日本酒

I've given in to the pleadings of my conscience and removed the really bad sake haiku I had authored -good riddance!

Iran's significance

Chaplin's "The Dictator" has become quite poular in Iran

In the past decade, Iran has made headlines often because of its nuclear research and hostile stance in the world stage. Unfortunately it is easy for people reading headlines to think that most of Iran is composed of zealots, especially during a time when the Bush administration made Iran a part of “the axis of evil”.

However, the events of recent weeks in which the people have massively protested the election fraud, have helped the world see that in spite of its alleged democracy, Iran’s regime has no mandate from its people. In other words, the people in Iran massively oppose their government:

-They do not want to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.
-They do not wish the destruction of Israel.
-They do not hate the West, Israel, or care to be seen as a destabilizing force.
-They are very unhappy with the way the regime has managed the country, in particular the economy, and want to have a say on how it is conducted.
-They want the clergy to have a respected but advisory role in government, similar to how some European monarchies have an influential voice at certain times, but no real power in state affairs.
-They want a more liberal society, with less state/religious control.

This is why reform in Iran is so important, much more so than in other countries. A truly democratic government in Iran would:

- Cease funding of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shiite extremists, which would go a long way to bring peace and stability to Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, and the region at large.
- Show the world that Islam and Democracy can easily coexist, and make Iran a catalyst for reform in the region.
- Allow a population that is among the most educated in the region to bring about economic and social progress, serving as an example of the benefits of Democracy to its neighbors.

This is why we must let the people of Iran know that there are hundreds of millions of people all over the world that admire and support their valiant efforts and the sacrifice of their martyrs’ to take control of their destiny and claim their place among the free peoples of the world. We are paying close attention and are waiting to welcome them to the fraternity of nations who seek peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and global cooperation to the betterment of all. Because all of our lives are intertwined, their fight is also ours. To intervene would only make things worse, but to show our solidarity, is our duty.

Other posts about Iran:

Qom challenges regime
Rift at the top
Marg barg dictator
Iran wants change
A note to tomorrow's children
Iran's ticking clock

Health Care: Reform vs. Satus Quo

It's been said over and over: the US spends twice as much in health care as the average developed nation, and yet 1 out of 6 US citizens are uninsured. If nothing is done, the number of people without health care will continue to grow, or the government will eventually go belly up -or more likely, both.

OK... but why is this happening in the first place?

Answer:

The underlying problem has to do with the lobbying mechanisms that allow interests groups to exert such enormous influence on the Congress that it amounts to legalized corruption. Lobbying should be a democratic mechanism for minorities and groups that otherwise would have no voice; unfortunately it has become a tool for groups with huge sums of money to push legislation that favors their interests at the expense of the country, and over the past decades it has had a negative effect on health care.

Specifics:

1. Doctors get paid based on the drugs and tests they prescribe -the more they order the more money they make. Yes, this is a fact, and the result is doctors are rewarded for unnecessary spending and labs have no incentive to control prices.

Guess who benefits from this?

a) The drug companies
b) The hospitals/labs/health contractors
c) The doctors
d) All of the above (Yes, you won!!)
e) The patients

Solid evidence suggests that by cutting back on unnecessarily expensive procedures and prescriptions, between 10% to 30% of health costs could be saved. As the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, the California-based Kaiser Permanente system, and others have shown, it is possible to save money and produce better outcomes at the same time.

2. The government subsidizes half of the cost of employer provided health insurance. This means that:

a. Insurance companies are encouraged to come up with expensive/luxury coverage options.
b. All taxpayers share this burden, including those who don't get insurance via our employers, or no insurance at all.

3. Health insurance is not mandatory, therefore most uninsured people don't go to the hospital until the problem becomes serious enough, turning a potentially easy treatment into a an expensive one.

4. There is no incentive for preventive health care. Again, catching a problem before it gets expensive and crippling would benefit everyone... except the health industry. If you're like me, having health insurance is not enough of an incentive to do what we hate the most: going to the hospital. We are big babies, we are legion, and we need to be disciplined because if we don't, everyone has to share the burden of our poor decisions, and that is not fair. A tax break, a tax penalty, our names on the wall of shame -something. Preventive-oriented health care, I suspect, is the most important piece of the puzzle.

5. Lack of competition.

Lots of health care price-fixing lawsuits seems to demonstrate this point, and here is a report that shows that most states are dominated by one or two insurance providers.

6. Obsolete and expensive bureaucracy.

Question: OK... so just put in place legislation to correct these issues, what's the big deal?
Answer: Because when you spend less on health care, the health care industry earns less providing it -the industry is very profitable as it is, and therefore it is exerting its very considerable influence to maintain the status quo.

Question: but the legislators in congress say all kinds of scary things, they make it sound like the people would suffer terribly if we do anything to seriously cut costs.

Answer: If you look at all those arguments, you will first find that some are easily answered, for example, the Mayo Clinic case proves that you can definitely increase quality AND reduce cost at the same time. But most interestingly, you will find that all these arguments have one thing in common: the end result either protects the staus quo, or changes things in a way that does not compromise the interests of the health care industry. What a remarkable coincidence, isn't it?

But here are some specific points to ponder:

-If some go out of business, it means they were not efficient to begin with and/or not able to adapt, this means business from the least efficient providers would go to the more efficient; a net gain for patients and the country at large.
-As in the Mayo Clinic example, costs can be reduced and quality improved at the same time -we shouldn't lower the standard of the whole industry so that the worst providers don't have to change, which if you reduce it to the essentials, is exactly what some people in Congress are saying.
-There are many examples of health care systems on other developed nations that provide better care for less money, besides, to measure the quality of health care without factoring in the 50 million uninsured is a sad joke.

Question: who will win, Reform or Status Quo?

Answer: I think there will be modest reform, better than what we have now, but not the kind of real solution that we need to provide quality health care for all and not mortgage the future. I hope I'm wrong.

Web War II

Google just announced it is launching its own operating system: Chrome OS. Someone described this as dropping a nuclear bomb on Microsoft, and it kind of feels that way. There's no question a war has been brewing, and the object of that war -market dominance of the Web- is now moving into Microsoft's core territory.
As Google put it, existing OSs were designed before the web -that is, they are computer-centered, to run local applications. It has been clear for a while that the computer world is moving from the local PC to the web. So not only is Google threatening the Windows OS, it is threatening MS Office, or pretty much ninety percent Microsoft's revenue.

This reminds me of the first web war: the battle between the Netscape and Internet Explorer (see browser wars) -of course, back then Microsoft used to bundle IE with Windows in new PCs while Netscape couldn't do much but watch helplessly. Google plans shipping its OS with new netbooks and later full laptops and desktops, so Microsoft will get a taste of its own medicine. Also, unlike on the first Web war, both rivals are evenly matched, so this will be a long battle, and hopefully we'll see a lot of innovation on both sides.

I am wondering if we will finally see the public at large adopting web based office apps -especially, I wonder about the one advantage of MS near-monopoly: the ability to send a Word document or a PowerPoint and not have to worry if the recipient can open it. So this is really about whether small carry-everywhere netbooks and ubiquitous wireless broadband will complete the change that started with laptops and smartphones.

Either way, I think this will ultimately be a win for users worldwide -not to mention, fun to watch ;-)

Shahrizoda شهريزاده

I found myself reading the news about the riots in Xinjiang, and wondering, who are the Uyghur people, and why can't the central government just let minorities thrive instead of drowning their cultures among Han mainstream? Fear, of course. But I don't want to think too much... here is some Uyghur pop music, enjoy.

Qom defies Khameini

Iran's tide of change continues to advance.

According to this NYT article, leading celrics in Qom declared the elections illegitimate, in a direct challenge to the Ayatollah, showing the regime faces strong opposition at all levels.

What is most interesting is that there this is supposed to be a stronghold of the regime as there are "...no liberals or opposition groups here(Qom); this is the center of mullah control over the government, culture, and politics of Iran." If the regime is finding strong opposition here, it means it is standing in very shaky ground indeed.

This in turn will undoubtedly embolden others to openly opose the regime, which would require even more repressive violence, which would enarage the people even more.

The possible arrest of Mousavi seems to be more and more likely -this may prove to be an unintentional boost to the reformists, as it would provide a rallying focus to the protesters.

Arrests of citizens and media repression continue: The BBC reports that "despite threats people are still uploading videos onto sites such as YouTube - which is more difficult to trace. Others have already paid the price of being in touch with the media. A long-standing contact in Tehran had been keeping us across events in the capital since the election.

But this week she wrote to say: "I've been fired from work. I can't give you any more info right now. They have been going into our computers at work and found out that I'd emailed you. Wish me luck." "

Good luck to her and all the brave people of Iran in their quest for freedom.

Happy Birthday, America!

May your true spirit shine in this new era of hope.

Honduras coup: ambivalent feelings

The creative graffiti in the streets of Tegucigalpa turns Mel Zelaya to Mel Ze Vaya (Mel Go Away)

Honduras' legitimately elected president, Manuel Zelaya, has been ousted in an alleged coup.
I say alleged because in spite of the international backing of Zelaya, so far I have seen no clear evidence that his removal from office was illegal -after all, the move to attempt re-election violated articles of the Constitution that forbid changes to the presidential limit of one four-year term and establish the legal procedure for constitutional amendments- however, the mode of his removal seems hardly a democratic measure and adds legitimacy to Mr. Zelaya's claims. In any case, declarations from OAS, UN, and the US, state their support for Zelaya and demand his return to power. Perhaps I should humbly assume they know exactly what they are doing and are acting out of their selfless devotion to Democracy. I'm not being sarcastic this time (really, I'm not).

Elected on a center-right platform, Mr. Zelaya decided he liked the left better half-way through his term. After he became friendly with Venezuela's Chavez, he embraced a Chavez-style leftisit/populist campaign to have a referendum to change the constitution so as to allow for a consecutive second term.

The Supreme Court, his own party and other government bodies declared such a referendum unconstitutional, and declared his lack of compliance to stop the referendum as an illegal act. Soon after the military flew him to Costa Rica in his pajamas. The Honduras Congress produced a dubious letter of resignation -which Zelaya says he never wrote- and appointed Roberto Micheletti as his replacement.

If you're like me, you must be thinking this is pretty strange. If congress voted him out of power, and Zelaya's actions were truly illegal, why the coup-like forceful exile?

Let me take a wild guess at the story behind the story...

1. Zelaya becomes friends with Chavez

2. Chavez starts courting Zelaya.

3. Zelaya makes a 180 degree ideology turn

4. The Honduran government and upper classes think: "this guy wants to stay in power forever by using populism to appeal to the impoverished masses, just like Chavez did... if it worked for Chavez, it can probably work for Zelaya -after all, the poor here don't read the news and have no idea that Chavez is ruining Venezuela and trying to become pseudo-king. We can vote him out of power, but with Chavez's funding, he can find a way to get reelected or stage a coup. This isn't good, we have to do something or it's bye-bye democracy (and bye-bye our elite privileges)"

5. Zelaya gets free one-way trip to Costa Rica.

6. Regional leaders don't want anyone getting bad ideas about overthrowing elected leaders, decide to show strong condemnation of coup.

7. The international community at large, fearing a return of civil war to the region, threatens sanctions and withdraws ambassadors, pressuring Honduras to undo the coup.

8. The US, complying with new foreign policy, repudiates coup publicly and pressures Honduras as well (though many breath easier in private. Same for many Latin American countries).

9. Chavez delights in being able to parade around region making noise and taking the high moral ground, feeling important and siding with his protege.

In this article of El Heraldo of Honduras, a Venezuelan citizen writes to congratulate the people of Honduras and thanks them for showing Venezuela that would-be dictators are not invincible and wishes they could do the same with Chavez. Many others ad comments to second the thought.

While I sympathize with the writer, it seems like Zelaya has plenty of popular support in Honduras, though it isn't clear if his supporters outnumber his opposition. Given the mounting international pressure, it seems possible that a negotiated return to power of Zelaya may happen, in which he agrees not to attempt to run for a second term. This of course, would be ideal, but the question hanging in the air is: is it OK to risk a second Chavez in Honduras? While Venezuela had the oil boom to mitigate Chavez's devastating policies and corruption, Honduras is already very poor to start with, and a Chavez-style regime would likely bring utter ruin and even more corruption. Unfortunately, if the Honduran people chose to go that route, knowingly or not, they have every right to do so, and should not be opposed by force or unlawful actions -otherwise we are no better than the Zelayas of the world.

Article by Alvaro Vargas Llosa

Iran's ticking clock

The government continues to supress demonstrations, and blames the West on government television, even showing "confessions" of protesters supposedly incited by western media outlets. The Iranian bloggers make clear that no one is fooled by this, but since the Supreme Leader decided to show his hand and intervene in the elections, he doesn't have a choice but to play his role and go on with the act, leaning on his security forces. Although Khameini has succeeded in making the public demonstrations diminish significantly, the unrest persists in the minds of the people. It seems clear that this isn't simply going to go away. The clamp down on the media, scare tactics on the party leaders and reformists, violence on protesters, and monitoring of Internet comunications may have calmed things down to an extent on the surface, but underneath the tension hasn't gone away.

So far the government has been threatening to arrest Mousavi; if they do, a general strike may likely ensue, as Mousavi himself has exhorted the people as follow up to that eventuality. Or perhaps a massive demonstrations will be planned for the forty day anniversary of the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan. Perhaps the catalyst will be something else, but it is good to remember that the last revolution didn't happen overnght -it took a year until the Shah was toppled -and it's been a short three weeks since June 12th.