Capitalism Without Property Rights Is Not Capitalism

Amit Varma has a good column, as usual, about Nandigram, describing the horrors there as acts of gangsterism by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and its cronies, who have twisted the meaning of free-markets and capitalism to meet their own ends by trampling on the rights of property holders. Key graph:

It is shocking that defenders of such theft try to justify it by invoking free markets and capitalism. True free markets depend on the sanctity of property rights. What Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee’s government has been up to is cronyism of the worst kind, colluding with big companies at the expense of the common man. Ignorant journalists describe him as free-market-friendly, which is ludicrous. His disregard for property rights makes him as totalitarian as the orthodox Communists who criticize him for moving away from their faith.

Remember, communists do not believe in the sanctity of private property. It doesn’t exist in their reality: everything is owned by the state, to do with it what it pleases. The CPI-M crows about giving land to the landless—after all, in their book, it is there most significant achievement in over thirty years of rule—but what they don’t tell the recently landed is that they can become landless just as quickly, simply by government fiat. Whatever this is, it’s not capitalism.

Deception: NPR Interview With Authors

On NPR’s Fresh Air there is a great interview with Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark, authors of Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons, that’s a must listen. I haven’t read the book yet (I’m waiting for the paperback release), but what the authors reveal is bone chilling. They implicate Benazir Bhutto, who, as Prime Minister, allegedly bought the blueprints for North Korea’s missile technology from Kim Jong-Il himself, and brought them back to Pakistan, literally, in her handbag.

Hillary Clinton Flip-Flop Yet Again

What does Sen. Clinton have to say about New York abandoning its plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants?

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday came out against granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after weeks of pressure in the presidential race to take a position on a now-failed ID plan from her home state governor.

Clinton has faced criticism from candidates in both parties for her noncommittal answers on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's attempt to allow illegal immigrants in his state to receive driver's licenses. Spitzer abandoned the effort Wednesday.

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

This is classic Clinton—Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton always put his finger in the wind to see which way it was blowing before taking a position, now Hillary is doing the same. If Hillary becomes President, it will be a redux of the Clinton years, where moral relativism ruled.

My Picks For The Primary

I haven’t been paying much attention to the presidential race because I find it to be a bore—tedious speeches, countless debates, the pouting and preening of the various candidates, etc. But if I had to vote today, I would probably vote Libertarian, like I did in 2004. Nevertheless, I have picked my favorite Democrat and Republican candidates that I would vote for in the primary—if I were a registered Democrat or Republican.

In the Democratic primary, I would vote for Barack Obama, then either Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. Barack Obama, even with his lack of experience, is charismatic, smart, eloquent, everything you want in a politician. I like Biden for his foreign policy experience, the same for Bill Richardson, who also gets extra points with me for being governor of New Mexico, which gives him the administrative experience that is sorely missing from the rest of the pack. Hillary Clinton is too much of a slippery eel, and I find her untrustworthy. The rest of candidates are not worth spending time on.

And in the Republican primary, I would vote for Mitt Romney. He’s a successful businessman, and a former governor of Massachusetts, one of the bluest states in the union. As governor, Romney was socially moderate, fiscally conservative in a state that likes to tax everything that moves. I know he’s kissing the religious right’s ass, at the moment, but that will pass if he wins the primary; then watch him run back to the center. It always happens. I also like John McCain, a war hero, and bit of a maverick (and has pissed off conservatives, in the process), but I doubt he has the legs to make it to the end. Giuliani is a good choice, too, but his views on foreign policy are worse then Bush’s, with several advisors advocating the invasion of Iran. I like Ron Paul for his staunch libertarianism, but he seems isolationist on foreign policy, and his comments on 9/11, where he faulted the United State, pissed me off. The rest are hacks, poseurs and wingnuts. Thompson should stick to acting because they are failing him on the campaign trail. Huckabee is a religious kook who is fooling everyone with his awshucks-demeanor. The man is more dangerous than George Bush.

New York: No Driver's Licenses For Illegals

New York has decided to abandon its plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has abandoned a plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, his spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday.

The governor was meeting Wednesday with the state's congressional delegation, many of whom openly oppose the program. His spokeswoman, Christine Anderson, confirmed that the governor was dropping the plan.

It was a stupid, nonsensical plan to begin with; trotted out by an overly ambitious governor looking to run for President in the next election cycle. The goal of the plan, supposedly, was to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses so they can legally drive, thereby reducing liability (and increasing revenue for insurance companies). It was treated as a public safety issue, but given the fact that driver’s licenses are de facto national ID cards, and given the big holes in verifying who is who, it could lead to further problems down the road.

Second, no illegal immigrant in his right mind would participate in such a hair-brained scheme. First, it’s insulting. They’re looking to legalize their status, not be treated like second-class citizens. Second, an illegal immigrant, by nature, tries to live under the radar, avoiding unneeded attention less he or she is arrested and deported. So giving the state your name and address, which is put in a database, thus accessible by the federal government, is one step short of committing suicide. No, thanks. I’ll take the bus.

The Real Reason For Rebuking Chavez

More details have emerged about the rebuke Chavez received from Spanish King Juan Carlos at the Ibero-American Summit in Santiago, Chile: it’s about the lackluster economies of Latin American countries. According to Spain, which invests heavily in Latin America, the region needs more foreign investment. This set Chavez off:

But behind the royal reprimand, much of the international media missed what may have set Chávez off in the first place. Chávez became visibly irritated at the summit when Spain's current Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero — a socialist and Chávez ally — insisted that Latin America needs to attract more foreign capital if it's going to make a dent in its chronic, deepening poverty. Chávez blames "savage capitalism" for Latin America's gaping inequality and insists "only socialism" can fix it — hence his tirade against Aznar and other free-market "fascists." At that point Zapatero chided Chávez, reminding him that Aznar himself "was democratically elected by the Spanish people." Chávez kept trying to interrupt — summit organizers even turned off his microphone — at which point the King said what was on most summiteers' minds, if the general applause he got was any indication.

Chavez can afford to indulge in his socialist fantasies. After all, he has oil, and plenty of it.

And it pointed up a fact about Chávez's revolution that chavistas are too reluctant to acknowledge. Venezuela, with its vast oil wealth, can afford to indulge socialism and eschew foreign investment; but most other Latin American nations can't. Their economic growth still depends on the kind of capital that global competitors like China and India are raking in, but which Latin America seems unable or unwilling to garner. The chavistas rightly argue that the distribution of capitalism's fruits has been grossly unequal in Latin America — which is a large reason why leftists like Chávez have been swept into power in recent years. But the region needs that investment nonetheless — and even leftists like Zapatero sound impatient with the region's mediocre performance.

This is Chavez’s megalomania on display. His goal is not to spread socialism, but his brand of socialism, financed by him and led by him. He has branded himself as a toxic mix of Che, Simon Bolivar and Fidel Castro, all in one neat package. No wonder other Latin American leaders, including many fellow leftists, are weary of him and his burning ambition to be numero uno in Latin America. Countries like Brazil are increasing their defense budgets to counter Venezuela’s growing appetite for arms, fearing Chavez might spread his revolution by force, if not coercion.

Norman Mailer RIP

What can I say about Norman Mailer, who recently passed away: great writer, colorful personality, and an arrogant prick. He made modern literature macho. Mailer behaved more like a Hollywood celebrity--whose hijinx is well-documented--than a well-respected author. Mailer did not demur from such characterizations. In fact, he invited it, upto to his last days.

Christopher Hitchens says it best, in my opinion. Roger Kimball, editor at New Criterion, offers a dissenting view.

Why Larry King Sucks

The video below echoes why I never liked Larry King:



The man enjoys playing the role of the village idiot, revels in his ignorance, and delights in asking the dumbest questions possible. His mode of operation is simple: ask the first question that pops in his pea-sized brain. There’s no reason to read the book, watch the movie, or, for that matter, do the prep work and research necessary to have a good interview. Charlie Rose he isn’t. The result of which can be seen above.

And King doesn’t ask the tough questions (if he ask questions at all, which is quite often). This is why scandal-plagued celebrities and politicians flock to his show. It’s a great way to rehabilitate themselves without worrying about the interviewer asking any nagging, probing questions.

More Kid Karamel

What's a good way to start the week then more video of Kid Karamel. Here are two more.





Enjoy!

Chavez Told To Shut Up, About Time

Finally, someone has said what should’ve been said long ago:

Spain's King Juan Carlos told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Saturday to "shut up" during closing speeches by leaders from the Latin world that brought the Ibero-American summit to an acrimonious end.

"Why don't you shut up?" the king shouted at Chavez, pointing a finger at the president when he tried to interrupt a speech by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Zapatero was in the middle of a speech at the summit of mostly leftist leaders from Latin America, Portugal, Spain and Andorra, and was criticizing Chavez for calling former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar a fascist.

Chavez, a leading leftist foe of Washington, also attacked Spanish businessman Gerardo Diaz Ferran earlier in the week after he questioned the safety of foreign investments in Venezuela.

"I want to express to you President Hugo Chavez that in a forum where there are democratic governments ... one of the essential principles is respect," Zapatero told the leaders gathered in the Chilean capital, Santiago.

And this was from fellow leftists too. Chavez is slowly pissing off even his friends, who are getting tired of Chavez’s bombastic grandstanding, his increasingly rude behavior and use of undiplomatic language. Slowly and surely, Chavez will become such an embarrassment that world leaders will stay away in droves.

Chavez thrives because he's become the chief Bush hater. Chavez needs Bush. Chavez’s popularity feeds off Bush’s unpopularity. What will happen when a new U.S. president is sworn in little over a year? Democrat or Republican, the new president will have a more pragmatic worldview, even with Chavez’s Venezuela. Will Chavez be singing the same tune then?

HAPPY DIWALI!

Pakistan: Army And Militants One In The Same?

Excellent op-ed in The New York Times by a former member of the Pakistani military, who witnessed the Islamization of the military under President Zia-ul-Haq, and its consequences Pakistan faces to this day. Key graphs:

On the night he declared the emergency, General Musharraf released 28 Taliban prisoners; according to news reports, one was serving a sentence of 24 years for transporting two suicide bombers’ jackets, the only fashion accessory allowed in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled areas. These are the kind of people who on their off days like to burn down video stores and harass barbers for giving shaves and head massages.

In what can be seen only as a reciprocal gesture, the Taliban released a group of army soldiers it had held hostage — according to the BBC, each soldier was given 500 rupees for good behavior.

Why do General Musharraf and his army feel a sense of kinship with the very people they are supposed to be fighting against? Why are he and his army scared of liberal lawyers and teachers but happy to deal with Islamist Pashtuns in the tribal areas?

The reasons can be traced back to the 1980s, when another military dictator, Gen. Zia ul-Haq, launched a broad campaign to Islamicize Pakistani society and the armed forces in particular. Back then, I was a cadet at Pakistan’s Air Force Academy, where I witnessed, along with hundreds of other aghast cadets, a remarkable scene in which a new recruit, out of religious conviction, refused to shave his beard. (Like most military training institutes in the world, the academy’s first right of passage was to turn the civilian recruits into clean-shaven jarheads.)

The issue was eventually referred to the Army high command in Islamabad, and as a result procedures for training institutes were amended — the boy was allowed to keep his beard and wear his uniform. The academy barber never recovered from the shock.

Within months there were other changes: evenings socializing to music and mocktails were replaced by Koran study sessions. Buses were provided for cadets who wanted to attend civilian religious congregations. Within months, our rather depressing but secular academy was turned into a zealous, thriving madrassa where missing your daily prayers was a crime far worse than missing the morning drill.

It is this crop of military officers that now runs the country. General Musharraf heads this army, and is very reluctant to let go.

More proof that the military is at loggerheads with democracy and secularism, especially when it has better relations with the Taliban, their purported enemy, then their own citizens. If what this writer says is true, then what effect can Musharraf and the military have in combating Islamic militants in the tribal areas when much of its mid-level officer corp is sympathetic to them, and many of the rank-and-file soldiers, so ill-equipped and so demoralized, are surrendering to them in droves?

[via ultrabrown]

A Realistic Look At US Policy Towards Pakistan

Charles Krauthammer, in my opinion, is a realist when it concerns American foreign policy, and has a great column on President Musharraf in The Washington Post. Key graphs:

Universal democratization is lovely, but it cannot be a description of day-to-day diplomacy. The blanket promise to always oppose dictatorship is inherently impossible to keep. It always requires considerations of local conditions and strategic necessity.

Lebanon, for example, has a long tradition of democratic norms going back to independence in 1943. America's current policy (backed strongly by France) of vigorous support for an independent Lebanese democracy is not utopian. Sudden democratization of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, however, is utopian -- an invitation to the kind of Islamist takeover that happened in Gaza and nearly occurred in Algeria.

Pakistan is not the first time we've faced hard choices about democratization. At the height of the Cold War, particularly in the immediate post-Vietnam era of American weakness, we supported dictators Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. The logic was simple: The available and likely alternative -- i.e., communists -- would be worse.

What Krauthammer says is essentially true, and he’s doubtful Pakistan can make the transition.

That depends on whether we think Benazir Bhutto is Corazon Aquino and whether Bhutto and her allies can successfully take power, which means keeping both the army and the country intact. Heightening the risk of dumping Musharraf is that external conditions today are not like the relatively benign conditions of the 1980s. The Taliban and its allies are gaining in strength and waiting to pick up the pieces from the civil war developing between the two most westernized, most modernizing elements of Pakistani society -- the army, one of the few functioning institutions of the state, and the elite of civil society, including lawyers, jurists, journalists and students.

Yes, there are no Abraham Lincolns waiting in the wings; and Bhutto and her counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, are far from ideal, but they enjoy some modicum of popular support. And I disagree with Krauthammer that the army is a westernized institution. In fact, it’s increasingly becoming radicalized. It’s more of a hindrance than a pillar of support.

Read the rest of the article, Krauthammer makes a lot of sense.

Some Palestinians Seeking Israeli Citizenship

It seems Palestinians living in Jerusalem are applying for Israeli citizenship in droves. These two articles explain why. Some excerpts:

"I don't want to have any part in the PA. I want the health insurance, the schools, all the things we get by living here," says Ranya Mohammed as she does her afternoon shopping in Shuafat.

"I'll go and live in Israel before I'll stay here and live under the PA, even if it means taking an Israeli passport," says Mrs. Mohammed, whose husband earns a good living from doing business here. "I have seen their suffering in the PA. We have a lot of privileges I'm not ready to give up."

Nabil Gheet, a neighborhood leader who runs a gift and kitchenware outfit in the adjacent town of Ras Khamis, also resists coming under the PA's control.

"We have no faith in the Palestinian Authority. It has no credibility," he says, as his afternoon customers trickle in and out. "I do not want to be ruled by Abbas's gang," he says, referring to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

And

"They've weighed the pros and cons of life under the Palestinian Authority and those under Israel and they've chosen," said residents in East Jerusalem of their naturalization-seeking neighbors.

33-year-old Samar Qassam said his motivation to apply for Israeli citizenship was to seek a better future for his family. Along with his wife and son, Qassam once lived in the Old City but recently moved to Beit Safafa, an Arab village south of Jerusalem.

"I was born in Jerusalem, this is where I grew up and this is where I make my living. My entire life is here. My wife comes from the West Bank, so I do fear she may be deported and therefore filed a naturalization request for her as well. I want to keep living here with my wife and child without having to worry about our future. That's why I want an Israeli citizenship," Qassam said.

"I don't know what the future holds. There's talk of the Palestinian Authority coming to Jerusalem. Personally, I don't think that will happen. But only God knows what will happen. I work as a mechanic for an Israeli company, I have both Jewish and Arab friends. I speak Hebrew and go out to Tel Aviv and Akko in the evenings. I just want a better future," he said.

Good governance and quality of life trumps nationalism. These Palestinians have tasted success and prosperity living under Israeli rule, they’ve seen how their brethren live in the West Bank and Gaza and have come to the following conclusion—they don’t want any part of it.

Nitin's Rightful Criticism Of Tehelka

Nitin criticizes Tehelka for publishing a rather shaky article questioning Gujarat’s economic success. Gaurav, in turn, criticizes Nitin for shooting the messenger. I think Gaurav is way off base. Nitin accomplished two things by writing what he did: first, he refuted the claims made by the article and, second, he criticizes Tehelka for its shoddy, gotcha-journalism practices.

Newspapers are supposed to be contrarian by nature, to question prevailing views, and to cast doubts on utterances by governments and public officials. I do not question Tehelka’s right to doubt the Gujarat government's claims, but I do question its methods, which seems to be driven by economic (to sell more magazines and get more hits on its web site), and a hidden political agenda (most newspapers and magazines India are left-wing) against the BJP-led Gujarat government.

Integrity and credibility are stock and trade of the journalism business, and Tehelka seems to be losing on this score.