Category Archives: politics

No Nation is an Island

Posted on by
1

That’s the concern of The Wall Street Journal in one of its Thursday editorials.

President Trump’s biggest achievement has been the revival of faster US economic growth, but past performance is no guarantee of future results. The White House should be worried about growing economic strains in the rest of the world, and policy makers need to prepare. The US is not an island.

The WSJ went on to note that the Germany economy shrank 0.2% in the last quarter, the Japanese economy shrank by 0.3% in the same quarter, and the PRC’s economy “only” grew by 6.5% year-on-year in the same quarter.  The WSJ particularly worried about the German auto industry.

However.

It’s true enough that the US is not an economic island, but there are many, and serious, factors that are beyond our control and that the WSJ chose to be silent about.

Take Germany, for instance. Its labor laws are almost as draconian as the French and, together with German regulations, leave that economy much less nimble in changing conditions than it needs to be.  And even though the German auto industry wants a zero-tariff trading regime, at least with its products, the German government has shown its disinterest with its lack of action at the EU level.

The Japanese economy also is heavily regulated and inflexible, for all that it’s not a centrally planned one.  There’s no economic flexibility there.

That’s especially true with the especially heavily regulated and overtly, deliberately centrally planned economy of the PRC.

Our other trading partners? The EU as a whole has rejected any concept of a tariff-free environment with the US, it routinely attacks our companies’ competitive success across Europe, it constantly seeks to raise taxes on our companies rather than lowering their own to competitive levels, and on and on.

There’s only so much we can do with trading partners whose government denizens are more interested in their personal political and fiscal powers than they are in the welfare of their citizens.

Hillary Clinton, School Curriculum, and Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

The Texas State Board of Education had been considering dropping ex-Presidential candidate (among other accomplishments) Hillary Clinton (D) from its social studies curriculum.  Last Tuesday, the board voted 12-2 (plus one abstention) to keep her in the curriculum, for now.  The two nay voters had their reasons.

I just do not respect the woman.  As far as I’m concerned, she’s done a lot of detrimental things to our country.

And

The Benghazi thing did it for me.

I agree with those sentiments and more.  In addition to her handling of the Benghazi murders, her mishandling of classified material while using nearly exclusively a personal email server for official business in order to avoid being on the record and her slur against millions of Americans she considered racist and stupid for not considering voting for her stand out for me.

But that’s no reason to commit censorship.  On the contrary, that emphasizes the importance of teaching about Clinton, her misbehaviors, and her position as a political leader of a major political party.  Our children need to see how badly our politics—our nation—can go awry when we don’t think carefully about those we’re considering for leadership positions.  Our children need to see how badly we can go wrong when we select leaders based on gender or skin color rather than on merit and the requirements of the position for which we’re selecting someone.

Hillary Clinton presents, as the phrasing goes, a teaching opportunity.  She, especially, shouldn’t be ignored.

May’s Brexit Surrender

Posted on by
1

The terms include these, via Deutsche Welle:

  • The rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be protected
  • EU citizens living in the UK can be joined by close family members…who live in a different country at any point in the future.
  • Workers and self-employed people will be broadly guaranteed the same rights they currently enjoy

All of which negate one of the motives for leaving the European Union. EU citizens resident in the UK will be magnets for drawing in others for the UK’s generous welfare system—and EU citizens still will be able to seek work in the UK preferentially, availing themselves both of the UK’s higher wage rates and that welfare system.

  • There will be a 21-month transition period ending December 31, 2020
  • EU rules would continue to apply in the UK subject to the terms set out in the Brexit agreement
  • After the transition period, a joint committee co-chaired by the EU and the UK would police the final withdrawal agreement, taking decisions by mutual consent and whose verdicts would be binding

Meaning that the UK would remain unable to enter into separate, independent trade agreements during this “transition” period EU laws would remain in effect inside allegedly sovereign Great Britain, and the EU will retain veto power, via that mutual consent requirement, on post-transition moves—including those independent trade agreements and moves to supplant EU laws with domestic, UK, laws.

  • If appropriate customs arrangements are not agreed to, a backstop arrangement would kick in. A joint “single customs territory” between the EU and UK would apply from the end of the transition period…
  • Under the backstop arrangement, the UK must observe “level playing field” commitments on competition, state aid, taxes and employment and environment standards

Are not agreed to means the agreement will be in accordance with EU diktat or there will be the backstop arrangement. This is what the EU wants, so there will be no agreed customs arrangement.  The EU wants the backstop because those terms require the UK to keep its Northern Ireland inside the EU’s competition, state aid, taxes and employment, and environment laws in perpetuity. This is the beginning of prising Northern Ireland out of the UK—the beginning of dismantling the UK.  This is part of the EU’s demonstration to restive members of the EU and a warning of their fate if they become impertinent, too.

The bottom line for the UK here is that, under this “agreement,” these terms of surrender, the nation will become a speechless, toothless satrap of the EU, and its dismantling will be begun.

May, with her abject surrender to Brussels, has betrayed her nation’s referendum.  And she has betrayed other members of the EU similarly dismayed with Brussels’ interference in their domestic affairs.

It’s no wonder that members of her Cabinet are resigning in droves, her coalition government is falling apart, and her own party is in (sub rosa, for now) revolt.

A Thought on Amazon’s Choices

Posted on by
Reply

Amazon.com has made its selection (-s, plural as it turns out) for its alternate corporate headquarters: Arlington County, VA’s Crystal City and New York’s Long Island City, with a booby consolation prize—or a scrap bone—tossed to Nashville, TN.

I have a couple of thoughts about this.

San Antonio, in Texas, had misgivings and declined to play Amazon’s game.

“Blindly giving away the farm isn’t our style,” wrote San Antonio officials in an open letter to Mr Bezos.

Others openly groveled and kissed the ground on which Amazon officials walked when those worthies deigned visit.

In Los Angeles, Amazon executives notified officials on a Tuesday they would be visiting the following Monday. Local officials had to juggle a major clean-technology conference scheduled for that day because Amazon executives insisted they couldn’t change their plans. The message was clear: Amazon had to take priority.

That should have been a crystalline hint, and Los Angeles’ pseudo-leadership should have told Amazon to take a hike.  Instead, they bent over their desks and….

Crystal City and Long Island City—and Virginia and New York at large—will pay a heavy price for their kowtowing.  Nashville may get off more lightly, but I’m not holding my breath.

San Antonio made out like a bandit (so did Dallas, TX, one of the non-selected finalists; although they will take a while to realize it).

Doctors and Gun Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Many in the medical profession have gotten their panties in wads because, on the matter of guns and gun rights, someone was impertinent enough to suggest that they’re really not that expert.  The National Rifle Association, it turns out, had demurred from an American College of Physicians paper calling for ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who are a threat—with “threat,” of course, defined by the ACP.

“We have an intimacy with our patients that nobody else has,” she said. “We open them up. We put our hands inside their body. And to have somebody say to you ‘You don’t belong here, this isn’t your lane’ is really condescending and really inappropriate. It’s time to post the pictures. Let’s show people what it looks like to work in a trauma center.”

With that first hand knowledge, doctors should be looking to minimize the opportunities for and occasions of gun violence. Moving to disarm honest Americans will only increase gun violence and increase doctors’ ER work load.

What’s condescending and really inappropriate is doctors pretending that gun violence is the fault of guns in the hands of honest Americans, freely carried as our 2nd Amendment—an outgrowth of our right to life and to defend that life—acknowledges our right to have and to do.

The ACP objects to domestic-violence offenders having access—never mind the corollary limitations on access by those living with the offenders (and never mind the hazy definitions of such offenders outside the clear core of that crime)—to guns.

More generally, the ACP objects to laws requiring States to honor each other’s concealed carry permits.  I don’t hear, though, the ACP objecting to laws requiring States to honor each other’s drivers licenses.  The outcomes of motor vehicle accidents are at least as horrific and far more numerous than the outcomes of gun encounters.

Perhaps the medical profession’s arrogance and hypocrisy disqualifies them from pontificating on gun rights.