Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Some Random Thoughts

Hi Everyone,

Here are some snippets of stuff I've been thinking about lately:

Random Thought 1: There are still some people out there who think that the outcome of the Presidential election will not have much effect on either foreign or domestic policies. More often than not I suspect this is a symptom of a cognitive dissonance problem. Think about some of the postings on this blog. US support for family planning and health care around the world would dramatically change for the better under a Democrat. US foreign policy would dramatically shift away from the provocative and confrontational focus of the current administration to the more flexible approach of administrations past (both Republican and Democrat). A Democratic President would likely not mention Gay marriage. The delegation of government functions (such as a welfare provision and social services) to religious groups would stop or at least be more closely regulated so as to prevent tax payer supported proselytization. The list goes on and on. There are differences. Saying there aren't any is just an excuse for being self-indulgently apathetic.

Random Thought 2: A lot of Bush supporters getting interviewed on TV say things like, "well, I don't agree with a lot of his positions but at least I know where he stands so I'm going to vote for him." Here is what I would say to such people: If you know where Bush stands and you don't like where he stands why wouldn't you take your chances with the other guy?

Random Thought 3: I've seen some articles on the site lately about China becoming a super power. Pure alarmist nonsense. The U.S. spends more money on its military than the next six biggest spenders combined. Four of the next six are in NATO or similarly close allies to the USA. The other two are Russia and China (which are awkward allies). Also, China has a HUGE but poorly equipped army with small well equipped units mixed in. Its navy is only capable of effective operation close to home bases. Its logistics capability is insufficient to allow China to project military power abroad. China is big but it is far from being a global influence.

Comments? Discussion?

1 comment:

US West said...

On point 1: I just heard Ed Koch tell Jon Stewart that he is endorsing Bush because he doesn't think John Kerry would be as good in the War on Terror. He "qualified" this statement my saying that he disagrees with Bush on every domestic issue. But this terror issue is more important than anything. I was stunned. Considering that the Bush Administration, through its poor policy choices, has only reinvigorated terrorism! Even Iran is endorsing Bush because, they say it is good for them! HELLO!

Point 2: Foreign policy would be different on many fronts. People have gotten so hooked on Iraqi, they forget about North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. I know Kerry would rescind the Mexico City rule, which bans USAID and other such funding from going to Non-Profit orgs that discuss abortion (I am bummed that no one bothered to pick up on my comments on that issue!). I bet the Kyoto Protocol would get a second look, considering that we will miss out on the new market in emissions trading. North Korea would move up the priority list, as would the Israeli- Palestinian issue. And I know people say that no one will convince France and Germany to send troops to Iraq, not even Kerry. But they are missing the point. It isn’t about troops. What Kerry can do is lift the ban on non-coalition partners investing in Iraq. (Let EDF take repair contracts to fix the power plants, for instance!) People also refuse to see that Europe (except for Blaire and Berlusconi) doesn't like this Administration, doesn't trust it, and for good reason. Just by not being Bush, Kerry would have more doors open to him with the allies. So the tone would change internationally.

Kerry might put a stop to contracting military activities to the private sector. The Economist actually tied the Bush contracting to a larger strategy to marginalize the Democratic Party by limiting the size of the federal workforce. I am not sure that I agree with that considering the government has expanded in this administration. But then again, you can do that by contracting rather than hiring. Someone with more knowledge may have to address that.

And finally, Kerry would bring in a whole new administration. One thing that people fail to see is that Bush alone is not responsible for the mess we are now in. It is the core of advisors (not elected, I remind you) that have assisted him. And when he goes, they go. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfiwitz, Tommy Thompson, Ashcroft, Rice, etc). It is ironic that this gets ignores, since many people I spoke to justified their Bush vote by saying that he'd bring on a good team of advisors. Well, we see now what the team has done.