Saturday, April 17, 2004
|
Hey folks, thanks for tuning in. I know I have been a bad blogger of late. The Easter Holiday and being stuck in central Kentucky for work has crimped my rumination time. That is not to say I’ve shut my brain off – I have been ruminating. I just haven’t formulated what I am trying to say. See, I am trying to figure out the American political mind and this has turned into such a many-headed hydra that I’ve yet to concretely discern my take on it. To that end, this blog entry deals with what I believe is the foundation of the American political consciousness; political identity.
What is political identity? Hell if I know, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. Many issues are wrapped within an individual’s political identity. The one that fascinates me is the concept of governance. Specifically, ask yourself, “What role should government play in a citizen’s life?” What government should be divides the Left and Right. There are two poles, more government or less. In general the Left believes that the government should play an active role in improving citizen’s lives. The Right believes the less government the better. There are many mixtures between these poles. Where do you stand? Does this drive your thoughts about, say, Social Security? Should the government do it? Or is Social Security (a.k.a., retirement money) something that only business or individuals should deal with?
Tangentially, consider the issue of political ideology. It seems that the ideological partisans, of both the Left and Right, have no room for compromise. That leaves them talking past each other. They both seem distrustful of power. The Left believes that corporate power is evil and governmental power is a force for good. The Right is exactly opposite, governmental power is evil and corporate power is benign. I find that tragically ironic.
What is political identity? Hell if I know, that’s what I’m trying to figure out. Many issues are wrapped within an individual’s political identity. The one that fascinates me is the concept of governance. Specifically, ask yourself, “What role should government play in a citizen’s life?” What government should be divides the Left and Right. There are two poles, more government or less. In general the Left believes that the government should play an active role in improving citizen’s lives. The Right believes the less government the better. There are many mixtures between these poles. Where do you stand? Does this drive your thoughts about, say, Social Security? Should the government do it? Or is Social Security (a.k.a., retirement money) something that only business or individuals should deal with?
Tangentially, consider the issue of political ideology. It seems that the ideological partisans, of both the Left and Right, have no room for compromise. That leaves them talking past each other. They both seem distrustful of power. The Left believes that corporate power is evil and governmental power is a force for good. The Right is exactly opposite, governmental power is evil and corporate power is benign. I find that tragically ironic.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
|
I’ve ranted about this before…a couple of times actually. I make no apologies though. Our government’s response to international terrorism’s threat is supremely important. Thus the Shrub’s administration’s public excuses for 9/11 should be judged in the gravest of light and as the most reprehensible of failures.
Administration officials have stayed on message. They have repeatly said that they had no specific, actionable intelligence that planes would be used as weapons. This is a clever falsehood, though not a direct lie. Administration officials are far too clever to be caught in a bald face lie.
Testimony before the 9/11 Commission revealed that on August 6, 2001 the CIA briefed the president that Osama bin Laden was planing a major attack on the US mainland. The briefing specifically mentioned that planes might be used in the attack. There in lies the duplicity of the Administration’s claim that they had no concrete intelligence that Saudi Arabian nationals would fly a hi-jacked American Airlines plane into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001. While true, there was reason to believe that an attack was immanent, that planes may be used - it is deceptive to claim you had no idea. However it is politically expedient for the Administration to say that nothing could have been done because they didn’t know specifics.
Political expediency cost 3000 lives. Political expediency offers no succor to the survivors and their families. Shame on the Bush Administration for not even trying to stop the attacks and save lives.
Administration officials have stayed on message. They have repeatly said that they had no specific, actionable intelligence that planes would be used as weapons. This is a clever falsehood, though not a direct lie. Administration officials are far too clever to be caught in a bald face lie.
Testimony before the 9/11 Commission revealed that on August 6, 2001 the CIA briefed the president that Osama bin Laden was planing a major attack on the US mainland. The briefing specifically mentioned that planes might be used in the attack. There in lies the duplicity of the Administration’s claim that they had no concrete intelligence that Saudi Arabian nationals would fly a hi-jacked American Airlines plane into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001. While true, there was reason to believe that an attack was immanent, that planes may be used - it is deceptive to claim you had no idea. However it is politically expedient for the Administration to say that nothing could have been done because they didn’t know specifics.
Political expediency cost 3000 lives. Political expediency offers no succor to the survivors and their families. Shame on the Bush Administration for not even trying to stop the attacks and save lives.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
|
Stop the bloody presses! I have the scoop of the year – The American Dental Association has hi-jacked John Kerry’s campaign message on international trade! Through political espionage worthy of the CIA, the ADA is trying to save American teeth from decay by shaping the presidential debate about international trade. You’ve heard about Senator Kerry carping on the Shrub about jobs, no? That’s it, you’ve got it. Thank the ADA. See America consumes more than 90% of all candy canes. Traditionally these canes were made in America’s heartland. But since the early 1990’s cane manufactures have moved candy cane production to Mexico resulting in thousands of lost American jobs. These poor unemployed, working class cane makers are casualties in the ADA’s war against tooth decay. By manipulating the Federal government to maintain stiff sugar import quotas, American’s pay 350% more for sugar compared to other countries. Since sugar is the prime commodity in candy cane manufacturing, the government forced these manufacturers to go into bankruptcy or move to Mexico where sugar prices are set by the free market (and are 350% less). Either choice cost the employees their jobs. This was the second phase of the ADA’s master plan to defeat tooth decay. Fluoridated water was but the first.
Step three of the ADA’s master plan is to get John Kerry elected on a platform to erect trade barriers to “keep American jobs”. Thus the WTO, NAFTA and all other bi-lateral trade agreements will come under review to keep companies from “shipping jobs overseas”. And if free trade ships jobs over seas, then we need tariffs to keep jobs here because John Kerry stands by the common man! Thus John Kerry will make sure that main street America will not loose manufacturing jobs to China by setting tariffs on Chinese goods. This will constrict sugar quotas to the point that sugar becomes a luxury item leaving the average Americans to substitute carob for sugar. No sugar, no tooth decay. Devious political strategy compliments of the ADA.
But wait?!? If candy cane makers lost their jobs because of tariffs masquerading as import quotas, how can tariffs save jobs? That’s the three million-job question. Tariffs are never a one sided story. Ask yourself, who (besides the ADA) benefits from high sugar prices? American sugar producers, naturally. Thus import quotas are used to save sugar producers profit margins, and thereby sugar cane worker’s jobs at the expense of sugar using industries. Have you ever noticed that Coca-Cola tastes sweeter outside of the US? Thank the sugar quotas for that, Coke uses corn syrup to sweeten its colas in US, sugar elsewhere.
All right, all right, all right…I’ll give the satire a rest. The real point here is that there is no such thing as a free lunch in economic trade. Tariffs have costs. Lets look to President Bush’s December 2002 decision to slap tariffs on steel imports. Ostensibly the President did this to save steelworker’s jobs. What about workers in steel using industries? How did these tariffs affect them? It makes it more expensive to do business, leading steel using industries to fire approximately 75,000 people because of higher steel costs. The steel tariffs saved steel maker jobs at other people’s expense.
Therein lies the moral of this story. Trade liberalization leads to more efficient business, which leads to higher growth. Tariffs lead to inefficient business and less growth. Tariffs do this by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why does Paul deserve handouts from the government? After all, that what tariffs are - a form of government handouts.
***DISCLAIMER – To my knowledge the American Dental Association has nothing to do with John Kerry’s political strategy. I abused the ADA for my own, demented satirical purposes. I apologize for my selfishness lest I find myself toothless after my next dental visit. However, the candy cane bit is true. Thousands of American have lost there jobs because of sugar tariffs that benefit a small number of wealthy sugar plantation owning families.**********
****DISCLAIMER #2 – a special thanks to Mr. Daniel Drezner’s article “The Outsourcing Bogeyman” posted on the Foreign Affairs web site for the facts and figures used in this posting.*********
Step three of the ADA’s master plan is to get John Kerry elected on a platform to erect trade barriers to “keep American jobs”. Thus the WTO, NAFTA and all other bi-lateral trade agreements will come under review to keep companies from “shipping jobs overseas”. And if free trade ships jobs over seas, then we need tariffs to keep jobs here because John Kerry stands by the common man! Thus John Kerry will make sure that main street America will not loose manufacturing jobs to China by setting tariffs on Chinese goods. This will constrict sugar quotas to the point that sugar becomes a luxury item leaving the average Americans to substitute carob for sugar. No sugar, no tooth decay. Devious political strategy compliments of the ADA.
But wait?!? If candy cane makers lost their jobs because of tariffs masquerading as import quotas, how can tariffs save jobs? That’s the three million-job question. Tariffs are never a one sided story. Ask yourself, who (besides the ADA) benefits from high sugar prices? American sugar producers, naturally. Thus import quotas are used to save sugar producers profit margins, and thereby sugar cane worker’s jobs at the expense of sugar using industries. Have you ever noticed that Coca-Cola tastes sweeter outside of the US? Thank the sugar quotas for that, Coke uses corn syrup to sweeten its colas in US, sugar elsewhere.
All right, all right, all right…I’ll give the satire a rest. The real point here is that there is no such thing as a free lunch in economic trade. Tariffs have costs. Lets look to President Bush’s December 2002 decision to slap tariffs on steel imports. Ostensibly the President did this to save steelworker’s jobs. What about workers in steel using industries? How did these tariffs affect them? It makes it more expensive to do business, leading steel using industries to fire approximately 75,000 people because of higher steel costs. The steel tariffs saved steel maker jobs at other people’s expense.
Therein lies the moral of this story. Trade liberalization leads to more efficient business, which leads to higher growth. Tariffs lead to inefficient business and less growth. Tariffs do this by robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why does Paul deserve handouts from the government? After all, that what tariffs are - a form of government handouts.
***DISCLAIMER – To my knowledge the American Dental Association has nothing to do with John Kerry’s political strategy. I abused the ADA for my own, demented satirical purposes. I apologize for my selfishness lest I find myself toothless after my next dental visit. However, the candy cane bit is true. Thousands of American have lost there jobs because of sugar tariffs that benefit a small number of wealthy sugar plantation owning families.**********
****DISCLAIMER #2 – a special thanks to Mr. Daniel Drezner’s article “The Outsourcing Bogeyman” posted on the Foreign Affairs web site for the facts and figures used in this posting.*********
Thursday, April 01, 2004
|
Wow, I must be one callous bastard. I just don’t get it. I read the stories and headlines trumpeting “Mogadishu II” with bewilderment. Let me be clear, mutilating corpses is despicable. It is sad that four American civilians died in an ambush, but the western media response is off the mark. Sadly people die every day in Iraqi. Four dead American civilians is par for this tragic course. The intense Iraqi hatred may have caught some westerners off guard, but why is their hatred a reason to care more about these four dead than 601 American military personnel who have died since this misplaced war began? Or the untold thousands of Iraqis, for that matter?
