Posts
Salon.com | We wouldn't want to inflame anti-American sentiment: "There are many bizarre aspects to Obama's decision to try to suppress evidence of America's detainee abuse, beginning with the newfound willingness of so many people to say: "We want our leaders to suppress information that reflects poorly on what our government does." One would think that it would be impossible to train a citizenry to be grateful to political officials for concealing evidence of government wrongdoing, or to accept the idea that evidence that reflects poorly on the conduct of political leaders should, for that reason alone, be covered-up: "Obama and his military commanders decide when it's best that we're kept in the dark, and I'm thankful when they keep from me things that reflect poorly on my government because I trust them to decide what I should and should not know." It's the fantasy of every political leader to have a citizenry willing to think that way ("I know it's totally unrealistic, but wouldn't it be great if we could actually convince people that it's for their own good when we cover-up evidence of government crimes?").
But what is ultimately even more amazing is the claim that suppressing these photographs is necessary to prevent an inflammation of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world generally and Afghanistan specifically."
"We're currently occupying two Muslim countries. We're killing civilians regularly (as usual) -- with airplanes and unmanned sky robots. We're imprisoning tens of thousands of Muslims with no trial, for years. Our government continues to insist that it has the power to abduct people -- virtually all Muslim -- ship them to Bagram, put them in cages, and keep them there indefinitely with no charges of any kind. We're denying our torture victims any ability to obtain justice for what was done to them by insisting that the way we tortured them is a "state secret" and that we need to "look to the future." We provide Israel with the arms and money used to do things like devastate Gaza. Independent of whether any or all of these policies are justifiable, the extent to which those actions "inflame anti-American sentiment" is impossible to overstate.
And now, the very same people who are doing all of that are claiming that they must suppress evidence of our government's abuse of detainees because to allow the evidence to be seen would "inflame anti-American sentiment." It's not hard to believe that releasing the photos would do so to some extent -- people generally consider it a bad thing to torture and brutally abuse helpless detainees -- but compared to everything else we're doing, the notion that releasing or concealing these photos would make an appreciable difference in terms of how we're perceived in the Muslim world is laughable on its face.
Moreover, isn't it rather obvious that Obama's decision to hide this evidence -- certain to be a prominent news story in the Muslim world, and justifiably so -- will itself inflame anti-American sentiment? It's not exactly a compelling advertisement for the virtues of transparency, honesty and open government. What do you think the impact is when we announce to the world: "What we did is so heinous that we're going to suppress the evidence?" Some Americans might be grateful to Obama for hiding evidence of what we did to detainees, but that is unlikely to be the reaction of people around the world.
If we're actually worried about inflaming anti-American sentiment and endangering our troops, we might want to re-consider whether we should keep doing the things that actually spawn "anti-American sentiment" and put American soldiers in danger. We might, for instance, want to stop invading, bombing and occupying Muslim countries and imprisoning their citizens with no charges by the thousands. But exploiting concerns over "anti-American sentiment" to vest our own government leaders with the power to cover-up evidence of wrongdoing is as incoherent as it is dangerous. Who actually thinks that the solution to anti-American sentiment is to hide evidence of our wrongdoing rather than ceasing the conduct that causes that sentiment in the first place?"
Friday, May 22, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Bibles Unbound
Bibles Unbound: "persecuted Christians from around the world are gathering names and addresses from their local communities. These names are then submitted to Bibles Unbound where members have the opportunity to mail New Testaments in the appropriate language directly to the field. This unique program gives you the ability to stand alongside our persecuted brothers and sisters and help create a witness for Jesus Christ in hostile lands right from your own home."
Monday, May 18, 2009
Is Sully Too Old to Fly? - Christopher Westley - Mises Institute
Is Sully Too Old to Fly? - Christopher Westley - Mises Institute: "Many Sully Sullenbergers have been forced to retire before Congress extended the retirement age, based on the belief that US airlines, if allowed to make rules on their own, would allow unhealthy or incompetent pilots to man their expensive aircraft, regardless of age. That such decisions are better made by government officials, separated from the industry and bearing no direct cost if they decide incorrectly, is a scandal. Why no outrage from foes of age discrimination when the perpetrator is the state itself? Government control of hiring in the private sector is a characteristic of fascism, not capitalism."
Friday, May 15, 2009
"Socking Stocks" by Jim Powell (Cato Institute: Commentary)
"Socking Stocks" by Jim Powell (Cato Institute: Commentary): "Ironically, Obama's increased corporate taxes would probably lead more Americans to seek higher returns by investing in offshore-based companies. The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis says US investors hold some $5.1 trillion worth of stock in offshore-based companies. These assets have appreciated as foreign currencies have risen against the dollar, and many Americans have invested in them as a means to diversify and protect themselves from dollar devaluation."
"Corporations don't really pay taxes anyway. Like other costs of doing business, they pass them on to consumers."
"Corporations don't really pay taxes anyway. Like other costs of doing business, they pass them on to consumers."
"In Defense Of Tax Havens" by Daniel J. Mitchell (Cato Institute: Commentary)
"In Defense Of Tax Havens" by Daniel J. Mitchell (Cato Institute: Commentary): "They argue that if an American firm can earn money in Ireland and only pay 12.5% tax, this gives them an incentive to close down factories in America and ship them overseas.
Since nearly 90% of what American companies produce overseas is sold overseas, according to Commerce Department data, there's not much evidence that this is happening. But there's actually some truth to this argument. If a company can save money by building widgets in Ireland and selling them to the U.S. market, then we shouldn't be surprised that some of them will consider that option.
But this does not mean the president's proposal might save some American jobs. If deferral is eliminated, that may prevent an American company from taking advantage of a profitable opportunity to build a factory in some place like Ireland. But U.S. tax law does not constrain foreign companies operating in foreign countries. So there would be nothing to prevent a Dutch company from taking advantage of that profitable Irish opportunity. And since a foreign-based company can ship goods into the U.S. market under the same rules as a U.S. company's foreign subsidiary, worldwide taxation does not insulate America from overseas competition. It simply means that foreign companies get the business and earn the profits."
Since nearly 90% of what American companies produce overseas is sold overseas, according to Commerce Department data, there's not much evidence that this is happening. But there's actually some truth to this argument. If a company can save money by building widgets in Ireland and selling them to the U.S. market, then we shouldn't be surprised that some of them will consider that option.
But this does not mean the president's proposal might save some American jobs. If deferral is eliminated, that may prevent an American company from taking advantage of a profitable opportunity to build a factory in some place like Ireland. But U.S. tax law does not constrain foreign companies operating in foreign countries. So there would be nothing to prevent a Dutch company from taking advantage of that profitable Irish opportunity. And since a foreign-based company can ship goods into the U.S. market under the same rules as a U.S. company's foreign subsidiary, worldwide taxation does not insulate America from overseas competition. It simply means that foreign companies get the business and earn the profits."
"Politics Plays Role in Bailout Mania" by Will Wilkinson (Cato Institute: Commentary)
"Politics Plays Role in Bailout Mania" by Will Wilkinson (Cato Institute: Commentary): "'I don't want to run the auto companies, and I don't want to run banks,' President Obama said last week during a prime-time press conference on the fate of Detroit. He may not want to, but the Obama administration is effectively running auto companies and banks. And the president does get a bit cranky when he tells the private sector to jump and it doesn't jump.
In a rare flash of anger, Obama lashed out at several Chrysler investors who refused to sign on to the administration's restructuring plan for the automaker. The plan would have required senior investors, who are usually first in line in bankruptcy proceedings, to take big losses while more junior investors, including the UAW, were offered rather more generous terms.
The failure of the plan has left Chrysler no other option than to file for bankruptcy. But why is the president involved at all in deciding who gets what in the breakup of an auto company?"
"When the government gets its finger in every pie, who gets what piece becomes a political decision. We may want to trust our leaders to be dispassionate stewards of the public interest, but politicians — and our over-empowered executive is a politician — will use whatever discretion is at hand to reward their constituencies."
In a rare flash of anger, Obama lashed out at several Chrysler investors who refused to sign on to the administration's restructuring plan for the automaker. The plan would have required senior investors, who are usually first in line in bankruptcy proceedings, to take big losses while more junior investors, including the UAW, were offered rather more generous terms.
The failure of the plan has left Chrysler no other option than to file for bankruptcy. But why is the president involved at all in deciding who gets what in the breakup of an auto company?"
"When the government gets its finger in every pie, who gets what piece becomes a political decision. We may want to trust our leaders to be dispassionate stewards of the public interest, but politicians — and our over-empowered executive is a politician — will use whatever discretion is at hand to reward their constituencies."
Creating Disequilibrium, and Benefiting Society - Isaac M. Morehouse - Mises Institute
Creating Disequilibrium, and Benefiting Society - Isaac M. Morehouse - Mises Institute: "Classical economists often treated economic growth as a mechanistic operation that happened at a stable rate as a result of unchanging levels of investment and production — as if economies simply grew on their own as long as production was steady and inputs were not disrupted. The problem with this view is that, quite simply, the real world doesn't work that way. In 1911, economist Joseph Schumpeter's Theory of Economic Development radically changed this view, and his insights are still relevant today.
Schumpeter stressed the role of the entrepreneur in economic growth and argued that, far from a static maintenance of equilibrium in production, it was the entrepreneurial ability to cause disequilibrium that created wealth. The constant innovation of these economic actors shakes the economy up, breaking down old methods and building up newer and better ones.
It's not just increases in production that create wealth but a radical reforming of the way production itself is done. Think Henry Ford's assembly line. Such entrepreneurial innovations disrupt the unrealistic ideal of a stationary economy. They do destroy the old order — like the classic example of buggy makers losing their jobs when the automobile took hold — but they cause growth because what they create is more valuable than what they replace. Can you imagine halting the progress of the automobile in order to preserve buggy makers?"
"The entrepreneur, by seeing and acting on different combinations of existing knowledge, products, and services, disrupts the economic order and creates growth. There is evidence of this "creative destruction" all around us: every year millions of jobs are created and destroyed, yet the overall long-term trend is continued economic growth.
$25 $20
Finally a shirt to fight back!
The growth could not happen without both creation and destruction; it is the driver of growth, not a problem to be solved. If the economy were static — if jobs were never lost, prices never shifted up or down, investments never enjoyed large profits or major losses — we would not live in a stable utopia but a stagnant subsistence economy.
Don't be afraid to disrupt the economy. Look for ways that things can be done differently — goods, services, and production methods that can be rearranged, new technologies that can be better used. Right now, as the economy reshuffles, there are more opportunities to generate change than ever — the kind of dynamic change that we need to grow out of this slump.
Don't just sit there, create some disequilibrium!"
Schumpeter stressed the role of the entrepreneur in economic growth and argued that, far from a static maintenance of equilibrium in production, it was the entrepreneurial ability to cause disequilibrium that created wealth. The constant innovation of these economic actors shakes the economy up, breaking down old methods and building up newer and better ones.
It's not just increases in production that create wealth but a radical reforming of the way production itself is done. Think Henry Ford's assembly line. Such entrepreneurial innovations disrupt the unrealistic ideal of a stationary economy. They do destroy the old order — like the classic example of buggy makers losing their jobs when the automobile took hold — but they cause growth because what they create is more valuable than what they replace. Can you imagine halting the progress of the automobile in order to preserve buggy makers?"
"The entrepreneur, by seeing and acting on different combinations of existing knowledge, products, and services, disrupts the economic order and creates growth. There is evidence of this "creative destruction" all around us: every year millions of jobs are created and destroyed, yet the overall long-term trend is continued economic growth.
$25 $20
Finally a shirt to fight back!
The growth could not happen without both creation and destruction; it is the driver of growth, not a problem to be solved. If the economy were static — if jobs were never lost, prices never shifted up or down, investments never enjoyed large profits or major losses — we would not live in a stable utopia but a stagnant subsistence economy.
Don't be afraid to disrupt the economy. Look for ways that things can be done differently — goods, services, and production methods that can be rearranged, new technologies that can be better used. Right now, as the economy reshuffles, there are more opportunities to generate change than ever — the kind of dynamic change that we need to grow out of this slump.
Don't just sit there, create some disequilibrium!"
"Rangoon's Renaissance" by Doug Bandow (Cato Institute: Commentary)
"Rangoon's Renaissance" by Doug Bandow (Cato Institute: Commentary): "John Holmes, UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, opined: 'I'm not sure that invading Burma would be a very sensible option.' And the SPDC gradually opened the delta to Western aid even as it tried to profit from the international community's activities. Three months later Holmes reported that 'a much-feared second wave of deaths from starvation or disease has not happened.' He also said that 'This is now a normal international-relief operation.'
The Burmese military's turnaround led some NGOs to develop a 'strange new respect' for the SPDC. For instance, one unnamed UN program director told the New York Times that after the Burmese recognized they could not handle the disaster, 'they did a lot. A huge national response occurred.' Last October the International Crisis Group reported that developments since the storm
Since then the regime has become even more responsive (though not, of course, more democratic). Twice as many aid workers are now active in the delta as before Cyclone Nargis. A former Oxfam adviser on Burma opines: "The overall response of the government has been remarkable. They are 'getting it' more and more each day that they are involved in the recovery process." Frank Smithuis of Doctors Without Borders told the New York Times: "You can work here very well, and to say that you can't is a lie." Indeed, "the military at times has actually been quite helpful to us." "
The Burmese military's turnaround led some NGOs to develop a 'strange new respect' for the SPDC. For instance, one unnamed UN program director told the New York Times that after the Burmese recognized they could not handle the disaster, 'they did a lot. A huge national response occurred.' Last October the International Crisis Group reported that developments since the storm
show that it is possible to work with the military regime on humanitarian issues. Communication between the government and international agencies has improved. Visas and travel permits today are easier and faster to get than before. Requirements for the launch of new aid projects have been eased. By and large, the authorities are making efforts to facilitate aid, including allowing a substantial role for civil society.
Since then the regime has become even more responsive (though not, of course, more democratic). Twice as many aid workers are now active in the delta as before Cyclone Nargis. A former Oxfam adviser on Burma opines: "The overall response of the government has been remarkable. They are 'getting it' more and more each day that they are involved in the recovery process." Frank Smithuis of Doctors Without Borders told the New York Times: "You can work here very well, and to say that you can't is a lie." Indeed, "the military at times has actually been quite helpful to us." "
What Keeps Us Safe? - Mark Thornton - Mises Institute
What Keeps Us Safe? - Mark Thornton - Mises Institute: "Most people don't realize that dozens of products in their homes — toasters, fire extinguishers, space heaters, televisions, etc. — have been tested by the Underwriters Lab for safety. The Lab also tests items like bulletproof vests, electric blankets, commercial ice-cream machines, and chicken de-beakers, among thousands of other products.
But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned, financed, and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its services. It thrives — and makes our lives safer — by the power of its excellent reputation."
"The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that, without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit without regard for safety; thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The government, according to this view, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing fatal accidents.
The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate itself, and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates without oversight."
"The Lab was the first to set standards for certifying the safety of pilots and planes before the government intervened. It set the standards for building materials, fire-fighting equipment, air conditioners, and household chemicals. It employs safecrackers and pyrotechnicians to test safes, and a variety of unique machines and devices to test thousands of other products each year. It has been testing multicolored Christmas lights since 1905, and entered the building-code business right after the San Francisco earthquake of 1906."
"Its effectiveness in determining safety standards (even for brand-new products) and maintaining them over time has generated an interesting result. Many government regulations, especially at the state level, merely mimic the building codes and insurance requirements of the Lab."
But the Lab isn't an arm of the government. It is privately owned, financed, and operated. No one is compelled by force of law to use its services. It thrives — and makes our lives safer — by the power of its excellent reputation."
"The very existence of the Lab debunks the common civics-text view that, without government intervention, private businesses would seek profit without regard for safety; thus, bureaucrats have to police markets to impose a balance between private interests and the common good. The government, according to this view, is the only thing standing between us and unceasing fatal accidents.
The truth is the opposite. The market is well equipped to regulate itself, and does a fine job of it. It's the government that operates without oversight."
"The Lab was the first to set standards for certifying the safety of pilots and planes before the government intervened. It set the standards for building materials, fire-fighting equipment, air conditioners, and household chemicals. It employs safecrackers and pyrotechnicians to test safes, and a variety of unique machines and devices to test thousands of other products each year. It has been testing multicolored Christmas lights since 1905, and entered the building-code business right after the San Francisco earthquake of 1906."
"Its effectiveness in determining safety standards (even for brand-new products) and maintaining them over time has generated an interesting result. Many government regulations, especially at the state level, merely mimic the building codes and insurance requirements of the Lab."
"Obama Must Move beyond Pseudo-Events" by Leon T. Hadar (Cato Institute: Commentary)
"Obama Must Move beyond Pseudo-Events" by Leon T. Hadar (Cato Institute: Commentary): "The Bush administration's belligerent style of managing American relations with both friends and foes, so full of empty bravado and a crusading militaristic spirit, has been one of the reasons for the erosion in US global prestige in the last eight years. Obama's emphasis on quiet diplomacy and international engagement that is backed by a genuine sense of confidence and a strong military should prove to be more effective in promoting US interests abroad.
One could imagine, for example, Obama's predecessor responding to the recent pirate attack off the coast of Somalia by labeling the pirates as 'Islamofascists,' adding them to the list of members of Axis of Evil, and threatening tough American military retaliation. By contrast, Obama's measured response followed by a low-key but precise military action is the kind of cool approach one expects from American presidents. That the leader of the most powerful country in the world should be willing to listen to, and treat with respect, foreign critics of American policy is a sign of self-assurance — not timidity — that Americans should welcome."
One could imagine, for example, Obama's predecessor responding to the recent pirate attack off the coast of Somalia by labeling the pirates as 'Islamofascists,' adding them to the list of members of Axis of Evil, and threatening tough American military retaliation. By contrast, Obama's measured response followed by a low-key but precise military action is the kind of cool approach one expects from American presidents. That the leader of the most powerful country in the world should be willing to listen to, and treat with respect, foreign critics of American policy is a sign of self-assurance — not timidity — that Americans should welcome."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)