Monday, March 10, 2003

Another Dubya policy success(?)

First things first—I don’t pretend to know a thing about economics.  I signed up for a macroeconomics course once, in the spring semester of 1970; Kent State ended the course prematurely, and I happily accepted the “Pass” that my school gave for all courses that term.  Never tried econ again.

As I watched the US stock markets take still another tumble today, on the third anniversary of the NASDAQ’s all-time high, I happened to hear a news report that mentioned that the euro is currently valued at somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.10.  Somehow, that tidbit of information triggered something in my brain, which spurred me into a bit of web-surfing.

You see, I have an ex-sister-in-law and ex-brother-in-law who are in the business of international tourism.  They run group ski tours to Austria, enviro-tours to Central America, stuff like that.  I learned that a not-insignificant part of their profitability actually arises from what can only be called currency speculation.  When groups pre-pay for their airfare, hotels, and so forth, the tour operators have a good bit of leeway, often several months, in deciding when to move those funds from US dollars into local currency.  That decision can spell the difference between black numbers and red numbers on their company’s bottom line.

I recollected that when I discussed such matters with my ex-in-laws about a year ago, the euro was hovering somewhere below a dollar, so I was surprised to hear that it’s now about 20% higher than it had been the last time I noticed it.  That got me to wondering just what’s been happening to the exchange rate between the currencies of the United States and its European partners under the economic policies of our current regime.

A bit of googling took me to OANDA.com, The Currency Site, where I found downloadable data on the dollar-euro exchange rate.  I obtained and graphed those numbers for the time period of January 20, 2001 - March 11, 2003 ... in other words, during the presidency of George Walker Bush.

Mixed message

As the world lurches toward a crazy conflagration fueled by crazy people, fractures in common sense are everywhere.  Take, for example, today’s NY Times report from Texas, written by Peter T. Kilborn, which shows that even Dubya’s near-neighbors in the Permian Basin town of Andrews are conflicted and confused.

One of the Andrews resident interviewed for the story is quoted thusly:

But Jonnie Miller, 56, a hardy, crew-cut preacher and owner of L & M Backhoe, which specializes in cleaning up spills in the oil fields, worries about war and a loss of lives. “The Scripture says God placed President Bush in office to take care of us,” he said, “and my job is to pray for those in power to make godly decisions.

Wow!?! 

Now, I don’t profess to be an expert in Biblical scholarship, but I think it’s a pretty safe bet that there are no references to George Walker Bush in either the Old or New Testament.  Nor is there anything in Scripture that particularly addresses the “job” of Americans in regard to their relationship with governmental decision-making.

Mr. Miller continues, still combining valuable insights with, ummm, unusual concepts:

"But who over there,” Mr. Miller asked, “wants us doing what we’re doing except us and Kuwait? All life is precious to me. I don’t want to see one Iraqi killed. I don’t want to see Charles Manson killed."

I say again… Wow!?!  What mental process could possibly have introduced Charlie Manson into Mr. Miller’s statement?  What on earth is he talking about?

In toto, there are more pro-war than anti-war Andrewsians quoted in the article.  Which is, I think, fair reporting in a West Texas oil town.  Of the anti-war residents quoted, however, none were quoted as extensively as Jonnie Miller.

Saturday, March 08, 2003

International Women's Day, he sobbed

I commend to one and all Amber Howard’s op-ed piece in Saturday’s Seattle Times, in which she lists eight bulletpoints highlighting the severe and unremitting damage inflicted on women, both in this country and around the world, by the craven boors inhabiting the executive branch of the government of the United States.

Following the litany of heavyhanded anti-woman (and anti-human, and anti-American, and anti a whole lot of other things) Bush administration actions, Ms. Howard closes with these words:

And, unfortunately, the list goes on. It is astonishing that this administration has so quickly and easily turned back the clock on women’s rights � especially the right to control their family size and protect their health and well-being.

Giving women the power to control when or if they have children is essential to slowing rapid population growth, maintaining healthy children and slowing environmental destruction.

We must ensure that women have access to the information and resources they need to make healthy choices for themselves and their families, which will lead to a better world for us all.

The Bushian monsters must be turned out of office ASAP.  Their misdeeds and missteps must be noted and reported upon day and night.  Their attack on our values and ideals, on the very fabric of our nation must be countered before it’s too late.  We must mobilize the good people of our nation to understand what is being done to them and to the entire world by these arrogantly simplistic, self-righteously demagogic bastards.

One suggestion, which I should probably put into its very own entry, is that on Shock-and-Awe day, when we the people assemble freely in whatever public space we choose to express our vociferous objections ... we should go there armed to the teeth with voter registration materials.  Sign up thousands upon thousands of voters who will remember that day and those activities come November 2, 2004.

Under the radar

While the entire world concentrates on the coming war in Iraq—most with dread and sorrow, a few (including Dubya and his crew, Tony, and of course Osama) with slavering relish— the Bush government continues its unrelenting behind-the-scenes course of undermining American values, economic well-being, environmental conditions, and so on and so forth.  Buried on page A4 of Saturday’s Seattle Times was a compendium called Capital Watch, which included three well-hidden items.

One of those items—the Congressional Budget Office’s fast-rising estimate of the deleterious effects of GWB’s economic “stimulus” insanity—has been discussed in a number of places in the blogosphere, and even appeared in the mainline media, so I won’t talk about it here.  See, for example, Daily Kos and this Reuters story. 

Nor will I say much about the third item—postponement of arguments before the Supreme Court in an appeal of a lawsuit concerning accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act—because I don’t know enough about the law or the legal process to really understand what it means.

Here’s the important information in what I do want to talk about:

Thursday, March 06, 2003

What's in it for Tony?

In my morning review of the blogosphere, an entry in Daily Kos took me to this news story about the Prime Minister of Great Britain.  In still another baffling move Bush-ward, Tony Blair apparently will let neither public opinion in his own nation, nor rising opposition in Parliament within his own political base, nor (now) the likelihood of deeply considered and deeply felt Security Council vetoes to deter him from plastering himself and his country’s fortunes firmly to parts-unmentionable of Dubya.

It doesn’t make sense that what once appeared to be an erudite, progressive, thoughtful man, leading Britain with firm hand into a peaceful international community, has turned into this.  In the United States, the leadership transformation is (unfortunately) perfectly explicable—subtract Clinton and add Bush, and raving-lunatic hell breaks out.  But Blair was PM then and is PM now, with much the same cast of characters in his Cabinet at 10 Downing, and I suspect that 90-95% of today’s Labour MPs are the same people who were in Parliament three years ago.  So what has changed?

A friend of mine at work, a close observer of Anglo-Irish relations (and thus, of the British political scene), suggests that the explanation must fall into one (or more?) of four possibilities: