When Bad People Do Good Things

The Washington Post has a surprising editorial regarding General Pinochet's death. They note that despite his horrible human rights record, he left the Chilean economy and political structure in great shape (Chile is currently among the best in Latin America in both categories). This is in stark contrast with Cuba, where Castro has been just as bad on human rights, but has left the economy in shambles and the government is still a dictatorship. They conclude:

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

I would have been surprised to see a publication like the Economist be so bold in praising Pinochet's impact. I never expected it from the Post!

Kiss My Grits

In India, "[a] kissing scene from a movie starring Bollywood actors Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan has irked a lawyer who has filed a criminal case against them, accusing them of obscenity. ... A local court accepted Dwivedi's petition to punish the actors and said it would hear the petitioner on December 11."

This is the kind of story that makes me question whether there really are any universal values. It's fine with me if India wants to debate whether public kissing constitutes obscenity. But is there any chance for developing universal human values and rights if the differences between societies are so great?

England and Scotland: Together No More?

Matthew Lynn of Bloomberg reports:

The English and the Scots appear to be fed up with each other. And a split would be the best outcome for both countries. Scotland might take the chance to emulate the miraculous success of Ireland. England would be able to cut its taxes at a stroke. It might even get the Conservative government it voted for, rather than the Labour one the Scots wanted.

There is no doubt that there is now real momentum behind independence. `Although Scottish independence in the foreseeable future is still unlikely, the chances that it might happen have risen from below 1 percent to perhaps 10 to 15 percent,'' Douglas McWilliams, chief executive of the Centre for Economic and Business Research in London, said in a recent report.

I'm all for countries breaking up into their constituent parts if that's what the people want. Seems to me that it makes for a healthier democracy for each. I should note that this statement by Lynn surprised me:

In reality, the political cultures of the two countries have drifted so far apart, they are no longer compatible. The Scots want a Scandinavian-style social democracy with high taxes, generous welfare and big government. In Scottish politics, there are virtually no right-of-center voters left. The Conservative Party won less than 16 percent of the vote in Scotland last year.

The English want a U.S.-style free market with lower taxes, and a smaller state. The only reason they can't have it is because of the Scots. That is hardly healthy.

Are the differences really that stark? I wouldn't have thought England was that close to the U.S. And are the Scots that far to the left? Lynn earlier stated the following, which seems to contradict this notion:

There are few more entrepreneurial people in the world than the Scots. Just take a look at the numbers of companies around the world with names starting with ``Mc'' or ``Mac.'' And if the birthplace of Adam Smith can't create a thriving free-market economy, then who can?

Quebec Breaks Free (A Little Bit)

Reuters reports:

Canada's Parliament recognized Quebecers as a nation within a united Canada on Monday, backing a controversial proposal that has already prompted one minister in the minority Conservative government to quit.

I've never understood people's concern about the possibility that a part of your country will break away. Why do people care so much? Is it just a fear of change from the status quo? A loss of certain resources? A diminishing of national power? I can't say that it would bother me much if a U.S. state decided to go it alone.

Deep Sea Fishing Treaty

An effort to establish a UN treaty regulating deep sea fishing has been scuttled, and Greenpeace is hopping mad. The are particularly mad at Iceland: "The international community should be outraged that Iceland could almost single-handedly sink deep-sea protection and the food security of future generations," said Karen Sack of Greenpeace International." (Canada appears to be happy with the failure of the talks as well.)

I can see why some folks want the treaty, as they are concerned that the practice "can cause damage to extremely slow growing ecosystems, particularly coral reefs, and also depletes other marine life that is captured by the nets." But I wonder if the treaty approach is really the best way. You have a few countries, including Iceland, that have powerful fishing groups who want to maintain the practice. Is a treaty really going to be effective in these circumstances?

This situation reminds me somewhat of whaling, where there is a ban but nevertheless some countries are able to take advantage of exceptions to keep catching whales. Furthermore, these same countries continue to lobby to get rid of the ban, and