You're late!
Amelia Pond! You're the little girl!
I'm Amelia, and you're late.
Thursday, June 02
The Indonesian embassy in Canberra has received a letter containing a white powder, which has been confirmed to be a biological agent but not fully identified as yet. The government and police are taking it extremely seriously, as you would expect.
The Sydney Morning Herald, though, has turned it into an opportunity for whiplash-inducing front page hypocritical spin:
The terrorist who launched the suspected biological attack on the Indonesian embassy has turned Schapelle Corby's problem into Australia's problem.The government has confirmed that the letter does appear to be linked to the Corby case, so this is substantially correct.
The populist hysteria over Corby's sentencing, which looked like a simple case of the media indulging wilful ignorance in pursuit of ratings, has turned into a serious national incident.And guess who was right there with the leaders of that populist hysteria?
Australia's relationship with Indonesia is not like, say, Australia's relationship with Brunei or France. It is not just another bilateral set-up with another country, but a vital part of Australia's strategic landscape.Australia has a relationship with Brunei or France?
By immediately condemning the apparent attack and apologising to the people and Government of Indonesia, John Howard has tried to contain the damage to Australia's relations with its only strategically important near neighbour.No. By immediately condemning the apparent attack and apologising to the people and Government of Indonesia, John Howard immediately condemned the apparent attack and apologised to the people and Government of Indonesia.
By the way, on the subject of strategically important near neighbours, how many near neighbours does Australia have? Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor (which is tiny) and New Zealand (which has largely withdrawn from world events).
This is the right thing to do, but it seems unlikely it will be enough. "This is shocking," said the head of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, Alan Gyngell. "It is a serious terrorist attack on the mission of a friendly country. There will be outrage in Indonesia, an outrage the Australian political leadership will share."Uh, yeah.
It is appalling. The Australian political leadership is outraged.
While the official Australian reaction to the sentencing of Corby has been sane and reasonable, it is the extremist reaction that will make the biggest impression in Jakarta.Australia has always treated honestly with Indonesia, something more...Australia transformed its relationship with Indonesia with its swift, humane and generous response to the suffering of the country's tsunami victims. But the enormous goodwill Howard achieved will be thoroughly undermined by the hatred shown in the last few days.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
09:21 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 954 words, total size 6 kb.
Once upon a time, there were five distinctive national holidays in Australia.
Christmas, of course, the season of eating too much and spending too much. And heatwaves and bushfires.
New Year's Eve, when you got to stay up late (unless you fell asleep on your half-glass of champagne).
Easter. Chocolate! Easter Hat Parade! More chocolate!
Anzac Day, our national remembrance day. (We also observe Armistice Day, but it's not a holiday.)
And Fireworks Day. More formally, the Queen's Birthday (though it actually doesn't occur on her birthday). But to us kids, it meant fireworks. Not big fireworks off in the distance, but fireworks Dad brought home and set off himself. Right there in the garden, while you gathered around in your pyjamas and dressing gowns. Whoosh! Pop! And then off for some hot cocoa, because it's getting chilly by this time of year.
No more. Eighteen years ago the New South Wales state government decided that the people were too stupid to be allowed fireworks, and banned their sale. Miserable pissant nanny-state crapweasels.
I have a dream, a dream of smoke and sparks, a dream that one day we shall rise up and kick the bastards out and take back the right to accidentally burn our eyebrows off every so often.
Who's with me?
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
04:38 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.
Wednesday, June 01
From France:
We French hate the perfidious English. We French have always hated the perfidious English. We French hate the perfidious English for being ... perfidious. And English. And for positively refusing to be invaded by Germans when we French managed it so effortlessly. Twice.There's more, and it just gets better.
(Via Roger L. Simon)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
11:10 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
This one sentence from that Newsweek article, out of all the nonsense and blather, has been niggling at me:
World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries.It's just so wrong, so irredeemably and inexcusably wrong.
Who were the Axis powers? Primarily, Germany, Italy and Japan. Spain was aligned with them; Hitler and Mussolini lent support to Franco in the Spanish Civil War. There were a number of other minor partners; Finland, for example, aligned itself with Germany because it saw Russia as a graver threat.
What was the war about? Germany, Italy and Japan wanted to secure more land and resources. Germany in Europe; Italy (as a lesser partner) would take the uninteresting bits of Europe (like Albania) and Africa; Japan would take eastern Asia and the Pacific. Look at this handy little map to see what they were up to.
Who opposed them? Well, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, early targets during the war in Europe, simply didn't have the military strength to stop the Axis. Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931* and was expanding its presence there. There were three powers in the world that posed a significant threat: Britain, particularly the Royal Navy; Russia; and the United States.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (a non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany) dealt with Russia. Russia was ill-prepared for war at the time, having systematically destroyed the effectiveness of its own army through purges. Britain was more of a problem; the hope there was that it could be isolated until Germany and Italy had consolidated their position in Europe.
As for the United States, the chief plan was not to get them involved in the war. That may sound like a dreadful miscalculation, but in 1935 Congress had passed the Neutrality Act, which prohibited American support for any nation at war. The Act was renewed as late as 1939. American isolationism was in full flower in the 1930's, and the Axis powers were banking on it.
Then, of course, they screwed everything up. With a characteristic combination of paranoia and overconfidence, in 1941 Germany declared war on Russia and Japan declared war on the United States. The two sleeping giants were called into play in the war against the Axis, and after four more years of terrible bloodshed, the Axis was finally crushed.
World War II was entirely about the ambitions of the Axis powers. America wanted only to keep to itself; Britain had its Commonwealth; Russia was in no shape to do anything. Germany, Italy and Japan decided to take over the world. It sounds crazy. It was crazy. Something like 50 million people died for their ambitions.†
I wonder why Newsweek wants us to believe otherwise.
* The League of Nations, the UN of the day, did nothing.
† Estimates vary significantly in many cases.
Footnote: Britannica Online has this appalling bit of doublethink:
Axis PowersCoalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied Powers in World War II.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
08:40 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.
Out of curiosity, I downloaded a copy of the proposed European Constitution (available here in English; check here for other languages or to read it online).
I skipped the table of contents (five pages) and the preamble and signatories (eight pages). The first two articles, Establishment of the Union and The Union's values are reasonable enough. The fun starts with article I-3.
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.Well, okay. Peace is nice. But is that all you want to do? Promote peace? Hmm.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.Fine and laudable, this one. That's what I like to see. Not what some of the French political parties want to see (that part about the internal market), but I have no trouble with it. But then:
3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.Price stability? A social market economy? Full employment? Social progress?
They're communists. And communism don't work.
Look, you just one paragraph ago said that you wanted an internal market where competition is free and undistorted. If you have that, you can't also have price stability, and you can't guarantee full employment. Those things just don't work together; they're antithetical.
[Update: Commenter Jojo points out that price stability is a term used to refer to zero or very low inflation (a good thing) rather than price controls (a bad thing) as I had assumed. This does somewhat deflate my anti-communist paranoia, but the document is still devotedly socialist and statist. Its prescription for every ill is more government.]
And who gets to define what social progress means?
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.What an awful jumble of weaselry. Are you trying to say "All men are created equal"? Because I think copyright has expired on the Declaration of Independence. A quick cut-and-paste and you're away.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.Well, okay. I mean, if you're going to have a Union, you have to have some sort of cohesion and solidarity going on.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.Respect is fine. Safeguarding one's heritage is fine, I guess. Enhanced? What? How?
I'll skip some waffle. Article I-4 is a surprise: Short, sweet, right to the point:
Fundamental freedoms and non-discriminationGood stuff.† If it was mostly like that, I wouldn't mind the occasional outbreak of fluffy-bunnies, like:1. The free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and freedom of establishment shall be guaranteed within and by the Union, in accordance with the Constitution.
2. Within the scope of the Constitution, and without prejudice to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.
The anthem of the Union shall be based on the ‘Ode to Joy’ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven.United in adversity, eh? Oh, sorry.The motto of the Union shall be: ‘United in diversity’.
But we're now on page 20... Of 485. Let's skip ahead a bit:
Article II-70What a lot of blather. Yes, we have those rights. We don't need you to tell us that, because they are rights. Y'know, inalienable and stuff. What you mean to say is this:Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Article II-71
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Article II-72
Freedom of assembly and of association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests.
2. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
Article II-73
Freedom of the arts and sciences
The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Those five little words, Congress shall make no law, they go to the heart of the problem. Governments make laws, it's what they do. They don't confer rights, because you can't confer a right. You don't need to list universal rights in the constitution, but what you can do is restrict the lawmaking powers of the government.
Skip skip
Article II-91Every worker? What if you're on an hourly contract? What if you're a freelancer paid on delivery?2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.
Skip skip
Article III-312And you thought that stuff about cloture and filibusters was bad.3. Any Member State which, at a later stage, wishes to participate in the permanent structured cooperation shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Council shall adopt a European decision confirming the participation of the Member State concerned which fulfils the criteria and makes the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation. The Council shall act by a qualified majority after consulting the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States shall take part in the vote.
A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.
A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.
4. If a participating Member State no longer fulfils the criteria or is no longer able to meet the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation, the Council may adopt a European decision suspending the participation of the Member State concerned.
The Council shall act by a qualified majority. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States, with the exception of the Member State in question, shall take part in the vote.
A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.
A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.
Article IV-437You what?2. The Treaties on the Accession:
(a) of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
(b) of the Hellenic Republic;
(c) of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic;
(d) of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and
(e) of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic,
shall be repealed.Nevertheless:
 the provisions of the Treaties referred to in points (a) to (d) and set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaties and Acts of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Hellenic Republic, of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol,
 the provisions of the Treaty referred to in point (e) and which are set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaty and Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol.
It's not in fact utterly dire, as a plan for a European Union. That surprised me. It's a really lousy constitution, though. Its scope is too broad; it spends far too much time on what can, should, will or may be done instead of what the government cannot do.
Better than I expected, but the French got it right.*
But they're still communists. [Update: Still communists.]
*There, are you happy? I praised the output of a bunch of Eurocrats and the common sense of the French people in one sentence. Now my brain hurts.
† Actually, on second thoughts that's another case of rights inversion. Change it around to a "Congress shall make no law" clause, and you've got it. As it stands, it has the government guaranteeing a right, which is wrong.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
07:15 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1682 words, total size 11 kb.
This is some of what I didn't beat into a pulp the previous time around. The subject today: Foreign Policy.
U.S. leaders have long believed military power and the American Dream went hand in hand.They have?
I'm not saying you're wrong; after all, America was born out of a war against the British colonial administration. But I would like to see something more than a bald statement.
World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries.No it wasn't. Newsflash: The United Nations was formed after the war. The United Nations had nothing whatsoever to do with the war, and the war had nothing to do with the United Nations.
The war was fought to defeat the Axis powers.
NATO and the Marshall Plan were the twin pillars upon which today's Europe were built.Um, yes. True.
Today, Americans make the same presumption, confusing military might with right.What?
If they're making the same presumption, are you saying that they were wrong to remove the Taliban and the Ba'athists? And the Nazis, and the Fascists in Italy, and the military rulers of Japan?
Following European criticisms of the Iraq war, the French became "surrender monkeys."Say what? The line referring to the French as "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" comes from a Simpsons episode of 1995. This opinion of the French dates to at least the Second World War, if not earlier.
The Germans were opportunistic ingrates.They were?
The British (and the Poles) were America's lone allies.And the Australians. And the Spanish, and the Dutch, and the Danes, and the Japanese, and the Koreans, and the Italians. But hardly more than a dozen other countries apart from those.
Unsurprisingly, many of those listening to Bush's Inaugural pledge last week to stand with those defying tyranny saw the glimmerings of an argument for invading Iran:Well that makes sense, because the current rulers of Iran are certainly tyrants.
Washington has thus far shown more of an appetite for spreading ideals with the barrel of a gun than for namby-pamby hearts-and-minds campaigns.Washington was all about namby-pamby hearts-and-minds campaigns, from the end of the Vietnam War right up until some time in 2001.
A former French minister muses that the United States is the last "Bismarckian power"â€â€the last country to believe that the pinpoint application of military power is the critical instrument of foreign policy.Which is sheer nonsense.
America has been for the most part isolationist. It would, by and large, prefer to ignore the world. When the world insists on gaining its attention, however, the results are fairly predictable.
Contrast that to the European Unionâ€â€pioneering an approach based on civilian instruments like trade, foreign aid, peacekeeping, international monitoring and international lawNotable for its achievements in... Achievements in... Uh, wait, I'll get it...
or even China, whose economic clout has become its most effective diplomatic weapon.Yes, because China is such a positive influence in the world.
The strongest tool for both is access to huge markets.Because heaven forbid they should ever allow free trade.
No single policy has contributed as much to Western peace and security as the admission of 10 new countriesâ€â€to be followed by a half-dozen moreâ€â€to the European Union.Well, except for the whole opposing the Communists so they wouldn't take over the rest of Europe bit. I mean, without that there wouldn't be 16 "new" countries to admit to the European Union, but let's conveniently ignore that and imagine that Poland and Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Republics and all those places just suddenly showed up on the map one day.
In country after country, authoritarian nationalists were beaten back by democratic coalitions held together by the promise of joining Europe.Um, what? You don't think the democratic coalitions might have been motivated by not wanting another five decades of oppression and economic ruin? No?
in the past month European leaders have taken a courageous decision to contemplate the membership of TurkeyA courageous decision to contemplate the membership of Turkey. That's one heck of a dictionary you have there.
where the prospect of EU membership is helping to create the most stable democratic system in the Islamic world.Out of what? Three? No, hang on, there are two new ones now, aren't there. I wonder how that happened.
When historians look back, they may see this policy as being the truly epochal event of our time, dwarfing in effectiveness the crude power of America.Or, y'know, not.
The United States can take some satisfaction in this. After all, it is in large part the success of the mid-century American Dreamâ€â€spreading democracy, free markets, social mobility and multilateral cooperationâ€â€that has made possible the diversity of models we see today.Translation: Thank the Americans that you're not all speaking German, Japanese or Russian.
This was enlightened statecraft of unparalleled generosity.No it wasn't. It was a horrific war followed by a decades-long standoff.
But where does it leave us? Americans still invoke democratic idealism. We heard it in Bush's address, with his apocalyptic proclamation that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."Apocalyptic proclamation? Are you completely insane? What he said was that no country stands alone, and that our freedom is under threat while others suffer oppression. You have a problem with that?
But fewer and fewer people have the patience to listen.And are impoverished thereby.
Headlines in the British press were almost contemptuous: DEFIANT BUSH DOES NOT MENTION THE WAR, HAVE I GOT NUKES FOR YOU and HIS SECOND-TERM MISSION: TO END TYRANNY ON EARTH."Almost" contemptuous? How about openly contemptuous. I mean, ending tyranny on Earth, what a moron.
Has this administration learned nothing from Iraq, they asked?What would you have us learn? That the French and the Russians cannot be trusted? Hey, we knew that.
The failure of the American Dream has only been highlighted by the country's foreign-policy failures, not caused by them.Failure of the American Dream?
Last time I checked, America was still there.
Foreign-policy failures? What? Where?
The true danger is that Americans do not realize this, lost in the reveries of greatness, speechifying about liberty and freedom.You are completely insane.
Reveries of greatness? Reveries? America, who provided aid to tsunami victims by parking a spare carrier group off their shore, providing fresh water and medical care and flight facilities. That America?
You accuse America of "speechifying about liberty and freedom". America, that is right now this minute fighting to preserve freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. America that still has troops defending Germany and Japan and South Korea.
Speechifying? No. That I'll leave to France and to the United Nations. President Bush doesn't speechify. He says what he is going to, and then he does it.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
03:18 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1126 words, total size 8 kb.
Tokyo Tom has asked some questions regarding my recent Newsweek post that I think deserve a serious answer. He writes:
PM, do you see no serious issues in Andrew Moravcsik's "Dream on America" piece that merit discussion, or is everything a zero-sum game with you?I think the article is a serious issue. My problem with it is that it's not an examination of anti-Americanism but an excercise in anti-Americanism. The former is worthwhile; the latter not.
I'm not sure what you are referring to with is everything a zero-sum game with you? The answer is no, but I don't know if that addresses your intended question.
I had thought it was a fairly accurate report of the perception of the declining importance and influence of the US in the world – so that what I found disappointing was not so much the content of the essay, but rather Newsweek’s decision not to run it in the US.I have two main problems with this, which may not be easily distinguishable to those not familiar with my views.
The first is on anti-Americanism. It's a real issue, and it's worth examining, but it's uniformly irrational and counterfactual. That is, when it's based on facts, it's not logical, and when it's logical, it's not based on facts.
The second was with the article itself, which rather than simply examining anti-Americanism, is anti-American itself. And since anti-Americanism is irrational and counterfactual, that was reflected in the article.
Do you disagree as a factual matter either with (i) the perception abroad of a slipping US lead, coupled with rising disenchantment with/active opposition to US policies, especially post-9/11I don't know that there's a perception abroad of a slipping US lead (in what?) There's certainly disenchantment with and opposition to US policies. That has been true for 229 years. What we see today is not the worst of it.
or (ii) the long decline in our relative economic dominance post-WWII as Asia, Europe and Latin America grow?I would bloody well hope that US economic dominance had declined since World War II.
World War II basically destroyed Europe and Japan, and caused massive destruction in Russia, China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. America threw huge amounts of manpower and resources into winning the war, but its infrastructure was essentially undamaged. The war wiped away any lingering traces of the Great Depression in America, but it took a long time for Europe and Asia to rebuild.
What's more, America has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for over 20% of production. That this proportion is decreasing doesn't mean that the US is declining in real terms, just that the rest of the world is starting to get its act together.
What does the CIA Factbook or other statistics tell you about the changes in the share of the US in the global economy from 1935 to 2005? If these are indeed trends, is there a reason to be alarmed about either of them?No. The trends are positive. The US economy continues to grow. The economies of some poorer countries are growing faster; that's good. Their growth will slow as they become richer and gains in productivity become harder to achieve. That happens to everyone.
Should we not be concerned with the antipathy towards the US in the rest of the world?Frankly, I'm more interested in whether Fox will revive Futurama than the antipathy of the rest of the world to the US.
What I am dedicated to is getting good, reliable information out there, and a balance of opinion. That's a large part of the reason I run mu.nu. Too many countries live inside bubbles, I'd like to pop a few of them.
Do you see no trade-offs as the US spends huge sums (a signifcant amount borrowed against sharply cut federal revenues) on the military (including extravagant boondoggles such as missile defense, unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes, and nation-building in Iraq), while other countries are investing directly in productive industry?No, of course there are no trade-offs. Everything's a win!
Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me there.
In order:
The US military allowed intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a standing, peace-time, all-volunteer military, with great success and minimal losses. That's a good thing.
Missile defense is hardly a boondoggle with nations like Iran and North Korea looking to lob nukes at anyone they dislike. You'd be foolish not to be investigating missile defense at this point.
Unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes? You have something of a point there. Nuclear weapons are taboo; their use is all but unthinkable. Tactical nukes would weaken that taboo, and if your number one priority is preventing the use of nuclear weapons, that would be a bad thing. I think, though, that this has to be balanced against the intended purpose of tactical nukes - bunker busters to destroy ABC (atomic/biological/chemical) warfare facilities in rogue states.
Other countries are investing in productive industry? Why, so is America. At the same time as acting as the world's policeman and planning a moonbase and a manned expedition to Mars and a billion and one other things.
It is more than simply disappointing that our invasion of Iraq has drawn no where near the level of burden-sharing that the US was able to secure in the cases of the first Gulf War and the action against Serbia.Right. But we need to examine the reasons for this. The liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do. Opposing it was wrong. We want to know why people opposed it. Most of the reasons given, however, are irrational and counterfactual.
Reflexive self-justification and denial are understandable, but do not help us to deal with real problems.Which is why I don't engage in such things.
Just so you know, Tom, I'm Australian.
The US is facing a critical task to stem and reverse the serious decline in relative power that the US is now experiencing as investment and power flow to the growing economies of Asia, Europe and Latin AmericaWhy?
Why is this a critical task?
as the Newsweek article points out so well.I can't see that the Newsweek article pointed out any such thing.
Our place in the world will soon be much diminished, and we refuse to get our own house in order - enormous budget and trade deficits, declining technical and science skills, a frayed social support network, accelerating disparities in wealth (see David Brooke`s op-ed in today`s Times), you name it.The budget and trade deficits are a real, if long-term problem.
I'm not at all convinced there are declining technical and science skills. I don't see American research and engineering suffering at all.
I don't see a particularly frayed social support network either. And I don't see wealth disparities as a problem, as long as both rich and poor are improving their lot, and as long as there is opportunity for improvement, something America has always been very good at.
We face a growing dependence on imported oil but have no cogent energy policy (which should include pricing to cover defense and environmental costs).America should be building more nuclear power plants, including breeder reactors. The present administration seems inclined to push in that direction, which is a good thing.
What a mess we are handing off to our children, who will have to foot the bills and the poorer America that we seem to be willing to settle for!And again, the present administration seems willing to address issues such as the unsustainable nature of the Social Security system.
Many global issues cry out for US leadership, but we refuse to accept that mantle in favor of unilateralism.Many global issues do indeed cry out for US leadership, but what nations are willing to accept that leadership? Unilateralism (the old go-it-almost-alone route) is not something America chose; it was imposed by the intransigence of other nations.
The Adminstration, Congress and big business are fiddling while Rome burns (see Tom Friedman’s op-ed in Friday’s Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?th&emc=th). It is a real disappointment that the Republican party is not making a serious attempt to revitalize and strengthen the US economy, but is instead sapping our competitiveness with outrageously irresponsible budget deficits (in which the roles of tax cuts and our grossly expanded and unfunded military budget must be acknowledged).I started reading the Thomas Friedman piece. He begins by criticisng companies for not demanding enough government money (in various forms). That's not the solution we're looking for.
In fact, I'm not sure what Friedman is proposing. Subsidies for industry? Protectionism? No, he seems to be pushing for trade agreements. But some sort of government intervention. What? And why? And how is that supposed to help? He seems to think that the government should shoulder the burden of GM's health insurance. Why? Why not let GM cut its health care plan, or failing that, go broke?
Budget deficits are a problem. They're hardly uncommon during wars, but long term, they need to be fixed. Expanding social programs and subsidising business isn't the road to a balanced budget.
I'll note that Australia has been running budget surpluses for years, to the point that government debt is expected to be fully paid by next year. On the other hand, we don't have anything like America's military expenses - even proportionally - because America is shouldering that burden.
While responsible for what still is the largest economy and most important country in the world, the Administration seems to be doing all it can to make sure that voters don't hear any bad news.Um, in what way?
The administration doesn't run the media, you know.
While there may well be room to criticize the Newsweek piece, it is unfortunate that the blog discussion has ignored the real substantive issues raised by the article, but focussed instead on perceived slights to the flag and the “motives†of Newsweek.I don't see any substantive issues raised by the Newsweek article, I'm afraid.
While I fault Newsweek for selling America short by deciding not to run the piece in the US, sadly this decision seems to reflect ironically one point of the article - that in fact most of Newsweek US readers would rather hear about the Oscars, than to be forced to face unpleasant facts about our declining global position.The problem is the Newsweek article doesn't address the declining global position of the US, if such a thing is happening in any meaningful way. Rather, it addresses and engages in antipathy towards the US. That's not productive, not in any way.
But then I suppose it is too much to expect, if our Administration, Congress and business leaders are not willing to talk about serious issues, that our press would show it has real balls.Once again, the Newsweek piece does not raise serious issues.
It's not a question of balls, it's a question of relevance.
Can we have a real discussion of our slipping economic position, or do we all find it easier to shoot the messenger? I look forward to some enlightenment.We can have a real discussion, sure. But first, you have to establish what you mean by "our slipping economic position" in the context of an economy that is growing faster than almost any other first-world nation. That the global economy grew by 4.9% in 2004 compared to America's 4.4% is cause for celebration, not despondency.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at
12:21 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 1878 words, total size 12 kb.
56 queries taking 0.2026 seconds, 406 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.