Globalism has become something of a politically charged term. From an economic perspective, globalism is the movement towards world-wide free trade, or the erosion of protectionist barriers between nation-states. For any trade to be "free" it needs to exhibit 4 properties: 1. Free movement of goods 2. Free movement of capitol 3. Free movement of labor 4. Legal enforcement of contracts. The trend towards these free markets, indeed globalization, has indisputably been lifting millions of people out of poverty and has been responsible for decades of economic growth. Yet with all of the benefits of globalization, there is an increasing movement away from and regression towards protectionism. How can this apparent contradiction be possible in a rational world?

The simple answer is that the world is not rational. While free trade brings with it greater personal and national prosperity, it tends to bring with it a host of other things such as the free flow of ideas, economic and social liberalism, and demands for accountability from government and societal elites. These forces can be very positive if you are poor and are given the opportunity to climb into the middle class. At the same time, they can be very destabilizing for the entrenched ruling classes in many countries. Leaders who are used to ruling through the subjugation -- both political and religious -- of their people, see the forces of globalization as a threat to their power and prosperity. They counter this threat through age old tools of persecution, fear, piety, and bigotry.

The United States is unrivaled as the world's largest and most prosperous economy. How did we get here from our fragmented, isolated, colonial past? In joining together to counter eighteenth century British tyranny, American colonists unwittingly created the world's largest free trade zone. For the first time, goods, capital, and labor could flow freely between states and an effective legal system was built to unify the system. America could have easily gone down the European route and formed 50 small nation-states rather than one United States. Instead, the power of free trade and the free market encouraged innovation and developed into the world's preeminent economy.

During the cold war, political scientists divided the global map into three worlds: The first world were the free Western, capitalist counties. The second world were communist countries and those allied with the old Soviet Union. Finally the third world were the poor, undeveloped countries that were largely unaligned with Cold War politics. Ever since the cold war, the "second and third worlds" have been trying to catch up to the first. Some have managed this process rather successfully: Singapore, South Korea, Israel, Brazil, and others have all created largely Western markets that have vaulted their economies and people into modern prosperity. Some of the world's most populous countries such as China and India are quickly trying to do the same and in the process are transforming the world's economy.

Ask most people in any of these countries and they are bound to tell you that the opening up of markets for their products has been almost universally positive. Paradoxically, use the term Globalization and you will likely be met by frowns. The reasons for this lie mostly in the periphery of what was once the third world. The countries most poised to join the prosperity of globalization are also often the most repressed politically. The convergence of modern technologies and liberal ideologies with entrenched monarchies and theocracies has often led to violent turmoil.

As globalization is far from complete, the 4 requisite properties are highly unevenly distributed in many countries. Even in the United States where goods and capital flow freely within a strong legal framework, labor flows from Mexico and elsewhere have led to much political friction. In severely restricted economies such as those of most Arab countries, petro-dollars have created markets with fairly free flowing goods and capital, however labor (people) are highly restricted and the legal system is often at the whim of the local dictator. This uneven distribution necessarily leads to new "have's" as well as "have-not's."

In the US and Europe, labor unions threaten anarchy as many manufacturing jobs move to Asia where labor is much cheaper. In the Arab world, riots and "jihads" are called to prevent pluralist ideas and religious diversity from "tainting" conservative populations. Populist fury at corrupt officials and lack of political expression are often violently redirected to perceived enemies, such as Israel. In China, Communist ideology slowly erodes as Capitalism booms in local economies, while increasingly anxious government officials still rule with an iron fist.

All over the world, the effects of globalization can be felt. As we increasingly become tied together in one, interdependent economy, those that learn to work with the system become increasingly prosperous. Those that can't deal with the new reality are increasingly marginalized, and often lash out violently. As with technology, the forces of economic globalism can hardly be turned back. Now that the world has begun to trade with each other, they are not simply going to stop.

Trying to stop globalism is like trying to re-close Pandora's box. People who have seen how Western societies live are not likely to abandon all that the West has to offer. This is not to say that every Western ideal will be embraced -- far from it. Freedom and prosperity, however, are human desires, not just Western desires. As long as freedom and prosperity are denied people by despots, autocrats, and theocrats, the more they are likely to rebel. Perhaps today they rebel against the West, however eventually their anger will turn inward. Globalism may be increasingly considered problematic, however the world is desperately in need of more.

If you watch television, or listen to radio, you constantly hear that "digital" is good. Cable TV is going digital, Cell phones are going digital, even music is going digital. The marketers want you to believe that digital means "crystal clear clarity," and that you associate "digital" with "superior." It's true that most of our media and communications are going digital, but is this a good thing?

Many might wonder what exactly is so new about "digital" anyway? Put simply, digital is a way of representing -- well, anything -- with a code of 1's and 0's. This binary language is the language of computers. Before digital, many things were represented in "analog" or wave forms that could be read as audio or video. There are, of course, many advantages to digital. The Western world has developed enormous infrastructure for the transmission of digital information. Ostensibly for computer networking, this vast infrastructure of fiber optic and copper cabling can easily transfer anything that can be encoded digitally into those handy 1's and 0's. Furthermore, algorithms for efficient compression and encryption of digital data have been developed over the years for computers and can again be used for anything digital. In this way, once something "goes digital" it can then be encrypted for security, compressed for speed, and in many instances controlled by its originator. Herein lies the problem with many things digital.

Take for example that wonderful digital cable or satellite that most Americans now have in our homes. Remember when you could simply put up a pair of "Rabbit ears" and watch TV? Not anymore. Television stations found it difficult to extend broadcasting to America's ever expanding suburbs. Increasingly wealthy middle class suburbians demanded a better way to watch TV, and the cable industry was born. Promising a wealth of channels hereto-for unavailable, companies across the US started stringing across expensive coaxial cabling into your home. These wonderful cables held the promise of carrying a hundred channels or more for your TV. America switched to cable in droves. After a few short decades, the broadcasting stations gave up trying to boost their signals and cable became de rigueur. America got used to paying for commercial television.

Early cable TV was all analog, as was over-the-air broadcasting. Once the cable into your home was turned on, you could splice it, split it, and watch it from anywhere in your house. Cable companies soon realized that they could seriously increase their revenue by transforming their customers to digital. Digital promised the ability to compress programming so that the same cable that used to carry 100-200 channels, could now carry 10 times that, or more. More importantly, once the programming stream became digital it could be controlled by the cable companies. Lured in, once again, by the promise of more channels and more choices, Americans signed up for fancy new "digital cable boxes." Now suddenly, instead of being able to plug the cable directly into your TV, or VCR, you now had to go first through the cable company's box. This box "decodes" the digital stream, along the way deciding what you have access to, and often tracks what it is that you are watching. This box also allows a whole bunch of other revenue enhancing services such as pay-per-view, TV shopping, recently even Digital Video Recording or DVR.

So what's wrong with all this? Isn't this just progress? Well, yes, and no. Along with the nifty new services being offered to you through digital is an increasing loss of control that you have over the media coming into your home. Once upon a time you were free to do most anything you wanted with the signal coming into your home. This sparked an innovative marketplace of devices meant to work with your cable. Now, the control being exercised by the media companies over digital is having the opposite effect and starving innovation. The latest trend of progress in television is high definition (HD). HD offers vastly superior picture over the previous NTSC television. If you are an early adopter and have HD in your home, have you ever tried recording that HD? For the most part, you can't. The reason for this is not technical, it's political. Cable companies, who control digital programming and the associated boxes, are unwilling currently to provide decoders to companies that develop consumer friendly products. Why should they? The cable companies can make much more money if they force you to only buy their products. The government has stepped in to force them to do so, in the form of "cable cards," but these have proven extremely slow to market and the lack of standardization has made it difficult for third parties to design products around them.

The same trend towards proprietary formats and more control over digital media is all around us. Do you use one of Apple's bestselling iPod's? Have you noticed that it will only play two music formats: .mp3 and AAC (.mp4)? The reason for this is that .mp3's became ubiquitous in the marketplace leaving Apple with no choice, however they vastly prefer their own AAC format which is in use on iTunes. With AAC Apple could DRM your music and thereby control how you use it. Unlike many music players, the leading iPod's don't allow you to take music back off your device and on to your computer. Apple claims that since you put it on, you should already have it, but in reality this is just another copy protection mechanism. Microsoft is attempting to do much the same thing with its own proprietary formats and is hoping to enshrine these in their newest version of Windows (Vista).

Are you noticing a trend here? The cable companies control where you watch "their" cable through the use of digital boxes. Apple controls how you listen to "their" music through the use of DRM. Microsoft is trying to control how use software through Windows.

Digital technologies have brought about many improvements to the way we consume media. Unfortunately, these technologies have enabled companies to exercise unprecedented control over how we use, where we use, and when we use that media. Consumers should be aware that there has always been a "give and take" between media owners (copyrights) and media consumers (fair use). New technologies have always blurred the boundaries between them, and media companies will always try to push for extended control. This does not mean that consumers can't fight back through their elected representatives. America leads the world in innovation precisely because of the free flow of information and the free market. Digital is not good or bad; that determination depends on how it is used. We can not allow American innovation to be stifled by media companies trying to monopolize sources of information.

In what has been called a "completely honest, completely fair, and completely safe" election, the Palestinian people have just elected a government that is completely bent on the destruction of Israel, completely determined to establish an Islamic theocracy, and completely predisposed to terrorism. On January 25, Hamas, the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parliament, ousting the ruling Fatah party from power for the first time since the Palestinian authority was established in 1993. Electing a terrorist government to rule their newly formed Democracy may seem to be a failure of the democratic experiment in the Arab world, but is this Hamas victory really that alarming?

On the face of it, yes it is.

Muhammed Zaha, the leader of Hamas in Gaza said: "Now, after the victory in the Gaza strip, we will transfer the struggle first to the West Bank and later to Jerusalem.. Neither the liberation of the Gaza Strip nor the liberation of the West Bank or even Jerusalem will suffice us. Hamas will pursue the armed struggle until the liberation of all our lands. We don't recognize the state of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine. Palestine is an Islamic land belonging to all the Muslims."

Clearly his comments don't bode well for negotiating "Peace" with neighbor Israel. How does one negotiate when one party calls for the extinction of the other?

Unfortunately, that is precisely what Israel and the Western world has been doing ever since Oslo. Arafat's Fatah party considered one of its core doctrines the "phase plan" of 1974 in which it calls for the destruction of Israel in 3 stages: 1. Establishing an "independent authority" over any territory "liberated" from Israeli rule. 2. Continued struggle using the national authority as a base of operations. 3. Provoke an all-out war in which Israel's Arab neighbors destroy it entirely.

The West believed Arafat when he said (in English) that he had changed, however, Arafat reiterated this position in 1993, just after signing the agreement: "[Oslo] will be a basis for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Palestine National Council resolution issued in 1974." Arafat's Fatah spoke about "Peace" in English to the West, but about Jihad and victory in Arabic to their own people.

Hamas chooses not to engage in the same doublespeak that characterized Arafat and Fatah. Khaled Mash'al, Hamas' leader in Damascus said, just after the elections, that "as for recognizing [Israel] and amending our charter - Hamas is not the kind of movement that succumbs to pressure. The occupation has no legitimacy. We will not recognize it, no matter how much time passes. We will never recognize the occupation as legitimate, and we will not give up on our rights. However, we are realistic, and we know things are done gradually, in stages." By "occupation" he is, of course, referring to the entirety of Israel, not the West Bank or Gaza.

Ironically, in Hamas' stark statements of its beliefs, an opportunity for something positive can be found from the Palestinian elections. Now that Fatah's doublespeak has been rejected in favor of Hamas' brand of jihadi candor, perhaps the West might open its eyes to the real nature of the Islamist threat.

Following the elections, former US president Jimmy Carter exclaimed that "My hope is that as Hamas assumes a major role in the next government, whatever that might be, it will take a position on international standards of responsibility." Secretary General Kofi Annan later noted what those "international standards of responsibility" are: "a Hamas-led Palestinian government must commit to non-violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of existing peace agreements if it is to maintain its level of financial support." Of course, Hamas leadership immediately scrambled to do precisely the opposite: "The Palestinian people has [sic] chosen Hamas with its known stances. If America wants to negotiate with Hamas - it is most welcome, but based on the positions for which the people chose us."

Hamas' victory now presents the West with a choice between Scylla & Charybdis. We can recognize that Hamas has no intention whatsoever of "moderating" or "civilizing" and isolate them as part of the ongoing "war on terror," or we can choose to coddle our own delusions of optimism and believe that Hamas will "reform."

Khaled Mash'al has offered a "hudna" to Israel, which has been extensively covered in Western newspapers as an offer of "cease-fire," so long as Israel accepts a whole host of terms from Hamas. This has been viewed as early evidence of a possible Hamas "softening." Islamic theology, however, offers a very different take: "Hudna" is a period of quiet in which time is sought for rearmament and gaining of strength until ultimate victory can be achieved. Masha'l later emphasized the same point, saying "There is a difference between regarding the period of calm (hudna) as divergence from the resistance - which will never happen - and regarding the period of calm as one of the tactics of the resistance."

So if Hamas rejects the very terms of Oslo by failing to renounce terror, calling for the creation of a Palestinian army in direct contravention of the treaty,* and embraces terrorism as a tool for nationalist goals, why is the West treating the Oslo accords as sacrosanct? Worse, why is the West considering the funding of Hamas?

Without Oslo there is no Palestinian Authority. In fact, without Oslo there is no legal framework at all for any "Palestinian Territories." There were no Palestinian territories prior to 1967; Gaza was ruled by Egypt and the West bank by Jordan. Hamas certainly rejects Oslo:

According, once again, to Masha'l: "The Legislative Council is one of the Oslo Accords' political frameworks, but the Oslo plan is over. It is no longer effective, and no one follows it anymore, and I don't think our people will accept the revival of Oslo, after it has been buried and eulogized by all."

Perhaps it is time for Israel and the West to declare the Oslo accords a mistake, renounce the Palestinian authority entirely and try another tack? Classical Odysseus, when forced to choose, ended up choosing Scylla over Charybdis and lost a large portion of his crew. He saw this as better than facing Charybdis and potentially losing his ship and all aboard.

Will a Hamas led PA be the modern day Scylla, whom dealing with may ultimately provide the way forward despite the inevitable loss of life, or will they prove Charybdis and cause any hope of Peace to go down with the ship?

---------------------------

* According to the Oslo 2 treaty (1995), the PA is allowed to deploy up to 24,000 policemen. Furthermore, Oslo 2 states "Except for the Palestinian Police and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." The treaty then goes on to prohibit all weapons, explosives, etc. by anyone other than the PA Police or Israeli military.