« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »

October 19, 2007

Support from the troops: The difference between Obama and Clinton

I think this bit of news epitomizes the differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as candidates: Both receive donations and support from the "military-industrial complex," but Obama's tends to come from the military side, whereas Hillary's comes from the defense industry.

Specifically, Obama is getting support from the troops. Among Democrats, he leads all candidates in donations received from donors affiliated with the military. His $63,440 is topped only by Republican candidate Ron Paul. The fact that two long-time vocal critics of the war in Iraq are receiving donations from the military says something about what "Support the troops" means to the troops themselves.

However, Hillary leads all candidates in another area: Donations from private defense contractors.

Employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics — gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.

Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.

Granted, these arms manufacturers would probably shift their support to Obama if they thought he had the best chance to win—they want influence with whoever is in the White House. But given Hillary's politically-driven support of the invasion of Iraq in 2002, are they also trying to help her win because they think she'd be best for business?

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:18 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Friday Brainteaser: Trap the cat

Here.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 1:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 18, 2007

Afghan hip hop

Hip hop is apparently becoming very popular with the youth of Afghanistan. Some in Afghanistan may see this as a sign of progress, others may see it as more Western encroachment on Afghan culture. I think it's the former and, as a Halfghan myself, find it fascinating.

Think for a minute about what this represents. Between 1996 and 2001 the Taliban completely banned music and dance in Afghanistan. It's difficult to even fathom a world in which music could only be enjoyed in secrecy, and one of the few great accomplishments of the Bush administration is freeing Afghans from the tyranny of that regime (Yes, I just used the phrases "great accomplishment" and "Bush administration" in the same sentence). The fact that teenagers can now listen to rap in public, despite grumblings from some of their elders, is a step forward.

Equally interesting is how Afghan hip hop differs from what you'd find in the United States. Like Afghans themselves, it is very diverse and diasporic. Some rappers are homegrown, but most are based in Europe or elsewhere outside Afghanistan (including the U.S.), driven from their homeland by decades of war. They rap in Farsi, English, Pashto, German, and a slew of other languages.

Many international rappers—in Afghanistan and other countries—are heavily influenced by American hip hop and will still cite Tupac and other legends of rap as their inspiration. But the themes found in the music are different: You won't find as many references to sex, bling, and drugs; instead you'll hear about religion, war (which is no surprise), and national pride.

Still, it serves as an outlet for teenagers to express their opinions and rebel against mainstream culture, much like pre-commercialized American hip hop.

I recommend Googling "afghan hip hop" or checking out YouTube if you're interested in learning a little more. Here are a couple of examples:

Arash Howaida: Laila

Da Jokerz

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:52 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 17, 2007

WWIII Watch

Not trying to be alarmist, just providing a few links to recent news:


Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 16, 2007

Big Brother meets MySpace

The Washington Post has a disturbing report on the federal government's domestic surveillance programs, focusing on Verizon Communications' cooperation in handing over information about its customers. Since January 2005, Verizon has turned information over to federal authorities more than 94,000 times. And they weren't just looking for people with possible ties to terrorism:

Verizon also disclosed that the FBI, using administrative subpoenas, sought information identifying not just a person making a call, but all the people that customer called, as well as the people those people called. Verizon does not keep data on this "two-generation community of interest" for customers, but the request highlights the broad reach of the government's quest for data.

Luckily, Verizon wasn't able to provide this information. But they still turned over plenty of data on thousands of American citizens, using the cop-out that "it was not their role to second-guess the legitimacy of emergency government requests."

How are people not outraged, at both their elected representatives and these telecommunications companies? For the sake of argument, let's say that the FBI was justified in obtaining records of people with suspected ties to terrorism.

When the government starts spying on people who haven't even communicated with a suspected terrorist, but happened to speak with another person who communicated with a suspected terrorist, I can't even fathom how one would defend these actions.

And it isn't just about national security. The Bush administration was asking companies to turn over private telephone records as early as February 2001.

It may not be much, but I'm going to start looking for another cellphone provider. Imagine if everyone who disagrees with these practices did the same and sent a message to these telecommunication companies (through some old-fashioned market signals) that this sort of behavior isn't acceptable if they want our business.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 2003: "Can Dean be stopped?"

There has been a lot of talk about the inevitability of Hillary winning the nomination lately. Yes, she's running a very strong campaign and has large leads in national and New Hampshire polls, but take a look at poll results from around this time of the year in 2003.


Month Dean % Kerry %
October 03 40 17
September 03 30 20
August 03 38 17
June 03 22 25
February 03 13 26

Dean was sitting at 40% in late October, well ahead of Kerry, who was polling at 17%. Dean was actually gaining momentum, up from only 30% in September, and Kerry had fallen from 20% in September and appeared to have peaked with 26% in February of 2003.

Here's what John Zogby had to say:

“This is stunning. Dean leads 43-20 among Democrats and 35 to 11 among Independents. He hits 40 among all age groups, union and non-union voters. His lead is 57-17 among self-described progressives, 50-20 among liberals, and 34-14 among moderates. Married voters give him a 38-13 edge and singles a 45-21 point lead. He holds huge leads among all education groups, among investors and non-investors, men and women. This qualifies as juggernaut status. Can he be stopped?”

We all know how that turned out. Hillary is unlikely to have a "Dean Scream" type moment that kills her campaign, but the race is far from over. Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are virtually tied in Iowa (some polls show Obama with a slight lead), and if Hillary's campaign is going to be derailed, that's where it will happen.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 15, 2007

CEO pay out of control, CEOs say

It's good to know I'm not alone in my assertion that U.S. CEOs are excessively overpaid. Most CEOs think the same thing.

In a new study by the National Association of Corporate Directors, researchers surveyed U.S. corporate leaders, and about two-thirds of chief executives think "the compensation of top executives is high relative to their performance." Only 2.2% of the CEOs involved in the survey said compensation was too low, while a third said it is “just right.”

More from the Financial Times:

Their views were backed up by outside directors, with more than 80 per cent of them saying chief executives were overpaid.

Figures released last week showed the share of national income claimed by the wealthiest 1 per cent of Americans had reached 21.2 per cent – a postwar record – partly because of booming company profits.

Mr Bush last week told The Wall Street Journal that he thought some executive compensation was excessive and that some boards needed to improve their oversight of this.

The directors polled blamed excessive executive pay on the absence of objective ways to measure executive performance, as well as the use of options and equity awards that "reward executives when the company’s share price goes up, rather than when its operations improve."

This question wasn't asked in the survey, but I'm willing to bet few of the CEOs polled would be willing to voluntarily take a pay cut, even though they think their peers are overpaid. The problem isn't going to fix itself. The government can offer a partial solution by eliminating tax incentives that actually encourage companies to offer CEOs bloated pay and write it off as a business expense.

But the government can't, and shouldn't, completely fix the problem. Shareholders can also play a role by demanding more accountability and oversight. As partial owners, shareholders have a right to know if CEOs are earning their pay, and by continuing to invest in companies without transparent compensation systems, shareholders are sending market signals that this sort of excess is permissible.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 12, 2007

Democrats now favorite for large bribes contributions

Democrats now have a huge fund raising advantage over Republicans, with all of the 10 top-giving industries favoring Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. OpenSecrets.org has a breakdown here. The only industries that still solidly support Republicans are oil/gas and general contractors. This is a dramatic shift from 2006, when Republicans had the edge in six out of the top 10 industries.

Out of the top 30 overall donors, only two—American Bankers Association and Ernst & Young—even lean Republican. The top five (full list here):

  1. ActBlue - Solidly Democratic
  2. Goldman Sachs - Strongly Democratic
  3. Citigroup Inc. - Leans Democratic
  4. JP Morgan Chase & Co - Strongly Democratic
  5. AT&T - On the fence

What are donors getting for their generosity? Take private equity firms as an example. Until recently, these firms have traditionally stayed out of politics. The $6.5 they've donated this year is more than they spent in total between 1998 and 2005. And conveniently, the Senate has decide to hold off on considering a bill could double the tax rate on private equity managers' earnings.

Expect more of this to come. Industry leaders sense a big victory for Democrats in 2008, and they're lining up now to get their backs scratched when it happens.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 11, 2007

Bush declares 'Mission Accomplished' in Iran

In his latest weekly radio address, Bush announces that he's ready shift the focus of the war to Iran, and decides to go ahead and declare that war a success. He's also outlined a new strategy that combines the various stages of the Iraq war: Shock and surge.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 10, 2007

A day in the life of Congress

If you ever have time to browse through some of the legislation being considered by Congress, unfiltered by the media, I recommend it, strictly for the entertainment value. The Library of Congress has a front-page link to all of "yesterday's" activity in Congress, for example.

You might be surprised (depending on how closely you follow politics) at how much time is spent unproductively. At least, I would consider voting on legislation that "condemns," "commends," or "expresses the sense of the Congress" to be unproductive in that it doesn't result in substantial legislative changes. For example, yesterday the House examined 50 bills (a light day), and below is just a snapshot of things they accomplished:

Buried in the fluff, there were some significant bills, such as H.R.400, which prohibits "profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts." In fact, there were several important pieces of legislation, but that doesn't negate the fact that Congress wastes a lot of time passing meaningless bills.

Remember, we're electing and paying these people to run the country, and when it comes to passing legislation, I would prefer quality over quantity. Maybe if some of these meaningless resolutions were removed from the docket, Congress would have time to actually read the really crucial bills (see: The Patriot Act).

I know someone has to name the nation's post offices, but I'd prefer if it were someone other than an elected representative.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 2:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 4, 2007

Congress condemns Iran. Again.

The House of Representatives passed a bill this week condemning the persecution of labor rights activists in Iran. Below is the meat of the bill (full text here):

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns the Iranian regime for the arrest and imprisonment of Iranian union leaders Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo and demands their immediate release;
(2) expresses its solidarity with the workers of Iran and stands with them, and with all Iranians, in their efforts to bring political freedom and individual liberty to Iran; and
(3) calls on the Iranian regime to respect the right of Iranian workers to form independent associations and unions, as required by its membership in the ILO.

The bill passed by an overwhelming 418-1 majority, and if you've been following politics, you can probably guess who cast the lone dissenting vote. Yes, Ron Paul was the only Representative to vote against today's bill condemning Iran. Dennis Kucinich sat this one out. The bill now goes to the Senate, where we will find out whether Hillary and Obama will follow Paul's example or continue to play it safe.

This follows last week's resolution passed by the Senate condemning Iran and calling for the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard to be officially labeled as foreign a terrorist group (potentially granting authorization for an attack).

A lot of taxpayer dollars are being wasted these days on resolutions that are nonbinding and have no clear purpose other than to antagonize Iran. Why? It's not that I don't support labor rights activists. But let's be honest, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with labor rights. No one in Congress legitimately believes that passing a nonbinding resolution will have any positive effect whatsoever within Iran.

Someone wants you to hear about Iran, particularly anything negative, everyday. Between 2001 and 2003, Saddam Hussein morphed from a forgotten relic of the past to a perceived legitimate threat, simply because the administration beat the drums of war loudly and frequently until the public fell in step.

The same is happening now with Iran. And again, Congressional Democrats don't have the guts to stand up and stop the momentum from building.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 4:42 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 3, 2007

Quote of the day

"To lead the world, we must lead by example. We must be willing to acknowledge our failings, not just trumpet our victories. And when I'm President, we'll reject torture - without exception or equivocation; we'll close Guantanamo; we'll be the country that credibly tells the dissidents in the prison camps around the world that America is your voice, America is your dream, America is your light of justice."

- Barack Obama, speaking about the war at DePaul University. Full text of the speech here.

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 1, 2007

Kiwi!

Old, but a classic. This is what makes YouTube great:

Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 10:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack