It is true that earlier in the election cycle I had endorsed Ralph Nader for President. This is because I believed that at the time he offered the best possible policies for the country. After all, he was the only candidate who would have implemented single payer health care and attempted to kick out the massive agricultural pork we have been handing out. Those two issues I considered to be the major differences between him and Barack Obama and John McCain. Though Nader had no realistic shot of winning, a vote for him would be a vote for my conscience back when I realized that whether I voted in New Jersey or Illinois my vote wouldn't matter.
As time went on, however, Nader's anti-free trade position began to eat away at me. This might have thrown my vote towards John McCain, except that now I was left with 3 candidates, none of whom I agreed with perfectly on the issues: I agreed with Nader on health care and special interests but not economic or foreign policy, I agreed with Obama on special interests and foreign policy, but not on economic policy or health care, and I agreed with John McCain on economic policy and special interests, but not on foreign policy and health care. In a sense, all of these issues were a wash.
But with the coming of the economic crisis I realized something: these issues don't matter as much as the expectations of who we elect. Voting for Nader would not symbolize the necessary direction this country needs to go in. Voting for McCain would send the wrong message to our allies abroad. Voting for Obama would both create a new direction that I can generally agree with and reinforce our world standing abroad. A vote for Obama would be a vote for calmer economic times and a better foreign policy.
It was based on that alone that I am voting for Barack Obama (assuming, of course, that my voter registration actually got through). I am endorsing him for change we need.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
On the Federal Reserve's rate cute
The Federal Reserve's lowering of the Fed Funds target rate to 1% is the latest in a series of moves attempting to keep liquidity flowing in the financial markets. This one, unlike previous moves by the Fed, comes through its main channel. It was completely expected, which explains the stock market's relatively muted response. The Federal Reserve, however, is approaching the bottom of its bag of tricks.
At 1% the Fed Funds target rate is at the lowest it has been since 2003-2004. Because of the huge amount of liquid assets the actual target rate is lower than 1%. If the Fed somehow bottoms out and makes the interest rate reach 0%, they face the same problem that the central bank of Japan faced when it committed similar actions. The Federal Reserve cannot go much lower. It has to resort to alternative measures.
What this means is that the Fed Funds target rate's days as the primary tool of Federal Reserve policy are over. During this crisis alternative tools, like credit swaps, will replace the target rate in primacy. It is unlikely that the target rate will return to prominence except during inflation fighting. Thus, it is very likely that the Federal Reserve has effectively split its tool chest for achieving its two directives of economic growth and controlling inflation: the target rate will be used primarily for the latter now.
This is a welcome change. No longer will interest rates be used in a desperate attempt to boost economic growth at the expense of inflation as it was in the past. We might be seeing the rise of a new era of controlled inflation and economic growth through alternative tools at last.
At 1% the Fed Funds target rate is at the lowest it has been since 2003-2004. Because of the huge amount of liquid assets the actual target rate is lower than 1%. If the Fed somehow bottoms out and makes the interest rate reach 0%, they face the same problem that the central bank of Japan faced when it committed similar actions. The Federal Reserve cannot go much lower. It has to resort to alternative measures.
What this means is that the Fed Funds target rate's days as the primary tool of Federal Reserve policy are over. During this crisis alternative tools, like credit swaps, will replace the target rate in primacy. It is unlikely that the target rate will return to prominence except during inflation fighting. Thus, it is very likely that the Federal Reserve has effectively split its tool chest for achieving its two directives of economic growth and controlling inflation: the target rate will be used primarily for the latter now.
This is a welcome change. No longer will interest rates be used in a desperate attempt to boost economic growth at the expense of inflation as it was in the past. We might be seeing the rise of a new era of controlled inflation and economic growth through alternative tools at last.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The future of the newspaper
The biggest news of the day in the media world is the revelation that starting in April of next year, the Christian Science Monitor will no longer be a daily newspaper. It will instead switch to being mainly an online presence and a weekly publication. In this regards, it will become more like the Economist rather than USA Today.
This is a sensible move to counteract the major weakness of the CSM: its lack of a consistent base. Unlike other publications who are able to become national, like the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor has no major city from which to draw a relatively steady stream of readers. That leaves it in a competition with the USA Today and other papers for a national audience, something which it is hard pressed to do. The Christian Science Monitor, after all, is best known for relying less on the wire services than other papers and its analysis. It doesn't compete on breaking news, unlike other papers like the Washington Post. Thus a weekly magazine-esque paper with an online presence best allows the CSM to attract a wider audience more suited to its own strengths.
The collapse of the CSM as a daily, though, brings up interesting questions about the future of the newspaper in general. Though large papers might continue to see their circulations shrink, there is almost no chance of the medium as a whole disappearing. The major newspapers of the cities will still survive, albeit in a smaller form. It is those small-town newspapers, however, which are in danger of being eliminated the most.
Small town newspapers have only one strength: their locality. Because they are relatively small they can target local business advertisements and local news stories that wouldn't otherwise be picked up. This might be enough to save newspapers in towns that can sustain a relatively moderate circulation. But as the economy goes, so do the newspapers: revenues from advertisements fall with falling economic times.
Papers of all kinds are likely to survive nonetheless. Because, and so long as, they provide a service unavailable elsewhere, newspapers will be able to withstand the rise of the Internet. If they can't, well, they can look to the examples of the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor for a post-newspaper era.
This is a sensible move to counteract the major weakness of the CSM: its lack of a consistent base. Unlike other publications who are able to become national, like the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor has no major city from which to draw a relatively steady stream of readers. That leaves it in a competition with the USA Today and other papers for a national audience, something which it is hard pressed to do. The Christian Science Monitor, after all, is best known for relying less on the wire services than other papers and its analysis. It doesn't compete on breaking news, unlike other papers like the Washington Post. Thus a weekly magazine-esque paper with an online presence best allows the CSM to attract a wider audience more suited to its own strengths.
The collapse of the CSM as a daily, though, brings up interesting questions about the future of the newspaper in general. Though large papers might continue to see their circulations shrink, there is almost no chance of the medium as a whole disappearing. The major newspapers of the cities will still survive, albeit in a smaller form. It is those small-town newspapers, however, which are in danger of being eliminated the most.
Small town newspapers have only one strength: their locality. Because they are relatively small they can target local business advertisements and local news stories that wouldn't otherwise be picked up. This might be enough to save newspapers in towns that can sustain a relatively moderate circulation. But as the economy goes, so do the newspapers: revenues from advertisements fall with falling economic times.
Papers of all kinds are likely to survive nonetheless. Because, and so long as, they provide a service unavailable elsewhere, newspapers will be able to withstand the rise of the Internet. If they can't, well, they can look to the examples of the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor for a post-newspaper era.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The end game strategy for John McCain
It is often comical that the most accurate predictions of who the candidates will be before the Presidential election were those that simply focused on who was the most electable in the general election. After all, the prevailing narrative before primary voting began on the Democratic side was that Hillary Clinton had it locked up, but would most likely lose the general election, which Barack Obama, who was not going to win in the primaries, would have locked up. On the Republican side, everyone acknowledged that John McCain was probably the most electable combination of Republican and independent ideology - but that he would never make it to become the candidate. In less than 2 weeks we will get the Obama vs. McCain matchup that back before this season started seemed to be the best for both parties' chances of getting into office. It appears that the voters for both parties ultimately only care about electability, and not much else.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, factors have not broken their way. The Republican party's best shot of being elected after 8 years of President Bush was John McCain, but those odds have been greatly reduced, partly out of luck (economic problems) and partly out of choice (hiring the guy who got Bush elected in a season where Bush is toxic was not a good idea). With less than 2 weeks to go, McCain is down in the national polls and losing states that he cannot afford to, like Colorado and Virginia. He is limited by money and time and enthusiasm, all of which favor Obama. There is honestly very little chance that he can still pull out a win.
At some point McCain must look towards the future. This election cycle needs to be a rebuilding year for the Republican party. McCain has a chance to redefine the party in much the same way Barry Goldwater had the chance to during his election loss to LBJ. While McCain's loss might not be as great, it is likely to happen.
McCain's natural political positions are very much appealing to the electorate. His shift rightward was unnecessary and harmful to his chance of being elected. If McCain were to have run on a platform of his natural positions, he could have realigned his party to ensure that even though he might have lost this election, the Republicans would become extremely competitive in future elections. Sadly, he is avoiding this chance. While he might have lost the election while securing the future of the party, he is likely now to lose the election and the party's future as well.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, factors have not broken their way. The Republican party's best shot of being elected after 8 years of President Bush was John McCain, but those odds have been greatly reduced, partly out of luck (economic problems) and partly out of choice (hiring the guy who got Bush elected in a season where Bush is toxic was not a good idea). With less than 2 weeks to go, McCain is down in the national polls and losing states that he cannot afford to, like Colorado and Virginia. He is limited by money and time and enthusiasm, all of which favor Obama. There is honestly very little chance that he can still pull out a win.
At some point McCain must look towards the future. This election cycle needs to be a rebuilding year for the Republican party. McCain has a chance to redefine the party in much the same way Barry Goldwater had the chance to during his election loss to LBJ. While McCain's loss might not be as great, it is likely to happen.
McCain's natural political positions are very much appealing to the electorate. His shift rightward was unnecessary and harmful to his chance of being elected. If McCain were to have run on a platform of his natural positions, he could have realigned his party to ensure that even though he might have lost this election, the Republicans would become extremely competitive in future elections. Sadly, he is avoiding this chance. While he might have lost the election while securing the future of the party, he is likely now to lose the election and the party's future as well.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The fragility of the market
There is no need to state the obvious: the world's financial markets are in serious trouble. After all, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost something on the scale of 2000 points within 2 weeks, a fall that probably hasn't had an equal in history. Other stock markets, ranging from Japan's, to Hong Kong's, to Indonesia's, to European stock markets are all feeling the aftershocks. The entire financial structure of the country of Iceland has failed. These times are truly extraordinary: as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan proclaims, such a devastation is usually seen only "once in a century".
Why did this happen? After all, it is said that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. And for the sake of the next century (the third time's the charm?), it is necessary to examine why this financial crisis happened.
Though it is difficult to compare this crisis to the Great Depression, due to the differences in how monetary policy was conducted and how money was supported, it is the only event of comparable scale for the current global financial meltdown. Here, a major difference appears: while the Great Depression was the cause of credit being too tight, the initial cause of the current financial crisis was too much loose credit.
Two causes of the current crisis are evident, one of them being more important than the other. The most important cause of the current financial crisis was the Federal Reserve's policy of keeping interest rates incredibly low throughout the 90's. Though it would appear that such a policy seemed justified at the time and helped contribute to the United States' incredible growth during that period, the policies were not reversed quickly enough once the growth began slowing. Indeed, the Fed did what they saw as necessary in keeping interest rates continually low once economic slowdown seemed to arrive. However, with a lack of investment opportunities in new technologies due to the Internet bubble bursting, there was a lot of freely available credit without a lot of places to hand it out.
This changed once Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given mandates to provide mortgages to individuals traditionally disadvantaged individuals. The merits of wanting greater equity in home ownership can be debated later. Needless to say, though, that these two reasons led to a massive extension of credit in the housing sector.
A housing bubble has one uniquely devastating affect on the economy. For example, while normal recessions have housing related spending falling first, a housing bubble prevents that. This makes recovery that much harder. More problematic, though, is that the extension of so much credit has drastically changed expectations: bankers expect this much credit to always be available: once it's not, bankers panic, investment greatly falls and the economy slows down.
Now we have a situation in which the Fed is caught between a rock and a hard place: if it continues to extend credit, it preserves the economy but creates a long term effect of an inherently riskier market. If it tries to correct expectations now the world economy could quite literally collapse.
Fortunately, there is a way out. If the world governments start by continuing to extend credit and gradually reduce that credit, then the damaging effects should be mitigated and the world economy can return to normal. If it does not, then economic collapse will not just be a doomsday scenario: it will be reality.
Why did this happen? After all, it is said that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it. And for the sake of the next century (the third time's the charm?), it is necessary to examine why this financial crisis happened.
Though it is difficult to compare this crisis to the Great Depression, due to the differences in how monetary policy was conducted and how money was supported, it is the only event of comparable scale for the current global financial meltdown. Here, a major difference appears: while the Great Depression was the cause of credit being too tight, the initial cause of the current financial crisis was too much loose credit.
Two causes of the current crisis are evident, one of them being more important than the other. The most important cause of the current financial crisis was the Federal Reserve's policy of keeping interest rates incredibly low throughout the 90's. Though it would appear that such a policy seemed justified at the time and helped contribute to the United States' incredible growth during that period, the policies were not reversed quickly enough once the growth began slowing. Indeed, the Fed did what they saw as necessary in keeping interest rates continually low once economic slowdown seemed to arrive. However, with a lack of investment opportunities in new technologies due to the Internet bubble bursting, there was a lot of freely available credit without a lot of places to hand it out.
This changed once Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given mandates to provide mortgages to individuals traditionally disadvantaged individuals. The merits of wanting greater equity in home ownership can be debated later. Needless to say, though, that these two reasons led to a massive extension of credit in the housing sector.
A housing bubble has one uniquely devastating affect on the economy. For example, while normal recessions have housing related spending falling first, a housing bubble prevents that. This makes recovery that much harder. More problematic, though, is that the extension of so much credit has drastically changed expectations: bankers expect this much credit to always be available: once it's not, bankers panic, investment greatly falls and the economy slows down.
Now we have a situation in which the Fed is caught between a rock and a hard place: if it continues to extend credit, it preserves the economy but creates a long term effect of an inherently riskier market. If it tries to correct expectations now the world economy could quite literally collapse.
Fortunately, there is a way out. If the world governments start by continuing to extend credit and gradually reduce that credit, then the damaging effects should be mitigated and the world economy can return to normal. If it does not, then economic collapse will not just be a doomsday scenario: it will be reality.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Bitches Ain't Shit: Commentary on the Vice Presidential Debates
Mistake number 1: Sarah Palin: "Has this been a good time or a bad time in our economy?"
And with that Sarah Palin's readiness for the Vice Presidency fails.
To be fair, the Vice Presidential debates have rarely affected election outcomes. Even Lloyd Bensten's attack on Dan "Not Jack Kennedy" Quayle did not significantly change the outcome of the 1992 election. But tonight, for once, that might change. Because Sarah Palin, not John McCain, has been the focus of the Republican campaign for the past few weeks, this debate will be key. If Palin appears to have won this debate, then Republican momentum has a chance to shift towards a victory this November. Failure here will mean that there is no chance for the Republicans to change the outcome of this election: the loss of this debate will mean that no more opportunities to shift the election narrative will exist for the Mccain campaign.
Biden started off strong, slamming Palin on several key points. He appeared to be more in control and ran a narrative more conducive to American voters. Palin did not make huge gaffes, but because she stuck to many standard attack points of Republicans, she was unable to connect with more voters.
On the topic of energy, Biden managed to successfully turn Palin's argument about her accomplishments in Alaska with regards to oil companies (like the windfall tax) against John McCain, continuing the job that he has to do in this debate. As long as he focuses his attacks on McCain, Biden is creating a win-win situation: he gets to attack the ticket, but he also manages to avoid charges of sexism.
As the debate got on longer, Palin's hand strengthened simply through her continued ability to not screw up. Biden weakened slightly as his responses continued to get longer, but he held on to still be the leader in this debate. Palin appeared to be more knowledgeable than expected, and as a result she improved her image regardless of what else she does.
Mistake number 2: Sarah Palin: "There have been huge blunders in this administration."
One of Palin's strengths was her ability to rally the base, but with a comment like this, Palin risks alienating conservatives who were excited by Palin while providing fodder for the Democrats.
Palin's strategy shifted towards diverting attention away from George Bush before the debate became more substantive. In the end the debate became a serious fight between two candidates, though because of the early strong start by Biden, he has clearly won this debate.
And with that Sarah Palin's readiness for the Vice Presidency fails.
To be fair, the Vice Presidential debates have rarely affected election outcomes. Even Lloyd Bensten's attack on Dan "Not Jack Kennedy" Quayle did not significantly change the outcome of the 1992 election. But tonight, for once, that might change. Because Sarah Palin, not John McCain, has been the focus of the Republican campaign for the past few weeks, this debate will be key. If Palin appears to have won this debate, then Republican momentum has a chance to shift towards a victory this November. Failure here will mean that there is no chance for the Republicans to change the outcome of this election: the loss of this debate will mean that no more opportunities to shift the election narrative will exist for the Mccain campaign.
Biden started off strong, slamming Palin on several key points. He appeared to be more in control and ran a narrative more conducive to American voters. Palin did not make huge gaffes, but because she stuck to many standard attack points of Republicans, she was unable to connect with more voters.
On the topic of energy, Biden managed to successfully turn Palin's argument about her accomplishments in Alaska with regards to oil companies (like the windfall tax) against John McCain, continuing the job that he has to do in this debate. As long as he focuses his attacks on McCain, Biden is creating a win-win situation: he gets to attack the ticket, but he also manages to avoid charges of sexism.
As the debate got on longer, Palin's hand strengthened simply through her continued ability to not screw up. Biden weakened slightly as his responses continued to get longer, but he held on to still be the leader in this debate. Palin appeared to be more knowledgeable than expected, and as a result she improved her image regardless of what else she does.
Mistake number 2: Sarah Palin: "There have been huge blunders in this administration."
One of Palin's strengths was her ability to rally the base, but with a comment like this, Palin risks alienating conservatives who were excited by Palin while providing fodder for the Democrats.
Palin's strategy shifted towards diverting attention away from George Bush before the debate became more substantive. In the end the debate became a serious fight between two candidates, though because of the early strong start by Biden, he has clearly won this debate.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
More of that Republican magic
It is now the middle of September. John McCain’s candidacy, which up until this summer seemed doomed to certain failure, is now likely to lead to the next President of the United States. Barack Obama, for whom the office of the Presidency had been his to lose, is losing it. In all of the most recent polls, what was once a relatively comfortable lead for the Demcratic nominee is now either a dead heat or a prediction of victory for the Republicans. If the election were to happen this very moment, the most likely outcome would be a Senate and House controlled by the Democratic party while the White House belongs to a Republican. Those with a sense of humor might note that we, as citizens, will be receiving the worst of both ends.
How is this even possible? Why do Republicans have such an advantage when it comes to running campaigns? The most likely reason is twofold: first, Republicans were ahead of the curve when mass media came out in terms of utilizing new technologies and have held that advantage up until now. Secondly, Republicans tend to treat elections more like games in which the only thing that matters is more votes.
The tactics they utilize, from smear campaigns to outright lying, are usually good enough to succeed. However, such tactics ultimately fail when an overriding issue, namely the economy, comes into play. There is nothing to be done when the economy becomes the central issue, because that inherently gives a huge advantage to the Democrats. As such, it seems likely that for once, despite Republican tactics, a Democrat will ultimately prevail in the White House.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sarah Palin Fails ABC Interview
Sarah Palin's interview does not go quite as well as expected.
While she did present some positions consistent with Republican ideology, she lacked the general understanding of some other key points. Specifically, she had no understanding of what the "Bush Doctrine" in foreign policy, instead refusing to answer the question twice before going to a stock response. Additionally, Palin linked September 11th to Iraq instead of Al-Qaeda, a position that has thus far not been validated through facts or even accepted by the current Administration. She also purposefully skirted a question about whether she believed that the Iraq War was a "mission from God", turning to an Abraham Lincoln quote to deflect away from her own comments.
It is clear from this interview that Palin is not yet ready to be Vice President. While she herself might be proud of being a Washington outsider, her lack of experience or even knowledge of national politics and issues makes it impossible to say that she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Ultimately she showed that she was more like Dan Quayle as a VP nominee, and the fact that she accepted the nomination unquestioningly shows either hubris or a lack of ability to clearly evaluate herself.
Monday, September 01, 2008
A fair view on the invasion of Taiwan
When it comes to the invasion of Taiwan, one must actually go to the island and see rather than speculate. Similar to how the Persians lost to the Greeks, the Chinese will be unable to hold Taiwan as an islands, if Taiwan runs an insurgency. This is due to several reasons. First, is that the Taiwan military is better equipped than the Chinese military. The new Taiwanese rifle is reputed to have the accuracy of the M-16 with the reliability of the AK-47. I believe China still operates with the AK-47. The Taiwan Military also has M-1 Abrams in order. Retired tank from the Canadian arsenal are being shipped to Taiwan. Other than the random talk about the Equipment, there are more pressing matters that state why Taiwan cannot be held by China.
Second, is the fact that Taiwan specializes in Urban combat. Due to the fact that Taiwan is concentrated mainly in cities and not suburbs, the Chinese military will have to go through cities to hold Taiwan. There are several problems with this. First, is that everyone can shoot a weapon. Due to the fact that every male in Taiwan must serve in the military for at least 2 years, everyone in Taiwan needs to shoot. As demonstrated by the Iraqi war, a full blown insurgency inside of a city is incredibly hard to occupy no matter who you are (U.S. Marines). To make this matter worse, is the fact that every building in Taiwan is built to earthquake standards. Hence, Taiwan is fairly resistant to artillery. Furthermore, Taiwan is built with many sketchy alleys. Since these are only wide enough for say, 2 people and both sides with concrete, it wouldn't be difficult to establish a kill zone.
Third, is that Taiwan has more mobility than probably any other place. Since the island is populated with an incredible amount of scooters, moving small arms and people effectively through tight corridors will not be a problem. Hence, any insurgency will always be supplied. On the same note, since Taiwan is a tropical islands, food is outside. Yet again, Taiwan will be well supplied.
Hence, to hold Taiwan, merely requires an excess of small arms.
Unfortunately, I am unsure of the resolution of Taiwan to hold and fight against China. True, that China will be unable to hold Taiwan, but Taiwan has much more to lose than China. At the moment, Taiwan is on the cutting edge of technology. If there is anything that Taiwan has to brag about, is high end infrastructure. Unfortunately, these would be lost in an air strike. Hence, I am unsure of the people are willing to rebuild everything in the name of independence.
To further support this view, is the take over by the KMT party. The KMT party has always tried to press closer relations with China as well as the eventual reunification of China. This shift on politics shows that the Taiwanese people are less concerned about their nationhood, and more concerned about their economical success. In other words, Taiwan has very little Nationalism.
Despite the fact that Taiwan is probably the most defensible islands in the world, the lack of Nationalism makes me believe that Taiwan will not fight tooth and nail against a Chinese occupation. Rather than supporting their independence, Taiwan believes in their own economic prosperity.
It's a choice, and you can rarely have both. Economic growth, or nationhood. And at the moment, Taiwan has picked economic growth. In the event that China does start firing missiles, Taiwan will have two choices. To make themselves a nation, or to mitigate any further damage to their infrastructure.
Second, is the fact that Taiwan specializes in Urban combat. Due to the fact that Taiwan is concentrated mainly in cities and not suburbs, the Chinese military will have to go through cities to hold Taiwan. There are several problems with this. First, is that everyone can shoot a weapon. Due to the fact that every male in Taiwan must serve in the military for at least 2 years, everyone in Taiwan needs to shoot. As demonstrated by the Iraqi war, a full blown insurgency inside of a city is incredibly hard to occupy no matter who you are (U.S. Marines). To make this matter worse, is the fact that every building in Taiwan is built to earthquake standards. Hence, Taiwan is fairly resistant to artillery. Furthermore, Taiwan is built with many sketchy alleys. Since these are only wide enough for say, 2 people and both sides with concrete, it wouldn't be difficult to establish a kill zone.
Third, is that Taiwan has more mobility than probably any other place. Since the island is populated with an incredible amount of scooters, moving small arms and people effectively through tight corridors will not be a problem. Hence, any insurgency will always be supplied. On the same note, since Taiwan is a tropical islands, food is outside. Yet again, Taiwan will be well supplied.
Hence, to hold Taiwan, merely requires an excess of small arms.
Unfortunately, I am unsure of the resolution of Taiwan to hold and fight against China. True, that China will be unable to hold Taiwan, but Taiwan has much more to lose than China. At the moment, Taiwan is on the cutting edge of technology. If there is anything that Taiwan has to brag about, is high end infrastructure. Unfortunately, these would be lost in an air strike. Hence, I am unsure of the people are willing to rebuild everything in the name of independence.
To further support this view, is the take over by the KMT party. The KMT party has always tried to press closer relations with China as well as the eventual reunification of China. This shift on politics shows that the Taiwanese people are less concerned about their nationhood, and more concerned about their economical success. In other words, Taiwan has very little Nationalism.
Despite the fact that Taiwan is probably the most defensible islands in the world, the lack of Nationalism makes me believe that Taiwan will not fight tooth and nail against a Chinese occupation. Rather than supporting their independence, Taiwan believes in their own economic prosperity.
It's a choice, and you can rarely have both. Economic growth, or nationhood. And at the moment, Taiwan has picked economic growth. In the event that China does start firing missiles, Taiwan will have two choices. To make themselves a nation, or to mitigate any further damage to their infrastructure.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
The best educational system?
It is not hard to say that the American high school educational system is bad. While there are some advantages over its European counterparts, for the most part the students who graduate from American high schools know less and do worse on international tests, getting beaten by almost all other developed nations’ students. While this might be partially attributed to the fact that American high schools give the same education to everyone (even those that are not college bound) and thus has the problem of slowing down its most gifted students.
The solution to this problem is relatively simple: reform the public high school system to mirror the public university system. Though the latter has many problems of its own, its functionality is much better than that of the former. In essence, give individual households yearly cash vouchers good at any high school, private or public, and then simply make the cost of public high schools cheaper. The effect should be to make effective public high schools.
Granted, this plan might seem odd, but it has a high chance of success. At the very least, it allows the United States to maintain its systems benefits (flexibility) while reaping some benefits of better educational systems.
The solution to this problem is relatively simple: reform the public high school system to mirror the public university system. Though the latter has many problems of its own, its functionality is much better than that of the former. In essence, give individual households yearly cash vouchers good at any high school, private or public, and then simply make the cost of public high schools cheaper. The effect should be to make effective public high schools.
Granted, this plan might seem odd, but it has a high chance of success. At the very least, it allows the United States to maintain its systems benefits (flexibility) while reaping some benefits of better educational systems.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Post War Planning and Why its important
When going into Iraq, the United States made one critical error. No post-war planning. In terms of strategy, the great American military crushed the Iraqi military. Yes, we won the war. We decimated the Iraq army. Never again will they pose a threat to Kuwait or Israel. Iraq has lost its ability to wage war. But I didn’t say defend? The problem is that Iraq still has a large amount of weapons stockpiled. Hence, invading into Iraq will serve little more than tying down the military. Aside from the French, it is impossible to fight against a nation with a dedicated militia.
Now go back to World War 2. Why didn’t Germany and Japan continue fighting? They still had people. And I know that Japan at least, were willing to fight down to the very last citizen. The reason is that we occupied Japan for the time being, we built schools and hospitals. We built infrastructure. We offered the Japanese a better life than us being gone. Same goes with Germany. Why is Berlin such a modern city? Because when we were occupying Germany post-war, we built it.
Northern Iraq is relatively safe, because it is occupied mostly by the Kurds. Now, the Kurds haven’t exactly had the greatest time. They’ve been constantly attacked, gassed, bombed, attacked, gassed, bombed, you get the point. However, the American military offers them a better life. They aren’t being attacked. And look at what we have, the Kurds are now one of our strongest allies in the Iraqi region.
The major flaw in fighting in Iraq, is that we have not offered any of them a better life. Quite frankly, we’ve offered them a very convoluted wife. Between the Americans blowing up buildings and shops, the firefights between terrorists and Americans, the general Iraqi had one thing before the Americans came through. Stability. Maybe they had fear, but they were at least stable under Saddam’s rule. Democracy does not provide stability for a nation. Terrorist organizations are able to recruit in Iraq because people see the United States and someone who pretty much came in romping through everything that was important.
Instead of fighting terrorism, we really should be rebuilding infrastructure. We should be providing them food, water, and shelter. Even if terrorist organizations are not convinced, at the very least, there will be people who will give us information. If we give the Iraqi’s a better life, then we have won. This is something that should have been planned beforehand. We should have secured funding for this before the war. Admittedly this would have required much more manpower and non-military personnel, but this is war. And war is never cheap.
Now go back to World War 2. Why didn’t Germany and Japan continue fighting? They still had people. And I know that Japan at least, were willing to fight down to the very last citizen. The reason is that we occupied Japan for the time being, we built schools and hospitals. We built infrastructure. We offered the Japanese a better life than us being gone. Same goes with Germany. Why is Berlin such a modern city? Because when we were occupying Germany post-war, we built it.
Northern Iraq is relatively safe, because it is occupied mostly by the Kurds. Now, the Kurds haven’t exactly had the greatest time. They’ve been constantly attacked, gassed, bombed, attacked, gassed, bombed, you get the point. However, the American military offers them a better life. They aren’t being attacked. And look at what we have, the Kurds are now one of our strongest allies in the Iraqi region.
The major flaw in fighting in Iraq, is that we have not offered any of them a better life. Quite frankly, we’ve offered them a very convoluted wife. Between the Americans blowing up buildings and shops, the firefights between terrorists and Americans, the general Iraqi had one thing before the Americans came through. Stability. Maybe they had fear, but they were at least stable under Saddam’s rule. Democracy does not provide stability for a nation. Terrorist organizations are able to recruit in Iraq because people see the United States and someone who pretty much came in romping through everything that was important.
Instead of fighting terrorism, we really should be rebuilding infrastructure. We should be providing them food, water, and shelter. Even if terrorist organizations are not convinced, at the very least, there will be people who will give us information. If we give the Iraqi’s a better life, then we have won. This is something that should have been planned beforehand. We should have secured funding for this before the war. Admittedly this would have required much more manpower and non-military personnel, but this is war. And war is never cheap.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Why global warming no longer matters
Despite whatever Brian Wynne says about how Global Warming is just a lie that Al Gore has created (such as the Internet) there comes a point that we must understand that global warming does not matter. Why you might ask? Because the scientific community has already accepted it. This poses a few problems to those who do not believe in global warming. If clean energy is the next boom in science, you might as well go with it. This is similar to saying that it is impossible to connect everyone to the Internet when everyone is hooking into it. The debate for global warming is over. Clean energy is now.
The final push towards renewable energy is of course, the oil crisis. We know that there is still oil. We also know that we can use coal. However, natural resources will always run out. Remember, that a seemingly limitless amount of energy gives us the ability to advance as a society. As such, renewable energy should still give us the ability to advance in the future. This is a problem that should have been fixed back at the last oil shock, and is now being fixed now.
Now in my personal opinion, I believe that limiting greenhouse gasses is merely a secondary effect. I believe that cheap energy is more important, and it would appear that all renewable energy sources are green.
Hence, we must note that those who say that Global Warming is just a hoax are doing more than just harming the environment, but they're holding back the next scientific boom.
Now when we look at the last big scientific boom (computers), our economy shot upwards. New jobs were created. We were able to land on the moon. A new industry opened around making computers games. Or even Microsoft Excel for that matter. Those against global warming are only caught up in what they think is untrue, rather than what the future may entail.
Industry has been shifting towards Green Energy. Not merely because of the global consequences, but also the economic growth that will follow afterwards.
Felon disenfranchisement
America has many unique phenomenon, some of which seem strange to outsiders. After all, the American love of baseball, basketball, and its own form of football and ice hockey over association football can be seen as a curiosity for strangers from other parts of the world. Most of these differences seem harmless to people not used to American eccentricities. However, at least one of these phenomenons, felony disenfranchisement carries serious implications for American democracy, not only because of its implicit restrictions on universal suffrage, but also because of the lack of justification for it.
The only supposed reason to prevent former criminals from voting is the fact that they were criminals at one point. However, in a democratic society, this is not a justifiable reason. Though it could be argued that their violation of the state’s laws justifies punishment, that punishment was given out in the form of the restriction of their freedoms, either through mandatory service or jail time. As a result, to further restrict their freedoms in a manner unrelated to their crimes is unnecessary and an infringement of rights. Unless the criminal committed electoral fraud, restricting his right to vote is arbitrary because the punishment in that format doesn’t fit the crime that the criminal has committed.
Indeed, these days the only reason to restrict the right to vote is a sense of disgust at criminal behavior: such a feeling cannot be the sole basis for restricting suffrage. Furthermore, it just doesn’t feel right: restricting a person’s right to vote based on a crime they committed 10, 20, or even 50 years ago seems to fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, the answer is clear: remove ban on voting due to a felony record for crimes other than electoral fraud and related violations. It’s the democratic thing to do.
The only supposed reason to prevent former criminals from voting is the fact that they were criminals at one point. However, in a democratic society, this is not a justifiable reason. Though it could be argued that their violation of the state’s laws justifies punishment, that punishment was given out in the form of the restriction of their freedoms, either through mandatory service or jail time. As a result, to further restrict their freedoms in a manner unrelated to their crimes is unnecessary and an infringement of rights. Unless the criminal committed electoral fraud, restricting his right to vote is arbitrary because the punishment in that format doesn’t fit the crime that the criminal has committed.
Indeed, these days the only reason to restrict the right to vote is a sense of disgust at criminal behavior: such a feeling cannot be the sole basis for restricting suffrage. Furthermore, it just doesn’t feel right: restricting a person’s right to vote based on a crime they committed 10, 20, or even 50 years ago seems to fall under the definition of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, the answer is clear: remove ban on voting due to a felony record for crimes other than electoral fraud and related violations. It’s the democratic thing to do.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Nationhood as a concept
The need for nation states must be legitimately questioned in today’s day and age. Though in past centuries it was well established that nationhood was not only a legitimate institution, but a right of all peoples, today the necessity of the nation-state has come under attack from new institutions, including international organizations such as the United Nations, the European Union, and other groups, such as NGO’s and corporations. Thus, for the first time in history, it is possible to ask the question: is the nation-state still necessary?
It would be difficult to answer yes. After all, it would appear that many of the vital functions of the state could be provided by institutions outside of the current national apparatus, with a variety of differing options. State defense and peacekeeping forces could be provided by what are currently now supranational organizations, or they could be provided by private corporations and groups. Almost every service feasible on this planet could be provided by some combination of private industry.
However, private industry is not always preferable. Most corporate services are much higher priced than those of governments, because corporations must maintain a profit margin. Additionally, corporations tend to offer less in their services in their attempts to avoid servicing relatively unprofitable markets and their push for growth. Hence, although a private mailing service is possible, it would be prohibitively expensive to places such as rural counties or more unsettled locations.
Thus, the trend of the world must continue. Though the nation-state might be obsolete, the world must move towards larger organizations. Institutions like the EU represent the most likely future of what are currently the nations of the world, and their super reach might discourage racism, xenophobia, and war. If that should happen, it will truly be a day to celebrate.
It would be difficult to answer yes. After all, it would appear that many of the vital functions of the state could be provided by institutions outside of the current national apparatus, with a variety of differing options. State defense and peacekeeping forces could be provided by what are currently now supranational organizations, or they could be provided by private corporations and groups. Almost every service feasible on this planet could be provided by some combination of private industry.
However, private industry is not always preferable. Most corporate services are much higher priced than those of governments, because corporations must maintain a profit margin. Additionally, corporations tend to offer less in their services in their attempts to avoid servicing relatively unprofitable markets and their push for growth. Hence, although a private mailing service is possible, it would be prohibitively expensive to places such as rural counties or more unsettled locations.
Thus, the trend of the world must continue. Though the nation-state might be obsolete, the world must move towards larger organizations. Institutions like the EU represent the most likely future of what are currently the nations of the world, and their super reach might discourage racism, xenophobia, and war. If that should happen, it will truly be a day to celebrate.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Taiwan-China Relations
When they say that Taiwan will fight until American's last soldier, that's a little inaccurate. Try America and Japan, which are the obvious. Try Hong Kong being rather unhappy. And then try Britain, Russia, France, Germany, Australia, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore. Any country that has any sort of trade to port cities in China will be very unhappy if China ever invades Taiwan.
Despite what anyone says about Taiwan not being its own nation, one must realize that the waters between Taiwan and China are international waters. Meaning that ships can pass through them freely. No tolls. The Taiwan straits is in fact a major trade artery that deals with most of Asia. That said, if China does ever take military actions towards Taiwan, trade to China will suddenly explode in cost. Given China's action in the World Trade Organization, you can be assured that the economic burden on the rest of the world will be grave.
And China's will be graver.
If China does ever invade Taiwan, massive trade barriers will be placed against China. Due to the fact that China is based mostly on imports/exports, the economic ramifications of such an action will devastate China. Also looking into China's history of revolutions, it will be very bloody. I predict that China will then split up into several nations, the Dali Lama will be allowed to come back to his, "own," nation, and East China will be similar to Japan without the neuroticism. In either case, the overbearing oh crap force of China will be broken. East China might actually be a democracy. And the rest of China will probably go to hell at this point.
So what can China do? To be honest, I won't say that it's impossible for China to join Taiwan. I don't believe it is a wise move. I don't like China. But I won't throw it out due to the recent Taiwan elections. On that note, the unification of Taiwan to China will have to come politically rather than militarily. In which case, the rest of the world will be unhappy, but there will be no excuse to attack China. The WTO will probably take a much harder step, but the same fact remains, China remains intact. That being said, the unification of Taiwan and China will not be based by China, but Taiwan.
Yes, there are people who disagree that Taiwan is an actual country. But one major fact remains, that the Taiwan straits have and will remain as international waters. That and National Geographic are enough to qualify Taiwan as a country. Perhaps not a major country, but still a country. Other countries may not recognize Taiwan, but every country recognizes money.
Despite what anyone says about Taiwan not being its own nation, one must realize that the waters between Taiwan and China are international waters. Meaning that ships can pass through them freely. No tolls. The Taiwan straits is in fact a major trade artery that deals with most of Asia. That said, if China does ever take military actions towards Taiwan, trade to China will suddenly explode in cost. Given China's action in the World Trade Organization, you can be assured that the economic burden on the rest of the world will be grave.
And China's will be graver.
If China does ever invade Taiwan, massive trade barriers will be placed against China. Due to the fact that China is based mostly on imports/exports, the economic ramifications of such an action will devastate China. Also looking into China's history of revolutions, it will be very bloody. I predict that China will then split up into several nations, the Dali Lama will be allowed to come back to his, "own," nation, and East China will be similar to Japan without the neuroticism. In either case, the overbearing oh crap force of China will be broken. East China might actually be a democracy. And the rest of China will probably go to hell at this point.
So what can China do? To be honest, I won't say that it's impossible for China to join Taiwan. I don't believe it is a wise move. I don't like China. But I won't throw it out due to the recent Taiwan elections. On that note, the unification of Taiwan to China will have to come politically rather than militarily. In which case, the rest of the world will be unhappy, but there will be no excuse to attack China. The WTO will probably take a much harder step, but the same fact remains, China remains intact. That being said, the unification of Taiwan and China will not be based by China, but Taiwan.
Yes, there are people who disagree that Taiwan is an actual country. But one major fact remains, that the Taiwan straits have and will remain as international waters. That and National Geographic are enough to qualify Taiwan as a country. Perhaps not a major country, but still a country. Other countries may not recognize Taiwan, but every country recognizes money.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
US Iran Relations
As you know, the US has sent an envoy to Iran to promote peace talks. As you know, Iran has become more aggressive in terms of their military, indicated by their use of Photoshop. And to be honest, I think that we’re going the wrong way with talks. We may try to negotiate with arms and trade, but this is ultimately useless.
It’s not like Iran has a real problem with America. To them, we’re just an overly aggressive nation with a taste of oil and war. Not the image I think America should have, but it’s not the worst. On the other hand, what Iran DOES know is that America and Israel are connected at the hips. And that Iran views Israel as an aggressive nation who can walk to Iran with tanks and guns. As seen in the actions of Israel during the decade, Israel hasn’t been the world’s most happy nation. Instead of America sending an envoy, rather, America should drag an envoy from Israel to Iran. Then talks can begin.
Much of America’s image has been tarnished by Israel. While America has treated Iraq in a very poor fashion, Israel treats the entire Middle East in the same fashion. Let’s look at it in terms of an Equation.
Israel = America
Hate = Israel
Hate = America
Q.E.D. What harms the relation of America and the Middle East is because of Israel.
Now, I’m not against the state of Israel. Heavens no, Israel has been a state long enough where you really can’t say it isn’t a state. What I am against is Israel’s lack of accountability. Because Israel and America are on such, “To the death,” terms, America will never try to control Israel. Israel is free to do whatever they wish because America will always support them. Hence, the reason why Iran is talking to America is because they know that if Israel invades Iran, so will America.
I’m not even talking about feasibility here. I’m just trying to improve American-Middle East relations, that of which must start from Israel. So what is it that I propose?
Israel is a very powerful military nation. No country in the right mind will bring the fight to Israel. So aside from the missiles, Israel is in fact fairly safe. Though on the missile part, if Israel stops acting like Israel, chances are that the missiles will stop. Israel needs to start talking to Middle East nation on trade, relations, and so on. Israel needs to stop attacking other nations.
And America?
We have two choices. Either abandon Israel and let them pick their own course. This makes it so that we are no longer accountable for Israel’s actions. And this puts the major powers of the Middle East on relatively equal grounds with Israel.
Or
We continue aid with Israel, but if Israel does something we don’t like, we default to the first choice. If Israel seriously believes that they need our backing, then they should listen to what we think. Much of what Israel does in the Middle East is counterproductive to our relations with the Middle East.
Our talk with Iran is nothing more than show. It is just us ignoring where the problems really lie. Make Israel accountable for their actions, and our relations with the Middle East will dramatically increase.
It’s not like Iran has a real problem with America. To them, we’re just an overly aggressive nation with a taste of oil and war. Not the image I think America should have, but it’s not the worst. On the other hand, what Iran DOES know is that America and Israel are connected at the hips. And that Iran views Israel as an aggressive nation who can walk to Iran with tanks and guns. As seen in the actions of Israel during the decade, Israel hasn’t been the world’s most happy nation. Instead of America sending an envoy, rather, America should drag an envoy from Israel to Iran. Then talks can begin.
Much of America’s image has been tarnished by Israel. While America has treated Iraq in a very poor fashion, Israel treats the entire Middle East in the same fashion. Let’s look at it in terms of an Equation.
Israel = America
Hate = Israel
Hate = America
Q.E.D. What harms the relation of America and the Middle East is because of Israel.
Now, I’m not against the state of Israel. Heavens no, Israel has been a state long enough where you really can’t say it isn’t a state. What I am against is Israel’s lack of accountability. Because Israel and America are on such, “To the death,” terms, America will never try to control Israel. Israel is free to do whatever they wish because America will always support them. Hence, the reason why Iran is talking to America is because they know that if Israel invades Iran, so will America.
I’m not even talking about feasibility here. I’m just trying to improve American-Middle East relations, that of which must start from Israel. So what is it that I propose?
Israel is a very powerful military nation. No country in the right mind will bring the fight to Israel. So aside from the missiles, Israel is in fact fairly safe. Though on the missile part, if Israel stops acting like Israel, chances are that the missiles will stop. Israel needs to start talking to Middle East nation on trade, relations, and so on. Israel needs to stop attacking other nations.
And America?
We have two choices. Either abandon Israel and let them pick their own course. This makes it so that we are no longer accountable for Israel’s actions. And this puts the major powers of the Middle East on relatively equal grounds with Israel.
Or
We continue aid with Israel, but if Israel does something we don’t like, we default to the first choice. If Israel seriously believes that they need our backing, then they should listen to what we think. Much of what Israel does in the Middle East is counterproductive to our relations with the Middle East.
Our talk with Iran is nothing more than show. It is just us ignoring where the problems really lie. Make Israel accountable for their actions, and our relations with the Middle East will dramatically increase.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The New G8
The strength of countries wax and wane. Once powerful nations lose their standing, and countries that were originally vassals to stronger powers begin to assert themselves. Economically, luck and the ingenuity of the citizenry make the changes in GDP standings obvious. Today the modern G8 does not necessarily represent the strongest economies in the world. To do that, a new G8 should be formed with the following countries:
Countries
1. United States - Obvious. This country has the world’s strongest economy.
2. Japan - This country has the world’s 2nd strongest economy by nominal GDP and has been this way for a while. It is also 3rd by purchasing power parity.
3. China - This country is not only already 4th by nominal GDP, it is 2nd by purchasing power parity and is likely to continue high (that is, double digit) economic growth well into the future.
4. Germany - This country is 3rd in nominal GDP and 5th in purchasing power parity, and has also historically been an economic power in Europe.
5. United Kingdom - A financial capital of the world, this country is also 5th in nominal GDP and 6th in purchasing power parity.
6. France - Despite recent stagnation, France is still 6th and 8th in nominal and purchasing power parity GDP measures, respectively. It, along with Germany and the UK have been the traditional European economic powerhouses.
7. Brazil - Though plagued by problems and only 10th in nominal GDP (and 9th in purchasing power parity), Brazil is the only South and Central American country in both of the top 10 rankings.
8. India - An abysmal 12th in nominal GDP is offset by a ranking of 4th in purchasing power parity and a strong growth rate of 9% that is likely to be maintained.
In essence, this version of the G8 would include India, China and Brazil as official members and would exclude Italy, Russia and Canada, countries that while still strong economically are unlikely to grow quite as quickly as the former 3. Of course, all of these countries are already included in G8 talks, but changes in the group would still be welcome.
Countries
1. United States - Obvious. This country has the world’s strongest economy.
2. Japan - This country has the world’s 2nd strongest economy by nominal GDP and has been this way for a while. It is also 3rd by purchasing power parity.
3. China - This country is not only already 4th by nominal GDP, it is 2nd by purchasing power parity and is likely to continue high (that is, double digit) economic growth well into the future.
4. Germany - This country is 3rd in nominal GDP and 5th in purchasing power parity, and has also historically been an economic power in Europe.
5. United Kingdom - A financial capital of the world, this country is also 5th in nominal GDP and 6th in purchasing power parity.
6. France - Despite recent stagnation, France is still 6th and 8th in nominal and purchasing power parity GDP measures, respectively. It, along with Germany and the UK have been the traditional European economic powerhouses.
7. Brazil - Though plagued by problems and only 10th in nominal GDP (and 9th in purchasing power parity), Brazil is the only South and Central American country in both of the top 10 rankings.
8. India - An abysmal 12th in nominal GDP is offset by a ranking of 4th in purchasing power parity and a strong growth rate of 9% that is likely to be maintained.
In essence, this version of the G8 would include India, China and Brazil as official members and would exclude Italy, Russia and Canada, countries that while still strong economically are unlikely to grow quite as quickly as the former 3. Of course, all of these countries are already included in G8 talks, but changes in the group would still be welcome.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Much ado about Iran
Iran has not been known as a country that has been satisfied with the status quo in the 20th and 21st centuries. In the last 100 year period, the country has going through phases where it has overthrown its shah, established a radical Islamic republic, and taken on one of the world’s superpowers in a hostage crisis. In this century, Iran began to exploit its oil wealth, despite an embargo by the United States and others, and started a nuclear program. It has uranium enrichment facilities, and despite a report by the CIA that indicates the Iranians stopped trying to produce nuclear weapons in 2003 released earlier this year, the prospect for future developments in the nuclear department are enough to send oil prices soaring and regional tensions flaring. Iran’s recent test firings of 9 missiles in response to Israeli and American war games shows that the Iranians aren’t yet ready to settle into a peaceful state.
The goals of both sides are obvious and similar: intimidation. Israel hopes to make it clear that it could strike at an Iranian nuclear reactor with ease. America seeks to demonstrate that no country can cut off its oil supply. Iran wants to show that neither Israel nor America will be able to do what it wants in the region without a fight. This obviously raises the potential for war, but not seriously.
Yes, it seems like war is possible now, but there are several limiting factors. America is unlikely to engage in any more full scale wars for a long while after the Iraqi one ends. Israel’s military is not designed to be able to take on long term operations. Iran, meanwhile, is not strong enough to take on either of two of the world’s most advanced militaries. All sides realize that they are incapable of serious sustained military action.
So the most likely result of these shows of strength would be a setback in negotiations. Diplomacy might be sidetracked a bit, and oil prices might rise, but otherwise no serious long term harm is likely to result from this episode. It is, after all, one that has been repeated many times over.
The goals of both sides are obvious and similar: intimidation. Israel hopes to make it clear that it could strike at an Iranian nuclear reactor with ease. America seeks to demonstrate that no country can cut off its oil supply. Iran wants to show that neither Israel nor America will be able to do what it wants in the region without a fight. This obviously raises the potential for war, but not seriously.
Yes, it seems like war is possible now, but there are several limiting factors. America is unlikely to engage in any more full scale wars for a long while after the Iraqi one ends. Israel’s military is not designed to be able to take on long term operations. Iran, meanwhile, is not strong enough to take on either of two of the world’s most advanced militaries. All sides realize that they are incapable of serious sustained military action.
So the most likely result of these shows of strength would be a setback in negotiations. Diplomacy might be sidetracked a bit, and oil prices might rise, but otherwise no serious long term harm is likely to result from this episode. It is, after all, one that has been repeated many times over.
Obama and FISA
Voters are a contradictory bunch. They want their leaders to be principled, but at the same time they also want them to be able to solve the majority of the problems plaguing the world. However, as people know, these two wants are almost always fundamentally irreconcilable. After all, many solutions require compromise in order to get anything done, but a principled politician will rarely compromise on issues, which would otherwise make him appear to be unprincipled. And yet when forced with the most difficult decision of his Senate career, Barack Obama made the pragmatically sound decision, but the politically wrong one.
When it came time to vote on a bill to renew the passage of FISA, an important government document regulating wiretaps by the federal government, Obama voted for the bill. This was really a lose-lose situation for him. There was no way that he could have gotten out of the measure without losing standing in the political community. The bill itself did offer new regulations on the wiretapping of American citizens, but it also greatly expanded the powers of the federal government in its monitoring capabilities. Most controversially, it gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had complied with illegal wiretaps for the government. Obviously such a measure was unacceptable to Obama, and he did vote for an amendment that would have stripped out immunity. However, the bill passed anyway, and Obama was one of the 62 votes in favor.
Looking at it from a political perspective, Obama should have voted against the bill. The difference between his voting for it and not voting for it in terms of the number of votes the bill had was negligible: had he voted “No”, the bill still would have been veto proof. But Obama feared being viewed as weak on national security. The problem is that no matter what he does, he will always be viewed as the weaker candidate on that issue: it is nearly impossible to beat a Republican war hero on national defense credentials.
Instead, Obama angered his base for no reason. His attempts to become a centrist are undermining the very support that won him the nomination in the first place. His only distinguishing factor between him and older politicians is the way that he has garnered support. The policies he are advocating as part of his move towards the center will lose him that difference, and lose him the election. Hopefully Obama will realize that before it’s too late.
When it came time to vote on a bill to renew the passage of FISA, an important government document regulating wiretaps by the federal government, Obama voted for the bill. This was really a lose-lose situation for him. There was no way that he could have gotten out of the measure without losing standing in the political community. The bill itself did offer new regulations on the wiretapping of American citizens, but it also greatly expanded the powers of the federal government in its monitoring capabilities. Most controversially, it gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that had complied with illegal wiretaps for the government. Obviously such a measure was unacceptable to Obama, and he did vote for an amendment that would have stripped out immunity. However, the bill passed anyway, and Obama was one of the 62 votes in favor.
Looking at it from a political perspective, Obama should have voted against the bill. The difference between his voting for it and not voting for it in terms of the number of votes the bill had was negligible: had he voted “No”, the bill still would have been veto proof. But Obama feared being viewed as weak on national security. The problem is that no matter what he does, he will always be viewed as the weaker candidate on that issue: it is nearly impossible to beat a Republican war hero on national defense credentials.
Instead, Obama angered his base for no reason. His attempts to become a centrist are undermining the very support that won him the nomination in the first place. His only distinguishing factor between him and older politicians is the way that he has garnered support. The policies he are advocating as part of his move towards the center will lose him that difference, and lose him the election. Hopefully Obama will realize that before it’s too late.
Friday, July 11, 2008
What about the League of Democracies?
The UN was an organization founded over 60 years ago by the biggest victors of the last major World War. While throughout the Cold War it was able to serve as a relatively functional method of assuring world peace (mainly through the group’s split along Communist and Western lines), the end of the Soviet Union has exposed weaknesses in the current system. Though China and the United States remain globally relevant (and the inclusion of the People’s Republic of China only came about during the 1970’s), Russia, Great Britain, and France no longer hold the power they used to. It is likely time to either expand the services of the UN or go an entirely different route by supporting the League of Democracies championed by John McCain. Would either idea be worth it?
Expanding the UN’s Permanent Security council seems like the more obvious idea. After all, the UN is still a very much functional organization, but it lacks some important voices. Most notably, no major country from South or Central America (Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico), Africa, and several other countries such as Germany, Japan and India are excluded. Some of these current exclusions are bizarre given global realities. Germany is one of the world’s strongest economies and a critical member of Europe. Japan is 2nd in the world in terms of GDP. South and Central America having no representatives excludes somewhere on the scale of 400 million people in the world. Africa, despite being one of the continents in which the UN must complete many of its most pressing functions, has no voice. Expansion would be the obvious solution were it not for regional complaints about potential members (notably Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and an African country) and the reservations of the current permanent members. One possible compromise would be to make permanent members without veto powers, an idea that would likely garner hostility by potential permanent Security Council members. The most likely and viable solution would be to make new permanent members have half of a veto, thereby ensuring that if two countries united their interests, then a veto would be assured. This would also allow countries to be later upgraded to a full veto pending evaluation.
The League of Democracies seems like the sounder idea. After all, democratic countries would tend to be more likely to see eye to eye on issues and be more willing to tackle problems of global human rights and relief efforts. Yet simply being democracies doesn’t make countries more likely to work together: many democracies opposed the Iraq War. Further, what constitutes a democracy would be hard to define: technically, almost every country in the world runs in a democratic format.
Ultimately, the best solution would be to simply reform the UN. A new League of Democracies would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate, and would only be seen as a group of like minded individuals setting up another talking-shop. After all, if an organization wants to address problems (for example, democratic regimes wanting to end the Sudanese genocide), not including groups critical to the solution (like the government of Sudan) would lead to almost certain failure.
Expanding the UN’s Permanent Security council seems like the more obvious idea. After all, the UN is still a very much functional organization, but it lacks some important voices. Most notably, no major country from South or Central America (Brazil, Argentina, or Mexico), Africa, and several other countries such as Germany, Japan and India are excluded. Some of these current exclusions are bizarre given global realities. Germany is one of the world’s strongest economies and a critical member of Europe. Japan is 2nd in the world in terms of GDP. South and Central America having no representatives excludes somewhere on the scale of 400 million people in the world. Africa, despite being one of the continents in which the UN must complete many of its most pressing functions, has no voice. Expansion would be the obvious solution were it not for regional complaints about potential members (notably Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and an African country) and the reservations of the current permanent members. One possible compromise would be to make permanent members without veto powers, an idea that would likely garner hostility by potential permanent Security Council members. The most likely and viable solution would be to make new permanent members have half of a veto, thereby ensuring that if two countries united their interests, then a veto would be assured. This would also allow countries to be later upgraded to a full veto pending evaluation.
The League of Democracies seems like the sounder idea. After all, democratic countries would tend to be more likely to see eye to eye on issues and be more willing to tackle problems of global human rights and relief efforts. Yet simply being democracies doesn’t make countries more likely to work together: many democracies opposed the Iraq War. Further, what constitutes a democracy would be hard to define: technically, almost every country in the world runs in a democratic format.
Ultimately, the best solution would be to simply reform the UN. A new League of Democracies would be difficult, if not impossible, to formulate, and would only be seen as a group of like minded individuals setting up another talking-shop. After all, if an organization wants to address problems (for example, democratic regimes wanting to end the Sudanese genocide), not including groups critical to the solution (like the government of Sudan) would lead to almost certain failure.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Drinking and the what the hell?
During the break, I've turned 18. Eighteen. I prepare for college. I'm allowed to vote (though I choose not to). I'm allowed to smoke (something like that, it might be 19). I'm allowed to join the military. But wait, I can't drink?
For the lack of better terms, what the fuck is with this shit? (I'm not angry)
America has had a strange relationship with Alcohol. For one, we had the prohibition. And for another, I'm still allowed to bar tend. But what I realize the most is that America has yet to step out of the prohibition state. As we know, America has the drinking age at 21. Yet at the same time, teenagers are still allowed to drink willy nilly. For example, Randolph High School's great senior Vermont trip was busted for alcohol. However, this bust wasn't exactly what you would consider a,"bust." If under age drinking was truly illegal, every police jail cell from Vermont to Randolph should have been filled. Instead, it was merely a price tag and a class.
Note: No one pays attention during health class.
While the price tag was truely heafty, this is merely a slap on the wrist. I guarantee you that more than those busted at Vermont has consumed alcohol at one point of his/her life. This loosely enforced laws does nothing but......increases underage alcohol consumption?
When someone tells you to do something over and over and over again, there comes a point where you do something to spite something else. On the note of Alcohol, we've been told not to drink alcohol for such a long time that at one point or another, we wonder, what exactly is wrong with it?
Do not confuse this with crack, cocaine, or heroin. Consumption = Death.
But Alcohol? The problem with Alcohol, is that parents consume it and tells their kids not to. This makes little sense considering consumption still occurs. Rather than telling kids not to drink alcohol, the most important thing is to do is to preach responsible drinking habits. For example, when drinking, drink in moderation. When drinking, always have a designated driver. These are easily enforced, considering most parents do the same. These make sense.
Ironically enough, those who consume alcohol with their parents have a much lower rate of binge drinking than those who don't. Let the evidence speak for itself.
For the lack of better terms, what the fuck is with this shit? (I'm not angry)
America has had a strange relationship with Alcohol. For one, we had the prohibition. And for another, I'm still allowed to bar tend. But what I realize the most is that America has yet to step out of the prohibition state. As we know, America has the drinking age at 21. Yet at the same time, teenagers are still allowed to drink willy nilly. For example, Randolph High School's great senior Vermont trip was busted for alcohol. However, this bust wasn't exactly what you would consider a,"bust." If under age drinking was truly illegal, every police jail cell from Vermont to Randolph should have been filled. Instead, it was merely a price tag and a class.
Note: No one pays attention during health class.
While the price tag was truely heafty, this is merely a slap on the wrist. I guarantee you that more than those busted at Vermont has consumed alcohol at one point of his/her life. This loosely enforced laws does nothing but......increases underage alcohol consumption?
When someone tells you to do something over and over and over again, there comes a point where you do something to spite something else. On the note of Alcohol, we've been told not to drink alcohol for such a long time that at one point or another, we wonder, what exactly is wrong with it?
Do not confuse this with crack, cocaine, or heroin. Consumption = Death.
But Alcohol? The problem with Alcohol, is that parents consume it and tells their kids not to. This makes little sense considering consumption still occurs. Rather than telling kids not to drink alcohol, the most important thing is to do is to preach responsible drinking habits. For example, when drinking, drink in moderation. When drinking, always have a designated driver. These are easily enforced, considering most parents do the same. These make sense.
Ironically enough, those who consume alcohol with their parents have a much lower rate of binge drinking than those who don't. Let the evidence speak for itself.
Ressurection
After a long hiatus, Pamphlets has been resurrected.
News on the Staff:
Eli has been Eli. He will probably not update anything.
Jihan has been annoying as of late. On that note, LA sucks. Don't look for his posts either.
Starring:
Roger Yang
Alex Zhao
And whoever guest writer we have in the future.
News on the Staff:
Eli has been Eli. He will probably not update anything.
Jihan has been annoying as of late. On that note, LA sucks. Don't look for his posts either.
Starring:
Roger Yang
Alex Zhao
And whoever guest writer we have in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
