Category Archives: Politics

The New Colonialism

China | The new colonialists | Economist.com

Not all observers, however, think that China’s unstinting appetite for commodities is super. The most common complaint centres on foreign policy. In its drive to secure reliable supplies of raw materials, it is said, China is coddling dictators, despoiling poor countries and undermining Western efforts to spread democracy and prosperity. America and Europe, the shrillest voices say, are “losing” Africa and Latin America.

I read this paragraph and immediately thought “How is this different from what the US has been doing for the past 100+ years? ” I might include the Europeans as well, after they had to relinquish their empires – coddling dictators indeed, setting them up in the first place, that’s what they were doing.

Nader announces another presidential bid

Oh my, won’t the Democrats be upset!

Nader announces another presidential bid

WASHINGTON – Ralph Nader is launching a third-party campaign for president. The consumer advocate made the announcement Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He says most Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties, and that none of the presidential contenders are addressing ways to stem corporate crime and Pentagon waste and promote labor rights.

Nader also ran as a third-party candidate in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. He is still loathed by many Democrats who call him a spoiler and claim his candidacy in 2000 cost the party the election by siphoning votes away from Al Gore in a razor-thin contest in Florida.

Maybe if the Democrats actually tried to do something about corporate crime and corruption then Nader would not feel compelled to jump into the race. But if the Dems did that, they might not be mistaken for Republicans, and then no one would vote for them.

Much more important to get elected rather than do the right thing.

I think I figured it out. Wait, No I didn’t.

The previous article discussing optimal representation was basing its results on a proportional power of the population. I think they were using a factor of 1/3 for their equation. So, if you raise the Population Number to 0.4 and divide by 3, you come up pretty close to what they thought optimal for the US. (I think it depends on what population numbers you use. I came up with 815 using a population of 295,734,134 (2005 est). Using their 807 figure indicates they are looking at a population of 288M)

Of course this doesn’t explain the discrepancy between France and Italy, unless the CIA has the wrong population figures for those countries.  My proportional calculations produced 433 and 425 reps respectively which is still a fair bit less than their numbers. So maybe the proportion is a variable as well?

If you use the 2000 US pop of 281M then the proportion is 2.97 to get the 807 result. But it does nothing to get closer to their France and Italy numbers.

Later.

295,734,134
295,734,134

Economist’s View: “Choosing the Optimal Number of Representatives in Modern Democracies”

Economist’s View: “Choosing the Optimal Number of Representatives in Modern Democracies”

Elaine pointed this article out to me.

The authors have plotted out the various democracies population/representative ratios  and have come up with an optimal number. Theirs is POP raised to 0. 4 power. Almost a square-root of the population. Based on the current US population of  300,000,000 that comes to 2460 representatives, about one representative per 122,000 citizens.  Very close to  the number in my previous discussion on this subject.

What I don’t quite agree with in their analysis is the inclusion of Senators or Peers or Upper House members as representatives. Using the US as an example, the Upper House, the Senate, represent the States and not the individual citizens. That is the role of the House of Representatives.

I thought that in most countries the Upper House represents regional groups in a similar manner as the Senate.  The Senate provides two representatives per State, independent of the size or population of the State. They are elected by the citizens of the State today, rather than being appointed by the State as they were initially. Should they still be considered State Representatives? or just some sort of super citizen representative? Presumably, the Senate can put the brakes on run-away populism and the ‘tyranny of the majority’ if the House gets a bee in its bonnet, but if both houses get a bee in the bonnet, then watch out.

I see from the article that determining an optimal number of representatives has been around for a while. It looks like the numbers are getting pretty solid. I’m not sure why their number for US representatives is so much lower than mine.  They say their model shows 807 combined Representatives and Senators, while my calculator shows raising the Population to the .4 power gives 2460. I think 807 is still way to low for a representative democracy of 300,000,000 citizens.

If I have used my calculator properly, 18,500,516 raised to the .4 power is 807.   The more I look at their numbers for other countries, I question the equation they are using.  They say France’s optimal number of Reps is 545, with a population of over 60 million, ( 1 rep/110,000) while Italy’s optimal number is 570 with  population of 58 million (1 rep/101,000). By my calculator that should be 1292 and 1275 respectively (1 rep/46,500 and 1 rep/45,500) Maybe I need to go back and take some remedial math courses and see if I can figure this out.  They mention a banana curve in the article (evidently a base-running technique) need to find out more on that.

Why?

I was down at the local Drinking Liberally meeting the other night and asked a general question of the group:

“Why should we have a government supported health care plan?”

Hillary’s health plan had just been recently announced.

I asked the question in all seriousness. I have been hearing of most of the presidential candidates proposing various versions of national heath care plans but I don’t remember hearing a discussion of the prerequisite  question: Why have national health care?

Continue reading Why?

AT&T Silences Pearl Jam

AT&T Silences Pearl Jam; Gives ‘Net Neutrality’ Proponents Ammunition – Forbes.com

Almost perfect because what happened here was the act of AT&T as a content provider bleeping out content it was sponsoring and delivering—not depriving people of content someone else wanted delivered. (Yes, I know, if AT&T would do that to one of its own shows, just imagine … )

Carriers really shouldn’t be trying to bleep content.

Aye, and there’s the rub…

“David is extremely principled and dedicated to doing what he feels is right, and can be a very tough customer when he perceives others as obstacles to achieving those goals,” Berenson said. “But it’s not personal in the sense that ‘I don’t like you.’ It’s all about the underlying principle.”

From a Washington Post Article

It is a fine and good thing when someone puts principle over personal good, especially in the public interest, to do what they feel is right and proper and to promote the right whenever possible.

Of course, in America, it would also be nice if that person had American principles and not some jingoistic notion of national pride, nor some principles based on a cult of personality. Some concept of democracy and a republic would be nice, plus some principles founded on the Bill of Rights.

But no, the principles of the Bush/Cheney White House seem to be anti-American and anti-democratic. They are willing to undermine the principles this country was founded on, in exchange for their notion of “protecting the American way of life” and for fantasized short-term political gains.

The idea of an “American way” has evolved and strayed so far from the original notions of the founders that the citizens don’t seem to realize what is happening to them. We citizens need to hold our government accountable. We are a government of the People, by the People, for the People. When someone says the government is bad, they are saying the people are bad. And the government that we need to hold accountable includes the Congress, starts with the Congress. The Executive branch, the President, doesn’t represent the People, Congress does. (And we have no idea of what the Vice-President is supposed to be doing to the People.) The Executive, the President, is supposed to execute the will of Congress – the representatives of the People.

I, for one, am getting sick and tired of this concept that people seem to be developing that we need to have a single person in charge. A single person that decides policy and implements it. Our Congress certainly seems to be leaning in that direction. A majority believe that our actions in Iraq are wrong but if the President wants to fund them, who are we to say nay?

Democracy is ugly, governments should be inefficient, and one-person rule is wrong.

It’s just (a) fine

I heard about the $100M ITT fine for passing along assembly specs for night goggles to foreign countries.

Is there any reason ITT should ever get another government contract for anything?

The way I heard it described:

1) ITT was attempting to subcontract the production of the night goggles. And, of course, you subcontract to off-shore facilities to do the actual work and to keep your profits up. And, of course, the off-shore facilities are located in countries that are not the best of friends with US.
2) ITT considers our export controls laws to be a minor nuisance in conducting international business and that it is probably cheaper to ignore the laws and see if they get caught rather abide by them.

If ITT is an American corporation then they are guilty of treason and they shouldn’t be getting US government contracts; if they aren’t an American corporation they shouldn’t be getting US contracts in the first place.

It’s time to write the congressman again. Although I’m sure that because of ITT’s support of the US in 1973,he will give them a free ride this time.