Jus' the Tip by Ali-Asad

Fiscal & Monetary Policy for Fun II

2010-07-17T13:31:00.011-04:00

by Ali-Asad

A while ago, I posted about two online simulation games which brought to life the issues involved in managing an entire economy. Economist Greg Mankiw’s macroeconomics game brings together aspects of both fiscal and monetary policy to deliver a simple yet engaging game. Macro may not be the most loved college course, but today’s headlines are filled with talk of budget deficits, spending freezes and interest rates.

This game puts you in the thick of the action by giving complete control over the both fiscal and monetary aspects of managing an economy. The fiscal side entails managing taxes and government spending, as a % of GDP. You control monetary policy by adjusting money supply growth, which controls the rate at which new money gets printed - high money supply growth lowers interest rates (banks don’t need your money). This high money supply growth encourages borrowing (low interest payments) and promotes consumption but increases prices, and so causes inflation.

Just can't do better than FDR...

In this simulation, the focus is to keep the wider economy on track by making sure unemployment and inflation are low while keeping the economy growing. Your approval ratings let you see how well you’re doing but if they fall too low, it’s game over. External events can also influence the economy.

And that's jus' the tip.

A Future for Late Night TV

2010-01-28T05:44:00.008-05:00

by Ali-Asad

The Leno-Conan saga may have caught our attention but it distracts from the the real long term shift in late night TV. Yes, I have seen the future of late night TV and it is Craig Ferguson. Whether he's eulogizing his father, flirting with Sandra Bullock or having an entertaining, spiritual conversation with the Archbishop Desmond Tutu (and don't forget the puppets and the snake cup), Ferguson is right at home on the Late Late Show.

I'm no TV critic but it's easy to recognize someone who's having fun and taking his audience along with him. Originally from Scotland, Ferguson tangled with serious substance and alcohol abuse well into adulthood. Always a comic at heart, Ferguson moved to America to pursue comedy; he wrote some movies, starred on the Drew Carey show, and eventually landed his 12:30am spot hosting The Late Late show following Letterman. What makes Craig Ferguson special is how he channels his life experience into almost every situation and yet but still keeps his comedic touch. Unlike most talk show hosts, he makes substantial contributions when interviewing his guests and avoids the predictable routine of guests promoting their latest movie/book/show etc; Ferguson rips up his note cards at the beginning of every interview as if to deliberately scorn the conventional talk-show interview.

After the Leno-Conan bust up, Ferguson stands to gain considerably since he appears the most likely successor to Letterman on the Late Show. But will his sense of humor translate in the more mainstream 11:30pm time slot? On the more mainstream and prestigious Late Show, he would not be able to mock CBS for his leaking studio, or faulty lights and hosting as a puppet may not fly. And while it may challenging to take quirky humor mainstream, this wee lad from Scotland has a real shot at it.

And that's the tip.

PS. Here's the 2 min. intro from the Desmond Tutu episode:

“There must be a Reason”: How we cling to mistaken beliefs

2009-11-03T04:15:00.002-05:00

by Ali-Asad

We believe what we want to believe. Or do we? At least, it seems that way to me sometimes. But it’s a more complicated issue than simple desire and bias. This fact is the conclusion of a study recently concluded published in May 2009’s Sociological Inquiry, where psychologists and sociologists attempted to study how people respond when faced with overwhelming evidence that contradicts their beliefs. In the study, the researchers studied the link between the attacks on 9/11 and Saddam. During the 2004 presidential election, many Americans believed that Saddam was at least partially responsible for the terrorist attacks. People with these beliefs tended more to vote for Bush than Kerry. But no evidence for this link has ever been found.

The researchers presented two pieces of evidence to those interviewees who held this false belief. These were 1) A conclusion from the 9/11 Commission Report that stated Saddam was not involved, and 2) A statement from President Bush himself stating that there was no link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Then, the researchers studied the responses to their evidence; the evidence was provided in a conversational manner- non-confrontationally but firmly.

Scholars have explained this common false link through a model called ‘Bayesian Updating’, which assumes people come to decisions by “incrementally and rationally changing their opinions” in light of new evidence. Most researchers determined that the Bush administration and the media had persuaded the general public that there was a link between Saddam and 9/11 by modifying the ‘information environment’. Therefore, these researchers concluded that had the American public possessed the correct information, they would have reached the true conclusion. But this recent study concludes that a different socio-psychological phenomenon is at work; it was not the disinformation that caused their misunderstanding.

Social psychologists have a well- developed understanding of people’s use of heuristics –“decision making shortcuts” that allow people to avoid using up a lot of time and brainpower considering every single decision they make. Political psychologists have shown that identifiers such as party, ideology etc. provide simple heuristics for people. The authors of this study argue that the ongoing War in Iraq and War on Terror provided powerful situational heuristics or cues for decisions-making ordinary citizens.

But how did the authors of this study conclude that disinformation did not cause the widespread misunderstanding of the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Because, when challenged, most interviewees either neglected to consider the evidence or used other tactics to maintain their current, and mistaken, point of view. These “strategies for resisting information” and persuasion have been identified by psychologists. They are: 1) counter-arguing (rebutting the contradictory information), 2) attitude bolstering (using facts that support one’s position without addressing the counter-evidence), 3) selective exposure (ignoring the information completely without addressing it at all).

This study also found 2 new strategies, which were 1) disputing rationality (arguing that one’s opinions do not need to be factual or based on evidence) and, most interesting of all, 2) inferred justification (inferring or creating evidence that would support one’s belief).
The study paid particular attention to this last, most creative, strategy. People who used the ‘inferred justification’ strategy always used the one spoken line: “There must be a reason”. Basically, these people took the event of the Iraq war first, and then inferred that there must be a reason to justify such a drastic action. (We invaded Iraq. Saddam is Iraq’s dictator. Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks).

Some people also appealed to authority by either showing trust in President Bush, or arguing the he must know more, and so better able to make the judgment to go to war.
(George Bush decided to invade Iraq. George Bush is our President. Hence, Bush knows things I don’t. So, only Bush would know that Saddam was involved in 9/11 for sure.)

Why does this all matter? The study point to democracy’s reliance on the ability and capacity of on most people either being well informed, or being able to make good decisions when presented with all reasonable information.

Here, the researchers found that some people were psychologically pre-disposed to certain ways of thinking regardless of information or evidence. But why is this? What underpins this need to ignore contradictory information and seek out confirmational evidence? The study authors point to ‘motivated reasoning’ – a model of reasoning which proposes that people have an “unconscious impulse” to relieve cognitive dissonance – the very uncomfortable feeling of holding two contradictory ideas in mind simultaneously - when faced with information that goes against pre-existing beliefs and understandings. Here, people respond to information defensively; they accept and seek out confirming evidence and while ignoring or arguing against evidence contrary evidence in order to relieve and avoid cognitive dissonance.

It’s important to realize that these strategies of persuasion avoidance are not limited to working-class conservative Americans who voted for Bush and link Saddam with the 9/11 attacks. The authors of the study make it quite clear that they would expect the same kinds of responses from people across the socio-economic and political spectrum.

It seems like we’re all willing to go to great lengths to protect our mental well-being, whatever the cost.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Reference: Prasad et all. "There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification." Sociological Inquiry, 2009: 142-162.

Dreaming of a World without Interest

2009-09-23T15:56:00.013-04:00

by Ali-Asad

When historians sit down to write the history of this decade, they will pay great attention to the global financial crisis of 2008. The prosperity of the preceding decades came to naught. Fuelled by debt, excess risk-taking and greed, unfettered global capitalism died the day Lehman Brothers fell and we all came to bear the immense burden of over-borrowing and greedy risk-taking. However, one aspect of finance stands alone claiming victory amidst the rubble. Based on the now saintly principles of shared risk and avoiding debt, Islamic finance is now yelling ‘I told you so!’, to all those left to listen. But Islamic finance seeks a fundamental shift in the way we do business; it wants to make banking and finance interest-free.

The Abrahamic religions hold usury as immoral and as an especially heinous kind of sin. While usury is usually defined as excessive interest, Islamic finance seeks to completely eradicate the concept of interest from finance. In this effort, religious scholars have compiled a set of compelling arguments that appeal to both disillusioned financiers and anti-corporatism intellectuals. According to Paul Mills, author of Islamic Finance: Theory & Practice, Islamic theorists have attacked interest-rate theory from legal, ethical and economic standpoints.

Line of Attack

Ethically, Islamic writers argued that interest inherently favors those who have already have more money and allows the more well off to increase their wealth at the expense of interest-paying borrowers who tend to be poorer and more in need of financing. In economic terms, interest is the price of money. But Islamic writers find it paradoxical for money to have a price of its own. If money primarily serves to facilitate the exchange of goods & services, how can it have its own price? Would that not harm its ability to be a reliable facilitator of exchange?

But perhaps the most potent line of argument Islamic thinkers make is their attack on the liquidity preference theory. Liquidity preference holds that people will always prefer to hold and use money now rather than in the future. And so, if someone lends their money for some time, they deserve to be compensated for abstaining from consumption, and hence they get interest. So, preferring to hold and consume money right now (i.e. positive liquidity preference) underpins the entire interest-rate theory – like a huge gigantic skyscraper supported by one single solitary pillar. And we do not even question how strong that pillar is. As Mills notes,

"…the generalized preference for present, as opposed to future satisfaction [liquidity preference theory] is attacked for universalizing a preference that does not apply to all people in all circumstances: positive time preference is neither a principle of rationality nor an empirically established predominant tendency among consumers. It is simply one of three patterns of intertemporal choice (the other two being zero and negative time preference), each of which is rational and observable under its own conditions."

This last section is key. If we do not prefer consuming in the present, than the whole system of interest rates falls apart. Interest rewards you for not consuming in the present, but why need that be the case?

And so Islamic writers conclude that interest-rate theory is simply just baseless; that shiny skyscraper supported with a pillar that is really a mirage.

"Interest exists because it is there; it is still held up by its own theoretical bootstraps. The failure of mainstream economics to explain adequately the existence of interest betrays the fact that it is merely a theoretical concept with no true basis in reality. It is a figment of our collective imaginations."

However, Islamic finance has been more successful at critiquing modern interest-rate theory than in practically applying its principles.

In Practice Fail

Islamic finance is philosophically based on two ideas: money serves as a means to consume not hoard, and those with a surplus of wealth are obligated to help those with lesser means. In practice, these principles involved the concept of shared risk taking by means of common insurance (takaful) where banks and financial institutions put some money away in a pot, which will then be accessed when one of the members in trouble. Additionally, and importantly, Islamic finance shuns the use of debt. So, Islamic finance has come up with various instruments that avoid debt and interest. These instruments include bank loans to entrepreneurs and businesses where the bank becomes part (sleeping) owner in a company (musharaka), and the bank will profit if the company succeeds and lose if the company fails. Also, car leases are financed with the (ijara) facility, where the leaser is has to pay a fee above the principal instead of interest.

An important aspect of Islamic finance includes the Islamic bond (sukuk). Bonds are debt instruments and while Islamic finance avoids debt, it recognizes the possible necessity of relying on debt. But in keeping with the principal of risk sharing, and differentiating itself from conventional bonds, sukuks pay out a ‘profit’ rate, which corresponds to the profitability of the assets that were obtained from the money borrowed. So, if you issued a bond to set up a lemonade stands, you’d pay me back a variable ‘profit’ rate, depending on how successful your lemonade stand is, rather than a fixed interest rate as do conventional bonds. And, if your lemonade stand fails, I have a claim on your lemonade stand.

But with all these advantages, the world of Islamic finance has still suffered considerable losses and slow-downs in business. The reason for this is simple and saddening; in practice, Islamic finance has evolved into a mirror image of modern banking with Arabic names affixed. Dr. El-Gamel , author of Islamic Finance: Law, Economics & Practice, describes Islamic finance practitioners as having mimicked modern finance by using a “form above substance juristic approach”. He describes how finance professionals and lawyers join forces with religious scholars in order to Islamicize modern financial methods, with the scholars providing the necessary ‘Islamic’ certification and the financiers and lawyers doing the necessary legwork, along with Islamic governments who directly promote Islamic finance as the moral way to go. Dr. el-Gamal advocates reconstructing Islamic finance based on community development, social and ethical responsible investing and microfinance, which would embody the Islamic principles of risk sharing and reducing wealth inequality.

Dr. Tariq Yousef, former World Bank and IMF economist and current Dean of the Dubai School of Government echoes this sentiment - “Unfortunately, what we see in most Islamic banking practices at present is a reliance on instruments and modes of financing that resemble debt”.

In Sentences, Two

Islamic finance provides compelling critiques of modern interest rate theory and presents an alternate finance structure. But in practice, Islamic finance has failed to live up to its principles.

And that's jus' the tip.

Grad School: Lessons Learned

2009-09-08T12:57:00.009-04:00

by Anna-Marie Mansour

I've always been a nerd.

But grad school has been an incredible experience, exceeding even my expectations. My first year in the Human Computer Interaction master's program at Georgia Tech introduced me to great people and interesting research. Over the past year, I've grown and changed a great deal and now I want to share what I've learned. A grad school guide, if you will, in no particular order:

Industry vs PhD

You'll find yourself confronted with a question of your goals. What do you want to do when you graduate? Do you want to prepare for a PhD or to go straight into industrial/corporate world? These choices will affect how you develop your portfolio, the contacts you seek out, and the kinds of projects you choose to pursue. For the PhD route, you want to show that you can think like a researcher. So, prepare to write many fellowship applications for grants. Research programs will expect you to write and convey your research aspirations clearly, especially to get funding. Also, there's the constant struggle to define yourself - indeed, you will market yourself whether you go into industry or research.

Who are you? You are your own marketer

You are always pitching yourself to others. Whether in poster sessions, after class, in random encounters in the bathroom, you're always demonstrating if you can think, develop goals, and whether you can follow through. You could be the most brilliant, talented student, but no one will see that if you don't present yourself well - and why should they? People are confronted with mounds of information every single day. They've got their own stuff to deal with while suffering from information overload. You must define in a nutshell who you are, even if you're still not completely sure. This inner reflection will actually help you figure it out for yourself. Nail down a 30 second pitch.

There is no fail

But also walk the walk. Show that you can do as well. Everyone has ideas. It's what you do, even the small things, that makes an impression. People talk about something they can see; make a prototype, write a paper - try it out. Perceptions will change when you hold something tangible - you go from wannabe to accomplisher. Also, just doing something you will help you, even if the end product is not perfect.

Networking

I've always found the vagueness of the term distasteful. However, networking is extraordinarily crucial wherever you're bound post-grad. In grad school it can mean internal networking in your department, external networking with partners or business, and then the close encounters of the random kind. I have learned so much and been so inspired by haphazard conversations. Rule of thumb: never reject an opportunity to talk, especially if it's someone you don't usually talk to - a fellow student, professor, janitor, anyone.Take advantage of people's energy and enthusiasm! They'll give you a totally new perspective on something you've been thinking about and the opportunity to verbalize previously unformed thoughts. You never know the random things you will learn, and I highly recommend always having a pen and paper (or iPhone) handy - or even better a small notebook devoted to your volatile musings. I personally enjoy the graph paper Moleskine notebooks.

The more active kind of networking involves searching through professsors' websites to find the ones who you think might share your interest. Email them to meet up and chat about their work - people love to talk about themselves. Also take risks and email people whose work you're interested in.Try to set up a meeting. Sometimes you'll get into awkward conversations, or you'll feel rejected by an email - but remember that profs are busy and human too..

Making connections is also valuable from a monetary point of view. If you work with a prof - even pro bono for a semester - they are far more likely to fund you the following semester. Or, if you keep in touch you may find that something comes up later down the line and they hit you up to work on an awesome project or a different opportunity. So ALWAYS follow up and never burn bridges. I cannot emphasize that enough.

Respect

Show respect for people's time and work. Professors are crazy busy. So are PhD students. So are you. And you're all busy doing something. Try not to barge into your prof's office unless you know them well or if you're desperate - email first and be flexible.

Also, respect the work. Don't make assumptions about someone's research even if it seems boring or dumb - take the opportunity to ask about it. You never know what you'll learn from them. As a humble inexperienced student, trust that they know a lot and that they've put a lot of time and hard thought into their work or research. If you show interest in someone else, they generally respond better to you and will be open to hearing about you and offer you advice. You also may form connections that could prove valuable at unexpected times, as noted before.

At the same time, respect yourself. Although you're still learning the tricks of the trade, know that you are smart and have the self-confidence to pursue your own goals. Often I hear fellow students feel pressured to do what their professor wants. Many have fallen victim...

You sit in your prof's office as they invite you to explain your interests. They nod emphatically and offer "That sounds great! Here's a project you could work on..." ...that has nothing to do with your interests.

If you find yourself in this situation, be strong. Respect your goals. It's okay to say no, or to give yourself time to think about what they're suggesting, and it's okay to negotiate. But it can be valuable to give a little ground in order to obtain their trust, and so establish more leeway for yourself later on. Working on a professor's research can actually be a great way to learn about how research is done and what you like or dislike about it, as well as influence your own goals. But always remember to do what feels right to you.

Personal Agency: When you respect yourself, you become more self-sufficient. Learn to take care of your own business. Ask questions and seek advice. But respect time. Research what you want to know before asking others. Figure out who is the right person to talk to without wasting others' time. Be your own person, and don't make excuses.

Know your field

Whether you're industry or PhD bound, its your responsibility to know everything about your field. Start following blogs and other websites, find out who's who in your domain - follow them on twitter, read their stuff. Especially if you're applying for a job you need to demonstrate your comprehensive knowledge of the field, and have an opinion on current developments and the field's future direction.

Write!

Keep track of all this learning and discovery. Having the best conversations won't matter if you completey forget about it while trying to make another deadline. I like to keep a document of research ideas that I continually expand as I think about them. You never know when an idea will come to you and categorizing them and having easy access to them in one place is invaluable. Sometimes you'll look back at some old thoughts and have a completely different perspective, make new connections or remember some obscure thought.

Take care of yourself and have fun

If you are reading this, you probably enjoy research and learning. Dont forget the normal kind of fun. It's easy to get lost in the work and pressure to do well, but keep your social life active. It's also valuable to do that from a networking perspective. Socializing with your peers is not only good for your mental health and general sanity, but it will help to know the next leaders in your field, and its important to know each other well and bounce ideas off each other. Blow off some steam, get fresh ideas. Share your experiences and knowledge, teach each other, vent! Doing this will help guard against burning out. If you feel like you're on the edge, take some time for yourself.

* Anna-Marie Mansour is pursuing a Masters in Human-Computer Interaction at Georgia Tech and is currently preparing to work abroad in Spain. And background comic image provided by http://www.qwantz.com/.

And that's jus' the tip.

Iran's Foundation: The Vilayat-e-Faqih Doctrine

2009-07-28T13:47:00.012-04:00

Iran's current system represents the culmination of centuries of religious thought and a turbulent political history

by Ali-Asad

Iran attempts to balance popular sovereignty with divine authority (1). Iran's constituion was designed to give more power to its theocratic element. But over time, this element has accumulated much more power and has come to dominate Iran's democratic institutions. This trend has created an enduring tension within the country - tension that came to a head last month over claims of electoral fraud. Now, the political crisis has progressed into a new phase where the very legitimacy of the system itself is in question. Specifically, the foundation of its theocratic element is being reexamined.

While theories of popular sovereignty and democracy have been studied well, the basis of Iran’s theocracy has not; it is the Vilayat-e-Faqih doctrine (VEF). To understand VEF, we must go back to the very beginnings of Islam and the original Sunni-Shia divide.

---------------------

As discussed previously (2), after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 623 AD, his close companion Abu Bakr assumed the leadership mantle. Though his ascension took place under controversial circumstances, acceptance of Abu Bakr's leadership quickly became the orthodox view among a majority of Muslims - the Sunni. They maintain that after the Prophet no other held divinely-sanctioned authority, and so the pious were left to choose their leaders and run their own affairs by consultation (shura) and concensus (ijma'). Contemporary Muslim thinkers claim that Islam has contributed towards the theory of democracy with these ideas. But history is less kind. After the immediate successors, leadership among the Muslim community disintegrated over time into a mixture of Dynasties, Empires and Kingships who were no democratic bunch. These rulers skillfully exploited faith by using doctrines of predestination as a shield. They claimed that they ruled because God wills all human activity and, therefore, any opposition to them was opposition to God. This charade survives today in places that need not be named.

Back in the 7th century AD, a group of the faithful insisted that Muhammad had actually nominated a successor: Ali, his first cousin and son-in-law. This group became the Shiat Ali, or the supporters of Ali – they would continue to follow Ali and his designated descendents as divinely appointed guides – Imams. These beliefs later developed as points of doctrine including designation (nass) whereby God's representatives may legitimately nominate their successor and leadership (imamah) describing the qualities of God's chosen representatives. However, both Sunni and Shia doctrine developed well after Muhammad's death, in a time of great intellectual fervor.

The first few centuries of Islam after the Prophet were very productive times for Islamic thought. For the Sunni community, God’s last representative on Earth had departed leaving them to concentrate on canonizing Prophetic traditions and finalizing theological doctrines. Additionally, the faithful engaged in speculative discussions on the nature of God, the Qur’an and the nature of destiny. These discussions required philosophers to combine knowledge of texts and traditions with inner senses of reasoning and morality to achieve a higher level of understanding, an undertaking known as ijtehad - the struggle for knowledge. But in the 10th century ijtehad within the Sunni community came to an abrupt halt mainly as a reaction against rationalist theologians who questioned God's power by giving more weight to logic, causality and human free will. The Sunni have shunned ijtehad ever since.

The Shia, while also engaged in theological speculation, always had an Imam present. But as a minority movement, the Shia community experienced greater oppression and constant surveillance, which restricted the movement and communication of the Imams. Eventually, the 12th Imam (the eleventh after Ali) was forced to completely seclude himself for mortal fear and used a network of representatives to guide his supporters. Then, the 12th Imam disappeared completely, and the faithful were thrown into disarray. Nevertheless, the faithful, with the help of the Imam’s representatives, quickly settled on the idea that the Imam had only occulted; God had temporarily withdrawn him from the physical world for a later return with Jesus to fight for justice. In the absence of the Imam, the Shia embarked on a gradual but sustained effort in developing a distinctly Shia identity and practice using their own texts and reasoning - the method of ijtehad. But an important question arose; what role did religious scholars play in a community with a spiritual vacuum?

Initially, Shia clerics resisted any community role, which they demonstrated by their stance on collecting religious alms: in the 12th Imam’s time, this charity was collected and administered by the Imam for assisting the poor and communal development. After the Imam, the clerics refused to collect and administer these alms arguing that only the Imam had the authority to do so. This position changed when later Shia scholars successfully argued that someone had to administer this charity, and the clergy were the logical people to do so. This view gained wide acceptance and opened the door towards further clerical involvement including the development of doctrines such as taqleed (imitation) whereby the faithful must seek to emulate a specific cleric’s rulings in terms of religious practice. These clerics are ranked as Grand Ayatollahs, a title that al-Sistani in Iraq and Iran’s Supreme Leader both hold. While embracing taqleed's call for a greater clerical role in religious practice, al-Sistani practices quietism by shunning a role in politics.

However, some clerics embraced the idea of an overtly political role for the religious scholars. In this spirit, Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, developed Vilayat-e-Faqih - a theological basis for politically active clergymen. Both taqleed and VEF rely on interpreting various traditions from the 12th Imam where the Imam advises the faithful to “seek out the narrators of my traditions’’ after him because “they are my proof to you” (3). While quite vague, these traditions combined with centuries of thought, debate and discussion set a foundation for a more activist Shia clergy. In this context, VEF represents the furthest reach of clerical authority as a political theory and a religious doctrine.

---------------------

VEF translates as ‘Authority of the Jurist’ – the idea that an expert in religious law (the Jurist) has complete authority (Vilayat) over the faithful much the same way as the Imams and the Prophet before them. This Jurist represents the last delegation of God’s absolute authority over His creations – from God, to the Prophets and from the Last Prophet to the Imams and finally to the Jurist. Khomeini formed the VEF doctrine at a time when the Shah governed Iran as its monarch with an iron fist. The self-styled Shehen-Shah (King of Kings) resisted the clerics and oppressed many ordinary Iranians, including the pious. It was these people who came out by the millions to support Khomeini and overthrow the Shah in the 1979 revolution. But they had little idea that Khomeini had a very specific vision for post-revolution Iran – one where the clerics held the final say in all matters.

To Khomeini, the people were always too prone towards moral degradation and corruption to be left in control of their own affairs. Rather, they needed a guide who could steer society towards moral purity. So, Khomeini oversaw the creation of a Supreme Leader within Iran’s constitution - an absolute authority designed to check the people’s excesses. This system heavily relies on the military for support and specifically the Revolutionary Guards division, who as their name suggests, are charged with guarding the Islamic Revolution. This alliance gave birth to a new authoritarian regime based not on a monarch's claim over his subjects, but God's right over humankind. And when men inherit God's authority, they leave no room for men to rule themselves.

And that's jus' the tip.

References/Further Reading

(1) Untangling Iran's Politics, at Jus' the Tip
(2) Understanding Sunni-Shia, at Jus' the Tip
(3) The Occultation of the 12th Imam (A Historical Background), Jassim Hussein
(4) How Quarreling Ayatollahs affect Iran's Crisis, Time Magazine

* Special thanks to Clint Johnson for his help with this article. Clint blogs at Why We Worry.

Fiscal & Monetary Policy for Fun

2009-07-25T15:49:00.011-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Governments possess two sets of tools that help combat recessions - monetary and fiscal policy. However, the language of economics makes it difficult to understand these ideas; talk of 'quantitative easing', 'fiscal stimulus' and 'stagflation' only helps induce mental atrophy. But I've found two simulations that help promote the understanding of these concepts without the unneeded lingo.

Firstly, the Bank of Finland's monetary policy simulation allows you to control monetary policy; your goals is to keep prices stable (you'd be pretty panicked if the price of bread kept going up everyday). Your only tool is the interest rate, which...oh right - no lingo. Basically, low interest rates help increase prices because people save less (you get less interest at the bank) and buy more things. If more people buy more things, prices go up. This game is quite visually stimulating with colorful animation - though the highlight has to be the TV commentator who updates you on the status of the economy - in Finnish. Classic stuff.

Secondly, 'The economy, stupid' puts you in control of a small European country's fiscal policy; you control how much the government takes in (through taxes) and how much the government spends (through retirement/unemployment benefits and public sector spending). As you start, the country is spending more than it's taking in, and you've got to bring things into balance before the next election (the people care what you do with their money). Your decisions will impact certain groups more than others so watch your approval ratings - they may come to haunt you. Also, your country is quite small and so depends heavily on the global economy for growth - exports will help your economy grow, along with you revenue. But the global economy is quite unpredictable. By fiddling about, you can try your hand at running a welfare/socialist economy (high taxes, high spending) or a laissez-fair/business friendly economy (low taxes, low spending). It's your economy, stupid.

And that's jus' the tip.

Budgets for Fun

2009-07-19T10:01:00.005-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Nothing provokes groans and feelings of boredom more than talk of budgets. Mix in the snooze-inducing phrases like 'deficits', 'marking up', 'structural imbalances' and you deserve to receive a prize for just finishing this sentence. However, this topic matters greatly. The current global financial crisis makes one thing very clear: countries all over the world, and especially the US, relied too heavily on debt to create wealth. And countries can go broke just as families can. The US federal budget does not add up; when you spend more than you earn, you have to borrow to make ends meet. And if you keep borrowing too much, you'll have to spend more and more on paying back what you owe. Eventually, you will not pay what you owe and then everything comes crashing down; confidence shatters, no one trusts anyone and money becomes worthless.

If this sounds like something worth understanding, check out I.O.U.S.A, a extremely well made documentary on the debt issue that has a free version on youtube. And on the lighter side, 'Budget Hero' is a public interest online game putting you in the position of deciding where money should go, and then forecasting how the economy will look 20 to 50 years down the line. Budgets matter even if they're no fun.

And that's jus' the tip.

The Vice President's Conscience

2009-07-02T13:57:00.014-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Joseph R. Biden Jr. got into politics for one issue: civil rights. When he reached the senate, the Voting Rights act had already been passed and the country was set on a new path towards racial reconciliation. Once in the senate, Biden turned his attention towards another issue he deeply cared about - campaign finance reform (CFR) - the idea that money should be separated from politics by having the government finance all political campaigns. If legislated, CFR would level the playing field and allow political campaigns to be about ideas and policies, and not dependent on incumbency and fundraising. But Biden never got very far; warned by his colleagues that no one in congress would support an idea that eliminated the advantage of incumbency, Biden dropped the issue.

Now, Joe Biden has a boss who in theory likes the idea of campaign finance reform but in practice almost broke the back of CFR supporters. After securing the Democratic nomination, then-senator Obama broke his pledge and opted out of he public financing system for presidential candidates - which McCain abided by - in order to take advantage of his superior fundraising machine, and the fundraising abilities of the candidate himself. This decision allowed Obama to safely secure his victory over the Arizona senator on election night, 2008. Now, President Obama does not appear interested in delving into an issue which greatly concerns his deputy - the issue remains absent from the whitehouse's list of important policies. Though a possible second term issue, achieving CFR requires great popular consensus, dedication and political will. While this issue does not garner as much attention - or vitriol - as abortion or healthcare, the ideological divide remains vast.

CFR raises a fundamental constitutional issue as to what constitutes free speech - does money equal speech? Many liberals argue no on the basis that wealth is distributed unequally across society. The ultimate exercise of free speech, participating in an election, follows the principle of one man, one vote. But wealthy individuals wield disproportionate power in terms on wealth, and so have a lock on so called 'money speech'. So, the idea that money equals speech does a disservice to the first amendment and possibly violates equal protection and due process guaranteed therein. Most conservatives argue that separating money from politics violates first amendment rights in terms of freedom of speech and expression - everyone has an inherent right to express what policies and candidates they support, and the constitution in no way prohibits the use of a person's wealth to further those goals. Also, allowing the government to restrict how individuals can express their political views creates a slippery slope towards the further curtailing of civil liberties such as expressing unpopular opinions. So, the ability for individuals to use their own resources for political expression serves as a bulwark against governmental tyranny.

With such a huge ideological divide, congress has muddled through the issue with the Federal Election Campaign act of 1979 and McCain-Feingold in 2002 which accepts money's role in politics but with government regulations imposed. As with all compromises, neither side is happy and both sides have used lawyers to no end finding loopholes in the laws.In the current session, some members of congress have introduced a bill - the Fair Elections Now act (FEN) that would further rewrite the rules on on money in politics. This proposed legislation would bring us closer to a publicly financed system by setting up a 'Fair Elections' fund. Candidates, who qualify by demonstrating statewide support, would have the option of joining the fund, which guarantees a fixed sum of money for campaigning. Although it's only optional, this legislation would give challengers to congressional incumbents, who rarely lose, a shot at competing.

In Joseph R. Biden Jr., the proponents of CFR have a stealthy supporter in the white house. It's unclear whether the Vice President has made his concerns clear to the President. He should, by appealing to this President's visionary inclinations - the impact of CFR will only be felt many many years after it is signed into law, when money and corporations will no longer have a stake in individual parties or candidates. The Vice President knows how urgent an issue this is - will his conscience allow him to stay quiet? And for how long? We'll get an indication if and when the whitehouse turns its attention to, and openly supports, the Fair Elections Act.

And that's jus' the tip.

It's Time to Nap

2009-06-09T12:32:00.002-04:00

by Ali-Asad

I've always liked the idea of napping; you can never get enough sleep I feel. Sara Mednick, sleep researcher and author of 'Take a Nap! Change Your Life' agrees. In a lecture she gives at Google, Dr. Mednick outlines her research on why naps help increase productivity and can help supplement regular night sleep. This lecture is on youtube and is attached below. I've summarized her main points and the corresponding segment in the video:

Sleep works in cycles, and there are 3: Stage 1/REM, Stage 2 and Slow Wave Sleep (SWS) ~ 7 minute mark

Nap studies show that a 60 min nap in the middle of the day includes only SWS and helps keep performance from declining throughout the day. 90 minute naps involve both SWS and REM and improves visual memory as much as a nights worth of sleep. Timing of the nap is crucial; we naturally get more REM in the mornings and, for morning wakers, SWS in the evenings/night. ~ 15 minute mark

The functions of the various sleep stages:
For stage 2 (which you'd get in a 20 min 'power nap') - increased alertness and improved motor memory.
For SWS - restorative, clears mind, helps spatial and declarative memory.
For Stage 1/REM - Helps creativity, perceptual skills, also responsible for vivid dreams. ~ 20 minute mark

A lot of people say that napping doesn't work for them. But Dr. Mednick insists that a midday nap of 20-30 minutes helps even if you don't think you've slept because you still get into a state of relaxation akin to sleeping; power napping does not involve passing out. ~ 36 minute mark

Sleep inertia - the feeling of being groggy after taking a nap. Solution: start with 10-15 min nap, and make sure to get out of bed. Napping more than 90 mins (1 full cycle) provides no extra benefit, and often results in sleep inertia. ~ 41 minute mark.

And that's jus' the tip.

Coffee Table Conversations

2009-05-23T11:55:00.003-04:00

(A conversation over coffee and a small old text)

“There’s no way it means that.”
“But that’s just what it says.”
“Really?”
“Yeah, look – ‘A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’- It says it right there.”
“It says that people can carry around guns everywhere?”
“Well not everywhere. I mean it depends, but the point is that we the people have an inherent right to defend ourselves.”
“With guns?”
“Right.”
“I’m not sure it says that. I’m not even sure you can tell what it says – I count two comma splices in that one sentence alone.”
“Funny.”
“No really. I think it’s open to interpretation.”
“What part of ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’ do you not understand?”
“Ah. See, that’s not the whole text. If it said only that you’d have a point. But what about everything before it – about the well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state…what does all that mean?”
“It means that in a free country people should be able to defend themselves from all threats.”
“With guns?”
“Yeah.”
“But that’s an assumption.”
“It seems like common sense, how can people be free if they can’t defend their freedom by force if necessary?”
“Right, but then the right to bear arms isn’t an inherent right – it’s more like a tool used to protect our freedom.
“I’m ok with that.”
“So then what happens when the right to bear arms makes us less free?”
“That can't happen. Our Founders explicitly described this right precisely because being able to defend yourself is the foundation of liberty”.
“Maybe our Founders' logic doesn't apply like it did back then.”
“Huh? How do you mean?”
“Well...I don't think they had police departments, the FBI and the 911 hotline back then, did they? It just seems like we now rely on the army and navy to keep us safe from external threats and the police to protect us from domestic threats.”
“Well, the police can't protect us all the time everywhere.”
“True, but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason for a legal universal right to guns for everyone.”
“Well I think it's the only way to guarantee that our country and people remain protected and free.”
“Maybe.”
“Plus, I don't need a reason to justify my rights, the text gives me the right. It says it right there - 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'...and you can't argue with that.”
“No, apparently not.”

Generations

2009-04-03T04:38:00.002-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Every age has its defining periods. Be it World War 2, Women's Suffrage or the Internet. These common experiences impact everyone to a certain degree. These shared experiences allow sociologists to distinguish various generations of peoples and identify the characteristics they share. Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, in their book Generations: The History of America's Future , attempted to identify various generations and their shared characteristics.

Howe & Strauss theorize that history moves in cycles. Stage 1 is an Awakening where a new social order takes root and adults are driven by philosophical or religious zeal. This Awakening proceeds to the 2nd stage, which is the Unraveling, where this established social order brings about peace and prosperity. The 3rd stage is the Crisis phase, where the old order is challenged by a younger generation with their own vision of social order. This Crisis is follow by the High phase where the crisis is resolved. Each generation is impacted depending on what stage of history they come of age.

The last 4 generations are known as the Baby Boomers, Generation X and the Millenials.

Baby Boomers: (Born between 1945-1960)
Key Events: JFK Assassination, Women's Movement
Key Attributes: individualism, experimentalism, distrust of governement

Generation X: (Born between 1961-1980)
Key Events: Fall of Berlin Wall, MTV
Key Attributes: educated, alienated from parents, areligious

Millenials: (Born between 1980-1998)
(The Net Gen) Key Events: The Internet, DotCom Boom, 9/11
Key Characteristics: independent yet collaborative, socially conscious

Generation Z: (Born between 2000-?)
Key Events: Still to be determined, possibly the current Financial Crisis
Key Characteristics: Technologically in sync with parents, participative, connected.

And that’s jus’ the tip

CNBC's Crossfire Moment

2009-03-13T09:13:00.006-04:00

by Ali-Asad

"I know you want to make finance entertaining - but it's not a f------- game"
~Jon Stewart

John Stewart has just done for financial news networks what he did for political ‘debate’ shows on Crossfire – exposed them for what they really are. For those not in the know, a week back Stewart invited Rick Santelli to come on his show. Santelli had made news when he called people who couldn’t stay in their homes as “losers”, and that he didn’t like the government’s plan to help pay for the ”loser’s mortages”. Santelli never made it on Stewart’s show. But Stewart did do an 8 minute long segment chastising the ‘financial experts’ on CNBC for not seeing the current financial crisis by – as Stewart does – humorously pointing out how badly wrong they were. In this segment, Stewart targeted, among others, Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money. Cramer took offense to Stewart’s comments, and so Stewart did the only logical thing – invited him on the Daily Show.

(Alternative link)

What Stewart does here is show that not only did the ‘financial experts’ on TV know traders and banks were gambling with peoples’ pensions, but that they also essentially covered for these trader and bankers by not conducting honest journalism and not investigating their “shenanigans”. Stewart, in front of a humbled Cramer, demonstrates that has inherent conflicts of interest that screw over unknowing investors.

“CNBC could be an incredibly powerful tool of illumination…there are 2 markets: one that has been sold to us as long term – put your money in 401K’s and pensions and just leave it there…then there’s this other market – this real market, that’s occurring in the back room where giant piles of money are going in and out and people are trading them and it's transactional and it’s fast but it’s dangerous and ethically dubious…it feels like we’re capitalizing your adventure…And it’s a game you know - you know it’s going on…But you go on television as a financial network and pretend it’s not happening.”

Bang.

And that's jus' the tip.

Dubai's Bailout Begins

2009-02-24T03:09:00.003-05:00

by Ali-Asad

Yesterday, the government of Dubai announced that it was selling $20 billion in government backed bonds to the UAE central bank. This transaction amounts to the cosmopolitan, commercial and hence more financially vulnerable Statelet of Dubai being bailed out by its oil rich, more conservative neighbor Abu Dhabi. With both its stockmarket and property values falling over 50% in the last few months, Dubai desperately needed this bailout. But this is no silver bullet.

The Economist once compared Dubai’s property boom to the Florida housing boom of the 1930’s. Back then, almost overnight, Florida became a hub for speculators, property developers and all others seeking more rewarding opportunities. When the bust came, it hit hard and again, almost overnight, Florida became a ghostly place full of half finished construction projects. Similarly, Dubai has appeared from the desert as a world famous metropolis in less than 30 years. Now, the global financial crisis threatens even this bastion of growth and opportunity.

On news of the bailout, Dubai’s stockmarket jumped 8% and newspapers were already proclaiming that Dubai’s future had been secured. This euphoria may be short lived. The $20B does help Dubai’s government meet its short term obligations and eliminate the possibility of a cataclysmic default. But investor confidence also needs to return in Dubai’s banks. Dubai lacks any mechanism to deal with a bank failure. Officially, all deposits are guaranteed by the government but the UAE has no federal body or established mechanism to deal with a bank run. One bank failure could lead to a rapid crisis of confidence prompting bank runs on other banks…leading to a downward spiral similar to the bank runs in the US and UK. Of course that could never happen in Dubai. Why? Conventional wisdom holds that the UAE would rescue any bank that came anywhere close to failure. Last month, Abu Dhabi injected $4B into its own banks. However, we’d all do well to remember that the inability to imagine the impossible precipitated this crisis in the first place. And Dubai is just beginning to feel the consequences.

Watch this space.

And that's jus' the tip.

The Art of Thinking

2009-01-07T21:28:00.002-05:00

by Ali-Asad

It’s no secret that people think differently. But exactly how people differ in their thinking still eludes many of us. This mystery explains why it’s so hard to find common ground. If two people think differently and, without any appreciation of how the other person thinks, conflict and disagreements inevitably arise. But why do we think anyway? Basically, we think in order to gain knowledge of the world around us in order to deal with our environment. And it’s no secret that we all have different ways of obtaining this knowledge. The researcher C. West Churchman identified these different ways of thinking as ‘inquiry modes’ – the different assumptions and methodologies we use to obtain information. Based on important thinkers in history, Churchman theorized that there were five distinct general inquiry modes.

Firstly, there’s the Hegelian Synthesist who relies on taking conflicting ideas and integrating them based on a fundamental worldview. Synthesists are very satirical and skeptical people. They tend to come across as very deep thinkers. Their method of inquiry is the ‘dialectic’ – that is the clash between opposite ideas and thoughts in order to come to some sort of integrative conclusion – a synthesis. Synthesists rely on argument, debate and conflict more than any of the other inquiry modes simply because of one underlying assumption: a synthesists ‘knows’ you can never really know anything for sure. So, they’re always poking, prodding and challenging current ideas in a bid to change things. Key approaches: speculative and integrative.

Secondly, there’s Kant’s Idealist who relies on ideals and gains agreement through listening and consensus. Idealists focus on broad themes, values and feelings tending towards holistic thinking. They are very receptive listeners because they want to foster agreement. And so they’re very easy to come to common terms with because they naturally avoid confrontation and conflict. But they do also have a strong dislike for large amounts of facts and data. Key approaches: holistic and receptive.

Thirdly, we have Edgar A. Singer’s Pragmatist who base their method of inquiry on a ‘whatever works’, ‘whatever’s best’ approach. Pragmatists are interested only in results and so are not limited by any doctrine or theory in achieving their goals. Therefore, their thinking strategies tend to be very context specific. Simply put, they skip the debate as to whether to value objective data and facts or theories and values. This ambivalence makes this thinking the style the most open to persuasion and experimentation. Key approach: adaptive.

Fourth, we have Leibniz’s Analyst who puts absolute faith on logic and reason. For this reason, Analysts tend to be very methodical, logical and controlled people. They value logic, facts and data over everything else. They come to conclusions by obtaining as much relevant data as possible on the issue and then logically coming up with ‘the one best way’ that fits the current situation. They hate irrational or speculative conversations because, to them, it’s all pointless when you have a concrete, objective and established path towards the truth. Key approach: prescriptive logic.

Fifth, and lastly, there’s Locke’s Realist who is the quintessential ‘I’ll believe it when I see it’ type. Reality is induced from observation and experience – empirical evidence i.e. ‘facts are facts’. This approach makes Realists appear as no nonsense, down-to-earth and direct thinkers. Like Analysts, they dislike the overly speculative but they’re quite a lot more hard hitting and decisive. Key approach: corrective empiricism .

Here, I’ve tried to describe these five thinking styles as being distinct. But often there is much overlap because we all have the capacity to put on any of these ‘thinking caps’. This overlap hints at a more fundamental issue in thinking styles. What lies beneath all these inquiry modes is the debate over substantive versus functional rationality, the two basic ways of thinking. Substantive rationality is based on personal knowledge and experience of the world and relies on values and judgments – a more subjective thought process if you will. Functional rationality describes a more scientific and objective approach to thinking which is based on analysis, logic and data. Sythesists and Idealists favor the value side of rationality while Analysts and Realists value the data driven side. Interestingly, pragmatists seem to either compromise or avoid the whole question entirely.

So, there we are, some thinking about thinking. The reference below delves deeper into this subject and discusses how to better understand and adapt to different thinking styles using various strategies and changing your own 'thinking cap'.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Reference: The Art of Thinking

The Phony anti-Israeli Gaza Outrage

2009-01-05T15:39:00.006-05:00

by Ali-Asad

I’m sick of the phony anti-Israeli outrage that’s become quite popular and fashionable amongst most news-watchers and the media. This outrage is particularly indefensible in the Arab media, which is taking an active side in the conflict rather than conducting professional journalism. No one likes to see civilians killed by aerial bombardment or artillery shelling in urban areas. But the focus of the current outrage is superficial at best and ignores the deeper undercurrents that created the current conflict.

This conflict follows a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel that neither side really kept. So, both sides were angling for a new ceasefire on more favorable terms. Hamas thought that rocket attacks would give it more leverage. Israel decided to change the game completely. But this conflict has even deeper roots. Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. No matter how principled this position may be, it ignores a fundamental reality in the international political arena; Israel is here to stay. Now, Hamas can use this recognition issue as a huge bargaining chip – if Hamas recognized Israel’s right to exist, Israel would be willing to swallow other major concessions in a final peace deal. Unfortunately, Hamas continues to stick to their guns, literally. Therefore, Hamas’s position can only be defended if you think Israel doesn’t have a right to exist and Israel can somehow be made extinct – the former may be defensible, the latter is an absolutely ludicrous fantasy. And supporting an organization that tries to kill innocent civilians makes no sense.

Popular outrage and the (Arab) media have focused on the death and destruction caused by Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. Anthems in favor of Hamas, and bodies of dead children occupy the news coverage. But Israel’s action in no way justifies this support of Hamas; the actions of the two are very different. Israel’s purpose is to stop rocket attacks on its civilians. Hamas launches rockets with the express intention of killing innocent civilians and creating fear within the Israeli population. There is no moral equivalency. How people, especially Arabs and Muslims, can defend Hamas and be outraged at Israel is a mystery to me. Intending to kill innocent civilians cannot be defended and is far greater crime than causing the death of innocents when defending your own country or when trying to dismantle a terrorist infrastructure. The outrage over the unintentional killing of civilians in Gaza has provoked more outrage than the Mumbai terrorist attacks and the numerous suicide attacks in Iraq over the past year combined. This fact is appalling. Surely Shia militias killing innocent Sunnis or Sunni insurgents bombing a Shia mosque are far worse crimes than Israel’s current actions. An Arab or Muslim life is not worth more than any other life. 200 innocent people were intentionally killed in the Mumbai attacks in the name of Islam and Muslims. Yet few Muslims or Arabs care. That’s the real outrage.

The current predicament in Gaza is the culmination of various complex political and historical currents. Phony outrage and media emotionalism will help no one, and only serves to promote hatred and distrust on both sides. But trust and mutual respect are the only way out of this conflict because this conflict has no military solution. Only diplomacy based on compromise and mutual respect will work. Phony outrage and media bias make a final resolution that much harder.

And that's jus' the tip.

The War Within Palestine

2008-12-31T12:15:00.003-05:00

by Yasmin Amer

The six-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, along with optimism for long-term peace in the Middle East in the near future, ended last week. Hamas refused to renew the ceasefire and fired rockets into Israel. In response, Israel decided to pull off another 2006 war and strike back at Hamas.

What was Hamas thinking? They must know that Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East and thus the power initiate to a major attack which would cost the lives of many civilians as well as to completely limit any supplies from reaching Gaza. On the surface, this was clearly a stupid move for a politically unstable group like as Hamas to challenge Israel’s military power. I would compare it to going up to someone with a gun and punching them in the face. They had to have known that without the backing of other powers (either Arab or non-Arab) that it was impossible for them to fight Israel on equal terms. Therefore, the goal of ending the ceasefire might not have necessarily been to militarily challenge Israel’s power. Instead, this move by Hamas might have been directed more towards the Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled by Fatah which controls the West Bank. The goal is to show that no political breakthroughs can be made without Hamas’s participation as a legitimate political party.

President Abbas of Fatah directly blamed Hamas for provoking the Gaza massacre. Their decision to end the ceasefire triggered the attacks on civilians. The United States, Israel, and the PA do not recognize Hamas as a political party. BUt Hamas still has a strong enough political presence that they cannot ignore. Obviously, if Hamas’s actions can trigger an Israeli reaction of this magnitude, they’re not a ineffective political group. Hamas is reiterating its influence in order to maintain its presence within and outside of Palestine as well as to avoid the same fate as the PLO, who for the most part vanished as a political party. They are trying to send the message that no real negotiations can be made without including Hamas in the peace process.

We’ve seen the result of ignoring Hamas; over 280 Palestinians have been killed over the past few days and the violence is still continuing. It’s the same disproportionate retaliation that took place in 2006 against Hezbollah. In all of this, the PA is almost completely overshadowed; they don’t have the power to restore a ceasefire and they do not have the power to influence Hamas to do so. Whether you agree with their politics or not, Hamas cannot possibly be ignored in talks regarding the future of Gaza and the Palestinian territories in general.

Palestine cannot afford to have political differences. Only political stability could support any differences. Without a united resistance movement, their position as an occupied territory i weakens considerably.. With Hamas and the Abbas’s PA refusing to negotiate with each other first, there’s no way they can expect to seriously negotiate with Israel or the United States.

And that's jus' the tip.

Slow Death for the Electoral College

2008-11-13T11:48:00.003-05:00

by Ali-Asad

Barack Obama won the 2008 election by securing 53% of the total popular vote and 67% of the electoral college votes. Historically, the electoral college has never accurately represented the popular vote. For some, this makes no sense - they'd like the electoral college to be abolished. Interestingly, the present electoral college system is not mandated by the constitution. Rather, it has become entrenched in tradition. But now states are taking actions to effectively end the electoral college system and move towards a direct election where the winner of the total number of votes would become President. Until recently it was thought that only a constitutional amendment would be able to end the electoral college system. But a new method has been developed to move towards a direct-electing system without a constitutional amendment.

The second article of the constitution allows state legislatures to decide how they will allocate their electoral votes. Professors and politicians from all points of view have endorsed a sweeping new law - the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This law, proposed in each state, would amend state law so that a state would give its electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote rather then the statewide vote. This law would come into effect when the electoral votes of states passing the law would exceed 270 votes. Already 4 states (Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii and Maryland) have passed this legislation - they represent 50 electoral votes. When more states adopt this law, as seems likely, and the 270 vote threshold is reached, the US will effectively shift away from the current electoral college system towards having a directly elected president where each vote is equally weighted. Will this change be a good thing? Who knows...but it's a change that's coming.

And that's jus' the tip.

Understanding Your Morality

2008-10-23T15:09:00.008-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Psychologists, anthropologists and ethicists have developed a comprehensive understanding of morality over the last century. The fundamental question underpinning this research has been: how do we define morality?

Initially, morality was defined with only the individual in mind. Psychologist Lawrence Kholberg theorized that morality was based on the protection of individual rights i.e. what's equal is moral and inequality is immoral; keyword: reciprocity - the justice/fairness moral conception. Later, Carol Gilligan thought that this justice/fairness foundation was too harsh, especially for the female psyche. She theorized that morality was more based on the avoidance of harm i.e. if something inflicts harm, it's immoral. This parallels the maternal instinct; keywords: protection, compassion - the harm/care moral conception. These two moral foundations of justice/fairness and harm/care can be considered as the ethics of the individual. But this isn't the whole story. Anthropologists found that more traditional societies had other moral senses, which often conflicted with the ethics of the individual.

In more traditional societies, the primary unit of society is not the individual but the family, tribe or country. Therefore, individual rights are not as important as protecting the group. This different focus gives rise to different moral foundations. Firstly, this group preeminence requires individuals to favor their own group over other groups i.e. what my group does has to be right as compared to other groups; keywords: loyalty, patriotism - the ingroup/outgroup moral conception. Secondly, all groups require a structure of authority to function. The group can only function if this hierarchy is strictly obeyed otherwise the whole group fabric will crumble i.e., an elder must be obeyed no matter what; keywords: respect, duty - the authority/respect moral foundation. These two moral foundations of ingroup/outgroup and authority/respect can be considered as the ethics of the community.

Now, for many people, divinely revealed laws serve as a moral foundation. Here, the primary unit is the soul, which God has gifted to everyone. Therefore, morality involves the protection and purification of this soul through protecting the body with certain dietary, sexual etc. regulations. Also, this foundations promotes health by using shame/disgust to avoid risky behavior; keywords: chastity, shame - the purity/sanctity moral foundation. This moral foundation is considered as the ethics of divinity.

So, we've established 5 foundations of morality:

justice/fairness - protection of individual rights

harm/care - maternal instinct of nurture, protection, and avoidance of harm

ingroup/outgroup - favoring one's own group over other groups

authority/respect - adherence to hierarchy

purity/sanctity - avoidance of health risks through shame and disgust/adhering to God's laws

Interestingly, empirical research has found that your moral foundations can accurately indicate your political views. Political liberals identify primarily with the ethics of the individual foundations (justice/fairness and harm/care) while not having any sense for the other 3 moral foundations. On the other hand, political conservatives value the ethics of the individual as well but also include the ethics of community and divinity in their moral compass. So, political conservatives tend to have a broader view of morality in that they deal with moral issues for the perspective of God and community, as well as the individual.

These researchers have set up a great website called yourmorals.org, where you can take a quiz to determine your moral foundations. My results from the moral foundation questionnaire are below:

A couple of things stand out here: I score high on one of the three values political conservatives share. Also, I do value the universal ethics of the individual but value justice/fairness quite highly and value the harm/care foundation quite a bit lower than average.

And that's jus' the tip.

Stand up-in-chief

2008-10-17T11:30:00.003-04:00

by Ali-Asad

John McCain and Barack Obama recently attended a charity event where they both entertained the audience with some self-deprecating humor, as well as using their opponents as punchlines. It's nice to know that they are real people who can have sometimes. Some of the better lines included McCain's jab at Obama:

(This campaign) began with the heralded arrival of a man Oprah Winfrey called 'the One'. Being a friend and colleague of Barack's, I just called him 'that One'.

And Obama's jab at Mccain:
Al, I obviously never knew your great-grandfather, but from everything Senator Mccain has told me...

Definitely worth watching.

Mccain part 1:

Mccain part 2:

Obama part 1:

Obama part 2:

And that's jus' the tip.

The (Good) Questions Behind the (Bad) Questions

2008-09-22T07:00:00.003-04:00

by Ali-Asad

The questions we mentally ask ourselves determine how we act. Our actions are performed based on the answers to questions we ask ourselves. Therefore, the questions we ask ourselves are the foundation and source of all our actions. So, if we could potentially change our actions by changing the questions we ask ourselves when trying to determine a course of action. These questions are the subject of the book QBQ! The Question Behind the Question: Practicing Personal Accountability in Work and in Life by John G. Miller. Here, Miller identifies the common question words people use on themselves before acting. They are: why, who, when, what and how. Miller shows that 3 of these question words are inherently useless - why, who and when.

Who? The 'who' questions seeks to fix the blame rather than the problem. e.g. who is responsible for getting this done? These type of questions deflect your own accountability by pinning the blame on someone else just by asking 'why'. Most why questions are useless because they do not pass the 'so what' test. Think about any answer you get from a 'why' question. and then ask: so what? e.g. who didn't order the food? I didn't. OK - so what? If the answer to the 'so what' question does not point you towards a direct course of action, the questions itself was useless. get it?

Why? The 'why' question seeks to look back into the past rather than towards the future. e.g. why didn't that system work? These type of questions judge past actions without any eye on the future - the system didn't work because we didn't test it enough. OK. so what?

When? The when question aids in procrastination. e.g. when will that report get done? These type of questions do not allow you to take the initiative, and so force you to depend on others or wait on others. The report will get done in an hour. OK. so what?

These 3 (bad) questions can be transformed into (good) questions: How and What.

Bad: who should fix this problem?
Good: How can I help fix this problem? or What can I do to fix this problem.

Bad: why is the computer not working?
Good: How can I get the computer working? or What can I do to get my computer working asap.

Bad: When will the article get done?
Good: What can I do while the article is being finished? or How can I help get the article done.

These good how and what questions point you towards a direct course of actions, and foster a productive, problem-solving mentality. But who, where, when questions only cause inaction and destructive thinking. For some people, asking these (good) questions may come naturally...we good. but you would do well to uderstand what how your thinking inspires productive action. For others, asking the (bad) questions may be a force of habit...no worries. Once you understand why those questions are so destructive, they'll be easy to identify and block out. But it'll take time, discipline and a resolution on your part. But that's what personal development is all about.

And that's jus' the tip.

Making Light of a Bad Situation

2008-09-19T02:56:00.010-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Here's an introduction the financial turmoil of the past couple of weeks...from editorial cartoonists:

Of course, these cartoons would be incomplete without some political humor.

And that's jus' the tip.

Best of the Democrats Conventions (Videos & Quotes)

2008-08-30T07:13:00.005-04:00

by Ali-Asad

The Democrats held their convention last week. It consisted of some quite riveting speeches filled with pointed attacks, witty zingers and clever oratory.

With that in mind, I present to you the Best of the Convention:

1. John Kerry delivered a short but sharp speech rebutting nearly every attack on Obama.

“We are electing judgment and character and judgment, not years in the senate or on this earth.”

“How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission question the troops, how pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy doubt America itself, how desperate to tell the son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn’t put America first – No one can question Barack Obama’s patriotism.”

“Years ago, when we protested a war, people would weigh in against us saying: my country, right or wrong. Our answer: absolutely, my country right or wrong – when right keep it right, when wrong make it right.”

Here's the short speech - the good stuff starts 4 minutes in:

2. The popular governor of Montana stole the show with his electrifying speech. He somehow managed to get people enthused using detailed policies on energy independence.

We can’t drill our way out of this - If you drilled in all of John McCain’s backyards, even the ones he doesn’t know he has…that single answer proposition is dry well .

- Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana)

See the whole speech; The last five minutes are especially worth it.

3. Hilary delivered the speech of a lifetime.

It makes sense that John McCain and George Bush will be together next week in the Twin Cities. Because these days it’s hard to tell them apart.

See the whole thing here.

4. Former President Clinton gave a masterful speech.

People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example then by the example of our power

This one is worth watching just because it was a brilliant piece of oratory. It’s here.

And that's jus' the tip.

Drilling & Rational Expectations

2008-08-11T13:41:00.002-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Energy has popped up as an important issue in the US presidential campaign. John McCain and his campaign consider energy as one of their strongest domestic issues because the public at large wants the government to do something about the record high gas prices. Hence, McCain’s continued insistence on increasing offshore drilling. But Obama, along with most Democrats, has always regarded offshore drilling as a fraudulent policy. The argument goes that new offshore drilling will not produce a drop of oil for at least seven years according to the US Energy department. Additionally, drilling for more oil will not solve the long term problem of depleting fossil fuel reserves. On the surface, both arguments make sense. Increasing oil supply seven years from now will not impact the price of gas at the pump tomorrow. Also, fossil fuels will run out eventually, and drilling for more oil while damaging the environment does not seem like a good long-term tradeoff. But these arguments have surprisingly convincing and logical counters.

Firstly, the possibility of new oil drilling could impact the price oil and gas at the pump even if it takes several years to see that oil. How? The theory of rational expectations comes from the premise that people behave intelligently, and so people (especially oil traders) will deduce that the supply of oil will increase in the future. Separately, demand for oil will fall because of higher oil prices, which will result in investment in alternative energies and reduced oil consumption (already Americans are driving fewer miles and an analytic company predicts 500 million fewer miles will be driven in the next year). This reduced projected demand combined with higher forecast supply creates a mental image of lower prices in the future. And so, with these future projections, oil traders will sell more oil contracts than they will buy, hence reducing the price of oil today.

One could argue that the decline in oil prices over the last month is a direct result of the increased support of more oil drilling. Last month, President Bush ended the federal moratorium on oil drilling and put Congress under pressure to act. Now, Congress seems to be converging towards a bipartisan compromise that would allow for some drilling. These events have occurred over the last month while oil prices have been coming down. While causation is almost impossible to prove, the probability of higher oil supply definitely entered the thinking of market analysts and traders. People are smart. When they see supply going up in the future, they know prices will come down. So, they adjust and bring prices down now. Prices always reflect current levels of supply and future expectations.

Secondly, fossil fuels are not just yesterday’s energy source, they are today’s energy source as well. The longer fossil fuels last, the more time we have to develop alternatives. We could just stand by and wait for an alternative to become economically viable and energy efficient or we could try to lengthen the transition period from fossil fuel to wind/solar/geothermal/biofuel etc. This transition would give scientists and government more time to develop the technologies and infrastructure needed to supply the world economy.

Therefore, on balance, the argument for drilling holds more weight than the argument against drilling. Drilling will not serve as a silver bullet. If the mere possibility of drilling as helped bring down gas prices, imagine what actual drilling will cause.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

Any thoughts? Comment Below.

The Narrowing Election

2008-08-09T13:59:00.003-04:00

by Ali-Asad

Jog your memory back a couple of months to June 3rd 2008. Barack Obama claimed the Democratic party’s nomination for President in front of a wildly enthusiastic audience. This audience had every right to feel hopeful:

"If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe it, generations from now we will be able to look back and say that this was the moment we began to provide jobs to the jobless, care to the sick…”

He looked unstoppable.

But a couple of months on, today, the situation looks a little different. An Obama victory no longer appears secure - take the electoral map. This year, the Democrats seek to expand the map and compete in very ‘red’ states. But Obama leads in these states by very narrow margins: Virginia, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada and Indiana. Additionally, Obama’s lead in states where the ‘experts’ expect him to win remains equally fragile: Ohio, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado and New Mexico. Obama’s success over the last several months has made him vulnerable to criticisms of over-confidence and arrogance. These attacks could cost him dearly and the McCain’s campaign understands this reality.

In the last few weeks, John McCain has focused on Obama character and demeanor by trying to mock his extraordinary self-assurance in facing the enormous challenges of the 21st century. These attacks, while in poor taste and very unMcCain-like, have brought Obama down to Earth in the polls and in public perception.

Understand this: Obama barely leads in the polls and public surveys consistently demonstrate John McCain’s high standing in terms of experience and national security. So, Obama may be doing well now but the week before the election and election day itself that will really make or break his candidacy. If Obama-enthusiasm wanes, the contest will narrow to the point of being a dead-heat, and then all bets are off. McCain just needs to hang in there because anything could still happen, and something will.

And that's jus' the tip.