Monday, January 30, 2006
Once again I missed my shot at putting the big thinkers to shame, all because I'm too lazy to post over the weekend.
It occured to me last Friday while reading yet another blog entry on pork-barrel politics and the intense need to fix the problem now that perhaps I had a remarkable good Social Studies teacher in high school.
I was taught that pork-barrel politics and barrel rolling are a natural and important part of the American system of democracy. Usually, if you are a congressman, the other congressmen don't care two figs about your constituents or your bills, but each congressman has his own constituents to keep happy and his own bill he does care about. What he needs is some way to get you to vote for his bill.
The solution to massive disinterest is summed up as "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." To gather votes, a congressman can try logical persuasion, but failing that (and that fails often), he can offer to vote for a bill he otherwise might not, or offer to add a little payola to another congressman's consituents, either legitimate or of the lobbying/fund-raising kind.
Michael Barone today final comes to the same thought -- that pork-barrel politics is how good bills get the support of bad congressmen.
It is left as an excercise for the reader to contrast the acceptability of pork-barrel politics with the unacceptability of graft (when someone not a congressman offers to give a congressman money directly or indirectly in return for a back-scratch) and terrorist negotiation (when someone not a congressman offers to not kill someone else, also not a congressman, for a back-scratch).
It occured to me last Friday while reading yet another blog entry on pork-barrel politics and the intense need to fix the problem now that perhaps I had a remarkable good Social Studies teacher in high school.
I was taught that pork-barrel politics and barrel rolling are a natural and important part of the American system of democracy. Usually, if you are a congressman, the other congressmen don't care two figs about your constituents or your bills, but each congressman has his own constituents to keep happy and his own bill he does care about. What he needs is some way to get you to vote for his bill.
The solution to massive disinterest is summed up as "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." To gather votes, a congressman can try logical persuasion, but failing that (and that fails often), he can offer to vote for a bill he otherwise might not, or offer to add a little payola to another congressman's consituents, either legitimate or of the lobbying/fund-raising kind.
Michael Barone today final comes to the same thought -- that pork-barrel politics is how good bills get the support of bad congressmen.
It is left as an excercise for the reader to contrast the acceptability of pork-barrel politics with the unacceptability of graft (when someone not a congressman offers to give a congressman money directly or indirectly in return for a back-scratch) and terrorist negotiation (when someone not a congressman offers to not kill someone else, also not a congressman, for a back-scratch).
Teddy Roosevelt was an American, hence Canadians apparently haven't heard his advice to "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
That advice meaning, in international affairs, if one wants one's way, one should negotiate politely and behind the scenes. The stick is to show you have alternatives if talking fails.
Steve Harper, on the other hand, shoots his mouth off despite knowing that, in a land war, his troops will be driving their own cars to the the 49th parallel.
Harper is reaffirming Canadas claim to waterways between the broken-up islands that form the Canadian landmass as it approaches the north pole. Those waterways used to be frozen over most of the years, and Canada said it claims the ice, hence it claims the channels. Now that the channels are open, due to global warming or better icebreaking ships, Canada claims that, contrary to understood international law, those open waterways are not international water, so ask before you float through. To back it up, he announced his intention to commision three new submarines to patrol the waters.
The open-waters issue would seem a good opportunity for soft diplomacy (not that it will work any better). On the one hand, it seems rude to plow through someone elses waterways. On the other, those are the internationally agreed to rules: open water equals international water at a certain distance from land.
Adding three submarines to defend the arctic territories means nothing to the U.S. Navy. Perhaps he intends to hobble wayward Norwegian whaling boats first until Norway recognizes the new frontier, and once Norway is on his side, use peer pressure or U.N. resolutions to get the U.S. to acquiesce.
I have no doubt the U.S. would claim sovereignty in the same situation. The difference is the U.S. has expended considerable capital in building a military and a reputation that intimidates the rest of the world. Canada, in contrast, wants to project an image as the friendliest, most harmless country in the world. The state motto of New Hampshire, a tiny state never important in the great scheme of things, is "Live free or die". I'm pretty sure the Canadian national motto is "Don't bother with us. You want that guy over there."
This is probably not the issue you want to establish your cantankerousness with.
The story concludes with this: "Ottawa has generally turned a blind eye to the United States’ sending ships through the area."
And likely, they will continue to.
That advice meaning, in international affairs, if one wants one's way, one should negotiate politely and behind the scenes. The stick is to show you have alternatives if talking fails.
Steve Harper, on the other hand, shoots his mouth off despite knowing that, in a land war, his troops will be driving their own cars to the the 49th parallel.
Harper is reaffirming Canadas claim to waterways between the broken-up islands that form the Canadian landmass as it approaches the north pole. Those waterways used to be frozen over most of the years, and Canada said it claims the ice, hence it claims the channels. Now that the channels are open, due to global warming or better icebreaking ships, Canada claims that, contrary to understood international law, those open waterways are not international water, so ask before you float through. To back it up, he announced his intention to commision three new submarines to patrol the waters.
The open-waters issue would seem a good opportunity for soft diplomacy (not that it will work any better). On the one hand, it seems rude to plow through someone elses waterways. On the other, those are the internationally agreed to rules: open water equals international water at a certain distance from land.
Adding three submarines to defend the arctic territories means nothing to the U.S. Navy. Perhaps he intends to hobble wayward Norwegian whaling boats first until Norway recognizes the new frontier, and once Norway is on his side, use peer pressure or U.N. resolutions to get the U.S. to acquiesce.
I have no doubt the U.S. would claim sovereignty in the same situation. The difference is the U.S. has expended considerable capital in building a military and a reputation that intimidates the rest of the world. Canada, in contrast, wants to project an image as the friendliest, most harmless country in the world. The state motto of New Hampshire, a tiny state never important in the great scheme of things, is "Live free or die". I'm pretty sure the Canadian national motto is "Don't bother with us. You want that guy over there."
This is probably not the issue you want to establish your cantankerousness with.
The story concludes with this: "Ottawa has generally turned a blind eye to the United States’ sending ships through the area."
And likely, they will continue to.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Andrew Stuttaford at Nation Review Online's the Corner links to a blogger upset by British Tory party leader Cameron.
Cameron proposes the high-school drop-outs be forced to work for the state for three months. I gather his goal it to let drop-outs know that dropping out doesn't mean less work but more.
Tim Worstall calls the fascism of the worst sort, where the government thinks it has a call not just on private enterprise but on private effort even. Stuttaford backs him up.
In a sense, they are right. This is fascism. However, we live in fascist societies. At this moment, there are many high-school drop-outs paying their rent and eating food with government grants paid for by me and other workers. We're in a topsy-turvey world where the drop-outs are the overlords.
The moral justifications for Camerons proposal is clear: high-school drop outs suck up government largesse at a rate highly disproportional to the rest of society. That being the case, however, a less fascist solution is this:
Pass a law that high-school drop-outs cannot receive government assistance until they have worked the equivalent of the missing portion of their high-school career. If Cameron feels that work should be directly for the government, fine. If drop-outs find working onerous, that too is fine, but they don't get housing assistance and food stamps. Most high-school students in the U.S. are wards of their parents for the length of time this law would apply to them, anyway, and shouldn't be eligible for assistance.
Personally, I'd suggest going further. Anyone with less than a two year degree or a year of trade training or equivalent work experience is cut off. This would leave a small gap between when young adults might need assistance and when they would be eligible (your parents being able to kick you out when you reach 18), but those details are for the legislature to work out. I'm a big idea person.
Cameron proposes the high-school drop-outs be forced to work for the state for three months. I gather his goal it to let drop-outs know that dropping out doesn't mean less work but more.
Tim Worstall calls the fascism of the worst sort, where the government thinks it has a call not just on private enterprise but on private effort even. Stuttaford backs him up.
In a sense, they are right. This is fascism. However, we live in fascist societies. At this moment, there are many high-school drop-outs paying their rent and eating food with government grants paid for by me and other workers. We're in a topsy-turvey world where the drop-outs are the overlords.
The moral justifications for Camerons proposal is clear: high-school drop outs suck up government largesse at a rate highly disproportional to the rest of society. That being the case, however, a less fascist solution is this:
Pass a law that high-school drop-outs cannot receive government assistance until they have worked the equivalent of the missing portion of their high-school career. If Cameron feels that work should be directly for the government, fine. If drop-outs find working onerous, that too is fine, but they don't get housing assistance and food stamps. Most high-school students in the U.S. are wards of their parents for the length of time this law would apply to them, anyway, and shouldn't be eligible for assistance.
Personally, I'd suggest going further. Anyone with less than a two year degree or a year of trade training or equivalent work experience is cut off. This would leave a small gap between when young adults might need assistance and when they would be eligible (your parents being able to kick you out when you reach 18), but those details are for the legislature to work out. I'm a big idea person.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Iain Murray tries class warfare at National Review Online, commenting on a piece in the Detroit News on tax breaks for owners of hybrid cars.
The purpose of the tax break is to spur sales of hybrid cars, perhaps also spurring research and development into better and cheaper hybrid technology. It is in fact more a corporate subsidy than a tax break to the rich. Hybrid car makers would see higher sales as a result. They also get to charge a price most people wouldn't pay for a car of the size and features or a typical hybrid vehicle, improving their profit and hopefully their incentive to re-invest in these days where GM is otherwise cutting prices and Ford is slowly sliding into oblivion.
Funnily, the same accusation of hypocrisy can be leveled against liberals: finally, a form of corporate welfare liberals can support!
The author, the Detroit News' Richard Burr, also has another good point: hybrids come with a considerable price premium and so are only affordable if you're quite well off. This is a tax break for the rich and the liberals applaud it!
The purpose of the tax break is to spur sales of hybrid cars, perhaps also spurring research and development into better and cheaper hybrid technology. It is in fact more a corporate subsidy than a tax break to the rich. Hybrid car makers would see higher sales as a result. They also get to charge a price most people wouldn't pay for a car of the size and features or a typical hybrid vehicle, improving their profit and hopefully their incentive to re-invest in these days where GM is otherwise cutting prices and Ford is slowly sliding into oblivion.
Funnily, the same accusation of hypocrisy can be leveled against liberals: finally, a form of corporate welfare liberals can support!
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
I haven't seen anything on Monday's four-way Canadian party leader debate anywhere on my regular blogs. I am grateful to Captains Quarters for the heads up.
I watched a debate a few years ago via streaming media, and was quite entertained at the anti-Americanism on display. Apparently, being to close too America is a problem for Canadian politicians, but I notice Canada itself hasn't tried to move.
Anyway, I sat through one hour of the two hour debate before getting bored. It was a pretty wonky debate mostly, with questions about taxes and healthcare, and inside baseball questions about funding scandals.
The payoff came at about minute 45.
I think a fair and ultra-short summary of the exchange is this:
Moderator: What are Canadian values?
Layton (NDP): Public health care
Harper (Conservative): We're nice (and also honest)
Martin (Liberal): We're not American
Duceppe (Block Quebecois): Gay marriage
This is an honest summary of what was said. A friend pointed out
nobody mentioned hockey.
Harper didn't answer the question the first time. I am actually summarizing his follow-up
The full debate transcript is here
Search for "swingers". Honestly. (Is that word even in use in America
anymore?).
It's worth noting some words you won't find: terror, terrorist,
terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Actually, Iraq was brought up by Martin in a single sentence, in which
he put Bloc Quebecois voters on notice that if they form a coalition
with the Conservatives, they won't be able to stop Harper from sending
troops.
Harper has since promised not to.
I watched a debate a few years ago via streaming media, and was quite entertained at the anti-Americanism on display. Apparently, being to close too America is a problem for Canadian politicians, but I notice Canada itself hasn't tried to move.
Anyway, I sat through one hour of the two hour debate before getting bored. It was a pretty wonky debate mostly, with questions about taxes and healthcare, and inside baseball questions about funding scandals.
The payoff came at about minute 45.
I think a fair and ultra-short summary of the exchange is this:
Moderator: What are Canadian values?
Layton (NDP): Public health care
Harper (Conservative): We're nice (and also honest)
Martin (Liberal): We're not American
Duceppe (Block Quebecois): Gay marriage
This is an honest summary of what was said. A friend pointed out
nobody mentioned hockey.
Harper didn't answer the question the first time. I am actually summarizing his follow-up
The full debate transcript is here
Search for "swingers". Honestly. (Is that word even in use in America
anymore?).
It's worth noting some words you won't find: terror, terrorist,
terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan.
Actually, Iraq was brought up by Martin in a single sentence, in which
he put Bloc Quebecois voters on notice that if they form a coalition
with the Conservatives, they won't be able to stop Harper from sending
troops.
Harper has since promised not to.
I periodically hear men say, when talking about their wives, that they "married up". Sometimes, other men tell a man that, as a compliment.
It strikes me that I've never heard a woman say she married up.
Why is that?
It strikes me that I've never heard a woman say she married up.
Why is that?
