Ann Coulter
An good article from Ann Coulter describing in more depth the hypocrisy of the left on calling Senator Craig a hypocrite.
One of the more poignant quotes is Chris Matthews referring to Senator Craig as a "sexual deviant". Apparently being gay is a deviant sexual practice, but only if you're registered as a republican.
I'm still amazed that pleading guilty a misdemeanor - one step above a traffic ticket - is enough to be condemned for the rest of your life from ever showing your face in public again. The guy obviously has issues, but it is so amazing to watch republicans and democrats pile on to make the guy's life as horrible as possible.
If he were a democrat, we would be asked to leave his private life out of the public eye like we were asked to do with Clinton or some other such nonsense about showing tolerance. Sorry, Charlie, you in the wrong party to have anyone show you any respect or tolerance or to stay out of your private life. After all, you pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor!
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
In Defense of Beauty Queens
The now legendary response of Miss Teen South Carolina to the question about 1 in 5 not be able to locate the U.S. on a map has been discussed quite a lot in the past few weeks. Sure we can all slam her to feel good about ourselves. We can all engage in that monotonous pastime of trashing a stereotypical icon of Americana: in this case the gorgeous barbie-like beauty queen with the southern drawl. How post-modern! How predictable! How boring!
Let me now stand up in her defense. She was asked to give an instantaneous response to a non-pre-scripted question: something that politicians and other media types have attempted to eliminate precisely to avoid these types of problems. She wasn't given a question about solving a problem. She was essentially asked the question "Studies have shown that 1 in 5 people are complete morons" and asked to explain WHY that was without being told anything further about who took the study, who was surveyed, or anything else that might have helped her formulate a response. I will explain why this is an unfair question.
I have heard plenty of people say that a second grader could have given a better answer. The funny thing is though that I have yet to hear anyone who has criticized Miss South Carolina explain how THEY would answer the question. I can tell you how I would answer the question. The answer as to WHY is because those 1 in five individuals are (a) stupid; (b) senile; or (c) still infants. I am not however, in a beauty pageant where I am being judged on my poise, charm, and congeniality. She would have likely lost a ton of points if she had given the real answer to the question.
Herein lies the difficulty and probably why she started babbling rather than give a coherent response: the only legitimate answer is that every 1 in 5 people who were part of that survey are idiots. I have subsequently heard her carefully considered response that she has stated on morning television shows and it sounds wonderful and is also completely non-responsive to the question because there is no way to answer the question without asserting that people who cannot identify the U.S. on a map are idiots.
As an aside, I would bet you that 9 out of 10 Americans can't identify Madagascar on a map, but no one thinks that this is problem. Why not? Because finding something in the shape of a what a country looks like from outer-space on a small piece of paper is not practical in any way. The same applies to the U.S. Who cares if someone can't find it on a map. When would you need to identify the entire U.S. relative to other countries on an outline map in any useful context? There are none.
So the only argument that can be made is that even if this is not practical knowledge, people must really be asleep at the switch if they cannot locate the U.S. on a map. As someone who can identify about 90% of the world's countries with ease on an outline map of the world, I find it shocking that most people don't know what continent some countries are on, let alone how to identify anything more than Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. To me they are just as ignorant as the one in five since memorization of this type is easy if you have ever read a book or watch the TV news for more than a few days. But since none of this is really practical knowledge, we shouldn't be surprised no one really cares about finding other countries on a world map.
We really shouldn't care about finding the U.S. either. We can look down at our feet if we want to see it. Like the Stephen Wright joke goes, we all carry a scale map of the U.S. around with us wherever we go. Why do we need to identify it on a small piece of paper? We already know where we are.
Let me now stand up in her defense. She was asked to give an instantaneous response to a non-pre-scripted question: something that politicians and other media types have attempted to eliminate precisely to avoid these types of problems. She wasn't given a question about solving a problem. She was essentially asked the question "Studies have shown that 1 in 5 people are complete morons" and asked to explain WHY that was without being told anything further about who took the study, who was surveyed, or anything else that might have helped her formulate a response. I will explain why this is an unfair question.
I have heard plenty of people say that a second grader could have given a better answer. The funny thing is though that I have yet to hear anyone who has criticized Miss South Carolina explain how THEY would answer the question. I can tell you how I would answer the question. The answer as to WHY is because those 1 in five individuals are (a) stupid; (b) senile; or (c) still infants. I am not however, in a beauty pageant where I am being judged on my poise, charm, and congeniality. She would have likely lost a ton of points if she had given the real answer to the question.
Herein lies the difficulty and probably why she started babbling rather than give a coherent response: the only legitimate answer is that every 1 in 5 people who were part of that survey are idiots. I have subsequently heard her carefully considered response that she has stated on morning television shows and it sounds wonderful and is also completely non-responsive to the question because there is no way to answer the question without asserting that people who cannot identify the U.S. on a map are idiots.
As an aside, I would bet you that 9 out of 10 Americans can't identify Madagascar on a map, but no one thinks that this is problem. Why not? Because finding something in the shape of a what a country looks like from outer-space on a small piece of paper is not practical in any way. The same applies to the U.S. Who cares if someone can't find it on a map. When would you need to identify the entire U.S. relative to other countries on an outline map in any useful context? There are none.
So the only argument that can be made is that even if this is not practical knowledge, people must really be asleep at the switch if they cannot locate the U.S. on a map. As someone who can identify about 90% of the world's countries with ease on an outline map of the world, I find it shocking that most people don't know what continent some countries are on, let alone how to identify anything more than Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. To me they are just as ignorant as the one in five since memorization of this type is easy if you have ever read a book or watch the TV news for more than a few days. But since none of this is really practical knowledge, we shouldn't be surprised no one really cares about finding other countries on a world map.
We really shouldn't care about finding the U.S. either. We can look down at our feet if we want to see it. Like the Stephen Wright joke goes, we all carry a scale map of the U.S. around with us wherever we go. Why do we need to identify it on a small piece of paper? We already know where we are.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Mercantilism Revisited
This is a follow-up to the questions I asked about mercantilist policies and the predictions of the Austrian School.
The rise in prediction of prices by the Austrian School appears to be correct, but because of the way most mercantilist policies operate, the inflation occurs in the value of assets (land and capital) rather than in regular commodities. This results from an artificial expansion of capital. Because the expansion of capital is usually geared toward industry rather than consumer spending, however, the inflation occurs more noticeably in specific areas rather than the economy as a whole.
The policies of loose credit eventually lead to speculation and overvaluing of assets which in turn eventually start to creep into inflation in the rest of the economy. This overvaluing of assets eventually leads to an unsustainable bubble when credit is closed off to prevent widespread inflation from occurring in the rest of the economy. This is what happened in post-Bubble Japan. This may also be what happened in post-Civil War U.S. (the Great Sag/Great Deflation - normally attributed to increased efficiency in production). This will likely happen in China as well where consumer prices are not increasing, but land and asset speculation may be out of control.
All of this cannot occur without a central bank, of course, to control the supply of money. We have seen this is the U.S. with the housing sector. Consumer prices remained steady while the price of housing increased dramatically. Then we started to feel inflationary pressure, so the central bank (the Fed) tightened credit. This led to deflation in the housing market. The question is whether nor not we will do like Japan and have the central bank pretend bad loans don't exist or if we will let those who speculated take their lumps.
If we do like Japan, as the Bush administration seems inclined, we will have a stagnant economy and deflation for the next ten years.
The rise in prediction of prices by the Austrian School appears to be correct, but because of the way most mercantilist policies operate, the inflation occurs in the value of assets (land and capital) rather than in regular commodities. This results from an artificial expansion of capital. Because the expansion of capital is usually geared toward industry rather than consumer spending, however, the inflation occurs more noticeably in specific areas rather than the economy as a whole.
The policies of loose credit eventually lead to speculation and overvaluing of assets which in turn eventually start to creep into inflation in the rest of the economy. This overvaluing of assets eventually leads to an unsustainable bubble when credit is closed off to prevent widespread inflation from occurring in the rest of the economy. This is what happened in post-Bubble Japan. This may also be what happened in post-Civil War U.S. (the Great Sag/Great Deflation - normally attributed to increased efficiency in production). This will likely happen in China as well where consumer prices are not increasing, but land and asset speculation may be out of control.
All of this cannot occur without a central bank, of course, to control the supply of money. We have seen this is the U.S. with the housing sector. Consumer prices remained steady while the price of housing increased dramatically. Then we started to feel inflationary pressure, so the central bank (the Fed) tightened credit. This led to deflation in the housing market. The question is whether nor not we will do like Japan and have the central bank pretend bad loans don't exist or if we will let those who speculated take their lumps.
If we do like Japan, as the Bush administration seems inclined, we will have a stagnant economy and deflation for the next ten years.
Mercantilism
I will have to find the article later, but China has been experiencing unprecedented growth with little inflation. There has been a recent spell of inflation over pork prices, but this seems to be an aberration result of disease and has nothing to do with general economic policies.
The argument made by the Austrian School is that mercantilism does not work. It is argued that such policies as keeping currency values low to stimulate exports and trade barriers to protect domestic markets will ultimately lead to inefficiency and inflation. I'm not entirely sure about this though and want to do more research. I do sympathize with the notion that lack of competition stifles innovation. But as far as the downside of protectionism goes, I don't think the argument is 100% accurate. For example, it could be argued that the Navigation Acts gave Britain their empire. It could also be argued that the American tariff system in the 19th century allowed the U.S. to develop its economy.
But going back to China, the Austrian School would reason that mercanitilist policy would create a glut of money in China that would result in an expansion of the money supply relative to the amount of goods available (which are themselves reduced by protectionist policies). It would seem to suggest that hyper-inflation would result almost instantaneously from mercantilist policies.
This is not the case however. With developing economies like China, such policies have not yielded any real inflation, only growth. In developed counties like Japan, the mercantilist policies have resulted in stagnation of the economy, not inflation. So in my mind, mercantlism works quite well for developing countries but causes problems once economies have developed beyond a certain point. The question though is why the prediction of inflation is not correct in place like Japan which are mercantilist and fully developed economies.
Perhaps I have been given incorrect assumptions about what the Austrian School says on such matters.
The argument made by the Austrian School is that mercantilism does not work. It is argued that such policies as keeping currency values low to stimulate exports and trade barriers to protect domestic markets will ultimately lead to inefficiency and inflation. I'm not entirely sure about this though and want to do more research. I do sympathize with the notion that lack of competition stifles innovation. But as far as the downside of protectionism goes, I don't think the argument is 100% accurate. For example, it could be argued that the Navigation Acts gave Britain their empire. It could also be argued that the American tariff system in the 19th century allowed the U.S. to develop its economy.
But going back to China, the Austrian School would reason that mercanitilist policy would create a glut of money in China that would result in an expansion of the money supply relative to the amount of goods available (which are themselves reduced by protectionist policies). It would seem to suggest that hyper-inflation would result almost instantaneously from mercantilist policies.
This is not the case however. With developing economies like China, such policies have not yielded any real inflation, only growth. In developed counties like Japan, the mercantilist policies have resulted in stagnation of the economy, not inflation. So in my mind, mercantlism works quite well for developing countries but causes problems once economies have developed beyond a certain point. The question though is why the prediction of inflation is not correct in place like Japan which are mercantilist and fully developed economies.
Perhaps I have been given incorrect assumptions about what the Austrian School says on such matters.
Monday, September 3, 2007
North Korea
U.S.: NKorea to Declare Nuclear Programs
Kim Gye Gwan, head of the North Korean delegation, said separately his country's willingness to cooperate was clear—in return for "political and economic compensation"—but he mentioned no dates.
My grandfather and first cousin both served in South Korea. I think that over fifty years of baby sitting should be coming to an end right about now. Instead of leaving this area to solve its own problems, this relic of a Cold War that we are no longer fighting, we are apparently now are on course to pay one country off for threatening to destroy its other half. What a great signal to send to the rest of the world.
We spend money and risk our own troops to defend South Korea. We pay North Korea off not to destroy South Korea. Many South Koreans show their gratitude for this by referring to us as occupiers and routinely protesting our presence. The vast majority of the troops in the South are South Korean forces anyway. They can take care of themselves and likely fend off any invasion. It is theoretically only the apparent threat of U.S. intervention that keeps the North at bay and apparently we still have to pay them for that indulgence.
If we are going to continue to maintain a presence in South Korea, let South Korea pay for it. If this area gets destroyed by an invasion from the North (something China will not likely allow), we will temporarily lose some cheap goods and a portion of our consumer market. But, who benefits from this the most though, you, or large MNCs? That is primarily why we stay in Korea. If we continue to pay of the defense of South Korea and subsidize North Korea with bribes for not attacking the South, we will likely be there for the next 100 years since there is no incentive for either side to change the status quo.
We shouldn't pay a dime, but we are not even likely to get the North to recognize the South or officially end the Korean War even if we do start paying this extortion money.
Kim Gye Gwan, head of the North Korean delegation, said separately his country's willingness to cooperate was clear—in return for "political and economic compensation"—but he mentioned no dates.
My grandfather and first cousin both served in South Korea. I think that over fifty years of baby sitting should be coming to an end right about now. Instead of leaving this area to solve its own problems, this relic of a Cold War that we are no longer fighting, we are apparently now are on course to pay one country off for threatening to destroy its other half. What a great signal to send to the rest of the world.
We spend money and risk our own troops to defend South Korea. We pay North Korea off not to destroy South Korea. Many South Koreans show their gratitude for this by referring to us as occupiers and routinely protesting our presence. The vast majority of the troops in the South are South Korean forces anyway. They can take care of themselves and likely fend off any invasion. It is theoretically only the apparent threat of U.S. intervention that keeps the North at bay and apparently we still have to pay them for that indulgence.
If we are going to continue to maintain a presence in South Korea, let South Korea pay for it. If this area gets destroyed by an invasion from the North (something China will not likely allow), we will temporarily lose some cheap goods and a portion of our consumer market. But, who benefits from this the most though, you, or large MNCs? That is primarily why we stay in Korea. If we continue to pay of the defense of South Korea and subsidize North Korea with bribes for not attacking the South, we will likely be there for the next 100 years since there is no incentive for either side to change the status quo.
We shouldn't pay a dime, but we are not even likely to get the North to recognize the South or officially end the Korean War even if we do start paying this extortion money.
Corridor One
Corridor One too costly, Rendell official says
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this announcement. I was initially a big fan of the idea of expanding rail transportation to the area since I would love to see the return of good, efficient rail service to central PA. I also know that traffic congestion in the area is horrible and that the roads are too undersized and unable to expand in any conceivable way that won't cost millions of dollars.
In effect, the millions that opponents say will be wasted on expanding rail service will be saved in the short run, but ultimately 10 times that figure will likely need to be spent on expanding highways in the area to accommodate the increased population and traffic in the area. When that reaches the breaking point, then perhaps regional rail will get the boost in needs to happen. Hopefully, in the meantime, someone won't turn these into bike trails and forever close off the possibility of alternative transportation.
All that being said though, I can understand that rail advocates are disappointed by this since highways get such a huge public subsidy. Rather than make the argument that since highways are getting a wasteful subsidy, public transportation should also be given the subsidy, the energy should be placed first in tolling the highways. Make the people who use the roads pay for them and do it in such a way that the funds go solely for the roads and nothing else. Once that has been accomplished, hopefully through some form of privatization, then rail may be able to operate without any public subsidy as well. This could mean that private companies might be able to start or take over existing rail lines, hence no tax increases along with an increase in viable alternatives to cars and buses.
The argument against tolling of course is that it is a vital part of our infrastructure and economy. This is a topic for lengthy discussion on another day, but I will summarize a few points as to why this is a problem. The moral problem with subsidizing transportation, from an economic perspective, is that while some benefit from these expenses directly, in the form of cheaper transportation costs, most do not. One of the arguments goes that if the highways are tolled, all of our consumer goods will become more expensive. That is likely true, but why should we subsidize the transportation of goods any more than we should subsidize production? Should electricity or internet access be provided for free and paid for strictly out of tax revenue because it will allow all businesses to lower their costs? Why should interstate highways be given this special exemption? Why should we not subsidize rail in the same way since it reduces the cost to labor market with transporting workers and reduces the cost of shipping raw materials and goods just like our highways.
The other problem is that so long as we subsidize the transportation of goods in this manner, there is no incentive to improve efficiency in other means of transportation or to find alternatives. Telecommuting came about because of traffic jams. It might have developed earlier if business were forced to come up with creative ways to attract qualified labor over a larger geographical area without free subsidized transportation.
In addition, subsidizing public highways essentially means that we have a government owned and provided service competing with privately owned companies such as shipping and rail companies. Most people would cry bloody murder if the government set up a business to compete directly with their own, but somehow the government has been able to compete with private companies in this realm for a long time.
Again, there is much more to cover on this topic. Either way, the concept of Corridor One is likely gone for a long time.
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this announcement. I was initially a big fan of the idea of expanding rail transportation to the area since I would love to see the return of good, efficient rail service to central PA. I also know that traffic congestion in the area is horrible and that the roads are too undersized and unable to expand in any conceivable way that won't cost millions of dollars.
In effect, the millions that opponents say will be wasted on expanding rail service will be saved in the short run, but ultimately 10 times that figure will likely need to be spent on expanding highways in the area to accommodate the increased population and traffic in the area. When that reaches the breaking point, then perhaps regional rail will get the boost in needs to happen. Hopefully, in the meantime, someone won't turn these into bike trails and forever close off the possibility of alternative transportation.
All that being said though, I can understand that rail advocates are disappointed by this since highways get such a huge public subsidy. Rather than make the argument that since highways are getting a wasteful subsidy, public transportation should also be given the subsidy, the energy should be placed first in tolling the highways. Make the people who use the roads pay for them and do it in such a way that the funds go solely for the roads and nothing else. Once that has been accomplished, hopefully through some form of privatization, then rail may be able to operate without any public subsidy as well. This could mean that private companies might be able to start or take over existing rail lines, hence no tax increases along with an increase in viable alternatives to cars and buses.
The argument against tolling of course is that it is a vital part of our infrastructure and economy. This is a topic for lengthy discussion on another day, but I will summarize a few points as to why this is a problem. The moral problem with subsidizing transportation, from an economic perspective, is that while some benefit from these expenses directly, in the form of cheaper transportation costs, most do not. One of the arguments goes that if the highways are tolled, all of our consumer goods will become more expensive. That is likely true, but why should we subsidize the transportation of goods any more than we should subsidize production? Should electricity or internet access be provided for free and paid for strictly out of tax revenue because it will allow all businesses to lower their costs? Why should interstate highways be given this special exemption? Why should we not subsidize rail in the same way since it reduces the cost to labor market with transporting workers and reduces the cost of shipping raw materials and goods just like our highways.
The other problem is that so long as we subsidize the transportation of goods in this manner, there is no incentive to improve efficiency in other means of transportation or to find alternatives. Telecommuting came about because of traffic jams. It might have developed earlier if business were forced to come up with creative ways to attract qualified labor over a larger geographical area without free subsidized transportation.
In addition, subsidizing public highways essentially means that we have a government owned and provided service competing with privately owned companies such as shipping and rail companies. Most people would cry bloody murder if the government set up a business to compete directly with their own, but somehow the government has been able to compete with private companies in this realm for a long time.
Again, there is much more to cover on this topic. Either way, the concept of Corridor One is likely gone for a long time.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Senator Craig - part II
Pat Buchanan
If I haven't mentioned it before, I always make sure to read Pat Buchanan's articles with an almost religious devotion - not because I agree with him that often, but because I think he has a first class analytical mind. My disagreements with his opinions are usually what should be done rather than his analysis of what is going on, which is usually, in my opinion, very accurate.
Here he has written an article that pretty much echoes what I wrote a few days ago about Senator Craig. Pointing out that the Senator has some apparent personal issues, that the leftist media is drooling all over themselves reveling in his so-called "hypocrisy", and that he is being thrown under the bus by the GOP and especially Mitt Romney.
The set answer for the GOP regarding homosexuality should be "love the sinner, hate the sin." At least that is what I thought they should be saying since I have always thought that religious conservatives derive their opposition to homosexuality from the two passages in the Old and New Testament dealing with the issue. Why they miss this obvious point leads me to two conclusions:
1) They only mention God and Bible when it suits them for general banalities and platitudes for political speeches
2) They really do have some other opposition to homosexuality that somehow trumps the religious rational.
I can understand the second point because I used to suffer from it to some degree. I was never an outright homophobe, but I'm sure I've felt the same way from time to time at being revolted at the general concept.
The first point one, of course, is just confirmation in my mind that the biggest bible-thumping politicians are usually the least familiar with the text and the least inclined to use their religious faith for guidance.
The separation of Church and State means that the State should not propound a specific religion or practices specific to that religion on the rest of us through the mechanism of the State. It doesn't mean that the individual political leader is not permitted to use their particular faith to guide their decisions. I have always suspected though that the politicians who claim piety and faith in God don't really have much of either.
So when I see someone claiming to be a man of faith like Mitt Romney throwing a fellow sinner under the bus, that convinces me that his faith is a matter of convenience and showmanship. He would show a lot more character by telling us that he had taken the time to speak with his friend and fellow Christian Senator Craig and that they have mutually decided that Senator Craig should step down from his campaign. Instead, he called the Senator's behavior "disgusting" and dropped him like a bad habit.
I would gladly have the entire Congress be homosexual and have them drop the crooks who pocket our money like Senator Stevens and Congressman Cunningham. Their behavior is the truly disgusting behavior, but no one seems to care.
If I haven't mentioned it before, I always make sure to read Pat Buchanan's articles with an almost religious devotion - not because I agree with him that often, but because I think he has a first class analytical mind. My disagreements with his opinions are usually what should be done rather than his analysis of what is going on, which is usually, in my opinion, very accurate.
Here he has written an article that pretty much echoes what I wrote a few days ago about Senator Craig. Pointing out that the Senator has some apparent personal issues, that the leftist media is drooling all over themselves reveling in his so-called "hypocrisy", and that he is being thrown under the bus by the GOP and especially Mitt Romney.
The set answer for the GOP regarding homosexuality should be "love the sinner, hate the sin." At least that is what I thought they should be saying since I have always thought that religious conservatives derive their opposition to homosexuality from the two passages in the Old and New Testament dealing with the issue. Why they miss this obvious point leads me to two conclusions:
1) They only mention God and Bible when it suits them for general banalities and platitudes for political speeches
2) They really do have some other opposition to homosexuality that somehow trumps the religious rational.
I can understand the second point because I used to suffer from it to some degree. I was never an outright homophobe, but I'm sure I've felt the same way from time to time at being revolted at the general concept.
The first point one, of course, is just confirmation in my mind that the biggest bible-thumping politicians are usually the least familiar with the text and the least inclined to use their religious faith for guidance.
The separation of Church and State means that the State should not propound a specific religion or practices specific to that religion on the rest of us through the mechanism of the State. It doesn't mean that the individual political leader is not permitted to use their particular faith to guide their decisions. I have always suspected though that the politicians who claim piety and faith in God don't really have much of either.
So when I see someone claiming to be a man of faith like Mitt Romney throwing a fellow sinner under the bus, that convinces me that his faith is a matter of convenience and showmanship. He would show a lot more character by telling us that he had taken the time to speak with his friend and fellow Christian Senator Craig and that they have mutually decided that Senator Craig should step down from his campaign. Instead, he called the Senator's behavior "disgusting" and dropped him like a bad habit.
I would gladly have the entire Congress be homosexual and have them drop the crooks who pocket our money like Senator Stevens and Congressman Cunningham. Their behavior is the truly disgusting behavior, but no one seems to care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)