A letter to the NTU valedictorian who used the F-word in her speech
By Rohit Brijnath
DEAR Miss Trinetta Chong,
Good morning and may I gently say that now you have really *&^% done it. A single swear word - uttered I appreciate in youthful excitement - in your valedictorian speech at Nanyang Technological University, and a crisis has arisen.
Mine, not yours.
Apparently, I qualified to write this essay because it is rumoured I swear fluently in four languages - English, Hindi, Bengali and Australian. Please, it's untrue. My mother - famous for her bars of soap - may read this.
Nevertheless, there you are, swearing on YouTube and smiling, watched by thousands; here I am, alone, swearing at my computer. Of course, yours was a public space, mine is private, but, alas, those lines tend to blur these days.
This is no old fogey lecture, just a look at a word that centuries on still provokes debate.
Anyway, should I get overly preachy, I will be slandered as uncool; should I dismiss profanity by quoting Stephen Fry, who said 'It is impossible to imagine going through life without swearing or without enjoying swearing', I will be rightly pilloried for encouraging it. So I must, like the Flying Wallendas, attempt a dangerous high-wire walk.
Not everyone swears, though what the size of this finely restrained tribe is I cannot say. Even those who do, will say - please wait for stern parental voice - 'there is a time and place for everything'.
Indeed. Nevertheless, profanity intrigues many, especially when young. When we meet a travelling Dane or Kenyan, the first words we often like to learn are 'hello' and 'thank you', followed by something rather rude. Weird, isn't it?
Anyway, your minor outburst has required a little soul-searching and much Internet browsing. So, in case you were unaware, the F-word arrived, so notes the Oxford Dictionary of English, in the early 16th century and it has never left. One may insert ear plugs, but one cannot be deaf to it, for it can even be transmitted through sign language.
Its letters have since been rearranged to become a clothing company and its significance has warranted a 93-minute documentary. One might say this word has gone the distance, even in fact into space: Having completed his moonwalk in 1972, and unaware of an open mike, commander John Young, tired of eating citrus fruits, made his complaint rather plain.
Invective, I concede Miss Chong, litters our public landscape like a sort of verbal graffiti. So much for offering you role models. Former United States vice-president Dick Cheney has uttered it and that terrific dame, Helen Mirren, has shared it. At least she had the courtesy to put her hand to her face in smiling dismay.
Comedians toss the word around like confetti, movies use it for emphasis - Martin Scorsese's Mafia-epic Casino reportedly has 398 mentions - and rock stars hurl it with defiance. Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters recently instructed a fighting fan to 'Get the *&^% out of my show'. Presumably, the F-word was the better option to fisticuffs.
Sports stars, viewed as heroic even by adults, use it flagrantly. Or as the ice-hockey player Gordon Howe once explained it: 'American professional athletes are bilingual: They speak English and profanity.' Of course, them we excuse under the guise of 'heat of the moment'.
Not all words stand the passage of time, for language - a lovely, evolving beast - alters subtly every generation. New lingos arrive, and my daughter - like you, I am certain - uses SMS code which I strive to comprehend. LOL, it took me a while to figure out, had no relation to lollipops. Please try not to smirk. But the F-word, for all its casual usage, has not entirely lost its jarring anti-establishment edge nor its strong sense of taboo.
Beyond disgust, profanity offends some - like a writer friend of mine - because it further impoverishes language, manifesting a wider refusal to discover within English, for instance, more beautiful and available synonyms. So invective becomes the lazy option and too many words, once frowned upon, creep into the public discourse.
Now even in Australia - where swearing I had suspected was a fundamental right - Victoria's state government is trying to zip lips with an on-the-spot fine for indecent language. Whereupon author Keith Dunstan wrote: 'What do you do when you hit your thumb with a hammer? What do you say when you serve three double faults in a row?'
The F-word will continue to polarise.
It will remain a vulgarity and provocation to many; it will be viewed as a way to convey anger pithily, contempt pointedly and elation swiftly for others. But its quick death is unlikely, for it is inextricably linked to emotion and rebellion.
I hardly recommend it, Trinetta, but as speech goes, there is more in life that offends me. It rests way below race-baiting, it does not outrage like sexism does, it is not as disturbing as religious hatred. All this can be spoken of in fine language, but elicits a sharper disgust. Personal attacks on television, in blogs, even in letters I receive, are to me far worse than a quickly bleeped-out word.
So here is my last word on the F-word for you. It's a personal, adult choice, but a choice to be exercised smartly, a distinction to be made as to which space is appropriate for it.
And by the way - it isn't what I remember most about your speech. That would be your quoting of Dr Seuss. I swear, I love that old genius.
Good luck,
Rohit Brijnath
[Nice. For all the people who thought it was a big deal, I humbly disagree. She was not expressing anger, or disdain, or sought to offend. It was a sincere exuberant outburst, with no offence intended. None should be taken. And if you are the type to take offence, you should just pretend you didn't hear it.]
Monday, August 8, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Cut out the socialist flab from US defence
Aug 6, 2011
By Fareed Zakaria
THE scary aspect of the debt deal meant to force all of Washington to its senses is the threatened cut to defence spending. If the congressional 'super-committee' cannot agree on cutbacks of US$1.5 trillion (S$1.8 trillion), the guillotine will fall and half of those cuts will have to come from expenditures on national security.
As with so much Washington accounting, there is a lot of ambiguity in baselines and terms (for instance, what is covered under 'national security'?). Most experts estimate that the defence budget would lose US$600 billion to US$700 billion over the next 10 years. If so, let the guillotine fall. It would be a much-needed adjustment to an out-of-control military-industrial complex.
First, some history. The Pentagon's budget has risen for 13 years, which is unprecedented. Between 2001 and 2009, overall spending on defence rose from US$412 billion to US$699 billion, a 70 per cent increase, which is larger than in any comparable period since the Korean War.
Including the supplementary spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, America spent US$250 billion more than average US defence expenditures during the Cold War - a time when the Soviet, Chinese and Eastern European militaries were arrayed against the United States and its allies.
Over the past decade, when America had no serious national adversaries, US defence spending has gone from about a third of total worldwide defence spending to nearly 50 per cent. In other words, America spent almost as much on defence as the planet's remaining countries put together.
It is not unprecedented for defence spending to fall substantially as America scales back or ends military actions. After the Korean War, then President Dwight Eisenhower cut defence spending by 27 per cent. Mr Richard Nixon cut it by 29 per cent after the Vietnam War. As tensions declined in the 1980s, Mr Ronald Reagan began scaling back his military spending, a process accelerated under presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Given the enormous run-up in spending under president George W. Bush, even if President Obama made cuts comparable to those of his predecessors, defence spending would remain substantially above the levels under all those presidents.
The Bowles-Simpson commission's plan proposed US$750 billion in defence cuts over 10 years. Mr Lawrence Korb, who worked at the Pentagon for Mr Ronald Reagan, believes that a US$1 trillion cut over 10 to 12 years is feasible without compromising national security.
Serious conservatives should examine the defence budget, which contains tonnes of evidence of the liberalism run amok that they usually decry. All the talk of waste, fraud and abuse in government is vastly exaggerated; there simply isn't enough money in discretionary spending.
Most of the federal government's spending involves transfer payments and tax expenditures, which are - whatever their merits - highly efficient at funnelling money to their beneficiaries. The exception is defence, a cradle-to-grave system of housing, subsidies, cost-plus procurement, early retirement and lifetime pension and health-care guarantees. There is so much overlap among the military services, so much duplication and so much waste that no one bothers to defend it any more. Today, the US defence establishment is the world's largest socialist economy.
Defence budget cuts would also force a healthy rebalancing of American foreign policy. Since the Cold War, the US Congress has tended to fatten the Pentagon while starving foreign policy agencies. As former defence secretary Robert Gates pointed out, there are more members of military marching bands than people who make up the entire US foreign service. Anyone who has ever watched American foreign policy on the ground has seen this imbalance play out. Top State Department officials seeking to negotiate vital matters arrive without aides and bedraggled after a 14-hour flight in coach. Their military counterparts whisk in on a fleet of planes, with dozens of aides and pots of money to dispense. The late Mr Richard Holbrooke would laugh when media accounts described him as the 'civilian counterpart' to General David Petraeus, then head of the US Central Command. 'He has many more planes than I have cellphones,' Mr Holbrooke would say (and he had many cellphones).
The result is a warped American foreign policy, ready to conceive of problems in military terms and present a military solution. Describing precisely this phenomenon, Mr Eisenhower remarked that to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. In his often-quoted farewell address, he urged a balance between military and non-military spending. Unfortunately, it has become far more unbalanced in the decades since his speech.
WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP
[So it was Eisenhower who said that hammer quote.]
By Fareed Zakaria
THE scary aspect of the debt deal meant to force all of Washington to its senses is the threatened cut to defence spending. If the congressional 'super-committee' cannot agree on cutbacks of US$1.5 trillion (S$1.8 trillion), the guillotine will fall and half of those cuts will have to come from expenditures on national security.
As with so much Washington accounting, there is a lot of ambiguity in baselines and terms (for instance, what is covered under 'national security'?). Most experts estimate that the defence budget would lose US$600 billion to US$700 billion over the next 10 years. If so, let the guillotine fall. It would be a much-needed adjustment to an out-of-control military-industrial complex.
First, some history. The Pentagon's budget has risen for 13 years, which is unprecedented. Between 2001 and 2009, overall spending on defence rose from US$412 billion to US$699 billion, a 70 per cent increase, which is larger than in any comparable period since the Korean War.
Including the supplementary spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, America spent US$250 billion more than average US defence expenditures during the Cold War - a time when the Soviet, Chinese and Eastern European militaries were arrayed against the United States and its allies.
Over the past decade, when America had no serious national adversaries, US defence spending has gone from about a third of total worldwide defence spending to nearly 50 per cent. In other words, America spent almost as much on defence as the planet's remaining countries put together.
It is not unprecedented for defence spending to fall substantially as America scales back or ends military actions. After the Korean War, then President Dwight Eisenhower cut defence spending by 27 per cent. Mr Richard Nixon cut it by 29 per cent after the Vietnam War. As tensions declined in the 1980s, Mr Ronald Reagan began scaling back his military spending, a process accelerated under presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Given the enormous run-up in spending under president George W. Bush, even if President Obama made cuts comparable to those of his predecessors, defence spending would remain substantially above the levels under all those presidents.
The Bowles-Simpson commission's plan proposed US$750 billion in defence cuts over 10 years. Mr Lawrence Korb, who worked at the Pentagon for Mr Ronald Reagan, believes that a US$1 trillion cut over 10 to 12 years is feasible without compromising national security.
Serious conservatives should examine the defence budget, which contains tonnes of evidence of the liberalism run amok that they usually decry. All the talk of waste, fraud and abuse in government is vastly exaggerated; there simply isn't enough money in discretionary spending.
Most of the federal government's spending involves transfer payments and tax expenditures, which are - whatever their merits - highly efficient at funnelling money to their beneficiaries. The exception is defence, a cradle-to-grave system of housing, subsidies, cost-plus procurement, early retirement and lifetime pension and health-care guarantees. There is so much overlap among the military services, so much duplication and so much waste that no one bothers to defend it any more. Today, the US defence establishment is the world's largest socialist economy.
Defence budget cuts would also force a healthy rebalancing of American foreign policy. Since the Cold War, the US Congress has tended to fatten the Pentagon while starving foreign policy agencies. As former defence secretary Robert Gates pointed out, there are more members of military marching bands than people who make up the entire US foreign service. Anyone who has ever watched American foreign policy on the ground has seen this imbalance play out. Top State Department officials seeking to negotiate vital matters arrive without aides and bedraggled after a 14-hour flight in coach. Their military counterparts whisk in on a fleet of planes, with dozens of aides and pots of money to dispense. The late Mr Richard Holbrooke would laugh when media accounts described him as the 'civilian counterpart' to General David Petraeus, then head of the US Central Command. 'He has many more planes than I have cellphones,' Mr Holbrooke would say (and he had many cellphones).
The result is a warped American foreign policy, ready to conceive of problems in military terms and present a military solution. Describing precisely this phenomenon, Mr Eisenhower remarked that to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. In his often-quoted farewell address, he urged a balance between military and non-military spending. Unfortunately, it has become far more unbalanced in the decades since his speech.
WASHINGTON POST WRITERS GROUP
[So it was Eisenhower who said that hammer quote.]
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Understanding the paradox of capitalism
Aug 4, 2011
ASK NUS ECONOMISTS
What is meant by the 'cultural contradictions of capitalism', or the 'paradox of capitalism'?
THESE two themes are related, but not identical. The Cultural Contradictions Of Capitalism is the title of a celebrated 1976 book by American scholar Daniel Bell. One of its key insights has been concisely summarised by author Eric Liu in a Sept 24, 2010 article in The Atlantic magazine. This is the view that 'a self-denying work ethic leads to the affluence that gives rise to self-gratifying play ethic that ends up corroding the affluence'.
Another writer, Tracy Mehan III, writes that 'work, sobriety, frugality and sexual restraint' are some values that have come under assault from the 'play ethic'.
The notion of a paradox in capitalist systems is summed up well by University of Illinois economist Salim Rashid: 'The paradox of capitalism is that it is a system ostensibly based on self-interest yet wholly dependent on non-economic morals and values for its success.'
Referring to the enforcement of property rights, for example, he points out that 'before capitalism - a system of greedy individuals pursuing their self-interest - is to function, we need a set of judges who are individuals not motivated by greed'.
One common theme in both ideas of the contradiction or paradox of capitalism is that self-interest may generate economic activity, but that society needs limits to self-interested behaviour in order to function optimally.
The pursuit of greed, or self-interest, can become especially unhealthy in situations of 'asymmetric information', in which one party to a transaction has superior information to the other.
Such situations are pervasive in modern economies. Doctors, lawyers and other professionals, for example, are generally much better-informed about their respective areas of work than are their lay clients. If motivated by greed, they could well use their superior information to their advantage.
So also are chief executive officers of large firms vis-a-vis their shareholders (especially if the latter are many and dispersed), politicians vis-a-vis their constituents, regulators vis-a-vis the general public, principals and teachers vis-a-vis their students, and so on.
The previously stated discussion points to the dangers of seeking to run a society, including its economy, largely through the use of material incentives, which inherently appeals to self-interest.
Self-interest, applied in social engineering, may well become progressively accentuated over time. This will inevitably end up corroding the social and moral fabric of society, undermining its social and economic health over the long term.
But there is an alternative point of view. This states that self-interest need not play a significant role even in narrowly 'economic' transactions. The great Japanese entrepreneur Konosuke Matsushita once observed that profits 'should not be a reflection of corporate greed', but rather are useful as 'a vote of confidence from society that what is offered by the firm is valued'.
[A "timely" article considering the debate on nationalising the transport system?]
Some will argue that companies with community values beyond profit-seeking motives will do better over the long run than companies narrowly focused on the bottom line.
These days, a more active citizenry and civil society, expressing themselves through a wide range of media outlets, can help to identify and keep in check the unhealthy and extreme pursuit of self-interest across a wide range of activities in modern societies.
There is also a need for education and awareness of the limits of the prevailing capitalist system. Schools, religious bodies, enlightened political parties and the media all have fundamental responsibilities in this regard.
The writer is a professor of economics and director of the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, Department of Economics, at the National University of Singapore.
ASK NUS ECONOMISTS
What is meant by the 'cultural contradictions of capitalism', or the 'paradox of capitalism'?
THESE two themes are related, but not identical. The Cultural Contradictions Of Capitalism is the title of a celebrated 1976 book by American scholar Daniel Bell. One of its key insights has been concisely summarised by author Eric Liu in a Sept 24, 2010 article in The Atlantic magazine. This is the view that 'a self-denying work ethic leads to the affluence that gives rise to self-gratifying play ethic that ends up corroding the affluence'.
Another writer, Tracy Mehan III, writes that 'work, sobriety, frugality and sexual restraint' are some values that have come under assault from the 'play ethic'.
The notion of a paradox in capitalist systems is summed up well by University of Illinois economist Salim Rashid: 'The paradox of capitalism is that it is a system ostensibly based on self-interest yet wholly dependent on non-economic morals and values for its success.'
Referring to the enforcement of property rights, for example, he points out that 'before capitalism - a system of greedy individuals pursuing their self-interest - is to function, we need a set of judges who are individuals not motivated by greed'.
One common theme in both ideas of the contradiction or paradox of capitalism is that self-interest may generate economic activity, but that society needs limits to self-interested behaviour in order to function optimally.
The pursuit of greed, or self-interest, can become especially unhealthy in situations of 'asymmetric information', in which one party to a transaction has superior information to the other.
Such situations are pervasive in modern economies. Doctors, lawyers and other professionals, for example, are generally much better-informed about their respective areas of work than are their lay clients. If motivated by greed, they could well use their superior information to their advantage.
So also are chief executive officers of large firms vis-a-vis their shareholders (especially if the latter are many and dispersed), politicians vis-a-vis their constituents, regulators vis-a-vis the general public, principals and teachers vis-a-vis their students, and so on.
The previously stated discussion points to the dangers of seeking to run a society, including its economy, largely through the use of material incentives, which inherently appeals to self-interest.
Self-interest, applied in social engineering, may well become progressively accentuated over time. This will inevitably end up corroding the social and moral fabric of society, undermining its social and economic health over the long term.
But there is an alternative point of view. This states that self-interest need not play a significant role even in narrowly 'economic' transactions. The great Japanese entrepreneur Konosuke Matsushita once observed that profits 'should not be a reflection of corporate greed', but rather are useful as 'a vote of confidence from society that what is offered by the firm is valued'.
[A "timely" article considering the debate on nationalising the transport system?]
Some will argue that companies with community values beyond profit-seeking motives will do better over the long run than companies narrowly focused on the bottom line.
These days, a more active citizenry and civil society, expressing themselves through a wide range of media outlets, can help to identify and keep in check the unhealthy and extreme pursuit of self-interest across a wide range of activities in modern societies.
There is also a need for education and awareness of the limits of the prevailing capitalist system. Schools, religious bodies, enlightened political parties and the media all have fundamental responsibilities in this regard.
The writer is a professor of economics and director of the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, Department of Economics, at the National University of Singapore.
The crisis at the heart of US politics
Even the deal on the debt ceiling will not cover up the cracks
by Robert Dallek
TODAY Aug 03, 2011
There is much that is admirable about America's politics: The growing opportunity for anyone, regardless of religion, race or gender, to run for any and all offices; and the long history of peaceful transitions set in place when Thomas Jefferson announced in his first Inaugural: "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
Jefferson also counselled tolerance for those who saw Republican government as an error: "Let them stand," he said, "undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it".
So it is with the many bizarre voices we have heard through the decades of American political history.
The country's Right of centre has been a rich vein of distorted thinking. From the Know Nothings in the 1840s and 1850s, who declared Catholic migrants to the United States agents of the Papacy intent on destroying American freedoms; to the John Birchers of the Cold War years who saw Communists in every walk of American life subverting traditional freedoms; to the present-day Birthers decrying a President who they see as foreign born and an illegitimate holder of the office - American politics has never been free of apocalyptic voices predicting the country's demise at the hands of sinister forces.
The Left has had its share of crazies as well. Late 19th-century populists saw bankers and industrialists manipulating markets to enrich themselves at the expense of small farmers and labourers, and favoured political candidates promising economic relief through free and unlimited coinage of silver. Pitchfork Ben Tillman from South Carolina campaigned for office in coveralls wielding his pitchfork, promising to stick it into President Grover Cleveland's fat ribs after angry voters sent him to the Senate.
At least when these firebrands of the Right and the Left preached their venom, they had some basis for their anger: Economic downturns in the 1870s and 1890s fuelled the explosion of animus among suffering citizens, and the Sino-Soviet Communist threat of the post-1945 years gave a degree of credibility to Joseph McCarthy and other anti-communist tub thumpers.
But now? What possible sense can we make of the Sarah Palins and Michelle Bachmans and Donald Trumps who, in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, have made such a fuss over US President Barack Obama's birth certificate, over gay marriage and over death panels?
And in more recent days, the Tea Partiers, who are determined to shrink the size of government by refusing to raise the government's debt ceiling despite warnings of economic catastrophe with worldwide repercussions? Their goal, whatever their rhetoric about making Washington live within its means, is to repeal the past 100 years of federal programmes that have done so much to humanise the American industrial system. Their actions are driven by indecipherable anger, not rational calculation. Do they even understand what the dismantling of so many government programmes might mean?
Something is at work here that makes you wonder if rational discourse is beyond the capacity of many American voters to understand and to think essential in public discourse. Several things seem to be driving the present affinity for this "silliness", as President Obama has described it.
First, there is the growth of all the media outlets that provide abundant opportunities to all sorts of zany characters to speak their minds and reach an audience. Nowadays, everyone seems to have a blog that finds readers. The number of people across the country with peculiar ideas and unfathomable things to say has not increased, but their ability to make themselves heard certainly has.
But why are so many ready to hear them and take them so seriously? One answer is that the country's politics are adrift because traditional party loyalties have declined so substantially. The rise of the Tea Party movement is a striking example. As the current crisis demonstrates, to House Speaker John Boehner's chagrin, these newcomers refuse to follow their party's lead and agree to anything that includes a hint of compromise with their goal of redefining government spending and its powers.
The Democrats are not much more unified. Many of what the media describe as the party's base are restless with President Obama's compromises and a few are threatening to challenge his re-nomination next year. There have always been mutterings on the Left and the Right against the established parties, but they now seem more like an atomising force.
DEEPLY CYNICAL PUBLIC
There is also the fact that most Americans no longer see themselves as Democrats or Republicans, but, if they remain interested in politics at all, as independents - whatever that may mean. There are few recognisable political leaders to whom voters seem to listen.
The public is deeply cynical about politics and politicians. The Congress holds only a 17-per-cent approval rating and the President now has the approval of less than 50 per cent of the public. Moreover, the latest polls show little enthusiasm for any of the potential Republican challengers. Neither Mr Mitt Romney nor Mr Tim Pawlenty nor Mr Newt Gingrich nor Ms Michelle Bachman nor any of the lesser-known names in the mix generate much excitement.
Will this sort of political malaise continue? It is impossible to predict. But it seems likely unless someone who generates widespread enthusiasm for themselves and their policies comes along. President Obama seemed to be filling this void in 2008 when so many new voters came to the polls in response to his campaign. But that enthusiasm has waned.
It is fair to say that the President has been dealt difficult cards. But Americans are less inclined to blame circumstances for a president's loss of popularity than to see his shortcomings in meeting the challenges facing the country. Perhaps nothing tells us more about the current state of American politics than polls showing the enduring popularity of John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
In an opinion survey last November, Kennedy received an 85 per cent approval rating and Reagan followed him with 74 per cent. None of the other recent presidents included in the poll came close to either of them.
It speaks volumes that a president who served for only 1,000 days 50 years ago and had so limited a record of achievement should hold the affection of so many. True, he was assassinated and Americans can only imagine what another five-plus years of his presidency might have brought. But it is the yearning for Camelot that tells us how much is currently missing in our politics and how eager Americans are for someone who can regenerate national optimism and unity.
In the meantime, some hobbits from Middle Earth, as Senator John McCain recently described the extreme Right in his Republican Party, seem to be filling the vacuum.
Robert Dallek is one of America's leading presidential historians; his latest book is The Lost Peace: Leadership in a Time of Horror and Hope, 1945-1953.
by Robert Dallek
TODAY Aug 03, 2011
There is much that is admirable about America's politics: The growing opportunity for anyone, regardless of religion, race or gender, to run for any and all offices; and the long history of peaceful transitions set in place when Thomas Jefferson announced in his first Inaugural: "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
Jefferson also counselled tolerance for those who saw Republican government as an error: "Let them stand," he said, "undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it".
So it is with the many bizarre voices we have heard through the decades of American political history.
The country's Right of centre has been a rich vein of distorted thinking. From the Know Nothings in the 1840s and 1850s, who declared Catholic migrants to the United States agents of the Papacy intent on destroying American freedoms; to the John Birchers of the Cold War years who saw Communists in every walk of American life subverting traditional freedoms; to the present-day Birthers decrying a President who they see as foreign born and an illegitimate holder of the office - American politics has never been free of apocalyptic voices predicting the country's demise at the hands of sinister forces.
The Left has had its share of crazies as well. Late 19th-century populists saw bankers and industrialists manipulating markets to enrich themselves at the expense of small farmers and labourers, and favoured political candidates promising economic relief through free and unlimited coinage of silver. Pitchfork Ben Tillman from South Carolina campaigned for office in coveralls wielding his pitchfork, promising to stick it into President Grover Cleveland's fat ribs after angry voters sent him to the Senate.
At least when these firebrands of the Right and the Left preached their venom, they had some basis for their anger: Economic downturns in the 1870s and 1890s fuelled the explosion of animus among suffering citizens, and the Sino-Soviet Communist threat of the post-1945 years gave a degree of credibility to Joseph McCarthy and other anti-communist tub thumpers.
But now? What possible sense can we make of the Sarah Palins and Michelle Bachmans and Donald Trumps who, in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, have made such a fuss over US President Barack Obama's birth certificate, over gay marriage and over death panels?
And in more recent days, the Tea Partiers, who are determined to shrink the size of government by refusing to raise the government's debt ceiling despite warnings of economic catastrophe with worldwide repercussions? Their goal, whatever their rhetoric about making Washington live within its means, is to repeal the past 100 years of federal programmes that have done so much to humanise the American industrial system. Their actions are driven by indecipherable anger, not rational calculation. Do they even understand what the dismantling of so many government programmes might mean?
Something is at work here that makes you wonder if rational discourse is beyond the capacity of many American voters to understand and to think essential in public discourse. Several things seem to be driving the present affinity for this "silliness", as President Obama has described it.
First, there is the growth of all the media outlets that provide abundant opportunities to all sorts of zany characters to speak their minds and reach an audience. Nowadays, everyone seems to have a blog that finds readers. The number of people across the country with peculiar ideas and unfathomable things to say has not increased, but their ability to make themselves heard certainly has.
But why are so many ready to hear them and take them so seriously? One answer is that the country's politics are adrift because traditional party loyalties have declined so substantially. The rise of the Tea Party movement is a striking example. As the current crisis demonstrates, to House Speaker John Boehner's chagrin, these newcomers refuse to follow their party's lead and agree to anything that includes a hint of compromise with their goal of redefining government spending and its powers.
The Democrats are not much more unified. Many of what the media describe as the party's base are restless with President Obama's compromises and a few are threatening to challenge his re-nomination next year. There have always been mutterings on the Left and the Right against the established parties, but they now seem more like an atomising force.
DEEPLY CYNICAL PUBLIC
There is also the fact that most Americans no longer see themselves as Democrats or Republicans, but, if they remain interested in politics at all, as independents - whatever that may mean. There are few recognisable political leaders to whom voters seem to listen.
The public is deeply cynical about politics and politicians. The Congress holds only a 17-per-cent approval rating and the President now has the approval of less than 50 per cent of the public. Moreover, the latest polls show little enthusiasm for any of the potential Republican challengers. Neither Mr Mitt Romney nor Mr Tim Pawlenty nor Mr Newt Gingrich nor Ms Michelle Bachman nor any of the lesser-known names in the mix generate much excitement.
Will this sort of political malaise continue? It is impossible to predict. But it seems likely unless someone who generates widespread enthusiasm for themselves and their policies comes along. President Obama seemed to be filling this void in 2008 when so many new voters came to the polls in response to his campaign. But that enthusiasm has waned.
It is fair to say that the President has been dealt difficult cards. But Americans are less inclined to blame circumstances for a president's loss of popularity than to see his shortcomings in meeting the challenges facing the country. Perhaps nothing tells us more about the current state of American politics than polls showing the enduring popularity of John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
In an opinion survey last November, Kennedy received an 85 per cent approval rating and Reagan followed him with 74 per cent. None of the other recent presidents included in the poll came close to either of them.
It speaks volumes that a president who served for only 1,000 days 50 years ago and had so limited a record of achievement should hold the affection of so many. True, he was assassinated and Americans can only imagine what another five-plus years of his presidency might have brought. But it is the yearning for Camelot that tells us how much is currently missing in our politics and how eager Americans are for someone who can regenerate national optimism and unity.
In the meantime, some hobbits from Middle Earth, as Senator John McCain recently described the extreme Right in his Republican Party, seem to be filling the vacuum.
Robert Dallek is one of America's leading presidential historians; his latest book is The Lost Peace: Leadership in a Time of Horror and Hope, 1945-1953.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
You failed, teen survivor tells Norway killer in letter
Aug 2, 2011
LONDON: A 16-year-old survivor of Norway's shooting rampage told his attacker that good would prevail over evil, in a heartfelt open letter published yesterday.
'We are not responding to evil with evil as you wanted. We are fighting evil with good. And we are winning,' Ivar Benjamin Oesteboe, who lost five friends in the attack, said in the letter addressed: 'Dear Anders Behring Breivik'.
'Maybe you think you've won. Maybe you think you've destroyed the Labour Party and people around the world who stand for a multicultural society by killing my friends and fellow party members,' the teenager wrote.
'Know that you failed,' said the letter, posted on Facebook and published yesterday in the Dagbladet newspaper.
'You describe yourself as a hero, as a knight. You are no hero. But one thing is certain, you have created heroes. On Utoeya on that warm July day, you created some of the greatest heroes the world has seen, you united the people of the world,' the teenager wrote.
On the day of the attacks on July22 , Ivar hid with others on Utoeya island's shore when he heard the first gunshots. They thought Breivik, who was dressed in a police uniform, was there to help them.
'We called out to him, waving our arms. He was there, trying to reassure those around him. All of a sudden, without batting an eye, he turned around and started shooting at people in the water,' he said.
The young man survived by running towards police who later arrived on the island.
'You have killed my friends, but you have not killed our cause, our opinion, our right to express ourselves. Muslim women have been hugged by Norwegian women in the street in sympathy. Your act has worked against its purpose,' he told his attacker who killed 77 mostly young people.
'You are Norway's most hated man. I am not mad. I am not afraid of you. You can't get to us, we are bigger than you,' the teenager wrote.
Norway's prime minister Jens Stoltenberg yesterday called on political leaders to show restraint in what they say, apparently referring to sometimes harsh discussions on immigration.
'We all have something to learn from the tragedy,' he told lawmakers at a ceremony honouring the victims. 'We can all have a need to say 'I was wrong,' and be respected for it.'
Mr Stoltenberg said Aug21 would be a national memorial day to commemorate the victims.
Confessed killer Breivik says his attacks were aimed at purging Europe of Muslims and punishing politicians who have embraced multiculturalism.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, ASSOCIATED PRESS
[I have to archived any other reports on the Norway killer, in part because it is depressing and anger-inducing. Better to archive the sane, brave, responses. This is one. There is no point documenting the madness of the killer. There is enough madness. There is no point recording his demented anger and raving lunacy. There will be other examples.]
LONDON: A 16-year-old survivor of Norway's shooting rampage told his attacker that good would prevail over evil, in a heartfelt open letter published yesterday.
'We are not responding to evil with evil as you wanted. We are fighting evil with good. And we are winning,' Ivar Benjamin Oesteboe, who lost five friends in the attack, said in the letter addressed: 'Dear Anders Behring Breivik'.
'Maybe you think you've won. Maybe you think you've destroyed the Labour Party and people around the world who stand for a multicultural society by killing my friends and fellow party members,' the teenager wrote.
'Know that you failed,' said the letter, posted on Facebook and published yesterday in the Dagbladet newspaper.
'You describe yourself as a hero, as a knight. You are no hero. But one thing is certain, you have created heroes. On Utoeya on that warm July day, you created some of the greatest heroes the world has seen, you united the people of the world,' the teenager wrote.
On the day of the attacks on July22 , Ivar hid with others on Utoeya island's shore when he heard the first gunshots. They thought Breivik, who was dressed in a police uniform, was there to help them.
'We called out to him, waving our arms. He was there, trying to reassure those around him. All of a sudden, without batting an eye, he turned around and started shooting at people in the water,' he said.
The young man survived by running towards police who later arrived on the island.
'You have killed my friends, but you have not killed our cause, our opinion, our right to express ourselves. Muslim women have been hugged by Norwegian women in the street in sympathy. Your act has worked against its purpose,' he told his attacker who killed 77 mostly young people.
'You are Norway's most hated man. I am not mad. I am not afraid of you. You can't get to us, we are bigger than you,' the teenager wrote.
Norway's prime minister Jens Stoltenberg yesterday called on political leaders to show restraint in what they say, apparently referring to sometimes harsh discussions on immigration.
'We all have something to learn from the tragedy,' he told lawmakers at a ceremony honouring the victims. 'We can all have a need to say 'I was wrong,' and be respected for it.'
Mr Stoltenberg said Aug21 would be a national memorial day to commemorate the victims.
Confessed killer Breivik says his attacks were aimed at purging Europe of Muslims and punishing politicians who have embraced multiculturalism.
AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, ASSOCIATED PRESS
[I have to archived any other reports on the Norway killer, in part because it is depressing and anger-inducing. Better to archive the sane, brave, responses. This is one. There is no point documenting the madness of the killer. There is enough madness. There is no point recording his demented anger and raving lunacy. There will be other examples.]
Monday, August 1, 2011
US is no Japan if it loses triple-A rating
Aug 1, 2011
Those expecting debt downgrade to be non-event may be in for a rude shock
WHENEVER the possibility of the United States losing its triple-A debt rating is discussed, someone, somewhere, always manages to pull Japan into the conversation.
The usual refrain is that after more than 10 years of losing its triple-A credit rating, Japan is doing quite all right in the eyes of its creditors. Even now, the Japanese government can borrow money for a decade at about 1.09 per cent, a somewhat lower rate than in February 2001, when Standard & Poor's cut its AAA rating. Hence, the sky will not fall if the US is downgraded by rating companies.
Or so the argument goes.
Well, don't bet on it.
First, the Japanese government forces most of its sovereign debt down the throat of its domestic banking system; the US sells its Treasury securities to the central banks of China and Saudi Arabia. That is a big difference. Local buyers can be cajoled, hustled or arm-twisted; foreigners need to be lured, their confidence has to be earned and preserved.
A second and related reason is that Japan runs a current account surplus. In other words, the Japanese routinely sell more goods and services to the world than they buy from it. The surplus is the capital with which Japan goes shopping.
The public and private sectors in Japan together own 252 trillion yen (S$4 trillion) more of overseas assets than foreigners own of Japanese assets. The US, by contrast, is a debtor nation. Foreigners' claims over US assets exceed American claims over overseas assets by US$2.5 trillion (S$3 trillion). If the governments in Washington and Tokyo are treated differently in the bond market, no one should be surprised.
The third reason why a downgrade of US debt may matter more than it ever did for Japan is inflation. Japan has spent two decades battling deflation (falling prices) and disinflation (a slowing pace of price increases). The US does not have an inflation problem right now. In no month since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 have consumer prices risen 4 per cent or more from a year earlier; the most recent reading for June was 3.6 per cent.
However, expectations are building up that once confidence in the economy improves, all the cash the US Federal Reserve has poured into the economy will leave the vaults and start chasing goods and services. That might lead to high inflation.
Naturally, bondholders who want to protect their wealth from being eroded by escalating price levels would demand higher yields in compensation - something they have had no reason to do in Japan.
Gross government debt in Japan was 220 per cent of gross domestic product last year, compared with about 92 per cent in the US. If the US wants to emulate Japan and force domestic investors to hold its debt, it might still be able to do that. But it would be similar to imposing a tax on its financial institutions. Such a levy would render them uncompetitive.
A downgrade of US sovereign debt looks more certain as each day passes without a sign of a credible plan to balance the budget according to the plan approved by the US Congress. This plan entails lowering the budget deficit over the next 10 years by about US$6 trillion.
The Democrats are reluctant to cut spending - especially on entitlements - beyond a US$2 trillion expenditure reduction offer President Barack Obama made in April; the Republicans are being squeamish about accepting tax increases. And there is no third way to bridge the gap.
True, a ratings downgrade is not the most immediate worry. A more threatening concern is the ceiling on US government debt. The world is still hopeful that good sense will prevail in Washington and the limit will be raised ahead of tomorrow's deadline.
If the Republicans continue to stonewall Democrats and the Obama administration, the effects will no doubt be calamitous. Social security payments are due on Wednesday, and coupon payments to bondholders have to be made on Aug 15.
Just to meet these two obligations in whole, the government will need to scale down health-care commitments - Medicare and Medicaid - by three-fifths, and other discretionary expenses by 85 per cent, according to a Credit Suisse analysis, which has also attempted to put a value on the knock-on effects this belt-tightening by the government will have on the rest of the economy.
In Credit Suisse analyst Andrew Garthwaite's assessment, if Americans were going to produce goods and services worth US$100 this year, then, in the absence of a debt deal, at least 50 cents of the output - and possibly more - would be lost this month alone. If the stalemate continues for three to six months, 'the risk of a US recession would be very significant', Mr Garthwaite concludes.
This, however, is a more benign outcome than the disastrous drama that might unfold were the US to miss out on any of its debt payments.
In such an event, credit markets globally would seize up; banks would stop lending to one another. Global trade would come to a standstill in the absence of financing. Emerging economies would suffer for no fault of theirs. It would be a repeat of the last quarter of 2008 - only, it would be much worse.
By comparison, getting booted off the lofty pedestal of triple-A sovereign rating - which the US does not anyway deserve - will undoubtedly be a less severe outcome for the domestic economy as well as for the investment community at large.
It may also prove to be a temporary problem. If politicians in the US do get around to addressing the long-term budget imperative after next year's elections, there may not be much of a lasting impact from the downgrade.
The biggest danger would be complacency and propagation of a mistaken belief that the US government can continue to be profligate and yet manage to borrow cheap, forever. Investor expectations have a tipping point whose location is unknown. But once it is crossed, things can get out of control very quickly.
Greece serves as a warning. In October 2009, the Athens government could borrow 10-year funds for as little as 4.4 per cent. Now, it is completely shut out of credit markets.
Those who are expecting a US debt downgrade to be a non-event, just like in Japan, may be in for a rude shock.
andym@sph.com.sg
Those expecting debt downgrade to be non-event may be in for a rude shock
WHENEVER the possibility of the United States losing its triple-A debt rating is discussed, someone, somewhere, always manages to pull Japan into the conversation.
The usual refrain is that after more than 10 years of losing its triple-A credit rating, Japan is doing quite all right in the eyes of its creditors. Even now, the Japanese government can borrow money for a decade at about 1.09 per cent, a somewhat lower rate than in February 2001, when Standard & Poor's cut its AAA rating. Hence, the sky will not fall if the US is downgraded by rating companies.
Or so the argument goes.
Well, don't bet on it.
First, the Japanese government forces most of its sovereign debt down the throat of its domestic banking system; the US sells its Treasury securities to the central banks of China and Saudi Arabia. That is a big difference. Local buyers can be cajoled, hustled or arm-twisted; foreigners need to be lured, their confidence has to be earned and preserved.
A second and related reason is that Japan runs a current account surplus. In other words, the Japanese routinely sell more goods and services to the world than they buy from it. The surplus is the capital with which Japan goes shopping.
The public and private sectors in Japan together own 252 trillion yen (S$4 trillion) more of overseas assets than foreigners own of Japanese assets. The US, by contrast, is a debtor nation. Foreigners' claims over US assets exceed American claims over overseas assets by US$2.5 trillion (S$3 trillion). If the governments in Washington and Tokyo are treated differently in the bond market, no one should be surprised.
The third reason why a downgrade of US debt may matter more than it ever did for Japan is inflation. Japan has spent two decades battling deflation (falling prices) and disinflation (a slowing pace of price increases). The US does not have an inflation problem right now. In no month since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 have consumer prices risen 4 per cent or more from a year earlier; the most recent reading for June was 3.6 per cent.
However, expectations are building up that once confidence in the economy improves, all the cash the US Federal Reserve has poured into the economy will leave the vaults and start chasing goods and services. That might lead to high inflation.
Naturally, bondholders who want to protect their wealth from being eroded by escalating price levels would demand higher yields in compensation - something they have had no reason to do in Japan.
Gross government debt in Japan was 220 per cent of gross domestic product last year, compared with about 92 per cent in the US. If the US wants to emulate Japan and force domestic investors to hold its debt, it might still be able to do that. But it would be similar to imposing a tax on its financial institutions. Such a levy would render them uncompetitive.
A downgrade of US sovereign debt looks more certain as each day passes without a sign of a credible plan to balance the budget according to the plan approved by the US Congress. This plan entails lowering the budget deficit over the next 10 years by about US$6 trillion.
The Democrats are reluctant to cut spending - especially on entitlements - beyond a US$2 trillion expenditure reduction offer President Barack Obama made in April; the Republicans are being squeamish about accepting tax increases. And there is no third way to bridge the gap.
True, a ratings downgrade is not the most immediate worry. A more threatening concern is the ceiling on US government debt. The world is still hopeful that good sense will prevail in Washington and the limit will be raised ahead of tomorrow's deadline.
If the Republicans continue to stonewall Democrats and the Obama administration, the effects will no doubt be calamitous. Social security payments are due on Wednesday, and coupon payments to bondholders have to be made on Aug 15.
Just to meet these two obligations in whole, the government will need to scale down health-care commitments - Medicare and Medicaid - by three-fifths, and other discretionary expenses by 85 per cent, according to a Credit Suisse analysis, which has also attempted to put a value on the knock-on effects this belt-tightening by the government will have on the rest of the economy.
In Credit Suisse analyst Andrew Garthwaite's assessment, if Americans were going to produce goods and services worth US$100 this year, then, in the absence of a debt deal, at least 50 cents of the output - and possibly more - would be lost this month alone. If the stalemate continues for three to six months, 'the risk of a US recession would be very significant', Mr Garthwaite concludes.
This, however, is a more benign outcome than the disastrous drama that might unfold were the US to miss out on any of its debt payments.
In such an event, credit markets globally would seize up; banks would stop lending to one another. Global trade would come to a standstill in the absence of financing. Emerging economies would suffer for no fault of theirs. It would be a repeat of the last quarter of 2008 - only, it would be much worse.
By comparison, getting booted off the lofty pedestal of triple-A sovereign rating - which the US does not anyway deserve - will undoubtedly be a less severe outcome for the domestic economy as well as for the investment community at large.
It may also prove to be a temporary problem. If politicians in the US do get around to addressing the long-term budget imperative after next year's elections, there may not be much of a lasting impact from the downgrade.
The biggest danger would be complacency and propagation of a mistaken belief that the US government can continue to be profligate and yet manage to borrow cheap, forever. Investor expectations have a tipping point whose location is unknown. But once it is crossed, things can get out of control very quickly.
Greece serves as a warning. In October 2009, the Athens government could borrow 10-year funds for as little as 4.4 per cent. Now, it is completely shut out of credit markets.
Those who are expecting a US debt downgrade to be a non-event, just like in Japan, may be in for a rude shock.
andym@sph.com.sg
Rebutting the President
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/albert-brooks/presidential-rebuttals-th_b_910405.html
I don't remember growing up seeing the president of the United States being rebutted each time he gave a speech. When did this become part of our democracy? Isn't the whole point of winning the office of president that you can talk to the nation without others talking after you, belittling what you say and giving their own point of view? I began to think of some of the great presidential moments and what their rebuttals might have sounded like, had they been allowed at the time.
Franklin Roosevelt: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Henry Rainey, speaker of the House, giving his rebuttal: "The president has obviously not taken a walk around Washington for quite some time. With all the thugs and the crime and the poverty which he is not addressing, we now must fear every individual that approaches us on the street. Fear is the last thing I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the president and his inability to act."
John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Sam Rayburn, speaker of the House, his rebuttal: "The president is afraid to ask his country to help him because he knows he has bankrupted the nation we live in and our great land can no longer take care of us. Countries are meant to help their citizens. To ask how you can help your country is putting unnecessary burden on yourself and your family. If President Kennedy would run a better ship that ship could take us anywhere."
Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
Schuyler Colfax, speaker of the House, in his rebuttal: "Mr. President, the fact that you are even thinking about fooling people suggests your presidency is a sham. A true president does not want to fool anyone. He trusts his constituency and treats them with respect. He does not idle away the time wondering who he can fool. You should be ashamed."
Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Tip O'Neil, speaker of the House, from his speech following the president: "Is Ronald Reagan really asking the Soviets to do the work that the United States should have been doing for decades? That is the problem with this country. We have to ask our enemy to do the heavy lifting. Can we not tear down this wall ourselves? The America I grew up in certainly could have, and I would like to return us to that era. What are we going to ask the Soviets to do next, cook us our dinner?"
Franklin Roosevelt: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Henry Rainey, speaker of the House, giving his rebuttal: "The president has obviously not taken a walk around Washington for quite some time. With all the thugs and the crime and the poverty which he is not addressing, we now must fear every individual that approaches us on the street. Fear is the last thing I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of the president and his inability to act."
John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Sam Rayburn, speaker of the House, his rebuttal: "The president is afraid to ask his country to help him because he knows he has bankrupted the nation we live in and our great land can no longer take care of us. Countries are meant to help their citizens. To ask how you can help your country is putting unnecessary burden on yourself and your family. If President Kennedy would run a better ship that ship could take us anywhere."
Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
Schuyler Colfax, speaker of the House, in his rebuttal: "Mr. President, the fact that you are even thinking about fooling people suggests your presidency is a sham. A true president does not want to fool anyone. He trusts his constituency and treats them with respect. He does not idle away the time wondering who he can fool. You should be ashamed."
Ronald Reagan: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Tip O'Neil, speaker of the House, from his speech following the president: "Is Ronald Reagan really asking the Soviets to do the work that the United States should have been doing for decades? That is the problem with this country. We have to ask our enemy to do the heavy lifting. Can we not tear down this wall ourselves? The America I grew up in certainly could have, and I would like to return us to that era. What are we going to ask the Soviets to do next, cook us our dinner?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)