• Neda Agha-Soltan - Innocent Symbol Of Revolution

Neda Agha-Soltan was a bystander in the dramatic conflict gripping her country. Today, following her slow death from a bullet in the chest, she is the icon of Iranian reaction to the violent suppression by an entrenched theocracy. Her name means “voice” or “message,” and she has become a dynamic symbol for Iranians seeking openness in government. She has also altered international reaction, even moving the White House off its mark.

The video of her last frightful two minutes was seen around the world within moments of her passing. The ubiquity of the Internet disseminating the powerful images of Neda’s final struggle, elicited additional and essential support almost instantly to the plight of her people.

This unwilling participant has inadvertently stimulated the energy of demonstrators, and has intoxicated events, rapidly evolving them into a full-blown revolution. The success of this revolt is in doubt over the short term, since the ayatollahs are willing and able to take any and all action to retain power. Ali Khamenei has not only gone well beyond the revolutionary Grand Ayatollah Komenei’s tenets, and moved himself toward self-deification, but he is determined to convert his theocracy into a family business, as he grooms and prepares his son to perpetuate his very own history making dynasty.

Neda has made an emotional connection with the world. She is being mythologised, partly because the large demonstrating crowds needed a focus, or rallying point, which opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi could not deliver. She has stimulated the popular will. Her biggest contribution may be the impact that she has had on Western leadership. Obama’s reticence on making any statement pertaining to the theocratic thugs he wanted to negotiate with, was broken by, “I strongly condemn these unjust actions.” While this may be typically indecisive, it is a statement that says, “I’m moving off the fence, because I now have no choice, and doing otherwise would show Americans that I lack resolve.” Although this comes well after denouncements of the violence by European leaders, American voices and feelings toward the violence on the streets of Iran have finally been heard officially.

The Iranian leadership cares little what Obama or any other leaders have to say. They are staying on course to retain power at all cost. Only force will alter their determination. At this point they may fear that the retaliation against them might be as extreme as the program of assassinations they very effectively implemented themselves in 1979 against the Shah and his regime.

Neda’s graphic entry into martyrdom will have put an end to the placating of ruling Iranian thugs by a European leadership which has enjoyed business as usual for a generation, sanctions or not. Westerners will no longer idly accept the mollifying that has populated the foreign policy agenda of both Europe and North America on Iran. The ayatollahs and mullahs are prepared to decimate their own population, and will kill many Iranians in the days ahead. We may find Khamenei verbally pretending to give voice to the opposition, however, the systematic aggression will continue, and dissenters will disappear.

Some write that there are divisions among the ruling elite that will grow deeper as the demonstrations and the killings continue. Reality suggests that all members of this despotic regime are complicit in the pilfering of the country’s treasury, and they will in the end go down together. There should also be little doubt of the extreme measures they are capable of perpetrating on other countries once they acquire nuclear potency.

Neda Agha-Soltan has become the perfect symbol for demonstrators who innocently sought a voice in their governance. Reaction to the squashing of that voice is energizing a revolution. The world now waits in anticipation for the day when Iran’s military declares itself “neutral,” and a new leader from within, or from exile, surfaces, marking a new era for Iran, and for the whole of the Middle East.

.... Read more!

• A New Dawn For Iran?

In the wake of demonstrations crowding hundreds of thousands onto the streets of Teheran, the world conjures up visions of the 1979 Islamic revolution. No such event is occurring today. The demonstrations are not revolutionary, but they will bring change.

If we were witnessing a revolution, the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with the rest of the vast network of mullahs, would order the army to wreak havoc on the demonstrating public. There is no overt demand for change in the theological administration of the country. There is, however, a relatively peaceful and powerful request for alternate voices in governance, and for a lifting of oppressive measures.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponent Mir-Hossein Mousavi has indicated that he would seek to improve relations with the West and enhance the role of women, however, he should not be mistaken for a reformist. Had he been elected, change within Iran would have been minimal. Mousavi is a supporter of the ruling ayatollahs, and is unlikely to appear confrontational to the well entrenched rulers.

Many Iranians seek progress, but ayatollahs and religion will not easily surrender suzerainty over social, economic, and political life in Iran. Unless the violence on the streets escalates the demonstrations into visibly bloody confrontations that are filmed, and disseminated on YouTube, Khamenei will remain firmly in control for the foreseeable future. He will carefully manage Ahmadinejad’s newfound vigor following his landslide victory, and navigate around the Iranian President’s calls for cleaning up corruption among the powerful clerics.

Demonstrators, University Students in particular, are being threatened with the death penalty if they “incite unrest.” Reports indicate that demonstrators are being arrested by the Basij (the Revolutionary Guards), however, their ultimate physical abuse or dispositions will not find their way to our TV sets, or to our computer screens.

Even with the violence, there is a possibility that the marches will continue, and will have impact. The unusual size of the current demonstrations could coerce and change the inertia that has gripped Iranians wishing for an end to the economic and political abuse they are enduring. It may be that the growing crowds, comprised principally of young people, are the proverbial genie that cannot be repressed back into the bottle.

The vast diaspora of Iranians, who left Iran over the past two decades, provides a passionate international network supportive of the demonstrations favoring change. There are anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iranians living in the United Sates and Canada, many in Southern California as well as in Toronto and Vancouver. If, in time, the genie succeeds in remaining free of the bottle, a great many of these expatriates would rapidly find their way back to their homeland, bringing their education, contacts, capabilities and money with them. Their return would stimulate an economic growth for Iran that would rapidly escalate the country’s standard of living.

Iran is rich in natural resources, and Iranians have long demonstrated a propensity for hard work and creativity, along with a willingness to “build,” when they are not suppressed by autocratic governments. The lifting of sanctions alone would provide Iran an immediate and discernable economic boost. The resulting socio-economic transformation within Iran would change the Middle East. Iran would become positively pivotal in the region.

The mullahs may have long feared that change would eventually come in reaction to their abuse of the population. Many have moved the proceeds of their pilfering offshore, “just in case.” Some have built themselves Los Angeles and West Vancouver mansions, in anticipation that the gun might eventually not suppress the crowds in Tehran.

The potential for change is directly conditional on the persistence and endurance of the youth filling the streets of Iran. It will be unstoppable if the demonstrations move to the poorer rural regions of the country. Although the nature of the change that crowds are clamoring for may not for now be as dramatic as the video scenes escaping the crackdown, their demands will persist. We can expect that the extent of that change will gradually expand to encompass the nature of Iranian governance. It is now only a matter of time. The growing crowds are shouting, and are being heard.

Note: Jun.19 update - Should the violence being perpetrated on the demonstrators continue or escalate, the ayatollahs and mullahs will have turned these demonstrations into a full-fledged revolution. Our best wishes go to the demonstrators who are defiant, and seek a reduction in their oppression.

.... Read more!

• Does America Yearn For A Monarch?

Life Magazine fabricated a mythical monarchy in the early sixties by applying polish and airbrushing to John and Jacky Kennedy, elevating them into a Camelot. America couldn’t get enough of the magazine, and rewarded its uncommon “access,” to the JFK White House with financial success. The corporate strategy very successfully built an unprecedented, but mutually beneficial, relationship.

This was not the first popularization of an American President, but it was the most successful anointing of an almost-monarch. We all admire true heroes, however, there are many who seem to require more than honored heroes. To satisfy that craving, we create stars and surround them with irrational adoration bordering on veneration. The mainstream media (MSM) plays a role in the process, and has much to gain from it just as Life Magazine solidified itself, and its profits with the creation of the American version Camelot.

Life Magazine presented a glossy veneer of a young President and his family, because it could, and because it would not have been as profitable to have done otherwise. The public reaction was extremely receptive, and the oversized periodical continued to publish its principal stars’ immaculate images.

America has long succumbed to Hollywood’s very adept star manufacturing machine. Studios and production companies very effectively and profitably practiced the art of star production, as well as veneer creation, for a century. Whether the individuals in question believe their own press, matters little to the studios and the machinery that creates them. They are ephemeral creations that have no truth other than that of existence in the percepts of adoring devotees. They scatter nonsense, and often lies, and all utterances are gratefully accepted. Stars step into the light, feigning timidity, as they engage in absorbing gushing adulation. The star making process has been perfected and whether young, old, intelligent, rich, poor, educated or not, it seems that everyone is susceptible to its affects.

In 2009, the MSM has been provided a new President, whose natural tendency is already a well-prepared gleaming image, requiring little visible airbrushing. Obama’s promotional machine has had the added and unabashed advantage of having its subject well versed and practiced in the art of sermon delivery. Obama placed himself on a pedestal, and the MSM has delivered applause and sometimes infatuation. The zeal of this infatuation has translated into an abandonment of any application of journalistic ethics or common sense. The obsession has been transferred onto the population eager to satisfy a yearning for a monarch. This is not to suggest that America wants a king, because it doesn’t, however, there is evidently a vast portion of society that yearns for a personality that it believes will transcend it to a place where Camelots exist. America doesn’t want to literally revisit the anachronism of royalty, yet the British monarchy is as popular in the U.S. as it is in Great Britain.

In Obama, America found a willing aspirant on whom it consigned the cloak and stature of monarch, the ultimate iteration of star. Modern versions of monarchs however, have no effective power, but they enjoy fulfillment of ceremonial roles. Obama accommodates that role rather effectively and continues his cultivation of the “I,” unabated. As President, he has avoided the thorny details of assiduous analysis on the most critical problems facing America, and has used sweeping, but banal statements of obvious principals, while his appointees actually implement policies and programs inconsistent with the claims of the message.

Obama has filled the ceremonial role of monarch with enchanting voyages across the country and around the world, although the country might wish for more representation of America’s interests, rather than promotion of its leader as internationalist. While the public and the MSM might treat a monarch with reverence, a President should be treated as a politician, and challenged as such.

As President, Obama has yet to demonstrate any proclivity for practical leadership of the free nation envisioned by the unpretentious framers of the Constitution. As he insinuates government into all social and economic fibers of the country, the American taxpayer’s expectations of Obama’s heralded change will rapidly evaporate, the “self-evident truths” will become redefined, and the reality of the costs will become the new, overwhelming burden.

Now that the Congressional Budget Office has notified them that federal spending in 2019 will represent at least 25% of the GDP, all taxpayers should decide that a monarch just will not be injected into their futures in any form, and that their President should be challenged. There are enough stars floating out of Hollywood to satisfy desires of royalty.

.... Read more!

• Obama’s Not So Private Economic Conundrum

Having effectively been elected by a population believing in his redistribution of wealth promises, Obama has leaped into the fray of a game in which he has no experience. He arrived with an ideology, and seems to have learned little about the recession facing the Nation. Still he charges ahead. Along with millions of fawning supporters, Wall Street is quietly cheering and encouraging the moves of a neophyte CEO. You would too, if you controlled the game.

Many pundits and most of the mainstream media have intellectualized a rationality for the President’s actions with an unconvincing, “he’s a smart guy, he knows what he’s doing” or the very successful assignation, “the mess is Bush’s fault.” Others who once supported him now have stepped back a little with an abundance of “time will tell, give him some time,” brace-yourself sentiments. The American voters re-elected Bush to a rare second term, so this blames the voters, but more critically it is a disingenuous condemnation.

The anti-capitalism wave that swept the nation and elected Obama was a reaction to the financial sector’s abuse of influence and power. Within the reach of a compliant and not so watchful Congress, some players took absurd risks across the banking spectrum, breaking all rules of reasonable lending practices and leveraging. As Obama continues the out of control bailout of the financial services industry program Bush started, the problem America has faced for the past decade and continues to be saddled with, is the dearth of knowledge on the part of its President pertaining to its most critical challenge.

Any CEO who is perplexed when facing a balance sheet is incapable of effectively managing a large corporation, particularly one passing through a very turbulent and economically treacherous period. In such times, having in place an independent and objective Board of Directors is imperative, even if the CEO is aware. In the President’s case, Congress is expected to act as a balanced and diligent chamber, not an anesthetized rubber-stamping convocation. Both Republican and Democrats in Congress can take blame for having succumbed to the seduction of money, which led them to ignore the bubbles (housing and financial) that have imploded with worldwide ramifications. Congressionally mandated liberal (read: Standardless) mortgage qualifications, coupled with Greenspan’s loose money policies were the fuel that energized the bubbles. Bush was not responsible for the financial meltdown, and neither is Obama, although both can be accused of complacency. However, …

When the markets caved, Bush was in over his head facing challenges he did not understand, and he handed the hot potato to Paulson. Apparently Bush believed that a fox is the only one who has experience with chickens, and is therefore their inevitable overseer. It was evident that Bush had already vacated the White House premises mentally, and was running south for cover, hoping Obama would take over the reigns even before his time. In came Obama, with no more intimate knowledge, perhaps less, of the economic landscape and Wall Street than his predecessor. What did he do? Installed Paulson’s buddy and protégé of sorts to continue the good work of bailing out the financial community. Unfortunately for the taxpayers, Obama will continue to do whatever he is told to do.

At least Bush didn’t pretend he knew what he was doing. Obama’s ego on the other hand refuses to allow for such leak of doubt even in his private moments with the mirror. He is confident, and believes that he is intelligent, but the arrogance is leading him, and the Nation, overzealously into trouble. Problem is, the nation will pay for his ego and his lack of analysis or interest in educating himself.

As I’ve suggested previously he should shut the door of the Oval Office for a month, stay off Air Force One, and get a concentrated dose of education on the biggest challenges. He won’t. If America’s financial house is in order, every other challenge facing the country will be more easily remedied. It deserves his attention and intimate understanding of subtleties. A few phone calls will roundup all the teaching talent he can use. The objective is not to transform him into an economist. That would be just as disastrous. The goal it to get the CEO to become aware of what he doesn’t know, and get a grasp on some right questions to ask those that he has delegated authority to.

The U.S. Treasury and The Fed deserve his attention though they don’t want it. Who wants meddling when you’ve got yourself a key to the vault? They are happy to work with someone who doesn’t know enough to probe effectively with relevant examinations. They have been content for over a generation with residents of the White House who did not know what they didn’t know. Their jobs were made so much easier. Clinton might be the only President in recent memory who might have come close to being analytical and inquisitive. Have we so soon forgotten Allan Greenspan’s endless tenure and obscure meanderings who propelled the money markets over the edge? Why has Geithner’s failed role at the New York Fed garnered him ultimate power in the new Administration? Simple. His boss doesn’t know any different.

The occasionally heard rationalization, “we need those who brought us this mess to help clean it up,” is actually touted as if it made sense. … Not to American taxpayers, it doesn’t. With the bobbing head of the President, those who manipulated the fashioning of the worldwide recession are now tapping into the taxpayer pockets with schemes that will eventually surface, but to no avail. There will be no repercussions because there is no elected official who knows enough to dig, or has competence enough to conduct even superfluous due diligence.

When, for example, will taxpayers ever be apprized of the realities that will have allowed banks to market packaged toxic assets to funds, with the taxpayers, through the deft fingers of Geithner, guaranteeing the losses? ... The funds being pools of capital formed in partnership with Treasury where the taxpayer is fifty percent partner. Yes, you, the taxpayer will be a 50/50 partner, and that’s not good news because you are also the backstop on any losses incurred. Losses will represent much of the packages because we’re talking about mortgage loans that have been under water for some time and worse, these wondrous financial baskets include miasmal securities that were created by the geniuses running these now thrashed financial institutions. The outside independent fund “partners” have you to thank for their lack of risk. Don’t hold your breath waiting for transparency from Geithner. Geithner’s buddies will continue to be bailed, make billions, replenish their coffers, and taxpayers won’t know the hows, whens or whats. Ever. If you think you have a few bucks to invest, and want to get in on this action, good luck.

The big lie was that such radical measures were necessary if big lenders were ever going to lend again. Think about the absurdity of that statement. Your corner lemonade stand entrepreneur knows better than that. Oh, and the other sensible reason was that these giants of the financial world required their lost capital replenished. So, in go the taxpayers, threatened and squeezed into recapitalizing incompetent banks by overpaying for assets, … well, not assets so much as worthless toxic waste.

Thousands of banks across the country with solid financial statements could easily have been provided government backing to loosen some cash for loans, with deals and conditions pre-negotiated, etc., etc., etc., we could go on and on. The Geithners around him, by the way, could care less what Obama does with headaches like GM, Chrysler etc., so he plays pretend capitalist flexing his newfound CEO muscles, guided by an irresistible ideological need to change the rules of capitalism, another game far beyond his capacities and experience. He now seems to be an expert in the desires of the American public, which is apparently clamoring for electric automobiles, but is evidently doing it very silently.

The Administration’s bungling of the GM restructuring completely extinguished any possibilities of renegotiating the repressive union contracts that weighed heavily in the collapse of the auto industry. Obama’s support of unions, and his indulgence of their quid pro quo expectations will have detrimental effect on the taxpayer investment in GM. Obama is adding a whole new level of risk to investments – political risk. With GM and Chrysler as examples of overzealous government intrusion, and being very indicative of the overall climate in Washington, unionized companies and those encumbered with legacy liabilities, can expect to encounter serious difficulties raising capital in the foreseeable future. Unions have an important role to play in the economy, however, overstepping bounds of reason is detrimental to the “host.” The free market system needs oversight, however, Obama is taking the concept of oversight a little too personally, and his insinuation of government into the free market system is exceeding all constitutional expectations.

Meanwhile middle America awaits a positive outcome from its new President’s policies. It holds fervent hope that things will work out, and his wealth redistribution will magically trickle down to better jobs and higher incomes.

The money game and Wall Street are influenced by major players who never write tell-all books. There is no conspiracy, but there IS a game. Even Geithners are pawns in the game, but they play just the same. The vast independent pools of capital circling the globe, are directed by astute, quiet, effective and ruthless administrators. If you influenced the management of $500 billion and more, would you leave the investments to the vagaries and whims of markets? Would you risk the capital? Absolutely not. You would influence, and manage as much of the game as possible to achieve your objectives. You would do what you have to do to preserve capital first, and maximize returns second, to whatever extent possible, as would any mid sized, or small fund, or even minor investor.

As for Bushes and Obamas? They don’t know there is a game. Ideology is blinding, and with arrogance stirred in, the clustered aggregate, marketed and sold with masterful dexterity, will be detrimental to a whole nation’s economic well-being.

.... Read more!

• Obama’s Not So Free Money

Government interference has simply never, repeat never, enhanced the efficiencies of markets. While Obama may claim to be a scholar of history, he appears not to heed what he has read, or simply does not believe it. Learning, real learning, is a long process of trial and error. History is full of trials and errors. Why is this not obvious to the current White House resident?

Attaching operational strings to government stimulus money is forcing many companies to take actions they would not otherwise implement. Along the longest and biggest by dollar volume trading border in the world, are endless American and Canadian communities, as well as companies that have co-existed successfully for generations through mutually beneficial trade. Obama’s exigent and rigid imposition of trade restrictions such as provisions requiring that only U.S. made steel, iron, and other manufactured products be purchased for state and local projects funded with stimulus funds, are twisting communities into stagnation and onto the unemployment lines. While in contravention to the free trade agreement between the two countries, such sweeping and misinformed restrictions have generated reaction from both Sellers and Buyers on either side of the 49th. parallel.

The impact on the U.S. side is that Americans are losing jobs. Canada continues to represent a sustaining market for many American companies manufacturing products used in the housing industry, for example, while the U.S. housing market has dried up for the foreseeable future. Why annoy your own marketplace, and propel it to react and to stop buying from you? “Buy American” makes sense where communities have decided where and on what such stance is of benefit. Enforcing such protectionist programs wholesale is being blind to realities and needs of business, trade, and life of communities where the rubber meets the proverbial road.

Government has no business dictating methods or practices to companies. Set laws for the land and punish those who break them, but don’t interfere with the functioning of such a critical element in the successful progress of a society. In particular, don’t interfere when you have no concept of what a business requires to effectively and profitably function. Allow companies to decide for themselves where to source products and services, particularly when such products are not available to them other than going North of the border. When businesses complain of the paperwork mountain required along with endless strings attached, someone should realize that the Obama free money has been rendered too onerous to be accepted.

If government is going to even establish suggested guidelines, first understand the nature of the beast. Canada, for example, is America’s biggest trading partner. Unlike almost every other nation the U.S. trades with, Canada’s standard of living, lifestyles and society in general are very similar to its own. England, Germany, and France don’t come close, and China isn’t remotely in the same ballpark.

Contrary to Obama’s representations to Unions, the reality is that Canada and the U.S. benefit from the NAFTA arrangement. Trade with China, on the other hand isn’t trade on equal footing, since China has imposed endless restrictions on imports. It is supremely idiotic to treat these different trading “partners,” with the same broad brush Obama style protectionism. While he pretends that he now does not wish to renegotiate NAFTA, his actions are not only confused, they are affirmatively ambiguous.

We can expect to find Obama once more make like Gretzky and implement a fast skate backwards down the ice on this front, much as we have seen him skate on almost everything else this administration has acted on. He forgot to do his homework and he will be forced to pull a reversal on the strings attached to the money, as will local and state governments involved in the cash distribution chain.

The financial services industry which came to represent an enormous percentage of the Nation’s total considered productivity output enchanted America into complacency and unreasonable personal debt. A self-serving Congress failed in its oversight of major financial service providers, and we are now enjoying the fruits of the deliberate bungling. America needs to return to creating, developing, building, and manufacturing, instead of being the world’s bean counter and dominant consumer.

Free enterprise did not bring us the current economic disaster, although free enterprise has become a favorite whipping post of many left leaning expectants of an uncurbed welfare state, and of the current administration. Businesses across Middle America should be allowed to function without government interference, and shouldn’t be made to feel that the new Administration has launched a war against them.

Dismembering the system that has produced the economic engine fueling America’s way of life will be detrimental to that standard of living. As he rushes headlong into an unfathomable indebting record $1.8 trillion deficit, Obama should stop long enough between Air Force One cross-Nation hops to listen a little more attentively to those businesses that are now saying, “No Thanks,” to the stimulus free money. He should pay special attention to the “why.” He should also establish for himself what might be defined as “free trade,” and what parameters such trade might entail before his next policy imposition.

.... Read more!