Because we all know how much the Bushies hated Saudi

I was giving a quick read to the Economist’s take on Obama’s G20 tour, and the reaction to it back here in the US. Two things annoyed me in this article. Thing 1:

So far, the optimists form a sizeable majority. Pundits lauded Mr Obama’s performance in Europe. Public approval for his handling of foreign policy rose from 54% in February to 61% at the end of March, according to Gallup. These are impressive numbers. But the same poll found that disapproval of his handling of foreign policy had also gone up by six points, from 22% to 28%. Only the “don’t knows” declined. As Mr Obama starts to have a track record, more Americans are forming opinions about it.

First off, the last sentence should have been left on the editing room floor, as it says nothing. But secondly, if you are going to try to draw conclusions based on 6- and 7-point poll movements, you absolutely have to provide the margin of error. Did we learn nothing from Nate Silver, people?

Thing #2:

For many conservatives, the defining image of Mr Obama’s European tour was not the adoring crowds but the way America’s new president bowed before the king of Saudi Arabia. Bloggers juxtaposed his cursory nod to Britain’s Queen Elizabeth with the deep bow he gave to the dictatorial ruler of a far less reliable ally.

Now, look. I don’t think that Obama is going to be particularly groundbreaking when it comes to relations with Saudi Arabia, and I actually have some sympathy for the argument that we should be less friendly with them. However, this is an odd argument for conservatives to make, given Bush’s famous friendliness with the Saudi royal family (oh wait, I forgot – Bush isn’t actually conservative, or… something — activate competence dodge!). Moreover, our freedom to rile up the Saudis has been thoroughly compromised by the need to keep our bases there, due to some unpleasantness above their northern border that we apparently had something to do with. Gah! One set of war-mongering foiled by previous ill-advised war-mongering! Must remember to lay off the couscous while making mongering plans!

Wake me up when it’s over

Another July 27th, another anniversary of the worst day in our nation’s history swept quietly under the rug. Our leaders have once again demonstrated how deeply unserious they are. Former PM and President Robinson puts it best:

I don’t think they understand the significance of the anniversary and of the memorial in the grounds of the Red House! That is part of our problem in Trinidad & Tobago: we really don’t have the sense of what it means to be a nation.

Of course, when I heard what was said about the then leaders of the opposition-that one had said, “Wake me up when it’s over” and the other that it was a matter between the Robinson and the Muslimeen man-when I heard that, I said, “No, this is not a country at all!” I just couldn’t understand it.

Given the uninterested reactions of Manning and Panday during the coup, I’m not sure why we’re surprised about their actions today. They’ve never cared about the country, and they’ve given us plenty of opportunity to see that, from 1990 on.

Originalism indeed

I’ve always thought that the terms “originalist” and “strict constructionist” are — pardon me — bullshit. It’s all just a game of interpretation, and it’s just a cover for conservative justices to come to the conclusions they like. I say they should just have the balls to admit that they take their retrograde moralist conservative worldview and apply it to their judgments. Liberal justices clearly do it all the time, but at least they’re honest about it.

Anyway, I was just thinking about this now because of this ridiculous 2nd amendment ruling yesterday. Someone needs to explain to me how a “strict constructionist” or an “originalist” or whatever the would-be sex police who currently run our court are calling themselves these days can read an individual right to own a handgun into the second amendment. Unless we’re at the NRA museum, where they replace the amendment’s preface with an ellipsis, I just don’t see it. I’m left to conclude that Scalia sees the document as living and breathing too.

One hopes that the media sees this as well, and will start calling Republicans on their “activist judges” nonsense. This is one of the most baldly “activist” rulings to come down in ages. Who will be the first to ask John McCain what he thinks of “activist judges” who read their own views into the Constitution? I’m not holding my breath.

In other news, sorry for the lack of posting. I’m traveling and have also gotten quite busy. Must try harder. In related news, a Trinidad and Tobago passport is a massive pain in the ass if you want to go anywhere.

Free money for all: a fresh new approach

The continuing spike in food prices seems to be making people say deeply silly things. On the one hand, you had the recent comments by the Consumer Affairs Minister, in which he declared that he’s had just about enough of this “specialization of labour” fad, and told everyone to plant vegetables in their backyard. Then today, I chance upon this.

Government should reconsider its refusal to subsidise basic food items for T&T citizens, as publicly announced by Prime Minister Patrick Manning.

Economist Dr Dhanayshar Mahabir said Government did not base its decision on a detailed consideration of subsidies and how such a programme could be implemented and managed and should be reconsidered in light of the hard times being suffered by citizens.

“I completely disagree with the Government,” Mahabir said during a telephone interview last week.

“There is no basis why we can’t offer a subsidy to consumers on rice, flour, cooking oil-if the price of that is also to rise-and milk.”

Really? You’re an economist and you can’t think of why subsidies on specific products might be a bad idea? You’re a professor at the main tertiary insitution in the Anglophone Caribbean, and you can’t think of a reason? I would like to suggest that UWI serious consider opening a vacancy in their economics department, because, yikes.

Anyway. He continues.

“But given the information technology available to us now, [black markets, and other inevitable results of this kind of plan] need not happen. For example, of the total cost of a package of flour, if it is to be $55-it is easy now for a company like the National Flour Mills to send a package of flour to a supermarket, charge the supermarket $35 and then send a bill to the Government for $20.

“At the same time, the flour can be stamped ‘Maximum Retail Price $40′, so the consumers are aware.

Oh, thank GOD we can use technology (ink? paper?) to stamp an MSRP on the packs of flour. Surely when there are flour shortages (which there will be if the government does this), people will not happily ignore those kinds of controls and pay whatever the market will bear. Because that never happens.

“I think that in the short period, given the incredible hardship being faced by the poor and middle class, the latter also slowly slipping into poverty, I now call them the working poor, the Government has to re-think its position on the four basic items.”

Emphasis mine. I hope he doesn’t think that using the term “working poor” to refer to the lower end of the middle class is somehow creative. In any case, this illustrates the problem I have with this sort of thing quite nicely. He is assuming that flour, rice, milk, and cooking oil are the “basics” for everyone, and would have the government assume the same. But why? I actually tend to eat more vegetables rather than starches. Why don’t I get a subsidy?

Also: Mahabir is correct to say that the working poor are struggling with the jump in food prices. But his subsidy plan doesn’t transfer money to just the working poor who need it – it transfers money to *everyone* (except me and my quasi-Atkins eating habits — I’m bitter!). If you want to help the poor, why not just help them directly with food vouchers and/or plain old cash? Then they could spend it as they saw fit, rather than having the pointyheaded elite decide for them, Dr. Mahabir.

Mahabir pointed to what he said was a fact being lived by thousands across the country-four years ago, a food bill that was around $1,000 has now doubled while salaries have remained the same.

We are in agreement that this is a huge problem, for the record. I just don’t think we should be subsidizing food purchases for people in Westmoorings and Fairways to solve it. Call me crazy.

But the good doctor isn’t done yet.

Along with subsidies on food items, he also suggested the removal of Value Added Tax (VAT) on more items, including electricity.

“There is no good reason why the Government, in its healthy fiscal position, can’t subsidise a basic commodity like electricity,” he said, noting that a subsidisation programme does not have to be permanent.

Oh. My. God.

In a country that is already one of the world’s most prodigious polluters (per capita, granted), and a country with comically heavily subsidized energy costs, we should encourage *more* pollution? In fact, you’d like us to subsidize it?

Dr. Mahabir and John McCain should really hang out.

Also, the idea that the government could remove VAT on electricity, and then have the nuts required to put it back is either really stupid or really naive.

He also argued that it was time that T&T adopted the long-held European method of subsidy, where a cash transfer was made to farmers should prices fall below a mark set by the State and it was found that farmers’ profits were reduced.

You know, having given this a little thought, this isn’t the worst thing in the world. It sure beats price controls, and it’s not like the Trinidadian market is big enough for this to cause the problems caused by subsidies in the US and EU. On the other hand, it would direct capital to farming when it could be better applied elsewhere. Yes, this might be OK as a temporary effect, but things like farm subsidies have a funny habit of becoming permanent.

“There is nothing wrong at all with subsidising the farming sector of the economy,” said Mahabir, noting a significant decline in agriculture-the farming community has shrunk from 30,000 in 1988 to 20,000 today while the acreage cultivated has also declined, with lands either being abandoned or going to housing and other industries. Following the closure of Caroni (1975) Ltd, the contribution of agriculture to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) went from four per cent to half a per cent, he also noted.

1. What’s wrong with the land being used for housing? People need houses.

2. The decline in acreage tells me nothing about the food being produced on the land (yields may well be down too, but he doesn’t talk about that). Ditto the decline in the number of farmers.

3. That tidbit about Caroni, if true (sounds pretty hard to believe to me), really drives home what a great idea closing Caroni was (no wonder both the UNC and PNM supported it when each was the party in power). Apparently, 3.5% of our economy was tied up in a horrible inefficient and unprofitable industry, and now that land and capital can be used for better things, like, say, planting food.

“We need to look at the capabilities of the existing 20,000 farmers and at their impediments. Their impediments are largely State-induced. They are not getting the research that allows them to produce high-yielding crops. We have to put the farmer at the centre and gear all policy-making towards that.”

If they don’t have information about high-yielding crops, then why not give them that information, instead of the taxpayers’ money? I don’t see how dulling competition with subisidies is going to solve this at all.

To Dr. Mahabir’s credit, he does point out the obvious: that the run up in food prices is *global*, something that frequently gets lost when Trinidadian media address the issue. There are a lot of things that are the PNM’s fault. This isn’t one of them. Of course, he makes some rather stupid comments about how farmers are UNC and so the PNM hates them, as though (1) the UNC did much of anything for poor farmers when it was in power and (2) the PNM doesn’t depend on people who, you know, have to buy food for its votes. So it’s a mixed bag, but it’s like 80% crap.

Frankly, it’s pretty disheartening to see an economist spouting this sort of thing. Neither of these plans is likely to work. Perhaps it’s a reflection of how desperate the food situation is becoming that learned folks are running around calling for price controls and farm subsidies and other plans that just. don’t. work.

Not that I can think of anything better, to be honest.

On Haters

I suppose I should be used to Paul Krugman’s crochetyness about the Democratic primary by now, but this was especially silly on his part:

Despite [his focus on issues of process rather than economic issues], Obama is still the clear favorite for the nomination. But if he is the nominee, and runs this way in the general election — if it’s about the candidate’s awesomeness, not about why progressive policies make peoples’ lives better — it’s a formula for defeat.

I don’t even know what this means. Is talking about government reform somehow talking about how awesome you are? Does Krugman, of all people, not get why saying “the system is broken” is actually a relevant issue to raise right now? And I’m not even going to get into the Shapiro nonsense he quotes, except to say that implying that Iraq isn’t a big part of Obama’s insurgency is either painfully stupid or willfully ignorant.

But of course Krugman gets it. He’s just bitter about the loss of his preferred candidate. That’s fine, but seriously, this campaign is over. It’s time for people like Krug to focus the guns on McCain, rather than keeping the circular firing squad going. I’m sure he will, but when is he going to start? For all the stupid shit people talked about those of us who supported Dean in 2004, we were 100% behind Kerry as soon as the writing was on the wall. It’s time for the Clinton folks to extend the same courtesy, even though Obama is supported by *gasp!* young people.

Shark Jumping Complete

Well, this is charming:

“We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

Shorter version: I’d be winning if not for all these damned voters! (I suppose you could be charitable and interpret this as a complaint against the undemocratic nature of caucuses, but come on.)

I’m not sure why Hillary (and Bill) continue to drag their heretofore excellent legacy through the mud, but it’s bloody painful to watch. Hopefully she loses PA by some miracle and finally, mercifully drops out.

Obama’s big problem…

… is that he doesn’t seem to have made any headway in the Hispanic community. I’m not sure that he can. One ominous nugget appears in the form of this map of precincts in NYC from the NYT:

If you are familiar with the city, you can clearly see that the Hispanic neighbourhoods were overwhelming Clinton strongholds. Bear in mind that this seems to cut across subgroups: Dominicans in Washington Heights, Puerto Ricans in the Bronx, Mexicans and South Americans in Corona — they all went for Hillary.

I’ll be interested to see if he can overcome this. I guess we’ll find out in Texas!

My hopes for Tuesday and beyond

I won’t be voting in the US until 2012 at the earliest, but I figure I can try to help out those of you who can. So, when you go to the polls tomorrow (or beyond), I hope you’ll consider voting for Barack Obama. Let me tell you why.

As I’ve discussed before, I’ve spent most of this primary season on the fence. Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate with a lot to recommend her, and, frankly, I’d be thrilled to have her be president. Being from the Clinton-Gore wing of the party, she brings a familiarity with policy details that I find both refreshing and encouraging after the last seven years. Moreover, her election would be historic, and we might finally see a media (and perhaps a broader culture) that’s willing to deal with ambitious women with respect, rather than disdain and suspicion. Plus, it would send people like Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity to new levels of derangement, and who doesn’t want to see that?

The decision has also been difficult because the two candidates have such similar views. It’s clear to me, as much as Paul Krugman et al may disagree, that an Obama presidency would pursue pretty much the exact same goals as a Clinton administration, even on that thorny health care issue. And insofar as there are differences, my allegiances are split. I prefer the mandates of Clinton’s health plan, of course (and I admit that Obama’s rhetoric on this issue does betray a worrying lack of understanding), but I also prefer Obama’s foreign policy instincts, which are clearly to Clinton’s left. Obama also has slightly better positions and rhetoric on immigration (my major issue), and civil liberties, and clearly has a better grasp of technology. In the end, though, the differences are tiny, and are likely to be dwarfed by the realities of governance in any case. They are not the basis for my choice.

So, then: why Obama?

As I said, I think that Hillary and Barack will both pursue worthy goals. Unfortunately, we will need the support of a few Republicans to get anything passed. If you think that we are drawing down our presence in Iraq or getting universal health care without a filibuster threat, you’re just not paying attention (or maybe you’ve just been hoping the media will explain things). Now, if you are expecting me to say that I think that Obama can really “bring us together” and “work with Republicans” or whatever, you must not come here often. I believe that the GOP leadership will be more intransigent than ever in 2009. So how do we peel off 4 or 5 votes for cloture? The only way, IMO, is by winning over public opinion. You show people like Specter and Collins that the people are with you, and suddenly, you get some defections. President Bush has been incredibly good at this, even with a 27%(!!) approval rating. So who can better sell the argument for liberalism?

It’s not just that I think that Obama will be better at moving public opinion, though I do. It’s more that he seems to grasp that it is necessary to do so. With Hillary, I get the distinct impression that she believes that we will need to operate within the confines of the current political atmosphere. I do not see her trying to shift public opinion substantially; rather, I believe that she will focus on the legislative process, with its dealing and negotiations. She will be good at this, no doubt, but I don’t believe that it’s going to get the job done.

Obama, on the other hand, truly seems to believe that building a deep and lasting majority for liberalism with the public is central to getting liberal plans enacted. We both believe, I think, that it is only by showing wavering legislators that the votes are on your side that you will get them to defect. Not only will this help him deal with Republican filibusters, but it will more broadly benefit liberalism as a movement in this country, and that’s how you get big plans like universal health care, or a real national transit plan, or whatever it is that you like. There’s a certain amount of risk inherent in this. I have to hope that Obama will actually be able to sell the public on liberalism, after 3 decades of demonization of social democratic ideals. But he seems to have the ability, and at least he’s going to try. With Hillary, we’ll have the White House and Congress, but the discussion in our country will continue to be on their terms, and that means that ultimately, we will not win. I’m not deluded. I don’t think that we will convince everyone overnight. But I do believe that Obama wants to leave the country a liberal legacy to match the destructive legacy of Reagan, in a way that Hillary just doesn’t seem to get. That’s what he means when he talks about the way that Reagan changed America with ideas. It wasn’t a change for the better, but it was far more fundamental than what Bill Clinton, for all his good work, was able to accomplish.

Look, I was always a little biased towards Obama, even if I’ve often found it difficult to come off the fence for him. I still think that his speech at the DNC was the best explanation of why I am a liberal that I’ve heard from someone living. He’s much closer to my generation than the others, and I feel like we approach things in the same way. And it’s no mistake that I feel an attraction to an Ivy-League educated black man who is the son of an immigrant. I mean, come on! As a presidential candidate, he is about as similar to me as is constitutionally permissible. Of course I like the guy. But I think you should like him too, because he doesn’t just want to change our government, he wants to change the way that all of us speak about what our government should do. That’s what America needs, and that’s why, if you are fortunate enough to have the franchise, I hope that you vote for Barack Obama.

Pocket Veto

The Trinidadian presidency is usually thought of as a ceremonial position, but this isn’t entirely correct. A good example of one of the President’s powers crops up in today’s Express:

In 2000, under the United National Congress government, then attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj piloted to Parliament an act entitled “The Dangerous Dogs Act, 2000″, to provide for regulating the keeping of dangerous dogs which present a serious danger to the public, to make further provision for ensuring that such dogs are kept under proper control and for connected purposes.

The act was debated in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and was passed.

In order for a bill or act to become law, however, it must be proclaimed by the President.

Parliament can pass whatever it wants, but if the President wants to sit on it, he can sit on it for his entire term. It doesn’t happen that often (at least not deliberately; the sort of incompetence seen above is depressingly common), but it could. Something to keep in mind the next time someone rails at you about a switch to a presidential system. At least that system is honest.

What’s a pocket veto?

How you voting?

Well, I can’t really vote at all, due to the lack of absentee ballots. If I could, I suppose that I’d make my way down to La Seiva RC, hold my nose tight, and vote for Dooks. Why hold my nose? I’m disappointed to see the company he keeps. Sudama? John “Certified Sane” Humphrey? Brian “Piarco Cowboy” Keui Tung? Really? I dunno…. I know that he’s the darling of the educated middle classes, but is this really the best he could do?

There’s also the fact that, let’s face it, he hasn’t got much of a shot. Believe me, I’d be much happier with a PM Dooks than Patos, but I just can’t see it happening. However, if I’m proven wrong on the morning of November 6th, I promise to shave my head.

So… I guess that’s an endorsement? I dunno. I know I’m disappointing Mani & co., but I just can’t get excited about these COP guys.