The Right to Negotiate

Earlier this month the Boston Red-Sox bid $51.1 for the right to negotiate a baseball contract with Daisuke Matsuzaka, a right-handed pitcher for the Seibu Lions of Japan. Not wanting to be left out of the spending spotlight, the New York Yankees have agreed to pay an undisclosed amount (rumored to be around $25 million) for the exclusive rights to talk to Kei Igawa of the Hanshin Tigers. The situation is made interesting only because the Japanese League requires its players ten years of service before allowing them to seek free agency and American contracts. This explains why most Japanese players, by the time they arrive in the American Major League, are seasoned veterans who are “better than average” to say the least. But clearly everything has a price, even Japan’s attempt to hold on to its own players.

The fact that teams are paying millions of dollars to even begin negotiations with these Japanese players seems mind-boggling to most Americans. But then again, most Americans are shocked that the average MLB player earns $2.5 million. Remember, that’s arithmetic mean, not the big boys! But even fans are curious as to whether or not teams have gone too far. Perhaps the next step will be paying millions to families for the right to negotiate with their 8 year-old little league phenom.

Is it worth it? Ichiro is undoubtedly the most exciting player to watch in Major League baseball, but would any team have paid tens of millions simply to negotiate with him? Considering his production and his $6 million a year contract, yes. Japanese players, for some reason or the other, earn far less than their American counterparts of comparable skill. But most Japanese imports are not worth the hype. Think Irabu, Matsui, Nomo. At times, they are explosive, but nothing compared to expectations.

Considering there are more Hispanic players in the league than of any of any other origin, it is a wonder that there have never been such high profile contract negotiations. Although players in the Americas are more free to move around than in Japan, the shear mass of players and countries involved make friction impossible to avoid. The Western hemisphere prefers to argue over issues of political asylum and refugee status than bidding wars for contract negotiation.

Baseball is no longer an American sport; it is truly global in scope. Multi million dollar bids simply to negotiate speak of the owner’s confidence in the potential to grow. Certainly more to come…

Einstein and the Bomb

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

Albert Einstein

Einstein was, from the beginning a pacifist, claiming that he himself would "unconditionally refuse to do war service, direct or indirect... regardless of how the cause of the war should be judged." (Ronald Clark, "Einstein: The Life and Times", pg. 428)

This feeling changed only when confronted with the moral dilemma of pacifism in the face of the implications of a Nazi Bomb. In 1939, a letter with Einstein's signature was delivered to President Roosevelt urging the government to develop a weapon before the Germans. The unconditional surrender to the German forces in May 1945 changed the scenario, at least from the vantage point of the “pacifists”. The bomb was dropped three months later in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, instantly decimating the two cities. Einstein would later write, "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan." (Otto Nathan & Heinz Norden, editors, "Einstein on Peace", pg. 589)

Can a man be blamed for his invention or discovery? Keep in mind that the Manhattan Project was a project directly employed tens of thousands of individuals and occurred decades after Einstein’s Theories of Relativity were published (Special theory in 1905, General Theory in 1915).


Of course we do not blame the man, but that does not exclude the possibility that he blamed himself. The more interesting question is whether or not his condemnation of the bombing of Japan was genuine or whether or not he felt more responsibility than he should have.

More to come…

Fortunate Sons

Compulsory military service generally rings sour in the ears of the liberal world. North Korea maintains a standing force of over one million soldiers out of a total population of twenty. One in ten men are in the service. Comparably sized countries, such as Australia cannot afford the political costs necessary for maintaining such forces – even though Australia sent roughly 2,000 soldiers to Iraq and was referred to by the Economist as the big brother of South East Asia, referring to the many peacekeeping missions undertaken by Australian military in its region. But this essay is not about North Korea’s military ambition, and even less to do with the Aussies.

Imagine if the United States had a standing military consisting of five percent of its population. Five percent of 300 million equals 15 million, more than every man woman and child in Ireland, Norway and Denmark – combined. Firstly the US does not need so many soldiers. The focus of US tactics for decades has been on technology rather than manpower. Complaints about troop shortages in Iraq are in the order or hundreds of thousands at most, not millions.

There was a time, not so long ago, when the volunteers were simply not enough. The opposition to the draft during the Vietnam War was one of the principle forces driving the United States’ spectacular withdrawal. 55,000 dead soldiers hit the national consciousness much harder when the majority of them were forced to fight for their country.

Fast forward to the year 2003. America is still recovering from the hangover of their blissful isolation and a call to arms was being answered with overwhelming support. Just as most Americans were ignorant about the effects of US foreign policy that helped create the Taliban and empower Saddam Hussein, we were equally oblivious of our military capabilities and objectives. Not only did the President have no problem convincing both houses of Congress to support his war, he was re-elected 18 months after the success of invasion and failure of occupation.

It seems rather sudden that today, an equally large portion of Americans oppose the war. Perhaps the American public is gullible and driven by fear, but how could the situation be different? Simple-minded attacks stating that Americans are ignorant or stupid do very little to explain or solve any problem. If Rome was controlled through the mob, what was then, and is now, needed is a means by which the mob can regulate itself and do the least damage, and (cross our fingers) perhaps do some good.

The government learned a valuable dictum in Vietnam. Americans do not like to see their boys coming home in bodybags. Four years ago, the thought that the US military would suffer 3000 casualties seemed impossible. It now seems inevitable. When the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shinseki testified that several hundreds of thousands of troops were necessary to successfully invade and occupy Iraq, he was derided as incompetent and “let go”. In hindsight, his assessment seems obvious. How is it that Americans were so pro-war then, and so anti-war now?

The answer: Reality has set in. Invaders are almost never greeted as liberators. Death is a regular part of our world these days. We see the spectacle of it every day on the screen but it remains abstract. When a son or daughter is in active combat, the danger hits closer to home. War as a game does not produce circumspect constituencies; it produces a population of children eager to play.

Although conscription is in itself an illiberal process, all societies, even liberal ones need to protect their interests in terms of security. To require your citizens to fight for the country is the least a government can do for the long-term survival of the state. But more importantly, mandatory conscription lets the population know that war is not a game or a means to vent one’s bloodlust following an attack on domestic soil. Conscription sends a more immediate sense of danger to the families of those serving.

The Point: If there were a military draft, the American public would have thought twice about invading Iraq. The US is demographically blessed. The rich and powerful can avoid having their children sent off to war, leaving the weaker sections of Americans to do the fighting. If the mob is fully aware of the dangers ahead, then perhaps it will not attack.

This argument is part hyperbole and is intended to comment on the shifts in public opinion in the United States. If there were a draft, surely, there would be a load of other problems – a surplus of trigger happy troops, arms race with other emerging great powers and decrease in moral to name a few. It has become fashionable again to blame the administration, but long term solutions lay in genuine introspection at the mass scale. Countries never apologize, but if we learn from this experience, we won’t have to for a long time.

Painting with Colors

The 2006 mid-term elections have left the United States a bit bluer than the day before. Although the president was not up for election, antipathy for Mr. Bush has been the driving force behind the Democratic take-over of both houses of Congress. Donald Rumsfeld was promptly let go and Nancy Pelosi was named as the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. The celebrations and hangovers will subside promptly as all eyes will undoubtedly turn to the 2008 elections where as many Congressional seats will be up for grabs as well as the President's. Among the personalities that have emerged in the national political consciousness are two prominent black Americans: Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Representative Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee.

Obama has a secure seat until 2010 and although Ford lost a tight race for the Senate seat in his state, he exceeded almost everyone’s expectations by coming as close as he did to becoming the first black southern senator in over 100 years. There are more prominent black Americans in politics, namely Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas, but the Democratic Party has clearly turned their energies to Ford and Obama for the future. This makes sense since the other three are all Republicans. It also makes sense that they be Republicans.

Although black Americans are among the most loyal constituencies for the Democratic Party, the most prominent blacks have until now, all been conservative. Crudely put: blacks have more to prove when in a party whose interests often diverge with that of the black community. It should therefore come as no surprise that the Republicans use the success of Rice, Thomas and Powel as proof that race is not the issue that Democrats make it out to be. History has shown a similar phenomenon with a bounty of women rulers with an air of masculinity about them. Thatcher, Indira and Albright come to mind.

Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are exemplars of the extreme right in the Unite States. Although Powel is certainly a moderate conservative, he provides the crucial link between the red blacks and blue blacks. Many foreigners are not even aware of the fact that Powel is even black. In many appearances, he appears to be of a similar complexion as Rumsfeld or Bush. Powel is, to put it mildly, one of the whitest black guys in the world. Which brings me to our new black stars. Amidst the excitement of having two popular Congressmen of color, most people have forgotten, at least on the surface, that both men are half white. While Obama retains more of his black appearance, Ford could easily pass for a white man if he were to shave his curly hair.

The Point: The myth that the United States is not ready to have a black leader is not true. Colin Powel is consistently one of the most popular public officials in the country and is often a favorite to run for President among officials as well as citizens, even though he has repeatedly refused to do so. I will go on the line here and say that if he had ran in 2000, he would have won. If it had not been for his famous speech at the UN, he would be the frontrunner in 2008. Obama is already being touted as the person to beat in 2008 although he would have to leave his senatorial seat two years early, something he had vowed not to do. Whereas Hillary Clinton is generally considered a polarizing figure, Obama is popular across the country. I generally believe that America is more ready for a black president than a female president. Even if Hillary is to win in 2008, I would stand by my assertion – had he run before, Powel could have won. But have we progressed so much?

To put it simply, no. It is a shame that the only way for black Americans to make it in politics is to be either extremely conservative, or part white. The day that a fully black (whatever that means) person who fights for black issues rises to the national stage will be a real marker of progress. One such man did arrive several decades ago and we live in his shadow to this day. The tragedy of Dr. King’s assassination is a painful reminder that change is not steady. It may happen over long periods of time but when it rains, it pours. Justice and equality are ever-fleeting ideals, but the country is set to lurch a step closer to those ideals in the coming years. The difficulty now remains to avoid taking as many, if not more, steps backward.