Current debates about the debt, deficit, debt ceiling etc etc are all urgent for one reason: some predict the end of American dominance and leadership in the world unless we take action now. Without a doubt, the amount of debt is a problem for us but I'm not going to weigh in on that debate right now but instead focus on the doomsday predictions that we hear all over the place (and not just by Glenn Beck anymore!). Will we see Chinese dominance in the next 15 years? Will our economic situation finally cause us to go belly up like the mighty Roman Empire?
I'm no economist and I won't pretend to be one by listing a bunch of numbers and mathematical equations but I will point out something that is often overlooked by commentators when they talk about the situation. Besides the obvious economic component there is an even more complicated political component that makes the fall less likely to happen without a major shift in world alliances. Right now you have an emerging alliance that increasingly relies on Chinese leadership, as I wrote about earlier. The Chinese have been angling to have their currency take over as the worlds currency, replacing the dollar. China has become a force to be reckoned with given their very strong production and exporting meaning their goods, and more importantly their money, is in great supply around the world. This has given their cause not only an economic advantage but a political one as well because they have more influence around the world. To illustrate this, one only has to look back to how American influence increased after World War II.
Is that enough for China to take down America? Hardly. The global economy that has emerged in the aftermath of WWII the tech boom almost guarantee that no one country can effectively control the world causing alliances to become more and more important. China would need backing from the world's most powerful countries and at the moment those countries reside in the West: America (of course), the UK, Germany (largely overlooked but very important), and France. Those countries aren't looking to provide that backing anytime soon. However, China has a few tricks up it's sleeve though namely the support of Russia; the developing countries of Brazil and India are looking to challenge the traditional world order so that they can facilitate greater growth and play a greater role in world affairs. Brazil and Africa play an important role in this scenario because of the natural resources they possess. Natural resources are becoming more and more rare making them more valuable to their owners. China has began increasing diplomatic relations in Africa perhaps for this reason.
China consumerism is moving slowly but surely towards one that resembles what we are used to seeing here in America. A report out a few months ago showed that for the first time in seven years, imports overshadowed exports in China but not for lack of exporting (exporting actually increased) but because imports grew just that much. That in itself is telling. If this is a trend that continues then one can argue that China is losing a bit of it's strong socialist tendencies perhaps opening the door to better relations with the West.
It's very plausible that the American role in the world will be diminished. I even believe that will happen. But will Americans cease to play an important role in world affairs? Unlikely. If I were to make a prediction then I would say we're going to see more cooperation between various countries that could usher in a new era of worldwide peace. I can dream right?
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The New Cold War
The dominoes of World War III are as close to falling as they have ever been. At the very least, the world is in the opening stages of a new Cold War with dynamics and technology that make the former Cold War seem like childs play. New actors have entered the stage--North Korea, Iran, Israel, and Pakistan--while old players are losing their grip on control--US and Russia.
Making the former Cold War more manageable was the worldwide chess game. Russia and the US (the new leader of the Western World after WWII) reached for new territories to bring into their camps essentially raising two teams under their leadership; the camps became known as NATO and The Warsaw Pact. Both nations used economic aid to sweeten the deal and keep the territories in line. There were very few defections with Russia using force to keep The Warsaw Pact together. NATO enjoyed economic success thanks in most part to the successful Marshall Plan under President Truman.
During the former Cold War, the Middle East was merely a battleground for the worldwide chess match. The Eisenhower Doctrine was an explicit vow to combat Communism in the Middle East which he put into practice in Lebanon. In Iran, the US and Britain undertook a mission to overthrow the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, because of his refusal to allow Britain to overwhelmingly own Iranian oil production. The coup was a successful joint effort by the CIA and and British Intelligence Agency MI6 and paved the way to hostile relations between the US and Iran.
Economically, the Middle East today is more aligned with Asian nations like China and Japan due to the emerging booming markets and more open trade policies.This leads to Asia, specifically China, having more influence over the region which means we need the cooperation of China to make any headway. Onto Pakistan, the US is beginning to realize that we need the help of Pakistan if we ever want to "win" the War on Terror. The only problem with that is what has already been stated: Pakistan is closer to China and will follow their direction before ours.The snag in this plan is that we're still mistrustful of China because of it is still a Communist nation. While we have considerably improved relations with China than we did in 1950, there is still hostility. China is looking more like the leader of the former Soviet today with more evidence shown in the recent Nobel Peace Prize situation. The winner of the Prize, Liu Xiaobo, is in prison for encouraging a submersion of the Chinese Government, says China, which they believe to be a Western conspiracy to turn opinion against them. They boycotted the ceremony and used their leverage to get other countries to boycott as well including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq....interesting huh?
Iran opens up an even more dangerous door in this new Cold War. The hostility between Iran and Israel adds religion to an already hostile situation. It has been confirmed that Iran is increasing it's nuclear ambitions which Israel takes as a direct threat to their national security. The US supports Israel, which has nuclear weapons, driving Iran even closer to the other team. Iran has become more fanatical religiously since the coup in the 50's under President Eisenhower which has direct consequences on today's situation. The rhetoric of Iran's Ahmadinejad against the Western World has become more intense recently since the beginnings of the highly contested elections. Iran could very well be the straw that heats up the Cold War.
North Korea has remained dormant for quite some time despite being quite possibly the most dangerous nation out there. Looking more like a Stalin's Russia in the 40's than anything modern, North Korea is a loose cannon waiting to explode. The recent South Korean situation has led to the only country who can talk to them, China, becoming more proactive in calming tensions.
The stars are aligning and it's not a good sign.
Making the former Cold War more manageable was the worldwide chess game. Russia and the US (the new leader of the Western World after WWII) reached for new territories to bring into their camps essentially raising two teams under their leadership; the camps became known as NATO and The Warsaw Pact. Both nations used economic aid to sweeten the deal and keep the territories in line. There were very few defections with Russia using force to keep The Warsaw Pact together. NATO enjoyed economic success thanks in most part to the successful Marshall Plan under President Truman.
During the former Cold War, the Middle East was merely a battleground for the worldwide chess match. The Eisenhower Doctrine was an explicit vow to combat Communism in the Middle East which he put into practice in Lebanon. In Iran, the US and Britain undertook a mission to overthrow the Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, because of his refusal to allow Britain to overwhelmingly own Iranian oil production. The coup was a successful joint effort by the CIA and and British Intelligence Agency MI6 and paved the way to hostile relations between the US and Iran.
Economically, the Middle East today is more aligned with Asian nations like China and Japan due to the emerging booming markets and more open trade policies.This leads to Asia, specifically China, having more influence over the region which means we need the cooperation of China to make any headway. Onto Pakistan, the US is beginning to realize that we need the help of Pakistan if we ever want to "win" the War on Terror. The only problem with that is what has already been stated: Pakistan is closer to China and will follow their direction before ours.The snag in this plan is that we're still mistrustful of China because of it is still a Communist nation. While we have considerably improved relations with China than we did in 1950, there is still hostility. China is looking more like the leader of the former Soviet today with more evidence shown in the recent Nobel Peace Prize situation. The winner of the Prize, Liu Xiaobo, is in prison for encouraging a submersion of the Chinese Government, says China, which they believe to be a Western conspiracy to turn opinion against them. They boycotted the ceremony and used their leverage to get other countries to boycott as well including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq....interesting huh?
Iran opens up an even more dangerous door in this new Cold War. The hostility between Iran and Israel adds religion to an already hostile situation. It has been confirmed that Iran is increasing it's nuclear ambitions which Israel takes as a direct threat to their national security. The US supports Israel, which has nuclear weapons, driving Iran even closer to the other team. Iran has become more fanatical religiously since the coup in the 50's under President Eisenhower which has direct consequences on today's situation. The rhetoric of Iran's Ahmadinejad against the Western World has become more intense recently since the beginnings of the highly contested elections. Iran could very well be the straw that heats up the Cold War.
North Korea has remained dormant for quite some time despite being quite possibly the most dangerous nation out there. Looking more like a Stalin's Russia in the 40's than anything modern, North Korea is a loose cannon waiting to explode. The recent South Korean situation has led to the only country who can talk to them, China, becoming more proactive in calming tensions.
The stars are aligning and it's not a good sign.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Independence: Nothing More Than a Message
There is nothing wrong with partisan politics. Our ideologies are what drive us to make competent decisions in order to move the country in the direction that we believe it should go. Our system, however, is not appropriate partisan politics. We have two parties that are monopolies on the left and right stifling out any competition from smaller third parties because it would threaten their well being. Make no mistake about it, both the Republican and Democratic parties are businesses who feed off of money; it is about winning first and governing second. The losers in the situation are the people who actually care about what is happening in this country.
We've become so comfortable in voting red vs blue that we don't even recognize that there are other candidates out there that may be more ideologically aligned with our views. Those candidates don't get any attention, aren't invited to the debates (thank the media for this one), and barely crack 2% of the total votes submitted because of it. Why is it? The two party system has become so pervasive that we believe a vote for anyone other than the Donkey or the Elephant is a wasted vote. Sadly, this isn't a completely false assertion. The vast majority of the electorate will vote red or blue come election day and not even know which third party candidates are on the ballot despite the fact that they may be more ideologically aligned with them.
The most infuriating result of our two party system is the huge coalitions that come with the territory. Two villains of the last two years have been conservative Democrats Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln who hail from usually conservative-leaning states. If we expect people to represent the people of the state, we cannot fault them for being more conservative. The real problem lies in the structure of the system that looks for anyone with a D or R after their name to vote a specific way regardless of where they were elected. Sweetheart political deals for specific states, such as the famed "Corn husker Kickback," are the direct effect of said perception. Breaking up the coalitions and allowing more specific parties will only increase the proper representation of US citizens and more meaningful legislation.
The message of it all? Independence is nothing more than a message...but a message that needs to be sent.
We've become so comfortable in voting red vs blue that we don't even recognize that there are other candidates out there that may be more ideologically aligned with our views. Those candidates don't get any attention, aren't invited to the debates (thank the media for this one), and barely crack 2% of the total votes submitted because of it. Why is it? The two party system has become so pervasive that we believe a vote for anyone other than the Donkey or the Elephant is a wasted vote. Sadly, this isn't a completely false assertion. The vast majority of the electorate will vote red or blue come election day and not even know which third party candidates are on the ballot despite the fact that they may be more ideologically aligned with them.
The most infuriating result of our two party system is the huge coalitions that come with the territory. Two villains of the last two years have been conservative Democrats Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln who hail from usually conservative-leaning states. If we expect people to represent the people of the state, we cannot fault them for being more conservative. The real problem lies in the structure of the system that looks for anyone with a D or R after their name to vote a specific way regardless of where they were elected. Sweetheart political deals for specific states, such as the famed "Corn husker Kickback," are the direct effect of said perception. Breaking up the coalitions and allowing more specific parties will only increase the proper representation of US citizens and more meaningful legislation.
The message of it all? Independence is nothing more than a message...but a message that needs to be sent.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Arizona Immigration Law
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
That is the much maligned section of the new Arizona Immigration Law that has spawned a series of protests and boycotts. Here is the amended section later signed by Gov. Brewer:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE [....] WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
On the surface it would seem that there would be no problem with this law as amended; they specifically outline that an enforcement officer cannot use race as the basis for reasonable suspicion. But if you dig deeper (and honestly, you don't have to dig too much deeper) you can see that the Arizona Legislature just opened up a new can of worms for law enforcement officers.
The problem with the initial law was that it did not give any outlines to law enforcement officers to judge what constitutes reasonable suspicion. The amended law still does not provide that but instead gives them a limit on what the can say is reasonable suspicion. What this means to law enforcement officers is simple: there will be several lawsuits that will challenge the department on the basis of racial profiling costing the county thousands of dollars if not more despite the fact that they may or may not be profiling.
Now, it would seem that Conservatives would be outraged over the possibility of taxpayer money being thrown down the drain in frivolous lawsuits but that is not the case: they support the bill and it was passed by a Republican Legislature and Governor. Having that set aside, the real injustice comes at the expense of the people (particularly Hispanics) of Arizona. That one, very brief section of the law is all that that is said about reasonable suspicion. What constitutes reasonable suspicion? How do you look or observe someone and say they are an illegal alien? This law is severely racially motivated. You ask someone what is reasonable suspicion and they will give you roundabout answers such as the way they dress. What about illegal immigrants from Russia or the UK or China? The law is aimed at poorer Mexicans (and sadly, anyone who "looks" Mexican) because according to some, including John McCain want to insinuate that anyone coming across the border from Mexico are coming to rape, steal, sell drugs, and murder. That is a dangerous line to walk as it is damn near racial hate instigation.
This law reminds me of a story my great Uncle told me. Back when he was in his 20's and working here in Florida, he could not enter a white neighborhood that he needed to pass through to get the work without being stopped and questioned. Had he been white, would that have happened? Absolutely not. Does that mean that someone white is incapable of committing a crime? Absolutely not. My point is that the law is meant to get rid of the people who are causing Arizona harm which, as John McCain's ad insinuates, is people from Mexico. We cannot return to a dark part of American history where we start to segregate people based on their race as this law does indirectly.
Recent polls suggest that the majority of Americans are fine with the law but that is because it will not affect them. They will not be asked to present proof that they should be here because they don't fit the bill of reasonable suspicion ie they aren't Mexican looking. If we put in place a law that said lets round up and question anyone, with reasonable suspicion of course, who looks likely to scam you with a Wall Street scheme, how would middle aged white men feel?
One area that I would like to commend Arizona on is it's crackdown on the employment of illegal immigrants. I fully support having immigrants go through the proper channels to become citizens, don't get me wrong, but this law is not the way to go; it will lead to more tensions between races and less civil liberties.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Election Day 2009: Who Won?
Election Day 2009 has come and gone. In one year, the bigger mid-term elections will take place and the balance of power in Congress is almost certain to change. We had several minor elections in Atlanta, Boston, and Houston (all three are big cities) and three much media covered elections in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. Republicans tried to spin the results as an indication of the approval of President Obama while Democrats tried their best to dispel that notion. The night had it's share of surprises and was anything but normal.
Governor Races: Virginia and New Jersey
The polls were a roller coaster in New Jersey for a few months. Incumbent John Corzine was not a popular governor by any measure and had an approval rating in the mid-low 30's. In the summer, he was trailing his challenger, GOP's Chris Christie, by a pretty wide margin. He later rebounded and gained a very narrow lead which he lost a few days before the election. Christie ended up pulling out a win with 49% of the vote to Corzine's 45%.
Virginia had been a foregone conclusion for weeks. The governorship was vacated due to term restrictions. The polls had been showing a blow out for weeks and the election was indeed that: 59% for GOP's Bob McDonell to Democrat Creigh Deeds' 41%. Deeds was seen as an inferior candidate and the people of Virginia thought so as well.
Congressional Race: New York District 23
The most politically driven race was the one that was actually the most obscure. New York district 23 is traditionally conservative and has been that way for 100 years. The seat was vacated. The controversy came when the Republican candidate was chosen by a few party authorities in the area. Diedre Scozzafava was chosen to represent the party despite being a somewhat liberal. She was endorsed by Newt Gingrich and panned by almost every other major Republican. They endorsed the third party, more conservative Hoffman. Democrat Bill Owens wound up taking the election in what was considered an upset despite him having a slight lead in the polls. Scozzafava dropped out of the race due to pressure and the polls showing her losing dramatically. She then threw her support behind Bill Owens perhaps giving him the numbers needed to win.
Who won?
Republicans made huge gains by taking both gubernatorial elections but Virginia was not a surprise at all. New Jersey was a nice pickup for the GOP, however, and can be celebrated. The NY 23 is also notable for it's district turning. Who ended up winning? The GOP slightly. GOP took NJ which is a strong Democrat stronghold while Dems took NY23 which is the same. Virginia isn't a stronghold as it generally goes for Republican Presidential candidates even though it's had a Democrat for several terms. It's still a win for people to trust Republicans.
Governor Races: Virginia and New Jersey
The polls were a roller coaster in New Jersey for a few months. Incumbent John Corzine was not a popular governor by any measure and had an approval rating in the mid-low 30's. In the summer, he was trailing his challenger, GOP's Chris Christie, by a pretty wide margin. He later rebounded and gained a very narrow lead which he lost a few days before the election. Christie ended up pulling out a win with 49% of the vote to Corzine's 45%.
Virginia had been a foregone conclusion for weeks. The governorship was vacated due to term restrictions. The polls had been showing a blow out for weeks and the election was indeed that: 59% for GOP's Bob McDonell to Democrat Creigh Deeds' 41%. Deeds was seen as an inferior candidate and the people of Virginia thought so as well.
Congressional Race: New York District 23
The most politically driven race was the one that was actually the most obscure. New York district 23 is traditionally conservative and has been that way for 100 years. The seat was vacated. The controversy came when the Republican candidate was chosen by a few party authorities in the area. Diedre Scozzafava was chosen to represent the party despite being a somewhat liberal. She was endorsed by Newt Gingrich and panned by almost every other major Republican. They endorsed the third party, more conservative Hoffman. Democrat Bill Owens wound up taking the election in what was considered an upset despite him having a slight lead in the polls. Scozzafava dropped out of the race due to pressure and the polls showing her losing dramatically. She then threw her support behind Bill Owens perhaps giving him the numbers needed to win.
Who won?
Republicans made huge gains by taking both gubernatorial elections but Virginia was not a surprise at all. New Jersey was a nice pickup for the GOP, however, and can be celebrated. The NY 23 is also notable for it's district turning. Who ended up winning? The GOP slightly. GOP took NJ which is a strong Democrat stronghold while Dems took NY23 which is the same. Virginia isn't a stronghold as it generally goes for Republican Presidential candidates even though it's had a Democrat for several terms. It's still a win for people to trust Republicans.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Another Republican Infidelity Report
I don't enjoy reveling in the misfortunes of others but there is something to be said about so called "family values" Republicans who get caught in a storm scandal. The GOP likens to the "party on the hill" looking down on the sinners below (the Democrats). Why can't they just accept that no one is perfect? The higher you are, the harder you fall.
The latest to be caught was a Republican State Legislator from California who was caught by an open mic. He was bragging to a colleague about a sexual affair he had with his mistress.
The latest to be caught was a Republican State Legislator from California who was caught by an open mic. He was bragging to a colleague about a sexual affair he had with his mistress.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Rant Time: "Big Government"/ Socialism
I don't like getting on a soapbox very often but I think this is a very troubling issue. For all the Republicans out there saying how they hate "big government" here's what I want you to do: pay back every cent the US Government has given you. That includes the following:
- Pell Grant for college students
- Unemployment benefits
- Medicare (that's right, go harass grandma)
- Start up loans for businesses
- Social Security
- Public school funds (that'd be thousands of dollars per child)
- Cash for Clunkers
- The money you make from minimum wage minus what the companies really want to pay you (here's a hint: it's close to zip)
The list goes on and on. Let's face facts here; for some things we need the government to step in and correct a situation that's becoming a problem. Health Care has reached that status and we NEED a public option to reign in on the people whose bottom line is profit. Who says Capitalism has to be so infused in our lives that it controls that very thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)