1 year ago
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
28 April 2009
23 April 2009
Tit for Tat Trade Wars
One of my favorite business blogs, the Procurement-centric Spend Matters has a short piece on retaliatory tariffs today that they originally picked up from The Chicago Tribute. Seems like the Obama camp is jumping on board with some of Bush's final actions in office and expanding the retaliatory tariffs aimed at Europe over bans on US beef imports.
As background, the US is taking a stab at Europe for banning our hormone-laden beef by tripling import duties on such delicacies as much-loved Roquefort cheese. And now, the news comes through that Italian mineral waters, like my beloved San Pellegrino, are also targeted. While hardly a national tragedy, this is a serious punch in the gut for gourmands across the country and smacks of small-minded, catty politics. Let's hope we are able to move past this silliness and resume a normal flow of free trade quickly.
SpendMatters: Lose Lose -- Italian Mineral Water vs. U.S. Beef?
As background, the US is taking a stab at Europe for banning our hormone-laden beef by tripling import duties on such delicacies as much-loved Roquefort cheese. And now, the news comes through that Italian mineral waters, like my beloved San Pellegrino, are also targeted. While hardly a national tragedy, this is a serious punch in the gut for gourmands across the country and smacks of small-minded, catty politics. Let's hope we are able to move past this silliness and resume a normal flow of free trade quickly.
SpendMatters: Lose Lose -- Italian Mineral Water vs. U.S. Beef?
13 April 2009
A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Andrew Sullivan
ANDREW SULLIVAN: THINKING. OUT. LOUD. | More Intelligent Life
A great introduction/interview with influential and controversial blogger Andrew Sullivan. Two passages that particularly jumped out at me:
It was at this time that Sullivan discovered the philosopher who was to provide the timber of his conservatism—and the road map to many of his apparent contradictions. Michael Oakeshott was then a relatively obscure English philosopher in his 80s. Sullivan characterises his thought as “an anti-ideology, a nonprogramme, a way of looking at the world whose most perfect expression might be called inactivism”.
At the core of Oakeshott’s thought is the belief that human beings are extremely limited in what we can know. As Sullivan puts it: “While not denying that the truth exists, the [Oakeshottian] conservative is content to say merely that his grasp on it is always provisional. He begins with the assumption that the human mind is fallible, that it can delude itself, make mistakes, or see only so far ahead.” In light of this extreme fallibility, human beings should err on the side of inaction. Claims to certainty—in religion, or political ideology—are invariably hubristic. We have to build our politics on “the radical acceptance of what we cannot know for sure”.
"He believes his greatest future conflicts will centre on religion—the topic of his next book. He learned his Catholicism as an altar boy in East Grinstead. For him it is a sacramental religion, all about smell and sight and touch. Ritual is at its core, because “ritual has no point beyond itself. Only ritual can approximate the ineffability of the divine, enact its truth while not purporting to explain or capture it.”
Sullivan feels that this model of religion—filled with a sense of the mysterious, and the unknowability of God—has been replaced in both America and the Vatican by outright fundamentalism... “I remember feeling that without the structure of my faith, without my knowledge of its infallible truth, I might have been completely overwhelmed,” he says. Fundamentalism “was a way of sealing myself off from the world”. He sees American Christians turning to fundamentalism as a panicked response to change and doubt too. They have ended up pining for a theocracy that is contrary to his beloved US constitution and basic liberties for gay people.
He says his next battle is to “turn Christianity against the fundamentalists”. For him, “their certainty is the real blasphemy; their desire to control the lives of others the real heresy; their simple depiction of the Godhead proof positive they do not really understand him.” In the Gospels, the men who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness are often the furthest from God, he says, while Jesus urges people to see beyond fetishising rules and commandments to their own conscience. This is the flag Sullivan will carry into battle as a paladin against the Palins.
A great introduction/interview with influential and controversial blogger Andrew Sullivan. Two passages that particularly jumped out at me:
It was at this time that Sullivan discovered the philosopher who was to provide the timber of his conservatism—and the road map to many of his apparent contradictions. Michael Oakeshott was then a relatively obscure English philosopher in his 80s. Sullivan characterises his thought as “an anti-ideology, a nonprogramme, a way of looking at the world whose most perfect expression might be called inactivism”.
At the core of Oakeshott’s thought is the belief that human beings are extremely limited in what we can know. As Sullivan puts it: “While not denying that the truth exists, the [Oakeshottian] conservative is content to say merely that his grasp on it is always provisional. He begins with the assumption that the human mind is fallible, that it can delude itself, make mistakes, or see only so far ahead.” In light of this extreme fallibility, human beings should err on the side of inaction. Claims to certainty—in religion, or political ideology—are invariably hubristic. We have to build our politics on “the radical acceptance of what we cannot know for sure”.
"He believes his greatest future conflicts will centre on religion—the topic of his next book. He learned his Catholicism as an altar boy in East Grinstead. For him it is a sacramental religion, all about smell and sight and touch. Ritual is at its core, because “ritual has no point beyond itself. Only ritual can approximate the ineffability of the divine, enact its truth while not purporting to explain or capture it.”
Sullivan feels that this model of religion—filled with a sense of the mysterious, and the unknowability of God—has been replaced in both America and the Vatican by outright fundamentalism... “I remember feeling that without the structure of my faith, without my knowledge of its infallible truth, I might have been completely overwhelmed,” he says. Fundamentalism “was a way of sealing myself off from the world”. He sees American Christians turning to fundamentalism as a panicked response to change and doubt too. They have ended up pining for a theocracy that is contrary to his beloved US constitution and basic liberties for gay people.
He says his next battle is to “turn Christianity against the fundamentalists”. For him, “their certainty is the real blasphemy; their desire to control the lives of others the real heresy; their simple depiction of the Godhead proof positive they do not really understand him.” In the Gospels, the men who set themselves up as arbiters of moral correctness are often the furthest from God, he says, while Jesus urges people to see beyond fetishising rules and commandments to their own conscience. This is the flag Sullivan will carry into battle as a paladin against the Palins.
10 April 2009
American Exceptionalism
Since the puritans, America has often envisioned itself as a "city upon a hill," above the riff raff and muck of the rest of the world. At times, this has been true, at others, we are down there in the mire as deep as just about any other country across the globe.
Obama's nominee for legal adviser to the US Department of State brings a refreshing point of view to this perception--Koh appears to be a strong advocate of transnationalism, or the notion that American courts should honor and apply the laws of other nations in our own courts. Now, I readily admit fully applying this theory could have disastrous results, but at least including bodies of foreign law as meaningful precedent should be a more commonly used tactic that we have seen yet in this day and age. As Dean of Yale Law School, Koh seems to be quite competent and up to the job--I hope the difficult confirmation hearings ahead go in his favor.
The Fight Over Harold Koh: News Desk: Online Only: The New Yorker
Obama's nominee for legal adviser to the US Department of State brings a refreshing point of view to this perception--Koh appears to be a strong advocate of transnationalism, or the notion that American courts should honor and apply the laws of other nations in our own courts. Now, I readily admit fully applying this theory could have disastrous results, but at least including bodies of foreign law as meaningful precedent should be a more commonly used tactic that we have seen yet in this day and age. As Dean of Yale Law School, Koh seems to be quite competent and up to the job--I hope the difficult confirmation hearings ahead go in his favor.
The Fight Over Harold Koh: News Desk: Online Only: The New Yorker
12 November 2008
Post-Analysis
John McCain's election | The unhappy warrior | The Economist
A fine assessment and summary of Arizona's senator after his failed bid.
A fine assessment and summary of Arizona's senator after his failed bid.
15 May 2008
Face/Off
With writing like this, Kamiya could go head to head with O'Reilly's foamy, rabid rants... this stuff is just delicious, starting right off with the title:
Poetry vs. fear | Salon: "Call it the Dumbshit Factor, the Nobody Home Problem, the Absentee Ballots from Mars Issue. Whatever you call it, it's the Republicans' built-in advantage this fall. If you're not in the 'reality-based community' infamously derided by a senior Bush official, then you won't care if Iraq is a quagmire and the Middle East is a powder keg and the country is falling apart and the economy is on the verge of a depression and gas is $4.30 a gallon. You won't care because you won't know, or if you know you'll blame it all on liberals, feminazis, evil bureaucrats and gays. As you watch Fox News from your Barcalounger orbiting somewhere beyond the confines of space, time and logic, you will vote for the old white guy with the Anglo-Saxon name, not a Muslim terrorist sympathizer who helped his cousin attack America."
A bit harsh, but perhaps not so undeserved...
Poetry vs. fear | Salon: "Call it the Dumbshit Factor, the Nobody Home Problem, the Absentee Ballots from Mars Issue. Whatever you call it, it's the Republicans' built-in advantage this fall. If you're not in the 'reality-based community' infamously derided by a senior Bush official, then you won't care if Iraq is a quagmire and the Middle East is a powder keg and the country is falling apart and the economy is on the verge of a depression and gas is $4.30 a gallon. You won't care because you won't know, or if you know you'll blame it all on liberals, feminazis, evil bureaucrats and gays. As you watch Fox News from your Barcalounger orbiting somewhere beyond the confines of space, time and logic, you will vote for the old white guy with the Anglo-Saxon name, not a Muslim terrorist sympathizer who helped his cousin attack America."
A bit harsh, but perhaps not so undeserved...
23 April 2008
Lexington | A bitter pill
Lexington | A bitter pill | Economist.com: "The war between “ordinary people” and “condescending elites” is one of the great themes of American politics. “Ordinary people” are real Americans: they worship God, revere America and love their families. “Condescending elites” are crypto-Europeans—the sort of people who eat arugula, do sissified jobs in offices and universities, and scheme to ban guns and legalise gay marriage. Mr Obama not only put himself firmly on the “wrong” side of this great cultural divide; he implied that “ordinary Americans” are the victims of “false consciousness” for not falling in love with him."
On one hand, I love this column, particularly because it so clearly illuminates an anti-intellectual streak that runs thick through modern American society. However, politics has been for time immemorial a bit of a race to the bottom in the rush to make comforting promises and rail against the "other." The cold logical benefits of free trade don't sell well to the struggling masses on the campaign trail. Still, as a self-identified crypto-European (or at least wannabe), much unnerves me about these seemingly all too common attacks against the intelligent and self-made man, particularly when so many others in the race are overlooked, despite their often more sheltered, inherited privilege status.
At the same time, my stomach turns when man does forget his roots, whether those roots are Small Town, USA or the dust of the Rift Valley. Considering the high regard Americans so often place on their heritage, we often face our more immediate past with no small measure of discomfort and awkward shuffling. So perhaps Barack has been forgetful about some of the roads upon which this life has led him, and so too the author of this column is quick to reprimand the Winesburg, Ohios which sprawl across the American landscape as derelict relics of a bygone age, surviving merely on pork barrel politics and subsidies. This is a rash and crude generalization, albeit with grains of truth.
Who then is more in the wrong? I do not know--I only know that a bit more respect and empathy flowing in both directions would work a world of good upon America's interior monologue. We then need not be so bitter and spiteful.
On one hand, I love this column, particularly because it so clearly illuminates an anti-intellectual streak that runs thick through modern American society. However, politics has been for time immemorial a bit of a race to the bottom in the rush to make comforting promises and rail against the "other." The cold logical benefits of free trade don't sell well to the struggling masses on the campaign trail. Still, as a self-identified crypto-European (or at least wannabe), much unnerves me about these seemingly all too common attacks against the intelligent and self-made man, particularly when so many others in the race are overlooked, despite their often more sheltered, inherited privilege status.
At the same time, my stomach turns when man does forget his roots, whether those roots are Small Town, USA or the dust of the Rift Valley. Considering the high regard Americans so often place on their heritage, we often face our more immediate past with no small measure of discomfort and awkward shuffling. So perhaps Barack has been forgetful about some of the roads upon which this life has led him, and so too the author of this column is quick to reprimand the Winesburg, Ohios which sprawl across the American landscape as derelict relics of a bygone age, surviving merely on pork barrel politics and subsidies. This is a rash and crude generalization, albeit with grains of truth.
Who then is more in the wrong? I do not know--I only know that a bit more respect and empathy flowing in both directions would work a world of good upon America's interior monologue. We then need not be so bitter and spiteful.
17 March 2008
Regulation
Interesting... we may have witnessed quite a turning point in the policy environment with the somber events of this past weekend.
Bear Stearns | Bear’s pits | Economist.com: "The Fed’s decision to introduce loans to brokers as well as regulated banks marks a significant shift in policy, and raises the question of whether the former should now be subject to more stringent regulation in return. But the Fed’s widening role is a sign of its fears that other pins might fall. Merrill Lynch looks decidedly wobbly. Lehman has lots of toxic mortgage securities on its books. Lehman's shares plunged on Monday morning but it is not the only one facing trouble. All the other big investment banks will be under intense funding pressure in the coming days. And when trading partners start to pull away, a rapid chain reaction can begin. In effect, with Bear Stearns being sold for such a low price, including its valuable office property, the price of the securities portfolio is zero."
Bear Stearns | Bear’s pits | Economist.com: "The Fed’s decision to introduce loans to brokers as well as regulated banks marks a significant shift in policy, and raises the question of whether the former should now be subject to more stringent regulation in return. But the Fed’s widening role is a sign of its fears that other pins might fall. Merrill Lynch looks decidedly wobbly. Lehman has lots of toxic mortgage securities on its books. Lehman's shares plunged on Monday morning but it is not the only one facing trouble. All the other big investment banks will be under intense funding pressure in the coming days. And when trading partners start to pull away, a rapid chain reaction can begin. In effect, with Bear Stearns being sold for such a low price, including its valuable office property, the price of the securities portfolio is zero."
30 April 2007
Save the Streams
All you Pandora and Last.FM fans--please help!
Savenetradio.org
Curious for more info? Read what David Byrne (Talking Heads) has to say about this urgent issue: David Byrne's Journal
Savenetradio.org
Curious for more info? Read what David Byrne (Talking Heads) has to say about this urgent issue: David Byrne's Journal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
