A day in the life of New York

The city through my eyes or rather my lens not that of Sex and the City or Jerry Bruckheimer

Fleet Week provides a much needed reprieve to those serving in the Navy and Marines. I may not agree with the mission but I can appreciate an all volunteer military and the sacrifices they make. St Marks and 2nd NYC

love is in the air. St Marks and 2nd Ave

Girl on a stoop, St Marks St Manhattan, New York

Lanterns at ケンカ, St Marks, NYC

のれん(Noren) at ケンカ(Kenka), St Marks, NYC

Menu at Kenka on St Marks, NYC

The Badger at Kenka, St Marks, NYC

Chinese delivery man on 9th and 1st Ave, NYC

Man with writers block in Thompson Sq Park, Alphabet City, NYC

Bike on a tree, Thompson Sq Park, Alphabet City, NYC

Public garden, Clinton St Lower East Side, NYC

Statue, public garden, Thompson Sq Park, Alphabet City, NYC

The King of CLinton St, Alphabet City, NYC

La Rasa on Delancey Street, Lower East Side, NYC

Lantern on Clinton St, Lower East Side

Fire hydrant on Clinton St Lower East Side Manhattan

Never acknowledged in Sex and the City or any Jerry Bruckheimer, this is the real back bone of the New York economy and the people who make our lives possible.

Today in New York

I decided to create a new thread called today in New York, chronically what I see on the street from the perspective of a living, breathing, working New Yorker.

Queens bound N train

Manhattan bound N train (31st street, Queens NY)

East River

East River Tug

Mexican Ice Cream Truck

Window reflection, York and 84th Street

Things that make you say "What?".

Excerpt form conversation with a Unix administrator.

Person 1) So these demonstrations at the ableton live expo are pretty cool. You going to try it live?

Person 2) Yea, here check it our. Person 2 plays a Ramones cover.

Person 1) wait, arn't you a 7th day adventist?

Person 2) Yea, why?

Person 1) But you just played a Ramon's cover, is that allowed? I though you couldn't play that sort of music.

Person 2) My parents are cool with it as long as I don't play it in church. My parents and I still don't watch moves though.

Person 1) What do you mean you don't go to movies?

Person 2) Well you never know when the Rapture is going to happen.

Person 1) wait, does Jesus take a snap shot or something at the time of the Rapture and review what you are doing?

Person 2) Yea, something like that.

Person 1) but Jesus is cool with you playing the Ramones.

Person 2) I guess so.

Person 1) Something is just not satisfying to me about that answer.

Too many serious posts lately, time for more mindless ranting.

Mindless observations from central park.

1) Who buys this crap?

When ever I go to the park, there is always an endless precession of these vendors selling generic photos of new york city and central park in winter/spring, yet I have yet to see anyone buy any of these fabulous pieces of art let alone walk into someone's home in new york and see one hanging on the wall. Clearly they must make enough to pay for their hack license and i suppose enough to eat but where does the merchandise go? It is as if there is some void that swallows the "art" and regurgitates money. And is this what happens when you move to new york to become an "Artist" after college and discover that the world thinks your no warhol; thus doomed to a life of street art sales associate? Suppose it is better than being a walmart super store sales associate, same amount of insurance coverage anyway.

2) people in new york resemble their dogs, do they buy dogs that match their personalities on purpose or is it their subconscious that drives the purchase?

Take the two subjects to the left for instance.

Dog A), small, yapping, in your face and overtly shaking. From my observations the owner, his yapping in your face behavior came in the form of snark and sarcasm, I don't doubt that if push came to shove he would stand there shaking like a bald little chihuahua.

Dog B) much like his owner was a mild mannered friendly individual, burly but but super friendly. However; he had the swagger of an ex-marine or perhaps a former apartheid soldier. Friendly on the surface but when in a bind has no problem slaughtering the first available animal for a dinner of bush meet.

3) the diametrically apposed fringe of the park crowd.

Although there is great diversity in the fare weather park crowd, there are two groups that stand at the extreme polar opposite, they fall into the following categories: the uncomfortable over dressed and the near naked sunbather.

The first group make every uncomfortable, I didn't take any photos but these are the people who are wearing jeans, a sweater, and a sun hat in the park when it is over 90 degrees out. I understand that you have a fundamental fear of a tan, perhaps like a vampire but wouldn't it have been mush easier to stay indoors?

The far left of this is the urban sunbather. Although central park is not nearly as bad as the high line with all the people having sex in the windows of the Standard Hotel, it is almost nearly perverse. Although I do not mind seeing a woman in a bikini with the body of an olympic athlete taking in the rays, it may have some profound on little jimmy. It would be really embarrassing to get your first erection in the park after viewing a almost nude tight bodied sun bather. I understand that Manhattan is far from the beach, but come on, there are no shortage of tanning salons or pools in the city, perhaps a more appropriate venue for bearing almost all.

That's it, Christoff out -->

The Buy America provision and the effects of protectionism on global trade.

Although there is no doubt that in the current system of integrated economies that has come to exist through globalization has had many benefits for all of those who choose to participate, often in times of crisis people look to protectionist measures. First and foremost we must consider that politicians are subject to the approval of their constituencies. During times of economic growth and stable domestic employment, politicians generally have carte blanc to conduct what matters they see fit, provided it does not result in the embarrassment of their constituencies or erupt into a nation wide scandal. During times of chaos, finical turbulence or high unemployment coupled with inflation such as those during the 70’s 80’ and today, many constituents often feeling the pressure of finical woes call their elected officials to come to their rescue through domestic initiatives that will lessens the amount of capital leaving the countries and thus stimulate domestic investment to provide economy growth in the local economy.

The question of whether or not protectionist clauses like the buy America provision of the US Recovery act of 2009 or the similar Buy China Act currently floating around Beijing may have more to do with the political make up of the country and the balance of trade rather than a direct effect of the spending initiatives themselves.

According to the US Census Bureau, between January and May 2009, the US trade deficit with China was about $85 billion. The deficit may suggest that because US companies and manufacturing have all but left the greater United States for lower cost labor and resources, we many not even currently have the manufacturing infrastructure to meet the demands of all the capital need to move the projects forward towards their construction. In addition, Americans have become so use to relying on the relatively cheap cost of good coming from China, that in the event of a buy America clause, US project holders may not be able to make enough profit as the cost of the project will skyrocket do to paying full price for domestic products that were not kept artificially low by dumping on the market or other government subsidies.

In addition, because of the US trade imbalance, in order for the American economy to stay afloat, money will need to continue to pour out of America is people from other countries are to be able to buy the expensive good that are left in the American market, such as car and software.
The US political system also plays an important role on the speed of recovery, unlike China and its centralized government; the US is a democracy and as such is often burdened tedious amounts of red tape and bid contract in order to achieve anything, something that is particularly noticeable when you consider that only 10% of the US Recovery Act funds have been used as of this date. Precisely because of the amount of bureaucracy and infighting among members of congress and their pet projects that a Buy America provision would never work, as nobody would agree on a vendor of choice.

China unlike the US with a strong central government would and is not at a disadvantage because of its protectionist policies found in the Buy China portion of their recovery act. Because much of China’s FID has resulted in a build up in manufacturing heavy and other wise, the country is readily able to produce the product it needs locally increasing the side of its workforce and getting its materials for the cheapest possible price, maximizing its cost – efficiency ratio while simultaneously decreasing unemployment, creating more spending and increased productivity. Due to the large holding of foreign reserve currencies, especially US Dollars, any durable goods and services that are not readily available in China can simply be purchased form its other trading partners, whether here in the west or of a more centrally located producer such as Japan or Korea.

China's ability to move out of a recession thought protections means may be directly influenced by the model the government runs on. Unlike the west, China has a strong central government, as such there is little in the way of fulfilling its commands. That is not to say that there is no infighting nor pet projects in China, however, since the government is in control of the construction efforts, projects can be made shovel ready with little to no administrative time waste. Evidence of this can be seen in China’s continued GDP growth, although it is less rapid than in the past could of years, statistical data suggests the economy is still growing upwards of 6% while that of the US stays relatively flat even after the capital infusion into the market by congress.

Whether or not protectionist moves by local governments are a bad thing perhaps can be directly tied the method in which your political system is built on. Clearly in this day in age, a fully global integrated market economy like that of the US is unable to sustain itself without strong international trade. On the other hand China with its strong central government seems to be doing quite well for itself, perhaps the question isn’t whether protections is bad or not, but rather how far are you willing to leverage your growth and economy on the backs of your trading partners and as a government what responsibility does the government have in regards to regulation to prevent further financial crises form starting?

US Census Bureau. "Trade in Goods (Imports, Exports and Trade Balance) with China." http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2009 (July 27, 2009).

Iran and the proliferation of fusion weapons.

In an ever divided and volatile Middle East, what will be the impact region and the world at large if Iran does gain the ability to produce and maintain a nuclear arsenal and if indeed Iran does go nuclear, should someone intervene and how?

This essay will first attempt to explain why states such as Iran would desire to go nuclear, focusing on internal political forces, technological resources, domestic security and regional hegemonic desires. This essay will then try analyze the impact on the region if any, and what can or should be done about their proliferation.

Why would Iran want to go nuclear? Although many might think the answer is simple, to case the destruction, its sworn enemy by its own hand, but perhaps the answer is more complicated than that. States frequently acquire or at least attempt to acquire nuclear weapons for a number of political reasons. Political pressure can come not only from outside the country but also in. One may as how political pressure is exerted from outside of the country that may drive states to build and test nuclear weapons but often it is the pressure form other states that are a driving force in the development. Both Iran and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea are prime examples of this. While the outside world develop U.N. Security Council sanctions and more often embargos, the isolation only drives “rogue states” further pressure their goal. It is precisely these sanctions that make leaders want to assert them selves even more vigorously in shows of swagger. Iran for example has been had a growing policy roll in the middle east especially with the invasion of Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion but many in the west do not give it the credence or respect in foreign policy circles that the mullahs feel they deserve. How does the perceived foreign policy impotence influence demotic pressure to develop nuclear weapons?

Often when countries are marginalized, there is a large public out flow of anger and resentment. This is particularly applicable in the case of Iran, who still holds resentment, albeit justified, for the roll the U.S. government played in the coup de tat that ousting of the elected Nationalist president Mohammed Musaddiq and resulted in the instillation of the Shaw. The domestic pressure provided by the people is only intensified when the U.S. labels their state as rogue or a member of the “axis of evil’. Internal pressure also comes from military leaders who are always pushing for increased military spending in hopes that their budgets will not get cut the following year or and from politicians who use national pride as a means to secure votes. Although domestic pressure may provide political willingness to develop nuclear weapons, what are the effects of technological development?

According to Singh and Way, “once a country develops the latent capacity to develop nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time until it is expected to do so”.[1] Thus as Iran has developed into a relative modern nation by Middle East standards, it does not seem unreasonable that they would indeed seeks to develop a modern weapons arsenal. The revenue that Iran has amassed from its rich oil resources have offered Iran a spring board to modernity, increasing its scientific development, increased literacy and economic prosperity, all tools necessary for the development of a modern nuclear state. With the increase of scientific discovery and literacy standards, it becomes cheaper for state to develop nuclear weapons and thus increase the likely hood of them doing so. Increased scientific it seems provide a state with an avenue to produce, but what are the domestic security concerns that make states like Iran move from the discovery state to the acquisition and development stage?

The willingness rather than the ability to produce nukes can perhaps be explained in realist terms best, security concerns. According to Waltz, this because of the “threat environment”, states are highly likely to build nuclear arsenals when there is an increased external security threats. The threat environment however will result in a security dilemma as other rival states attempt to level the playing field by building their own nuclear weapons to stifle said rivals military edge. In the case with Iran, it could be argued that their building of nuclear weapons is merely a response to the uneven distribution of power in the region, as Israel, Iran’s regional rival, already possesses an estimated 20 to 60 nuclear weapons. By realist arguments, it is only logical that Iran would indeed seek to build its own stockpile to increase its own security. In addition, with the end of the cold war, there is no bipolarity of superpowers, which provide a security guarantee. With no structured security alliance, Iran has only itself to rely on to provide security agenized attack form states that are proceeded to be credible threats, namely the United States or by extension, its alley, Israel to whom the United States transfer its own nuclear weapons technology to. Israel’s own action in the region can only see by Iran as a threat as it is has historically bombed other countries suspected nuclear enrichment sites with little to no Security Council action. Also, many states in the region see Israel as carrying out on ongoing war agenized Islam, only personified by the ongoing occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, leaving Iran and it ruling Mullahs no alternative to see to build up a credible military deterrent from what it see as the aggressor in the region. In edition to defensive ability, how might the acquisition of nuclear weapons increase Iran’s regional hegemony?

According to Sagan, nuclear weapons provide and a states military ability can serve the same function as that of an airline or Olympic team[2], providing a state with an air of legitimacy with out the need of costly war, on the cheap. These weapons serve as a litmus test for modernity and can be used as symbol to their peers that they are the most powerful and legitimate in the region. In Iran’s case, this symbolism is particularly important given its historic record of foreign interference in its domestic political affairs and US assistance to Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been struggling to reshape its economy, pride and regional standing by improving their oil production capability and updating its infrastructure. The vast amount of revenue that it has amassed has provided Iran with the ability to indeed become a modern state. The production capability does not just provide Iran with economic power, but also gives it resource power over its trading partners in the region and perhaps across the world. The ability of Iran to have nuclear weapons and an economic grip on its regional partners places it right at the center at regional politics and Iran is happy to be a part of it, perhaps striving for a position much like the roll that China plays in East Asian politics.

The internal political forces, technological resources, domestic security and regional hegemonic desires have shaped Iran’s desire to obtain nuclear weapons, but what security implications does that have on the region and what is anything should be done about it?

According to Waltz, since the post war world, nuclear weapons have been a instrument that have worked for peace because the cost of war is so incredibly high, the act of war itself is in fact discouraged by the perceived horrific outcome[3]. History has show that now two states who possess nuclear weapons have ever engaged in an active war with each other. In essence there is no empirical evidence to suggest that any new state that was to gain the technological ability to enrich fissile material and subsequently build a bomb. Iran therefore, is no more likely than any other state to use its nuclear weapons agenized a rival, Israel included, because the ensuing second strike would result in catastrophic amounts of collateral damage to the civilian populace that it would make the initial strike out of the question. Iran’s rhetoric of destroying Israel aside, there is little factual evidence to suggest that this posturing is indeed a prelude for Iranian actions to come, not if, but when, they finish building their nuclear arsenal. So what about the safety of the region at large?

The spread of nuclear proliferation will very likely result in increased regional security if states that share borders have weapons. Historical evidence this can be seen if one looks at the relationship between China and Russia, though bitter rivals, they never once used their weapons on each other, but rather, had very limited military incidents once they had both developed the thermal missile capabilities. The same set of out comes can be assumed would result if Iran was also to acquire nuclear weapons. Perhaps even greater regional cooperation would evolve is Iran were to gain “the bomb” and become a regional hegemony by extending a regional security pact to smaller more venerable nations. Although the advent of Iran going nuclear may increase regional security, states such as Israel and the United States are sure to oppose it, but what could they do to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

Many experts agree, any attempt to bomb enrichment facilities such as the gas centrifuges near located near Natanz would only slow Iran’s weapons development process and not stop it. It is commonly believed that Iran has come too far in its technological development to stop Iran agonized its will and may even give the Iranian government the political support to complete the process at an increased rate with increased domestic support and an increased sense of national pride. Likewise, if the Bush administrations handling of North Korea in their attempt to develop nuclear weapons, there is no doubt that isolation and sanctions are not effective in persuading a regime to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Isolation rather, give North Korea more incentive to develop WMDs and ultimately test them to get the United States to reengage in direct negations. Iran, unlike the DPRK, has a vast about of oil revenue and as such, isolation is likely to have a much milder effect. Direct engagement is likely the only possible course of action for the U.S. and world community to talk, America’s military forces are spread think around the planet, and perhaps even if they we not, Iran is no Iraq and it is not likely that our forces would be able to secure a geographic area the size of Iran. So where does that leave us now?

It may be now surprise as to why Iran or other states may want to go nuclear, internal political forces, technological resources, domestic security and regional hegemonic desires can readily be satisfied by their development. It remains abundantly clear that we can not take steps that have been historically in dealing the development of nukes in “rogue states”. What is apparent is that if the U.S. and their regional allies do indeed want Iran to cease and desist, they will need to engage Iran directly, much like Moammar Kadafi of Libya, to get them to voluntarily disarm. But perhaps the spread of nuclear armed states is not the worst thing that can happen, sure we may loose some leverage, but is the gain in regional piece not worth the discomfort it may cause?

Bibliography

[1] Sonali Singh and Christopher R. Way, "The Correlates of Nuclear Proliferation: A Quantitative Test," The Journal of Conflict Resolution,. Vol. 48, No.6 (2004) Page 4

[2] Scott D. Sagan Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter, 1996-1997), pp. 74

[3] Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers International Institute for Strategic Studies, No. 171 (1981).