The Z Spot

So this post is intended to point out a major hypocrisy of many on the far left. These are people who have protested NAFTA, boycotted brands which use sweatshops, and spent hundreds of extra dollars buying “Fair Trade” products, especially coffee. Maybe this is just a stereotype, but a lot of these people are using drugs, especially marijuana. So here’s my question to them. Are your drugs “fair trade?”

You protest companies who use labor not paid at a “living wage.” People argue that these foreign companies are still paying more than being unemployed or the alternative means of employment. You say that’s not enough.

Yet, was the Colombian who grew your pot paid a “living wage?” Moreover, is he even still living? We are not talking about “evil America” exploiting the poor here. We are talking about violent criminal cartels terrorizing the poor.

We are talking about cartels who have significant influence over the corrupt governments of several developing countries. We are talking about cartels who have left a path of blood throughout Latin America for decades. That path has now led them straight to the border. We are talking about cartels who, once they have spent enough money on violence to protect themselves and their “merchandise” are sending that money around the world to fund religious and political extremist groups.

So where are the fair trade activists who demonstrated over “blood diamonds” tonight? Are they smoking their blood buds or snorting their blood lines?

So think twice before you start using drugs, if you really care about “fair trade” and the developing world. But what about the domestic and Canadian stuff? Well, maybe it was grown using “fair trade principles,” but unless you or someone you personall know well grew it, how did you get it?

Was a 14 year old boy ever shot fighting for someone’s right to sell it to you on that particular corner, or the right to sell it to your dealer? Was an 8 year old child ever killed by a stray bullet for the same reason? How much of the money you spent on that dime bag went back to the community? Okay, we’ll count both yours and the one your drugs were grown in?

For decades, we have fought the “War on Drugs” and dealers, cartels, and corrupt politicians have waged the “Drug Wars” on two fronts, leaving trails of blood both within our cities and throughout our hemisphere. Now, those two fronts have become closer than ever. The situation along the U.S.-Mexican border should be a wake up call to everyone. Drug related violence iss not just a great scene in Blow. It is real.

So, all you pot-smoking hippies: are your drugs “fair trade?”

So, just for fun, I decided I wanted to vote on the Change.org top ten issues poll when they had it up. In order to do that, you have to register for the site. I now get several e-mails a week from Change.org.

Most of them are asking me to sign some stupid online petition for Obama’s plans. Now why is this ridiculous?

First of all, I don’t really agree with the President, or his petitions. Why would I sign them?

Second of all, do they really do anything? Obama is already President. He already said that he wanted to double food aid to the world’s poorest people. If the President wants to do it, and his party controls both houses of the legislature, why does he need me to sign an online petition for it? Does what I think really matter?

Now, before people start to say that more politicians should be like this and care what their constituents think, let me ask a question. There was no “I don’t support the President’s proposal” option. It was not a poll, it was a petition. This is not the way to gauge the support his plan has.

Moreover, is the President really going to tell everyone “Because I did not get enough clicks on my anonymous mass e-mail, I am no longer in favor of that proposal?” No, he’s not. This is not a way to involve the public or hear their voices or opinions. This is a campaign website which has outlived the campaign season (hopefully not on government money) but still acts like Obama is campaigning. For his high school’s chapter of Amnesty International president. Isn’t it time you quit trying to be elected America’s Prom King? You charmed everyone and won that title already. People create petitions to get you to hear them. You don’t create petitions to get them to look at you.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Sarah Palin’s clothes
Alright. I couldn’t resist any longer, even though I know I’m late. I’m really, really surprised by the commentary on this, for two reasons.

1) I don’t understand how people think that Palin’s clothes will hurt her image with hockey moms and blue collar people. If anything, it should help that image. This is a woman who is so down to earth/blue collar that she didn’t have clothes to campaign in. I think most people can relate with that. Most people can relate to having a new job and wondering how you’re going to pay for the clothes you need to wear to work.

On the other hand, here’s what I’m surprised hasn’t been an issue. Republican donors should be upset. Here we have Obama and the Dems outspending McCain and the Republicans by huge amounts. Granted 150k isn’t that much in terms of presidential election campaigning, BUT, if you’re the guy that donated $75k to the Republicans, would you really want it being spent on clothes for Palin?
Posted by Zach at 2:54 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: campaign, elections, Sarah Palin

Tuesday, October 7, 2008
My problem with looking at “special interests”
Alright. So here’s my big problem with political analysis. Everybody looks at where people’s campaign money comes from, and where they votes, and then points there finger. This is very problematic. As anybody who studied social sciences knows is that just because there is a relationship doesn’t mean it’s a causal one. Furthermore, in some situations (this one included) it’s tough to say which way the causal relationship flows. Let me frame it this way.

You are the gaming industry (native or otherwise). You decide you want to actively participate in electoral politics. Are you going to donate your money to candidate A who opposes expansion of gaming, or candidate B who is a proponent of your industry?

Exactly. There is a difference between people donating money because a candidate supports their cause and a candidate supporting a cause because somebody donates money. And, it’s tough to tell which way it’s going.

As a rule of thumb for me, there’s three points.

First- when did they start supporting this cause?
If a person has been a champion for certain issues for years, it doesn’t really matter to me. They are probably getting money because of those stances.

Second- is the stance within the person’s generally established political framework?
If the person is a free market proponent, perhaps supporting gaming shouldn’t be that surprising. If you have a pro-regulation, anti-porn, anti-drinking, pro-tax candidate who suddenly starts supporting casinos, maybe we should ask questions.

Third- is the person consistent in their overall philosophy?
That is, is the person willing to upset donors when their political, moral, or other personal philosophies tell them they should. For example, McCain’s voting record is not 100% pro-tribal gaming. He has voted against tribal gaming on a couple of major issues.

I use McCain and gaming as an example because I think it’s been thrown out a lot lately, but this really is non-partisan and non-specific. It goes for all kinds of politicians on both sides of the spectrum. I think that 90% of the time, the money follows the political opinion, not the other way around. And 90% of the time, the public and the media assume/portray that relationship going the other way.
Posted by Zach at 11:51 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: campaign finance, politics, special interest

I found this story from the Associated Press tonight. It’s surreal, and hard to believe that this could be happening.

Yet, it is. In my usual effort to understand both sides, I’d like to point out that mistakes do happen, especially in bureaucracies.

That being said, stories like this further bolster my convictions on immigration. Instead of cracking down on illegal immigrants already in our country, we need a three-pronged approach to the immigration issue.

1) Punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants. When we make it harder for people to make a living in this country than their own, they’ll stop coming here. As long as employers are getting slapped on the wrists, they’ll continue turning the other cheek to applicants with suspicious or missing documents.

2) Strengthen our border security. Stop these people from coming here in the first place. It is expensive, difficult, and apparently very error-prone to try to track down millions of people spread throughout our 50 states.

3) Streamline the legal immigration process. Make it worth people’s while to come here legally. Getting smuggled across our border is difficult, risky, and expensive. Offer a real alternative to people trying to come here.

Understandable or not, errors like this cannot continue. These are citizens who should be guaranteed the same rights as the rest of us by our Constitution. Unfortunately, those most likely to be mistaken for illegals are also often those with mental problems, limited English, and few economic means. They are likely to have few if any resources to fight this situation.

We’ve all heard the saying “It’s not what you said, but how you said it.” The U.S. and Mexican Presidents obviously live by this. Not that this should surprise us about Obama.

But today, the two Presidents had a joint press conference in which they repeatedly mentioned that they are on the same page. But they don’t really seem to be actually on the same page.

They both agree that:
a) we are neighbors
b) drugs and people are traveling from Mexico to the U.S.
c) there are drug related deaths in Mexico, especially on the border, and this is a bad thing
d) the economy is bad right now
e) that increased trade is good for both the U.S. and Mexico.

On the other hand, in terms of solutions, they are on very different pages.

a) Obama believes that we should fight the drug cartels together. Calderon believes that although we should share intelligence, the U.S. should work to eliminate drug use on our side of the border, and Mexico will work on cracking down on violence and corruption in Mexico. Military and law enforcement joint operations are not an option for Calderon.
b) Obama does not think that we can completely eliminate or control the flow of people or drugs over the border. He thinks the violence will not stop, but can be reduced to a “local criminal problem.” Calderon believes that our end goal should be to obtain a legal and “orderly” migration moving in both directions. Although he didn’t flat out say it, it is also clear that he hopes to achieve a significant reduction in the flow of migrants from Mexico to the U.S. He believes that through trade and infrastructure projects, we can reduce poverty around the border and throughout Mexico, and thus reduce incentives for both migrants and drug trafickers.
c) Obama seems to believe that NAFTA stands for “North American “Fair” Trade Agreement.” He wants the U.S. to be able to enforce labor and other standards throughout the region. That’s right. He actually said that he wanted all partners to be able to enforce labor standards throughout the region. Calderon thinks that the U.S., Mexico, and Canada should view the global economic slump as an opportunity to improve North America’s standing vis-a-vis Europe and Asia. This can be done by increasing trade, not by adding any further limitations to trade. In fact, we should make trade within the region as profitable and unrestricted as possible.

While they seem to agree on all of the facts, they come from fundamentally different political perspectives. They don’t really agree on our future path at all.

Obama sees America as having the right/duty to interfere in Mexico (labor regulations, law enforcement, etc.) He thinks that the goal should be to a) impose American, liberal standards to Mexican businesses, and b) reduce immigration and drug trafficking to the point where it is no longer spilling over the border.

Calderon sees his nation as sovereign, with both the right and the responsibility to take care of itself. He thinks that cooperation toward mutual goals is desirable, but that each country should keep its focus on its side of the fence. He also thinks that we can and should create a situation in which the movement of large numbers of people and drugs across the border is no longer the best option for so many people. To do this, Mexico must be allowed to trade with the U.S. without restrictions.

But these two both have the political stumping skills to give the real impression that we are making progress here.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Why I’m scared about the bailout
Okay. First of all, I am opposed, as a matter of principal, to injecting taxpayer dollars into the economy. I maintain that the free market works, that it occasionally corrects itself, and that it should be allowed to run its course. I think the worst thing we can do is have a “free market” with either the risks or the rewards taken out of it.

Second, this is getting so much attention and has had such an effect on the market so far that I’m worried that people are going to think this fixes what’s wrong. Whether it is policy makers or banks, they need to learn the lesson from the market correction we’re going through right now. I’m worried that the bailout is going to be a “quick fix” and everyone is going to turn around and go about business as usual.

That being said, the whole point of the bailout, and some of the provisions that people were trying to put in it, is ridiculous to me. We are obviously where we are today because our entire economy is based on money that doesn’t really exist. Credit is a good thing, to a certain extent, but let’s face it. Right now, it’s getting out of hand. So why are we going to try to “free up credit?” Why are we worried about helping people who make less than 50K keep their houses? They can’t afford houses. When you take out a loan, there are terms. One of those is that if you can’t pay, you can’t stay. I make less than $50,000 a year and right now, I would not THINK of buying a house. Because I know that should something happen, with no savings to my name right now, I would wind up no just evicted, but losing out on a down payment and payments put in over a certain period of time. I KNOW that I can’t afford a house.

Why are we bailing out banks which took risks? They chose to take those risks, and people chose to put their money in banks and investment firms which took those risks. Again, nobody was complaining a year ago, when all of these risks were bringing huge rewards. Rewards shouldn’t come without risks.

That being said, here’s the direction I would like to see us move in: regulate banks more on disclosure. For example, if you put your money in a bank account for the purposes of a checking or savings account, and that bank is doing something other than mortgages, credit cards, etc. with that money, they should have to tell you. Basically, if your checking or savings account is any riskier than what most people would think of a checking or savings account being (very low risk), that should be fully disclosed. Same thing with other investments.

BUT, bailing out everybody who makes a mistake (whether it’s a company or an individual) is not the right thing to do. As non-material as credit is now, it becomes even less real when everyone knows you don’t REALLY have to hold up your end of the deal, because Uncle Sam will help you keep your house, or your doors open, or whatever else it may be.
Posted by Zach at 3:58 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: bailout plan, banks, economy

Monday, September 29, 2008
Border Town
So I saw Border Town on Showtime yesterday and it really made me think. What happened in Juarez is a tragedy, and a disaster. Hundreds, if not thousands, of women killed, and nobody paid attention. Not the government, not the media, not their employers. Nobody. It made me think about the “costs” of free trade, capitalism, and development. I then started thinking about other cases (granted, mostly also in Latin America), and really evaluated my own thoughts on it.

In some ways, it made me question my own conservative political and economic, pro-American views. In the end though, it reinforced them. Not to say that America has always been perfect. But instead, to point out that what America needs is not a changing of our worldview or priorities, but a strengthening of them.

What I see happening in the world because of American involvement is sad. But, it mostly falls into two camps. Countries where we have promoted free trade and other free market economic ideas, and countries where we have promoted liberal democracy as a political system. The problem is that in most of those cases (d certainly the ones we read about in the paper), the two don’t go hand in hand.

Liberal democracy does not work in places where the government is totally entrenched in the economy. Where firms are nationalized, or the government has powerful taxation authority, a vote can easily be bought or intimidated. It simply won’t work. In particular, countries whose governments own or control very profitable industries (oil, etc.) which employ large portions of the population. Or countries where the government is heavily vested with powerful unions or foreign companies which own or control those industries.

On the other hand, as we’ve see time and time again in Latin America, free trade cannot exist where the population is not truly free. Mexico is far from a dictatorship in any traditional sense of the word. At the same time, however, one political party was in power for decades. When they were finally ousted, the new President continued using many of the same techniques, simply reversing the direction. The government is corrupt and somewhat decentralized. This threatens people’s individual freedoms in a very serious way. In particular, the freedom of the press, and people’s freedoms to a) know what is going on in their country, and b) have their stories told.

When I was in Acapulco, the drug wars escalated to the point where the police chief disbanded the police and left the state. The Federales were called in. A friend e-mailed me about this. Oddly enough, a Google search in Spanish turned up one article about this situation, from a newspaper in Spain. In English, several dozen stories were out. This is obviously not coincidence. Free market economics only work (in my opinion) in certain circumstances. One, everyone must have equal opportunity. This is something we grapple with even in the United States. Second, people must have the ability to make choices. While nobody is holding a gun to people’s heads and telling them what to do with their lives in much of Latin America, the ability to make choices is more than just freedom as such. It also includes the ability to make informed decisions. In a region full of media repression and misinformation, this cannot exist.

So I would argue, after seeing this movie, that America does not need to back off of either our crusade for liberal democracy or our crusade for free trade and free market capitalism. Rather, it needs to make both stronger and join them together. We cannot continue to impose democracy on the Middle East without economic reform to go with it. The Democracy will never last. We cannot continue to impose free trade on Latin America while allowing repressive or somewhat repressive regimes to remain in office. The costs, to us, to the people of the countries we involve ourselves in, and to the world, are too great.
Posted by Zach at 7:03 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: border town, free market, free trade, juarez, latin america

Monday, September 22, 2008
Socializing U.S. financial services
This is really driving me crazy.

The basis of modern capitalism is the American and global financial system. How ironic that it’s now becoming socialized. Well, sort of socialized.

At least socialist states understand what nationalization means. It usually means increased work and/or risk for the whole population, paired with benefits for the whole population. Now, the U.S. seems to be capitalist enough to not want to completely meet these ideas.

Instead, we’re putting taxpayer dollars on the line, with no real benefit to the average American. Yes, we’re stabilizing the economy. If we (and particularly the Republican party) really believed in the free market, we would understand that while it may not be immediate, the market will eventually cycle, and make necessary corrections, and we’ll all be okay. Instead, we have lost faith, and put a bandaid on the market. In the meantime, until this gets sorted out, it has plummeted the stock market. We’re now taking over financial institutions left and right.

And is there any guarantee that we will all be getting houses, stock, or anything else? No.

This is getting ridiculous. Especially that Democrats want to set up infrastructure to do this regularly. What will it be called, the Ministry of Half-Assed Socialization?
Posted by Zach at 11:48 PM
Labels: economics, economy, mortgage crisis, politics
3 comments:

Eli Blake said…

How do you see Democrats as setting it up to do this regularly? It was John McCain who suggested the ‘MFI’ concept last week before quickly backing off of it.

I actually made a proposal earlier this week and am glad to hear similar things bandied about in the media lately that if a company required a bailout then the treasury department should retain a 20% stake in that company for the next 20 years. This would mean that the government (all of us, at least in theory) would receive 20% of all dividends paid by the company during that time, and when the 20 years was up it could sell the stock back into the market but benefit from any increase in the stock price that occurred during that time.
September 24, 2008 7:54 PM
Zach said…

Eli,
I had read (this was last week) that Nancy Pelosi et. al.’s objection was that the companies chosen for bailouts seemed arbitrary, and that if we were going to do this, we should set up the infrastructure and a special agency to do this regularly and fairly. Maybe that’s since changed.

As far as your idea, here’s my thoughts. I’m fundamentally opposed to any further socialization in the U.S. I think we already have enough of a broken welfare state. And I think that since we are the champion of capitalism, it goes against everything we stand for.

At the same time, if we are going to socialize the risk, we should socialize the benefits. Even if it meant annual stimulus checks not based on an increased deficit, but based on dividends/increased share prices of the stocks that we are all buying when the government conducts these bailouts. So while I’m fundamentally opposed to this whole concept, since it appears inevitable, I think that what you’re proposing at least makes sense.

If we’re going to go socialist, at least admit that we’re going in that direction, and do it right.
September 25, 2008 8:30 AM
Michael LaPenna said…

Socialism in full never works because it defies human nature. The market will stabilize eventually as always. We’ve all got to just live the best we can and shut up lol.

http://waxingpoetically.today.com

http://artfromtheoutskirts.today.com
September 25, 2008 11:02 AM

Sunday, September 7, 2008
Religion and Academia
So I’m reading a book on Islam right now. I know I’m a nerd. And the thought occurred to me. Is it really possible to study religion in an academic way? I’m very curious about this. My thoughts are that it’s not. For a few reasons.

First. Religions rely on faith. And they claim to be adaptable, and revolve around an omnipotent being. For the same reason that they are not provable, they are not disprovable. One can question the specific assertions about facts made in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, or any other religious document, but can not disprove the overall message, in the same way that believers need to take a leap of faith and just trust the overall message.

Second. Followers of a religion tend to be very non-academic in their writings about it. This is illustrated by the book I’m currently reading. Now I’m not saying that Muslims started the Crusades, or that they were at fault, but the reality of the Crusades, and the historical conflict between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is that there were a lot of deaths all around. They were generally violent times. The author of this particular books paints the Muslims as innocent victims. Second, the author dismisses Muslim Emperors who had harems or used violence, or were intolerant of Christians and Jews as “un-Islamic,” and Muslim violence as un-Islamic as well. He fails to account for the fact that even if it is a minority, there is a segment of the Muslim population that believes that these things are, in fact, justified, if not commanded by, Islam. He at one moment says that there is no universally accepted authority in Islam, and that all worshipers interpret and worship as they please, and then turns around and dismisses the religious beliefs of those who make Islam “look bad.” Finally, the context in which his arguments are framed is telling. There is a Chapter on the types of Islam. Under subheadings, he explains Shi’ism, Sufism, and several other sects of Islam. He does not go into Sunnism, the dominant sect. Instead, it should, perhaps, just be assumed, that Sunnism is “the norm” and the only reason the other types are noteworthy is because they are the exceptions.

Third. It would be hard for truly religious believers of other faiths to write objectively about a religion. This goes without saying. If someone truly accepts the teaching of one religion, how will they deal with the unprovables of another religion? There is a double standard here.

Fourth. Atheists, agnostics, and non-devoted individuals would have a hard time taking religions for what they are. This has been shown over and over again in “religion vs. science” texts and debates. Neither side seems to win. The religious say, “but God’s days could be our milleniums, and it doesn’t say HOW he created, it just says that he created.” Science says, “but God didn’t create. Evolution created.” And religious people say, “But God created Evolution, therefor God created Man.” And scientists say, “How do you know God created Evolution?” And we’re back where we started, with the idea that faith is neither provable or disprovable.

I’d be curious to see what other people’s thoughts on this are.
Posted by Zach at 8:15 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: academia, faith, religion, textbooks