The Cato Institute is owning President Barack Obama. It's true! The article can be found on the sight of the Cato Institute, a think tank, here: http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9931
I was intrigued by the ad they placed in the New York Times (the link is here: http://cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf ) which basically responded to the President's assertion that people agree with his plan, saying that people do not agree with his plan, and that here (note the unecessary bold) is a list of about ten-billion names of people who do not agree.
Though this is an old article (the stimulus plan recently passed) it shows foreshadowing certainly of things to come. According to many sources, the idea of the stimulus plan is less than popular or effective, and if this does turn out to fail, then Cato will have been there first. The thing is a blistering critique of Keynesian ideology (a school of thought that holds that economy will be forced into action by funneling funds into main government avenues) putting it through a rigorous examination, before discarding it completely. I often wonder if Obama thinks of this seriously when it comes out, because he has certainly put his weight behind this stimulus. His job, unforunately, requires him to always be right, so I wonder if this scares him on some level.
Whether it scares him or not, though, it should scare America. The economic future of this country is in serious peril, as we keep sinking further and further into debt and recession. BOOM!
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Miss Piggy's Bane
Truly there is no hope for humanity.
We have it, we finally do! The heart-attack-on-a-plate is finally here - two pounds of bacon, two pounds of sausage, slathered in barbecue sauce. You can see the full details of said cataclysm at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/dining/28bacon.html?em
Basically, the story relates the tale of two guys out to barbecue using bacon, responding to a challenge put to them on twitter.
The story itself is great, a twist of humor in the prose that lends itself very well to this kind of story. Also, it is easy to read, and catches the attention quickly and well. Moreover, it shows complete impartiality, really only talking about the facts, and not puting a disgusted/delighted spin on it, as I would personally have felt obligated to include.
The humanity of the thing itself is just nauseating.
We have it, we finally do! The heart-attack-on-a-plate is finally here - two pounds of bacon, two pounds of sausage, slathered in barbecue sauce. You can see the full details of said cataclysm at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/dining/28bacon.html?em
Basically, the story relates the tale of two guys out to barbecue using bacon, responding to a challenge put to them on twitter.
The story itself is great, a twist of humor in the prose that lends itself very well to this kind of story. Also, it is easy to read, and catches the attention quickly and well. Moreover, it shows complete impartiality, really only talking about the facts, and not puting a disgusted/delighted spin on it, as I would personally have felt obligated to include.
The humanity of the thing itself is just nauseating.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Gordon's Detail
With all the struggle and hardship due to the economy right now, currently, in America, it is hard to remember the impact of the struggling economy worldwide. But it does help to put things in perspective. That’s why I was very happy when I found this BBC article ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7779023.stm ) which explained the situation in Europe, though not with as much detail as I would have liked, perhaps.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has long been a favorite of mine, because it gives such an expansive view of the world (or so it seems to me) as opposed to the American-oriented New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. For breadth, you can’t beat the BBC. But that brings me to the main point of the article which I had a problem with. It had no depth! It was fluffy and sugary, and it sounded great, but for actual substance it was somewhat lacking.
The article begins by talking about a € 200,000,000,000 package organized by the European Union, designed to rejuvenate the failing economies within the countries of the EU. This is really the only hard statistic they give. It appears to me, that any in-depth discussion of a clearly controversial topic such as this, should not be given over to statements such as: “Mr. Brown said measures would include "judicious" tax cuts,”; “He described the agreement as ‘good news for the UK and good news for Europe,’”; “the deal was greeted with scepticism by both opposition parties.” It should rather include tangible, empirical evidence regarding the claims made by both sides. Statement of opinion never helps in an argument. Nor does it clear away the veils placed by the vaguest and most ambiguous statements that politicians are wont to make. The author spends an inordinate amount of time dropping the names of politicians everywhere, along with the nebulous comments that seem to be made to obscure the truth.
Of course, it may be the case that the details have not been made available to the press yet (which the author states later on) but in that case the entire article is rendered meaningless! Why am I reading this?
But perhaps I am being somewhat harsh on the author, because it was certainly a very well-written portrayal of the feelings and emotions circulating around Europe. Moreover, being the simple, unilaterally-minded American that I am, I now feel tremendously educated in matters across the sea.
On the plus side, you can almost hear the author’s British accent.
The British Broadcasting Corporation has long been a favorite of mine, because it gives such an expansive view of the world (or so it seems to me) as opposed to the American-oriented New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. For breadth, you can’t beat the BBC. But that brings me to the main point of the article which I had a problem with. It had no depth! It was fluffy and sugary, and it sounded great, but for actual substance it was somewhat lacking.
The article begins by talking about a € 200,000,000,000 package organized by the European Union, designed to rejuvenate the failing economies within the countries of the EU. This is really the only hard statistic they give. It appears to me, that any in-depth discussion of a clearly controversial topic such as this, should not be given over to statements such as: “Mr. Brown said measures would include "judicious" tax cuts,”; “He described the agreement as ‘good news for the UK and good news for Europe,’”; “the deal was greeted with scepticism by both opposition parties.” It should rather include tangible, empirical evidence regarding the claims made by both sides. Statement of opinion never helps in an argument. Nor does it clear away the veils placed by the vaguest and most ambiguous statements that politicians are wont to make. The author spends an inordinate amount of time dropping the names of politicians everywhere, along with the nebulous comments that seem to be made to obscure the truth.
Of course, it may be the case that the details have not been made available to the press yet (which the author states later on) but in that case the entire article is rendered meaningless! Why am I reading this?
But perhaps I am being somewhat harsh on the author, because it was certainly a very well-written portrayal of the feelings and emotions circulating around Europe. Moreover, being the simple, unilaterally-minded American that I am, I now feel tremendously educated in matters across the sea.
On the plus side, you can almost hear the author’s British accent.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Chinese Humanity
I recently read a fascinating article on the current situation in China, a country which seems to yet regard civilians who speak out as most people regard smudges on a window: minor problems to be wiped away as conveniently as possible. The article, by Andrew Jacobs and Huang Yuanxi, underlined the situation in the city of Xinhua, in which “whistle-blowers” were being sent to a mental institution, to receive involuntary treatment. The writing itself was remarkable, I thought. It put forth the information in an unbiased form, purely the facts (although, it did put skeptical emphasis on everything the Chinese government said to cover it up, which I thought was appropriate).
But even above the writing itself, the article brings up a very important issue: especially today, and especially in America, we have a tendency to take for granted the things that we have, i.e. free speech. We also have a tendency to overlook the fact that other countries (especially those which we term “developed” such as China) still have tremendous human rights violations even going on today. There is a propensity to look at the history books and say: “well, that’s in the past” when, in reality, the abuse continues.
It is distressing that even in a first-class country like China, where the economy seems impregnable and aspects of culture seem so much more refined than the rest of the world, that this should continue. This is why I am surprised that the article did not get more response. Perhaps people don’t want to know, or are too wrapped up in their gossip to notice. Whatever the case may be, I urge you to check out the article, it’s a fascinating glimpse into how bad conditions really are, even in a world superpower. The link follows:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/world/asia/09china.html?_r=1&ref=world
But even above the writing itself, the article brings up a very important issue: especially today, and especially in America, we have a tendency to take for granted the things that we have, i.e. free speech. We also have a tendency to overlook the fact that other countries (especially those which we term “developed” such as China) still have tremendous human rights violations even going on today. There is a propensity to look at the history books and say: “well, that’s in the past” when, in reality, the abuse continues.
It is distressing that even in a first-class country like China, where the economy seems impregnable and aspects of culture seem so much more refined than the rest of the world, that this should continue. This is why I am surprised that the article did not get more response. Perhaps people don’t want to know, or are too wrapped up in their gossip to notice. Whatever the case may be, I urge you to check out the article, it’s a fascinating glimpse into how bad conditions really are, even in a world superpower. The link follows:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/world/asia/09china.html?_r=1&ref=world
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The One-Dimensional Chavez
Though short, this article caught my eye:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-16-anti-chavez_N.htm?csp=34
"Anti-Chavez TV channel could face fines."
Though doubtless everyone enjoys a moment to righteously frown at the ongoing chaos in Venezuela, this article was way too superficial for that sort of thing. Oscar Wilde's Harry contends that "details are vulgar" and this author seems to have taken the extrapolation religiously. The summary of events was direct, succinct, and very well done, however, it assumed far too much knowledge from the reader about Venezuelan history. As someone who has followed the rapid descent of this country when Chavez came to power, I already had enough starting information to understand first, why it should be true that one can be fined or taken from the air for speaking against Chavez in the Venezuelan media, and second, why this matters at all. However, as I read, I realized that these details were simply not given. There was no so much as a: "oh yeah, and by the way, free speech doesn't exist anymore in Venezuela," or "hey, and Chavez has slowly been removing TV channels from the air and newpapers from the presses for saying the wrong thing." It was simply a quick summary of the salient facts, a small and sad comestible (ha) with no nourishment or flavor. Though the summary was good, the lack of depth was very dissappointing and could have been quite confusing or meaningless to another reader.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-16-anti-chavez_N.htm?csp=34
"Anti-Chavez TV channel could face fines."
Though doubtless everyone enjoys a moment to righteously frown at the ongoing chaos in Venezuela, this article was way too superficial for that sort of thing. Oscar Wilde's Harry contends that "details are vulgar" and this author seems to have taken the extrapolation religiously. The summary of events was direct, succinct, and very well done, however, it assumed far too much knowledge from the reader about Venezuelan history. As someone who has followed the rapid descent of this country when Chavez came to power, I already had enough starting information to understand first, why it should be true that one can be fined or taken from the air for speaking against Chavez in the Venezuelan media, and second, why this matters at all. However, as I read, I realized that these details were simply not given. There was no so much as a: "oh yeah, and by the way, free speech doesn't exist anymore in Venezuela," or "hey, and Chavez has slowly been removing TV channels from the air and newpapers from the presses for saying the wrong thing." It was simply a quick summary of the salient facts, a small and sad comestible (ha) with no nourishment or flavor. Though the summary was good, the lack of depth was very dissappointing and could have been quite confusing or meaningless to another reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)