Comparing how dictators squash rebellion, pre and post internet.

Interesting how the internet has altered the course of the history by enabling rebellions throughout a number of Mideast nations to grow and become full blown revolutions and by helping prevent widespread massacre of citizens by dictators hell-bent on crushing the rebellion.  The world has reacted strongly to reports that Muammar Gaddafi ordered Libyan military aircraft to fire on crowds of protesters, killing dozens of innocent citizens. This will likely lead to the end of Gaddafi's regime or outright civil war, or both.   Libya launches airstrikes to quell protests as Muammar Gaddafi's rule teeters on brink

Back in 1982 when President Hafez al-Assad ordered the Syrian military to squash a revolt in the Syrian town of Hama there was no internet or Facebook or Twitter to report the atrocities. For three weeks, Syrian forces systematically destroyed the city and killed its inhabitants, first by artillery shells and eventually by mass executions.  Estimates vary between 17,000 and 40,000 people were killed, the vast majority civilians. Wikipedia: Hama Massacre

 And I have no memory of that event even being reported in the news back then.  Perhaps it was reported, but without the imagery and real time reporting from citizen journalists, the story never really "grew legs" in the Western media or in the general population.  Of course we had plenty other things to worry about as a Nation back then so maybe few cared about the mass extermination of those people way over there.  Still, I can't imagine any dictator these days attempting to squash a rebellion Hama style, if for no other reason that they would know coverage of the attack would be on You Tube 10 minutes later.

So who said computer geeks aren't good at History or Political Science?  You could say that the Geeks  have done more to shake up geopolitics, spread political reform and protect citizens than any politician, think tank expert, policy wonk, or pundit has done the last few decades. 

Wisconsin labor dispute. Good luck kicking that hornet nest.

To help curb the budget deficit in Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker is trying to bust the education employee unions by stripping them of collective bargaining powers and ability to fund political campaigns.  Strong and bold measures are needed fast to avoid impending budget disasters in states and localities, not just in Wisconsin but across the Nation.  However, I disagree with Walker's kick the hornets nest, union-busting approach.  The shitstorm he created will do more damage than good and end up costing the taxpayers more than if he had a reasonable plan going into budget negotiations.

Resources are always limited.  The strategy for any enterprise should be to focus on eliminating waste.  Waste in labor, waste in energy, waste in supplies, waste in processes, waste in every level of the operation.   So if I was a Governor and I needed to cut costs in the funding of public education, instead of  boldly cheesing off every single union member into a frenzy of rage and activism, I would propose a few ideas for reducing waste and then challenge others to justify why the waste is preferable.  Not to say I wouldn't upset lots of people with these proposals, but I think the bulk of the people will go along.  That's what leaders do.  Find publicly acceptable and workable solutions.

1) Longer school days but more days off.  Transportation and building maintenance costs are a very large part of the budget.  If schools could implement a 4 day school week with longer school days, there would be huge potential for savings.  As fuel costs rise this will get even more meaningful.

2) Introduce statewide medical and retirement plans in which any district could opt to participate instead of having to negotiate and administer their own plans.  There would still be local negotiations for salaries and extended benefits, but a statewide baseline plan could save costs by increasing the pool of employees.  

3) Publicly promote outsourcing of non-education-related services and be ready to take on the opposition head first.  Schools need to focus resources on education which means they need to minimize resources on non-educational costs such as building maintenance, busing and cleaning.  There is enormous waste in this part of the district budgets and the reason goes to the manner in which the school districts are managed.  Locally elected school boards negotiate contracts and it is far more likely that the non-degreed personnel in the district, namely the janitors, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers live and vote in the district. Teachers are more likely to live outside the district and have less influence in the local elections.  Any school board member who tries to cut into the non-educational part of the school budget won't last long.  Essentially, the non-educational employee unions hold the districts hostage, and the hell with the students, teachers, and  classrooms.  If the typical taxpayer knew how little work is asked from a school district janitor in a normal day they would be shocked.  If the Governor wants to take on any union, these are the ones.  Start by claiming loyalty to the teachers, the ones who actually do the educating, and pointing out the waste in building maintenance and busing costs compared to privatized services to all the taxpayers.  Offer to direct a percentage of the cost savings back into the classroom facilities.  Divide and conquer, just like Sun Tzu said.  If required, put privatization proposals directly for public vote.  This is key for success.   

4. Reduce administrative costs by combining smaller school districts.  Neighborhood schools can retain their names and teams, but it would make sense if at a higher level there was a combining of the school districts to reduce administration costs.

5.  Open up the role of school principal to those with business backgrounds, not just promoted educators.  Schools are very similar to very large business enterprises.  Why in the world do we trust the management of these multi-million dollar enterprises to people whose background is in education?  I'm sure there are a lot of principals who do an outstanding job and keep a close eye on operational costs, effectively manage human resources and focus on long and short term goals and customer satisfaction  but that particular outcome would be more likely if principals had the aptitude, training,and experience managing real-life business operations.  This is another opportunity for waste reduction.  Competent effective management.  Oh and get ready for a union fight there too.  School principals typically belong to their own union!

Well there are a few ideas that I think would accomplish more than Scott Walker's attempt to eliminate public employee unions will.

The evolution of a theocracy

I cringe every time I hear about someone promoting intelligent design as an alternate theory to evolutionary science.  Intelligent design isn't science, its anti-science.  Its a political strategy to force public school science teachers to "respect an establishment of religion" and teach that the scientists might be wrong about evolution and a creator designed it all this way instead.

Some people on the fringe subscribe to the belief that the Bible is a literal, historical account of the story of creation on Earth.  To them, any sort of evolutionary science (or geology or paleontology for that matter) contradicts their religion.  But more than just young earth creationists have joined the political battle for ID in the science classroom.  This issue has had a broad appeal among conservative voters because they have bought into the lie that evolutionary science is hostile to the concept of God and explains how life began on Earth without God.

There is a common false notion that in order to subscribe to evolutionary science you have to be an atheist and reject the notion of God altogether.  Misled believers band together in legal maneuvers that promote anti-science ID in school in order to defend their God.  Odd concept there, a God that needs to be defended in Court.           

A bit of pertinent information..  The part of evolutionary science that deals with the origin of life is highly speculative and not on the same standing as the science regarding how life adapted and the species evolved.  None of the various theories for origin of life (abiogenesis) can demonstrate the chemical processes that might have occurred in the primordial environment to create even the simplest  life forms.  Perhaps future scientists will complete the puzzle and develop a plausible explanation for abiogenesis, but as for now, there is no good explanation, just several poor ones.

Even if a viable theory for abiogenesis on earth emerges, it can't prove there is no God.  And of course, neither can believers prove there is a God.  So this is an argument that can never be won by either side.  Its not so much a useful debate as a tribal shouting match.

I think some basic education on this matter would clear up all or most of the conflict.  You don't have to accept one and reject the other.  Its equally untenable to be certain there is a God as it is to be certain there is none.  So keep your faith or lack thereof to yourself and let the scientists continue discovering and analyzing and educating without fear of political reprisals from the religious folks with sensitive egos.

Besides, Jesus never told anyone to strive for ignorance or defend it.

November 6, 2003: Remarks by President George W. Bush at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy

In light of the historic current events, this speech that President George W. Bush gave to the National Endowment for Democracy back in 2003 has become a masterpiece.  The focus of the speech was the demise of dictatorships and rise of democracy that would soon spread across Muslim nations of the Mideast with the example in Iraq as a beacon.  And to think, all those people thought GWB had no clue whatsoever.  I think this speech will be the one used in the history books to define his legacy and it is most definitely.. worth a read..  I had a hard time picking an excerpt, but I think this works.

 "... This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)

Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)

Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.) 

Revolution is fun until a chunk of concrete hits you in the head.

Supporters of President Hosni Mubarak (top) and anti-government demonstrators clash in Tahrir Square in Cairo February 2, 2011. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

There were those who took the position after Saddam Hussein had been deposed and Iraq was thrust into a violent and bloody sectarian war that perhaps the people of Iraq were better off with a strongman dictator in charge than to have opposing militant tribes fighting bloody turf wars in the villages.  It was a pessimistic view and I disagreed with it.  I referred to that line of thinking as the Saddam the Benevolent Zookeeper theory.  All those animals need a zookeeper.  A fine example of soft racism of lowered expectations.

And now in Egypt, supporters of Hosni Mubarak have taken to the streets to engage the anti-Mubarak  crowd.  And not just by standing on the opposite corner and shouting chants at each other.  No, its more like a scene from Braveheart.  People throwing fist-sized rocks at the other side.   People with whips and chains riding on horses storming into the crowd.  This is some serious anger on display here.  This is a worse situation in my mind than all the people joining together to fight the police.  This is chaos.  It might get much worse before it gets better. 

In a post-Mubarak Egypt, I wonder how long it will take for these opposing sides to come back together and cooperate in some sort of functional representative Government. 

Epic Video with a timely theme Foo Fighters - The Pretender

Send in your skeletons
Sing as their bones go marching in, again.
They need you buried deep
The secrets that you keep are at the ready
Are you ready?

Thomas Jefferson, George W. Bush and the events in Egypt

Protesters flee from tear gas fire during clashes in Cairo, January 28, 2011.
REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

The revolution in Egypt has provided a reminder to all those who govern that their power ultimately rests with the people.  They can be oppressed, coerced, imprisoned and controlled for a while, but eventually the human desire for liberty will overcome the fear of recrimination.  One of the greatest political minds of all time, our own Thomas Jefferson had quite a bit to say on this subject and its worth a few minutes to reflect on some of his quotes in light of the current events in Egypt.

In my opinion, George W. Bush (through the efforts and sacrifices of the US Military) did more to enable Jefferson's optimistic vision for human liberty than any other President in my lifetime.  And one could argue if liberty was really a goal or just a convenient excuse for the war in Iraq, but its difficult to argue that GWB "kicked over the tables" in order to preserve the staus quo.  Maybe Bush was right and the example of a functional representative government in Iraq would stir an awakening for others in the region.  Perhaps liberty is not out of reach for them after all.  

Some selected quotations from Thomas Jefferson...  

1775 June 26-July 6. (Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms) "Our attachment to no nation upon earth should supplant our attachment to liberty."

1820 Dec. 26. (to Marquis de Lafayette) "The disease of liberty is catching; those armies will take it in the south, carry it thence to their own country, spread there the infection of revolution and representative government, and raise its people from the prone condition of brutes to the erect altitude of man."

1823 (to M Caray, vii 318)  " Possessing ourselves the combined blessing of liberty and order, we wish the same to other countries."

1795 (to Tench Coxe, Ford Ed. vii 22) "The ball of liberty is now so well in motion it will roll round the globe."

1807 (Reply to Address, viii 119) "I sincerely pray that all the members of the human family may, in the time proscribed by the Father of us all, find themselves securely established in the enjoyment of liberty."

1799 (to Elbridge Gerry, iv, 268. Ford Ed., vii 328.) "I am not for joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty."

Now, its also very clear that Jefferson was set against any form of religious authority imposing its will on the people, so I'm sure he wouldn't be in favor of an Islamic regime replacing the current dictatorship in Egypt.  However, I think based on the political strategies he employed regarding the subject of slavery, he would accept that liberty may not come for all at once, rather its a tree that grows from a sapling.  When the masses recognize the ultimate power resides in them, the tree grows roots.