In my own words!

Collective Suicide

2005-06-26T21:56:00.000-04:00

Many international observers and Iranians are in state of shock. Iranian election unfolded and to every one’s surprise, Iranians elected an unapologetic fascist and ant-Semite as the new president. Ahmadinejad’s claim to fame is his paramilitary background in the Revolutionary Guards, and the not-so-nice reputation for administering over one hundred coup de graces during 1980s purges. His record as local governor in 1990s and as mayor of Tehran over the last two years is nothing to brag about.

He has promised a lot, and in my opinion is unlikely to be able to deliver any of his election pledges. A partial list looks like:

He pledged repeatedly to reduce poverty: since his economic doctrine is state controlled command economy, he is unlikely to shore up enough support among investors to commit to long term investments required to create well paying jobs. Distribution of oil sale windfalls works in the short term (Hugo Chavez showed us recently), but does not address structural dynamics of poverty in Iran.

He has pledged to tackle unemployment: he is even less likely to succeed here. The reason is explained above. Ni investments equals no new jobs, hence more (not less) unemployment.

He portrayed himself as an anti-corruption crusader: there might be a couple of show trials, conveniently targeting political opponents. Iranian bureaucracy is deeply corrupt due to rent-seeking by bureaucrats, so it’s not hard to find some erstwhile high ranking reformers with less than squeaky clean financial records. But his campaign owes so many IOUs to hardliner semi-legal smugglers and rent-seekers that any serious attempt to rout out the corruption is a joke.

Another important outcome of this election was total political isolation of all the first generation leaders of the 1979 revolution except supreme leader, Ali Kahmenei. Rafsanjani’s defeat and Karrubi’s public resignation from all official duties essentially isolated the last remnants of the Old Guard. Open hostility to high ranking clerics who did not support Ahmadijejad showed that the new Lords do not have much respect for ulama’a (religious leaders) either. Present Lords of The Islamic Republic are a motley collection of ultra-conservative mullahs who did not participate in the revolution in ’79, commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, and street thugs and conservative bazaar merchants. They seem to be able to shore up support among the poor by playing the populist card. But I really do not see how they can deliver anything tangible.

Another important outcome of this election would be Iran vs. West relations. Core supporters of the new Mr. President are among the most rabid fundamentalist elements in Iran. He avoided participating in interviews with foreign journalists. It is hard to imagine that his administration and its supporters are more flexible than Khatami’s administration regarding the nuclear arms question. If they indeed are less accommodating towards West’s demands regarding Iran’s nuclear program, some kind of confrontation is inevitable. European trio of UK, France, and Germany can not claims that they are making progress about Iran’s nuclear program and human rights record if no one would talk to them! US would not accept a nuclear Iran. It is a truth. A nuclear North Korea is there because Seoul is just 25 miles from the DMZ. That’s not the case about Iran.
In a confrontation with the US military might, you do not need to be a genius to know who will lose.

Friday, June 17th 2005

2005-06-17T00:11:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow Iran votes for the sixth president since 1979. Iranian people have voted in elections since 1906. Nothing new here then. But the theocracy is visibly uncomfortable vis-à-vis an apathetic population. Gone are the days of mass mobilizations of 1980s. This election is increasingly viewed as a popularity contest for the Islamic Republic. If the total number of votes falls below 50% of eligible voters, the mullahs face serious questions about the legitimacy of their rule.
In case of a run off election and realistically probable win for reformist candidate Moin, millions of dollars of conservative campaigning would have been in vain. We will see tomorrow.
At any rate, the visible outcome of this electoral campaign was noticeable secularization of the tone of serious contenders. Except for one long shot conservative candidate, all others ostensibly avoided religious propaganda. It is true that without exception all campaign promises were meaningless and infeasible, but it was rather refreshing to see that secular themes had the upper hand even for clerics running for the office.
Without a doubt, Iranian society is secularizing faster than anyone believed possible a decade ago. Hopefully all the political Islam mumbo jumbo will be a bad memory in a decade, at least in Iran.

Lou Dobbs Moment

2005-05-15T15:30:00.000-04:00

For years I resisted having cable access. I eventually caved in a couple of months back. Still, habits of long years do not break easily. I do not watch TV often. Internet is good enough for me.

This said, I noticed something very strange. Years back when I lived in Iran, I liked watching CNN's financial markets coverage by Lou Dobbs. It was go go 1990s and everyone was pro-globalization. That included Mr. Dobbs. Fast forward to 2005. I dont know about you, but every time I watch his program now, I feel like puking. This guy has turned his show from a financial markets coverage affair to a pulpit for ugliest kind of populism possible. Consider this: even President Bush called those goons who are patrolling Mexican border to catch (and then do what?) illegal immigrants, vigilantes operating beyond the scope of law. Mr Dobbs calls them concerned, patriotic, American citizens, who have had enough (of what?). I was under the impression that we live in a republic with functioning police, army, and border guards. Not according to CNN I suppose.

If you listen to him, and take him seriously, you should vote for nuclear attacks on China and India, concentration camps for Latino immigrants, and expulsion of anyone who does not consider Pat Buchanan as saint from this country. Then you should close the borders, chug a lot of bad beer, and wait until you die, I guess. I wonder whether this type of rhetoric really buys this guy any ratings. I mean lets get real, a bully pulpit for xenophobia, paranoid protectionism, and gloating over how we are all going to go down in flames and die, hardly sounds like objective journalism. Is this what CNN wants to portray itself today?

Since the cat is out of the bag, then …

2005-04-28T16:51:00.000-04:00

Here is what Asia Times has to say about recent unrest and demonstrations in Iran’s Khuzestan province. Over the last six or seven years, we have witnessed some ethnocentric agitation in Iran. And yes, it true that probably up 30% of Iranian population speaks a non-Indo-European language. The article implies that the US government might have a part in fomenting ethnic unrest in Iran, in order to force the Islamic Republic to behave.

I do question the logic of such a tactic. Time and again, United States stresses the goal of democratizing and modernizing the Middle East. Such a policy is good for American businesses and it is good for US and Israel’s long term security. If a democratic Middle East (and the financial and security dividend implied by such a plan) is the real goal of US foreign policy, then fanning ethnic agitation in Iran looks an odd way of achieving it.

At best, such a tactic might be ineffective (since the majority of Iranians will rally behind the Islamic Republic to save the country) and at worst it may plunge a 70+ million country in a civil war. Such a war will not be contained in Iran. It can easily spill over to Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf states, if not Pakistan! I think by now we all know that Yugoslavian civil war taught everyone a lesson or two.

Iranians are a very nationalistic people. Think about the Irish circa 1915 and then multiply it by a factor of 100. I happen to be very lukewarm on nationalism, but that’s just me which allows me to make educated guesses on what might be the outcome. I assure you none of the likely scenarios look good. Just to give you an example: none of these ethnocentric agitators are democratic. Almost all of them are vitriolic anti-Americans (most are ex-Marxists with an ax to grind regarding the break up of the Soviet Union, or unhappy about Arab-Israeli conflict, or unhappy about other real and imagined "sins" committed by the US). The group generally considered responsible for recent unrest in Khuzestan was created and financed by Saddam Hussein up to 2003! Let’s assume that they actually manage to carve out a new Arab state after a dirty ethnic war with the non-Arab population. Then US military should worry about another safe haven for ex-Ba’athists and Jihadis launching attacks against GIs in Iraq and US Navy in the Persian Gulf, if not another 9/11 style attack at the US soil.

A far more prudent course of action will be supporting democratic elements in the Iranians society. There are many of them and they do have the numbers and the power to ask for change. They do lack organization and financial support. But US can easily provide the necessary tools covertly or overtly. Notice that if the average Iranian senses a threat to the country or the threat of civil war, he may abandon the increasingly audible demands for democratic change and support even the most obnoxious fundamentalist elements in the IR hierarchy. And after the recent events even assuring the average Iranian that US does not want a civil war in Iran may not be a bad idea.

Islamic Republic is really bereft of its once commanding popularity. But if they are given the chance to don the mantle of Iranian nationalism, they can muster an impressive number of foot soldiers. US definitely does not need that! The choice seems pretty clear to me, and CIA gumshoes are not exactly the best policy makers. I would be happy to see your feedback.

Addendum:

2005-04-21T09:42:00.000-04:00

The education bill is more complicated than meets the eye at the first glance. The requirements are four years attendance in NC high schools, and a written pledge that the children would seek legal residency. Being born on the US soil is not anywhere to see. So we are talking about young adults who are illegal residents of this country. The first requirement makes sense, the second is ridiculous.

Anyone who has gone through US immigration system knows that regardless of how many times you declare your noble intentions, US CIS has its own (often baffling and counterintuitive) criteria.

Among them is the little advertised clause that states if you over-stay a legal entry permit or enter the country illegally (bar a few exemptions), you would not be eligible for residency legal procedures for “ten years”! So if these children’s parents do not start early enough, and most don’t, these kids are not eligible for even the review process (let alone legal residency) long after they have left college. Since employment of college graduates is more competitive and better regulated than that of unskilled workers round the corner, I can not see how this bill will help these kids! What good is a college degree when you can not use it for job search? Moreover, really how binding is a written pledge? Are you going to deny them their degree if they have not made progress on what they committed to do? Then it will be almost automatic: don't issue any degrees. They won't make any progress on becoming legal!

There are other issues:

First, it seems that the bill is essentially a vehicle to curry favor with voters (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) and is not concerned with the welfare of illegal college age teenagers; else state of North Carolina should have lobbied the CIS for a change in residency rules.

Second, since the bill targets Hispanics predominantly (other immigrants in this state tend to be legal), it is missing the point. Most so-called Hispanic kids, who are considered at risk, do not even finish high school. College is not even in the picture. The absolute majority of them are from central American origins. Contrary to what many people perceive, Hispanics are not homogeneous. You have South Americans, who are generally well-educated, relatively wealthy, and legal. You have middle class central Americans and Caribbeans who resemble South Americans in socio-economic terms. And then you have the typical “round the corner” immigrant from central America.

Here is where it gets complicated: many of these people are not even proficient in Spanish language, let alone literate! Many speak one of the native languages, do not know enough Spanish to use the bilingual services offeredin the US, and can not help their children at school. The children have the double trouble of not knowing English, AND having difficulty with Spanish! Many of them (60%+) drop out of school, many never even reach 10th grade.

For my money, the logical step would be trying to assimilate these children into the American culture by making sure that they get a quality primary and secondary education, in English. The goal should be to give them a shot at academic or professional success, not some cosmetic legislation that does not bring them any tangible benefits.

Illegal immigrants and not-so-scholarly future scholars!

2005-04-21T01:44:00.000-04:00

North Carolinians are in open revolt. No, I am not talking about 1778 or 1860. I am talking about 2005. The main cause of this outpouring of emotions is a bill, which if it passes through the NC legislative bodies successfully, would grant US born children of Latino illegal immigrants’ in-state tuition status for college education.

First I have to say the hype is greater than the reality. It seems to me that the bill just allows those children who are “born” on the US soil to exercise this privilege. I actually did not know that as US citizens, these kids could not do it! Their parents are illegal, sure enough. But the children are not. They are as much a citizen of the USA as any kid whose ancestors came with the May Flower. Some may not like this, but it is the law of this country. So it seems a bit strange that you may be a citizen, but you re not a resident in a state where you are born and/or raised.

Second, I have to say that I would have been livid if this privilege was given to “all” children of illegal immigrants. If the child is not a US citizen or legal resident, I see no reason why he/she should get a huge discount on higher education on my expense. After all these years, I “just may” qualify to get in-state tuition this year. Then why someone who has cut in the line in the first place, should get brownie points too?

Peter has a piece on this issue. I found many of his points relevant.

Third, Associate Dean Jim Leloudis recently announced that UNC would lower the weight of academic achievement in granting scholarships to under grads. After reading the article I was very puzzled. Leloudis is not a hack. He knows his business. He also knows that while the best students in the university are truly outstanding, the same is not true for the average. In fact, the 80% rule sees to this outcome. Scholarships are a means to lure the truly outstanding “scholarly” types to choose UNC. Problem is that none of these people who re-wrote the procedures have a clear idea about what they are doing. So exactly what is happening here? UNC is one of the best public universities in the US. I don't understand why administrators are knowingly lowering the standards, hence destroying a great institution. Is there a bit of "career concerns" economics going on?

Been a long time since I’ve rock n’ roll’ed …

2005-04-15T15:16:00.000-04:00

The last two weeks have been eventful and I have been too busy to put new posts here. So here we go again:

Iran’s president made another huge mistake. While attending Pope John Paul II funeral, Israel’s Iranian born president, Moshe Katsav, shook hands with both Iranian and Syrian presidents. Katsav and Khatami are from the same city (Yazd in central Iran) so they did exchange some pleasantries and discussed their hometown. If Khatami possessed a pair of functioning “cojones”, this event could help re-establish Iranian-Israeli relationships. Alas, upon returning to Tehran, Khatami buckled under the hardliner pressure and reiterated the same old and tired anti-Israeli BS that you usually hear in all muslim countries.

While I do not go as far as Mr. Derakhshan and ask Iranians to hound Jews as potential spouses, I do think that Iran, Israel, and Turkey have very similar national security and economic interests. As a result, I do think that a close diplomatic relationship between these three countries is necessary for the balance of power and long term security of the Middle East. For my money, a very close tri-lateral alliance is the best option, but any functioning comprehensive trade, security, and diplomatic arrangement is better than the current mess.

Bluntly speaking, Palestinian question has nothing to do with Iran’s national interests. If the ethical aspect is a concern, having some leverage (through diplomatic and trade relationship) over Israeli decision making process enables Iran to do much more than what it is doing right now. Remember that you might be allies, but you do not need to support all actions taken by your partner.

On a different note, Iranian Studies Group, a (graduate) student run research outfit at MIT published the initial results of its first survey of Iranian-American community. Several issues in this survey are worthy of detailed discussion. Briefly, here is a list of issues I find interesting:

Iranian-American community seems very well-integrated in the American society. Many of them are US citizens, have a functioning relationship with native born Americans, and feel welcome and at home here (the overwhelming majority do not feel discriminated and find few obstacles for success in the US, many speak English at home).
Civic participation among Iranians is very low. While they are doing very well financially (look at table 6), they have not been tapped by the political machinery as campaign contributors or potential voters.
The participants are highly educated. This might be due to selection bias in design of this poll (it was internet based). But there is a widely held belief in the Iranian community that the majority of Iranian Americans are college educated. As mentioned before, high levels of human capital seem to translate into financial success.
It is remarkable how secular the respondents are (close to 68% do not practice religion, less than 20% discuss it with their children, close to 35% consider religion and mysticism as the least appealing aspect of Iranian culture, and close to 40% claim to be agnostic, spiritual but not religious, or atheist!).
Iranian customs, Persian language, and Iranian history seem to be the main elements defining and binding this community together. Ethnicity, religion, and politics seem to be unimportant.
They are a close knit community and socialize and marry inside their own community. Outside Iranian community, they prefer to socialize with Americans, Western Europeans, and Latin Americans compared to other ethnic groups.

I got to go now. Please share your thoughts with me.

2005-04-05T14:47:00.000-04:00

Roy's Boys Rule!

UNC Rules!

2005-04-05T14:20:00.000-04:00

It is official! Just in case that you were hibernating and don't know what's going on in this world: UNC got what it deserved! Our fourth NCAA Basketball championship, and boy we had to wait for this one!

When I started graduate school here back in the day ;) , one of my dreams was to witness a UNC championship before I graduate. An ACC title would have been enough. Boy, little did I know that I will live to see a NCAA title! Chapel Hill was on fire last night!

It actually gives me bragging rights. You see, I have to go to Duke every week. It is true that grad students don't care "too much" about college sports, but still you got snide remarks every time Duke beat UNC or when heaven forbid, they went for a NCAA tourny. Now it's payback time!!!

We all love Roy's Boys! Good job Tar Heels!

Comments on "Are Iranians Really Aryans?"

2005-04-01T14:41:00.000-05:00

A dialog on identity of Iranians as a nation is both healthy and desirable. Respected Iranian scholar Dariush Ashuri considers these discussions as signs of transformation of Iran from an Asian despotism to a modern nation-state. Admittedly, this process is taking a very long time, given that Iranians clearly have access to other nations’ experiences. As usual, in such debates nothing is sacred. We are supposed to critically question many comfortable “facts”. But critical thinking requires intelligent and methodical processing of knowledge.

This is where I find faults in Ben Madadi’s analysis of origins of Iranians in the Iranian. His view of Reza Shah Pahlavi’s nation-building project is historically accurate. Reza Shah and many of his intellectual supporters, including at a certain point in time Taghizadeh, Hedayat, Kasravi, and Pir Nia, indeed tried to build a national identity for the modern Iran based on a glorified view of ancient empires of pre-Islamic Iran. In many ways, that project required a tool to break from entrenched and staunchly anti-modernist traditions and customs of (mainly Shi’ite) Muslim “ummat”. Bluntly speaking, no one could build a modern state in the wreck that was Iran in late Qajar period, unless power of guardians of the old system; landlords, ulama, and tribal chiefs, was crushed. Ancient Persian Empire provided this tool. Besides an educational system to train bureaucrats, a dynamic legal system, an army and a police force, a modern nation also needs a founding myth! This myth is generally set in distant past. There are exceptions, US being one of them. But you need a myth to rally the nation. Whether Reza shah was right or wrong in his choice of the founding myth is an open debate. But Aryan origin of (majority) of Iranians is not part of that founding myth.

There is a huge deal of controversy extant in Western world over the word “Aryan”. The dominant political terminology of early and mid 20th century indeed attached a largely erroneous racial description to this name. If by Aryan one means “of European or Nordic” origin, the answer to Mr. Madadi’s question is a clear “no”. Iranians are not European. The absolute majority of Iranians belong to the Mediterranean subgroup of Caucasian race along with Arabs, Armenians, Turks, North Africans, Albanians and Greeks.

But it is a historical fact that eastern Indo-European people (a linguistic term and not a racial term) indeed called themselves Aryan. That includes ancestors of many present day Afghans, Armenians, Azarbaijanis, Iranian, Tajik, northern Indians, and Pakistanis. Moreover, in today’s terminology, Aryan is a person who speaks an Aryan language, a large family of Indo-European languages spoken in western and southern Asia. In Iran this definition includes Persian, Kurdish, Luri, Gilaki, Mazandarani, Baluchi and many other languages and dialects. Thus, calling a majority of Iranians Aryan does not seem as problematic as the author would have us believe.

He also makes an assertion based on "official statistics", on percentage of Persian speaking population, and by extension, percentage of Iranians with Aryan heritage. As a trained statistician, I would like to see the source of Mr. Madadi’s claim, since numerous field studies show the exact opposite. Many internationally recognized sources including CIA and National Geographic report a slim absolute majority for Persian speakers (51 to 52%) and a sizeable majority for all Indo-European speakers (70 to 73%). Azrabaijani Turkish is the most widely spoken non-Aryan language in Iran (about 20 to 22% of the population). Yet, there are not many marked cultural and anthropological differences between Azarbaijanis and other Iranians. In other words, first majority of Iranians are indeed speakers of eastern Indo-European languages (hence Aryan if you will). And second, the number of Iranian citizens who do not share racial or linguistic background with the majority is negligible.

I agree with the author that an honest discussion of Iranian identity is essential to building a prosperous future for Iran. But in doing so, careful choice of statements and checking the facts are essential. Unfortunately, the author has failed in this respect. I do agree with the author that nationalism (as opposed to patriotism) makes a weak foundation for a nation. The other extreme project of 20th century, nation building around Shi’a Islam, has also failed. An honest revision of Iranian history is a very good starting point. Also, redefining the Iranian identity based on a modern definition of liberty, citizenship, human, political, and cultural rights, as well as common historical and cultural experience would not do us much harm.

In a modern society, the point of reference is the individual. A nation should be viewed as a union of free individuals. Collective definitions such as race, ethnic group, tribe, clan, and religious faith … are unfortunate legacies of our past.

This Old Festival of Fire!

2005-03-15T18:50:00.000-05:00

Today is the last Tuesday of the Persian calendar. People of Iranian cultural heritage celebrate this day as “Chahar-shanbe Suri” (literally, Wednesday Festival). It is one of the oldest and most persistent remnants of greater Iran’s Zoroastrian past. Chahar-Shanbe Suri is essentially a fire festival. Ancient Iranians considered the classical four elements as sacred. But the especially revered light (hence, fire). There are three main fire festivals in Iranian calendar: in the fall, you celebrate “Mehrgan” devoted to Mithra, angel of contracts and treaties. This tradition is very similar to Celtic (I am not sure whether Welsh or Irish) festival of Lughnasa. in winter you celebrate “Sadeh” which celebrates Winter Solstice. Then at the very end of the year, you celebrate Chahar-Shanbe Suri to cleanse yourself for the New Year festival of Nouruz.

Traditionally, you light fires at sundown and jump over them asking the fire to cleanse you soul. You may also try to divine the year ahead through hiding somewhere and listening to what passerby’s say. To solve your problems you eat a consecrated assortment of nuts and dried fruit. Children go trick-or-treating, like they do in the US on Halloween, but they call it “ghashogh zani”. The first time I saw trick-or-treat in the US I was struck by how similar it is to Iranian ghashogh zani. I assume it has something to do with long forgotten Indo-European roots of our nations. Teenagers love setting up makeshift fireworks and flirting in the streets. In recent years, they play music and dance in the streets.

It used to be a formal holiday before Islamic fundamentalists took over Iranian government in 1979. They tried to outlaw the festival. But it has very strong roots and the efforts of Islamic republic have been wasted to this point. I read today that Tehran’s notorious persecutor has threatened that celebrants will be tried as criminals! I do not know what they are going to do with hundreds of thousands of people who pour into streets each year!

Practicing Muslims do not like this festival, since it is a blaring sign that after fourteen centuries Islamic presence in Iranian lands, people still believe in many Zoroastrian traditions. I remember when I lived in Iran, especially in mid 1980s and early 1990s, their militias used to attack us with clubs and chains for celebrating. Then they would play cassettes of recitation of Koran. It was as if a donkey is braying in the middle of Beethoven’s No. 9! Anyway, those days are just a memory now, and those Basiji (Islamic militia) losers are still losers, albeit a bit older.

I have to go celebrate now, but I will be back with a post on my beloved Nouruz!

A nice (but late) discovery!

2005-03-08T23:10:00.000-05:00

Going through different economics related websites, I came across this really interesting support site for those benighted creatures who want to get a PhD in economics. It is nice on several levels and useful for applicants and advanced grad students alike.

The author, whom God grant long life and prosperity for helping some of the most helpless fellow human beings (grad students), has done a nice job providing detailed, precise, and up to date information about the application process, survival guide in the first year, and some hints and comments about where to look for jobs and how to publish (more useful for advanced students).

For one thing, I really liked the break down of departmental rankings based on subfields. Also, the author has gathered an impressive collection of lecture notes, problem sets, and solutions for core economic courses.

A rather strange incident.

2005-03-03T14:07:00.000-05:00

Folks, this post is going to be very different from what I had posted here so far. For the last two months, I have been rather prim and proper. This post, while addressing an important question, is rather unusual.

I read this article in the Iranian (an online talk shop for English speaking Iranians). It is about lecherous Mullahs, and how for a Muslim cleric, the only use for a woman is as a sex object. It also reminded me of an incident more than a decade ago, when I was in military service. For those of you who are not familiar with Draft, almost all Iranian males over the age of 18 are drafted for two years.

I served in Iran’s regular Air Force (Guardians Corps has a parallel air force) from 1990 to1992. Towards the end of this period, I was assigned to drive this mullah who led the noon prayers for one of the centers in our base. I would pick him up at 11:30 AM, drive him to the base, and drive him back after the prayers. It was a good diversion. I would go to the city, have an early lunch, and goof off while the prayer was going on. The mullah turned out to be quite a character too. He ran a notary public (that’s a rather lucrative business back there) and as result, had a lot of marriage and divorce cases. He was an ethnic Azari from North West Iran, spoke Persian with a thick Azari accent, in his own way a kind guy, and was God’s own fool. I have seen quite a few ignorant people in my time, but this guy comes pretty high on the list. His great luck was that his cousin was a high-ranking cleric in the conservative camp.

Over the course of several weeks, we got pretty chummy. Initially he would talk about good Muslim behavior, prayers, fasting, and all this clap tarp. But over a period of ten days, I realized that our friend has quite a taste for “Ladies”. I correct myself; this guy lived to get laid! His pet phrase was: “listen to me soldier: grab a woman whenever you have the urge, just do it according to God’s law.” Shi’a Islam allows you to have up to four wives, and as many “temporary marriages” as you want. That’s the polite way of saying you are using prostitutes. You go and ask a mullah to “marry” you to a woman for as short as an hour. The act is called “sighe”. Our Seyyed was a notorious “sighe” hunter.

So one day, I went to pick him up from his office. He yelled at me from his offices balcony to park the SUV and run upstairs. I did so. Then he asked me to lie down on dumpy sofa that he had in his office. Well, it is very strange by this point, but you do not cross a mullah in Iran. I did. He was not very happy. Shaking his head, he told me to get up and we left for the base. On the way back I asked him what was all that about? He complained that I am too tall. You see, at 6’2”, I am unusually tall for a country where the average man is just 5’4”. He said that day he had a divorce case. The woman turned out to be quite attractive for Seyyed and he tricked her to stay in the office after the proceedings. Eventually he managed to convince her to sleep with him as his “sighe”. He wanted to see whether I fit on the sofa so I can sleep with that poor woman as well. It would have been touching in any other context. The logic was that as a soldier, I am not married so I must be going through hell! I actually did not fit the sofa, so the point was moot. He wanted to be nice to me, while totally exploiting a helpless woman going through a divorce.

We had a good laugh about it later when I told my buddies in the base. My girlfriend at the time did not like it a bit, but was pleased to hear about the incident from me.

I still have a couple of stories about this guy. Wait for the rest.

Some comments, ideas, ...

2005-02-25T13:56:00.000-05:00

It has been sometime since I have posted something here. Truth is that I have been very busy with my dissertation. Here is a piece by Mr. Nabavi that I really enjoyed. I love it when someone writes without mincing words.

He correctly points to some serious shortcomings of the Iranian society. I would attribute most, if not all, to the fact that Iranian society has not achieved modernism (actually has failed to modernize for over a century now, despite all attempts made), but has lost most of its traditions as well. The resulting state of flux has created a quagmire. There have been some instances of progress, but many failures.

A couple of weeks back, Islamic Republic celebrated the 26th anniversary of the 1979 revolution. After a quarter of a century, we can confidently say that it was one of the most dramatic failures of late 20th century. And in truth, everyone is to blame: the monarchists including the person of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, for stupidly trying to repress and modernize, claiming that they have found a “third way” to keep despotism and attain modernity at the same time. The nationalists are to blame because they failed to overcome their hatred for the Shah and think logically. They lived, and many of them still live, in 1950s. They never got over the Coup of 1953. That single event, and seeking vengeance for that event, has defined the identity of the Iranian center right. Actually democracy or liberalism has a very low weight in their political rhetoric. The Islamists are to blame, because they never understood that their medieval view of governance and society is doomed from the start in the modern world. Their incompetence on all levels is the major cause of the mess that is Iranian society today. As usual, the Left got it all wrong. They thought (most of all the Tudeh party), that they can get a piggy back to power by collaborating with Islamists, a la Russian Bolshevik party in 1917. They forgot the minor problem that Islamists had no intention of handing the power to anyone, and had far better organization compared to leftists.

But the major blame still goes to a nation that fails to modernize. The leaders and activists are products of their society. If the quality of production is abysmal, how do you expect the product to deliver roses? Iranian society has been "modernizing" since 1906 and still does not have any tangible results to show. And for once, colonialsim or Imperialism is not to blame. Iran never became a colony, or Western powers never had as much influence in Iran as they had in say, Chile, Korea or Taiwan.

Let’s start with the remainder of monarchists. Believe me, there are still some out there. Those over 55 years old still can find no fault with the monarchy. They live the glories of their imagined past, usually boasting about what they never were. There are a few younger activists. I have to say that some of them are level headed and at least produce the correct sound bites. They claim to believe in liberal democracy, free markets, separation of faith and state, and human rights. My problem is that then why bother with monarchy? Say that we are a liberal party and be done with it. There is also the lingering problem of those fossils who still dream about punishing the “ungrateful and rebellious subjects of His Imperial Majesty, King of Kings and Sun of Aryans” (read they want revenge on average Iranian citizens). That makes you think which planet are these guys from!

If your liberals just pay lip service to liberalism and free enterprise, if not outright denouncing it, you have a problem. Look at the intellectual output of the so-called nationalist movement. Have you found anything? I am not surprised. There is none. It is frightening. Look at this example. Can you please tell me what this guy is saying? The rest are not any better.

If the majority of Marxist activists in the country have never actually read anything from Marx, you have problem. Let’s face it, the limit of exposure of our leftist intellectuals to political thought was reading a couple of cheap socialist realist novels. How many converts did make their minds after reading “the Capital” versus those who took the leap after reading something from Gorky or Sholokhov? How many actually bothered to read anything serious, and of those who did, how many went beyond the Bible-study? Even the more modern, European style types just parrot words that they clearly do not understand.

Don’t even get me started on Islamists. These guys have an unusual ability to count all defeats as victory. There is nothing wrong with them. They are perfect. If anything goes wrong (and it often does), it is due to some chicken-brained, far-fetched, improbable and impossible conspiracy theory involving the US, Israel, the Jews, Freemasons, or the Lucifer himself. Let’s leave it at that.

Now you may ask, and you are right to do so, where Mohammad stands? I have criticized everyone. But what do I have to say?

Here is a short answer, and I will write down a longer answer soon: I am a liberal (in classical sense of it). I believe in personal freedoms, primacy of individual over group, freedom of trade and enterprise, freedom of religion, association, expression, and political action. I believe in democracy with firm and independent judicial oversight, so that the majority can not oppress the minority. I believe in small government (and by that I mean really small and limited). I am against discrimination (positive or negative) based on race, gender, ethnicity, language, religious beliefs, national origin and sexual orientation. I am a firm believer in separation of faith and state. I believe in merit vs. favors, inheritance, and group affiliations. And last but not least, I believe a system that supports and enshrines similar values will help my country of birth.

Share your thoughts and ideas please.

State of Confusion

2005-02-16T14:27:00.000-05:00

This week, I finished reading Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”. It is an interesting book, to say the least. The style is rather strange, since at times you feel like you are reading a scientific paper. But once you start reading the book, you’ll see that he is justified to take precautions. My timing for reading the book was rather lucky, since it deals with climate change, and this week Kyoto treaty officially takes effect.

Crichton has the guts to write about issues that other writers treat warily. He may get things wrong, as he did in The Rising Sun, but he has his points and he writes well. His criticisms of modern environmental movement are well known. He is an outspoken critic of many environmental groups and activists. His speeches at CalTech or at Commonwealth Club do not leave you with any illusions where he stands. Curiously, he is qualified to talk about these issues.

The truth is that environmental movement often does not take the cost of their pet policies into account. Last year, the economist ran a three piece series on methodological problems in documents pertaining to climate change debate. Instead of countering the points raised by experts, the authors of flawed documents started a smear campaign. Many activists and leaders of the environmental movement have played fast and loose with facts. Noticeably, many of major predictions of the movement failed to materialize. The language used by many believers in this cause reminds a bystander of religious faith rather then scientific theorizing. Crichton has courageously taken on these issues. Like anyone else, I am concerned about the environment. In fact I am a rather old fashioned conservationist. But there is a serious problem when any idea becomes an ideology. Also, there is a real concern that fringe groups like PETA or ELF may become more violent. UK is home to some of the most rabid enviro-fundamentalist groups, and their activities are disrupting scientific research and business practices. It is not hard to believe that few people want eco-terrorism added to Islamic fundamentalism as a scrooge in 21st century.

I may add two more books to read, now that we are about to see how effective Kyoto treaty is: if you have the mathematical and scientific training required to understand this book, read “Skeptical Environmentalist” by Bjorn Lomborg. This is a level headed, meticulous, and well-written book. I recommend it without any hesitations. For a quick fact checking, read Paul Driessen’s “Eco- Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”. The book is not impartial. But it delivers many insights. Sometimes it is useful to read contrarian’s views.

There is absolutely no problem with scientific research on environmental issues, being concerned where there are legitimate reasons for concern, and action after careful analysis of costs and benefits. But turning an essentially scientific debate into an ideology is a very bad idea.

Happy Valentine's!

2005-02-14T08:23:00.000-05:00

Hello Folks!

Happy Valentines to all! Enjoy your day, love and be loved, and have fun!

OK, some people may say that this day is overtly commercialized, but you know what? I really enjoy it! I was also pleasantly surprized to know that in Iran, Valentine's day is right behind Nourouz (Iranian New Year and our most important national holiday) in number of greeting cards sent.

I think this is a good sign. Young people feel more comfortable expressing love. This is good indeed.

Well, cheers mates! And Have fun. Got to go now.

Ethnocentric Nationalism and Democracy

2005-02-10T16:13:00.000-05:00

Ethnic nationalism in 19th century grew from the right end of the political spectrum. Especially in Europe, it had an implicit anti-Ottoman/Christian undertone. The idea was to “liberate” Christians of the Eastern Europe and Balkans from Ottoman despotism. In early 20th century, due to political expediency, Lenin and later Stalin embraced colonial nationalist struggle as legitimate, working class struggle against imperial powers as symbols of the capitalist order.

The fact that nationalism can go “loco” and turn into fascism, was not lost to left leaning intellectuals. But since the target of this rage would be capitalist superstructure, their often explicit support was deemed justified. Ever since the Third International (1919-1943), support for the “rights” of “oppressed nations and peoples” has been bedrock of the left thought. Ever since the collapse of Soviet Union, there has been renewed urgency in this quest for “freedom for ethnic minorities”. Leftist intellectuals needed a rallying point and since the proletariat was not delivering the goodies, a mind boggling array of causes flourished. All indigenous people suddenly became hip, as well as any group of people who by some fluke of design or nature constituted less then 50% of any society. Think about it: in the US, as long as you are not a heterosexual (protestant) white male, you are assumed to be in one way or the other oppressed. I just find it hard to believe that rednecks of South Carolina in any way are oppressing the Asian scientists in California. More over, you are to support these causes whether you want it or not. Otherwise you are not PC enough in many circles.

A whole cottage industry grew to show different people on the face of the planet how they are being subjugated and oppressed. Many of the arguments are hastily "copied and pasted" ideas and phrases from US Civil Rights movement in 1960s. Very little intellectual innovation or critical thinking goes to this production process. But the rhetoric is fiery and rabble-rousing. Even those disasters in Rwanda and Yugoslavia did not shake the faith of ethnic liberators and their western supporters. These struggles are praise worthy and these activists are democratic heroes, and that'sn it!

There is just one catch: by definition, ethnic nationalism and ethnic activists can not be democratic. I elaborate. Nationalism means that you are putting primacy on a collective structure (nation) as opposed to the individual. Hence, individual rights and demands take the backseat. The main problem is that this road inevitably leads to some kind of dictatorship. The basis of democracy and liberty is individual’s choices and aspirations. Individual exists, while other structures such as family, community, ethnic group, race, faith, society and even nation, are just social conventions. A democracy works if it is based on the decisions of the majority, but constrained by a working legal system to ensure the rights of the minority. By categorizing people based on ethnic or racial background, and campaigning on such platforms, ethnic activists are not democratic. Based on Berlin’s argument, first there is the idea of an oppressed group, next will come the self-appointed “voices” of the oppressed. Then if they succeed, we will have dictatorship. These activists are either socialist/communist or more appropriately, they are fascists. And I don’t throw this word around in the cheap. I mean it.

Remember that fascism firmly has its roots in the left thought. More precisely, (for example read this article in Friesian) we may view fascism as a collectivist and totalitarian ideology. This is largely of Marxist inspiration, with political forms pioneered by Lenin and then copied with admiration by Mussolini and, especially, Hitler. The fascists themselves, like Mussolini (who coined the term), often came from a leftist and socialist political background -- Lenin wrote newspaper articles praising Mussolini in the days before World War I. Their new inspiration, however, was to “abandon the international struggle of the workers” and to “embrace nationalism”, especially a strongly racialistic and mystical nationalism. Elements of socialism remained. Private property might be left nominally in private hands, but its owners were expected to serve the Nation, and merely private purposes, let alone use for alien loyalties or ideology, was to be strongly condemned and suppressed. Hitler's Germany witnessed a social leveling unknown in earlier Germany: Where the Imperial Army had required noble blood for its officers; the Nazi Army was as much of a meritocracy as possible given its racial criteria (Mussolini was unable to go as far). Fascism thus assumed the character of a "Revolution from the Right," with a distinctive mixture of conservative and radical elements. Stalinist Russia itself began to take on some of these features, as Stalin found it expedient in wartime to begin appealing to Russian nationalism and even to the Orthodox Church, with increasing attacks on "rootless cosmopolitans" - which meant, not good Marxist internationalism, but, most precisely, the Jews.

These said, since the break up of the Soviet Union, ethnic nationalism has acquired boundless support among Western academics. But many of ethnic nationalist proponents are former lefties who now copy the ideas and even the words of their Nazi forbearers. Are we wise to support such people? How many Yugoslav civil wars or Rwandan or Armenian genocides do we need to realize all forms of nationalism are despicable?

I add one word of caution. Paying allegiance to your country, as a citizen who enjoys and exercises the privileges of citizenship and political participation is not only OK, but it is rational and natural. Belonging to a culture and historical awareness is rational and logical. But none of these should blind us to the fact that we are first and foremost free individuals, and as such we have inalienable, democratic rights. No one, under no pretext can deprive us of these rights.

Cultural Terrorism, an Apt Name.

2005-02-05T20:22:00.000-05:00

I want to keep this post very short, since I want you to spend some time and read what Fatema Soudavar Farmanfarmaian has written.

This is a very well written piece. I may not agree with some points raised. And I may put the blame mostly on the Islamic Republic for totally irrational policies that they pursue; but many of these facts remain the same. She has said many things I want to say. So just share your ideas please.

I think it is a bit early to start this discussion on this weblog, but I could not ignore the article.

Double Standards II:

2005-02-04T13:03:00.000-05:00

Double Standards II:

Well, I have to say that in my spare time, I am a history buff. That said, here goes the second instance of double standards:

If you are interested in Roman history, you have definitely heard about the Teutoburg Forest. You have definitely read about the Battle of Adrianople. But how many people have ever heard of Battle of Carrhae? The point is, this battle was the first major defeat of Roman legions (seven of them, no less) by a force less then one third of their number composed entirely of cavalry.

It had many lasting effects on the history of Roman republic and later empire. This battle essentially checked Roman eastward expansion. Euphrates became the eastern border of Rome for seven centuries.

Also, two important technological advances were introduced to warfare: heavy cavalry (think about European Knights, only more effective!) and composite bow (the absolute king of battlefields from Carrhae to introduction of firearms!).

Yet how many history buffs know that a successful Roman general, who had single handedly defeated Spartacus, commanded armies under Sula, and spurred for power along Julius Caesar and Pompey, got literally annihilated by Parthians? And who knows that Romans had to come to terms with the fact that they do have equals, if not masters, from 50 BC to 650 AD? This is not just based on military prowess, but also based on cultural influence (Romans were Mithraists before they were Christian, and St. Augustine was Manichean before becoming a Church father), and general level of civilization.

Is there a whiff of selective memory?

Double standards, anyone?

2005-02-03T11:42:00.000-05:00

Have you ever wondered why it is OK to express disgust and anger at Nazis, but in many quarters expressing the same feeling against Communism is met with an icy silence?

In WWII, due to sheer political expediency, Western democracies made a pact with the devil and accepted Soviet Union as an ally against Nazi Germany. To their credit, Soviet Russia fought bravely and ferociously against Nazis. Soviet Union fought the most decisive battles against Nazis, and suffered the greatest number of casualties. The heroism of Russian and other Soviet soldiers, and the suffering of people are beyond doubt. But all these do not whitewash the fact that communism was a monstrosity as bad as fascism. Gulags, purges, mass executions, repression, aggression, and the bloodshed brought on by communists in Russia, China, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia as well as civil wars and terrorist activities like Colombian civil war, Greek civil war, the Azerbaijan debacle, and many others make Hitler and the gang proud.

Then I read this article today. For those of you who do not read Persian: there are still some communist groups among Iranian Diaspora. The majority of Iranian intellectuals are former or closet communist/socialists, so they are sympathic to the "cause". A well known satirist poked serious fun of one of the more obnoxious communist groups. And rightly so, these guys are unbelievably delusional. Then the writer of the article in question gives us a long-winded and essentially meaningless tirade about respect for an idea, in this case communism. She tries to shame our satirist for acting "undemocratic"?!!!

Missy, you missed the point! Not all ideas are equal. It needs serious stupidity to go out there and say that Hitler’s “final solution for the Jewish problem” was acceptable, since he had “an idea”. She gives us some clap trap about her communist brother and sister and claims she was hurt when Mr. Nabavi made fun of communists. Well, grow up. Your siblings were idiots. It was their fault, not Nabavi’s. Or another lady reminisces about her youth and Che Guevara. She may had many a bed time fantasy involving that monster, but he was a monster and a terrorist never the same.

The fact that communism escaped the fate of fascism and died a long, rather peaceful death does not make it legitimate. If you are consistent in your analysis, fascism and communism are the same. I mean literary so. Rhetoric aside, nothing distinguishes the core beliefs of the two. So if one is bad, so is the other. In denouncing fascism, you are automatically denouncing its twin. Neo-Nazi skin heads and communist activists are the same. Why some people denounce the former and tolerate the latter is beyond me.

2005-02-02T18:40:00.000-05:00

2003 may be easily seen as the year of Iranian women. Shirin Ebadi won the Nobel Peace Prize, female members of the parliament showed their male colleagues what courage means, and two writers, Azar Nafisi and Marjane Satrapi took US literary world by storm.

I enjoyed professor Nafisi’s “Reading Lolita in Tehran”. It was one the best books I read last year. If I say I share the same feeling about Ms Satrapi’s book, I’ll be lying. Some time, in the near future, I will lay down my arguments.

Here is a piece by professor Nafisi for Washington Post.

Political Action and Scientific/Critical Inquiry

2005-02-01T20:31:00.000-05:00

Over the course of the last two days, I read two very disturbing articles.

On Jan 31st, New York Times published an article about how Professor Wendy Doniger, a world class scholar on Hindu mythology is hounded and persecuted by Hindu fundamentalists and the PC police. Her crime? She applies modern research methods to analyze Hindu texts. The result is not always as sweet as some want it to be. She supposedly sports denigrating views towards Hinduism. Microsoft Corp. eventually was forced to remove her article from Encarta, and someone lobbed an egg on her in Nov. 2003. (This last incident reminds me of Bjorn Lomborg and the treatment he recieved from militant environmentalists, including the egg) Her hacklers have a grudge about who shapes the perception of modern Hinduism. This public image should be controlled. It should not be unflattering. It should be “clean”.

If you remember, a similar furor erupted over an article in Newsweek, this time in Pakistan. The whole debacle was based on coverage of linguistic research on Koran. The book, still not translated from German after close to four years of publication, is called “Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache” (In English: Syriac-Aramaic roots of Koran, to be short.) The book proposes some radical new hypotheses regarding origins and the meaning of Koranic texts. If these claims are true, then this book is probably the most important text published in Islamic studies. You may read a review here. The point is radical, but scholarly study of this text caused major stirrings in the ranks of the faithful. It is notable that a book, which is receiving rave reviews in academic circles, is not available in English. Fear of retaliation may be one reason, but you may conjure other explanations.

Then I read this article today. This is pure idiocy. I was under the apparently false impression that scientific evidence should convince rational people. And rational people should value progress over superstition. I was wrong, it turns out. Back in 1985, I read an article in Discover about creationism’s creeping influence in American classrooms. Twenty years later, it seems monumental ignorance still reigns supreme. The author of that article correctly drew a parallel with Soviet Union’s disastrous flirting with Lysenkoism. For the uninitiated, Soviet ideologues found genetics at odds with Marxism. So they decreed that an ideologically correct competing theory should get developed. A theory did emerge, only it was wrong. And as a result Soviet biology (and other life sciences) never recovered. The same test faces the US now. Future of US life science is far more important than ridiculous religious beliefs and superstitions of fundamentalists. The “feel good” factor for fundamentalist Christians has close to zero weight in this equation. Bluntly put, they don’t count, because they don’t know what they are talking about. And since their ease infringes on other people’s welfare and freedoms, they should keep quiet. Science can not and should not be subject to an ideology, religion, or politics.

To be frank with you, I seriously doubt any divine origin for any holy text, regardless of the religion. People need myths, and the primitive law givers robed and ornamented their words in shrouds of myth and fiction. Against solid scientific research and methodical investigation, these founding myths have close to zero value. If uniform evidence from several scientific fields points out to a fact, a logical and prudent person would follow the scientific results, not some plagiarized story. Beliefs are open to debate and analysis, as are ideas. By claiming emotional distress, no one can stop or force silence on research or publication of the results of a research project. This is one of main achievements of our civilization. We can not go back to censoring ideas, repressing knowledge, and strong arming scholars to toe the line. It is a question of liberty, as it is a question of future welfare of human beings. Science and research is subject to scrutiny, no doubt about it. But this scrutiny should be conducted in a civilized manner, not through pressure and political shenanigans of the uninformed.

Red State, Blue State Dichotomy Again!

2005-01-27T11:02:00.000-05:00

While wasting my time on the internet (instead of writing my dissertation, just kidding, I worked a solid eight hours yesterday), I came across this pink slip for red states. In other words, a good ole' Mid Western boy turned Upper East Side hipster wanna be, decided to fire half of the country. Don't get me wrong, Bush administration has done enough to deprive yours truly of many a sound slumber. I do not like the guy on a personal level and his deficit spending makes me shiver every time I crack the economist. I do want to retire in a richer America, and want to see my kids optimistically plan for their future.

But you have to give credit where credit is due. In the game of politics (at least democratic politics) you win by delivering to the average person. It might mean that you have to deliver monetary benefits, or it may mean that you have to sing the right tune to win. To their credit Bush and Rove Inc. deliver every time. I may not like the tune (I don't) and the goodies thrown around do not impress a hard nosed economist who ommediately thinks about the "credit card" bill to be paid after Bush and Co. are out of the oval office. Also, President Bush may come across as folksy and not-so-smart, but I tell you one thing: I don't want to run against his political machinery.

This apparatus runs, and runs well for that matter. Look at the analysis provided by my friend, Peter. If the Democratic Party is serious about winning elections and not just sniping from the sides, they should take a long, hard look at these numbers.

By the way, Peter's Blog is very interesting. He has wide ranging interests and is opinionated to boot. Reading his posts and talking to him is always engaging and thought provoking.

2005-01-26T11:31:00.000-05:00

Theo van Gogh (1954-2004)

For Theo van Gogh.

2005-01-26T10:04:00.000-05:00

Today was the pre-trial date for Theo van Gogh’s suspected murderer. I say suspected murderer, but there is plenty of evidence that Mohammed Bouyeri actually committed that gruesome murder. Still, every one is innocent until proven otherwise. Someone killed van Gogh (and again, there is evidence that Mr. Bouyeri is to blame) because freedom of expression did not fit his backward and medieval view of the world. Instead of countering a challenge in a civilized manner, with counter arguments and dialog, he went for the simple solution: erase the problem, terrorize the dissenter, and go back to live your life in blissful bigotry.

The murderer killed a man because he did not like what he said. Because the murderer's identity is so fragile, the logic behind his beliefs so unstable, and his arguments so unconvincing that the only alternative left in his disposal is murder. Then of course, he and others like him would say that "This is Jihad, the holy war. We are executing God's will". If this is what you consider holy, than I don’t know what evil is. The chilling manner of van Gogh’s murder makes me wonder whether these Islamic Fascists can be called human. A witness yells at the murderer “You can't do that!" to which the suspect replied: "Oh yes I can ... now you know what's coming for you."

Now let us look at what an apologist has to say. Reading the article, you will not find a single flat rejection of this cold-blooded murder. I am sure your efforts will be futile searching the book as well. Instead the author goes on and on about the alleged brutality of border guards, police officers, and other law enforcement professionals tracking down unwanted migrants. He throws in a jab here and there against the US war against Taliban and Saddam for good measure. But what about Theo van Gogh? What about free speech? What about the right to free expression? What about civilization?

Is the left so intellectually bankrupt that it can not even condemn a cold blooded murder because the victim did not believe in cultural relativism and multiculturalism advocated by some? It seems we are not free to have ideas anymore! We have to toe the line, or else even our death would not generate sympathy!

The apologist friend of ours likens the Islamic fundamentalists in our midst to Italian or Jewish immigrants in 1900s. I have a lot of sympathy for immigrants (well, I am one myself). People who sever ties with all that is familiar to make a better future for themselves and their children are courageous and brave. They deserve respect and their rights, as long as they are not breaking the laws of their adopted country. But a terrorist, an extremist who wants to destroy our way of life, our values, our democracy, and our civilization and replace them with antiquated and barbaric rules, deserves nothing but contempt.

Let us never forget a brave man. To Theo van Gogh!

Outsourcing and the future of employment.

2005-01-24T17:57:00.000-05:00

My dear friend Ali made a comment in relation to India and G7 countries post. He was wondering what would happen if the flow of manufacturing jobs to China and service jobs to India continues.

This issue has been discussed extensively by many. Here is my opinion.

Bluntly speaking, it is not good news for unqualified workers. People without technical training or marketable skills have been losing out for the last three decades in Western countries. As manufacturing has lost its importance in the economies (either through extensive mechanization or through competition from more labor abundant trading partners), many traditionally secure jobs have simply vanished. Bad news is that regardless of what protectionist policies you enforce, these jobs are unlikely to come back.

More specifically, to make manufacturing competitive in high-salary economies like US, Japan or even Taiwan, you end up with a very few highly capital intensive openings, employing very skilled labor (usually college graduates or with individuals with high levels of specialized technical training). While the jobs lost usually employed low-skilled labor.

A similar trend is discernible in service sector. Technological changes in communication technology reduced the cost of telephony drastically since 1982 (break up of AT & T). The rationale for keeping many service jobs in industrialized countries was the fact that international telephone connection was expensive. Internet revolution also opened new venues for sharing more sophisticated work (like software development).

I think the employment landscape of industrial world will change, with many traditional jobs in service and manufacturing lost to developing countries. I would think even white-collar jobs like legal and medical support may be on the block. On the other hand, as countries like China and India develop, salaries will rise fast (ask any Indian colleague about the latest figures in Bangalore), leading to some sort of new configuration of international reallocation of work.

One redeeming factor is the rate of innovation and development of new technologies. New technologies have the salient feature that as they grow, due to the externalities that they induce in the market, they create many new jobs. As the technology “matures”, these jobs “migrate” to other countries (think about auto manufacturing to Japan and Korea, and software development to India or Russia). As long as the innovation machine works smoothly, and educational systems are flexible enough to train people to work in these up and coming industries, we don’t have a serious problem.

But the educational systems should be flexible enough to:
1. train new workers to master and apply the new technologies effectively and efficiently,
2. Re-train those workers who lose their jobs due to natural maturing of older technologies or disruptive effects of new methods.

At this point, I have to take sides: I don’t think a rigid, centrally planned educational system is capable of delivering the points above. That is, more government intervention and going for grand national strategies are very unlikely to work. Collaboration of educational system (at both secondary and tertiary level) and business world seems more promisisng to me. On the other hand, any educational system that ignores “hard” subjects, for example science and mathematics, and critical thinking, is doomed. If the future depends on asking the right questions and searching for innovative answers, then critical thinking and innovation takes the center stage. Thus implementing some national standards are inevitable. For my money, these standards should rise over time, such that future candidates are better qualified than present workers.

Please share your thoughts with me.

Becker-Posner Blog

2005-01-21T10:17:00.000-05:00

The opportunity to share thoughts and ideas with a genius does not come along every day. Thanks to information technology, now we actually have this rare opportunity. Gary Becker (Nobel laureate in economics, 1992) and Richard Posner (Freeman professor, emeritus and former Judge, US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit) now have a blog!

For those of you who keep count of these issues, Gary Becker is married to Guity Nashat a professor of history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and a fellow at Hoover Institution.

India and G7

2005-01-20T10:08:00.000-05:00

India got the nod to attend the next G7 summit in London. It is indeed a landmark. G7 is fast transforming to G10 (the original seven plus Russia, China, and now India), which is a very good sign.

From early 1990's when Mr Singh, the current PM and then chief of republic's finances, went to the parliament and offered the representatives the choice between liberalization of India's centrally planned, socialist economy or going bust in a month, Indian economy has traveled a long way. This invitation is the official recognition that India "is in the club" now. Many events may go wrong for sure, but the trend is clear. Think about it, even the Congress Party and their communist allies have curbed their socialist instincts and champion privatization and liberalization, albeit not as wholeheartedly as I would desire. BJP made many mistakes, but economic policy was not on the list.

Of course, on a per capita basis, both India and China still have a long way to go. But we should give praise when it is due. In less than two decades India and China undertook the largest poverty reduction project in human history. I hope this trend continues and other poor countries also learn something of these experiences. The fact that US is considering India and China as the two main Asian economies by 2020 is important by and in itself.

Good luck India, and enjoy the party!

The very first posting.

2005-01-19T13:32:00.000-05:00

Hello all.

Like many things in life, this blog is an accident. I was trying to post something on my friend Eswin's blog, and I ended up with my own. No complaints, such is life.

But since I am here and since I really enjoy blogs, here we go!

Here are my thoughts for the future course of this blog:

I try to keep this blog as a forum for discussion of economic, political, and other relevant popular issues. If you consider this as some type of intellectual output, I would like to follow von Hayek's definition of an inttelectual. So in questions regarding economics, finance, statistics, and some issues regarding mathematics, I am an expert. In some other issues (mainly history, philiosophy, and science) I am an inttelectual since I have studied these issues extensively, but I am not an expert. There are other issues that my guess is as good as a cave man's. I promise to stay clear of what I don't know about.
Since I am of Iranian decent, the plan is to post alternatively in English and Persian (with some odd French comment here and there for fun).
I reserve the right to block viewers who do not act decently towards other viewers and myself. I have seen what happens in many other blogs, and I do not want it here. The rule will be three warnings.

We will talk more later.

Have a great day.