My week in Dubai

I just returned from a week in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Dubai is a microcosm of the world with 85 percent of the population coming from more than 100 countries. The local newspapers were full of two topics – the world economy and President-elect Obama, with some stories covering both subjects at one time.

The locals, known as Emiratis, have a great deal of confidence that the region will be able to ride out this economic shamal (strong wind from the north that bring blinding sand storms). Dubai, unlike Abu Dhabi, has no significant oil revenue to speak of. Instead, Sheik Mohammed al Maktoum is turning Dubai into a tourist destination for the emerging tourist droves from India, Russia and possibly China. At the World Economic Forum held in Dubai there was one shining star remaining in the galaxy of emerging markets – India. Russia isn't exactly hurting either. The hotels and real estate offices in Dubai are full of Russians on holiday or snapping up villas and flats while carrying gym bags full of cash.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense to make a vacation, banking and commerce center in the middle of the world, which is exactly where Dubai is located. Our very own Halliburton moved its headquarters to Dubai, for example. Barclays bank has a huge office in Dubai, and that is the springboard to the emerging markets south and east of Dubai.

Despite the mind-boggling rate of development, (I counted 30 new high-rise apartments going up in a six-mile radius of where I was staying), some expatriates worry that Dubai will suffer a credit crunch as well, and that will leave those high rises empty. After I interviewed a number of people, the one common theme I observed is that they think President-elect Obama is going to "fix everything." Emiratis, Australians, Indians, Pilipino, Brits, South Africans … all see the future of their country tied to the future of the U.S. And they believe that Obama will go into deeper debt to fix the U.S. economy and, therefore, the world economy. They don't seem to be bothered by the debt that the U.S. takes on and its long-term implications for the dollar, which is of course inextricably linked with the UAE dirham.

Despite interesting conversations about the world economy, the thing most people wanted to discuss was Obama's win. I heard story after story about how people watched returns on Wednesday morning and cheered each other at work and celebrated. I think this was due to a few reasons. First, they think there needs to be a dramatic change in the way America works in the world – that we need to steer clear of shot, fire, aim and that Obama will be less likely to shoot from the hip than the Bush administration. Second, the win illustrated to the world that the American dream is still alive, and the American people are not asleep at the switch. The rest of the world looks to America as the standard bearer for unencumbered opportunity – that someone can be born with no means, with the hurdles that Obama has overcome and rise to be the most powerful man in the world.

I left Dubai a proud American. Our system may have its flaws, but it works, and the rest of the world sees that it as well. It has given people hope and made people around the world smile. That as they say in the Middle East "is a good thing."

Does the winner lose?

For the past year Americans have been losing friends, making enemies and in general, being their old partisan selves over the question of who is best qualified to lead us. We've argued about Iraq, taxes, the budget, whether one candidate is a Mini-Me of George Bush and whether the other candidate is an honorary member of the Weather Underground.

It's now end game. On Tuesday, the shouting, arguments, innuendo, dirty campaigning and the all the rest comes to a screeching halt. We'll get our president … and then … and then … and then what?

Everybody, left, right, center and unknown agree that this time, it really is different. The meltdown, the looming global recession and the foreign-policy mess have produced a world unlike any other that Americans have faced since the end of World War II. So my question is this: Given the magnitude of the problems we and the world face, does the winner of this presidential contest actually lose?

What is to be done? Signs right now point to a deflation, possibly global. Everyone senses this – falling stocks, home values and commodity prices, layoffs and the threat of double-digit unemployment now point to falling wages. Even the price of gold is down. Can falling prices be far behind?

Everyone knows that what the candidates argued about during their three debates – tax cuts, spending programs, something better for everyone, no exceptions – was not only beside the point, but was almost irrelevant to the problems we face. In truth, whether the winner is McCain or Obama (and I hope it's Obama), no one knows for sure what either man is going to do about any of this. It's as if the candidates were sleepwalking. In fact, by not demanding more answers about real problems, so were the media and the public. One might call this the Great Denial Election.

So does the winner lose? If we are headed into a deflation, something this country has not really experienced since the 1930s, what exactly will McBama do about it? More to the point, what can they do about it? It's as real as rain and as serious as a heart attack – neither McCain nor Obama has addressed the economy on its own terms and proposed anything of substance. It's as if both men studiously avoided having to tell us the truth.

And what is that truth? Perhaps that we're up to our eyeballs in debt. Perhaps for a generation, we spent too much and saved too little, pinned our hopes to real-estate investments (something our grandparents never would have understood) or our 401Ks (something our grandparents would have warned us against doing.)

So whether it's the man from Illinois or the one from Arizona, be prepared to be disappointed. Be prepared to, as the old Yankees used to say, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without." Because for now, and maybe for the first term of whomever wins, we're in a new age of austerity, limited missions, curtailed dreams and quite possibly, a declining standard of living.

It promises four years of heartache and broken hopes for Tuesday's winner. And it will hit hard, because neither McCain nor Obama was able to look into that magic lens and tell the people the economic equivalent of what Winston Churchill explained on May 13, 1940 – that all he could offer the public was "blood, sweat, toil and tears" – especially the part about toil.

Stopping the arms trade

With our economy a mess and the world economy messy as well, it is easy to forget about other problems. One of those "other problems" is the proliferation of arms. It is especially easy to forget, given that our export economy includes a significant sale of armaments.

There is a campaign to stop this trade called "The World Is Watching." The goal? To get the 153 governments who voted at the United Nations to develop an arms treaty. This vote took place in 2006, but so far there is no treaty.

This proposed treaty is not about nuclear arms. It is about the use of conventional war arms. There has been a history of various agreements made in conflict areas, and the agreements are something that any civilized society can agree with. For example: Transfers of arms, ammunition, explosives and other related material shall not be carried to or from states which … commit or sponsor crimes against humanity or human rights violations (Code of Conduct-Central American States), or member states will not issue an export license if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression (European Union Code of Conduct).

According to an Amnesty International report, the United States was the biggest source of illicit small arms seized in Colombia. The U.S. was the primary source by thousands followed by Germany, Venezuela and Russia, in that order. Russia wins the arms sweepstakes in some other countries such as Cote d'Ivoire.

China is not exempt from the arms export business either. It has "made available" huge amounts of arms sales to the Sudan. It has a very vested interest. China has become cozy with the Sudanese government because of its oil. It has looked the other way while the Sudanese government has committed unspeakable acts in Darfur. China has continued to supply arms to Sudan while the government pushes into Southern Sudan in partnership with the Chinese to drill for oil. The grand total in small arms in 2006 was $17.2 million. Within one year from 2006 to 2007 there were 409 military and police flights to Darfur from the larger government. The Chinese government has made available eight K-8 jet fighters for use in Darfur. According to Amnesty International, these jets were equipped with cannons, rockets and bombs. The Russians contributed planes as well to the Sudan government.

So, the question is how do you prevent such insanity? The only option is for a worldwide treaty with pressure from each country's citizens. Recommendations have included outlining provisions for state-to-state transfer of weapons, commercial sales rules and loans and gifts from governments to other governments.

One of the ways that an arms treaty that would end arms to the bad guys of the world is to make sure that countries passed their own laws that mandated certain restrictions and transparency rules as to how small arms would be sold and tracked if they were produced in that country. That would take massive country-by-country pressure from citizens.

Legal small-arms exports from the United States have been tracked at about one half billion dollars per year. It would be easy in this economy to increase this as a way to help our balance of trade. We need to pressure the next president to decrease small arms exports and push through national legislation to make sure they don't go to the bad guys. In the long run, it costs all of us as we fight rogue regimes and human-rights violators.

"Show me your papers!"

With the recent announcement by Washington DC's Metro Authority and Transport that the Transit Police have the authority to conduct random searches of passenger's bags, it begs the question: am I losing my rights here?

Who, exactly, gave them the authority? Is that even legal? According to whom, and why?

The threat levels are in a constant high state around Washington, DC, and in the coming days it is likely to be pushed even higher due to the upcoming election. The threat level is the reason given for the random searches. WMATA says they will be choosing a random number, such as thirteen, and they will check every thirteenth person that is carrying a bag large enough to carry explosives. They claim they will not pick people from the crowd that are acting suspiciously and target them. Really? How do I know that I was really the thirteenth person carrying a bag, and not that I was the one that was looking suspicious? Do I just believe you?

Certainly it's not that difficult to put into place a detection system that sniffs for explosives as Washingtonians and tourists alike wander through the Metro system. Bomb dogs could be brought out en force to slink throughout the plazas. But an arbitrary screening process, based on the counting ability of the Transit Police?

The idea is not only ridiculous (a person carrying something dangerous, or illegal, could simply meander back and forth until they can enter the system without being stopped) it's also making me wonder when the government is going to start stopping random people on the street and inspecting bags for no reason other than they can!

What country do I live in, again?

Robo calls will cost McCain

If you are a registered Republican or Independent voter in a swing state you most likely have received a robo call during the last couple of weeks. Robo calls are generated by recorded voice and delivered by a computer. Many campaigns and organizations have used them. In its "wisdom," congressional officials have voted to exempt them from the "do-not-call list."

However, this exemption does mean the calls are not regulated. The Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 outlines the rules for robo calls. They must include who is initiating the calls and a telephone number or address to reach the party who is paying for it. In addition, some states such as California mandate that a live person must get on the line before the message is played.

With two and a half weeks before Election Day, the McCain campaign has made ample use of these calls. The call that played most often this week began, "Hello, I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC." Then it goes on to say "Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans."

One of the robo call companies promotes its ability to achieve desired election results on its website. GOPcalls.com says it has the capacity to make 10 million calls a day and that systems can, "recognize an answering machine, a live person, a fax machine, busy, disconnected and unanswered calls with the highest accuracy in the industry." Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy about these calls?

The reason I am predicting that John McCain is not going to win the election is that he has to resort to tactics like these. They turn voters off, not on. It is not the John McCain many people think they know and like. In fact, there are reports that the McCain campaign hired the exact same firm that delivered scurrilous lies about him in 2000. What are they thinking? Even people who are voting for Obama have great respect for McCain. They don't expect him to run a campaign counter to his own values.

These calls have been so upsetting to some of the swing state voters that even Republicans running for election have asked the RNC and the McCain campaign to stop. The AP reported that two senators running in close elections have asked for the calls to cease. Susan Collin's campaign spokesperson said, "These kind of tactics have no place in Maine politics." Even Norm Coleman, who is in a tough election campaign with Al Franken in Minnesota, has said that he wanted these attacks stopped.

Congress is also considering action against robo calls, and Shaun Dakin of Citizens for Civil Discourse called for a Voter Privacy Bill of Rights. Even if we could get Congress to pass such legislation, it is highly likely that the Supreme Court would strike it down because the law would limit "free speech." However, there needs to be some relief for voters. Some people in swing states have had as many as 10 calls per week. There has got to be a legal way to limit the annoyance and danger of these calls. The candidates would not pay for them if there were not some evidence that this kind rancor works. But it turns some voters off to the election process. Democracy cannot afford a citizenry that is cynical and turned off to the main instrument of our republic, the individual voter.