Bret Stephens wrote a terrific editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal discussing the futility of dumping so much aid on Haiti in the wake of last week's earthquake. Several of his sentiments were echoed in a discussion I had on Sunday morning over coffee with a friend.
Why, I asked, is it that Haiti has failed to form a civilized society that can quell thugs and gangs, protect its citizens, and be trusted to advance its own welfare? Even in the context of digging out from a devastating natural disaster?
Is it something endemic to the Haitian population? Something they learned about corruption and lack of civilized government from the French? I mean, what gives?
In the past week, I've read or heard several pieces, including Stephens,' warning that most aid to Haiti will merely wind up in the hands of street gangs within hours of its distribution.
Stephens wrote poignantly of the manner in which UN aid has destroyed the economies of several African countries. I recall one piece detailing how the distribution of free mosquito netting by the UN wiped out a small but booming, promising entrepeneurial local industry which had provided the same product, for a price.
Stephens enumerated several aspects of aid's lethality. They included corruption and graft among transporation laborers in the receiving countries, skimming of aid by corrupt government officials, further theft from the populace by gangs and, lastly, the longer term effects of driving out investment which cannot compete with freely-provided goods by the UN.
Stephens counsels leaving Haiti alone until it can figure out how to forge a society and government that attracts more investment. So long as aid vastly outstrips private investment, he contends, Haiti, or any other country like it, is doomed.
That's true, but may be unpalatable for the global society at large.
Perhaps a better, and certainly a viable alternative, way to help Haiti is by way of military government. Recall how the US helped to rebuild Japan and Germany in this fashion after the devastation of WWII?
Why could not the US armed forces maintain a modest, UN-approved garrison which provided protection of the civilian population from banditry, repaired or built basic infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage, roads), and supervised the creation of a stronger, better government?
Letting any sort of private contractors near Haiti to rebuild at the direction of a Haitian government is just inviting incredible corruption.
Far better to have relief dollars spent to offset the cost to the US of stationing the necessary, appropriate military resources to do that work.
While they are at it, such resource could, to be blunt, eliminate "the usual suspects" who would otherwise prey on the populace as goods and services begin to flow into Haiti and to its populace. Military government means we could dispense military justice, too. Goodbye local gangs. Hello district councils.
It's just a thought. Because nobody in their right mind believes for a second that any of this aid will make any lasting difference at all to the lives of average Haitians if all we do is spend it through the current local regime and society.
We have evidence from decades of prior efforts, cited in Mr. Stephens' piece, to prove this. What's needed now is some creative solutions for implementing Haitian aid so that a new, more responsible Haiti can actually enjoy and prosper from the fruits of that aid.
Showing posts with label Unintended Consequences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Unintended Consequences. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Blaming America
The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote a wonderful column on April 22nd entitled "Obama Blames America."
Her editorial catalogues the new low to which our current president has sunk in his serial and expansive, named criticism of those who have preceded him in the office, including George W. Bush and Harry Truman.
The president's lengthy confessions of imagined sins of America to audiences abroad speak, once more, to his self-delusional rock star image, which evidently has replaced, if it ever were present, the self-image of representing our country as its senior statesman.
I believe Ms. Rabinowitz is correct when she closes her piece with the passage,
"Since that bridge too far to Europe, ordinary Americans, including some who voted for Mr. Obama, have shown evidence of a quiet but durable resentment over the list of grievances against the United States that the president brought to the world's attention while overseas. There are certain things that can't be taken back. There are images that are hard to forget. Anger of this kind has an enduring power that could, in the end, haunt this presidency."
It's a big mistake for a president to presume a mandate that was never given, nor won. Despite Wonderboy's remonstration to Republican Congressman Eric Cantor that the former can ignore the latter's suggestions because "I won," it doesn't work that way, for long, in our democracy.
He didn't win a mandate to repudiate every, or any, former presidents' actions. As many of my friends, and several pundits have remarked, that is a distinguishing characteristic of a banana republic, i.e., the criminalization of policy disagreements.
Most Americans didn't vote for a president so that he could accuse their country of imagined sins, simply to curry favor with foreigners. Anyone who criticizes Harry Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb merely displays his incredible ignorance of the realities of the time, and of the history of that era.
Can you imagine those overseas speeches in which he blames America for various sins being used in upcoming campaigns?
Such a person is, I think, simply unfit to hold the office of president. As Ms. Rabinowitz suggests, these faux-confessions are very likely to have a seriously negative effect on this president in the next months and several years.
Her editorial catalogues the new low to which our current president has sunk in his serial and expansive, named criticism of those who have preceded him in the office, including George W. Bush and Harry Truman.
The president's lengthy confessions of imagined sins of America to audiences abroad speak, once more, to his self-delusional rock star image, which evidently has replaced, if it ever were present, the self-image of representing our country as its senior statesman.
I believe Ms. Rabinowitz is correct when she closes her piece with the passage,
"Since that bridge too far to Europe, ordinary Americans, including some who voted for Mr. Obama, have shown evidence of a quiet but durable resentment over the list of grievances against the United States that the president brought to the world's attention while overseas. There are certain things that can't be taken back. There are images that are hard to forget. Anger of this kind has an enduring power that could, in the end, haunt this presidency."
It's a big mistake for a president to presume a mandate that was never given, nor won. Despite Wonderboy's remonstration to Republican Congressman Eric Cantor that the former can ignore the latter's suggestions because "I won," it doesn't work that way, for long, in our democracy.
He didn't win a mandate to repudiate every, or any, former presidents' actions. As many of my friends, and several pundits have remarked, that is a distinguishing characteristic of a banana republic, i.e., the criminalization of policy disagreements.
Most Americans didn't vote for a president so that he could accuse their country of imagined sins, simply to curry favor with foreigners. Anyone who criticizes Harry Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb merely displays his incredible ignorance of the realities of the time, and of the history of that era.
Can you imagine those overseas speeches in which he blames America for various sins being used in upcoming campaigns?
Such a person is, I think, simply unfit to hold the office of president. As Ms. Rabinowitz suggests, these faux-confessions are very likely to have a seriously negative effect on this president in the next months and several years.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Beware (Obama's) Calls To "Unity"
We live in a republic. A representative democracy.
America's founding was amidst dissent, debate and compromise.
It's in our blood..beginning with the blood of the Revolutionary soldiers and sailors that delivered us from British rule.
It took two tries to get our Federal government structure right.
Never, ever, outside of the limited domain of American support of our armed forces during declared wars, has there been "unity" in our country.
Even during the Civil War, Lincoln had to run for re-election and risked a real chance of defeat by George McClellan, the general whom he had fired in 1862. Elections were not suspended.
A need for "unity" did not result in non-military policies being coercively implemented during WWI or WWII. There was a temporary suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, along with some other fairly draconian suppressions of the press. But these were lifted at war's end.
Thus, when you hear a Presidential candidate, e.g., Obama, call for "unity" on any issue aside from war, beware. That candidate means to rule without dissent.
"Unity" means, in other words,
'When I become President, I will dictate, and, in the name of 'unity,' you will comply and there will be no dissent. Dissent goes against unity. And unity will be the mantra by which I lead and enforce all my demands of Congress.'
Even Reagan didn't appeal for unity with his economic rescue of the country after Carter nearly ruined it, economically and militarily. He simply appealed to Americans to back his push for more economic freedom, lower taxes, less government spending, and a stronger defense.
The siren song of never-before-realized 'unity' in America will bring unintended consequences. What begins as a naively-hoped-for single-mindedness on social issues like healthcare, race acceptance, etc., will soon become a coercive drive to demand group-think and univocal acceptance of one party's positions.
Rather than compromise, complete agreement will be demanded, and dissenting debate will be squelched.
There's no reason any Presidential candidate should ever be wanting to unify a country that has never, even in its most successful non-military eras, ever been unified for anything.
Why start now? Especially with a tax-and-spend liberal hack like Obama?
He's not a post-partisan politician. He has no magic elixir. He will not 'unify' anything.
If he does bring about any univocally-backed solutions, you can bet they'll be coerced, and not the result of debate and compromise.
My father warned me, and my brothers, long ago,
'Beware the loss of freedom in America. It won't come all at once, but slowly, step by step, down a slippery slope. FDR began it by requiring the withholding of income tax payments, removing your right to not pay, per civil disobedience. Further losses of freedom will come in equally small, sometimes unnoticed steps.'
Whenever I see or hear Obama, and hear the word 'unity' in conjunction with him, I shiver with fear at the coercive state I envision him creating to force the 'unity' that he decides we should all have.
He won't ask you for your opinion on what should be our unified position.
He'll just tell you.
America's founding was amidst dissent, debate and compromise.
It's in our blood..beginning with the blood of the Revolutionary soldiers and sailors that delivered us from British rule.
It took two tries to get our Federal government structure right.
Never, ever, outside of the limited domain of American support of our armed forces during declared wars, has there been "unity" in our country.
Even during the Civil War, Lincoln had to run for re-election and risked a real chance of defeat by George McClellan, the general whom he had fired in 1862. Elections were not suspended.
A need for "unity" did not result in non-military policies being coercively implemented during WWI or WWII. There was a temporary suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, along with some other fairly draconian suppressions of the press. But these were lifted at war's end.
Thus, when you hear a Presidential candidate, e.g., Obama, call for "unity" on any issue aside from war, beware. That candidate means to rule without dissent.
"Unity" means, in other words,
'When I become President, I will dictate, and, in the name of 'unity,' you will comply and there will be no dissent. Dissent goes against unity. And unity will be the mantra by which I lead and enforce all my demands of Congress.'
Even Reagan didn't appeal for unity with his economic rescue of the country after Carter nearly ruined it, economically and militarily. He simply appealed to Americans to back his push for more economic freedom, lower taxes, less government spending, and a stronger defense.
The siren song of never-before-realized 'unity' in America will bring unintended consequences. What begins as a naively-hoped-for single-mindedness on social issues like healthcare, race acceptance, etc., will soon become a coercive drive to demand group-think and univocal acceptance of one party's positions.
Rather than compromise, complete agreement will be demanded, and dissenting debate will be squelched.
There's no reason any Presidential candidate should ever be wanting to unify a country that has never, even in its most successful non-military eras, ever been unified for anything.
Why start now? Especially with a tax-and-spend liberal hack like Obama?
He's not a post-partisan politician. He has no magic elixir. He will not 'unify' anything.
If he does bring about any univocally-backed solutions, you can bet they'll be coerced, and not the result of debate and compromise.
My father warned me, and my brothers, long ago,
'Beware the loss of freedom in America. It won't come all at once, but slowly, step by step, down a slippery slope. FDR began it by requiring the withholding of income tax payments, removing your right to not pay, per civil disobedience. Further losses of freedom will come in equally small, sometimes unnoticed steps.'
Whenever I see or hear Obama, and hear the word 'unity' in conjunction with him, I shiver with fear at the coercive state I envision him creating to force the 'unity' that he decides we should all have.
He won't ask you for your opinion on what should be our unified position.
He'll just tell you.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Ethanol's Water Problems
Last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal's main editorial was entitled "Ethanol's Water Shortage." That title says it all.
It turns out that a Cornell ecology professor has determined that each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water.
As a result, Kansas and Nebraska are near a lawsuit over water rights. A North Dakota ethanol plant application was withdrawn when, according to the Journal,
"it became clear that the plant's million-gallon-a-day appetite would drain too much from a local aquifer."
Another method of measuring various energy sources, power density, finds oil to be more efficient than, say, solar, because it merely requires a hole in the ground, rather than acres of panels.
Solar power, which is 1,000 less dense than oil, is still 10x denser than ethanol. Peter Huber, of the Manhattan Institute,
"predicts a world-wide leveling of forestland as farmers turn vegetation into fuel,"
according to the Journal article. Even worse, the article cite two scientists, Renton Righelato and Dominick Spracklen, who wrote in Science magazine,
"in order to replace just 10% of gasoline and diesel consumption, the US would need to convert a full 43% of its cropland to ethanol production. The alternative approach- clearing wilderness- would mean more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than simply sticking with gasoline, because the CO2-munching trees cut down to make way for King Ethanol absorb more emissions than ethanol saves."
But, wait! Wasn't greenhouse gases and carbon footprints why we are going from oil to ethanol in the first place?
Let's hope, as the Journal editorial notes, that Congress figures this out before the last, big ethanol legislation pushes through. It's just too awful to contemplate- water shortages, more CO2, runoff, water pollution, higher food prices, etc. All in the name of replacing a very efficient fuel source- oil.
It turns out that a Cornell ecology professor has determined that each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water.
As a result, Kansas and Nebraska are near a lawsuit over water rights. A North Dakota ethanol plant application was withdrawn when, according to the Journal,
"it became clear that the plant's million-gallon-a-day appetite would drain too much from a local aquifer."
Another method of measuring various energy sources, power density, finds oil to be more efficient than, say, solar, because it merely requires a hole in the ground, rather than acres of panels.
Solar power, which is 1,000 less dense than oil, is still 10x denser than ethanol. Peter Huber, of the Manhattan Institute,
"predicts a world-wide leveling of forestland as farmers turn vegetation into fuel,"
according to the Journal article. Even worse, the article cite two scientists, Renton Righelato and Dominick Spracklen, who wrote in Science magazine,
"in order to replace just 10% of gasoline and diesel consumption, the US would need to convert a full 43% of its cropland to ethanol production. The alternative approach- clearing wilderness- would mean more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than simply sticking with gasoline, because the CO2-munching trees cut down to make way for King Ethanol absorb more emissions than ethanol saves."
But, wait! Wasn't greenhouse gases and carbon footprints why we are going from oil to ethanol in the first place?
Let's hope, as the Journal editorial notes, that Congress figures this out before the last, big ethanol legislation pushes through. It's just too awful to contemplate- water shortages, more CO2, runoff, water pollution, higher food prices, etc. All in the name of replacing a very efficient fuel source- oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
