential decisions the President has made may involve actions he chose not to take.

On most international events, the world in general looks for the American response first, and then forms their own. This is to be expected considering our role as a world power. But the biggest change from this administration to the previous one, and many others, is the addition of a new option in responding to the actions of other sovereign nations.

Do nothing.

North Korea decided to send a rocket over Japan and into the ocean. They were warned not to by a variety of national organizations, yet ignored it. They were threatened with a variety of potential repercussions, to no avail. News corporations covered the event in great detail prior to, playing the “will they or wont they” guessing game, and exploded after the launch, it being one of the first of those 3 A.M. phone calls this president has been forced to field.

The only reason we are not still bombarded with front page headlines featuring North Korea is because Obama took a chess-like approach to the issue rather than a checkers one. Instead of looking at a simple proportional response, he looked 4-5 moves down the road, and realized no real good would come of an initial reaction. Despite the world waiting for a reaction, he realized that both china and Russia took a wait and see stance, and that any action, at least initially, would be going it alone. With the great strides made in our foreign relations, this would be greatly counter-productive, and would undo a substantial amount of the new goodwill he had received.

North Korea threatened, we warned them, they flipped us the bird. The previous administration would have declared war. President Obama, in looking at the big picture, wisely chose to do little. The ability to look multiple moves down the road is clearly what separates the new administration from the reactionary ones in the past. A slow reversal of our self-proclaimed role as world police will show substantial gains in our overseas relationships and how other nations view the united States, not to mention increase our national security, save American lives and much needed capital.

As we sit back to judge the arbitrary hundred days mark, remember that often the best actions are the ones left on the cutting room floor. Sometimes the road less traveled is better off not traveled at all.

The Motivation of Minds.

It has been argued, from both sides of the political aisle, that escalating taxes on the rich serves as a disincentive to true innovation. The fact is, for the great innovators, money rarely played a role, and was, in many respects, simply a welcome by-product.

Consider Bill Gates. Certainly he spent an enormous amount of time and effort in creating the vision he had of a personal computer system available to all. It is hard for anyone to begrudge his success; it is truly the American dream. He possessed the intellect and will power to make something happen, and was somewhat fortunate that it was at the exact time that what he could provide the world was hungry for. For all his effort, the recent issue of Forbes puts his net worth at 40 billion, and that is down 18 billion from the year before. Certainly worthy of every accolade he receives.

But would Mr. Gates have worked less hard if he stood to gain only, say, 20 billion? Would he have taken more vacations, or done less research if he were only to make 10 billion? What if it was only 1 billion?

The great innovators are passionate about a concept or belief. They are willing to dedicate their lives to it, the great majority never reaching even a fraction of what Bill Gates has achieved.

To lower the scale a bit, Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook (an idea that may have been stolen and resulted in a 65 million dollar settlement), was worth 1.5 billion in 2008, and as a result of the recession, saw that number drop to under 1 billion in 2009. When someone is worth that type of money, what difference does ½ billion make? If he so desires, he could never spend a day working again in his lifetime, never mind his children’s and grandchildren’s lifetimes. The original goal was not to become insanely rich, but simply develop a platform for college students to communicate. Zuckerberg and his fellow students were not motivated by money, but simply excited by something new, a great innovation.

Making it more difficult to accumulate wealth, and thus easier for the general public to maintain a basic standard of living, will greatly increase the “innovation pool.” If we were to institute a rising tax scale that increased with income, and then, dare I say it, “re-distribute wealth” to the lower classes, the amount of great thinkers that would have the additional time and resources to develop these great ideas would increase. The creator of the next Facebook very well might be a middle aged man struggling with 2 jobs to provide healthcare for his family that will never see the time necessary to see his ideas reach fruition. And this has not gone unnoticed by those ready to take advantage of the situation. Today we are flooded with predatory “invention” companies charging fees to “patent” the ideas of those without the resources to make the most of them.

Truly great innovation is not motivated by the desire to get rich. In fact, most great minds never do achieve great wealth, despite the corporations they are working for seeing significant gains off their efforts. Great innovation is inspired by great curiosity, the desire of thinkers to explore the possibilities of building on the research of those before them. For insane amounts of wealth to end up in the hands of so few stifles the real possibilities that do exist, yet are hidden beneath the enormous cost of even a basic living.

Liberal, Yet Logical

It is time for the releasing of the torture memos, and the torture of suspected terrorist story altogether, to be called what it really is.

The most overblown, media driven story in recent memory.

Going back a few years here, but was the fact that these tactics were being used really a shock to anyone? Did anyone believe that, in the pursuit of information that could affect national security and American lives, we restrained ourselves so as not to extend beyond, say, a Perry Mason style interrogation? Who are we kidding? Not only were we not surprised by it, we expected it, we wanted it. And, dare I say, we needed it. And despite all efforts to persuade otherwise, it will continue, as it always has. Just not in Guantanamo.

What is most interesting about the release this week of the terror memos is not the torture methods employed, but the safety measures applied to these methods. The time allotted, the exact manner, and extreme safety measures that were in place to prevent permanent injury, never mind death, were impressively protective. The same methods could not be in use for more than 30 days without additional approval, which was given once evidence was provided that the suspect had a high likelihood of having pertinent information. In every case, it was mandatory to have a physician and psychiatrist present, with full autonomy. A slap to the face could only be with fingers spread wide, and to a specific area. The accounts of “throwing people into walls” were true, but the fact that this was a flexible wall built in a special room, and again, done with physicians present, was hardly mentioned in the press.

Nothing in these memos (actually, report. They are long as hell and read something the back of a credit card application) is something we did not already know, save some minor details. What is impressive it the lengths gone to physically protect these “combatants,” the reports littered with the precautions taken and considered mandatory. These reports reduce what was a media firestorm to a log cabin fireplace, an unnecessarily exaggerated story thrown on the disaster that was the Bush administration. And considering the overwhelmingly damning evidence detailing the incompetence already, we failed to question the initial accounts of terror. The media and ACLU told us to be angry about it, that it was un-American, all while we gave it a passing, superficial display of shock to our friends over coffee at Starbucks.

These reports mean little, if anything. It gives away nothing that was not already known, and if this in some way aids the terrorists in their planning, then they are far less intelligent that we thought. These reports were met with the expectation of Jack Bauer-esque, kneecap busting torture, and were greatly disappointing to the general public. As much as we can pile on the previous administration, Jack Nicholson was right. Regarding these CIA agents doing what needs to be done, “we want them on that wall, we need them on that wall.” These “memos” do nothing to change that. This is not right-wing or left wing, its simple logic.

My Dear Republicans...

I must say that, despite efforts to at least understand some of the standard Republican viewpoints with regard to taxes and size of government, I am left perplexed. Certainly vast differences can exist on social issues such as abortion, gay rights, and religion, and these are legitimate differences of opinion and beliefs that have been, and will remain, difficult to reconcile. But the issues with regards to taxes, many of which seemed grounded strongly in myth, are mystifying.

That the rich should be taxed at a higher percentage than the poor is something that benefits the overwhelming majority of Americans. If this is the land of equal opportunity, it is necessary. The reason for this is simple. Money grows. Popular phrases such as “it takes money to make money” and “making my money work for me” are popular because there is a truth to them. It seems the goal of many Americans to make enough cash that they can live on interest. And for those that have worked hard to get to that point, more power to them. But some things cannot be ignored:

It was the system we have in the United States that allowed you to reach that point. Without the capitalist society we employ, it would have been impossible. What other country affords this? It only stands to reason that those that have succeeded to this point should give back proportionally.

Can we consider those that have reached the point that their fortunes now allow them to live on interest working for their money? No one believes that an individual that works hard should not have a comfortable living and retirement. But is a comfortable living and retirement for 2 lifetimes necessary? What about 5 lifetimes? 20 lifetimes? Half of the upper class in the United States inherited much of the fortune they have. No work whatsoever was necessary for these to have a lifestyle most of us can only imagine, and that fortune will continue to grow with minimal to no effort.

The interest that the upper class “earns” on its money comes from the middle and lower classes. Therefore, “money begets money.” New printed cash naturally flows to the deep end of the pool, even if directed to the shallow end. This leaves the middle and lower classes in a cycle it is nearly impossible to get out of.

In any society, all participants have roles. Valuing some of those roles as vastly superior contributes greatly to the disproportionate wealth. Which member of society is more valuable, the trash collector or baseball player? Based on income, the obvious answer is the athlete, but go a week or two without trash collection, and get back to me.

It needs to be far easier to pay bills and achieve a healthy standard of living, and more difficult to become rich. It’s that simple. Is this a societal problem? Absolutely. We admire Paris Hilton and whoever this week’s Barbie is on The Hills, instead of those that have dedicated themselves and earned what they have. We look at success as being the founder of websites such as Facebook or Plenty of Fish, those whose success can be, in a large way, attributed to luck. We actually look up to those that brag about making the most amount of money in the least amount of time.

What makes this phenomenon most amazing is that it leaves a great many middle class Americans fighting the Obama administration’s policy’s simply to keep the highly unlikely dream of hitting the jackpot of the uber-rich alive. Phrases like “the rich get richer” have been around for generations, but never have they been more true than the last 20 years. It’s time for drastic change. That the large percentage of wealth is now controlled by so few needs to be reversed. Every American deserves a chance at a comfortable life in exchange for hard work. The only way this is even remotely possible is a government led by an intelligent leader focused on fighting for everyone equally. If you are still determined to fight the system that will, for the vast majority of Americans, improve your financial future, in order to hold on to the pipe dream that you will become abundantly wealthy, keep having your Tea Parties.

But you’re better off buying a lottery ticket.

Tea Party Gone Wrong

It was my great honor to not only attend, but greatly enjoy, a wonderful tea party earlier today.

Yes, that Tea Party.

I was able to find about an hour to visit the “Tea Party” in New Haven, CT. I know this was an Astroturf campaign, and the fact that I had even heard about it was due to Keith Olberman’s fascination with Fox News, causing him to poke fun at the fact that they were the only news organization (?) covering the rallies, and in fact, were outright promoting them. Nevertheless, I wanted to go. Maybe I would find the logical Republican. The one logical Republican.

Please allow me to catch my breath.

At most, there were 300-350 people standing around, holding signs, and being relatively quiet. Between patriotic songs by no name musicians blaring on the radio, a woman would yell into a microphone words that were simply read off the placards being held, generally something about Marxism or Socialism. Most disturbing was the signs that mentioned teabagging, as these were all held by what seemed like 15 year old girls, who were the only ones that looked excited to be there. That one adult could not see the irony, and perhaps illegality, in this is astounding. Needless to say, I found it entertaining.

I asked a few of the older protesters, all of which seemed to be veterans, what they were rallying for. All responded that Obama was destroying the country, and they were tired of taxes. Since I was committed to walking out with my nose intact, I barely responded, but am still left with a query. Unless all millionaires now dress in flannel, no one there saw any tax increases whatsoever. In fact, they are paying less. As I could not figure out the point of this gathering, I took my leave.

A few days prior, on meetup.com, I joined a group of Glenn Beck fans for shits and giggles. I had no intention of much interaction, but simply wanted to observe the posts and ideology (yeah I know, there isn’t one). I will now share with you the email interaction between one of the members and myself, as I just could not keep quiet:

Member 1: Thanks for going. I am sorry I had to work. You and everyone who attended were on my mind throughout the day. Do you have an estimate of how many attended? When I hear the news (ha!) cover it I want to know if they are lying. Thanks for being my voice when I could not speak!

Member 2: Sorry we missed you, I couldn't even guess but there was a lot! More than I thought would show. I'm happy we're taking this seriously. I wonder who might be losing a bit of sleep in Washington and every State tonight, or where ever they might be?

Member 3: Hi everyone! Thanks for coming out today, I think it was a great success. We stopped counting people at 1600, but the general consensus is almost 2000 at the height! Well done!

Me: There is no way I can be quiet about this. If you counted 1600, you must be the same that counted the attendance to the Million Man March or the Garth Brooks concert in Central Park. I was there for an hour, and at no point was there more than a few hundred, and some of those were walkers that are there every day at noon. And general consensus is that there were 2000? I feel your pain, but this is a joke.

Member 3: There were 2000, you have to count groups of 100 then guesstimate as you walk along, your being dishonest by saying a few hundred, there were 200 there at 10:30 Am have you ever ran an event or sold tickets to a show??? I have, I have ran several boxing events and 12 bodybuilding shows, 2000 people isn't that big of a crowd, the normal elevator fits 10! easy...

Me: Look, I wish it were true. Once I left, I returned to (the College around the corner), where those that did not know about the rally referred to it as a picnic. The road would certainly have been closed, or at least diverted, for 2000 people. Let’s not be revisionists a mere few hours after the fact. And suggesting that I cannot count because I have never sold tickets to a boxing match? Really? "2000 people isn't that big of a crowd, the normal elevator fits 10!"
Is this a joke?

Member 3: Ok to the rest stop regulars you hang with then, we here need not nor want a punk in the group and I have a personal mail if you want to discuss this face to face.

Apparently a face to face meeting through email is possible. Gotta love modern technology. After this, I stopped replying, as this was beyond idiotic. But how on earth is participating in a fraudulent “grassroots” campaign, where few if any of the protesters know what they are protesting, followed by the most inaccurate head count I have ever witnessed, going to help the party? This is laughable.

The truth is, I am starting to feel sorry for these people.

Columbine

This is a simple post to direct you to a spectacular article on Columbine, 10 years after the fact. This is yet another example of how the general public reacts after any shocking incident, displaying an amazing gullibility to any story or so called account in the immediate aftermath, then allowing attention to waver by the time the real facts are determined. As catastrophic as this massacre was, there is a certain relief in now knowing what we do, that this was the result, not of some bullying, racism, or social inequality, but severely disturbed individuals.

The Pirates of Finance

In what seemed like the longest standoff in U.S. History, Captain Phillips was safely rescued Easter Sunday, at the expense of 3 Somali “pirates.” Great. We, as a nation, have reason to be proud.

And really worried.

Not only does the U. S. military have a responsibility to protect the homeland, but many of our interests abroad. This cannot be debated; it is a necessity. But with this act of piracy, something hardly new to this region, we are spending resources on protecting those that 1. Willingly put themselves in harm’s way, and 2. Could, at additional cost, be protecting themselves.
The inherent dangers in this part of the world are no secret. Even before this particular act pushed it into the spotlight, stories on piracy were not uncommon on every news channel. Training is routinely done to prepare crews for a pirate attack. Nothing that happened in this case was a surprise.

When something of value is open to obvious danger, additional measures are taken. Armored cars are aptly named for a reason. Every day, vehicles carrying millions of dollars deliver to hundreds of banks under the protection of those with holstered weapons and extensive training, paid for by the banks that employ them. As necessary as the banking industry is to the economic state of the country, the government does not pay for this service. You and I do, in the form of bank and interest fees. It is, quite simply, a cost of doing business. Pretending that the danger of a robbery is not real will not make it go away, it must be taken seriously and accounted for.
The shipping industry has made a calculated risk. Last year, there were approximately 111 successful hijackings of ships in this region. Of the thousands of ships going through annually, this is a tiny percentage, something the industry has taken into account when calculating the potential cost of ransom fees vs. the cost of arming the ships. This is a conscious decision on how to deal with a very real and documented risk.

So why is the American public paying for military support of this private industry? If large banks suddenly decided to deliver cash in unarmed minivans, should the government be called on to provide security? If I, as a white man, decide to open a 24 hour bodega in Harlem, should I really be surprised if I am robbed? Or is it on me to pay for an armed guard at the door? If I choose not to have one, who is to blame when the obvious happens?

These companies have made conscious and calculated decisions, based solely on financial reasons, not to pay for armed guards, despite knowing that the unarmed or poorly armed ships are the exact target of the pirates. They then send these unarmed ships to the region most known for pirate activity, expecting that some will actually be hijacked, but because the percentage is low enough, it is fiscally worth the risk. Completely ignored is the fact that no insurance will come anywhere close to issuing a policy for the trip, for this exact reason. If something goes wrong, despite being expected, the Military serves as the ultimate insurance policy, with the taxpayer footing the enormous bill.

Just add the shipping industry to the list of bailout recipients.

From Here to Fraternity...

With the Obama European Tour still in full effect, and with new tour dates recently added for France, China and Russia in the near future, it would seem the overall consensus is that the trip is a success. Almost every article written contains numerous quotes by foreign leaders praising Obama’s leadership style, as well as his ability to bring nations together and shepherd agreements. These were things that most Americans already knew. But the articles don’t stop there.

Despite the positive overseas reviews, the trip is being presented as all style/ no substance affair here in the states. Sure, the President looked good, and took positive steps for diplomacy, but was essentially turned down with the majority of his requests. His strong desire to have many of these countries push through stronger stimulus packages was overwhelmingly rejected. The 1 trillion that was agreed to will do little more than help some of the smaller countries survive the economic downturn that otherwise would have completely failed. But really, is falling short of all his goals really a failure?

Unfortunately, we all don’t get laid on every first date. Sometimes, we settle for a goodnight kiss, leaving the door open to “get some” in the future. Is that a failure? Since when is restoring diplomacy and even forming friendships with nations that had no love for us in the last eight years a disappointment? This is how success is achieved. Laying a foundation that allows the President to, at the very least, pick up the phone to France without being ignored or slammed down is a drastic improvement from what existed just a few months ago. Successfully delivering the message that we, as Americans, are not a country of arrogant exceptionalists, and are willing, in fact, eager, to work with the nations we share a planet with is reason enough to consider this trip quite the accomplishment.

And despite not walking away from this summit with every goal being checked off, the rest of the world at least now knows this: we can take rejection with dignity. Let’s not forget the hissy fit thrown by the Bush administration when the world was overwhelmingly, and rightfully so, against the war in Iraq. We essentially told them all to go screw themselves and established our Coalition of the Willing (you remember that, right? It was made up of some very powerful allies, like Poland, Morocco, my dog Skip, and the ant farm I had in 6th grade), went and lied to the UN, and then did whatever the hell we felt like. showing the world that we actually have respect for them is a huge step in the right direction, and brings us a lot closer to being able to check a few more of those boxes on our list.