Friday, January 30, 2004
Who should Kerry pick as his running mate, assuming he wins the nomination? My pick is Joe Lieberman, who has the charisma of a garden statue, but heck, VPs don't have to have lots of charisma (hence Al Gore as VP, or Dick Cheney). Yes, he ran as VP with Al Gore, but Al Gore ran on a bad platform, and if the kinds of things Lieberman is saying now is an indication of his true beliefs (which seems likely, as presidential candidates get to write their own policy points while VPs have to sign onto the agenda of the presidential candidate), Lieberman has some good ideas.
From the recent debate in South Carolina
“NAFTA, though it’s cost some jobs, has actually netted out 900,000 new jobs.”
Exactly. People forget that exports have gone up dramatically as a result of NAFTA, and continue to go up faster than they would have in the absence of a free trade agreement with Mexico. Partly that is the result of building a richer and more prosperous Mexico more capable of buying more American products, and partly it's just the fact that Mexico is a NATURAL place for our exports, given that we share a very long border with the country.
Both Kerry and Lieberman have strong free trade credentials, and are likely to see the "bigger picture" whenever people talk about harm to the domestic labor force from trade. Yes, some people DO get harmed, and government SHOULD do something to help those harmed. More, however, benefit in the big balance sheet that is our national economy.
As a side issue, the fact that the Bush administration's recently passed Medicare reform (or shall we call it, ill-thought out expansion of an entitlement program) costs a 1/3rd more than estimated previously really bothers me. I always thought the bill was a shameless attempt at pandering to special electoral interests in preparation for the vote in November. This bill was passed JUST a few months ago! That leads me to believe that everyone knew that the reform was going to cost far more than touted, and now we have yet another item in the federal budget that will lead to ballooning deficits.
Governments will run deficits during recessions. I just wish that there would be some recognition that deficits should be minimized. It seems the Bush administration is of the opinion that deficits don't matter. I've even heard members of the administration quoted as saying that Reagan proved it. Well, the sinking dollar should be a sign that others recognize that it DOES matter. Yes, American exports benefit from a low dollar, but if our trading partners dive into a recession because the dollar is TOO low (remember, America is usually the rest of the world's biggest trading partner), we end up impoverishing ourselves by shutting down our export markets.
The dollar has to sink to get America to save more (we only save 2% of GDP, versus 10% in Japan, our target should be 5-6%). That doesn't give the US government a blank check to run deficits, thus pushing the dollar lower than it needs to be.
From the recent debate in South Carolina
“NAFTA, though it’s cost some jobs, has actually netted out 900,000 new jobs.”
Exactly. People forget that exports have gone up dramatically as a result of NAFTA, and continue to go up faster than they would have in the absence of a free trade agreement with Mexico. Partly that is the result of building a richer and more prosperous Mexico more capable of buying more American products, and partly it's just the fact that Mexico is a NATURAL place for our exports, given that we share a very long border with the country.
Both Kerry and Lieberman have strong free trade credentials, and are likely to see the "bigger picture" whenever people talk about harm to the domestic labor force from trade. Yes, some people DO get harmed, and government SHOULD do something to help those harmed. More, however, benefit in the big balance sheet that is our national economy.
As a side issue, the fact that the Bush administration's recently passed Medicare reform (or shall we call it, ill-thought out expansion of an entitlement program) costs a 1/3rd more than estimated previously really bothers me. I always thought the bill was a shameless attempt at pandering to special electoral interests in preparation for the vote in November. This bill was passed JUST a few months ago! That leads me to believe that everyone knew that the reform was going to cost far more than touted, and now we have yet another item in the federal budget that will lead to ballooning deficits.
Governments will run deficits during recessions. I just wish that there would be some recognition that deficits should be minimized. It seems the Bush administration is of the opinion that deficits don't matter. I've even heard members of the administration quoted as saying that Reagan proved it. Well, the sinking dollar should be a sign that others recognize that it DOES matter. Yes, American exports benefit from a low dollar, but if our trading partners dive into a recession because the dollar is TOO low (remember, America is usually the rest of the world's biggest trading partner), we end up impoverishing ourselves by shutting down our export markets.
The dollar has to sink to get America to save more (we only save 2% of GDP, versus 10% in Japan, our target should be 5-6%). That doesn't give the US government a blank check to run deficits, thus pushing the dollar lower than it needs to be.
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Britain has relaxed penalties on possession of cannabis.
I've never really understood marijuana laws. Seems to me that a drug that makes you want to sit around watching cartoons and eating pizza is less of a problem than one that makes you want to drive fast and have fights in bars (alcohol). It's certainly less of a problem than a drug that makes you hang around on street corners having sex with strangers for money (heroin). The British police figured their resources were better channeled towards fighting harder drugs rather than the ones that don't really cause any social problems.
I've never really understood marijuana laws. Seems to me that a drug that makes you want to sit around watching cartoons and eating pizza is less of a problem than one that makes you want to drive fast and have fights in bars (alcohol). It's certainly less of a problem than a drug that makes you hang around on street corners having sex with strangers for money (heroin). The British police figured their resources were better channeled towards fighting harder drugs rather than the ones that don't really cause any social problems.
From a recent MSNBC article covering the suicide bombing in Jerusalem.
Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, said the attack underscores the need for the contentious separation barrier Israel is building in the West Bank.
Fine...but why can't it follow the 1967 border? I don't think anyone would fault Israel for building a wall if they weren't diving deep into the West Bank, continuing to fund expansion of West Bank settlements, and doing practically nothing to dismantle any of them.
What the Palestinians are doing is less than contemptible, but worse, not very effective. If Ghandi had taken a suicide bombing approach to the British occupation of his country, India might well STILL be under British control. Instead, Ghandi emphasized that he was MORALLY right, and showed it with his actions.
The Palestinians could do more of that. But lacking cooler heads, the Israeli government could unilaterally decide to hand the Palestinians a country that hews close to the 1967 borders (and gives them part of Jerusalem, which IS smack in the middle of the West Bank, even though Dallas news channels somehow manage to put Jerusalem on the Israeli coast)...and build their wall along that border.
Sharon's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, said the attack underscores the need for the contentious separation barrier Israel is building in the West Bank.
Fine...but why can't it follow the 1967 border? I don't think anyone would fault Israel for building a wall if they weren't diving deep into the West Bank, continuing to fund expansion of West Bank settlements, and doing practically nothing to dismantle any of them.
What the Palestinians are doing is less than contemptible, but worse, not very effective. If Ghandi had taken a suicide bombing approach to the British occupation of his country, India might well STILL be under British control. Instead, Ghandi emphasized that he was MORALLY right, and showed it with his actions.
The Palestinians could do more of that. But lacking cooler heads, the Israeli government could unilaterally decide to hand the Palestinians a country that hews close to the 1967 borders (and gives them part of Jerusalem, which IS smack in the middle of the West Bank, even though Dallas news channels somehow manage to put Jerusalem on the Israeli coast)...and build their wall along that border.
Not that there was much chance of this happening, but I'm really glad that Dennis Kucinich has about as much a chance of becoming America's president as Mr. Ed the talking horse has of becoming the first colonist to Mars. The guy wants to cancel NAFTA and the WTO "from day one," wants to pull out all of our troops in Iraq NOW, and do a bunch of other things that are likely to decimate America's economy and make a complicated situation in the Middle East, and the world, even WORSE. He's the antithesis to Pat Robertson's ridiculous attempt in the 80s to run for president (Pat Robertson was the uber-conservative, to put it mildly).
He's still in the race, as is Al Sharpton, another unlikely first colonist to Mars, but at least Al Sharpton is funny.
He's still in the race, as is Al Sharpton, another unlikely first colonist to Mars, but at least Al Sharpton is funny.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Okay, I've not paid ANY attention to this blog in awhile. I've been doing a lot of articles for ZDNet, which is a nice megaphone that reaches a lot of people. However, ZDNet is a TECHNOLOGY news site, and I have lots of opinions that don't neatly fit into that particular domain.
So, it's time to start blogging again. I'm sure lots of people have posted this kind of message and said "yes, I will blog again," then never managed to get restarted. It's a bit like new year's resolutions.
So, first up: the battle for the Democratic party presidential nomination. Suffice to say, I'm overjoyed that Howard Dean is less likely to be the nominee. I like Kerry. He supports free trade (though Dean has made him mutter things about labor and environmental side agreements), he's environmentalist, and his foreign policy credentials are top notch. Presidents NEED to be good at foreign policy, because their specific domain of control is NOT domestic policy. That's Congress' bailiwick. The American Constitution grants presidents exclusive (or nearly so) control over foreign policy, on the theory that foreign policy needs a single face to show to other countries.
I don't trust Howard Dean's foreign policy credentials (well, besides the fact that he has none to speak of). Likewise, I don't take issue per se with with a stance against the war in Iraq, so long it's clear that the stance is the result of lots of careful consideration. Unfortunately, Dean's stance seems like the kid who discovered that loud screaming causes the parents to come running. Yeah, there are many people who are against the war in America, and his loud screaming caused them to come running. However, "bobbing for WMD" photo-ops and his refusal to admit that the issue of whether or not to invade Iraq has no obvjectively obvious solution bothers me.
There are a number of reasons why invading Iraq was a good idea (well, at least in my opinion), and I'll probably bring up more of them in the course of adding to this blog. I just don't get the impression that Dean ever thought of any of them.
If Kerry wins the nomination, I could easily see voting for him come November. In fact, I expect that has occurred to a number of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, which explains Kerry's strong showing.
So, it's time to start blogging again. I'm sure lots of people have posted this kind of message and said "yes, I will blog again," then never managed to get restarted. It's a bit like new year's resolutions.
So, first up: the battle for the Democratic party presidential nomination. Suffice to say, I'm overjoyed that Howard Dean is less likely to be the nominee. I like Kerry. He supports free trade (though Dean has made him mutter things about labor and environmental side agreements), he's environmentalist, and his foreign policy credentials are top notch. Presidents NEED to be good at foreign policy, because their specific domain of control is NOT domestic policy. That's Congress' bailiwick. The American Constitution grants presidents exclusive (or nearly so) control over foreign policy, on the theory that foreign policy needs a single face to show to other countries.
I don't trust Howard Dean's foreign policy credentials (well, besides the fact that he has none to speak of). Likewise, I don't take issue per se with with a stance against the war in Iraq, so long it's clear that the stance is the result of lots of careful consideration. Unfortunately, Dean's stance seems like the kid who discovered that loud screaming causes the parents to come running. Yeah, there are many people who are against the war in America, and his loud screaming caused them to come running. However, "bobbing for WMD" photo-ops and his refusal to admit that the issue of whether or not to invade Iraq has no obvjectively obvious solution bothers me.
There are a number of reasons why invading Iraq was a good idea (well, at least in my opinion), and I'll probably bring up more of them in the course of adding to this blog. I just don't get the impression that Dean ever thought of any of them.
If Kerry wins the nomination, I could easily see voting for him come November. In fact, I expect that has occurred to a number of voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, which explains Kerry's strong showing.
