Hysterical Sources March 9

All the sources are interesting, but if I had to read one and ignore the rest it would be Comments and Observations on Energy Independence, a non-partisan and objective look at our energy future. Old guys will be interested in Eying Boomer Bonanza, States Woo Retirees. Anybody live in Oxford, Mississippi? Sounds nice.

Help me out guys. This is my market reseach. What sorts of topics would you like us to write about. Any suggestions welcome.

A Lesson in Data and Analysis for the New York Times
Comments and Observations on Energy Independence
Eying Boomer Bonanza, States Woo Retirees
Gauging Family Intimacy: Dogs Edge Cats (Dads Trail Both)
Getting America Right
How the Scope of Government Shapes the Wealth of Nations
Independents Sour on Incumbents
Nuclear Diplomacy: Keep the Pressure on Iran
The Positive Effects of Marriage: A Book of Charts
Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign
In Sourcing Jobs in America

Posted by Jack at March 9, 2006 12:46 PM
Comments
Comment #132435

From the Heritage Foundation link:

There are two nearly universally accepted broad principles on the scope of government and its impact on economic growth.

First, some level of government spending is neces­sary to ensure that the basic structures of society func­tion smoothly enough to facilitate economic activity.

Second, excessive government spending shifts resources from the private sector and impedes eco­nomic growth.

Heritage doesn’t define “excessive.” How do you define “excessive”??

I’ll accept this premise if you can define excessive in a way I’ll agree with it. Because, otherwise, I’m free to write “inadequate government spending creates poverty, crime, and illness.”

Posted by: Steve K at March 9, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #132437

Steve

I suppose there is a balance. If government money helps build infrastructure (human and physical) it is good. At some point inputs are too great and people start to become dependent so they fail to do for themselves.

Clearly the welfare system reached that point by 1996 and the successful welfare reform addressed that, not by cutting expenditures, but by redirecting them.

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #132439

Oxford, MS, IS a really nice little town. I used to visit there regularly when I lived in Memphis, a buddy was an Ole Miss alum. They’ve got a quaint downtown with nice shops & restaurants - I heartily recommend City Grocery, if it’s still open.

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 9, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #132455

Jack,

Heres what
Source watch says about your main referrals philosophy:
(they made a May 2003 Declaration (http://csis.org/europe/2003_May_14_JointDeclr.pdf) that:

“the states of the European Union, which are among the richest and most powerful states in the world, should invite US government officials to attend their highest-level legislative and policy-making meetings, in order that these officials can ensure that the Europeans do not pursue policies which are independent of, or disapproved by, the American government.”

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #132478

Dave

Your point being?

The guy gives us some good information. CSIS is non-partisan, well respected and if it is pro-American, so am I. That was a good thing about CSIS that I did not know.

Do you have a problem besides the affiliation of the author?

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #132517

Jack:

Surely even you would have to have a problem with the statement that US officials should dictate the policies of foreign governments. Are the members of the EU not sovereign nations, with the right to make their own decisions whether those decisions agree with us or not? If the United States is not for the sovereignty of the goverments of Europe from the US, upon what grounds exactly does it demand sovereignty itself from them, in the form of immunity from the ICC?

Demanding a say in the policies and decision makings of foreign countries has absolutely nothing to do with being pro-american. Surely you can see that.

Posted by: Jarandhel at March 9, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #132523

Jarandel

The precise source of that quote is some webpage called “Scoop”. I have been unable to track down the actual document and suspect it does not read like that or is out of context.

I have been unable to find it in any source I trust. If you have better information, please let me know. I would like to see the whole thing.

To the general idea that Europeans should consult with their American allies, they should. Just as Americans should consult with European allies.

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #132524

Jack, I am going to make Rebecca Hagelin’s words of wisdom my new code of ethics.

1) Is it the government’s business? Decisions should be made as close as possible to the people who are affected by them. Definitely. It should be a woman’s right to control her own reproduction. It isn’t the government’s business

2) Does it promote self-reliance? Government should provide assistance to its weakest members, they say, but welfare must be a two-way street, with an individual getting help from society at large in exchange for becoming a self-sufficient individual.Including government bailouts of industry

3) Is it responsible? “A responsible government lives within its means. GW, are you litening?

4) Does it make America more prosperous? America, not just GW’s friends

5) Does it make us safer? United Arab Emirates

6) Does it unify us? Have any actions GW has taken done that

Posted by: Loren at March 9, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #132531

Loren

This is the right’s version of the left’s goals statment.

You probably know that there is a minor rebellion among conservative true believers. It is always hard to match reality with aspirations. Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?

Posted by: Jack at March 9, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #132536

Jack,

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

But if a man’s goals aren’t attainable, what’s the point?

Posted by: Rocky at March 9, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #132537

Jack,

I would hardly call what George Will, Pat Buchanan and others have said a minor rebellion. True conservatives have been betrayed by this administration. I admire them for their consistency.

Posted by: Loren at March 9, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #132543

Is there such a thing as a Conservative GOP anymore? The only principle GOP Politicians have is to hold on to power no matter what. Hence the nonsense on wiretapping reform.

Posted by: Aldous at March 9, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #132554

>>Heritage doesn’t define “excessive.” How do you define “excessive”??

I’ll accept this premise if you can define excessive in a way I’ll agree with it. Because, otherwise, I’m free to write “inadequate government spending creates poverty, crime, and illness.”


Posted by: Steve K at March 9, 2006 01:12 PM

Steve,

Perhaps their findings do not reflect our American heritage, i.e., Pre-union sweat shops/child labor/zero benefits…pre-Social Security starvation of the elderly, etc. To some folks spending to stop such things is called ‘excessive’. Maybe the ‘H’ foundation folks are such as these?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 9, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #132612
What sorts of topics would you like us to write about.

The problem is that you’re ignoring a proliferation of sick elephants somehow squeezed beyond the laws of physics into the room.

Posted by: Reed Sanders at March 10, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #132642

Jack:

The original source is rather easily found: http://web.archive.org/web/20030617062554/http://csis.org/europe/2003_May_14_JointDeclr.pdf

It should be noted that the quote Dave provided above is a commentator’s description of the declaration, not a direct quote from it, as you would know if you had followed the link provided to Scoop or read the full quotation on sourcewatch. But it is a fairly apt description as shown by this quote from the declaration itself:

The issue is not one of U.S. membership in the European Union or any of its distinctive institutional bodies, but one of association, dialogue, and cooperation before decisions are reached. At some point over the next five years, a mechanism should be adopted that allows more direct consultation between the United States and the institutional bodies of the EU. The current format of U.S.- EU summit meetings does not satisfy that need. Europe should leave no doubt about its intention to build with its partner across the Atlantic the same intimacy that the United States built with the states of Europe within NATO.

Can you imagine the outrage in America if it were suggested we consult with Europe about *domestic* policies here in the US before decisions were reached, and that the format of *Congress* sessions needed to be changed to allow for that?

Posted by: Jarandhel at March 10, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #132644

This is also a relevant quote, as it relates most specifically to the insertion of American executive-branch representatives into the meetings in which EU ministers make policy and law for the whole of the EU, most directly equivalent to our legislative branch’s sessions.

Meanwhile in this and other relevant areas, members of the U.S. executive branch could be associated on appropriate issues with the work of separate European Councils. The goal of such coordination would be to produce a first draft of allied policies for impending crises, including allocation of responsibilities before a crisis has actually exploded.
Posted by: Jarandhel at March 10, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #132648

Jarandel

That gives it a whole different meaning.

The EU is an evolving multinational organization. The U.S. has relationships with the members and with the organization itself. But as the EU develops we don’t have proper links with particular parts of the EU structures. This is not a matter of control; it just makes sense for the two most important economic groups in the world to talk. EU (and other) diplomats have ample access to our Senator, Congressmen, state legislatures etc. This is not different.

There is also overlap. The many EU members are also members of NATO, but some members of NATO are not EU members and not all EU members are also members of NATO. (I hope I got the complicated sentence right). NATO defends Europe. You can pretend otherwise, but everybody knows that the EU does not have a credible common defense. EU states and the EU itself must call on NATO assets for anything they want to do. The U.S. supplies most of the power of NATO and most logistics etc. This means you could envision a scenario where a non-NATO member made necessary the use of NATO assets and effectively U.S. assets. Consultation would be a good thing.


Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2006 12:06 PM
Comment #132697
The EU is an evolving multinational organization. The U.S. has relationships with the members and with the organization itself. But as the EU develops we don’t have proper links with particular parts of the EU structures. This is not a matter of control; it just makes sense for the two most important economic groups in the world to talk. EU (and other) diplomats have ample access to our Senator, Congressmen, state legislatures etc. This is not different.

Author Jeremy Rifkin makes a very good point about the EU (and this is not a left v. right issue so you can turn your phasers off for now).

He points out how the EU is the development of a new sort of political arrangement which goes beyond the nation state idea, which really isn’t more than a few hundred years old.

In it, nation states move away from the concept of total control over many (but not all) of the structures that define them as nations in the modern sense. Rather than turning into a “United States of Europe” (i.e., a nation state) or a more successful United Nations (an international organization), the EU is going in a different direction. It’s hard to summarize what the direction really is, but it’s abundently apparent the USA (and the rest of the world) will have to get used to it.

Posted by: Steve K at March 10, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #132755

Steve

I agree with what you say about the EU. The original discussion was whether the U.S. should have the right to consult on levels below the summit, which it should. Part of getting used to the EU will be just that.

BTW Rifkin is a bit too starry eyed. If you look at how well the EU is doing in referenda and just with relations with its members, you see that the nation state idea is more persistent than the elite opinion thinks.

You might try EU Referendum for some more information. The EU remains an elite project, loved by the power elite and academia, less by average folks in London, Lisbon or Lyon.

Posted by: Jack at March 10, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #132852

Perhaps we all think too much, and get things too complicated. It’s very simple.

If you want to live in a socialist or welfare state like the old soviet union or cuba, vote democrat. The government will take your income and then take care of you. From “womb to tomb”.

BUT, if you want to control your own life and family future, vote against the democrats. Vote for anyone; but vote against democrats.

Posted by: Chas at March 11, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #132936

>>If you want to live in a socialist or welfare state like the old soviet union or cuba, vote democrat. The government will take your income and then take care of you. From “womb to tomb”.

Posted by: Chas at March 11, 2006 07:01 PM

Chas,


Or, you can vote Rupublican, have them STEAL your money and you get NOTHING out of it. Have them run your debt load so high your great-great grandchildren won’t even be able to pay it off. Have them send you into a waring quagmire to make you look like a fool to the world…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 12, 2006 8:20 AM
Post a comment