if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
The View From Overseas
by Lee
Sullivan, this morning.
I don’t think many Americans have fully absorbed yet what the Bush administration has done to America’s soft power abroad, to the moral reputation of America, to the respect that many around the world once had for America’s democratic institutions, even if they differed from U.S foreign policy. Bush’s torture and detention policies, his cringe-inducing diplomacy, his proud lack of interest in other cultures and societies has deeply weakened this country’s international clout.
I couldn’t agree more.
Comments
You guys might not like things like Kyoto and International Criminal Courts, but until you start doing some things you might not like the US is going to get a frosty reception internationally.
Well, that I totally disagree with. Kyoto and the ICC are astonishingly bad ideas. If Europe wants the US to play nice they better start proposing ideas that aren’t repugnant.
Kyoto and ICC are roughly like three roommates. One roommate pays 95% of the bills, but the other two insist that they have to have a three-way vote on everything.
I would disagree that we’re no longer a superpower, but thanks to King Bush we certainly are a poorly run one.
Kyoto and the International Kangaroo Court were created to punish the big, bad Americans. Kyoto has proven vitrually impossible to enforce without wrecking a country’s economy, and the ICC’s zeal to bring Americans to trial for “War crimes” would violate several treaties.
Well, that I totally disagree with. Kyoto and the ICC are astonishingly bad ideas. If Europe wants the US to play nice they better start proposing ideas that aren’t repugnant.
Kyoto and ICC are roughly like three roommates. One roommate pays 95% of the bills, but the other two insist that they have to have a three-way vote on everything.
Not saying I necessary disagree with you, but the way the US conducts international relations right now is - give us what we want, when we want it - what you want, well we don’t agree so couldn’t give a shit.
The repercusions of this approach are becoming obvious; you should just hear the number of pissed of Canadians I hear talking about lumber and meat or some other trade issue up here.
Kyoto and the International Kangaroo Court were created to punish the big, bad Americans. Kyoto has proven vitrually impossible to enforce without wrecking a country’s economy, and the ICC’s zeal to bring Americans to trial for “War crimes” would violate several treaties.
Actually the point of the ICC is really to try African dictators and scare the current ones (and their sidekicks) into what might happen to them.
I don’t personally see a problem with it also being used against Americans (or Brits) if there is evidence of war crimes; of which there probably is enough of from Iraq.
you should just hear the number of pissed of Canadians I hear talking about lumber
I am not super-familiar with the softwoods debate, but from what I read the US was being pretty arbitrary and one-sided, but the 2006 Softwoods Lumber Agreement seems to have turned things back Canada’s way, no?
And that was a BushCo negotiated agreement...ending a 20 year dispute (meaning Bush did not start nor primarily aggravate the problems, but rather inherited the issue from past Presidents).
See also my opinion that Kyoto is nothing more than a big show that NO ONE will be able to implement. 100% posturing, 100% useless without complete world co-operation AND a lot of free money falling out of the sky.
regarding the original idea that Bush has diminished us greatly - yes. Re padder’s insistance that we need to radically change direction? NO.
We need to lead a revolution about how the world deals with radical Islam. Bush is not the man to lead that revolution. We need a leader who can convince the old guard in Europe that appeasement and accommodation is not just the wrong path, but will result in the destruction of the various European cultures.
Iraq has been mismanaged, but in theory, in the real world where feelings are less important than strategy, it was and continues to be a good idea to establish a friendly democracy and a place for a permanent military base in the Middle East.
Walk softly but carry a big stick only works if you actually have a big stick. Lee, I know for a fact you believe that diplomacy ONLY works if you have the strength to back it up if it fails. Accomplishing the original goal (that Bush denied) of nation-building in Iraq is currently the best chance to establish a big stick that Iran, Syria and even our “friends” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia need to fear.
A brief read of that and it does look like softwood is better, problem is I guess its ingrained in Canadian minds now after the tariff - this is perhaps what Lee is refering to, it’s hard to undue damage when you piss of allies on these trade issues.
And that was a BushCo negotiated agreement...ending a 20 year dispute (meaning Bush did not start nor primarily aggravate the problems, but rather inherited the issue from past Presidents).
It’s been a problem a while but the 2002 tariffs where what really set it off. This was under Bush. Bush hastn’t exactly had the best free trade record when it impacts certain groups. Steel, agriculture and gambling being other examples, although it does look he might take on agro a bit.
See also my opinion that Kyoto is nothing more than a big show that NO ONE will be able to implement. 100% posturing, 100% useless without complete world co-operation AND a lot of free money falling out of the sky.
To be honest, I tend to agree. I don’t think Kyoto is actually the solution, but then it was never meant to be the solution just a start. We do need an international system of costs and benefits regarding pollution that rewards innovation and peanlises pollution. Perhaps Kyoto was not perfect, but I still think it was better than nothing. Leadership to create something better is much needed - what is sad though is a gas tax in the US would probably be more useful because it would force car companies to make their cars more efficient and lead to the adoption of alt fuels for auto mobiles. Again, this is only one step in co2 reduction but it’s an important one (and low hanging fruit).
The reason I mentioned it though is the rest of the world likes Kyoto. Sometimes the US is going to have to do things it might not want because everyone else is doing so. Maybe Kyoto is not the one to bite the tounge on, but if the US is always considered to only engage in international agreements for solely its own benefit, well that won’t be good.
We need to lead a revolution about how the world deals with radical Islam. Bush is not the man to lead that revolution. We need a leader who can convince the old guard in Europe that appeasement and accommodation is not just the wrong path, but will result in the destruction of the various European cultures.
I think winning against radical Islam is really by showing that Western civilization is better. That is what we need a PR guru for the West. This is where Bush has become an absolute disaster with Abu Graib / Gitmo / torture just one part of this. It became apparent the damage this has caused when Western governments couldn’t speak with a unified tonuge regarding the Mohammed cartoons - something they should have been able to very easily.
It’s a mixture of major abuses combined with lack of backbone in other situations that are costing us dearly in this PR campaign; and while we can perhaps win a battle against muslim fundies we can only win the war as a battle of ideas. Bush, unfortunatly, has proven a disaster in fighting the battle let alone winning the war.
Oh, tell Sullivan to fuck off. America has always been hated. If it wan’t Iraq, it would be something else. Euroscum hated us for putting missiles in Europe to save their asses in the 1980’s, for examples. It is always something with the world, and I have long since gave a damn what they thought. Sully, who hates Bush, ignores history to make his point.
And, all that so-called goodwill after 9/11? It was all bullshit. They love us when we are hurting, because deep down France and Europe loved seeing us down. They don’t like it however, when we stand up and become the big dog again.
F Sullivan and Europe. You know better Lee, that Europe and the world will always hate us for something. In 10 years from now, when Iraq is history, it’ll be something else.
We do need an international system of costs and benefits regarding pollution that rewards innovation and peanlises pollution. Perhaps Kyoto was not perfect, but I still think it was better than nothing. Leadership to create something better is much needed - what is sad though is a gas tax in the US would probably be more useful because it would force car companies to make their cars more efficient and lead to the adoption of alt fuels for auto mobiles. Again, this is only one step in co2 reduction but it’s an important one (and low hanging fruit).
There already is a reward for innovation. Money. If a company creates some innovative clean EFFICIENT green relatively cheap technology that can replace current tech, then they can advertise that and have every enviro-loon lining up to get it. Of course in truth they won’t because they’re anti-corporate socialists, but the rational people will go out and buy it.
And there already is a gas tax in the US.
Actually the point of the ICC is really to try African dictators and scare the current ones (and their sidekicks) into what might happen to them.
How many tinpot dictators have the international courts brought to justice?
I have some passing familiarity with the softwoods issue - Canada was dumping lumber when you got right down to it.
How many tinpot dictators have the international courts brought to justice?
the silence is deafening..
There already is a reward for innovation. Money. If a company creates some innovative clean EFFICIENT green relatively cheap technology that can replace current tech, then they can advertise that and have every enviro-loon lining up to get it. Of course in truth they won’t because they’re anti-corporate socialists, but the rational people will go out and buy it.
Nope. The problem is the cost of pollution is not included in the price - it’s an externality that istn’t accounted for.
Until it is we will continue to pollute at a sub optimum amount. It is just the tragedy of the commons on a grand scale.
America’s “moral reputation” and the (conveniently unspecified) foreigners who held American democratic institutions in such huge respect, were never as great as Sully implies. Certainly, few informed foreigners have held America’s democratic institutions in much esteem since Watergate, and indeed I’ve met few Americans who do once you ask them about, for example, extortion and bribery disguised as “campaign contributions”, systematic racial gerrymandering, perpetual jurisdictional disputes, judges making policy decisions, corrupt and incompetent state and local governments and so on. America is an amazing country, but despite its politics and politicians, not because of them. And that’s always been the case, at least in my lifetime.
Nope. The problem is the cost of pollution is not included in the price - it’s an externality that istn’t accounted for
Sure it is. Negative press. “This company is one of the worst polluters. They violate every regulation they can pay the fines on and still make a great profit. They are evil and you should not buy their products.”
And that’s not even a part of my point. I wasn’t talking about penalties. I was talking about the rewards, and that exists exactly as I said. Hell the owner of Virgin has just set a prize of like $25 million for the scientists that develop an effective way of removing CO2 from the air. If that happens I wonder what they’ll blame for if crop yields or plant life in general starts dropping off at an increased rate.
Sure it is. Negative press. “This company is one of the worst polluters. They violate every regulation they can pay the fines on and still make a great profit. They are evil and you should not buy their products.”
Utter rubbish, in no way does negative PR come close to accounting for pollution costs.
And that’s not even a part of my point. I wasn’t talking about penalties. I was talking about the rewards, and that exists exactly as I said. Hell the owner of Virgin has just set a prize of like $25 million for the scientists that develop an effective way of removing CO2 from the air. If that happens I wonder what they’ll blame for if crop yields or plant life in general starts dropping off at an increased rate.
The virgin thing is great and Branson is, I believe, 100% genuine in his desire to help with global warming however $25 million is really nothing considering the size of his companies.
This is really extremley basic economics, that there is even a debate about the need to account for externalities is somewhat terrifying - it’s a shame everyone dosen’t have to learn some basic economics in school (this goes as much to the left as those on the right who don’t understand these simple concepts).
This is really extremley basic economics, that there is even a debate about the need to account for externalities is somewhat terrifying - it’s a shame everyone dosen’t have to learn some basic economics in school (this goes as much to the left as those on the right who don’t understand these simple concepts).
You mean like hamstringing an economy and then demand that with their now reduced capacity develop a new technology? Yeah that’s genius economics there.
The virgin thing is great and Branson is, I believe, 100% genuine in his desire to help with global warming however $25 million is really nothing considering the size of his companies.
But to a scientist doing research its a fortune. And he’s also pledging all profits from his transportation companies for the next 10 years to combat global warming. Its feel-good guilt trip bullshit but he’s still doing it so you can’t say its just a drop in the ocean for him.
You mean like hamstringing an economy and then demand that with their now reduced capacity develop a new technology? Yeah that’s genius economics there.
Rubbish, I trust the market economy to rapidly find new technologies to generate energy/transport etc the moment the cost is risen on the current ones. There is definitely an element of not rushing - ie instant massive caps is a very bad idea - there should be a well marked out progression so companies know how costs will change and can then adjust their research and development budgets accordingly.
The market will solve the problem of pollution but only when the cost of pollution is priced in. Again, it’s economics a 10 year old should understand.
But to a scientist doing research its a fortune. And he’s also pledging all profits from his transportation companies for the next 10 years to combat global warming. Its feel-good guilt trip bullshit but he’s still doing it so you can’t say its just a drop in the ocean for him.
All profits from the next 10 years? Got a link to that, seems incredibly unlikely as the stock price would have crashed over night.
$25 million is a lot to a single scientist but no single scientist is going to win the prize. It’s like the various space prices, nice motivators but never going to cover the cost of the research.
And it is still a drop in the ocean, I assume Virgin Atlantic gets that sort of revenue per day (I don’t know though exactly).
Padders you’re right about how the market fails to account for the negative externality (could be argued that “government failure” has occured too) but where would you start in factoring in the negative externality when the science linking human carbon emissions to global warming is patchy at best. The science needs to take a leading roll before the “true” costs can be established surely?
Hell, I’d just walk up to Branson, breathe in deeply, hold my breath, and hold up a sign saying “I’ll take my $25 million now”.
Padders you’re right about how the market fails to account for the negative externality (could be argued that “government failure” has occured too) but where would you start in factoring in the negative externality when the science linking human carbon emissions to global warming is patchy at best. The science needs to take a leading roll before the “true” costs can be established surely?
Simple, the cost of abatement. The cost of removing that co2 from the atmosphere.
That’s as high a tax you would want. Now sensible people can argue that a certain amount of man made co2 release istn’t a problem so we can allow for that - but if you need an absolute answer right now then this is the obvious one, polluters should pay the full cost of their pollution; governments can then decide if that money should be used to actually remove the pollution or use it to, say, invest in long term development of alt fuels - something companies may not do because they don’t think 20 years down the line.
All profits from the next 10 years? Got a link to that, seems incredibly unlikely as the stock price would have crashed over night.
$25 million is a lot to a single scientist but no single scientist is going to win the prize. It’s like the various space prices, nice motivators but never going to cover the cost of the research.
And it is still a drop in the ocean, I assume Virgin Atlantic gets that sort of revenue per day (I don’t know though exactly).
Can’t search for yourself? The drop in the ocean was in reference to the amount he was pledging in total, not just the $25 million. 10 years of profits estimates to about $3 billion
Can’t search for yourself? The drop in the ocean was in reference to the amount he was pledging in total, not just the $25 million. 10 years of profits estimates to about $3 billion
Wow, that’s a lot lot better than I thought.
I point to the “Pissing off the Brits” page as to what the English are really pissed at us about. Kyoto and ICC, gun culture seems to be the issues that dominate WAY more than Iraq. I don’t understand this, but the mainlanders seem to pile Iraq on Top of Ole’ Smokey.
Padders, don’t hold your breath about America’s integration. The world community would do better to let one of the other world powerhouses (Russia, China, etc.) to do the legwork. Only that kind of dedication to the treaty would make Americans feel like its anything more than a fleece.
Where the fuck did all this touchy feely international warmth and fuzzyness start coming from.
You’re right Lee, you may have a better first hand experience of the rest of the world and I respect that, but I disagree on the moral high ground issue.
Every year on my birthday I am reminded of when saving american lives and winning were important and when it came as a choice as to who lived or died, americans won. My birthday is August 6th.
We didn’t take the high moral ground, we showed the world if you fuck with us we have to ability to create awesome weapons and the courage to rain holy vicious hell on you and your citizens.
We were “respected” for our strength and courage and willingness to save american lives at any and all costs if necessary. Every war, conlflict, police action, or military response has been a liberal goat fuck puss fest due simply to appologists, culminating with Vietnam. That generation is in power, not the Reagans who did what had to be done. Respect out of fear is not the ideal, but when you are thought of as a big pussy undeserving of life then what else have you got?
Where the fuck did all this touchy feely international warmth and fuzzyness start coming from.
It’s got nothing to do with warmth and fuzziness and all that shit, it has to do with America’s moral right to lead the world.
Every year on my birthday I am reminded of when saving american lives and winning were important and when it came as a choice as to who lived or died, americans won. My birthday is August 6th.
You’re missing the point entirely. It’s not that we went to war. It’s that the evidence we used to justify that war was shaky at the time, and has subsequently been revealed to be, to put it mildly, a policy of assuming every conceivable worst case scenario, even when most analysts on our own side disagreed. (Iraq/al Qaeda link is a good example, see Feith’s recent testimony.)
What we did was go out on the playground and tell our friends that some guy was planning on slashing the tires on our bikes, so we better beat the shit out of him first to prevent him from doing so. Some of our friends agreed heartily, some agreed tentatively, and some told us to go to hell. So we beat the crap out of him. Then it turns out that we not only were wrong, but in all likelihood knew that he wasn’t planning to slash our tires, he only made a quick offhand remark one day. Now, if you were one of our friends who trusted us, wouldn’t you feel like you got fucked over and used?
So now we’re preparing a dossier on Iran. It’s a dossier similar to the one we prepared on Iraq. You know, the one where we might not have lied but we certainly selectively picked and chose our facts when bringing in our allies. And they, rightfully, feel like they were lied to and manipulated. So even if our case against Iran is airtight, it’s going to take an astonishing amount of political will and risk for any other major world leader (Canada, UK, etc.) to ever trust us again.
Our word isn’t good enough any more, and I think that’s pathetic. We’re the United Fucking States of America, our goddamned word should be bond. And it has been, until this administration.
One more thing: FDR didn’t have to selectively choose the evidence he used against Japan.
One more thing: FDR didn’t have to selectively choose the evidence he used against Japan.
No argument there, and we knew damn well who attaced us and from where.
It’s that the evidence we used to justify that war was shaky at the time, and has subsequently been revealed to be, to put it mildly, a policy of assuming every conceivable worst case scenario, even when most analysts on our own side disagreed.
Ok, I get where you are coming from.
Next entry: The Shape of the Field
Previous entry: Whatever It Takes
Going to take a while to get it back, but I think these mistakes will be forgiven if a new President drastically changes course.
You guys might not like things like Kyoto and International Criminal Courts, but until you start doing some things you might not like the US is going to get a frosty reception internationally.
And as Iraq has shown, the US is no longer a super power by any sensible definition of the word, the US’s % of GDP is decreasing etc; you are going to need international allies more and more.