Friday, October 19, 2018
why the disconnect?
This blog is about how to make sure the US remains a first-world country. Two aspects of this come to mind:
1. The primacy of science. We're the country that put a man on the Moon, after all. Any first-world country has to have a culture steeped in science and a population conversant with basic scientific method. Right?
2. We need an educated, skilled workforce. To get this, we need an immigration system based on merit, rather than family ties or just the ability to make it across the Rio Grande. Right?
So why is it that the two major parties don't support both of these things? The Democrats are all for science, acknowledging the reality of climate change, etc., but they seem to want to let anybody into the country who wants to come here and can make it across the border, legally or not. The Republicans, on the other hand-- or at least the Trump contingent among them-- want a meritocratic immigration system but remain willfully ignorant of climate change-- and probably evolution, for that matter.
I want both. Why isn't there a party for people like me?
1. The primacy of science. We're the country that put a man on the Moon, after all. Any first-world country has to have a culture steeped in science and a population conversant with basic scientific method. Right?
2. We need an educated, skilled workforce. To get this, we need an immigration system based on merit, rather than family ties or just the ability to make it across the Rio Grande. Right?
So why is it that the two major parties don't support both of these things? The Democrats are all for science, acknowledging the reality of climate change, etc., but they seem to want to let anybody into the country who wants to come here and can make it across the border, legally or not. The Republicans, on the other hand-- or at least the Trump contingent among them-- want a meritocratic immigration system but remain willfully ignorant of climate change-- and probably evolution, for that matter.
I want both. Why isn't there a party for people like me?
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
'developing' nations
Ever since the end of World War II, third-world countries have been euphemistically referred to as 'developing nations.' Well, some of them-- China, India, South Korea, some others-- are 'developing' or have already 'developed.' That is, to say, they have created prosperous, first-world standards of living for their people by becoming part of the modern scientific-technological global economy and culture.
But what of the others? Are these countries really 'developing'? Are they ever really going to be 'developed'? Do you really think Haiti is ever going to become a 'developed' nation? I don't. And the reason is clear: They simply don't have enough people with the intellectual capacity to understand, let alone create, this kind of modern economy and society.
Take Puerto Rico-- please. Puerto Rico and Guam are the last spoils we've kept from the Spanish-American War of 1898 (another war we should never have fought). We gave Cuba its independence almost immediately-- 1903. We held on to the Philippines until after World War II, but they've been independent for over 70 years now. We'll probably keep Guam forever, or at least as long as we retain pretensions to being a Pacific power.
But what about Puerto Rico? Why have we kept it all this time? Does it really have some overriding military significance that requires us to keep it? And why have we given it this peculiar 'Commonwealth' status, with talk every so often of making it a state?
I think the answer is that we wanted to make Puerto Rico a shining example, not just to the nations of the Caribbean, but to Latin America as a whole, of what good old American freemarket democracy could produce. In that effort, we've thrown billions of tax dollars and tax breaks at that island, but it really hasn't worked. Why not?
To me, the answer seems clear. There simply aren't enough people on Puerto Rico who have the intellectual capacity to manage a first-world economy. In fact, I've read (although don't quote me on this) that 40% of the Puerto Rican population is on welfare! IMHO, we should not only never grant Puerto Rico statehood, we should grant it its independence-- whether it wants it or not! And I'm sure an overwhelming majority of Americans feel the same way.
Let's face it, a lot of these third-world nations are never going to 'develop.' They will just remain indigenous societies with relatively low standards of living. And that's fine, as long as they don't over-reproduce and try to export their surplus population to the developed nations. This planet is big enough to contain a number of different types of human societies, and in some ways these indigenous cultures are preferable to ours. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that ultimately everybody is going to become part of the First World.
But what of the others? Are these countries really 'developing'? Are they ever really going to be 'developed'? Do you really think Haiti is ever going to become a 'developed' nation? I don't. And the reason is clear: They simply don't have enough people with the intellectual capacity to understand, let alone create, this kind of modern economy and society.
Take Puerto Rico-- please. Puerto Rico and Guam are the last spoils we've kept from the Spanish-American War of 1898 (another war we should never have fought). We gave Cuba its independence almost immediately-- 1903. We held on to the Philippines until after World War II, but they've been independent for over 70 years now. We'll probably keep Guam forever, or at least as long as we retain pretensions to being a Pacific power.
But what about Puerto Rico? Why have we kept it all this time? Does it really have some overriding military significance that requires us to keep it? And why have we given it this peculiar 'Commonwealth' status, with talk every so often of making it a state?
I think the answer is that we wanted to make Puerto Rico a shining example, not just to the nations of the Caribbean, but to Latin America as a whole, of what good old American freemarket democracy could produce. In that effort, we've thrown billions of tax dollars and tax breaks at that island, but it really hasn't worked. Why not?
To me, the answer seems clear. There simply aren't enough people on Puerto Rico who have the intellectual capacity to manage a first-world economy. In fact, I've read (although don't quote me on this) that 40% of the Puerto Rican population is on welfare! IMHO, we should not only never grant Puerto Rico statehood, we should grant it its independence-- whether it wants it or not! And I'm sure an overwhelming majority of Americans feel the same way.
Let's face it, a lot of these third-world nations are never going to 'develop.' They will just remain indigenous societies with relatively low standards of living. And that's fine, as long as they don't over-reproduce and try to export their surplus population to the developed nations. This planet is big enough to contain a number of different types of human societies, and in some ways these indigenous cultures are preferable to ours. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that ultimately everybody is going to become part of the First World.
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
first-world gop?
Wouldn't it be nice if the GOP actually started acknowledging climate change? Well, will wonders never cease?. A Republican carbon tax. I know, it's hard to believe, but here it is, put forward by the Climate Leadership Council headed by Reagan-era luminaries George Shultz and James Baker, backed by Larry Summers, Christine Todd Whitman, and Janet Yellen. They don't call it a tax, of course, but a 'fee' or something. That's what it is, though.
https://www.clcouncil.org/
https://www.clcouncil.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)