political opposite day
No, I am not about to make a post coming out as a closet Obama supporter. The title of this post says "opposite", not "insanity". I am, however, about to bash Bill O'Reilly's latest article for being too liberal and agree with a New York Times op-ed piece. I know, up is down, black is white, everything has gone topsy turvy.
So let us start with the New York Times piece about Obama, Kennedy, Krushcev and negotiating with our enemies.
Obama: If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.
I've regularly admitted that history is not my strong suit, having waited to be interested in it until after I was done with school. So I'll admit, this article presented some new information to me.
Apparently, the Kennedy-Kruschev meeting is not something Obama should be holding up as a model for why he should have tea with the likes of Ahmadinejad. Despite being advised not to go tallk with him, Kennedy went anyway and came away with his tail between his legs. American diplomats at the meeting called it a disaster, saying that Kennedy seemed inexperienced and immature. Kennedy himself called it the roughest meeting of his life and stated "[Kruschev] just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him."
So let me ask this, being the historically ignorant person that I am. Has meeting for a chat with our enemies with zero preconditions ever turned out well? I mean, as an article noted recently (can't recall which), it's not like Obama would sit down with Ahmadinejad and by some wonderful argument convince him that Israel should not, in fact, be wiped off the map, or that he should not develop nuclear weapons (sorry..."energy"). You can't reason with someone like that. Any meaningful discussion would HAVE to include some sort of negotiation and ultimately concession from us or the entire meeting would be pointless. That's the idea of preconditions, as I understand it. You go in with the understanding that certain things are without question off the table. I understand wanting to engage in communication as a gesture to restore our image and blah blah blah, but why the zero preconditions? Surely he can concede that there are some things that are not fair game for negotiations. So why not take them off the table?
The more I think about his foreign policy, the more I agree with his detractors: it's just plain naive. He sounds more inexperienced (and is, in terms of actual political experience, by the way) than Kennedy was with Kruschev to me.
Next, we'll move to Bill and his surprisingly liberal advice on how we should deal with oil prices.
He starts out by stating that both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for high gas prices, doing little to stop it. Okay, fair enough. Plus, he outlines one of the major reasons ethanol is idiotic. There are many things into which a society could invest R&D with the hopes of converting it to fuel. One of the main pillars of our food supply would not be high on a well-reasoned list. So far so good. Plus, he decries the protectionist tariffs that prevent us from getting Sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Free trade! Hooray! You'd think I'd agree wholeheartedly with this stuff (actually, to this point, I do).
The point at which we must part ways is his "tough love solution" to high gas prices:
Why people think they are smarter than the market I'll never know. Here's the thing with messing with the market. There are almost ALWAYS unintended consequences. The economic market isn't a sound board with little sliders acting independently, as seen by the brilliant idea of pushing to use corn as a source of fuel. If we let the government do something so heavy handed as to meddle in the business decisions of auto manufacturers and mandate a certain MPG level, what will the unintended consequences be? One scenario: auto makers shift engineers and researchers to designing 30mpg autos. This undoubtedly changes their business plan. They don't make their forecasted numbers. Lay offs. More economic downturn. Not to mention, the price of the R&D going into the new engines will certainly be passed along to the customers. I'm no economist, so this is just one theory I'm spitballing, but it seems pretty plausible to me. The Law of Unintended Consequences may not be an actual scientific law, but it's darn near it.
How about this idea? Let the consumers respond to the pressure of high gas prices. There are vehicles available well above 30mpg. I just bought a car a few months ago. I actually considered buying a hybrid. To me, the cost-benefit wasn't worth it. But it is certainly becoming more and more worth it to more and more people. When other auto manufacturers see their customers going to hybrids, this will give them incentive to make hybrids. True, it may not happen as quickly. But instead of it being some government mandate that has who knows what kind of consequences, it will be you and me voting with our pocketbooks. It works.
I could rant about the rest of the list, but you get the gist. In general, the government has no business directing the affairs of private businesses. In my industry (healthcare), it is the government's business, because one of the few legitimate responsibilities of government is to protect the citizenry. For that matter, regulating safety features in the automobiles also makes sense. Regulating a feature set with mainly (or arguably, only) economic ramifications takes the power of the people in the marketplace out of their hands.
Whew. Enough political ranting for one day.
So let us start with the New York Times piece about Obama, Kennedy, Krushcev and negotiating with our enemies.
Obama: If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.
I've regularly admitted that history is not my strong suit, having waited to be interested in it until after I was done with school. So I'll admit, this article presented some new information to me.
Apparently, the Kennedy-Kruschev meeting is not something Obama should be holding up as a model for why he should have tea with the likes of Ahmadinejad. Despite being advised not to go tallk with him, Kennedy went anyway and came away with his tail between his legs. American diplomats at the meeting called it a disaster, saying that Kennedy seemed inexperienced and immature. Kennedy himself called it the roughest meeting of his life and stated "[Kruschev] just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him."
So let me ask this, being the historically ignorant person that I am. Has meeting for a chat with our enemies with zero preconditions ever turned out well? I mean, as an article noted recently (can't recall which), it's not like Obama would sit down with Ahmadinejad and by some wonderful argument convince him that Israel should not, in fact, be wiped off the map, or that he should not develop nuclear weapons (sorry..."energy"). You can't reason with someone like that. Any meaningful discussion would HAVE to include some sort of negotiation and ultimately concession from us or the entire meeting would be pointless. That's the idea of preconditions, as I understand it. You go in with the understanding that certain things are without question off the table. I understand wanting to engage in communication as a gesture to restore our image and blah blah blah, but why the zero preconditions? Surely he can concede that there are some things that are not fair game for negotiations. So why not take them off the table?
The more I think about his foreign policy, the more I agree with his detractors: it's just plain naive. He sounds more inexperienced (and is, in terms of actual political experience, by the way) than Kennedy was with Kruschev to me.
Next, we'll move to Bill and his surprisingly liberal advice on how we should deal with oil prices.
He starts out by stating that both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for high gas prices, doing little to stop it. Okay, fair enough. Plus, he outlines one of the major reasons ethanol is idiotic. There are many things into which a society could invest R&D with the hopes of converting it to fuel. One of the main pillars of our food supply would not be high on a well-reasoned list. So far so good. Plus, he decries the protectionist tariffs that prevent us from getting Sugar-based ethanol from Brazil. Free trade! Hooray! You'd think I'd agree wholeheartedly with this stuff (actually, to this point, I do).
The point at which we must part ways is his "tough love solution" to high gas prices:
- All American made vehicles must get 30MPG by 2010 or pay a major tax surcharge to the government.
- Oil and commodity speculators must put up 50% of their transactions in cash. That would weed out some of the gamblers who are manipulating the market.
- American oil companies must supply the federal government with a written explanation every time they raise the price of gas and oil.
- Americans would be asked to cut back at least 10% on leisure driving and not to buy gas at all on Mondays.
Why people think they are smarter than the market I'll never know. Here's the thing with messing with the market. There are almost ALWAYS unintended consequences. The economic market isn't a sound board with little sliders acting independently, as seen by the brilliant idea of pushing to use corn as a source of fuel. If we let the government do something so heavy handed as to meddle in the business decisions of auto manufacturers and mandate a certain MPG level, what will the unintended consequences be? One scenario: auto makers shift engineers and researchers to designing 30mpg autos. This undoubtedly changes their business plan. They don't make their forecasted numbers. Lay offs. More economic downturn. Not to mention, the price of the R&D going into the new engines will certainly be passed along to the customers. I'm no economist, so this is just one theory I'm spitballing, but it seems pretty plausible to me. The Law of Unintended Consequences may not be an actual scientific law, but it's darn near it.
How about this idea? Let the consumers respond to the pressure of high gas prices. There are vehicles available well above 30mpg. I just bought a car a few months ago. I actually considered buying a hybrid. To me, the cost-benefit wasn't worth it. But it is certainly becoming more and more worth it to more and more people. When other auto manufacturers see their customers going to hybrids, this will give them incentive to make hybrids. True, it may not happen as quickly. But instead of it being some government mandate that has who knows what kind of consequences, it will be you and me voting with our pocketbooks. It works.
I could rant about the rest of the list, but you get the gist. In general, the government has no business directing the affairs of private businesses. In my industry (healthcare), it is the government's business, because one of the few legitimate responsibilities of government is to protect the citizenry. For that matter, regulating safety features in the automobiles also makes sense. Regulating a feature set with mainly (or arguably, only) economic ramifications takes the power of the people in the marketplace out of their hands.
Whew. Enough political ranting for one day.