Cato Daily Dispatch for November 4, 2002
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via PDA (AvantGo)
(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)
Decisive Gains for Either Party Unlikely in ElectionSaudis Prohibit U.S. from Using Facilities to Attack Iraq
Greenpeace: Manhattan Under Water by 2080
Decisive Gains for Either Party Unlikely in Election
As the race for control of Congress sprints through its final weekend, voters appear poised to maintain the narrow division of power that has marked American politics for nearly a decade, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Analysts in both parties consider Republicans the favorite to maintain -- and possibly even expand -- their slender six-seat majority in the House. And Democrats seem positioned to maintain -- or enlarge -- their one-seat Senate majority. Enough races remained within reach, however, to sustain Republican hopes of a takeover.
What seems least likely tomorrow are decisive gains for either party in either chamber. After months of campaigning, vast expenditures and endless cycles of attacks and counterattacks through televised ads, this election may not do much to alter the basic parity between the parties vividly demonstrated in the razor-thin 2000 presidential race between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
In "Election 2002 and the Problems of American Democracy", John Samples, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Representative Government, and Patrick Basham, senior fellow at the center, write that although some view the election as a series of horse races, "the preoccupation with partisan details obscures broader, more important aspects of the national policy mood and the health of our political system. . . . Contrary to conventional wisdom, across America there exists a measurable popular preference for less, rather than more, government intervention. Therefore, in the fall of 2002, the electorate will favor candidates who support defense spending, civil liberties, and smaller government outside of defense."
Saudis Prohibit U.S. from Using Facilities to Attack Iraq
Reuters reports that Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, said yesterday it would not allow the United States to use facilities in the country to attack neighboring Iraq, even if a strike was sanctioned by the United Nations.
"We will abide by the decision of the United Nations Security Council and we will cooperate with the Security Council. But as to entering the conflict or using facilities . . . that is something else," Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said.
"Our policy is that if the United Nations takes a decision on Chapter 7, it is obligatory on all signatories to cooperate but that is not to the extent of using facilities in the country or the military forces of the country," he told CNN.
The U.S./Saudi Arabia relationship has also been examined by Cato's Director of Defense Policy Studies Ivan Eland in "Saudi Arabia: Friend, Foe, or Neither?" and "Get Out of Saudi Arabia". Senior Fellow Doug Bandow profiled the relationship in "Paying a High Price for Befriending Saudi Princes", and Vice President for Defense and Foreign Policy Ted Carpenter wrote on the topic with Jerry Taylor, Cato's director of natural resource studies, in "Quit Turning the Other Cheek with Saudi Arabia".
Greenpeace: Manhattan Under Water by 2080
By the year 2080, Manhattan and Shanghai could be under water, droughts and floods could become more extreme, and hundreds of millions of people will be at risk from disease, starvation and water shortages, Reuters reports.
That is the picture that a Greenpeace senior official painted of the future if the world failed to take urgent steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming.
"We're talking about the submergence of islands, submergence of Shanghai, the submergence of Bombay, the submergence of New York City," Greenpeace climate policy director Steve Sawyer told Reuters. "Manhattan would be under water."
Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies, disputes Greenpeace's claims. According to Michaels, the warming rate for the next century "turns out to be a very modest value of about 1.7 degrees Celsius. The warming of the last century was 0.7 degrees. Life span doubled and crop yields quintupled. Does anyone seriously believe this is about to stop and reverse to the point that we will not adapt and prosper as we have?"
Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org