The death toll in Iran has risen to 12, perhaps 14. No accurate reporting on the raid at Tehran University has the same toll. However, the victims were stabbed and shot to death. I am calling it the Green Revolution as it seems to be the defining moment of today's protests. The Iranian football (soccer) match against South Korea witnessed several players wearing green wrist bands in the first half. The wrist bands were ordered removed for the second half.
Green is also the color of Mousavi's political party and is the color of the banners of those who support him not only in Iran, but worldwide and in our own United States as well. Whether or not this Green Revolution succeeds and goes down in history as the Green Revolution is still not known.
The reason I chose the Green Revolution is also in continuity with other nation's revolutions lately. The Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are prime examples. I urge the support for their freedom to continue and for the world to not lose interest at this crucial moment and to continue to support the freedom of Iranians until this regime is altered in a way that is beneficial to Iran's people and will thus help the world's efforts for peace.
A little taste of political logic (with a side dose of insanity and humor to make things interesting.) My life will occassionally be brought in with some journalism.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Cyber Warfare Reality
I'm done making warnings about cyber warfare potentials. The underlying force in this Iranian situation is a battle with proxy servers and blockers set up by the Iranian government. The cycle goes on and on back and forth minute by minute.
As someone who researched the use of hacking by the Chinese government against our Pentagon, occuring to this day still, and seeing the Russian Syndicate shut down Georgia's website servers during the Russo-Georgian war I can tell you that cyber warfare is here. With iReports and similar approaches in news networks, to the use of cyber attacks to shut down and plagarize websites from Isreal to Kosovo, to the current reliance on twitter to gain information of an ongoing situation in Iran, we are now seeing the value of cyber warfare and the attempts to use it to expand freedom, as well as shut it down.
With China and North Korea restricting internet access to government run websites and having a wall for entire nations in Burma, China, and Iran we are seeing that the cyber warfare is not only one way. The proxy servers being provided to Iranians are not an act of war but of revolution. In the past few years we have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now Iran have revolutions against alleged fraud in the election process that makes a Republic an actual Republic.
This may be one of the first revolutions which seems reliant upon the internet and cyber warfare as the main means with which it communicates with its supporters and activists. To spread the message the next best method they have is shouting from their cars during gridlock hours in Tehran. Somehow that method may be better than the one used to end the War of 1812, which had a peace treaty signed more than a week before the final battle in New Orleans took place. Yet, nothing matches the ability to include as many voices as possible as the internet does.
The warnings are over because cyber warfare is here. China is ahead of us and we are the nation with the largest defense budget. I demand as a citizen that we put some of those funds towards creating an encryption-proof closed network for our military system. An internet 3.0 or 4.0 depending on where the university systems are at.
As someone who researched the use of hacking by the Chinese government against our Pentagon, occuring to this day still, and seeing the Russian Syndicate shut down Georgia's website servers during the Russo-Georgian war I can tell you that cyber warfare is here. With iReports and similar approaches in news networks, to the use of cyber attacks to shut down and plagarize websites from Isreal to Kosovo, to the current reliance on twitter to gain information of an ongoing situation in Iran, we are now seeing the value of cyber warfare and the attempts to use it to expand freedom, as well as shut it down.
With China and North Korea restricting internet access to government run websites and having a wall for entire nations in Burma, China, and Iran we are seeing that the cyber warfare is not only one way. The proxy servers being provided to Iranians are not an act of war but of revolution. In the past few years we have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and now Iran have revolutions against alleged fraud in the election process that makes a Republic an actual Republic.
This may be one of the first revolutions which seems reliant upon the internet and cyber warfare as the main means with which it communicates with its supporters and activists. To spread the message the next best method they have is shouting from their cars during gridlock hours in Tehran. Somehow that method may be better than the one used to end the War of 1812, which had a peace treaty signed more than a week before the final battle in New Orleans took place. Yet, nothing matches the ability to include as many voices as possible as the internet does.
The warnings are over because cyber warfare is here. China is ahead of us and we are the nation with the largest defense budget. I demand as a citizen that we put some of those funds towards creating an encryption-proof closed network for our military system. An internet 3.0 or 4.0 depending on where the university systems are at.
My Financial Reform
President Obama announced that he is creating a new agency to prevent a financial collapse like the one that has created the current economic recession. I have a new solution, it is simple, and doesn't need a new agency or more money to any agency or program. It may require a person to do some number crunching by a man in an office for about an hour and then giving a green or red light to expansions by the largest companies in any industry. If the company is less than 20% of the industry, let the expansion go forward. If it does not, red light do not approve a merger or office or store. We prevent monopolies in the same way. This will help make sure a company, should it fail, does not have a catastrophic effect on the economy. It prevents the "too big to fail" theory which does not apply to the state of California. Somehow the nation's largest economy and one of the world's top 10 economies is not too big to fail, but a few banks and car makers are. Back to the point, prevent them from being this massive. It will ensure competition and prevent systemic failures. A little oversight to make sure, like the banking industry was, the companies are not reliant upon each other for more than 5% of their operating revenue. What this means is that along the line, the closer the industry gets to your home town the more diverse your choices will be.
Banking industry for example had AIG insuring all the mortgage backed securities. AIG was the mortgage backed security shop essentially. Sure it has insurance for many other things, but for the banks and mortgage backed securities it was AIG. If you limited the connections between the largest industries you would have 20 "AIG" shops for mortgage backed securities. This means that when AIG fails, the banking industry won't collapse.
It can be applied in other ways but here is a little disclaimer: it won't apply to all industries. Well, it will. The 20% rule should apply across the board. Yet the 5% would be difficult in some industries. Like the diamond industry. There are only so many diamond mines in the world, and none are in the United States. Yet diamond sellers are a different story.
Now lets take a different industry and place it at the local level. I understand small towns won't have the real availability for diversification in store-front options, but I feel enough effect will be felt in even large towns (10,000 +) that it will be recognizable. If you have five farms making the 20% of the industry for farming nationwide, they have to have buyers. McDonald's, Burger King, so on and so forth will buy. The farmers should not rely on more than 5% of sales to McDonalds that way when McDonalds fails (which it probably won't, not making a prediction folks) the farmer hasn't lost his way to survive. It also makes sure that McDonald's can't rely on one farmer for more than 5% of the meat production. It gets difficult here and may probably provide the exception needed because, with some food products, they are one of a kind and may have different tastes depending on where it is grown. This means 5% for McDonald's could lead to inconsistency in taste and be a bad policy for the company. Yet the farmer, by diversifying its purchasers, ensures long term stability of customers and will almost always have a market. This way if one fails, the other customers can fill in the gaps.
The long term effects of this:more businesses and gauranteed market stability. Recessions may occur, but entire industries will not fail catastrophically as they did this time and in 1939.
More businesses means more people being involved in the market. We will see smaller businesses providing a more diverse shopping experience for people in America. The mom-and-pop stores will have a comeback I believe.
Perhaps even having four companies not able to get more than 20% of market share, and then for the last 20% making it so no company can get above 5 or 1% market share would ensure the small business approach which inspires the most innovation and give the local feel of business back to towns in America. That said 1% is still a huge part of the economy. It could be refined for various industries based on the value of that industry in GDP standards. I'm not an expert but I think this is a good idea. If you think so too let me know, and let your representatives, senators, governors, and president know. Otherwise, a good idea may be lost. Final note on the idea, for what companies will be the 20% let the details be hammered out, maybe make it a bit fairer and limit all companies to 5% of market share or 1% even (especially in retail chains, restaurant chains, fast food, and banking industries.)
The best part is the American dream still exists, and you can become wealthy. You just won't be able to have your business become large enough that if you fail, you won't be hurting the nation. It will also allow the American dream to be more possible for everyone because the need for more businesses to make sure the market share is filled will make more Americans and even non-citizens a better chance at meeting the American Dream. It also will have no government run operations. We do not need Amtrak expanded to other industries. I think that much is obvious.
I feel regulation can be used as an alternative to taxes in order to make the country more financially equal. While everyone wishes the world was perfect and everyone was equal, I disagree with doing it by taking and giving. Taxes create resentment. Regulation is better because it also doesn't require the government to make the decisions for the businesses. It only makes sure the field of play is fair for everyone.
Analogy time!
The government regulations are like the referee in a soccer game. Before the game the referee can check to make sure the field is to standard, so that both teams have the same field to play on. This is the opportunity to succeed in this nation. The referee keeping score is just the government doing the census. When one of the players goes beyond regulation, the team faces a penalty kick. The regulations in the economy prevent these fouls. The giving of the penalty kick is like the government taxing and giving the taxes to those who are at disadvantage. By using government regulation to make sure no one is at a disadvantage, I believe the need to tax and give to the disadvantaged will be gone. Those who fail will have failed because they simply are not up to the job of doing what others do.
This has been another episode of the ravings of a madman. Due to the realization that I am rambling here, I have decided to stop myself and return to the topic at another time. Thank you for reading. And let me know what you think!
P.S. I mean what you think, not what you feel. If you hate me and think I hate poor people, or am betraying my Republican values, spare me. Lets discuss the issues on their merit and realistic possiblities.
Banking industry for example had AIG insuring all the mortgage backed securities. AIG was the mortgage backed security shop essentially. Sure it has insurance for many other things, but for the banks and mortgage backed securities it was AIG. If you limited the connections between the largest industries you would have 20 "AIG" shops for mortgage backed securities. This means that when AIG fails, the banking industry won't collapse.
It can be applied in other ways but here is a little disclaimer: it won't apply to all industries. Well, it will. The 20% rule should apply across the board. Yet the 5% would be difficult in some industries. Like the diamond industry. There are only so many diamond mines in the world, and none are in the United States. Yet diamond sellers are a different story.
Now lets take a different industry and place it at the local level. I understand small towns won't have the real availability for diversification in store-front options, but I feel enough effect will be felt in even large towns (10,000 +) that it will be recognizable. If you have five farms making the 20% of the industry for farming nationwide, they have to have buyers. McDonald's, Burger King, so on and so forth will buy. The farmers should not rely on more than 5% of sales to McDonalds that way when McDonalds fails (which it probably won't, not making a prediction folks) the farmer hasn't lost his way to survive. It also makes sure that McDonald's can't rely on one farmer for more than 5% of the meat production. It gets difficult here and may probably provide the exception needed because, with some food products, they are one of a kind and may have different tastes depending on where it is grown. This means 5% for McDonald's could lead to inconsistency in taste and be a bad policy for the company. Yet the farmer, by diversifying its purchasers, ensures long term stability of customers and will almost always have a market. This way if one fails, the other customers can fill in the gaps.
The long term effects of this:more businesses and gauranteed market stability. Recessions may occur, but entire industries will not fail catastrophically as they did this time and in 1939.
More businesses means more people being involved in the market. We will see smaller businesses providing a more diverse shopping experience for people in America. The mom-and-pop stores will have a comeback I believe.
Perhaps even having four companies not able to get more than 20% of market share, and then for the last 20% making it so no company can get above 5 or 1% market share would ensure the small business approach which inspires the most innovation and give the local feel of business back to towns in America. That said 1% is still a huge part of the economy. It could be refined for various industries based on the value of that industry in GDP standards. I'm not an expert but I think this is a good idea. If you think so too let me know, and let your representatives, senators, governors, and president know. Otherwise, a good idea may be lost. Final note on the idea, for what companies will be the 20% let the details be hammered out, maybe make it a bit fairer and limit all companies to 5% of market share or 1% even (especially in retail chains, restaurant chains, fast food, and banking industries.)
The best part is the American dream still exists, and you can become wealthy. You just won't be able to have your business become large enough that if you fail, you won't be hurting the nation. It will also allow the American dream to be more possible for everyone because the need for more businesses to make sure the market share is filled will make more Americans and even non-citizens a better chance at meeting the American Dream. It also will have no government run operations. We do not need Amtrak expanded to other industries. I think that much is obvious.
I feel regulation can be used as an alternative to taxes in order to make the country more financially equal. While everyone wishes the world was perfect and everyone was equal, I disagree with doing it by taking and giving. Taxes create resentment. Regulation is better because it also doesn't require the government to make the decisions for the businesses. It only makes sure the field of play is fair for everyone.
Analogy time!
The government regulations are like the referee in a soccer game. Before the game the referee can check to make sure the field is to standard, so that both teams have the same field to play on. This is the opportunity to succeed in this nation. The referee keeping score is just the government doing the census. When one of the players goes beyond regulation, the team faces a penalty kick. The regulations in the economy prevent these fouls. The giving of the penalty kick is like the government taxing and giving the taxes to those who are at disadvantage. By using government regulation to make sure no one is at a disadvantage, I believe the need to tax and give to the disadvantaged will be gone. Those who fail will have failed because they simply are not up to the job of doing what others do.
This has been another episode of the ravings of a madman. Due to the realization that I am rambling here, I have decided to stop myself and return to the topic at another time. Thank you for reading. And let me know what you think!
P.S. I mean what you think, not what you feel. If you hate me and think I hate poor people, or am betraying my Republican values, spare me. Lets discuss the issues on their merit and realistic possiblities.
The Promotion of Cowardice
Iran has made illegal the silent protest of over 100,000 people in Tehran. Their riot police have raided Tehran University and beaten students and shot at protestors. So far 7 Mousavi supporters have been killed. I personally have a gut feeling this is higher, but the reports are monitored coming out of Iran so there is just no way of knowing right now. By making peaceful protest illegal Iran is supporting open revolt against themselves. By making violence the only option for these people to express themselves they are furthering the cycle of cowardice they use to rule. I urge the supporters of Mousavi to conduct themselves in only a peaceful manner and to know that in time, in continued efforts over weeks and months, change will come. You will be heard the longer your stand up and make yourselves and your cause known. You have my support.