Tame the Internet (and Cage It)?

I sometimes have this sense that the world is changing much faster than we may realize.  At times I will consider the world my parents lived in, for example.  It looked quite different than the world I lived in.  My mother died in 2002, and I've often envisioned myself writing her a letter to tell her about all the things that have happened just since she's been gone.  It's a long letter!

Of course the Internet has had an enormous role in changing our world.  It's impact is so far reaching it would be hard to imagine much of anything in life that hasn't been touched by it in one way or another.  From publishing to food to medicine and education, the Internet has played a role.  Even history itself has been impacted by the Internet.  We have web sites like Ancestry.com, that put together the whole of a genealogy in minutes.

Even information itself has been changed by the Internet.  Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, recently said that we now create as much information in just two days as was created in the entire history of mankind up to 2003.  That's something like five exabytes of data that we create in just two days. (http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/schmidt-data/)  He went on to say that he assumes that "the world is not ready for the technology revolution that is happening to them ..."  I think he's probably right about that.  I'm not sure the world could be ready.  And I'm certain that the world is largely unaware of this technology revolution.

Most of us are unaware of how large the Internet is or how far-reaching it is.  We see some of it's impact on our own personal lives ... how we shop, interact with our friends, save pictures, etc.  But the fact is that our perception of the Internet is, for the most part, limited to what we can acquire from own personal interface with it.  But it's safe to say that it's much bigger than that.  In fact, today the Internet reaches around the globe. 

There is no country on earth that doesn't have the Internet.  And most of what's on the Internet is available to everyone, everywhere.  Most of the time, we assume that's a welcome thing.  After all, who would oppose the Internet?  But indeed countries like China have been fighting with companies like Google for years.  They're fighting about content and access.  And those fights are beginning to occur elsewhere as well.

In the U.S., we take up fights about Internet content and access.  I'm doing work for a major bank right now, and am required to use the bank's computer network all day long.  Hardly a day goes by that I don't try to go to a site which the bank has blocked.  It's not just blocking pornography you see.  It's also blocking any site that the bank thinks might tempt me to waste my time.  It's blocking sites like Gmail.com or Yahoo! mail.  It blocks the messages center on LinkedIn, and all of Facebook.

I suppose that most of us don't think too much about these forms of censorship.  We assume that what China's doing to it's people - like blocking Facebook - doesn't impact us.  And of course we have ways to get around censorship at our places of employment.  We can simply go home and use our personal computer to access what we want.  But something happened recently that I suspect could eventually change all that.

There is something called the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).  It's a group of the world's leading countries that operates under the realm of the United Nations (U.N.).  It's members are the same 193 countries that comprise the U.N.  Anyway, the ITU's purpose is to manage the world's telecommunications network.  Most of this is done through an annual conference, which happened to be in Dubai this year.

The head of the ITU is a man named Hamadoun Toure'.  He is a Mali native trained in the Soviet Union.  And he deceptively led the ITU to establish a significant beachhead in censoring the Internet.  In fact, so great was his deception that the United States and it's allies were completely outmaneuvered.  Under his leadership, authoritarian regimes, led by China and Russia, schemed to use the U.N. to claim control over today's borderless Internet.  In the run-up to the Dubai conference, dozens of secret proposals by these authoritarian governments were leaked online.

 

These proposals were controversial and alarming.  When asked, Mr. Toure' assured everyone that his agency operates by consensus - and not by majority vote.  He also pledged that the ITU had no interest beyond telecommunications to include the Internet.  But he kept neither promise.  A majority of the 193 U.N. member countries approved a treaty giving governments new powers to close off access to the Internet in their countries.

The vote was called late one night at the conference in Dubai.  It was first described as a non-binding "feel of the room on who will accept" - on a draft giving countries new power over the Internet.  But the result was that 89 countries voted in favor of the draft, and just 55 (including the U.S. and it's allies) were against it.  The authoritarian majority of Arab countries, China, Iran, Russia, and much of Africa all voted for it.  This so-called "draft" suddenly became a legitimate final treaty.  It takes effect in 2015 for these countries.

The treaty document extends control over Internet companies, not just the telecoms.  It declares: "All governments should have an equal role and responsibility for international Internet governance."  This is a complete reversal of a privately (non-government) managed Internet.  Authoritarian governments will invoke this new U.N. authority to take control over access to the Internet.  They now have the U.N.'s blessing to censor, monitor traffic and even prosecute those they deem to be "troublemakers."

And lest we think this doesn't impact us because we live in the U.S. --- consider how the Internet operates.  Today's smoothly functioning Internet is actually a system that includes 40,000 private managed networks among 425,000 global routes that ignore national boundaries.  We can expect this new treaty to split those networks by a digital "iron curtain."  One result is most likely to be that the Internet will become less resilient.  And of course, web sites will no longer be global in nature. 

Make no mistake about it; the world is changing.  And it's changing faster than we think.  It might be good to think about how it's changing.  It might be good to consider whether or not we're ready for these changes.  But I seriously wonder if any of us can really begin to comprehend how the world is changing ... much less actually be ready for such change.

End of Capitalism?

What do you do when a crazed lunatic says something that you actually find merit in? Do you take him off your list of crazed lunatics? Can we pick and choose amongst what rogue leaders of the universe do and say --- condemning most but salvaging some pearls of wisdom?

I'm talking about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the saber-rattling president of Iran. You know, he took the place of Saddam Hussein - whom the U.S. govt. toppled and had executed by his own people - as the Middle East's thorn in the side of the west.

In the last couple of years at least, he has emerged as the latest Middle East threat to free world leaders who worry about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Of course, Ahmadinejad insists his country is merely using nuclear capacity for peaceful (energy) purposes. But many world leaders wonder if they can trust him. But I digress. Let me get back to the point.

Mr. Ahmadenejad was in New York this week for meetings at the United Nations. In one of his speeches, he declared that "the discriminatory order of capitalism and the hegemonic approaches are facing defeat and are getting close to their end." Huh?

The global media reacted to his speech in such a way that one might conclude they've missed at least this aspect of his point. One international news source simply slipped this quote into a story that seemed to be more about the political and economic troubles of his country, Iran. (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/65146/20100923/iran-sanctions-economy-gdp-inflation.htm) Perhaps in their zeal to continue painting him as a lunatic, they overlooked the fact that some of what he said may actually have merit.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist, Republican through and through. I realize that in the past couple hundred years, capitalism has accomplished so very much. But like all things meant for good, I see that capitalism's virtue can be perverted and have very negative consequences. There's no doubt in my mind that we are clearly on the path of that trajectory now.

While we can certainly extol the accomplishments of capitalism over the past few generations, anyone would be hard pressed to extol its virtues. The issue at hand is what capitalism costs us. Yes, you read that right. I think capitalism extracts a very high cost from society. I can point to at least three areas where capitalism is proving to be a very expensive proposition for society in general.

Overall Compensation

For starters, capitalism has a very polarizing impact on the financial demographics of society. Simply put, it's a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. As a result, the rich get richer, and more get to be poor. Consider CEO compensation. In 1965, CEO pay was 26 times that of the average worker (in the same company). In 1980, it has climbed to 40 times. By 1989, CEO pay was 72 times that of the average worker. By 1999 it had mushroomed to 310 times. By 2004, CEO pay had absolutely exploded to more than 500 times what the average worker in the same company made! (Source: Towers Perrin)

Really? Is it possible that CEO's in a capitalistic society are worth more than 500 times what anyone else is worth? Did anyone else get raises like that? Put in real money terms, the median pay for an American CEO was almost $2.5 million in 1989. But 2000, the median pay for an American CEO was over $10.7 million. So in 11 years, corporate boards raised the annual salary of their CEO by more than 342%. How many of us have received, on average, an annual raise of over 31% year after year?

Now I don't begrudge anyone their wealth. What I have to take issue with though is wealth at the expense of others. Similar statistics on the average worker bee during the same periods of time are more than disappointing. They're downright frightening. More people are living on less. Standards of living are dropping. More and more people are unemployed or underemployed. And capitalism marches on. How long can we continue to pay the rich more and the middle or lower class less?

Debt

Both public and private debt are spiraling higher and higher and have been for years. It has been more than 40 years, for instance, since the U.S. federal government had any reduction in its debt. The national debt continues to climb at an increasing pace. Already today, the U.S. government debt is more than any other debt in the history of the world. Not only are we not making even the smallest dent in retiring that debt, but we're having an increasingly difficult time paying the interest on it. And we're having to borrow more and more.

It is estimated that at least one third of Americans have filed for bankruptcy at least once in their lifetime. And some of capitalism's biggest companies have filed for bankruptcy as well. Some more than once! And what happens, for example, when a corporation files bankruptcy? Today's newspaper features a business story on the fact that Blockbuster Videos is filing for bankruptcy, "slashing nearly $1 billion in debt." How exactly does it get slashed? Well, honest working people like you and me take it in the shorts! Seriously, our pension funds, mutual funds, and other investments lose big time. Blockbuster stores are closed and staff laid off. The CEO of Blockbuster? He gets a raise and bonus!

There's another insidious issue with corporate bankruptcies. In addition to sticking the middle class with the bad debts of these companies, the U.S. federal government often gets screwed in the process. I'm talking about unfunded pension liabilities. In corporate bankruptcies, the company walks on its obligations to its pension plan. The U.S. federal government, which insures those plans, is stuck paying the tab. (And the CEO of the company gets, on average, a raise of at least 32% that year.) Are you liking this yet?

Lay Offs

Now I'll be the first to admit that capitalism creates jobs. At least in its early stages of a new era. When the U.S. moved from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy, millions of jobs were created. When the U.S. moved from an industrial economy to an information economy, again jobs were created. While we mourned the loss of manufacturing jobs, those workers were re-skilled (trained) and probably ended up with better jobs than they had before.

However, when the U.S. started moving from an information (IT) economy to a services economy, it was like fingernails on a chalk board. Good paying IT jobs were lost. Replacing them? Low paying, often part-time jobs in big box stores. For the first time in several generations, the evolution of capitalism resulted in a massive loss of earning power.

Add to this dilemma the fact that capitalism's CEOs have become enamored with offshoring. They send their jobs overseas to third world countries where workers can be skilled enough to do the job, but will do it for a fraction of what the American worker was getting paid. And when the CEO moves these jobs offshore, two things happen.

First, his company's profitability improves (at least in the short term) - so the CEO gets a raise and/or bonus. Secondly, the laid off workers become a burden to society. They start collecting unemployment and welfare. They can't pay their bills. Capable, educated and skilled people are now no longer able to even support themselves. All in the name of capitalism.

So here's the thing. I'll be the first to recognize that Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comes off looking like some sort of a buffoon most of the time. His ranting and raving are obviously tilted to his own warped agenda and myopic perspective. But when he says that capitalism has already seen its finest hour, I'm not so quick to dismiss him.

I am not an enemy of capitalism. I don't want to see capitalism defeated either. But I would be less than sincere if I didn't admit that I see capitalism, coupled with democracy, racing toward what seems like it will be a tragic end. Said differently, I don't know how this duo of capitalism and democracy can survive in their present state. They tend to live outside of reality, and the people who have to live inside of reality become their victims.

So maybe in the spirit of diversity we should at least consider reforming this bad boy that we call Capitalism. And while we're at it, could we teach his sister, Democracy, some manners?

Iran in Perspective

Iran is in the news quite often lately. They enrich uranium. They threaten Israel. They suppress citizen protests. They take political prisoners. They behead criminals. They may be stocking up on nuclear weapons capacity. They even killed Google's email accounts for their citizens. Simply put, the world is becoming more and more worried about Iran and its behavior.

So what is the truth? Iran is a Muslim country. There is no 'separation of church and state' there. They view such a concept as nonsense. And we consider them (or at least their leaders) to be radical lunatics. Is this a fair assessment?

One of the beliefs that distinguishes Shiite Islam from the Sunni sect is that the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, was shielded by Allah and will return to save the world when it has descended into chaos. The orthodox Shia position is that humans can do nothing to hasten the second coming of this messiah. there is, however, a group of shiites, the Hojjatieh Society, that is governed by the conviction that the twelfth Imam's return will be hastened by the creatio of chaos on earth.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a devotee of the Mahdi, and apparently has close ties to the Hojjatieh and Ayatollah Mohammad taghi Meshbah-Yazdi. (Many mainstream Iranians call Yazdi "the crazed one."

Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he believes the Mahdi will return to save believers and kill infidels --- and that it will happen within the next few years. The legitimate fear (for you and I) is that Ahmadinejad is a madman who is developing nuclear weapons and might use them to try to end the world and hasten the return of his messiah.

So here's the problem. This Islamic belief in a messiah that will return to save His people and destroy the rest looks quite a bit like the belief that Christians hold - where Jesus will return to save His people and judge the rest. Shia's believe that the return of their messiah's second coming will be heralded by an apocalypse: war and chaos. And of course, Iranian leaders believe (and Ahmadinejad has said) that God has spoken to them and speaks through them. They further believe that God calls them to lead the world into the future realm (of God).

What then, is the practical difference between the Iranian president's belief that God spoke through him and calls his country to lead the world into the future realm (of God) and the belief of the American leaders that we exclusively have that role? We're all about advancing the Jesus agenda of equality, democracy, capitalism, freedom, etc. And we're certain that our way is God's way. But they (the Iranian leaders) are just as certain that their way is God's way.

America is convinced that we're on a mission from God, that we're God's chosen people and that our crusade is God's crusade. And we've built the world's most powerful (and nuclear-equipped) military might to ensure that we win. We then are high offended when Iran rises up with a similar belief and begins to build a nuclear arsenal to ensure that it wins or at least advances. And we respond with that offense by threatening sanctions against Iran. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/middleeast/10sanctions.html)

Seriously, sanctions against Iran in this scenario are like putting a screen door on a submarine to keep the sharks out. I suspect we're going to need a lot more diplomacy with Iran than this. And I'm convinced that the issue we must address with Iran is not their enriching uranium to potentially build nuclear weapons.

The conflict between our core beliefs began long before nuclear weapons were invented. Does diplomacy recognize that reality?