The McCain ‘Blowout’ Scenario

by Ali-Asad

It’s election night - November 4th 2008. All the results are in and you see the following map displayed across all the networks:



The numbers at the bottom of the screen catch your attention.

McCain: 297         Obama: 241

You stare transfixed at the screen. You see that checkmark next to McCain’s name (I hate it when they do that). Then it sinks in. Another 4 years of a Republican president, at least 4 more years in Iraq…what happened?

If you think this scenario is far fetched, you’re the one who’s in dreamland. But I empathize. The incompetence, mismanagement and ideological subversion of this administration remain no longer a partisan issue. Scott McClellan, a trusted Bush insider who served as press secretary by not answering a straight question on white house policy for two years just came out with a memoir confirming our worst fears. This administration sustained itself through partisan and ideological hackery in order to push through their agenda. It’s as simple as that.

So how do we go from the tainted Republicans in Congress and the White House to John McCain beating Barak Obama by 48 Electoral Votes (EVs)? This margin may seem close. But with the current anti-Republican sentiment in the country, a McCain victory by any margin is a blowout. Obama has run a historic and impressively skillful campaign. But when you analyze the election state-by-state as a Obama versus McCain fight, the math increasingly does not add up.

Take Michigan (17), Wisconsin (10), Pennsylvania (21) – three states Kerry won by less than 5%. They’ve been trending Republican and Obama has a problem convincing white males to vote for him. Hillary has gotten more white male votes than Obama, and Republicans have taken the white male vote convincingly in the last few election cycles. This leaves Obama down 38 electoral votes from Kerry’s performance. (If you can’t remember, Kerry won 252 EVs versus Bush’s 286). So, Obama’s down to 204 EVs.

Obama himself has pretty much written off Florida (27), which has trended Republican since 2000. This traditional swing state may now be the most reliable key state in the nation. Why? One reason is old people – Obama is racially defined candidate in only some parts of the country. But across the nation he is more defined by class and generation. I don’t need to remind you how many old people there are in Florida. Obama’s stays at 204 EVs by not winning the Swing Sunshine State.

And the people of New Hampshire (4) have a love affair with McCain that goes back to his 2000 presidential run. Obama’s down to 200 EVs. Pretty lame.

Where can Obama come back from?

The Southwest hold some promise. Arizona (10), Colorado (9), New Mexico (5) and Nevada (5) have all been trending more Democratic and progressive. Nevada’s state Democrats haven’t been successful recently and so Obama’s lacks much of an infrastructure to build a win there. McCain takes Arizona purely based on home-court advantage. This analysis leaves Colorado and New Mexico with favorable demographics and popular state Governors. Obama gets 14 EVs here. This brings him up to 214 EVs.

Based on infrastructure and general McCain apathy alone, we can put Iowa (7) in Obama’s column – 221 EVs.

Ohio (20) presents the same obstacles that Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin present – white rural voters. But the Ohio Democratic part has done well for the state, and Ohioans are increasingly anti-war – witness the election of Sherrod Brown, a liberal anti-war Democrat, against Mike DeWine, a run of the mill republican in the 2006 senate election. Obama can pull Ohio in – 241 EVs.

It takes 270 EVs to win. McCain makes it. Obama could come short. Easily.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.

Understanding Money: A Financial Primer

by Ali-Asad

Warren Buffet predicts a long and painful recession in the US. Gas and food prices seem to keep going up as house prices fall. Now is as good a time as any to understand money, and to understand how banks, and companies all over the world influence the value of your wallet or purse’s contents. Let’s start with basics:

Time Value of Money

Economics has a simple principle; resources are finite while desires are infinite. So, as our infinite desires lead us to consume these finite resources, the law of scarcity drives prices up. This phenomenon is called inflation; over time prices increase. What this means is that the cash you have hidden under your bed will not be worth as much in the future as its worth today. So, by keeping money lying around not doing anything, you are in fact losing money. This is the time value of money; a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Equity

This word signifies ownership. When you buy a stock, you are becoming an owner of the company’s equity – you are not a part owner in that company. This ownership is the reason you can buy ‘shares’ in a company. You’ve become an owner, and so your share should represent the present and future value of that company. This property is why share prices move up and down. As a company makes more profit and uses its resources more effectively, its share price goes up. Imagine a pool as a profit making venture. Buying a share is like buying a pool chair. When the pool is doing well, your chair’s value increases because more people are using it. If the pool is not doing so well, the value of your pool chair plummets. Equity equal ownage. Literally. But, remember, you are lower down on the financial ladder than creditors. Why? Creditors are people who have loaned your company money. You owe them their money back before anyone else. How does a company take on this debt? Bonds.

Bonds

This is an asset (a store of value or a source of future incoming cash) where you loan a company money, and they agree to pay you back the full value some time in the future along with (usually) semi-annual interest payments. It’s through these semi-annual payments that the company compensates you for the use of your money, and it’s time value. How much are these semi-annual (‘coupon’) payments? This value depends on another popular yet misunderstood aspect of money – interest rates.

Interest rates

Simply put, interest rates are the cost of borrowing money. If I were to borrow money from a bank, but only wanted to pay back what I had borrowed, would the bank lend me money? No. Why? Because I didn’t take into account the time value of the money I had borrowed from the bank. Banks make a business out of charging for the use of money, and get this supply of money from people looking to keep their money safe. In fact, the bank pays you when you keep money with them. They’re paying you the cost of using your money when you get paid interest on your account.

So, the time value of money concept, equity, bonds and interest rates are what you need to take from this post. It’s basic. But it lays the foundation for the value of your money.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment Below.

Nasrallah v Government: ENDGAME

by Yasmin Amer

Lebanon’s worst fear is coming to a gruesome reality. There are fears that the so-called “Paris of the Middle East” might be heading back to another civil war. After Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s press conference Thursday morning, street fights escalated between opposition fighters and government supporters. Nasrallah stated that the government declared war by investigating and trying to shutdown Hezbollah’s private communications system. Nasrallah justified Hezbollah’s private phone network by calling it a part of the “resistance movement”— referring to the resistance of western powers.

“We don't have the technologies that the Americans and Israelis have," he said, calling the government's investigation "a declaration of war and the launching of war by the government ... for the benefit of America and Israel" (Aljazeera English).

What’s the Issue?

There are multiple opposition groups in Lebanon and with the country in a state of political instability, it’s obvious that a lot of them are trying to gain political influence—Hezbollah is no exception. Hezbollah, which literally means “Party of God,” is a Shia Muslim opposition group in Lebanon. Although the party received major criticism after fighting Israel in 2006 (mainly from the Lebanese government and the west), they gained a lot of supporters across the Arab world because of the fact that Israel was unable to defeat them.

Hezbollah made an offer to the Lebanese government asking for one-third of seats in parliament to be allocated for opposition groups. This offer includes ALL opposition groups; Hezbollah by itself will have a fraction of that one-third. What this does is install an additional system of checks and balances because that one-third has the power to veto any laws proposed by congress. Nasrallah found this necessary especially after the 2006 war when government officials refused to support the war against Israel. He basically referred to the current Lebanese government as a tool of the west and called out some of the leaders for leaving Lebanon during wartime. Nasrallah said that he refuses to put that same offer back on the table since the government remains incompliant. He also said that his demands will change, which probably means that Hezbollah will demand even more influence within the Lebanese government.

A Continuous Cycle

This is how I’m seeing the situation; Hezbollah continues to demand power and the government continues to say no. Then Hezbollah gets fed up and demands an increase in the power that was never granted in the first place and the government will again say: NO.

It is difficult to say if Hezbollah is an effective political party and whether or not its influence in Lebanese government is a positive or negative thing—that’s a different issue. But this situation could have been handled differently so that there is less risk of civil war and turmoil.

The main problem is timing. Hezbollah’s demand for reform came at sensitive moment in Lebanon’s history. After the 2006 war, Lebanon became an extremely volatile nation. People were divided politically and it didn’t help that a lot of the parties involved claim a certain religious affiliation.
Here are some of the present parties and their religious affiliations in Lebanon:

• Hezbollah (“Party of God”)— Shia



• Al Mustaqbal (“Future” Party)— Sunni



• Free Patriotic Movement— Maronite Christian



• Amal (“Hope” Party)— Shia



• Progressive Socialist Party— Druze



• Lebanese Forces— predominantly Maronite Christian

The last thing Lebanon needed was an issue that could divide its citizens even more. The nation needed more time to recover after wartime before being introduced to the idea of government reform. Seeking power might have also been more effective and less risky if it came later and during an official election period. Instead, not only did it come at a time of political turmoil, Hezbollah’s motives for the 2006 war were also in question—with some saying that it was waged in order to gain political power in Lebanon. This obviously did not help their image with critics.

Another major problem is the lack of a mediator. Middle Eastern nations are polarized, with one backing one side or the other. Obviously the whole “I’m a Sunni-Shia nation” dichotomy is playing a significant role in determining who supports whom. In addition, many western nations already label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, which makes them unable to mediate fairly.

Now What?

Neither side is backing down but it’s too early in the conflict to say what will happen. Nasrallah has a reputation of being strong in character so I doubt he’s going to back down easily. Also, the government does not want to negotiate with Hezbollah in order not to give them any recognition as a legal political party. Without a compromise between Hezbollah and the government, the fighting could escalate over time and eventually transform into a full civil war. Nevertheless, I’m hoping that neither side wants to risk another time period like 1975-1990, a period of intense sectarian struggle in Lebanon’s history...watch this space.

And that's jus' the tip.

* Yasmin Amer is an aspiring broadcast journalist who specializes in Arab and Middle Eastern affairs

'3rd Places': The Work-Chill Equilibrium

by Ali-Asad

Sociologists have defined the locations which our lives revolve around.

1^st places - where we live, eat, sleep i.e. wherever our bed is.

2^nd places - where we work; the office, the cubicle – where we spend most of our days.

Mobile connectivity and the phenomenon of mobile nomadism are both redefining our sense of locations. The Economist defines mobile nomads as (usually young) people who are “always on” – they have permanent connectivity. The proliferation of Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth and iPhones have given birth to these mobile nomads. These twin trends have both created what sociologist Ray Oldenburg called ‘3^rd places’ – where we work and yet chill at the same time. These places have certain characteristics: access to beverages, free wireless connectivity, presence of friends and strangers. This mobile nomadism has the potential to completely reshape society in terms of our architecture, our language, our psychology and of course sociological person-to-person interaction. This latter point may be the most critical. Sociologist Mark Granovetter argued that a society requires healthy ‘strong ties’ between relatives and friends. But society also requires strong ‘weak ties’ between casual acquaintances. This connection is important because it is through these weak ties that serve as bridges through which ideas and trends transfer between closely knit groups.

http://techiteasy.org/2007/08/14/which-place-does-the-web-take/


These two trends of wireless connectivity and mobile nomadism have the potential to fundamentally change society as we know it. 3^rd places have the advantage of allowing an individual a personalized space while still remaining as part of functional and thriving social community. 1st and 2nd places are not conducive to creative activity. They both lack meaningful social interaction. The modern ‘telecommuter’ lacks any reason to have social interaction just for the sake of interaction. These modern nomads feel that they have everything at their fingertips. They don’t. But these nomads really only have access to information. It takes a person to make information meaningful – i.e. to turn information into knowledge requires some human involvement. Therefore, these mobile nomads have lulled themselves into a false sense of security. Increasingly, nomads have realized the need for places where human interaction can be balanced with an element of human interaction.

So, what can all you mobile nomads take from this? The next time you’re at one of these ‘3^rd places’ try reducing the volume on your ipod and try greeting your neighbor. You may be pleasantly surprised.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Comment below.

Further Reading/References

The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community

Celebrating the Third Place: Inspiring Stories About the "Great Good Places" at the Heart of Our Communities