July 21, 2003
Anniversary of moon landing
Today is the anniversary of the first landing on the moon by American astronauts. The Guardian reprints it's
original news story of the event.
Men are on the moon. At 3:39 am this morning - nearly four hours ahead of schedule - Armstrong, the lunar module commander, opened the hatch and clambered slowly down to the surface of the moon. Minutes later Aldrin followed him down the steps of the ladder - already renamed Tranquility Base - to join in this moving, clumsy culmination of eight years of intense dedication. It was the fulfilment of a dream which men have shared since the beginning of recorded history.
The Guardian has a nice
archive of various historical events. It's nice to be able to go back and read the original coverage, one of the great things about the internet.
And fascinating to see how perceptions of events change over time. For instance, I saw
this article from 1967 analyzing Israel's victory in the Six Days war. Curiously, it's presented much more as part of the Cold War, as a victory against Communism, and as primarily a Soviet loss, not an Arab one.
Funny how things change. Now, of course, it's presented as an instance of Israeli aggression. You never hear how the weakness and defeats of the Arabs stem, at least partially, from their alliance with the Communists, or that originally American support for Israel was directed at the Soviet Union more than it was at the Arabs. Somehow this crucial aspect of the conflict has virtually disappeared from the discussion, and it's seen as strictly an Arab-Israeli matter.
American deficit dependency and the world economy
Writing in the
Guardian, Larry Elliott is
skeptical about the prospects of future economic recovery, at least to the extent it's dependent on the American economy.
But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong, not just about the imminence of recovery but about the underlying health of the global economy altogether? As one correspondent to this page put it, is there a chance that we could be heading for the "big one", an economic crisis the like of which has not been seen since the 1930s?
It's certainly worth considering, and the place to start looking is the US trade deficit, at present running at more than $50m an hour. Far too little attention has been paid to the giant tab the US has been running with the rest of the world in order to satisfy demand for goods and services that cannot be provided domestically, with economic logic turned on its head to argue that the spendthrift habits of the world's biggest economy is actually a good thing.
While I agree with much of this analysis, particularly that the US deficit is NOT good for the economy, I think he overstates the degree to which it affects the rest of the world. The assumption that a plunging dollar is bad economic news is just that: an assumption. There are lots of good things that could come from that as well.
The phrase "global economy" gets used a lot these days, but it may be a bit exaggerated. While there is much "global" activity, fundamentally we have a number of national and regional economies that exist on their own. At least to the extent that they can do well or badly somewhat independently of the rest of the world.
So, while the American economy may be slumping, and the rest of the world to the extent it depends on it, many others are actually doing rather well. China, Russia, India and many of the smaller EU nations are growing fairly rapidly, Russia especially.
I think it's entirely possible for the world economy to be growing while the American one isn't. They are not as closely connected as they once were, and the perception that they are is a bit outdated. And so I think that his conclusion may be a bit pessimistic.
The dangers should be obvious. The dollar might act as a gradual adjustment mechanism but is more likely to come down with a crash. US consumers could decide to tighten their belts rather than face savage retrenchment if they continue on their rake's progress. But the chances are they will not, and that a plunging dollar will spread America's recession to the rest of the world. There is no global financial system worthy of the name, merely a Potemkin village. Could this be the big one? You bet.
As a matter of fact, I think that the slowdown of American business may actually serve as a boon to other countries, forcing them to develop new markets and relationships and such. But then he's an economist, and I'm not, so what do I know?
One thing for sure though. The degree and extent to which many economies are tied to the US, and vice versa, amounts to a "co-dependent" relationship. And that is no healthier in economic relationships that it is in personal ones.
French turn Seine into beach
Guardian article. For the second summer, part of Paris normally reserved for cars has been covered with sand and turned into a "beach."
The administration of mayor Bertrand Delanoe launched the Paris beach last year as a way to make the city more livable. To the chagrin of drivers it was a hit, with an estimated 2.3 million visitors.
This year the beach area has doubled, with 3,000 tons of sand covering the concrete.
What a great idea. If this idea catches on there could be beaches everywhere.
Iraq war 'began last year'
The
Guardian reports that, as many have suspected, the substantial increase last summer in American and British bombing of the so-called "no-fly zones" over southern Iraq, was in fact the beginning of the war against Saddam.
The Iraq war began in mid-2002 with intensive air strikes under the guise of enforcing the southern no-fly zone over the country, a senior US officer admitted in remarks published yesterday.
Lieutenant General Michael Moseley, the chief allied war commander, said that the previously secret plan, Operation Southern Focus, was launched last summer - before President Bush took his case against Baghdad to the United Nations.
The operation involved dropping 606 precision-guided bombs on 391 targets, in an effort to destroy Saddam Hussein's air defences.
... The admission raises further questions about US intentions in the build-up to war, at a time when the administration is scrambling to explain its reliance on shaky intelligence in making the case for war.
This isn't that surprising, but it does contribute to the increasing feeling around the world that the Americans and British have not been entirely frank about what they have been doing over there. And that the attempts to get UN approval for the war were entirely bogus; they had already started the war and were already committed.
Back in business
Sorry I've been offline the last couple of weeks. Have been moving into a new office, as well as transferring my sites to a new internet provider. And rearranging them some as I do it.
There's still much to do, but it's getting there. Blogging should resume on a regular basis now.
End of entries. ( ) ( )
