Mugabe in the Lurch

"The end of hyperinflation is always and everywhere a fiscal phenomenon."

This statement is true - or so I learned in econ class. So the government can end a hyperinflation, but what begins one?

I remembered this lesson when I read about the recent election woes in Zimbabwe, a nation previously infamous for its record-breaking inflations.

Many hyperinflations start when hard currency grows faster than real output - which means that a dollar today is much, much more than a dollar tomorrow. Needless to say, people start to expect that their money will be worthless in the future, which means it is (by a vicious feedback cycle) worth less today.

The fact that there is excess liquidity in the economy (think the opposite of the liquidity crunch recently experienced in the United States) means that money markets fall out of equilibrium, and an unstable market is nobody's friend.

But MORE simply put, hyperinflations start when a military leader (Mugabe?) prints cash to pay soldiers. He prints too much cash, prices start to go up, suddenly everything's awhirl. And yes, chaos breaks out of confinement that easily.

Now, of course, Mugabe's up a real creek. He's wrecked the economy (and let's not mince words: the recent troubles have as much to do with him as anyone) and his friends want to call in their debts. He's unpopular at home and abroad.

But short of matriculating at the George W. Bush Center for Men Who Can't Lead Good, what options does he have? And what option does Zimbabwe have? Regardless of whom they elect, they face a terrible and uphill battle. The climb down from an inflationary spiral is often more torturous than the ascent, and involves recessions so deep they feel endless. (See Argentina in 2001. Ending hyperinflation there resulted in a poverty rate over 50%.)

The problem with political upheaval is always one and the same. A constantly changing and ineffective civil service in turn leads to poor administration and enforcement. Production declines when regular citizens live in fear and the absence of opportunity, and eventually, the government in power attempts to pay its cronies through seignorage. Hence: hyperinflation.

This timeline does not absolutely apply: there must be exceptions. But the link can't be denied. A government facing a fiscal deficit can only finance itself through one of two options: seignorage or borrowing.

Governments that cannot borrow (poor credit, instability) resort to seignorage. Governments with an excellent credit rating (the United States) choose to borrow.

In fact we might have more in common with Zimbabwe than we realize. The United States, too, fights an uphill battle in Iraq, and our government faces mounting unpopularity at home and abroad. And we've mortgaged ourselves to the hilt. Meanwhile, Mugabe has leveraged himself past the point of no return in order to pay for his war.

I wonder how it'll all end up?

The Things We Do Not Know

I shouldn't be posting this.

Today I learned that a friend of a friend of mine was court martialled and released from the Army for the alleged torture of Iraqis.

I'm not close with this person, it would be safe to say that we met once, very briefly, and exchanged maybe five words the entire time. I can't say much more than that.

The legal documents are accessible online, but out of a (passing) respect for the privacy of the situation, I won't link to them. There were so many US soldiers found guilty in those trials that it doesn't give much away to admit to this acquaintance.

Let me be brief. It's shocking - and uncomfortable - to be in the presence of someone even dimly associated with this. The pictures of prisoner abuse horrified America, but what was worse was that we most likely didn't see the worst.

Looking through the trial documents of multiple soldiers online, however, what emerges is a more fragmented and difficult picture: a portrait of the moral no-man's-land of war. There are several facts that, by virtue of their historical persistence, we can accept for the truth.

1) Some of the US soldiers who were punished were innocent.
2) Some of the guilty soldiers went free.
3) Some of the torture incidents were exaggerated in later reports.
4) Some of the torture incidents were underexaggerated, brushed under the rug, or never reported at all.

But the question that remains, long after perusing the online archive, is this: was this part of the general hideousness of war, which permits abuse in a world where the consequences of someone's actions depend on national or ethnic origin rather than on absolute morality? Was it a systematic element of US operations in Iraq, an element implicitly encouraged by Pentagon higher-ups as a method of demoralizing a difficult enemy? Was it a demonstration of the ugliness of the race and class barriers that lurk within all people? Was it Heart of Darkness?

These are all things that, years later, we do not definitively know. They are things that some people would say do not matter. Except that war has an aftermath. Iraqi memories are going to be longer than ours, perhaps because their innocents suffered in this war even more than ours did (after all, the war took place on their soil. Saddam, for all the rumors, did not launch an official attack on the United States).

What this all boils down to is that years from now, some Americans will be scratching their heads, wondering "Why do they hate us?" A lot of the media like to mock these Americans. Who is "they" ask the mockers. Do those poor shmucks even know?

But we know who "they" are. Do we know who "we" are? Do we know, any of us, what exactly has or hasn't been done in our name? Is it easy to be moral when you don't have to fight for your life? Or is it harder?

A nation should be aware that its conduct in wartime is a part of its spirit. In a few short years, we squandered a (perhaps mistaken) reputation built on years of staunch advocacy of certain "universal rights." Wars, by their nature, erode those rights.

What I am saying, of course, is that the toll on all concerned is almost too vast to comprehend. The United States has paid for Iraq in the lives of US soldiers (those who died, those who lost their reputations, those who were rightly or wrongly accused, those who served and were injured), the lives of Iraqi civilians, the lives of Iraqi soldiers, its international reputation for human rights and the massive opportunity cost (education, scientific research, Social Security) of the billions and billions of dollars we've spent on it.

We've paid a lot. That kid I met once, briefly, has paid a lot. And by extension, so have most of us. What did any of us get out of it? That's another thing we might never exactly know.

Chastity Makes the News

The New York Times is clearly one of those well-intentioned newsrooms where senior editors encourage their hordes of minion writers to get "the scoop" on minority communities.

I really wish they wouldn't. The result is pieces like "In Europe, Debate over Islam and Chastity."

It's true that nothing whets the American news appetite like a) Muslims and b) virgins, two demographic groups the average American finds incredibly weird. The Times batted a hit with the mainstream, since this piece of fluff is now the most email-ed article on NYTimes.com.

And with care and the proper attention, this story might have been great. Instead, it's a mess. First off, the author cites no stats on grounds that there are none. In journalism classes we're taught that it's really a sellout for a writer to resort to the vague "a small but growing number" when trying to justify a trend. This writer not only resorts to it, she offers a lame, one-line excuse as to why she did so. She says that hymen reconstruction surgery is so deeply personal there are no stats available. I find this hard to believe. We're talking about a cosmetic procedure, performed by licensed doctors, in hospitals. I'm sure she could have dug up some numbers.

Second, the article frames the question in light of Muslim "culture." I'm not sure that Elaine Sciolino is an expert on Muslim culture, assuming she even wants to be. Witness the fact that most of the people in her article, the ones having the "debate" over Islam and chastity, are not Muslim.

In fact, she waits until the end of the piece to cite the viewpoint of a lone Muslim dissident, who actually (haha!) turns out to be vice president of a large Muslim Cultural Center. So he's not just some man she grabbed on his way home from the mosque. He says "The man was the biggest donkey of all" but we have to wait until the end of page 2 before we hear someone in the Muslim community call this "small but growing trend" for the absurdity it is?

This story could have been one of several things. It could have been "Among Muslim immigrants to France/England/etc, surgery narrows gap between permissive Western values and religious tradition" or it could have been "In England, hot debate over woman whose marriage was annulled because she was not a virgin." But these better stories would have required more research and better knowledge of the communities into which Sciolino was delving. She could have discussed honestly the difficulties of many European governments in dealing with new immigrants, particularly Muslims. She could have talked about differences between Muslim immigrant communities. She could have researched attitudes towards virginity as expressed by prominent Muslim clerics and scholars in the West. (And to be honest, a real delve might have unearthed the fact that traditional Muslims are really very similar to all those chastity ball dads and "Silver Ring Thing"-ers we've seen before.)

Instead, Sciolino and her faithful "native" sidekick traverse Europe, find a few African women who have had the surgery (and never mind, here, the vast difference between religious and cultural practices of African, Arab, Turkish and American Muslims, never mind the variety to be found in the vast diaspora of the world's third-largest religion) and file this sucker before the Wednesday deadline.

It comes off as what it is: a cliche-ridden, cobbled-together, inadequately-sourced and (worst of all!) misleading piece of tripe.

The real difference between McCain and Obama

Much has been made of the differences between McCain and Obama, differences in rhetorical style, personal history, professional qualifications. But the real difference between them only becomes obvious in their AIPAC speeches.

Both politicians tried last week to forge a personal connection with one of Washington's strongest lobbies. Each brought up what he believed to be the strongest moment in America's relationship with the Jewish world.

McCain said, "When President Truman recognized the new State of Israel sixty years ago, he acted on the highest ideals and best instincts of our country." He also referred to the Holocaust, saying "And today, when we join in saying "never again," that is not a wish, a request, or a plea to the enemies of Israel." He played on the most critical and obvious fear of Jews in America: that the Holocaust will be repeated, and that the ugliness of the past doesn't go away.

Obama, on the other hand, chose a very different historical moment to analyze: " In the great social movements in our country’s history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. " Of the future, he said, "Their legacy is our inheritance. "

Both men toed the party line, saying that they would never discount military force as an option when dealing with Israel's enemies. Obama also said, "I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel’s efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians." And he spoke to one of my (pet) concerns when he said "Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps - consistent with its security - to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements - as it agreed to with the Bush Administration at Annapolis."

But ultimately, the difference between the two men came down to this. McCain said, "The threats to Israel's security are large and growing, and America's commitment must grow as well." Obama said, "I deeply understood the Zionist idea - that there is always a homeland at the center of our story."

And if McCain did well to capitalize on fear, Obama may have done better to talk about home. The truth is, Jews in America are just that: Jews in America. My many Jewish friends can criticize and commend Israel in equal measure. They are the recipients of a dual legacy: that of the Holocaust, yes, but also that of the people who realized that "never again" meant standing up against bigotry in all its forms, across nations and cultures.

This legacy is something that McCain, the torture survivor, could also have cited. Because McCain knows, just as Obama does, that fear can inspire strength. What is telling is that McCain chose not to talk about that. Instead, he talked about the foundation of Israel, which was, in many ways, not America's strongest moment. After treating the Jews of the world abominably, the US joined Europe in creating a nation where none existed, without consulting the people there or considering the consequences. Instead of offering refuge to Jews fleeing the European death camps, America preferred to send them far, far away.

That, in McCain's opinion, was one of our moments of greatest national strength.

I Cry Over Milk That Has Yet to be Spilled

My first mistake was buying the planner.

It was bright pink, and obscenely cheery and compact, and it had space in it for 1.5 years. It seemed perfect. It wasn't until today that I realized I'd made a terrible error.

See, I was flipping through the pages to write in my graduation date - which by the way, is in three weeks. And suddenly I realized: after graduation, there are 12 more months for me to fill in this little planner (assuming I don't lose it, which the odds are against). There will come a time a year from now when I'll be able to flip through to the beginning, and I'll notice the little notes I made "DZ Cubs Game" and "Brings Props and Costumes for Castle" and "Hindi midterm 3" and "Dillo Day Shindig" and I'll have to accept that an era in my life actually ended, somewhere between pages 60 and page 63.

This may sound melodramatic, and it is, but it reminds me of this heroine I read about in sixth grade, who wrote letters to herself. Every year on her birthday she wrote herself a letter, and she opened the letter she'd written the year before. I tried this, but before the first year was up I'd forgotten where it was, and I found it by accident years later, and it was about halfway through (where I wrote "let's be honest, M-- is the only guy in our sixth grade class whom I'd even consider dating" that I was so horrified I burned it)

Anyway, that experiment failed, and thank God, because what an exercise in misery. I hate looking back because to me, nostalgia is more terrifying than heights. I realize, of course, that life is not in fact a vast funnel narrowing inexorably into Death, but I'd still rather not contemplate the infinite.

Because what frightened me earlier is not that one day I'll look back and realize what time has gone by, but that today, here and now, I have no idea what lies ahead. The thought of the entire universe that goes by in a year is so frightening. I've always been unnecessarily frightened by this, and for years after something ends I spend far too much time feeling belatedly bereft, just to avoid feeling presently confused.

This is a bad strategy. So now I'm of two minds: either destroy the damn planner and get a new one when my new life starts, or keep it as a test of my character. After all, there might come a day when the phrase "Hindi midterm 3" makes me want to cringe just as badly as my sixth grade flames do now. Or when I don't really care at all.

He with the loudest voice...

I often hear educated people in the United States excuse their anti-Muslim views by saying "if the majority of the world's Muslims don't support terrorism, why don't they step up to condemn it?" This argument is bigotry masquerading as reason. Plenty of Muslims condemn terrorism - today I picked up a copy of Al bayan, the newsletter for our university's Muslim Cultural Students Association. At the risk of being ridiculed by their peers, the editors write that they chose to distribute Al Bayan campuswide because they wanted "to give our voice a public position and the power to inform."

What about Asra Nomani, who went to the front of the mosque and for her trouble received threats against her life (in addition to a lucrative career as a writer).

What about Mukhtar Mai?

What about the Iraqi Muslims who hide their Jewish neighbors from state reprisal?

Is this not moral courage? In standing up to the doctrines that insist women belong in the back of the mosque, that Muslims should stay silent, that rape victims should kill themselves, and that Muslims should terrorize Jews, these people resist. In doing so they risk their lives. Men called Mukhtar in the middle of the night threatening to repeat the gang-rape that devastated her life. Others told Nomani they would slaughter her "halal-style."

Do these acts of moral courage count for nothing? In resisting the terrorism that controls their daily lives, aren't these people defying terrorism? Aren't they attempting to recreate a peaceful Islam in the modern world?

If all commentators who said "Muslims should speak up" got a midnight call threatening to slit their throats as thanks for expressing their beliefs, how many would still speak up?

By making those comments, we demean the bravery of Muslims all over the world, every day, who risk everything they have and more to make the world better for all of us.

Education: the Only Human Necessity

I had no words for this. In fact, I'd planned on leaving it as a testament to the consummate and obvious folly of the Bush administration, but in the interest of honesty I should add that the Fulbrights were reinstated.

But here's what I can't let go of: the Defense Ministry kook who justified Israel's first decision not to let the students leave Gaza said "Education is not a humanitarian necessity."

Whoa. It kind of makes you wonder: what else doesn't qualify as a humanitarian necessity? Israel's strategy of "isolating" Gaza reminds me eerily of the US internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. It was a shame for our nation, one that we seem to skip over in history class perhaps because there's just no way to excuse it. If education doesn't qualify as a humanitarian necessity, what does?

The largely innocent people of Gaza are suffering for the crimes of their extremists. This may satisfy some Israelis' desire for revenge, but how does it help anyone else? The Palestinians cannot leave to attend university, to visit dying relatives in the West Bank, or to assume any of the apparatus of a free existence.

Before people say that it's extreme to compare Gaza to an internment camp, remember that part of Israel's strategy is to strictly control the flow of supplies into Gaza. Who knows what that supply is, if the people in charge of enforcing the blockade think education is not a humanitarian necessity?

A comparable strategy would be if the United States fenced off Texas and allowed no one in or out in order to solve the problem of illegal immigrants moving from Texas to other states. (Wait...)

Israel's line seems to be "until they behave, they get nothing." But who's 'they?' If there wasn't a 'they' before there will certainly be one now.

Do the innocent people of Gaza deserve to suffer for the crime of being Palestinian? Because it seems like that's what's happening.