The Z Spot

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

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

Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Why I’m losing faith in our candidates
Alright. So I’ve posted before on why I would be very happy with either Obama or McCain. Because of their characters. Well, now I’m starting to have my doubts. Not about one or the other, but about both.

The men that I thought were ethically above other politicians, honestly motivated, and willing to work across the aisle for the good of our Country have disappointed me.

First, let’s look at Obama. Now, I’m not saying that it’s bad for a candidate to decline public election funds. There’s all kinds of reasons to do so. Strategic (if you can raise as much as he can) reasons, ethical reasons (why should taxpayers pay for campaigns), and who knows how many others. It’s not that he is declining the funds. It’s that he had promised not to before. Now, one of two things is going on here. A) He lied to build an image of himself that he couldn’t live up to (typical politician), or B) He’s an idiot. Let’s evaluate that option. If Obama really truly dd change his mind, that is, if he really did think, when he promised to use public funds, that he was going to, and only changed his mind later, then he’s stupid. Did he really just realize that he could run a stronger campaign with unlimited fundraising as an option? I hope not. Either way, the man is either an idiot or a typical, sleezy politician.

Now, let’s look at McCain. Throughout the Republican primaries, and to my knowledge (although it’s not extensive), his career, he ran clean campaigns. And it did pretty well for him. It’s part of his appeal. He doesn’t need to negative campaign. He shouldn’t have to. He’s clearly the stronger of the two candidates on experience, especially with foreign policy (a hot topic right now). Why is he choosing now to go dirty? It’s really disappointing, honestly. I thought, until the last few weeks, that whoever won, the other would go out graciously and politely. And that the winner would also be gracious and polite. That, given the constant talk about both of the candidates’ “independence” and willingness to work together to unite our nation and its politicians, we would have a civil election. McCain’s campaign has proven me wrong.
Posted by Zach at 2:35 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Monday, July 28, 2008
Defending McCain’s rape comment
Alright. I have read a lot in the blogosphere about McCain’s rape comment, as well as his taking money from somebody who has made some really inappropriate comments about rape. And about his calling his wife a rather offensive word. And here’s my defense of McCain.

First of all, his rape comment was one comment made 16 years ago. Can anyone honestly tell me they’ve never told, or laughed at, a joke, that they later looked at and thought was terrible? We’re all human, we all make mistakes, and we all do inappropriate and insensitive things some time. Which is to say that this comment should be forgiven. Not because it is appropriate, but because we should forgive people for slips.

Second, I feel the same way about McCain and this donor as I do about Obama and Reverend Wright. Politics is not guilt by association. A bad person can support a good politican and a good person. Also, a good person can have some unacceptable views.

Finally, as far as the “c” word incident goes, again, this was a long time ago. Second of all, it’s a word. It means different things to different people. I’ve been known to use it myself, and, quite frankly, while it can be offensive to some, I don’t see how it offends the nation. Every marriage has its problems. Every couple fights. And everybdoy gets emotional and says things they don’t mean and will later regret. We’ve all thought about our girlfriend, boyfriend, brother, sister, mother, or father, using less than kind words. Some of us have even let those words slip from our lips. If Cindy can forgive her husband, it is not our place to judge him for his words against her.

Also, let me ask you, what is more hurtful to a wife, and offensive to women in general. A man who uses an offensive word toward his wife, or a man who, while in office, cheats on his wife, gets caught, lies about it, and embarasses his family in front of the whole country?
Posted by Zach at 10:41 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Bill Clinton, comment, John McCain, joke, rape

Bush’s Hypocrisy- Subsidies
Alright. As an SUV-driving Republican, this is going to be quite a shock coming from me, but I read a New York Times article today that just got me going.

Bush was cited as having made negative comments about countries which subsidize fuel for their citizens and businesses. Now, this really gets me going. Coming from the president of a country that subsidizes agriculture, and even agriculture to be used for fuel.

How can Bush comment on the effects that fuel subsidies in the developing world have on global supply and demand? Our subsidies on corn, including corn used in ethanol production, affected the global supply and demand of food. Yes, fuel is necessary for American industry. But from a politician’s standpoint, is the effect on industry, or the complaints of a bunch of SUV-driving rich folks what the government is worried about? The reality of it is that the way that we consume fuel in the United States is a luxury. We could easily cut back on our fuel consumption without really hurting our healths or standards of living in a tangible way.

So, basically, subsidies are okay when they cause riots and put the world’s poor at risk of starvation, but when they threaten the luxury of the world’s richest people, they’re not?

Don’t get me wrong. I think that fuel subsidies are terrible. I also think food subsidies in the U.S. are terrible. I would be all for NAFTA or the WTO or any other trade organization totally eliminating subsidies worldwide or within specific trading blocks. However, I’m getting sick of the U.S., and in particular “Republicans,” spouting off about Capitalist values overseas, and seeking to impose free market economics on the world’s poor, while meanwhile, we continue mildly socialist, and certainly not free market subsidies here.

It’s no surprise (at least to people who understand and truly support Libertarian or Capitalist economics) that the United States is not the Capitalist mecca we claim to be. The shift of both parties toward the center, particularly on social services and economics, hasn’t happened overnight. What really bothers me is that the Republicans we elect have the balls to espouse capitalist economic values abroad while continuing to turn their back on our own subsidies.
Posted by Zach at 1:34 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: economics, fuel prices, George Bush, new york times, subsidies

Wednesday, July 23, 2008
What Ishmael Can Tell Us About Environmentalism
Alright. I’m reading Ishmael for like the 15thish time since I was 10. And I realized again why I love the book. Every time I read it, it sparks my thoughts on the current situation in the battle between modern “Taker” civilization and the world at large.

This time, it was an analogy. Ishmael, at one point, compares our culture to the early aeronaut who was pushed off a cliff in his wing-flapping device. All goes well for a while, but as he starts to descend, he thinks, “it’s gotten me this far, all I have to do is pedal harder.” He pedals harder, flapping his wings faster, only to continue on his downward path.

I see this as quite relevant, ironically enough, to some environmental situations. What comes to mind first is ethanol.

We’ve gotten ourselves into a situation. We’re depleting a resource that we depend on in every way in modern life. We are emitting gasses which do irrepairable damage to the environment we depend on. So, what do we do?

We come up with a new, “eco-friendly” fuel. Is this really helping us? I have my doubts. First of all, from a strictly environmental perspective, is the energy saved and pollution avoided by burning biofuels really worth it? How does it compare to the energy and resource use and pollution used to raise the crops turned into ethanol? Okay, probably still doing alright. Now, add in the energy used to process the fuels. Approaching a balance, yet? What about the fact that we burn more fuel, because ethanol is not as efficient as traditional gasoline? Now add in the transportation of the corn to the processing facilities, and the biofuel from the processing facilities to the pump. We’re at, or near, a push on this one.

Now let’s look at the bigger picture. Is it morally acceptable to create fuel from a resource which could be feeding the world’s poor? Yes, I’m aware that most of the corn used to produce ethanol is not what we would consider consumable in the U.S. But, there are three valid counter-arguments to this. First, many things that by U.S. standards are not “fit for human consumption,” are, in fact, quite safe for human consumption. And, in the poorest parts of the world, the corn we don’t eat here is a step up from what, if anything, they are currently eating. Second, the corn is still fit for animal consumption. Animals which then can be eaten by humans. Finally, the land which is being used to produce non-consumption grade corn could be used to produce either consumption grade corn, or other crops, or perhaps even for other economic activity.

Finally, let’s look at the economic, class, and political implications of this. While the world’s richest governments are subsidizing corn production for use in ethanol, the world’s richest people are using the ethanol to save 3 cents a gallon. Meanwhile, we have already seen several food shortages related to a decreased supply of corn (a staple in many countries). We’ve seen riots and protests related to those food shortages. We’ve seen political situations and elections affected by this situation (as in Mexico). Countries where routine elections can actually hugely affect peoples quality of life have had their politics shaken by food shortages. Meanwhile, rich countries, where the issues which shape our politics include questions like whether gay couples can marry, continue to increase production and consumption of ethanol.

Doesn’t it seem like perhaps we’re just continuing to pedal, instead of looking at the real issue here?

We look for ways that individuals can feel like they’re helping the world be a better place instead of looking at the reality, that becuase of the way in which the modern world works, even the production of “green” products has a huge environmental impact.

Or perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps the real issue is that governments and corporations trying to look “responsible,” “green,” and “politically correct,” are pushing to implement the technologies of the future today. Because let’s face it, hybrids and biofuels are the technology of a future. An ideal future. In which we have a way to dispose of car batteries which has less of an impact on our planet than the cars had in their entire lifespan. A future in which no part of the world is starving. A future in which the poorest parts of our world’s diets and economies are diversified enough that they don’t depend largely on a single resource. A future in which our agricultural and transportation system make it possible to actually produce biofuels in an eco-friendly manner. A future in which we have vehicles which are equipped to burn biofuels more efficiently than fossil fuels.

Either way, by putting these technologies out now, and hailing them as the saviors of our world, capable of cleaning up after years of human error, it seems like our culture is continuing to pedal.
Posted by Zach at 12:13 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: biofuel, corn, environment, ethanol, ishmael

Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Olympics and Politics
I want to take an opportunity to express my views on mixing politics and the Olympics. I don’t think the two should be mixed.

I think that especially in the age of technology, and easy global communication, the Olympics are important. I think they are an opportunity for people and cultures to interact around the world. The variety of the sports, the idea of international competition, etc. are important symbols. The tourists who will travel (even to China) to see the Olympics, from all over the world. People will be interacting, whether through conversation or just mutual presence, with people who they never dreamed they’d meet.

These connections are an imortant part of shaping the world we all live in, and the world we and our future generations will live in. Internatonal politics is no longer about diplomacy and trade, it’s about individual people. Despite China’s human rights violations, it’s important to have these interactions.

Now, let’s look at the other side. What benefit does anybody get by not participating in the Olympics? I guess taht it’s a way to show that the international community is not happy with China. So is saying so at the U.N. and in the press, which everyone already does. There are also economic and political ways to express this, which actually apply pressure to the Chinese government, which boycotting the Olympics doesn’t do.

Additionally, regular Chinese people, along with politicians, interacting with their counterparts from around the world shares information and cultures. When people meet people from other countries, they start to ask questions and talk about the differences. I think people will start to talk about politics, and the Chinese people will hear more about politics in other places. Although they may not be free to fully participate in Chinese politics, the attitudes of the Chinese people cannot be totally ignored. When Chinese people are given the opportunity to interact with people from all over the world, the change in the Chinese culture, and the pressure for change that that puts on the Chinese government, may be small, but it will be real.

Boycotting the Olympics in Beijing is about the worst thing anybody can do, and I’m glad that some world leaders are realizing this.
Posted by Zach at 12:25 AM
Labels: Beijing, Olympics, politics
2 comments:

Eli Blake said…

I wish that Olympics didn’t intersect with politics.

But in the real world that is not the case. At all.

When an athlete wins a gold medal what is the first thing they do? Hoist the country’s flag and play the national anthem. The score as to who won the Olympics won’t keep track of whether the sprinters set more records than the swimmers, but rather which nation won the most medals.

Ever since Hitler used the 1936 Olympics to try and prove German supremacy (and despite Jesse Owens, Germany did as a matter of fact win the most medals that year) the whole Olympic torch thing has had a distincly nationalistic flavor. Hitler’s obsession with sport as a vehicle for German nationalism had a second incarnation in the Olympics as East Germany for years tried everything from sex change operations to massive doses of psychotropic drugs in order to ‘prove’ their superiority.

We’ve also seen the Olympics used both by terrorists (the 1972 Munich massacre, the 1996 Olympic Park bombing) and by governments (the boycotts too numerous to name by now) to make their political cases.

And let’s face it– it’s hard not to politicize the Olympics when the IOC itself is a corrupt political organization. We’ve seen their dirty laundry aired often enough by now that no one should be under any illusions about that.

Even the athletes themselves have made political statements at the games (the ‘black power’ salutes in Mexico City in 1968 or the defection of the athletes from some muslim countries who withdrew from competition over the years when they were matched against an Israeli wrestler or runner.)

I understand your sentiments, but let’s be honest– the Olympics is so intertwined with politics that it is probably impossible to separate them. That train left the station a long, long time ago.
July 9, 2008 1:13 PM
Zach said…

Eli,
Great comment (as expected) but I don’t entirely agree. First of all, we treat the American flag very differently than most nationalities treat their flag. They don’t take theirs so seriously, or so politically. A French friend of mine recently made the point that the difference between Americans and French is that Americans got pissed when French people burned our flag. If we burned the French flag, the French wouldn’t be nearly so offended. So the flag thing, in my mind, is not as significant as it might appear.

Also, I’m not saying the Olympics have been separated from political efforts. I am, however, arguing that the Olympics are pretty useless as a venue for politics. How much of a difference has any of the boycotting or grandstanding actually made??

Terrorist attacks and things like the black power are a different story, and a perfect example of the ways in which the Olympics can actually influence politics. It is a great venue, with the whole world watching, for grassroots movements (whether positive or negative) to be seen. It is a great place to show solidarity. But, quite frankly, nobody cares if the President of XYZ Nation doesn’t show up.

Precisely for this reason, the question of boycotting should be off the table. Although far from unprecedented, it seems unwarranted.

On the other hand, perhaps Olympic teams could consider some show of solidarity or support for the victims of Chinese human rights abuses.
July 15, 2008 1:25 AM