Governmental foolishness

I read the other day that the Taiwanese government had recently floated the idea of an energy tax. Of course an energy tax would be an excellent idea, as it would be a tool to reduce energy consumption and restrain pollution caused by the use of energy. If it were in the form of a carbon tax that would be even better, as it would then target the use of fossil fuels, the worst (and yet most common) form of energy. But unfortunately, the business-friendly KMT caucus in the Legislative Yuan opposed the idea, and the government is now saying that the “time is not right.” Of course given that next year is an election year for many local governments, the time will probably not be “right” then either. As one expert said in the news report I read, with that kind of attitude the time will never be right.

Taiwanese government officials also made themselves look foolish in the past few days when a team of international experts came to examine Taiwan’s adherence to two UN human rights that it ratified several years ago. They repeatedly referred to protections enshrined in law, rather than talking about the actual situation (even China has provisions in its constitution that protect individual rights; it just doesn’t put them into practice). Despite clear evidence to the contrary, they claimed that forced confessions don’t happen in Taiwan now. Apparently the international experts weren’t impressed with a lot of the government’s assertions.

Of course the US has similar foolishness in its government. Even the Obama administration hems and haws far too much about things like real measures to deal with climate change. But the worst idiocy is still in Congress, particularly the House. Aside from the resistance to common-sense gun control and the delays in renewing the Violence Against Women Act, the persistence of the Republicans in insisting on draconian cuts to social programs (but not the bloated defense budget) and no increases in taxes as their “plan” to replace the budget sequester is sheer insanity. Even more incredibly, they are trying to portray the sequester as Obama’s doing, even though it was Congress that passed it, and only as a compromise to prevent the Republicans from causing the US to renege on its debts. Twice in the past few weeks I have received mailings from senior House Republican Pete Sessions in which he referred to “the President’s sequester”, even though Sessions himself is more responsible for the existence of the sequester than Obama is. But considering that one of these mailings featured a constituent survey with questions so laughably loaded that they were like textbook examples of biased survey questions, perhaps his transparent efforts to shift responsibility onto Obama are not too surprising.

Current Events – February 2013

Perhaps the biggest international news event of the past few days was Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement that he will abdicate the papacy at the end of this month, making him the first pope to resign since the Middle Ages. His reasons for resigning – an inability to cope with the demands of his position due to his advanced age and failing health – are reasonable enough, and apparently his predecessor John Paul II also considered resigning for similar reasons. Whether the Pope’s abdication is a good thing or a bad thing depends to a large degree on who is elected as his successor. While as far as I know Joseph Ratzinger (as he was once known) may be a nice person personally, his positions on issues like contraception and homosexuality are centuries out of date, to the great detriment of Catholic societies around the world. Of course such outmoded thinking is not at all rare among the Catholic Church leadership, so it is not unlikely that his successor will be similarly stuck in a time warp. Even a more progressive Pope may find it difficult to make real changes. Another interesting though ridiculously petty conflict that may arise in the election of a new Pope is the possibility that the Italians may try to retake the Papacy. Due to the long papacy of the Polish-born John Paul II, it is now often forgotten that he and the German-born Benedict XVI were the first non-Italian popes since the Middle Ages, and it seems that some Italians in the leadership would like to see this reversed. On the other hand, there are other church leaders who advocate the selection of the first ever non-European pope. Though I personally don’t really much care who is Pope, I am still curious, and the world in general would certainly be better off with a Pope who can move the Catholic Church away from the outdated stances it holds on many issues.

Another international news item from the past few weeks is the French intervention in Mali. While Western military intervention in developing countries is problematic for a number of reasons, I can’t say I’m sorry to see the radical groups chased out of Mali’s major cities, and it seems most of those cities’ residents think likewise. Aside from their implementation of a violent form of “justice” that occasional caused the populace to riot against them, their destruction of historical sites in places like Timbuktu was a crime against all humanity like similar acts by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan. However, once they are driven out, Western powers really need to rethink their approach in places like Africa by helping to improve governance rather than selling weapons and providing military training to corrupt regimes (even those with a democratic veneer), as pointed out in this opinion piece. This brings to mind something that US congressman Alan Grayson wrote about foreign policy following one of the presidential debates last fall. While I have mixed feelings about Grayson – I agree with him on most issues, he's intelligent and entertaining to read, and he loves rock music, but he also strikes me as somewhat egotistical and often goes overboard in his rhetoric – he makes some excellent points about the mentality governing foreign policy discussions in the US. If the US and the rest of the developed world really want to see substantial change in places like Mali, Libya, and Afghanistan, they really need to rethink their approach and start doing more to address the problems that lie at the root of the conflicts in the world.

One topic that has never come up in my blog is sports. This is because, though I was a sports fan as a kid, I long ago lost interest in sports. There is so much else that is more meaningful or more entertaining or both. However, I can’t resist commenting on the IOC’s idiotic decision to drop wrestling as an Olympic sport. Now I might be slightly biased because I was on the wrestling team in high school, but I can’t comprehend how you can have the Olympics without wrestling. Not only has it always been part of the modern games, but it was one of the main sports in the ancient Greek Olympics. Getting rid of wrestling is like getting rid of sprinting. Worse yet, this was done to make room for golf. Golf?!? You must be kidding me. Even aside from my dislike of the harm golf does to the environment, the idea that it is a better Olympic sport than wrestling is absurd. But as the article in the link above indicates, the real reason behind this decision is probably money and outright corruption in the IOC. I suppose for Taiwan the change might be a good thing, as the country has at least one very talented golfer who might win a medal. But that would be a bad reason to applaud a stupid decision. I haven’t really watched the Olympics in years, but things like this make me even more convinced that I’m not missing much.