Angels, Demons, and Lawyers

I've sometimes contemplated writing a novel. This could be the first chapter, which I started last year:

The 20th century killed the romantic. Capitalism vanquished socialism and then proceeded to elevate the twin values of starvation and survival. It didn't matter if it was real starvation, the kind that took place in Africa, what Robert Kennedy saw in the South--or high-class starvation, the kind that newly laid-off fathers with families understood. Choosing survival, the men in the modern world, tempted by luxuries of beauty and bare bellybuttons, reached back into Biblical times and remembered the fable of the apple. Women, not happy with being demonized, decided to either cut down the tree or plant their own gardens, further confusing Adam’s progeny.

Meanwhile, modern men branched out into three realms: one, the creature that refused to conform, saw political correctness as an affront to his being, spawned The Man Show and the Coors Twins; two, the blessed kind, that saw equality and self-control as either entitlements to Beemers or, perhaps more appropriately, to responsibility; and three, the other, the nerd in the corner, never popular in high school, now older, taller, appealing, but the holder of the modern apple of fear–scared of commitment, of falling behind, of starving and of losing the motivator of starvation. It was the last camp that Rustem Mahdy fell in, and his stomach rumbled as he took the elevator to the sixth floor of the law firm, where he played an attorney, propping up partners with wizened faces and dusty knowledge. He had contemplated stopping on the second floor to flirt with the office manager of a process service firm but decided against it. It was too early, and besides, work had to be done.

Women, of course, defied any easy description, but branched generally into several camps: the kind with strong, loving fathers (who of course had strong, loving mothers) and either chose to emulate their fathers professionally, or, having been given faith in man, gained the knowledge of how to identify men who would not let them down. Flannery O'Connor aside, it would be one of the surprising features of the modern world that the women who could identify a good man, even if lacking all other skills, would somehow be better off in terms of love. In the third camp were women who knew they were not as smart as the men they wanted, or as attractive as the women men wanted, and decided to gain security through the unifying force God had given all women. It was an interesting trade-off, and those women--once married--did seem to be quite happy. There was another camp, slowly dwindling in numbers, of women who had spent their lives raising children, ironing and cleaning, only to see Proctor and Gamble and the microwave culture passing them too quickly to give thanks (or even their condolences).

But Michelle Mosi, Esq. wasn't wondering what camp she was in. Born and raised in the Midwest, she was too practical for those kinds of questions and was more intent on getting opposing counsel to submit to her very reasonable demand of scheduling an independent medical exam in September rather than October. "It's all so simple," she thought to herself--"just get Plaintiff to the the exam, and I'll make my billables and keep the client happy. " Love-wise, Michelle was married with a reasonably-sized diamond ring--it wasn't a Tacori, but at least it was from Borsheim's. Michelle stopped looking at her ring and re-focused her attention on work. "Left Message for Client re: IME, 0.2."

This was the new world that God had to play with, and He wondered how to manage marriage and love in a culture suspicious of sacrifice and unused to thinking in terms of centuries rather than seconds. The Devil cackled, egging on his right-hand man, Materialism, and informed him of the pullback. The news from the front came soon enough: Cupid had been shot and was D.O.A.

God, never one to appreciate losing a round, sent one of his most trusted angels, Bryan Gabriel, back to America to assess the damage and to help restore faith. Gabriel, after surveying how he could be most effective, decided to apply for a law firm emphasizing employment law. If it didn’t work out, Gabriel thought, he could always become an investment banker and hear what this Soros character had to say. Gabriel decided to set up an office on the second floor of a tall commercial building in downtown San Jose. There was work to be done, and not a second to lose.

[In later chapters, Milton Black aka the Devil, will send down a man named Mark Lusy, who will apply for and be accepted at a law firm called Nicholson, Lytler, and Reese.]

Music Lyrics 1

While Supertramp’s less eloquent song, "Take a Look at My Girlfriend" is more mellifluous, the lyrics for "The Logical Song" are classic, and if you want to see a timely satire, google Barron Knights and The Topical Song. I thought I'd share this one, in case anyone's forgotten the song and/or the lyrics. My favorite line is, "Now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical."

Someone should call Bob Dylan, because we need better lyrics in today's music scene. Without the rock n' rollers, modern music no longer seems to fill in the role of counter-culture. The younger generation used to function as a counterweight to war, and in doing so, promoted idealism. Today, with many of the largest media outlets in the hands of shareholders, whose job is to maximize profits, and much of the younger generation in debt, it will be interesting to see where new societal counterweights come from.

The Logical Song, by Supertramp

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
Joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world’s asleep,
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.

Now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won’t you sign up your name, we’d like to feel you’re
Acceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable.

At night, when all the world’s asleep,
The questions run so deep
For such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

First in an occasional series. I will be posting links to speeches that remind us that the more things change, the more they stay the same. See, for example, President Sukarno of Indonesia: Speech at the Opening of the Bandung Conference, April 18 1955:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1955sukarno-bandong.html

This twentieth century has been a period of terrific dynamism. Perhaps the last fifty years have seen more developments and more material progress than the previous five hundred years. Man has learned to control many of the scourges which once threatened him. He has learned to consume distance. He has learned to project his voice and his picture across oceans and continents. lie has probed deep into the secrets of nature and learned how to make the desert bloom and the plants of the earth increase their bounty. He has learned how to release the immense forces locked in the smallest particles of matter.

But has man's political skill marched hand-in-hand with his technical and scientific skill? Man can chain lightning to his command-can be control the society in which be lives? The answer is No! The political skill of man has been far outstripped by technical skill, and what lie has made he cannot be sure of controlling.

The result of this is fear. And man gasps for safety and morality.

Perhaps now more than at any other moment in the history of the world, society, government and statesmanship need to be based upon the highest code of morality and ethics. And in political terms, what is the highest code of morality? It is the subordination of everything to the well-being of mankind. But today we are faced with a situation where the well-being of mankind is not always the primary consideration. Many who are in places of high power think, rather, of controlling the world.

Yes, we are living in a world of fear. The life of man today is corroded and made bitter by fear. Fear of the future, fear of the hydrogen bomb, fear of ideologies. Perhaps this fear is a greater danger than the danger itself, because it is fear which drives men to act foolishly, to act thoughtlessly, to act dangerously. . . .

All of us, I am certain, are united by more important things than those which superficially divide us. We are united, for instance, by a common detestation of colonialism in whatever form it appears. We are united by a common detestation of racialism. And we are united by a common determination to preserve and stabilise peace in the world. . . .

We are often told "Colonialism is dead." Let us not be deceived or even soothed by that. 1 say to you, colonialism is not yet dead. How can we say it is dead, so long as vast areas of Asia and Africa are unfree.

And, I beg of you do not think of colonialism only in the classic form which we of Indonesia, and our brothers in different parts of Asia and Africa, knew. Colonialism has also its modern dress, in the form of economic control, intellectual control, actual physical control by a small but alien community within a nation. It is a skillful and determined enemy, and it appears in many guises. It does not give up its loot easily. Wherever, whenever and however it appears, colonialism is an evil thing, and one which must be eradicated from the earth. . . .

Not so very long ago we argued that peace was necessary for us because an outbreak of fighting in our part of the world would imperil our precious independence, so recently won at such great cost.

Today, the picture is more black. War would riot only mean a threat to our independence, it may mean the end of civilisation and even of human life. There is a force loose in the world whose potentiality for evil no man truly knows. Even in practice and rehearsal for war the effects may well be building up into something of unknown horror.

Not so long ago it was possible to take some little comfort from the idea that the clash, if it came, could perhaps be settled by what were called "conventional weapons "-bombs, tanks, cannon and men. Today that little grain of comfort is denied us for it has been made clear that the weapons of ultimate horror will certainly be used, and the military planning of nations is on that basis. The unconventional has become the conventional, and who knows what other examples of misguided and diabolical scientific skill have been discovered as a plague on humanity.

And do not think that the oceans and the seas will protect us. The food that we cat, the water that we drink, yes, even the very air that we breathe can be contaminated by poisons originating from thousands of miles away. And it could be that, even if we ourselves escaped lightly, the unborn generations of our children would bear on their distorted bodies the marks of our failure to control the forces which have been released on the world.

No task is more urgent than that of preserving peace. Without peace our independence means little. The rehabilitation and upbuilding of our countries will have little meaning. Our revolutions will not be allowed to run their course. . . .

What can we do? We can do much! We can inject the voice of reason into world affairs. We can mobilise all the spiritual, all the moral, all the political strength of Asia and Africa on the side of peace. Yes, we! We, the peoples of Asia and Africa, 1,400,000,000 strong, far more than half the human population of the world, we can mobilise what I have called the Moral Violence of Nations in favour of peace. We can demonstrate to the minority of the world which lives on the other continents that we, the majority are for peace, not for war, and that whatever strength we have will always be thrown on to the side of peace.

In this struggle, some success has already been scored. I think it is generally recognised that the activity of the Prime Ministers of the Sponsoring Countries which invited you here had a not unimportant role to play in ending the fighting in Indo-China.

Look, the peoples of Asia raised their voices, and the world listened. It was no small victory and no negligible precedent! The five Prime Ministers did not make threats. They issued no ultimatum, they mobilised no troops. Instead they consulted together, discussed the issues, pooled their ideas, added together their individual political skills and came forward with sound and reasoned suggestions which formed the basis for a settlement of the long struggle in Indo-China.

I have often since then asked myself why these five were successful when others, with long records of diplomacy, were unsuccessful, and, in fact, had allowed a bad situation to get worse, so that there was a danger of the conflict spreading. . . . I think that the answer really lies in the fact that those five Prime Ministers brought a fresh approach to bear on the problem. They were not seeking advantage for their own countries. They had no axe of power-politics to grind. They had but one interest-how to end the fighting in such a way that the chances of continuing peace and stability were enhanced. . . .

So, let this Asian-African Conference be a great success! Make the "Live and let live" principle and the "Unity in Diversity" motto the unifying force which brings us all together-to seek in friendly, uninhibited discussion, ways and means by which each of us can live his own life, and let others live their own lives, in their own way, in harmony, and in peace.

If we succeed in doing so, the effect of it for the freedom, independence and the welfare of man will be great on the world at large. The Light of Understanding has again been lit, the Pillar of Cooperation again erected. The likelihood of success of this Conference is proved already by the very presence of you all here today. It is for us to give it strength, to give it the power of inspiration-to spread its message all over the World.

Seattle Desegregation?

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 yesterday. In what will be quoted forevermore, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Justice Breyer called the opinion simplistic. Justice Stevens, as the most tenured judge on the Court, stated that the Court is radically changing precedent because the Supreme Court justices in the past would have disagreed with the Seattle decision ("It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.").

When reading the majority opinion, I was struck by how much enmity Justice Roberts has created between the justices despite his pledge to unite the Court and create more civility. After writing for the majority, Roberts then blazed through Justice Breyer's dissent and dissected it like a law clerk attacking another lawyer's brief--or, to be more colorful, Sherman going through Atlanta. In contrast, Justice Kennedy, as the fifth vote necessary to have a majority, appeared to distance himself from Roberts in various sections in a separate concurrence. Justice Thomas also seemed to go out of his way to be respectful to Justice Breyer, saying that while he has no doubt Breyer's intentions are good, the law must remain as immutable as possible rather than being contingent on a particular judge applying the law.

In short, Roberts stated that there had to be a compelling reason to use race. For law students, this is Con Law 101, i.e. the strict scrutiny test. Kennedy appeared to try to compromise by saying that diversity was a compelling goal, and other methods could be used to create diversity, such as locating new schools in neighborhoods that would naturally draw upon different races (although one wonders how this would be accomplished if some neighborhoods are already segregated--I predict a future opinion echoing O'Connor's disdain for gerrymandering, where she famously called some of the Congressional districts similar to a Rorschach test or a "bug splattered on a windshield.") Breyer essentially stated that the Court is betraying precedent and twisting the intent and spirit of Brown v. Board of Education.

The opinion is most intelligent when differentiating between de jure segregation and de facto segregation. The conservatives seem to say that de facto segregation is permissible. The paragraph that seems to lay the best rationale for the decision is directly below:

"The Court’s emphasis on‘benign racial classifications’ suggests confidence in its ability to distinguish good from harmful governmental uses of racial criteria. History should teach greater humility. . . . ‘[B]enign’ carries with it no independent meaning, but reflects only acceptance of the current generation’s conclusion that a politically acceptable burden, imposed on particular citizens on the basis of race, is reasonable.” Metro Broadcasting, 497 U. S., at 609–610 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). See also Adarand, supra, at 226 (“‘[I]t may not always be clear that a so-called preference is in fact benign’” (quoting Bakke, supra, at 298 (opinion of Powell, J.))). Accepting JUSTICE BREYER’s approach would “do no more than move us from ‘separate but equal’ to ‘unequal but benign.’” Metro Broadcasting, supra, at 638 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting)."

One interesting point made in the dissent is that the school plans in question here are voluntarily attempting to desegregate. Breyer indicates that voluntary plans to achieve desegregation should be viewed with a different lens than laws involuntarily ordering segregation, as was the issue in Brown v. Board.

(Ironically, this same month, the U.S. Mint produced one of the most beautiful coins ever made. It is a silver coin depicting the Little Rock Central High School Desegregation. See here.)

My take on the situation is that the conservative justices have no patience for dividing Americans by race. In their minds, they are attempting to prevent America from becoming Yugoslavia 100 years from now. One of Justice Alito's quotes from a different case could summarize the majority's feelings: "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” The majority opinion forcefully points out that under the Seattle program, if a school was 30% Asian, 30% Hispanic, 10% African-American, and 30% Caucasian, this breakdown would not be sufficiently diverse. Justice Roberts' example implies that this is a different world than 1975.

The liberal justices, on the other hand, believe that in much of America, we are still segregated by race. A cursory glance at any BLS or Census statistics will show lower rates of net worth and home ownership in the African-American community than in any other community. Although not stated in the opinion, the liberal justices seem to imply that the only reason for such modern disparity is the legacy of slavery and unequal access to education. It is not mentioned in the opinion that most of the conservative justices worked or are from large cities that are more integrated than smaller cities in the South. In much of America, it is indeed true that not much has changed since 1975. On the other hand, Justice Thomas's opinion seems to carry more weight because he actually integrated schools, sometimes against the wishes of classmates and parents of other students. An unsung hero, Rev. John Brooks, was instrumental in Thomas's education, and an interview given to BusinessWeek provides the most insight I have seen about Thomas and his background. See here (3/12/07, interview & Rev. John E. Brooks).

While it may seem counterintuitive that Justice Thomas would side with Justice Roberts here, Thomas may believe that his personal experience actually supports the majority's arguments because there was no de jure segregation at the time, and as a result he was able to attend majority-white schools and receive a top-notch education. Thus, Thomas may view Seattle through the prism that he is not dealing with any law forcing segregation, and any rule classifying anyone based on race could very easily turn against him or another race in the future. Jim Crow, after all, was not that long ago.

Perhaps an economic analysis would be helpful in understanding the majority opinion. Schools receive much of their funding from local property taxes. Housing values closely correlate with local school quality, as parents are willing to spend more money to buy into a better school district. See The New Economics of the Middle Class: Why Making Ends Meet Has Gotten Harder, by Elizabeth Warren and Leo Gottlieb:

Failing public schools have an impact on the children trapped in them, but they also impose a terrible burden on the families struggling to escape them. Failing public schools translate directly into higher housing costs for middle class families as they try to escape those schools. Home prices have grown across the board (particularly in larger urban areas), but the brunt of the price increases has fallen on families with children. The home value for the average childless couple increased by 58 percent between 1984 and 2004—an impressive rise in less just twenty years. (Again, these and all other figures are adjusted for inflation.) For married couples with children, however, housing prices shot up 145 percent during this period—nearly three times faster.

The Seattle parents were paying lots of money in mortgage payments and local taxes and were being told that some of their kids would have to go to an inferior quality school as part of a greater good. The students benefiting from the Seattle program would be students who, but for the program, would have to go to poorly funded schools. The students from poorer school districts would probably come from families that did not pay as much money in taxes or who lived in apartments (thereby not paying property taxes). Thus, the Seattle program indirectly charged parents who paid more in taxes more money for an inferior product while gifting parents who paid fewer taxes with a better product. In California, we had a lawsuit that argued that property taxes should go to the state rather than the county and then distributed among school districts in amounts to prevent inequality. I am unclear how Washington or Kentucky, the other state affected by the opinion, distributes its property taxes. The opinion did not discuss anything about vouchers, either. It remains to be seen what impact the opinion will have on voucher advocacy movements.

For now, in a time in America when we have ample resources and the economic "pie" is large, the Seattle decision will not create massive problems in the near term. The question is how we will view the decision if a sustained recession occurs, bringing to light the economic inequality in America that oftentimes can be categorized by race. A middle ground post-Seattle might be to balance schools by income, thereby avoiding any legal review or analysis. Federal courts do not usually get involved in a state's local affairs absent some illegal activity or protected class, and rich/poor is a category that is not illegal nor protected. America spends 400 billion dollars a year on schools, according to Revolutionary Wealth by Alvin Toffler. With that much money, perhaps the "pie" is still big enough to focus on economic rather than judicial solutions to improve school quality.

Gandhi, Revisited

One interesting aspect of living in Santa Clara County, where around 37.5% of residents are immigrants, is that I get to hear about history from people who've experienced it firsthand. Today, my clients, who were Sikhs, told me that although Gandhi received much of the credit for liberating India from Britain, there were actually civilian militias that fought against the British for independence. This was not discussed in the 1983 film, but my clients lived about 30 km from the site of the scene of the massacre depicted in the film, where thousands of unarmed Indians were shot dead by a British firing squad. It appears that many men of peace have been aided indirectly by armed defenders who cannot be recognized.

I also learned that the Sikh philosophy contains much of the Hindu philosophy, but with the difference that the Sikhs believe in one God, not several. Another interesting tidbit is that the Sikhs are also known as brave warriors who fought valiantly in several wars, including in WWII.

Hamiltonian Capitalism

A TV special on Alexander Hamilton from PBS's American Experience taught me more about why America is so successful. We all know America has created incredible stability in just 200 years, and regardless of where America stands 200 years from now, if other countries also achieve affluence, it will be through copying America's economic system. In actuality, what people will be doing is copying Hamilton's vision. One of the best quotes from the PBS special was that although Lincoln, Jefferson, and FDR have monuments in D.C., no monument exists for Hamilton. The scholar says that is fine: modern America is Hamilton's monument.

Hamilton fought for a national banking system against Jefferson's agrarian vision, was born in the West Indies to an unmarried mother, received only some books as an inheritance, and worked as an accountant as a teenager and as a lawyer afterwards. Understanding the U.S. as Hamilton's country opens our eyes to exactly why modern America works. One, Hamilton wasn't part of "the club." In fact, without George Washington's interventions on his behalf, he may have never been of any consequence. Because Hamilton had to work for a living, he created a system where anyone--even the bastard immigrant child of a single mother such as himself--could live in stability.

Hamilton, as a teenager, saw slaves being treated very poorly in the West Indies. As a result, the quasi-documentary insinuates that while Jefferson seemed comfortable owning slaves, the lesson Hamilton learned from slavery is that mankind's passions had to be corralled. Thus, one goal of Hamiltonian capitalism is to reduce and control men's passions through a system that includes protection of property; rewards for delayed self-gratification; strict enforcement of contracts; and when all else fails, imprisonment. Such a system, by encouraging materialism and hard work, forces people to think locally and have a vested stake in local rather than non-profitable or international events. In fact, some might say capitalism works precisely because it causes an investment in local matters. The average person's day is spent on bosses to placate, work to be done, debt to pay off, television to watch, kids to feed, and bills to be paid. There is no time, or it is not profitable, to think of solving larger issues that one cannot affect. The upside of capitalism's gimlet eye is that it forces us to live in the here and now; the downside is that it works too well--apparently, only 10 to 21% of Americans own passports. I am a huge fan of Jefferson--no one can match his passionate defense of the individual--but seeing this PBS special made me think more about Jefferson's vision versus Hamilton's vision for America, with the conclusion being that Hamilton's vision created modern-day America, while Jefferson's vision would have created an economy similar to modern-day China.

An interesting link:

http://www.pbs.org/nights/blog/2007/05/
american_experience_alexander.html

Africa

The July 2007 issue of Vanity Fair focuses on Africa and U2's Bono is the guest editor. The magazine has around fifteen different and eye-catching covers with various personalities, including one with Warren Buffet. The magazine features interviews with Jeffrey Sachs and Desmond Tutu (who is interviewed by Brad Pitt), and a picture of the real star of Tsotsi, Terry Pheto.

While Bono, Clooney, and others have attempted to interest the world in Africa's plight, the only nation that really seems to want to be serious about engaging with Africa on a long term basis is China. The China-Africa partnership is not an exercise in altruism: China needs natural resources; Africa has them; and you don't need to be Sherlock to see that China is acting in its self-interest. Other countries also contribute aid, but the magazine points out that America spends only 0.17% of our budget on aid (the U.N. goal is 0.7%). For those of us who argue that money will make no difference in a corrupt Africa, Mr. Sachs argues that the money given has not been enough. He contends that we could solve the problem with 20 billion dollars and that the aid given thus far has worked but is not sufficient to create any sustained change. He compares detractors' arguments against aid to fighting a wildfire with a hose, and when the water runs out from the hose, claiming that water does not cure fires because the fire still rages.

There are several issues with attempting to solve world poverty. On the surface, it appears that we could, acting in concert, feed all the world's hungry. We certainly make enough food and can transport it anywhere. For example, I am drinking water imported from Iceland that I bought with a coupon from Walgreen's for one dollar. If I, an average Californian resident, can get Icelandic water for one dollar (admittedly, the cost is half of what at least a billion people earn every day), it seems that affluent nations should be able to eliminate diseases that come from contaminated water. However, affluent nations have mostly capitalistic systems, with the exception of possibly Scandinavian countries. As a result, transferring large amounts of tax revenue from one country to another without receiving something in return is generally not feasible. Many Americans would probably chafe if 1% of our GDP is spent on international aid during a time of internal crisis, such as Katrina.

Having said all that, one quote caught my eye: a person interviewed said that Africans must become self-reliant to avoid a situation where Africa becomes the "white man's burden." It is a stunning reminder that just a few of the world's nations control most of the world's wealth. Although millionaires are newly minted in India and China on a weekly basis, most of the world's money is probably still in Dubai, New York, the U.K., Switzerland, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Singapore. As a result, one possible reason for inertia is the mere fact that most citizens from these "monied" nations lack a firm connection with poor nations such as Africa or Bangladesh. Still, pointing to an absence of shared race appears to be a simplistic answer, especially in an age where we are mixing together culturally and biologically.

One of the prevalent themes in the magazine was the appeal to shared humanity. Minister Tutu went so far as to say that a person who is completely self-sufficient is sub-human. Maya Angelou more eloquently stated that she takes an interest in all human beings because she is a human being and therefore no human being can be alien to her. The point being made is as follows: "Let him who expects one class of society to prosper in the highest degree, while the other is in distress, try whether one side of the face can smile while the other is pinched." But one of the surprising elements of the 21st century is how easily affluent people can wall themselves off from the impoverished without consequence. (For those who point to 9/11 as one counterargument, the attackers were actually affluent and educated.)

Indeed, the world is becoming more stratified, not less, as money flows more rapidly. The rich can, if they choose, congregate only in particular neighborhoods; go to private schools; and get plush jobs through connections. Part of this de facto segregation is because wealth is becoming more earned than inherited, and people who make lots of money tend to work with affluent, educated people. Another part of it might be inertia: if you are raised with golf and tennis lessons, you may be perfectly happy spending your free time doing those activities at the local country club during your free time.

In any case, it is becoming obvious that people can become rich and stay comfortably rich without ever assisting or coming into contact with the poor. The inequality is even apparent in the retail sector: Neiman Marcus and Tiffany's are doing better than ever, while companies attempting to cater to the middle class, like JC Penny, Mervyn's, and Sears, are having trouble. So the 21st century is the age of inequality and yet also an incredible time to be alive if one lives in a first-world country.

Given our modern acceptance of financial stratification, moral arguments about equality and all of us being human may not be effective in an era where capitalism requires most of us to focus on local and profitable events; where most wealth is earned, making it difficult to argue that wealth should be shared because it is a matter of luck; and where religion is waning as a source of persuasion. So the 20 billion dollar question remains: how do we connect up the poor with the resources necessary to allow them to prosper?

One solution could be that Africa could organize its own OPEC. It certainly has enough natural resources to do this, and if it does not, it may be beholden to China for the next century rather than becoming self-sufficient. (Though this may not be a bad thing: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0627/p01s05-woaf.html)

A second solution could be to adopt the Saudi Arabian model: the Americans helped the Saudis find and remove oil, but after a certain period of time, the companies reverted to local control. Thereafter, the Saudis exchanged resources for technology and infrastructure and now are investing in non-traditional vehicles such as hedge funds. Today, there are few poor Saudi citizens.

Beyond those suggestions, I have no solutions about how to bring Africa--20% of the world population--out of poverty. Africa has great human capital--many Africans speak several languages, which will assist them in an increasingly global economy. Major cities, like Nairobi, are relatively affluent--my friend tells me everyone there has cell phones--while smaller cities lack basic water and food supplies. In the end, perhaps Bono is doing the most anyone can do: raise money and awareness, and let the Africans develop their own pace of progress. In the meantime, I will keep contributing to www.kiva.org