China

China & America
By Daniel G. Jennings
The People’s Republic of China could soon become the dominant economic, political, cultural and military power in the world with the help of the United States of America.
America has long been underwriting China’s economic, technological and industrial development by buying vast amounts of Chinese manufactured goods. With the money pouring in from America China has upgraded its industrial capabilities until it can produce vehicles, airplanes and advanced electronic items. China is now launching men into space and building nuclear submarines and its technological capabilities will only increase.
America’s universities have trained two generations of Chinese engineers, scientists, educators, doctors, lawyers, business executives and countless other professionals who could place China at the cutting edge of many fields. These new leaders will shape and direct China’s modernization and form the elite that could build a democratic China.
In cultural terms it has been America mass media: movies, television, video games, comic books, even music that has transmitted Chinese culture to the world. American cinema turned Bruce Lee into an international folk hero, Quentin Tarantino and company created the cult of Hong Kong movies and introduced them to a mass audience, more recently large American studios have been releasing big budget Chinese movies like Hero and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon to an international audience. There is even a legendary rap group called the Wu Tang Clan, (a term taken from Kung Fu movies). The American Internet is a forum for Chinese communications.
Militarily, America has helped China by waging war on terror and occupying Iraq. Since American soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, Chinese soldiers don’t have to fight in those places. America takes the casualties and criticism that waging these necessary but distasteful wars create. China reaps the rewards in the form of cheap oil and international peace.
Pax Americana created by US military might is good for business, which is good for China. Chinese goods can only flow safely across the world’s oceans because the US Navy is policing those oceans.
The United States is underwriting China’s development, educating its leaders and creating the secure environment that enables China’s growth. Some people would call this madness but there is an interesting historical precedent for it America and Britain.
During the 19th Century, British capital financed the American industrial revolution and the expansion west. The Pax Britannica created by the Royal Navy’s control of the world’s oceans kept America safe from the predatory powers of Europe and the new world at peace. America was free to devote its resources to industrial development rather than war. The British Empire and the world wide communications networks it created allowed American popular culture to spread throughout the world and become a dominant cultural force.
These developments didn’t lead to a conflict or a war. Instead America became Britain’s best friend and bailed the British out three times during the 20th Century. First in World War I, American supplies and troops rescued Britain, during World War II America defeated the Nazis and saved Britain and in the Cold War America saved Britain from Communism. Britain is only free and prosperous today because it helped America develop. That’s a lesson we Americans should remember and take to heart.

rail

Put High Speed Rail On the Ballot
By Daniel G. Jennings
It is time for high-speed rail advocates to learn from transit promoters and bypass politics and bureaucracy by taking their cause directly to the voters in the form of statewide ballot initiatives.
The climate in the nation might be right for such efforts, 21 major transit initiatives passed by comfortable majorities during the November election. Voters in Denver, hardly a bastion of liberalism, approved a sales tax increase to finance FasTracks a $4.5 billion plan to build six new rail lines. FasTracks passed despite the opposition of a popular and influential Republican governor. The only place where such proposals failed was in California where state law requires tax increases to pass by a two thirds majority something that is close to impossible to achieve. Even in the Golden State, a majority of the voters cast their ballot for rail transit.
If voters are willing to vote for local rail transit they should also be willing to cast their ballot for high speed rail plans. Since the USA has no mechanism for nationwide ballot initiatives this will have to be done at the state level many states - particularly in the West – allow statewide ballot initiatives. It is fairly easy to get initiatives on the ballot in many of these states by simply circulating petitions.
There is even a historical precedent for such a plan, voters in Florida approved a statewide high speed rail plan a few years ago. Unfortunately, Gov. Jeb Bush has been able to stop its implementation.
Since the time is right for such ballot initiatives the important question to ask is what should such ballot initiatives look like? Well first they shouldn’t involve tax increases, instead of implementing a new tax or raising existing taxes, such ballot initiatives should simply reallocate existing fuel tax moneys to rail. Since much of the money our states spend on highways is allocated to rural roadways this shouldn’t effect urban drivers.
Without a tax increase involved, the main weapon in the rail foes’ arsenal is gone. They’ll have to argue the merits of the plan not play on voters fears of high taxes.
One great suggestion write a decrease in the fuel tax into the rail initiative. That way the highway lobby will be the one fighting for higher taxes. They’ll have to defend their tax and spend ways to average people fed up with high gas prices for a change.
Another suggestion, write the rail initiative to redistribute transportation funds to urban and suburban areas where people actually live and away from rural areas. Add a slight increase to freeway funding in urban areas or a specific freeway project. That way the highway lobby might come out in favor of the rail project.
Or simply tie the rail project to highways as has been done in Germany and Gov. Rick Perry is trying to do in Texas. Put an initiative building a new highway or expanding an existing one and building the high speed rail at the same time. That way highway supporters will have to go along with the project because they can’t be seen opposing a new road.
The initiative should be written to require the state to start issuing contracts and begin construction by a certain date. It should also create a new agency outside the state highway bureaucracy to build and operate the rail system and specify a design build project which saves money and time by having engineers design the project as it is being built. That way work can quickly begin on the project. Denver’s T-Rex rail line is a successful example of design build.
The initiative shouldn’t specify any technology and stay away from exotic technologies like monorail and maglev. They are too easy for rail foes to attack. Instead decisions about technology should be left up to the engineers.
The time is ripe for such rail ballot initiatives particularly in western states like California, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado which have ballot initiative processes. California, where even rural highways suffer from gridlock, seems like a logical candidate. A serious effort should be made to get Gov. Schwarzenegger involved, his popularity could get the measure passed.
If money is needed for lawyers to write such a proposal, a petition campaign to get it on the ballot and a campaign to get it passed. Rail backers should turn to rail manufacturers particularly in Japan, France and German where large corporations have billions invested in rail technology. Demand that they cough up the money for such campaigns.
Rail backers have a unique opportunity to get high speed rail built. The question is do they have the guts to go around state legislatures and Congress which will never back high speed rail and go directly to the voters? Or will they keep wasting their time in the halls of government which are owned by the highway lobby?

rail

Put High Speed Rail On the Ballot
By Daniel G. Jennings
It is time for high-speed rail advocates to learn from transit promoters and bypass politics and bureaucracy by taking their cause directly to the voters in the form of statewide ballot initiatives.
The climate in the nation might be right for such efforts, 21 major transit initiatives passed by comfortable majorities during the November election. Voters in Denver, hardly a bastion of liberalism, approved a sales tax increase to finance FasTracks a $4.5 billion plan to build six new rail lines. FasTracks passed despite the opposition of a popular and influential Republican governor. The only place where such proposals failed was in California where state law requires tax increases to pass by a two thirds majority something that is close to impossible to achieve. Even in the Golden State, a majority of the voters cast their ballot for rail transit.
If voters are willing to vote for local rail transit they should also be willing to cast their ballot for high speed rail plans. Since the USA has no mechanism for nationwide ballot initiatives this will have to be done at the state level many states - particularly in the West – allow statewide ballot initiatives. It is fairly easy to get initiatives on the ballot in many of these states by simply circulating petitions.
There is even a historical precedent for such a plan, voters in Florida approved a statewide high speed rail plan a few years ago. Unfortunately, Gov. Jeb Bush has been able to stop its implementation.
Since the time is right for such ballot initiatives the important question to ask is what should such ballot initiatives look like? Well first they shouldn’t involve tax increases, instead of implementing a new tax or raising existing taxes, such ballot initiatives should simply reallocate existing fuel tax moneys to rail. Since much of the money our states spend on highways is allocated to rural roadways this shouldn’t effect urban drivers.
Without a tax increase involved, the main weapon in the rail foes’ arsenal is gone. They’ll have to argue the merits of the plan not play on voters fears of high taxes.
One great suggestion write a decrease in the fuel tax into the rail initiative. That way the highway lobby will be the one fighting for higher taxes. They’ll have to defend their tax and spend ways to average people fed up with high gas prices for a change.
Another suggestion, write the rail initiative to redistribute transportation funds to urban and suburban areas where people actually live and away from rural areas. Add a slight increase to freeway funding in urban areas or a specific freeway project. That way the highway lobby might come out in favor of the rail project.
Or simply tie the rail project to highways as has been done in Germany and Gov. Rick Perry is trying to do in Texas. Put an initiative building a new highway or expanding an existing one and building the high speed rail at the same time. That way highway supporters will have to go along with the project because they can’t be seen opposing a new road.
The initiative should be written to require the state to start issuing contracts and begin construction by a certain date. It should also create a new agency outside the state highway bureaucracy to build and operate the rail system and specify a design build project which saves money and time by having engineers design the project as it is being built. That way work can quickly begin on the project. Denver’s T-Rex rail line is a successful example of design build.
The initiative shouldn’t specify any technology and stay away from exotic technologies like monorail and maglev. They are too easy for rail foes to attack. Instead decisions about technology should be left up to the engineers.
The time is ripe for such rail ballot initiatives particularly in western states like California, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado which have ballot initiative processes. California, where even rural highways suffer from gridlock, seems like a logical candidate. A serious effort should be made to get Gov. Schwarzenegger involved, his popularity could get the measure passed.
If money is needed for lawyers to write such a proposal, a petition campaign to get it on the ballot and a campaign to get it passed. Rail backers should turn to rail manufacturers particularly in Japan, France and German where large corporations have billions invested in rail technology. Demand that they cough up the money for such campaigns.
Rail backers have a unique opportunity to get high speed rail built. The question is do they have the guts to go around state legislatures and Congress which will never back high speed rail and go directly to the voters? Or will they keep wasting their time in the halls of government which are owned by the highway lobby?

economic interests

Economic Interests
By Daniel G. Jennings
One of the mantras of the Bush haters on the left is that working and middle class people “voted against their economic interests” by voting for George W. Bush.
Did they? Only if you believed that John Kerry was working in the economic interests of the working and middle class but is he? Or was he going to as President.
Not if you examine Kerry’s record in the Senate. He was a staunch supporter of free trade and the outsourcing of jobs. Kerry spent several years campaigning to get Vietnam opened up to American trade. The media hailed this as a brave conciliatory move on the part of a war veteran but it should be noted that companies controlled by Kerry’s relatives in Boston have profited handsomely from low cost labor in Vietnam.
Then there’s Kerry’s fiscal policies as a member of the Senate Kerry has voted constantly for the balanced budget. He has worked constantly to reduce the budget deficit. A move that helps people with interest based investments like bonds but not necessarily average people. Kerry has also worked constantly for tax increases to pay for budget reduction. In other words Kerry would sacrifice the needs of average people on the altar of fiscal responsibility.
Kerry’s answer to the outsourcing of jobs is also questionable. It was simply to give tax breaks to large corporations that don’t move their headquarters overseas. In other words, corporate welfare as an answer to outsourcing. How this would work I don’t know but note Kerry wasn’t going to give tax breaks to companies that keep jobs here. Only ones that keep their executive offices here. Wait a minute.
Finally there was the all important issue of overtime, overtime makes up a big part of a lot of Americans’ income. Yet the Bush administration wants to get rid of it under the guise of reform. Kerry didn’t come out and campaign on this issue. He didn’t mention it or promise to restore it. Instead he simply ignored it and ranted and raved about the imaginary evils of the draft and social security privatization.
So guess what leftists, those who voted for Kerry weren’t voting against their economic interests. They saw clearly that Kerry didn’t care for their economic interests any more than Bush did. So they voted for the man whose values were closer to their own.

Moral equivalency

Moral Equivalence: Another Leftist Fallacy
By Daniel G. Jennings
One of the most dangerous fallacies of the left is moral equivalence: the belief that crimes committed by Americans in the past make America the moral equivalent of its enemies.
The moral equivalence argument usually goes as follows someone criticizes some foreign country or leader for some crime or misdeed. Instead of answering or refuting the criticism the leftist then cites some terrible interlude from American history (say the crimes committed against Native Americans or the World War II internment of Japanese Americans) and says this proves that America is just as bad or worse than the foreign power being criticized.
The danger in this line of argument is obvious, first it deflects argument from crimes that are being committed today such as terrorist atrocities and puts the focus on past misdeeds which we can’t correct. It keeps us from examining or dealing with the evils occurring in the world today. Evils we might be able to stop or prevent.
Second, it protects today’s criminals by making it impossible for Americans to criticize them or publicize their actions. The American can’t raise his voice against the crimes in the Sudan out of fear of being called a killer of Indians.
By resorting to moral equivalence the leftist doesn’t have to examine or criticize the behavior of peoples in the third world who may be his political allies. Nor does the leftist have to change his or her beliefs.
The leftist can also ignore the obvious moral superiority of America to many other countries. Especially to countries in which torture and terrorist atrocities are being committed today. Remember the American crimes the leftists discuss occurred in the past sometimes the distant past. It must also be noted that Americans, unlike other peoples, have gone out of their way to redress those crimes and expose them with little or no foreign pressure to do so.
Worst of all the moral equivalence argument justifies both the terrible things Americans did in the past and the crimes our enemies are committing today. The terrorist thug hearing this argument can say, “hey I’m only doing what the Americans did in the past. I’m just as good as George Washington or Abraham Lincoln so I should keep doing what I’m doing.” The American can say the terrorist thug is just like us, so I don’t have to do anything to stop his atrocities.
So what is the answer to the moral equivalence argument? The best response is to evaluate the horrors of America’s past and today’s terrorist atrocities in their true historical perspective. Don’t compare these things, instead examine them as separate historical events and try to understand them. That way the moral equivalency argument can be exposed as what it is a shoddy tactic employed by moral cowards looking for an excuse not to take a stand on the important issues of our day.