Monthly Archives: June 2012

Why We Shouldn’t Spend Public Funds on Formula 1 Races

Leave a reply
Formula 1™

Formula 1™ (Photo credit: LGEPR)

Video – Daughters of Formula 1′s Bernie Ecclestone Spend $150 Million for Two Houses – WSJ.com.

The tabloid press (including, interestingly, the Wall Street Journal) has been making a load of hay about how the two daughters of Formula 1 mogul Bernie Ecclestone are spending tens of millions of dollars buying up trophy real estate around the world.

To some, the very idea of two single twentysomethings using trust fund monies to buy $80 million homes is repugnant. We at the Bull Moose have nothing against wealthy young people spending their cash, because we believe that it is better for all of us that they should spend it rather than sit on it.

Where we have an issue is that to some degree those fortunes were built with public subsidies. Promoters are keen to hide government assistance, but two examples are  notable. The U.S. Grand Prix, to be held in Austin beginning this year, is getting a $25 million annual gift from the people of Texas for the next 10 years. The Singapore Grand Prix is carried by a $90 million annual shot-in-the-arm from the republic’s government. In the case of Austin, the money raised from the taxpayers goes directly to Ecclestone’s F1 organization as a “sanctioning fee.”

Again, we have no issues with racing events or of Ecclestone’s fortune. But if these events cannot be supported by private funds, they should not be held. That goes for the Olympics, the World Cup, the Major League All Star Game, and the Republican and Democratic National Conventions.

In the Zone

Leave a reply
Unsightly wires were among the targets of late...

Unsightly wires were among the targets of late 19th century agitation for zoning (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Birth of Zoning Codes, a History – Politics – The Atlantic Cities.

You need not experience too many cities in America to come to the conclusion that the cities of California, while sharing some similarities with their Eastern sisters, are unique on the continent. When I was in my early teens, one of the differences I noted was in the structure of our low-income neighborhoods. Most of Los Angeles‘ workers lived not in tenements but in bungalows, and even our federal housing projects, like Nickerson Gardens, were low-density low-rise.

As Amanda Erickson at The Atlantic Cities hints in her condensed history of zoning linked above, one of the reasons that California cities look different from those of the East is that the west coast metropolises were ahead of the rest of the country in implementing and testing the limits of zoning laws as a means of ensuring quality of life. While in many parts of the state this approach denied us the kinds of homey neighborhoods you find in New York and Boston, it also set the tone for a city more in harmony with its surroundings and denizens than at war with them.

Zoning laws rankle with me, both ideologically and as a property owner. Having spent the past two decades living in a city (Beijing) where zoning laws were largely nonexistent, however, they are an essential part of a liveable city. We can debate about where the line should be drawn, but they need to be there.

California pioneered the practice and continues to do so. The question is whether we the assumptions upon which those laws were built still apply, or will in the future. California now needs to forge a new zoning system appropriate for a world where the automobile plays a declining role in our lives. The challenge will be doing so in a manner that does not disenfranchise property owners in a rush toward an enlightened, utopian future.

via The Birth of Zoning Codes, a History – Politics – The Atlantic Cities.

Related articles

Priorities, Priorities

Leave a reply

Mitch McConnell: Top Priority, Make Obama a One Term President – YouTube.

As readers of these pages will attest, the Bull Moose is no particular fan of our current president. Nonetheless, it is distressing to hear the leader of any major party declare that the Party’s top legislative priority is political, rather than governing.

Though it will likely come as a shock to our distinguished Solons, we elect them not so that their first and second priorities are personal reelection and promulgation of party goals. We elect them so their first goals are the governance of the nation.

McConnell has his priorities out of whack, as does any politician who has become so focused on the opposition that the opposition is the target rather the improvement of the country and the prosperity of its citizens.

Taking Out the Trash

Leave a reply

Reading John Bolton‘s thoughtful review of Peter Collier‘s Political Woman: The Big Little Life of Jeane Kirkpatrick (“Blue Jeane” in June’s Commentary Magazine), I was surprised to learn that Kirkpatrick was lambasted during her career by feminists. How is that possible? A woman who succeeded in academic circles that had heretofore been dominated by men, who considered herself a feminist, and who rose to the highest levels of government, was rejected by the very people who should have been cheering her success.  Bolton notes:

As she put it, “with a bitter smile,” in Collier’s description, “Gloria Steinem called me a female impersonator. Can you believe that? Naomi Wolf said I was ‘a woman without a uterus.’ I who have three kids while she, when she made this comment, had none.” A professor at Brown named Joan Scott said, “She is not someone I want to represent feminine accomplishment.” And those were the polite criticisms.

So much for sisterhood. My point, however, is not about feminism. It is about trash politics.

I had a discussion on Facebook recently with my friend Ada Shen and a gent by the name of Greg Diamond. Greg, for those of you not following Orange County (California) politics, is a self-proclaimed “very liberal” Democrat running for State Senate in the 29th Senatorial District representing the cities of Brea and Fullerton. Greg and I would likely find ourselves debating the opposite sides of any given issue, and I have some very strong objections to some of his positions.

Nonetheless, as I told him in our conversation:

I tread carefully on feelings because I think it is high time to exorcise the ad-hominem attack from politics. We need to assume the best of intentions on the part of those with whom we disagree, not the worst (unless proven otherwise in a court of law, of course.)

I write this not to pat myself on the back, but to point out that it is possible to have a conversation with a liberal (or, in a liberal’s case, a conservative) with whom we disagree without having the discussion implode into name-calling and a suspicion that the other person is an Epsilon-minus semi-moron.

If the internet has a downside, it is that it has aided in the decline of political dialogue until most of it rests in the gutter. Enough, already. The loss of civility in political discussion does not elevate a cause, convince a skeptic, or improve the nation. Let’s give respect, even undue respect, to those who disagree with us.

After all, this is, in the end, the United States. It would be nice to keep them that way.

Related articles

Do Entitlements Kill the American Dream?

Leave a reply
Entitlements

Entitlements (Photo credit: wstera2)

Right Fears Entitlements Are Killing American Dream : NPR.

National Public Radio (NPR) is running a series on the status of the American Dream as we move into the general election. The series is balanced to a great degree, something that I am certain requires some effort on the part of the Morning Edition team.

The program frames the disagreements between Republicans and Democrats as a difference between “opportunity” and “entitlement.” That may be the case, but if it is, it misses the point.

I haven’t taken any polls recently, but anecdote and experience suggest that the only liberals who disagree that the path toward prosperity is paved with opportunity are on the far left of the American political spectrum. In the same way, those who oppose any form of government assistance to Americans in dire straits sit on the furthest right extreme of that same political spectrum. What we need to do is to agree upon principles that will guide government’s approach to both opportunity and entitlements.

Ours are these:

1. Equal opportunity, not corporate welfare. Government should work to ensure equality of opportunity for all, without favor. Government should not be in the business of bestowing opportunity or of denying it, but of ensuring that neither government nor private entities can either bestow or deny it.

2. Entitlements should be a safety net, not a hammock. Government should provide entitlements only to the extent that they are necessary to ensure against the impoverishment or destitution of the citizen. Government should not be in the business of providing a comfortable life to its citizens, and the focus should be on ensuring that citizens are can provide for themselves.

The question, then, is how do we ensure equal opportunity and a social safety net, and stop both parties from spending tax dollars bestowing opportunity on politically connected corporations or politically powerful defenders of entitlements.

Related articles

How to Get Counterfeit Chinese Parts Out of the US Military

1 Reply

China Top Source of Counterfeit U.S. Military Electronics – Bloomberg.

A U.S. Air Force maintenance personnel service...

A U.S. Air Force maintenance personnel service a Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3 engine of a Boeing B-52H Stratofortress aircraft assigned to the 410th Bombardment Wing at K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base, Marquette County, Michigan (USA) on 18 October 1984. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is a disturbing piece, and the knee-jerk reaction would be to redline all of the Chinese manufacturers and bring the production home. But that’s not really the answer.

The better approach would be to hold the prime contractors responsible, rather than the suppliers. A factory in China could care less about the Department of Defense, but L-3, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheonall do.

Make these companies responsible, set up a penalty clause in all defense contracts (make it an addendum) and place the burden on them. Otherwise the problem will not get solved.

Why the Navy Needs to Re-Think Its Newest Ship

Leave a reply
An MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter prepares to land...

An MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopter prepares to land aboard the littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1). (Photo credit: Official U.S. Navy Imagery)

Galrahn over at Information Dissemination provides a slightly technical but extremely readable account of why the U.S. Navy’s grand strategy and deployment plans are out of sync with the capabilities it is fielding, and how it is tailoring the strategy to justify its procurement of the Littoral Combat Ship rather than starting from strategy and building platforms to suit. (“Questionable Assumptions“)

I am a longtime Navy booster, but I have become discouraged in recent years by the Pentagon’s failure to procure and field ships (especially surface combatants of any size) that are capable of achieving their mission in a timely, economical manner. It is enough to make me pine for the days of the Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided missile frigates, despite their design limitations.

Ignoring the program’s teething pains in coming up to operational readiness, Galrahn offers us a chapter and verse listing of the strategic issues surrounding the LCS and its capabilities. This is a discussion that should concern every American taxpayer, regardless of political persuasion, because it cuts to the heart of the massive procurement dysfunction in the Pentagon.

Related articles

The Enemy We Need?

Leave a reply
David Rothkopf

David Rothkopf (Photo credit: New America Foundation)

In Foreign Policy, David Rothkopf offers one reason we are looking to turn America’s relationship with China into the next Cold War.

Many in the United States have a rampant, untreated case of enemy dependency. Politicians love enemies because bashing them helps stir up public sentiment and distract attention from problems at home. The defense industry loves enemies because enemies help them make money. Pundits and their publications love enemies because enemies sell papers and lead eyeballs to cable-news food fights.

I have lived in and dealt with China long enough to know that we should not delude ourselves about that country or its intentions. This is a relationship unlike any we have known in recent history, at once a market, a resource, and a competitor with whom we share a mutual dependency. We are confused about how to deal with them, and they with us.

China may well wind up being our enemy at some point. But we serve ourselves poorly by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is a fine line between wise preparedness and reckless provocation. Our debate should be on where that line is, and once decided we should step right up to it – but not across.

Related articles

The Best Answer to the Tea Party

Leave a reply

I imagine I am not the only Republican/conservative who is pained by the rightward lurch of the GOP, or of that movement’s reactionary shock troops, the Tea Partistas. I am equally dismayed, however, by the Democratic response to it: an institutionalized Occupy movement as a new radical force designed to “counterbalance” the reactionary right.

Tit-for-tat extremism is no basis on which to build a stable polity. It is, however, a great way to bring to America the political deadlock of Weimar Germany, and we all know how that turned out for both Germany and the world.

The appropriate response to the Tea Party is reasoned dialogue driven by a better, more attractive vision that will neuter the shrill “burn it all” demagoguery of the reactionary right. We need to build a big tent under which the vast majority of Americans can be comfortable knowing that the nation is on a strong course for the future, a future where we agree on the same principles and spend our energies debating how best to put those principles into action.

We have a choice: a nation in decline that is gridlocked by extremists, or the systematic neutering of the extremists through a clear, practical, and attractive vision, even if that means having to compromise and break bread with some Democrats.

I’m for the latter. Who else is on board?