The announcement last week that Castro had resigned the presidency of Cuba was met with buzz from people of all perspectives. His sympathizers took the occasion to relive his near 50 years of rule, while has detractors preached progress. The discussions began immediately about the future of Cuban politics and foreign relations.
While I'm not going to pretend this wasn't a big event, it is premature to move too far forward. This announcement was mostly symbolic, since the position of president is understandably not all that important in communism. To get an idea, let's look back at the mother of Cuban communism, the USSR. How many leaders of the USSR can you name? Lenin? Stalin? Khrushchev? Gorbachev?
Only Gorbachev held the office (or equivalent chairmanship) of 'President.' Stalin was "General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee." The executive branch of the Soviet state was lead by numerous men during his tenure. Khruschev, similarly, inherited the Party Secretaryship from Stalin, and never ruled from the executive office. Gorbachev, who did occupy the presidency, was also the last Communist General Secretary of the Soviet Union.
This is the de facto leadership of Soviet-style communism, the President is an important figurehead, but the control is wielded by the Communist Party Leader. Even Lenin, during the formative era of the modern Soviet Union, rose to head of state by way of Communist Party leadership.
So what about Fidel? Well, as reported by many newspapers, he remains the head of the Cuban Communist Party, even as his brother takes over the executive office. As such, no matter his age or physical frailty, Fidel Castro will rule Cuba until his death. The forfeiture of the Presidency surely signifies that end is coming, but let's not be too forward in our proclamations of progress. We are merely being given a glimpse of the new leadership as Raúl picks his cabinet members.
But for now, it's still Fidel's cuba.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Obama has cake, proceeds to eat
Barack Obama during the Texas Democratic Debate (full transcript):
You can't have it both ways, Barack... The "miserable failure" of policy that you see in Cuban isolation was Kennedy's policy. We all know that you enjoy a significant rhetorical advantage over your opponent, but you are walking a dangerous course here. You're lionizing (beatifying at times during this campaign) the same man you lambasted for a diplomatic catastrophe only seconds earlier on the same subject.
I support the eventual normalization [of relations with Cuba]. And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.
So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that's going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.
And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of.
You can't have it both ways, Barack... The "miserable failure" of policy that you see in Cuban isolation was Kennedy's policy. We all know that you enjoy a significant rhetorical advantage over your opponent, but you are walking a dangerous course here. You're lionizing (beatifying at times during this campaign) the same man you lambasted for a diplomatic catastrophe only seconds earlier on the same subject.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Cutting taxes is not a slogan
Yesterday morning during a Today Show interview, President Bush made one of the most oft-repeated mistakes in public economics. When asked if the War in Iraq has negatively affected the economy, he responded:
It's known as the Broken Window Fallacy...
This argument is ridiculous on its face; when the window is broken, public wealth shrinks by the value of the window. The shopkeeper must use funds that he would have spent elsewhere in order to repair it. If the cost of the window was $10, bread $5, and shoes $5, then before it was broken he could have had shoes, bread, AND a fixed window. Now that the window is broken, he must spend that $10 to fix it, and can no longer afford to buy the bread and shoes. Public welfare has decreased. This can easily be illustrated by imagining a gang of boys founding a 'charity' in which they break all the windows in town. Are they still public benefactors?
Iraq, similarly, is a money sink. While the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq do indeed create jobs, they come from a pool of federal dollars that now cannot be used to fund other projects. We can again highlight the extreme case: does the economy benefit if we start wars all over the world? Wars are economically justifiable only if they protect or enhance future productivity; if Bush wants to declare Iraq a benefit to the economy, he must make that argument, not engage the public with his short-sighted view of the job market.
All of this economic ignorance, though, brings to mind a very pertinent issue for fiscal conservatives. Can politicians be trusted on their pledges, when they do not recognize the economic foundation for the policy? In May of 2001, while voting against Bush's tax cuts, John McCain made the following statement:
Presently, the prospective nominee for the GOP is touting his fiscal credentials, his high ACU ratings, and his devotion to lower taxes. But with all due respect, "I will cut taxes" is not a campaign slogan, Senator. It's a commitment to an economic mindset that the government is inefficient, and the money is best left to private individuals and corporations who have a vested interest in efficiency and return on investment. Tax cuts are not political favors to be handed to the popular class, nor are they independent of the spending cuts that must follow.
Without a verified commitment to the economic philosophy, we cannot trust anything you have to say on taxes. The John McCain of 2001 is just buying the votes of the poor and middle class, while the John McCain of 2008 is just lying to the conservative base, pledging something he doesn't believe in. Your class warfare statements have almost completely disqualified any future remarks on the matter.
You are in the same boat, Mr. President. We appreciate the generous tax cuts, but you have taken the increased revenue from the stimulated investment economy and spent it on the government programs of your choice. Your war in Iraq, your prescription drug program, and your refusal to veto earmark-laden appropriations bills have left us with a government much larger than the one you inherited. This is an indefensible reality for a "fiscal conservative," no matter how often you pledge allegiance to tax cuts.
I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs…because we’re buying equipment, and people are working.
It's known as the Broken Window Fallacy...
The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.
This argument is ridiculous on its face; when the window is broken, public wealth shrinks by the value of the window. The shopkeeper must use funds that he would have spent elsewhere in order to repair it. If the cost of the window was $10, bread $5, and shoes $5, then before it was broken he could have had shoes, bread, AND a fixed window. Now that the window is broken, he must spend that $10 to fix it, and can no longer afford to buy the bread and shoes. Public welfare has decreased. This can easily be illustrated by imagining a gang of boys founding a 'charity' in which they break all the windows in town. Are they still public benefactors?
Iraq, similarly, is a money sink. While the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq do indeed create jobs, they come from a pool of federal dollars that now cannot be used to fund other projects. We can again highlight the extreme case: does the economy benefit if we start wars all over the world? Wars are economically justifiable only if they protect or enhance future productivity; if Bush wants to declare Iraq a benefit to the economy, he must make that argument, not engage the public with his short-sighted view of the job market.
All of this economic ignorance, though, brings to mind a very pertinent issue for fiscal conservatives. Can politicians be trusted on their pledges, when they do not recognize the economic foundation for the policy? In May of 2001, while voting against Bush's tax cuts, John McCain made the following statement:
I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.
Presently, the prospective nominee for the GOP is touting his fiscal credentials, his high ACU ratings, and his devotion to lower taxes. But with all due respect, "I will cut taxes" is not a campaign slogan, Senator. It's a commitment to an economic mindset that the government is inefficient, and the money is best left to private individuals and corporations who have a vested interest in efficiency and return on investment. Tax cuts are not political favors to be handed to the popular class, nor are they independent of the spending cuts that must follow.
Without a verified commitment to the economic philosophy, we cannot trust anything you have to say on taxes. The John McCain of 2001 is just buying the votes of the poor and middle class, while the John McCain of 2008 is just lying to the conservative base, pledging something he doesn't believe in. Your class warfare statements have almost completely disqualified any future remarks on the matter.
You are in the same boat, Mr. President. We appreciate the generous tax cuts, but you have taken the increased revenue from the stimulated investment economy and spent it on the government programs of your choice. Your war in Iraq, your prescription drug program, and your refusal to veto earmark-laden appropriations bills have left us with a government much larger than the one you inherited. This is an indefensible reality for a "fiscal conservative," no matter how often you pledge allegiance to tax cuts.
Monday, February 18, 2008
So I actually read the "Protect America Act" today
From the text of the signed legislation:
As far as purpose goes, the act makes no mention of domestic spying (I'll get to that later). But why, after almost 30 years, did the US find a sudden need to explicitly provide for the monitoring of foreign-based communications? The explanation has often been condensed into typical partisan accusations ("monger" and "fascist" are quite popular), but the real justification is both reasonable and nonpartisan. Mostly.
FISA was originally put into place so that the government would be accountable while gathering intelligence (see: watergate). Without a court order, intelligence services were allowed to monitor the electronic communications of all foreign persons of interest, so long as a US person was not a party. In early 2007, a FISA court enhanced its own jurisdiction, by declaring that any communications passing through the US became domestic communications, and thus any monitoring of them required a court order. From a Washington Post article on the matter:
That's right, after almost 30 years of settled practice, the government was forced to adapt its ways because spying on foreign-foreign communications was now considered domestic wiretapping under FISA, and thus required a court order. This ruling prompted a congressional effort to pass legislation clarifying FISA, and the text of the Protect America Act (PAA) clearly shows this intent.
This all sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? The main objection to the Act is actually sincere and relevant, but grossly overblown. Put simply, the act provides no safeguard against monitoring of calls to US residents. While no US resident can be the target of investigation, the government can listen in on calls from foreign targets to domestic recipients. This is an obvious problem, as anyone who has skimmed our Bill of Rights could clearly see.
All mongering aside, though, we are less safe without the PAA. We are currently unable to monitor foreign-foreign communications without affording our targets due process of the FISA courts. This is an alarming and dramatic expansion of the jurisdiction of our court system, and a restriction that will hinder our intelligence-gathering capabilities. I don't care what threat color we have, or how many sensationalists attempt to declare us "just as safe without it" or "on the eve of annihilation." Neither is true.
It is not so simple to say that the PAA should be extended, as it is in clear need of amendment. A good court case is needed to challenge some of the constitutional issues, and force congress to revise the bill and protect domestic communications since they aren't willing to do it themselves(the retroactive immunity provisions will hinder this process). I'm personally not all that interested in the partisan compromise that will be necessary. In my eyes, the clarifications of the PAA are absolutely necessary to our national security, but should protect the rights afforded US persons by our Constitution.
To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.
As far as purpose goes, the act makes no mention of domestic spying (I'll get to that later). But why, after almost 30 years, did the US find a sudden need to explicitly provide for the monitoring of foreign-based communications? The explanation has often been condensed into typical partisan accusations ("monger" and "fascist" are quite popular), but the real justification is both reasonable and nonpartisan. Mostly.
FISA was originally put into place so that the government would be accountable while gathering intelligence (see: watergate). Without a court order, intelligence services were allowed to monitor the electronic communications of all foreign persons of interest, so long as a US person was not a party. In early 2007, a FISA court enhanced its own jurisdiction, by declaring that any communications passing through the US became domestic communications, and thus any monitoring of them required a court order. From a Washington Post article on the matter:
The judge, whose name could not be learned, concluded early this year that the government had overstepped its authority in attempting to broadly surveil communications between two locations overseas that are passed through routing stations in the United States.
That's right, after almost 30 years of settled practice, the government was forced to adapt its ways because spying on foreign-foreign communications was now considered domestic wiretapping under FISA, and thus required a court order. This ruling prompted a congressional effort to pass legislation clarifying FISA, and the text of the Protect America Act (PAA) clearly shows this intent.
Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.
This all sounds pretty reasonable, doesn't it? The main objection to the Act is actually sincere and relevant, but grossly overblown. Put simply, the act provides no safeguard against monitoring of calls to US residents. While no US resident can be the target of investigation, the government can listen in on calls from foreign targets to domestic recipients. This is an obvious problem, as anyone who has skimmed our Bill of Rights could clearly see.
All mongering aside, though, we are less safe without the PAA. We are currently unable to monitor foreign-foreign communications without affording our targets due process of the FISA courts. This is an alarming and dramatic expansion of the jurisdiction of our court system, and a restriction that will hinder our intelligence-gathering capabilities. I don't care what threat color we have, or how many sensationalists attempt to declare us "just as safe without it" or "on the eve of annihilation." Neither is true.
It is not so simple to say that the PAA should be extended, as it is in clear need of amendment. A good court case is needed to challenge some of the constitutional issues, and force congress to revise the bill and protect domestic communications since they aren't willing to do it themselves(the retroactive immunity provisions will hinder this process). I'm personally not all that interested in the partisan compromise that will be necessary. In my eyes, the clarifications of the PAA are absolutely necessary to our national security, but should protect the rights afforded US persons by our Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)