Thursday, October 8, 2015
Putin and Obama (UN General Assembly 2015)
This was my favorite pic of these two, there were a few other classic images, as well. This strikes me as the diplomatic equivalent of Weekend at Bernie's.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Iran So Far Away
Prologue: I took some time away from the blog to re-organize my house and routine. Now I'm re-organized, refreshed and ready to get back to it (though my cat is still supremely bummed that his chill spots aren't where they used to be; he'll get over it). What did I miss? Generally not much newsworthy stuff happens during the summer, not because the world stops spinning but because the people that bring us news like to go on vacation. Turns out even the 24-hour news cycle ain't exactly clockwork.
The What: The big news that I've missed is obviously the UN's nuclear deal with Iran. The UN will release Iran's sanction money that has accumulated since the world chose to rebuke Iran in 2006 in return for more oversight of Iran's internal workings. The complaint back in the day was that Iran was enriching uranium potentially to weapons-grade; Iran has denied this but clearly Iran has some kind of program at work and has for over a decade. Iran's lack of cooperation with the IAEA led to the sanctions. Sanctions will be lifted if Iran makes certain concessions with their nuclear exploration.
The How: This is a multilateral deal, such that President Obama has effectively removed Congress from the proceedings. Normally gov'ts don't want to a deal with lame-duck presidents, since they can't guarantee Congressional support or the practices of future administrations, then why bother to make a deal? But because this has the UN imprimatur, it is a little different. Congress could support new dealings with Iran though domestic politics makes that unlikely. But it's structured in a way that if Congress chooses to ignore this deal (which is basically what a 'no' vote would mean) then they miss out on what could be good about the deal while avoiding none of what's bad about it. So they can't really undo it (even if they actually could undo it, which I don't think they could). Congress doesn't win by challenging the president on this.
My take: we're paying Iran to build a nuclear weapon to international specifications and time frames. Did I misstate that? Is there something else at work? We're helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. The money was already Iran's, so no money out of our pocket; Iran's programs were already in the works and probably needed assistance anyway, better they get it from the Americans and the Euros as opposed to the Russians and North Koreans. Win-win.
Making sure that Iran definitely gets a bomb was always the point of the process. If we didn't want Iran to have one, our actions would've been entirely different. This is all part of the long-term re-balancing of American interests from Saudi Arabia back to Iran. The Persian Shia are the West's natural allies in the Gulf region and were until Aytollah Khomenei came to power in the 1980s, Coincidentally, the American relationship with the Saudis became increasingly strained and (I think) completely fractured after 9/11, The invasion of Iraq was atypical American policy in the region: it was the beginning of the grand move away from our Saudi alliances. I believe USA will eventually re-balance to Iran as opposed to Saudi Arabia, but until then the interregnum will be fanning the proxy wars between them.
Yemen, Syria, Iraq are the new battlefields for Iran and Saudi Arabia to mix it up. And the UN has just poured a bunch of money into Iran's coffers for just that battle. My liberal friends think this deal will yield peaceful results but that's absolute hogwash. We're giving Iran money precisely to fund anti-ISIS campaigns in Iraq and Syria, anti-Saudi campaigns in Yemen, anti-Taliban campaigns in Afghanistan (and hoping the money doesn't go to Hamas, though clearly Netanyahu assumes otherwise). The idea that this deal makes peace is misguided at best. My conservative friends think empowering Iran is the worst idea ever but I'd say they don't quite grasp the kind of relationship USA has with Saudi Arabia. Personally I think Saudi Arabia belongs high atop any list of repressive gov'ts with broken economies and poisonous cultures (and throw in anti-American activity a mile long to boot, though that's not the beginning of my concern) and supporting Iran can't be much worse than the support we've been giving the Saudis all these years. What about Israel? Israel is in the crossfire of anything that happens and they're well-prepared for any occurrence....so....not to be insensitive....it doesn't really matter because anything is potentially good or bad for Israel.
Obama is leaving the next Commander-in-Chief boiling pots all across the Arab world, a far cry from the Arab Spring Obama was unable to get with just a coupla years back. But he gets to champion himself a peacemaker, truly the work of a gifted politician.
The What: The big news that I've missed is obviously the UN's nuclear deal with Iran. The UN will release Iran's sanction money that has accumulated since the world chose to rebuke Iran in 2006 in return for more oversight of Iran's internal workings. The complaint back in the day was that Iran was enriching uranium potentially to weapons-grade; Iran has denied this but clearly Iran has some kind of program at work and has for over a decade. Iran's lack of cooperation with the IAEA led to the sanctions. Sanctions will be lifted if Iran makes certain concessions with their nuclear exploration.
The How: This is a multilateral deal, such that President Obama has effectively removed Congress from the proceedings. Normally gov'ts don't want to a deal with lame-duck presidents, since they can't guarantee Congressional support or the practices of future administrations, then why bother to make a deal? But because this has the UN imprimatur, it is a little different. Congress could support new dealings with Iran though domestic politics makes that unlikely. But it's structured in a way that if Congress chooses to ignore this deal (which is basically what a 'no' vote would mean) then they miss out on what could be good about the deal while avoiding none of what's bad about it. So they can't really undo it (even if they actually could undo it, which I don't think they could). Congress doesn't win by challenging the president on this.
My take: we're paying Iran to build a nuclear weapon to international specifications and time frames. Did I misstate that? Is there something else at work? We're helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. The money was already Iran's, so no money out of our pocket; Iran's programs were already in the works and probably needed assistance anyway, better they get it from the Americans and the Euros as opposed to the Russians and North Koreans. Win-win.
Making sure that Iran definitely gets a bomb was always the point of the process. If we didn't want Iran to have one, our actions would've been entirely different. This is all part of the long-term re-balancing of American interests from Saudi Arabia back to Iran. The Persian Shia are the West's natural allies in the Gulf region and were until Aytollah Khomenei came to power in the 1980s, Coincidentally, the American relationship with the Saudis became increasingly strained and (I think) completely fractured after 9/11, The invasion of Iraq was atypical American policy in the region: it was the beginning of the grand move away from our Saudi alliances. I believe USA will eventually re-balance to Iran as opposed to Saudi Arabia, but until then the interregnum will be fanning the proxy wars between them.
Yemen, Syria, Iraq are the new battlefields for Iran and Saudi Arabia to mix it up. And the UN has just poured a bunch of money into Iran's coffers for just that battle. My liberal friends think this deal will yield peaceful results but that's absolute hogwash. We're giving Iran money precisely to fund anti-ISIS campaigns in Iraq and Syria, anti-Saudi campaigns in Yemen, anti-Taliban campaigns in Afghanistan (and hoping the money doesn't go to Hamas, though clearly Netanyahu assumes otherwise). The idea that this deal makes peace is misguided at best. My conservative friends think empowering Iran is the worst idea ever but I'd say they don't quite grasp the kind of relationship USA has with Saudi Arabia. Personally I think Saudi Arabia belongs high atop any list of repressive gov'ts with broken economies and poisonous cultures (and throw in anti-American activity a mile long to boot, though that's not the beginning of my concern) and supporting Iran can't be much worse than the support we've been giving the Saudis all these years. What about Israel? Israel is in the crossfire of anything that happens and they're well-prepared for any occurrence....so....not to be insensitive....it doesn't really matter because anything is potentially good or bad for Israel.
Obama is leaving the next Commander-in-Chief boiling pots all across the Arab world, a far cry from the Arab Spring Obama was unable to get with just a coupla years back. But he gets to champion himself a peacemaker, truly the work of a gifted politician.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Greece-y Kid Stuff
Is Greece about to be put out of the European Union? Does it matter? What are the economic impacts to the World?
China's current stock market meltdown (dude, seems like its down 5-6% every day) caught me off guard because I thought the previous period of meltdown a few months back was enough. That earlier meltdown was because the Chinese Central Bank raised holding requirements for the investment banks which bound to cause tightening. But I assumed in February or so that all that had been properly metabolized by Shanghai and Hong Kong. Weird argument to make: I figure since those markets are moved as much by gov't fiat as investor activity that big ups/downs are potentially more likely and more predictable than western markets. (I could be wrong...I have no reason to think the way I do...but until I am smarter I struggle through dumbness) But the fact that the perturbations--large perturbations at that!--are still...perturbating...indicates that the Chinese market needs more time to absorb gov't-inspired tightening than I anticipated. In other words, the tightening is still tightening.
The reason I bring that up is because now that Greece has finally and formally been spurned by the Europeans (re: Germans), one wonders if China could be a financial backer for the Greeks. But if their markets are ping-pong-ing around like the Knicks' title hopes, I'm assuming Greece will find no succor at the other end of the Silk Road.
Putin has hinted that he'd like a closer relationship with Greece but Russia's finances are not exactly top notch at the moment and Putin's blather has always had a high school cafeteria kinda casual about it, he's just exploiting the media coverage of these events more than the events themselves. In the 1970s Russian overtures to Greece would've been verboten at the upper levels of USA's national security team. But nowadays, Greece don't seem so vital to the American plan. Putin has grown steadily more bellicose in the last few years, he's gearing the war machine up for...something...and splintering Europe might amuse Putin greatly.
Confession: I always kinda liked Putin, for an iron-fisted Russian tyrant he seems unusually enlightened to my eye and has generally allowed the Russian middle class to expand (as best it can) which to my mind is the paramount activity for any head of state anywhere. The last few years have been tough on Putin, he's had to scramble more than usual to hold power, external forces have not been kind to him and internal forces may be gathering strength (hey, baby, its Russia, you know somewhere the long knives are gettin' ready). Putin still has long range bombers, ICBMS and nuclear-tipped subs, he's still dangerous to the USA and the int'l system in general. And so whoever comes after him. USA is probably not better served by antagonizing him, indeed propping him up may well be the best move for peace.
At any rate, Russia is at the breaking point, can't imagine it has much to offer Greece. And I don't see the Greek people or gov't being terribly eager to line up behind Smiln' Vlad.
USA? Heh, heh. Like John Calipari taking the Sacramento Kings gig, I don't see that happening. Americans' need for Greece pretty much ends after freshman year. Can't see Congress agreeing on a bailout for the bloated labor costs of Greece--hell, we've got our own bloated labor costs to ignore. The Greeks voted for Socialism and they just got Socialized.
The IMF is the only show in town for Greece and a 'No' vote today is probably just the next step on that path. This has always been the answer but thanks to a coupla years' worth of media circus, the Greeks have been able to stretch the debt as far as physically possible. The folks in power knew this was going to happen, they more or less even knew when it would happen, but Greece held out as long as they could (only to have the wing nut splinter party holding the bag when the music stopped). To be fair, Germany never looked like they were going to help. They always knew this was headed IMF-ways. The Greek population for generations believed the Socialist message: work for less now and we'll pay you big fat pensions later. Except that the gov't has no way of guaranteeing that they can do that, it was always an empty promise. Like Enron employees, the Greek people were always buying into something that wasn't real. Now the Greeks that have spent a lifetime of making less for the promise of more are gonna get even less. 'Austerity' is when your gov't needs another gov't to save its ass. Austerity is not something you get to vote on, it is something that is imposed upon you.
Back to the original questions: Is Greece gonna get put out of the EU? I'd say yes. Doesn't like they get to stay nor do they want to. The Greeks probably think that being part of the EU did nothing for them but really it allowed the ruling parties of Greece to be stupider than usual, running up debts that didn't build infrastructure. German backing was a windfall that Greece failed to take advantage of.
Does it matter? I'd say what doesn't kill Europe will only make it stronger, if Greece wasn't meant to be in the Union then the Union is better for getting rid of it. And the EU now has a precedent for how to put recalcitrant countries out of the order if need be. So will Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain choose austerity from Germany or austerity from the IMF? If Greece makes IMF-style suffering look good then the EU might be in some trouble but I don't see that happening. I suspect the next batch of needy countries will be more accommodating to German demands.
What are the econ impacts? I have no idea. Greece is gonna be in a bad way for a while, gonna be desperately in need of tourist dollars for the foreseeable future. But the rest of Europe may well be better off. The IMF is still European money but its impact is of a different order.
At the heart of the European Union is a need for a European identity, for folks living on the continent to see themselves and their heritage as something larger than just the country they come from. If the EU fails, some say that European-ness fails, that all squabbles of the last 500 years are still festering and could be unleashed if the Euro can't compete. But festering squabbles never really go away even if the Euro is everybody's favorite form of currency, likewise European-ness doesn't fade even if some folks start liking the Drachma (trust me: they won't). This Union isn't the first attempt at a Union and I'm guessing it won't be the last, it'll endure if it fails. But its got some maturing to do and today is the day Europe moved on from the Greece-y kid stuff.
China's current stock market meltdown (dude, seems like its down 5-6% every day) caught me off guard because I thought the previous period of meltdown a few months back was enough. That earlier meltdown was because the Chinese Central Bank raised holding requirements for the investment banks which bound to cause tightening. But I assumed in February or so that all that had been properly metabolized by Shanghai and Hong Kong. Weird argument to make: I figure since those markets are moved as much by gov't fiat as investor activity that big ups/downs are potentially more likely and more predictable than western markets. (I could be wrong...I have no reason to think the way I do...but until I am smarter I struggle through dumbness) But the fact that the perturbations--large perturbations at that!--are still...perturbating...indicates that the Chinese market needs more time to absorb gov't-inspired tightening than I anticipated. In other words, the tightening is still tightening.
The reason I bring that up is because now that Greece has finally and formally been spurned by the Europeans (re: Germans), one wonders if China could be a financial backer for the Greeks. But if their markets are ping-pong-ing around like the Knicks' title hopes, I'm assuming Greece will find no succor at the other end of the Silk Road.
Putin has hinted that he'd like a closer relationship with Greece but Russia's finances are not exactly top notch at the moment and Putin's blather has always had a high school cafeteria kinda casual about it, he's just exploiting the media coverage of these events more than the events themselves. In the 1970s Russian overtures to Greece would've been verboten at the upper levels of USA's national security team. But nowadays, Greece don't seem so vital to the American plan. Putin has grown steadily more bellicose in the last few years, he's gearing the war machine up for...something...and splintering Europe might amuse Putin greatly.
Confession: I always kinda liked Putin, for an iron-fisted Russian tyrant he seems unusually enlightened to my eye and has generally allowed the Russian middle class to expand (as best it can) which to my mind is the paramount activity for any head of state anywhere. The last few years have been tough on Putin, he's had to scramble more than usual to hold power, external forces have not been kind to him and internal forces may be gathering strength (hey, baby, its Russia, you know somewhere the long knives are gettin' ready). Putin still has long range bombers, ICBMS and nuclear-tipped subs, he's still dangerous to the USA and the int'l system in general. And so whoever comes after him. USA is probably not better served by antagonizing him, indeed propping him up may well be the best move for peace.
At any rate, Russia is at the breaking point, can't imagine it has much to offer Greece. And I don't see the Greek people or gov't being terribly eager to line up behind Smiln' Vlad.
USA? Heh, heh. Like John Calipari taking the Sacramento Kings gig, I don't see that happening. Americans' need for Greece pretty much ends after freshman year. Can't see Congress agreeing on a bailout for the bloated labor costs of Greece--hell, we've got our own bloated labor costs to ignore. The Greeks voted for Socialism and they just got Socialized.
The IMF is the only show in town for Greece and a 'No' vote today is probably just the next step on that path. This has always been the answer but thanks to a coupla years' worth of media circus, the Greeks have been able to stretch the debt as far as physically possible. The folks in power knew this was going to happen, they more or less even knew when it would happen, but Greece held out as long as they could (only to have the wing nut splinter party holding the bag when the music stopped). To be fair, Germany never looked like they were going to help. They always knew this was headed IMF-ways. The Greek population for generations believed the Socialist message: work for less now and we'll pay you big fat pensions later. Except that the gov't has no way of guaranteeing that they can do that, it was always an empty promise. Like Enron employees, the Greek people were always buying into something that wasn't real. Now the Greeks that have spent a lifetime of making less for the promise of more are gonna get even less. 'Austerity' is when your gov't needs another gov't to save its ass. Austerity is not something you get to vote on, it is something that is imposed upon you.
Back to the original questions: Is Greece gonna get put out of the EU? I'd say yes. Doesn't like they get to stay nor do they want to. The Greeks probably think that being part of the EU did nothing for them but really it allowed the ruling parties of Greece to be stupider than usual, running up debts that didn't build infrastructure. German backing was a windfall that Greece failed to take advantage of.
Does it matter? I'd say what doesn't kill Europe will only make it stronger, if Greece wasn't meant to be in the Union then the Union is better for getting rid of it. And the EU now has a precedent for how to put recalcitrant countries out of the order if need be. So will Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain choose austerity from Germany or austerity from the IMF? If Greece makes IMF-style suffering look good then the EU might be in some trouble but I don't see that happening. I suspect the next batch of needy countries will be more accommodating to German demands.
What are the econ impacts? I have no idea. Greece is gonna be in a bad way for a while, gonna be desperately in need of tourist dollars for the foreseeable future. But the rest of Europe may well be better off. The IMF is still European money but its impact is of a different order.
At the heart of the European Union is a need for a European identity, for folks living on the continent to see themselves and their heritage as something larger than just the country they come from. If the EU fails, some say that European-ness fails, that all squabbles of the last 500 years are still festering and could be unleashed if the Euro can't compete. But festering squabbles never really go away even if the Euro is everybody's favorite form of currency, likewise European-ness doesn't fade even if some folks start liking the Drachma (trust me: they won't). This Union isn't the first attempt at a Union and I'm guessing it won't be the last, it'll endure if it fails. But its got some maturing to do and today is the day Europe moved on from the Greece-y kid stuff.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
Today was the signing ceremony for the Asian Infrastructure Bank. China is seeking to compete with the World Bank and/or IMF to gain some real muscle in the world of international finance. I say welcome to the party and obviously a brilliant move for China.
USA and Japan (and not too many others) are bummin' because there is the chance that the Chinese are watering down global finance opportunities rather than growing the pool, but I say so if the Chinese want to pump big bucks into trade infrastructure, that means more business for everyone, more world citizens are brought into the sphere of controlling their own lives, all for the good.
I grew up in a Libertarian household. I say that for two reasons: 1) I have never been a Democrat or a Republican (nor can I imagine any scenario in which I'd want either of those clown colleges representing me); 2) Its all about free markets, if its not about free markets then its more likely just politics as opposed to governance. And since I personally gravitate toward international affairs more than domestic ones and the Libertarian Party basically has no foreign policy, I was pretty much done as a Libertarian by the time I hit voting age. Realistically I am not now (nor have I ever been) politically a Libertarian. I never replaced the Libertarians with anything else, choosing instead to disdain all politics for being an unfortunate waste of time and energy.
I do not vote, don't feel the need to nor the desire. I don't like people that run for office, I could tolerate them but they have such a perverse need to loved and admired irrespective of their inconsistencies, insecurities and/or repulsive habits. And I don't really roll that way. I respect better than I love and I got no respect (or love for that matter) for the vast majority of politicians of my lifetime. I am told voting is my "duty" to which I ask: whose "duty" is it to give me something I want to vote for? Even duty needs a hint of reciprocity and the Democrats and Republicans have yet to offer any to me. I'm not a huge fan of democracy, I find it merely leads to elections. But democracy is what we got here in America and I can live with that, if anyone ever tried to take away my right to vote I would vote against it. But until then I don't see much I want to vote for. My life is just fine, I don't rely on gov't for livelihood or entertainment, not voting has yet to make a difference in my world because I don't make the assumption that the idiot that lost the election would really be better than the idiot that won.
I am generally a global optimist. I think everything is getting better all over the world. We live in a world suddenly bathed in sunlight. Some embrace it, some fear it. This period of history we currently inhabit is the early connected years: a clumsy mix of the people who love this shit and those that think this shit is an abomination (or at least an annoyance); in many place we see barriers coming down and in other places we see more barriers than ever. I don't believe the barriers will hold, I believe the people will make the most of each opportunity and gov't of the world will be powerless to stop it. The interconnectedness will be second hand to the next generation: even the most epochal civilization-warping inventions are just everyday objects to a baby and the kids that grow up with this processing power, this social reach, this astounding depth of knowledge available will expect it as an ordinary way of life and the only way for politicians to stop it is to get better at it.
Humanity is growing together on a global scale and that reach is still fairly new. I think it's a beautiful thing. Our art and our commerce will keep us healthy, happy and prosperous and the digitization will make so much available to so many people for such minimal investment. Humans learn from each other and we can learn faster and more completely than ever before.
There will be disagreements, there will be disputes, there will be egos with more power than they ought to have, there will be fights, there will be skirmishes, there will even be wars. There will be people who fail to succeed in even the most prosperous peace. But I am convinced the opportunity to live a better life will be available to steadily more people throughout my lifetime.
The first step for making the world a better place is developing trade infrastructure for more people in more places. The AIIB makes that possible. It'll open markets, create more consumers, bring more professional opportunities to more people and that should not worry the World Bank, IMF, USA or Japan. More money makes more customers, more stability, competition will make the World Bank better, competition indicates that the financial universe is growing. Some Americans bristle at the news of the AIIB but I think its good news, suggestive of greater (not lesser) stability.
USA and Japan (and not too many others) are bummin' because there is the chance that the Chinese are watering down global finance opportunities rather than growing the pool, but I say so if the Chinese want to pump big bucks into trade infrastructure, that means more business for everyone, more world citizens are brought into the sphere of controlling their own lives, all for the good.
I grew up in a Libertarian household. I say that for two reasons: 1) I have never been a Democrat or a Republican (nor can I imagine any scenario in which I'd want either of those clown colleges representing me); 2) Its all about free markets, if its not about free markets then its more likely just politics as opposed to governance. And since I personally gravitate toward international affairs more than domestic ones and the Libertarian Party basically has no foreign policy, I was pretty much done as a Libertarian by the time I hit voting age. Realistically I am not now (nor have I ever been) politically a Libertarian. I never replaced the Libertarians with anything else, choosing instead to disdain all politics for being an unfortunate waste of time and energy.
I do not vote, don't feel the need to nor the desire. I don't like people that run for office, I could tolerate them but they have such a perverse need to loved and admired irrespective of their inconsistencies, insecurities and/or repulsive habits. And I don't really roll that way. I respect better than I love and I got no respect (or love for that matter) for the vast majority of politicians of my lifetime. I am told voting is my "duty" to which I ask: whose "duty" is it to give me something I want to vote for? Even duty needs a hint of reciprocity and the Democrats and Republicans have yet to offer any to me. I'm not a huge fan of democracy, I find it merely leads to elections. But democracy is what we got here in America and I can live with that, if anyone ever tried to take away my right to vote I would vote against it. But until then I don't see much I want to vote for. My life is just fine, I don't rely on gov't for livelihood or entertainment, not voting has yet to make a difference in my world because I don't make the assumption that the idiot that lost the election would really be better than the idiot that won.
I am generally a global optimist. I think everything is getting better all over the world. We live in a world suddenly bathed in sunlight. Some embrace it, some fear it. This period of history we currently inhabit is the early connected years: a clumsy mix of the people who love this shit and those that think this shit is an abomination (or at least an annoyance); in many place we see barriers coming down and in other places we see more barriers than ever. I don't believe the barriers will hold, I believe the people will make the most of each opportunity and gov't of the world will be powerless to stop it. The interconnectedness will be second hand to the next generation: even the most epochal civilization-warping inventions are just everyday objects to a baby and the kids that grow up with this processing power, this social reach, this astounding depth of knowledge available will expect it as an ordinary way of life and the only way for politicians to stop it is to get better at it.
Humanity is growing together on a global scale and that reach is still fairly new. I think it's a beautiful thing. Our art and our commerce will keep us healthy, happy and prosperous and the digitization will make so much available to so many people for such minimal investment. Humans learn from each other and we can learn faster and more completely than ever before.
There will be disagreements, there will be disputes, there will be egos with more power than they ought to have, there will be fights, there will be skirmishes, there will even be wars. There will be people who fail to succeed in even the most prosperous peace. But I am convinced the opportunity to live a better life will be available to steadily more people throughout my lifetime.
The first step for making the world a better place is developing trade infrastructure for more people in more places. The AIIB makes that possible. It'll open markets, create more consumers, bring more professional opportunities to more people and that should not worry the World Bank, IMF, USA or Japan. More money makes more customers, more stability, competition will make the World Bank better, competition indicates that the financial universe is growing. Some Americans bristle at the news of the AIIB but I think its good news, suggestive of greater (not lesser) stability.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Thoughts on the Confederate Flag
The Confederate Flag has suddenly risen to the level of high cultural impact, though it has been a standard, highly visible racist symbol for decades. Let me clarify: I don't believe the Confederate Flag is inherently racist or that people are necessarily racist for (let us say) approving of the flag. But long have we known that some Americans find it a statement of racism/hate/oppression/etc; and to carry on approving of the Flag after being informed that some folks have announced it racist, is by its very nature a racist choice. Thus, the Flag, while not inherently racist, is now (and has been) existentially racist. Flag's racist, dude, indeed by this point in our collective history, it serves little purpose other than being racist. It should be removed from polite society, absolutely.
I grew up in the South (well, Kentucky, the northiest part of the South) and have lived most of my life here but I have never needed the Confederate Flag. I watched Dukes of Hazzard as a youngster (not really my bag even then but it was the hip shit til Miami Vice came along), that's probably as close as the Confederate Flag ever touched my life. I have never been a fan of country music (and today's 'country' is the awfulest whitest sort of pop garbage, an absolute abomination to the spirit of Bach, Rachmaninoff, Lennon and/or McCartney). I was not a 'redneck' (a discernible sociological sub group around these parts) growing up nor at any point in my development. I did not fly the flag (or any flag) or wear it on my clothes or on my car or anywhere else a Flag might've could've gone. In short, I couldn't give an f' about the Flag and if it burns forever in our collective hellish past, that's fine with me.
But I'd like to separate myself from the current protestations in one way. Even more than being disrespectful to the African-American community, it is disrespectful to the Union. It is disrespectful to the United States of America itself and should've been banned 100 years ago. The Confederate Flag should never have been tolerated our society. All Americans should be offended by the Flag because it is an anti-American symbol! It should be treasonous to fly the flag because it is an exhortation of a violent separatist movement within our borders. The Flag is a symbol of the dissolution of the USA, we never tolerated al Qaeda doing that, don't see why we should let our own ignorant peckerwoods get away with it.
As for the Flag as a symbol of heritage, I'm not opposed to putting the Confederate Flag in a history museum. And if white Americans go to those museums to feel better about their whiteness, that'll be their choice though I hope (and assume) they'll find better ways to feel good about their heritage. A history museum I could live with but the Confederate Flag doesn't need to be anywhere else in our future.
I grew up in the South (well, Kentucky, the northiest part of the South) and have lived most of my life here but I have never needed the Confederate Flag. I watched Dukes of Hazzard as a youngster (not really my bag even then but it was the hip shit til Miami Vice came along), that's probably as close as the Confederate Flag ever touched my life. I have never been a fan of country music (and today's 'country' is the awfulest whitest sort of pop garbage, an absolute abomination to the spirit of Bach, Rachmaninoff, Lennon and/or McCartney). I was not a 'redneck' (a discernible sociological sub group around these parts) growing up nor at any point in my development. I did not fly the flag (or any flag) or wear it on my clothes or on my car or anywhere else a Flag might've could've gone. In short, I couldn't give an f' about the Flag and if it burns forever in our collective hellish past, that's fine with me.
But I'd like to separate myself from the current protestations in one way. Even more than being disrespectful to the African-American community, it is disrespectful to the Union. It is disrespectful to the United States of America itself and should've been banned 100 years ago. The Confederate Flag should never have been tolerated our society. All Americans should be offended by the Flag because it is an anti-American symbol! It should be treasonous to fly the flag because it is an exhortation of a violent separatist movement within our borders. The Flag is a symbol of the dissolution of the USA, we never tolerated al Qaeda doing that, don't see why we should let our own ignorant peckerwoods get away with it.
As for the Flag as a symbol of heritage, I'm not opposed to putting the Confederate Flag in a history museum. And if white Americans go to those museums to feel better about their whiteness, that'll be their choice though I hope (and assume) they'll find better ways to feel good about their heritage. A history museum I could live with but the Confederate Flag doesn't need to be anywhere else in our future.
Saturday, June 27, 2015
A Supreme Court Suggestion
Traditionally USA has had nine justices on its Supreme Court. But as the population has risen that means the representation per citizen has vastly decreased. Why does it matter? Well, honestly it doesn't. Raising the number of justices to fifteen (which is what I'm about to propose) wouldn't make that much difference in terms of representation especially over the course of time that it would take to do it. The reason to increase the number of justices is to give a wider representation to our technological advances and our cultural evolution. Last season there were a coupla cases that showed how potentially out of touch the current justices are to the creeping digitization of our world. The need to expand the court is for technology and the changes that will bring in how the citizenry relates to each other and the state.
How to expand the court? Here ya go: Congress could announce right now that every ten years for the next three decades, two more justices will be added. The growth should be staggered so that no single president gets more than two extra nominations. The time frame should be pushed far enough into the future that no one can predict who will be president at the time.
So in 2025, the sitting president would get two extra Supreme Court nominations in addition to however many replacement nominations will be needed; then again in 2035 and 2045 which would bring the total number of justices to fifteen. Fifteen seems a reasonable number, though 30 years from now we may decide we could use more. The elections of 2024, 2032 and 2044 would have a bit of extra bite to them but everyone would know ahead of time what was at stake.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
First Post
I need to put up something to just see what this blog looks like. I'll add more useful stuff later. Now that I've seen it, I don't like it. Think I'll change it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)