How can I tell? Because I am neither Republican nor a Democrat. Heck, I am not even an American, so there are a thing or two I know about the world that most Americans don't. Ah and yeah, having lived in the US for 5-odd years, there is a thing or two that I know about Americans that most non-Americans don't.
Republicans are still living in the past
Republicans still think that the US is the most powerful country in the world and war is a solution to all foreign policy issues.
No more. Firstly, the strength of a country is not in its military alone, but also in its economic strength. US is militarily strong, but it is not economically as powerful as it once was. If you remember, USSR was as powerful as the US once, but it was brought down to its knees because it stumbled economically. It did not lose its military might till the very end - it had a big fleet of high technology fighter airplanes on the ground - but no money to fuel them.
Secondly, the wars that are fought now are not the conventional wars - they're more like Gurilla or terrorist wars where pure military might is of little, if any, significance. Come to think of it - US could not win in Vietnam and Somalia, and lately the victories in Iraq and Afghanistan can be summed up with this quote "Once you hear of the details of victory, its hard to distinguish it from a defeat - Jean-Paul Sartre".
Finally, even a small nation state, like N Korea or Iran can now stand up to the US on the might of their nuclear weapons. Conventional warfare just does not cut it. There's Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) of course, but a small crazy nation state like N Korea does not care because it really does not have anything to lose, while US has everything to lose.
Republicans still think that Global warming is a sham propagated by the likes of Al Gore
Maybe it is propagated by Al Gore. Maybe it was done to gain power and control. But moving beyond the political aspects of it, are the physical aspects of it untenable? It is obvious that if you burn carbon-based fuels, you release CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so it traps more heat from the sun than O2 and N2 would. This is Physics 101. If you don't believe CO2 is given off by fossil fuels burning, or CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you're bordering on insanity. If you believe the earth is heating because of the natural heating cycles of the earth, why push it even more so that it goes over the top? Some Republicans that I talk to tell me that the earth is actually cooling, and 2007 was the coolest year in last 15 years or so. Balderdash. The 8 hottest years on record have all occurred in the years since 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html
What is wrong with the Democrats?
Democrats still believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul
Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because
- This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
- The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.
- Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai.
- If the industry moves away, there goes your employment, and there goes your taxes. Is that too hard to understand?
- What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?
- This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.
- This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).
Democrats still believe that they can tax companies to keep jobs in the US
This is an erroneous view of the world. Companies shift jobs overseas to cut costs and stay competitive (and of course make profit - but then isn't profit the motive in any enterprise? Is this charity?). You tax them to keep jobs in the US, and they lose their competitive edge. Believe it or not, but at this time, there's nothing in this world that cannot be made outside the US. The world is a competitive place. You tax your companies, the companies would simply close shop and move.
Democrats still believe that war is not the right thing, and they can use diplomacy instead
Maybe, but its not a given. Some people just hate the US. It has no rhyme or reason. If Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, its not because of a reason, Palestinians or otherwise. Its just what it is. The world is not a rosy, quiet, friendly place. Just like Republicans are war mongers, Democrats are diplomacy mongers. US does indulge in a lot of diplomacy, but a lot of it is covert than overt. Of course it also indulges in a lot of overt, rather than covert operations. Diplomacy is not a panacea for all ills, and it ticks the Republicans off that Democrats don't get this.
There are stark differences between Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, instead of talking and resolving these differences, they resort to shouting each other down. This is a nation divided, and it does not bode well for the country.
3 comments:
You made some interesting points on both sides (very thought provoking on issues which will make any honest reader think), HOWEVER you really took the bait on the Global Warming hoax hook, line, and sinker.
Actually the data shows a cooling (and substancial at that)
January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months
Also even increased CO2 makes little impact as it is still a very minor part of the atmosphere and I can state this as my background in using additional CO2 for plant growth shows how much you have to increase CO2 for ANY impact.
Finally, this view is one of arrogance on man's part as we are but a speck on the earth and the earth has been MUCH warmer (heard of the Medieval Warm Period, I guess all those cars back then must have caused it).
PLEASE do not buy into such lies and report them as truths, all you have to do is follow the money trail as to this pseudo-science and false hypothesis without any REAL science behind it>
Aquarium Plants; CO2
Carl Stohmeyer; My Opinions
Carl,
First of all, you're a good writer - I liked your writings.
As for the matter at hand, I'm quite probably erring on the side of being cautious. I don't deny the existence of the MWP and the following mini ice age, but firstly, the exact reasons for both have not been established, and secondly, we don't really have very accurate data as how the world was affected by these climactic changes. Since there were much fewer people in the world at that time, maybe in MWP migration to areas a little away from the coast happened. We don't really know. If you've a reference to proper scientific research on this, do let me know.
Secondly, as you know in our atmosphere, O2 is ~ 21% and N2 is ~78%. We have Ar as the next gas, and CO2 is much less than 1%. Yet all vegetation take in CO2 during the daytime. This will illustrate that CO2, though very little, has an immense role/effect in the ecosystem. This also means that since its so little, even the man's activity can make significant changes to it.
I think looking at a few months' data might be a little misleading because it definitely won't give you a trend line.
I recently read that some glaciers off the coast of Argentina used to form in winters and break dramatically in summers, but for the first time they'd not form (or break early) in winter this time. Something similar about a summer traffic route in the Arctic Circle.
Finally, I think the ecology is a fairly delicate system. While you're right that it balances itself, a part of rebalancing's consequences is species' extinction. For example, dinosaurs were wiped out in the ice age. Would we be open to such a consequence?
I think we're exposed to a lot of conflicting data. I just hope we know the truth soon.
P.S. Btw I totally agree with you on the money trail part.
I agree with you that the democrats need to revive their ideology, but I sure as hell don't agree with any of your reasons. Seems you've been drinking the Fox News Kool-Aid.
Democrats still believe in higher taxes, especially the higher income people to spend on the "unfortunate". This is so stupid because
1. This reduces incentive to work. If one is "earning" without working, he'd rather not work and "earn" a little less, than work and earn a little more (and see a big chunk of earning taxed away).
2. The "unfortunate" (or anyone for that matter) does not appreciate something that is not hard earned.
Wow. Priviledged much? Would you stop working just so you could get welfare? I doubt it. Welfare and food stamps barely cover the cost of living. Welfare to "Work" is effectively slave labor - for example, Welfare to Work in New York City involves working sweeping parks for the New York City Parks and Rec. The New York City Parks and Rec has no incentive to hire anyone because they get workers for free and the workers aren't learning any valuable job skills. Also, you need to take into account the terrible education for the urban poor and that there are very few unskilled jobs where a worker can make enough to pay the bills anymore. Let's also not forget that Welfare to "Work" affected a lot of single mothers who were going back to school so they could improve their situation. So, yes, if I had a choice between working 3 jobs to barely pay the bills or going on welfare to barely pay the bills, I might take welfare.
3. Higher taxes are bad for the economy - they drive away the industry. Why would someone set up a true multinational in the US if the US is going to take 40% of their profit away, if setting up the same company in another country can reduce the tax liability by 90%. A case in the point, Schlumberger, the oil drilling company is moving to Dubai
The vast majority of corporations in the US don't pay any taxes at all so this argument doesn't make sense (and it makes it a bit comical that you think US corporations pay 40% of their profits in taxes). Companies are moving away even though they don't pay any taxes. Also, historically, all nations have had trade importation regulations which would encourage a company, especially one who wants to sell to the enticing American consumer, to stay. If no one is employed, no one can buy your product so it's not actually in a companies best interest to move away.
In fact, the most prosperous time in the US was '63 or so, when all the New Deal regulations were still strongly in place and might be considered the height of economic regulations. Post-WWII to the '80s saw the smallest gap between rich and poor; today the gap between the rich and the poor is as large if not larger than it was during the 20s ... an era that lead to the Great Depression, which is where we are now.
Last but not least, who said that the US supporting and bending over backwards to have "true multinational" corporations is the goal of the economy. I would argue that the purpose of the economy is to serve society - with jobs, products, education, health care - not the other way around.
5. What part of never kill the goose that lays the golden egg you don't understand?
Depends who you think the goose is. Clearly you think it's corporations. I'd argue it's consumers who make corporations profitable. So having an economic system that ensures capitalistic competition (which we currently don't have) and supports an ardent middle class, is in the best interest of the country.
6. This country was founded on the notion of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is pursuit of happiness, not provision of happiness.
I'd say it's pretty difficult to be happy when you cannot afford to eat. And I'm not sure how taxation really impedes your ability to pursue happiness ... unless you believe happiness is equivalent to money and then I just sort of feel sorry for you. Our founding fathers - you know, the ones that wrote the Declaration of Independence - also said "No taxation without representation" so they created a system of representation. Also, since the supreme court long ago ruled that a corporation is entitled to the benefits of being considered a "person" under the law; shouldn't corporations also be required to bare the burdens - such as taxation - of being a "person" under the law.
7. This is Capitalism, not Socialism. US is prosperous because of enormous wealth creation by Capitalism. Socialism didn't work in USSR, it didn't work in North Korea, it didn't work in East Germany, it didn't work in China (till it shunned its Socialist/Marxist policies in favor of Capitalism).
Well, we sort of have capitalism (just like China, the USSR, East Germany and North Korea sort of had socialism and just like China now sort of - very very sort of - now has capitalism). Capitalism is based on many, small entities competing which we generally don't have today given corporate consolidation, corporate welfare, and a systematic dismantling of consumer protections in the last 20 or so years. Also, Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, warned against the treachery of corporations in the same industry cohorting to manipulate the "invisible hand" which they do today, perfectly legally. There's nothing that says that the government does not play a role in a capitalist economy - in fact, that's a huge lesson we learned during the Great Depression and was the basis for the New Deal. Then there's NAFTA: a trade agreement, especially one that trumps government rules, is by definition not capitalistic. I could go on and on ...
Secondly, there's nothing to say that there aren't areas of society that should be socialized; areas that don't benefit from the motivation of profit - education or health care, for example. Moreover, even today, the amount of government money flowing through our economy - fire fighter, police, and teacher salaries, research grants, subsidies for corporations etc etc - is greater than the stock market, effectively making the US one of the most "socialist" countries in the world and thus making your argument absurd.
Also, our current "wealth" goes to about 1% of the population so in fact, your "capitalism" has made most Americans less wealthy.
In fact, I would argue that what we currently have - a system that both republicans and democrats support with ridiculous campaign contributions and corporate lobbyists - is much closer to fascism (by definition, a corporate run state) than socialism.
Post a Comment