“You see, even before the current financial crisis, we were already in a deep competitive hole—a long period in which too many people were making money from money, or money from flipping houses or burgers, and too few people were making money by making new stuff, with hard-earned science, math, biology and engineering skills.” Yes, there were probably too many people in finance, and flipping houses crashed once house prices started going down. But what does Friedman have against flipping burgers? These are entry level, high turnover, minimum wage jobs for high school students and recent grads. Should they be denied jobs? They’re producing something that people—worldwide—want to buy and eat. McDonald’s is the most successful restaurant chain—this is a product of the free market. (Yes, one can argue about the healthiness of their food, but a lot of their demand has shifted to chicken from burgers.) While it’s clever on a superficial level to write “flipping houses or burgers,” it makes no sense. As far as “too few people were making new stuff with hard-earned science, math, biology, and engineering skills,” this is an assertion totally unsupported with any figures. Is he alluding to the fact that the majority of graduate students in the sciences and engineering come from other countries? If so, about 65,000 H-1B visas are given to foreign math and science grads every year, though Friedman would have to fight the nativists like Lou Dobbs to keep this going. If he’s saying more Americans should graduate with science and engineering degrees, he should state this, explain why it’s not happening, and what he proposed to do to increase the number. He would need to explain why the free market doesn’t work.
“[O]ur stimulus needs to be both big and smart…It needs to be able to produce…more Google-ready jobs and Windows-ready and knowledge-ready workers.” What does Google-ready or Windows-ready mean? Is this supposed to mean high-tech jobs? (Since Windows is losing market share to Linux and Macintosh, this may not be the best terminology.) How many more jobs? Is the free market (graduates’ choice of career, colleges and universities, firms in all industries that employ knowledge workers, and the venture capital industry) failing once again? How much money should the government spend? Friedman goes on to write “[i]f we spend $1 trillion on a stimulus and just get better highways and bridges—and not a new Google, Apple, Intel or Microsoft—your kids will thank you for making it so much easier for them to commute to the unemployment office or mediocre jobs.” How should they spend it— scholarships, tax incentives, etc? Should the government get into the venture capital business? By the way, there are plenty of good jobs that aren’t high tech. As far as “knowledge-ready,” I presume this also is supposed to mean high-tech. But if we really want the best economy, many workers besides those with high-tech jobs, including blue collar workers, have knowledge that can improve products and services. The Japanese practice “kaizen,” according to Wikipedia, means “[w]hen applied to the workplace, Kaizen activities continually improve all functions of a business, from manufacturing to management and from the CEO to the assembly line workers.”
“Maybe rather than just giving everyone a quick $1,500 to hit the mall to buy flat-screen TVs imported from China, or creating those all-important green-collar jobs for low-skilled workers—we should also give everyone who is academically eligible and willing a quick $5,000 to go back to school.” Five thousand dollars is virtually nothing compared to what college costs; it will encourage few to go back to school. And I thought Friedman wanted to encourage technology jobs—if so, why subsidize every field when you could, with the same total dollars, give a decent subsidy to those who major in technology? But, again, is this fair?
“My wife teaches public school in Montgomery County, Md., where more and more teachers can’t afford to buy homes near the schools where they teach…” Really? Aren’t home prices declining? Of course, getting a mortgage isn’t easy, especially as house prices are going down. “One of the smartest stimulus moves we could make would be to eliminate federal income taxes on all public schoolteachers so more talented people would choose these careers.” Is this fair to everyone else, especially the working poor? And isn’t this a slippery slope—won’t other professions want tax-free income? And if this were enacted, financially squeezed school districts all over the country would try to cut the salaries of teachers on the ground that they don’t need nearly as much pretax income. Friedman shows his ignorance of economics. Wouldn’t it make more sense to expand programs like Teach for America? “I’d also double the salaries of highly qualified math and science teachers…” Again, is this fair? Why double? Friedman should make the case for merit pay, but this is a controversial topic. And who’s going to pay more for teachers? How about encouraging students to pursue lower-paying careers by allowing them to pay off their school loans over a longer period of time? “… [S]taple green cards to the diplomas of foreign students who graduate in math or science—instead of subsidizing their educations and then sending them home…” As mentioned, there is a program to do this, called H-1B visas. But the quota is decided by a political process—the number is not up to Friedman. And nativists are against H-1B visas.
“A student who normally would not be interested in science but gets stimulated by a better teacher or more exposure to a lab, or a scientist who gets the funding for new research, is potentially the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.” Presumably, if there are more good science teachers, more students will be inspired to study science, which means that there could be more Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. But these two are one-in-a-million (probably much less frequent) geniuses. I partially agree with Friedman’s earlier proposal that [he]’d “offer full scholarships to needy students who want to go to a public university or community college for the next four years.” But why exclude them from private colleges? Unfortunately, needy students tend to have had poor educations prior to college. As a society, we should not allow this, but this is an enormously complex problem that needs to be addressed.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Calling All Pakistanis (December 3, 2008)
The theme of this column is that Moslems worldwide (there are about 1.25 billion) should be as outraged by the terrorist attacks on Mumbai as they were by the Danish cartoons that had satirized Muhammad. Friedman states that Moslems should demonstrate massively, even at the risk of death, and that these protests will cause an end to terrorism against India from Pakistan.
First of all, many Moslems are outraged by the attack; an opinion poll would need to be taken, but Friedman implies that none are because there haven’t been any massive demonstrations against it. Second, this instance of terrorism is as much or more political than it is religious, although the two are closely linked. According to the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 3, “Lashkar-e-Taiba [the extremist group India believes is responsible]…initially focused on fighting the Indian army in…Kashmir. Over the years, it has expanded its cause into the rest of India and aims to establish Islamic rule.” Third, Lashkar-e-Taiba is well armed, and if Pakistanis were to demonstrate against it, they would risk getting killed. For Friedman to tell Moslems that they should protest even if their lives would be at risk is the height of arrogant, double-standard presumptuousness at best. (I’m curious: would Friedman advise Jews to demonstrate against some Israeli action or policy, say the 2006 air bombing campaign against Lebanon in which over 1000 civilians were killed, even if they risked dying? Should Christians have protested against US actions and inactions vis-à-vis Iraq, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?) Finally, even if there were massive demonstrations against the Mumbai attack, why would this stop Lashkar-e-Taiba (see below for more on this point)?
As he tries to make his case, there are a number of statements in the column that are wrong or ridiculous. Examples:
1) If Hindu terrorists committed a similar act of terrorism against Moslems in Pakistan, “[t]he entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.” Friedman is so omniscient that he can predict what 1.25 billion Moslems would do. Actually, according to the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 6/7, “…the the hand of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party; see footnote below] lies behind some of the worst communal riots in independent India, for example Bhagalpur in 1989, Mumbai in 1992, and Gujarat in 2002; in all cases, an overwhelmingly majority of the victims were Muslims.” Friedman’s assertion with 100% certainty of what Muslims would do was thus pulled out of thin air.
2) While he correctly says that the Pakistani government is weak, he completely misses the likelihood that it has gotten weaker. I think that under civilian president Zardari, the ISI (Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence Agency) probably is less answerable to the leader of the country than under General Musharraf. What is the connection between the ISI and Lashkar-e-Taiba? Friedman goes on to say that “for now [my italics on his weasel words], no official connection between the terrorists and elements of the Pakistani security services has been uncovered.” But according to the Wall St. Journal of Dec. 3, “India claims [Lashkar-e-Taiba] enjoys support from elements of the Pakistani intelligence agency. Pakistan denied that and outlawed the organization in 2002, but has done little to curtail its operations.” On Dec. 4, the New York Times reported that “[t]hough officially banned, the group has hidden in plain sight for years. It has a long history of ties to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.” In addition, “[a]ccording to Western intelligence officials, Lashkar was formed in 1989 with the assistance of Pakistan’s powerful InterServices Intelligence agency…Critics of the ISI in Pakistan maintain that the Pakistani intelligence agency still protects it.” Obviously, Friedman wrote his column before Dec. 3 and thus could not have read the articles I’ve cited. But he could easily have contacted his Times colleagues and asked them about the connection between Lashkar and the ISI. Furthermore, Friedman apparently has never heard of the concept of plausible deniability.
3) “I am still hoping—just once—for that mass demonstration of ‘ordinary people’ against the Mumbai bombers…” Notice how Friedman not just puts the responsibility to stop on the “ordinary people,” i.e., Moslems, but puts the moral onus on all who follow this faith. What he is really doing is to make the actions of Moslem terrorists the collective responsibility of all who follow Islam, which is as wrong as it is ludicrous. This places a higher and impossible double standard on Moslems that would never be expected of Christians or Jews, who are judged on the basis of individual responsibility. It is guilt-by-religion. I especially like the “just once,” implying that all Moslems have been irresponsible and immoral throughout their history, unlike adherents of other religions. In point of fact, The Times reported on Dec. 8 in an article entitled “Muslims in India Put Aside Grievances to Repudiate Terrorism” that “[t]hrongs of Indian Muslims…marched through the heart of Mumbai and several other cities on Sunday, holding up banners proclaiming their condemnation of terrorism and loyalty to the Indian state.” While of course Friedman is not clairvoyant, he turned out to be wrong with a week of his column appearing. It will be interesting to see if he admits that he was wrong.
4) “The best defense against this type of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers…” First, it only took 10 people to carry out the Mumbai carnage. There are 160 million Pakistanis and 1.25 billion Muslims. The pool of recruits would have to be reduced to zero, and it is clearly impossible to do this by social—or any other--means. Supposedly, “the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: ‘No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.’” It is true that, typically in group-oriented societies such as those Moslems generally live in, shame inhibits behavior outside of societal norms. But it’s impossible to imagine how protesting against the Mumbai attacks will make every terrorist in Pakistan feel shameful, necessarily leading every one of them to give up violence.
5) “[D]estroying to destroy was their goal.” No, their motive was political and religious: to gain control of all of Kashmir for Pakistan, possibly even to bring all of India under Pakistani rule.
6) “Because, I repeat, this kind of murderous violence only stops when the village—all the good people of Pakistan, including the community elders and spiritual leaders…declares as a collective that those who carry out such murders are shameful unbelievers who will not dance with virgins in heaven but burn in hell.” Repeating something that is stupid and ridiculous doesn’t make it any truer. To make the case that the Mumbai terrorists were primarily motivated to kill people in that city, at the great risk of being killed themselves, by the prospect of “dancing with virgins in heaven” would require going to Pakistan and interviewing the terrorists’ family, friends and associates. Even then, no one could say what was inside their heads. The reason to employ the canard of virgins in heaven is to make Moslems look irrational and/or stupid.
In sum, Friedman starts with false “facts” (with a few exceptions), premises and assumptions, applies faulty reasoning to them, and comes to a ludicrous conclusion. In particular, he applies a ridiculous and grossly unfair double standard to Moslems (collective responsibility), thus revealing his strong bias against practioners of Islam. His column is stupid and ignorant and wrong. And dangerous: this foreign affairs “expert” completely misses the strong possibility that the Mumbai attacks could lead to a war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, which in the worst case could go nuclear.
First of all, many Moslems are outraged by the attack; an opinion poll would need to be taken, but Friedman implies that none are because there haven’t been any massive demonstrations against it. Second, this instance of terrorism is as much or more political than it is religious, although the two are closely linked. According to the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 3, “Lashkar-e-Taiba [the extremist group India believes is responsible]…initially focused on fighting the Indian army in…Kashmir. Over the years, it has expanded its cause into the rest of India and aims to establish Islamic rule.” Third, Lashkar-e-Taiba is well armed, and if Pakistanis were to demonstrate against it, they would risk getting killed. For Friedman to tell Moslems that they should protest even if their lives would be at risk is the height of arrogant, double-standard presumptuousness at best. (I’m curious: would Friedman advise Jews to demonstrate against some Israeli action or policy, say the 2006 air bombing campaign against Lebanon in which over 1000 civilians were killed, even if they risked dying? Should Christians have protested against US actions and inactions vis-à-vis Iraq, which have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?) Finally, even if there were massive demonstrations against the Mumbai attack, why would this stop Lashkar-e-Taiba (see below for more on this point)?
As he tries to make his case, there are a number of statements in the column that are wrong or ridiculous. Examples:
1) If Hindu terrorists committed a similar act of terrorism against Moslems in Pakistan, “[t]he entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.” Friedman is so omniscient that he can predict what 1.25 billion Moslems would do. Actually, according to the Wall Street Journal of Dec. 6/7, “…the the hand of the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party; see footnote below] lies behind some of the worst communal riots in independent India, for example Bhagalpur in 1989, Mumbai in 1992, and Gujarat in 2002; in all cases, an overwhelmingly majority of the victims were Muslims.” Friedman’s assertion with 100% certainty of what Muslims would do was thus pulled out of thin air.
2) While he correctly says that the Pakistani government is weak, he completely misses the likelihood that it has gotten weaker. I think that under civilian president Zardari, the ISI (Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence Agency) probably is less answerable to the leader of the country than under General Musharraf. What is the connection between the ISI and Lashkar-e-Taiba? Friedman goes on to say that “for now [my italics on his weasel words], no official connection between the terrorists and elements of the Pakistani security services has been uncovered.” But according to the Wall St. Journal of Dec. 3, “India claims [Lashkar-e-Taiba] enjoys support from elements of the Pakistani intelligence agency. Pakistan denied that and outlawed the organization in 2002, but has done little to curtail its operations.” On Dec. 4, the New York Times reported that “[t]hough officially banned, the group has hidden in plain sight for years. It has a long history of ties to Pakistan’s intelligence agencies.” In addition, “[a]ccording to Western intelligence officials, Lashkar was formed in 1989 with the assistance of Pakistan’s powerful InterServices Intelligence agency…Critics of the ISI in Pakistan maintain that the Pakistani intelligence agency still protects it.” Obviously, Friedman wrote his column before Dec. 3 and thus could not have read the articles I’ve cited. But he could easily have contacted his Times colleagues and asked them about the connection between Lashkar and the ISI. Furthermore, Friedman apparently has never heard of the concept of plausible deniability.
3) “I am still hoping—just once—for that mass demonstration of ‘ordinary people’ against the Mumbai bombers…” Notice how Friedman not just puts the responsibility to stop on the “ordinary people,” i.e., Moslems, but puts the moral onus on all who follow this faith. What he is really doing is to make the actions of Moslem terrorists the collective responsibility of all who follow Islam, which is as wrong as it is ludicrous. This places a higher and impossible double standard on Moslems that would never be expected of Christians or Jews, who are judged on the basis of individual responsibility. It is guilt-by-religion. I especially like the “just once,” implying that all Moslems have been irresponsible and immoral throughout their history, unlike adherents of other religions. In point of fact, The Times reported on Dec. 8 in an article entitled “Muslims in India Put Aside Grievances to Repudiate Terrorism” that “[t]hrongs of Indian Muslims…marched through the heart of Mumbai and several other cities on Sunday, holding up banners proclaiming their condemnation of terrorism and loyalty to the Indian state.” While of course Friedman is not clairvoyant, he turned out to be wrong with a week of his column appearing. It will be interesting to see if he admits that he was wrong.
4) “The best defense against this type of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers…” First, it only took 10 people to carry out the Mumbai carnage. There are 160 million Pakistanis and 1.25 billion Muslims. The pool of recruits would have to be reduced to zero, and it is clearly impossible to do this by social—or any other--means. Supposedly, “the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: ‘No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.’” It is true that, typically in group-oriented societies such as those Moslems generally live in, shame inhibits behavior outside of societal norms. But it’s impossible to imagine how protesting against the Mumbai attacks will make every terrorist in Pakistan feel shameful, necessarily leading every one of them to give up violence.
5) “[D]estroying to destroy was their goal.” No, their motive was political and religious: to gain control of all of Kashmir for Pakistan, possibly even to bring all of India under Pakistani rule.
6) “Because, I repeat, this kind of murderous violence only stops when the village—all the good people of Pakistan, including the community elders and spiritual leaders…declares as a collective that those who carry out such murders are shameful unbelievers who will not dance with virgins in heaven but burn in hell.” Repeating something that is stupid and ridiculous doesn’t make it any truer. To make the case that the Mumbai terrorists were primarily motivated to kill people in that city, at the great risk of being killed themselves, by the prospect of “dancing with virgins in heaven” would require going to Pakistan and interviewing the terrorists’ family, friends and associates. Even then, no one could say what was inside their heads. The reason to employ the canard of virgins in heaven is to make Moslems look irrational and/or stupid.
In sum, Friedman starts with false “facts” (with a few exceptions), premises and assumptions, applies faulty reasoning to them, and comes to a ludicrous conclusion. In particular, he applies a ridiculous and grossly unfair double standard to Moslems (collective responsibility), thus revealing his strong bias against practioners of Islam. His column is stupid and ignorant and wrong. And dangerous: this foreign affairs “expert” completely misses the strong possibility that the Mumbai attacks could lead to a war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, which in the worst case could go nuclear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
