Mrs. Bhutto's Death

As most of us know by know, at 6:16 PM today in Pakistan, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, twice former Prime Minister of Pakistan and first female PM in a Muslim nation was killed after a suicide bomber shot her and exploded a shrapnel filled bomb. While it is not clear whether the gun shots or shrapnels killed as, as there are many conflicting stories, Mrs. Bhutto was pronounced dead at a local hospital nearby the location of the suicide bombing. She was giving a speech at an open rally at the town of Rawalpnindi.

It is a great tragedy that such an event occurred, and even more tragic that she apparently was killed after willingly opening her car window to wave to the crowds, a customary action of hers, when she could have prevented serious injuries had she not done so since she was in her bullet-proof Toyota.

Many protests have erupted in Pakistan over this incident, with many of the disgruntled Pakistanis blaming the incident on Musharraf, calling him a murderer and the likes. Mr. Musharraf himself condemned the attacks and announced three days of national mourning for this horrendous act of terrorism and the unfortunate death of Mrs. Bhutto. Nevertheless, I believe that Mrs. Bhutto's legacy should not be in vain. Now is the time for the Western nations to push for more reform and the increased democratization in the region. Now that the people of Pakistan overwhelmingly despise the actions of the radical Islamists who are currently the prime suspect by analysts for the attacks on Bhutto, we should take advantage of this feeling and finish what Bhutto would have wanted us to do, promote moderate Islam in Muslim nations.

On the news, most candidates have expressed their condolences to Mrs. Bhutto, but none of them are giving solvency to the problem and any actions they will take because of this incident. It is important they give their grief to the people of Pakistan and those close to Mrs. Bhutto. But it is more important that they show the world that this incident is the reason why we must promote moderate Islam in Muslim nations and combat terrorism.

FDA Ban of Foreign Prescription Drugs

I firmly believe that the FDA ban of Foreign Prescription Drugs is wrong. After doing some additional research on this issue, I stumbled on a CATO institute transcript of Roger Pilon,vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies, and his testimony before the Senate's Special Committee on Aging (I didn't even know we made this committee.) Two important points I want to quote from him are...

1. People are already breaking the law: "The reimportation debate is before us, of course, because in recent years, owing in part to the rise of the Internet, Americans in increasing numbers have discovered that the patented prescription drugs they're using cost considerably less abroad. But they've also learned that American law, except under limited circumstances, prohibits them from buying those lower priced drugs. Thus, they're pressing Congress to lift the ban in the hope of lowering their medical bills. But in the meantime, they and many state and local officials are simply ignoring the ban and purchasing drugs abroad."

2. An elimination of the ban on drug reimportation should be Congress' course of action: "Thus, if the reimportation ban were lifted, and market principles and practices were to take its place, it would not follow necessarily that domestic drug prices would drop or that the free-rider problem would abate. {I do, however, believe a free market system would decrease prices.} In a free market, sellers and buyers are free to strike whatever bargains they wish. Americans might thus continue to face high prices if foreigners were unwilling to resell their limited supplies to them. But as price differentials increase, incentives on both sides to breach the market barriers only grow, as we are seeing today, even with a statutory ban in place. Thus, in a world of large differentials, multiple vendors, and ready information, it's not likely that no-resale contracts and supply limits would long stanch the cross-border flow of drugs. Companies in that case would have no choice but to adjust prices, raising them abroad and/or lowering them here sufficiently to discourage parallel trading."

A better resource to consider is Pilon's actual original CATO study about eliminating the ban.

What is the "Other" to the Academia?

What is intelligence? What is smartness? What is being knowledgeable? These are all concepts that are similar but different. I hear these terms used quite often and interchangeably. However, these terms should not be used to replace one another. I mention this point because I have been hearing lately a lot of criticisms that someone who doesn't have high grades isn't smart.

Here's the problem: having high grades does not mean you are smart. Certainly, it indicates you can do well on tests and manage to do well in a class, but does that lead to being intelligent? No.


Some people who get high grades are diligent, hard working students who may not be the most intelligent or smart but work hard to attain that knowledge. Some people who get high grades may be utter slackers who are naturally intelligent and can grasp concepts easily or can retain certain knowledge easier than others.

Similarly, on the converse. Not getting high grades means you are not smart. Untrue. Intelligence is how readily you can grasp concepts and attain knowledge. Knowledgeable means having lots of knowledge and information. You can be knowledgeable but not intelligent- though that is a difficult state of being to have since most knowledge people have some degree of intelligence. Being smart is being both intelligent- ie having the aptitude to learn and adapt in academic situations- and being knowledgeable- ie having the prior information with which to apply that intelligence.

Far too often, people mistake the converse of the statement to be true when both converse and original are false. I wish people who have high grades, are in higher-level classes, or are of the "academia" would be more humble when dealing with those who aren't in that academic class (figuratively and literally). It might be interesting that I make this comment seeing as how most people regard me as being of the "high academic level" in my high school. However, I find sometimes that the "smart" people can be condescending and patronizing to others they consider to be of "inferior" intelligence.

It irks me how haughty some smart people can be to others. While it may be true they aren't as smart or even as knowledgeable, it gives "us" no right to assume such a vain attitude. Humans are humans in the end and fallible. We should not assume role of superiority simply for being more intelligent.

Knowledge is not an ends, it is a means.


I have become concerned with this topic because I have met many new people this year in my new capacity as ASB President. As a result, I have slightly departed form the safety and company of the academia of my school I have grown so close and fond to. In retrospect, I find all too often that people of my "class" unassumingly take on an almost arrogant attitude to others- the other being those who don't have high GPA's, those who don't take 7 APs by the end of junior year, those who opt for lower level courses, those who aren't "overachievers." I only hope people will come to realize the dangers of such a faulty mentality towards the "other."

By the way...

That Chavez prediction about the referendum failing, who predicted that? That's right. I did.

Chavez and his constitution

So speaking of politicians who are trying to change the constitution, a hot trend in Latin America (just like adopting foreign babies seemed like a hot trend for celebrities last year), let's go to the politician who many say started the trend, Chavez of Venezuela. Many political analysts have stated in the past that Hugo Chavez, current President of Venezuela, has been tightening his grip over his nation. Indeed, as the BBC of November 26, 2007 notes, Chavez has been well known for his nationalization of many foreign oil companies and his censorship of anti-government organizations, newspapers, and radio shows. All of his domestic actions indicate an agenda towards an increasingly authoritarian government that includes taking away some essential liberties, including the right to free speech. As the US News and World Review of November 26, 2007 reports, over the past few months, Chavez has been trying to pass a new constitutional amendment in the form of a referendum to abolish the term cap on a president to enable him to run for a fourth time, which currently is banned in the Venezuelan constitution. As a result of the fact that many political analysts, some political analyst like Saul Hudson of Reuters believe such a referendum will be likely passed. However, Brian Ellsworth of Reuters disagrees with this belief noting in his November 26, 2007 article that many Venezuelans are growing discontent with Chavez and that he is losing control of his country. There is some truth to that statement, Chavez seems to be loosing some support of the people and control of his country.

According to the Reuters of November 26, 2007, new “polls show Venezuelans [are] shying away from the Cuba ally's drive for socialism in the OPEC nation.” Such a decrease in support comes from the fact that many Venezuelans oppose Chavez’s attempts to centralize more power and become more authoritarian. In fact, Chavez’s latest reform package he drafted to the Venezuelan congress consisted of measures including removing limits on presidential re-election, increasing Chavez’s direct control over foreign currency reserves, and expanding his power to expropriate private property and allow for media censorship during political emergencies, according to the Wall Street Journal of the same date. Chavez’s so called reform package has become so unpopular that one poll conducted even found that the Venezuelans who said “no” to the package had a ten percent lead over the “yes” group. The Washington Post of November 26, 2007 attributes this growing unpopularity of the Chavez’s policies to “nagging shortages of basic food products like milk and eggs.”

Chavez is not only losing control of the people, but he has also lost some of his former political allies in the past several weeks. According to the Reuters of November 26, 2007, Defense Minister Raul Baduel, who in 2002 helped quell an attempted coup against Chavez, broke ranks from Chavez and called his reform campaign a "coup." Furthermore, the second largest party of the president's coalition left the coalition, criticizing Chavez’s new plans and weakening his political base. The Economist of November 26, 2007 notes the part of the reason that Chavez is losing so much support at home is because he is creating so much tension abroad. Just recently, Chavez called Colombia's president a liar, is considering stopping the $4.1 billion worth of trade with Colombia, and froze ties with Spain until King Juan Carlos apologized for telling him to "shut up" at a summit this month. Such international conflict has hurt Chavez’s economy, reducing the amount of trade and thereby causing domestic strife as well. The Associated Press of November 26, 2007 adds that such groups leaving signifies that Congress is starting to distance itself away from Chavez, meaning it will be harder for Chavez to get any new radical packages passed.

Now, whether or not the decreasing popularity of Chavez will be enough to reject the December 22, 2007 constitutional referendum is still largely a speculative matter and even whether such a rejection would push Chavez to even more desperate measures- such as a military dictatorship- is another issue.

Evo Morales' Problematic Situation

It’s no secret that Bolivia has been on a track course much like Venezuela, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, current president of the country, has stated so himself. In fact, one of Morales’ political allies and mentors has been none other than Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Such a role model has been all too apparent, as Morales is attempting to pull off a similar constitutional maneuver that Chavez is currently attempting as well, thereby making Morales what I call Chavez's shadow clone.

But I digress. As the BBC of November 27, 2007 reports, the constitutional draft Morales has been pushing for was violently met with protests in the Sucre region started November 24 after some 150 pro-government delegates to a Constituent Assembly on Saturday approved the outlines of a new draft constitution. The opposition boycotted the meeting and thus the draft constitution was easily passed. One of the provisions of the constitutional package is a removal of the term limits to the Bolivian presidency, a controversial change that is also the centerpiece of Venezuela’s current constitutional reform package. Given the fact that protests have occurred in response to this new draft proposal, one wonders just how south Morale's plan has gone. Today, let's consider the this recent development, which has been quite the problematic thorn in Morales' administration.

Clearly, the riots are indicative of a strong disapproval of Morales’ current plan. While Morales was elected to office on his leftists, almost-socialist policies, his new political agenda is starkly similar to that of Venezuela’s authoritarian, leftist government. The Reuters UK of November 26, 2007 reports that many Bolivians are unhappy with this change. While they are happy with socialist welfare policies and land reforms, they do not want to much power centralized into the government. The BBC of the same date adds that such Bolivians fear the loss of rights at the hands of corrupt governments. The riots, which left three dead and at least 130 injured, according to the Bloomberg of November 26, 2007, has been merely one of many riots that have shown the country’s immense dislike of the new draft constitution. In fact, the reason why the Constituent Assembly was even in Sucre to pass the outlines of the new constitution was because in August of this year, protests in La Paz, the administrative capital of the country, prevented the Constituent Assembly from voting on the issue.

But it's not just the growing discontent of the people that's so problematic; the presence of the draft constitution has strengthened the opposition party. As the Agence France Presse of November 26, 2007 reports, former Bolivian president Jorge Quiroga, a key opposition figure, claimed the proposed constitution was "drafted in a barracks, written with rifles and bayonets, and stained with the blood of the people of Sucre." Such comments and many others have increased the emotional and political appeal of opposition leaders. Opposition leaders have been gaining in popularity and in political clout primarily because of the presence of this new constitutional draft. Because of the highly unpopular nature of the draft constitution and because of comments by Morales such as "civil disobedience isn't democracy, and we hope the Bolivian people ... identify these traitors, the people who are against the nation and want to damage this process of change.” Morale’s refusal to acknowledge any criticism against his new constitutional plan has alienated many of his followers and pushed many Bolivians into the hands of opposition leaders.

These two previously mentioned factors have culminated in the most dangerous aspect of Morale's unpopular draft constitution- ie, the increased the willingness of the Bolivian populous to take more actions of civil disobedience against their government. Although Morales harshly condemned anyone who would engage in civil disobedience, that clearly didn’t spot the riots in Sucre in happening. In fact, the appearance of the draft constitution has made the Bolivian people more willing to take actions of civil disobedience to protest such plans by the current government. According to the BBC of November 26, 2007, opposition leaders in six of Bolivia’s nine provinces called for a general strike by the Bolivian people today to protest the draft constitution of Morales. As the All Headline News of November 27, 2007 notes, such a bold political move would only have been possible because of the highly unpopular constitutional draft. Today's BBC noted that while the strikes (still ongoing) did paralyze some of the financial centers of Bolivia, the Bolivian Congress passed a motion that gave greater flexibility to the Constituent Assembly (the body that passed the outline of the constitution) to convene and took budget money from several cities, thereby showing the government' refusal to listen to the protesters. This action will increase tensions in the country between government and people.

Morales has a problem: The Bolivian people have already spoken; they reject this new draft constitution despite Morales' aggressive push for this plan. Given the uncompromising mentality Morales has to this issue, it seems that unfortunately, as opposition lawmaker Fernando Messmer stated today, "There will be violence, there will be clashes."

French youth riots: déjà vu all over again!

It was a déjà vu all over again. It was like the November 2005 youth riots in which minority youth clashed with Frances police in poor neighborhoods called banlieues over the racial tensions and poor socioeconomic conditions of such minority youth. In fact, it was just like a continuation of the 2005 protests. The Independent of November 27, 2007 reports that new French youth riots have erupted through France again, especially in the Clichy region: “A mob of angry youths left a trail of fire and destruction through the northern suburbs of Paris after two teenage boys riding a mini-motorbike were killed in a collision with a police car.” As the BBC of November 26, 2007 notes, Sarkozy reacted to this recent development, which is similar to the fatal youth riot of 2005 leading to the increased unpopularity of former French president Chirac, by stating in a recent press conference that the most important thing was to be calm: “Let everyone cool down and let justice determine who is responsible for what.” However, can such cool happen in France? Nope, these riots have come back to haunt France much like bad gun jokes haunt our very own Cheney.

Sorry Sarkozy, looks like you're going to have to learn the lesson the hard; since neither you, nor your government learned the lesson last time.

Ok, but before I explain why such riots won't be quelled any time soon, it is crucial to consider why such riots have occurred. As the Wall Street Journal of November 26, 2007 reports, the riots have been caused by two recent deaths in France’s Villiers-le-Bel in which two African teenagers, aged fifteen and sixteen were killed after being hit by a police car. While the police has asserted that the two youth were accidentally killed after they sped through a red light on unlicensed motorbikes without helmets. However, many of the French youth at the scene claim that the police deliberately hit the two youth then left the scene without helping them, thereby leaving them to die. Such a disparity in descriptions has been the initial spark in a riot that has been waiting to erupt for ages. One likens the current situation in France to a small spark being set off near tinder and a keg of gunpowder.

Ho'kay, so that's the spark. What was the gunpowder? I don't think the root of the problem is not the deaths of two African teenagers. According to the Time Online of November 26, 2007, after the two deaths at Villiers-le-Bel on Sunday night, a mob of 150 youths went on a three mile rampage, “burning one police sub-station and ransacking another… 40 new cars [were burned]…Twenty-five policemen and a fireman were injured, two seriously.” What could have provoked such a violent reaction? As many French politicians and officials have correctly pointed out, it’s the lack of reform promised after the 2005 French youth riots. The source of the tensions between the state and the French youth is their socioeconomic condition and the racial tensions they feel from being discriminatorily treated by the rest of French society. After the 2005 riots, politicians in France claimed they saw the error of their ways and promised to help pull such youth out of their miserable conditions and help integrate them into French society. The Washington Post of November 27, 2007 cites François Hollande, the Socialist Party leader, who criticized the government’s failure to prevent such riots from happening: “Promises were made. We want to see the results. How long have we been talking about a ‘plan for the suburbs’?” Furthermore, Dominique de Villepin, the former was Prime Minister during the 2005 French youth riot demanded that the government take action now: “The sense of injustice that was felt at Clichy-sous-Bois is being felt today at Villiers-le-Bel,” he said. The problem, however, is that the government has not taken any real steps to reform the poor ethnic parts of France. Since the government has not taken steps to improve the infrastructure of such places, integrate por ethnic youth into French society, and improved the economic situation in such locations, the riots cannot be quelled. It is already too late to make reforms now.

However, what kind of action will solve the problems in the banlieues of France? Certainly, it cannot be police force. Matching brutality with brutality was the tactic of French police in the 2005 French youth riots, which failed horribly. As the Times Online of November 26, 2007 notes, the 2005 riots resulted in two hundred nights of rioting, 8, 973 torched vehicles, 2,888 arrests, and one death. A lesson the French government should at least have learned, if not the importance of reforming such poor neighborhoods, is that police force will not solve the problems. If the instigator of such tensions between the poor multiracial sections of France and the rest of France is the tensions felt between the poorer minorities and the police, then police force will certainly only enflame more violent response.

So, if reforms are too late and police brutality will only spur more violence, I think we can see where this is headed. Yes, looks like Sarkozy is between a rock and a hard place. Looks like he'll have to do damage control now by implementing reform packages to improve such poor neighborhoods ASAP as well as crack down on the most serious offenders of disturbing the peace in France. Obviously, while such dissenters cannot be allowed to run rampant, they send a clear message of the need of change, a message that should be listened to by the French government.

Partial Zero Turbo Boost!

Besides sounding like Engrish from an anime about robots, it's also something I encountered today while I was at Whole Foods.

So I saw a sign on a car that said Partial Zero Emissions Car.

What is that supposed to mean? You can't be partial zero. Would you ever see something that was labeled partial zero calorie food? No! You would not. You might find low calorie or reduced calorie, but not partial zero calorie.

What kind of a marketing technique is that? Hello corporate America; we may not be the smartest consumers in the world, but we aren't that stupid. At least I'm not.

Recession?!?!?!!

oh no! a recession? That's not so good....

On November 5th, billionaire investor George Soros stated on November 4^th that the U.S. economy is "on the verge of a very serious economic correction" because of the credit crunch and other economic problems in our nation. He elaborated his belief at a lecture at New York University. Are we really on the verge of a recession? Let's look first to how the businesses of our nation are responding to our current economic situation.

Business reactions indicate that businesses are not confident in America’s economy in the near run and that many predict a recession on the loom. At the Reuters Finance Summit in New York earlier today, Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, told fellow business peers that “ there is a serious risk to the economy" that a recession will occurs because of the credit crunch. The CNN Money of October 20, 2007 notes that the credit crunch has already severely weakened the mortgage industry and by extrapolation, the housing market. The Wall Street Journal further explains by saying that this crisis is slowly spilling into other sectors and has weakened the economy to the point where widespread defaulting is occurring. In fact, the credit crunch has forced many businesses to absorb the defaults of hundreds of thousands of Americans, with a current bill of up to $700 billion. Given such economic factors, it’s no wonder why John Duffy, current chairman and CEO of stock brokerage Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said believes out economic status in the near future to be "In the toilet."

How about the consumers? Consumer confidence has been dropping as well, indicating that the economy is not doing as strongly either from a consumer perspective. Indeed, the October 30, 2007 Retuer’s headline was “Consumers gloomiest after Katrina aftermath.” In the article, it notes that the consumer confidence index dropped about 4% below what was estimated by leading economists at the time, even when such economists believed they had taken the current credit crunch and housing bubble woes. This finding has shocked many investors into believing that other consumers are losing faith in the current state of our economy, which is one of the first steps to a recession. Pierre Ellis, a senior economist at research firm Decision Economics is fearful that this statistic reflects the fact that more Americans are saving and that less are spending: "Consumers are definitely getting more gloomy. The question is whether that will be reflected in their spending." If consumers are spending less because of their decreased confidence in the economy, then a vicious cycle will begin that will inevitably lead to a recession. This statement links me to my third and final point.

But of course, nothing is as important as demand in predicting our economic situation. Consumer demand is decreasing, which is a sign of a looming recession. It seems that Mr. Ellis’ fears are coming true and that Americans are spending less. The Reuters of October 25, 2007 reports that a recent study found that demand of long-lasting manufactured goods dropped unexpectedly in September continuing into October. Such goods include cars, computers, machines, tables, and other goods that are non-consumable. The Economist of November 5, 2007 notes that such an indicator might suggest that our economy is on the verge of a recession since a recession, by definition, is when the economy slows down due to decreased demand for goods. However, the Fox News of the same date noted that the study did not necessarily indicate the threat of a recession because consumable goods were still faring strong. The problem with this analysis though is that since consumable goods are elastic on balance, meaning consumers must buy them in order to survive, the non-durable goods market typically is second to decline in demand in the face of a recession. However, the fact that the demand for durable goods is declining is reason enough to be suspicious of an impending recession.

While economists have certainly been wrong before and where sunny weather was to be, torrents of rain came instead, given enough information, their predictions will be right. Thus, when we ask ourselves the vital question: “Are we looming on the verge of a recession?” the answer is a firm yes. Unfortunately, based on the three key market factors of business reaction, consumer confidence, and consumer demand, it is clear to see that our economy is on the verge of a recession.

Pact Magic

Stepping aside from the obvious political tint of this blog, I wanted to pose a question to other people who might be familiar with the fantasy genre: What is the best internal system for magic in a urban setting? In other words, how does a system of magic operate given that the author is trying to follow magic realism. I have been thinking about this question for a while and the best and most simple system I can think of that provide an answer to readers but does not inundate them with a complicated system of magic that has the potential to be filled with contradictory loopholes if pact magic.

What is pact magic? Pact magic is when a human being gains superhuman powers through a pact with a higher being or a magical entity. In my story that I am currently writing, Clandestine Advent, the users of magic enter into a pact with an unknown entity force that enables them to use a limited amount of superhuman powers. In exchange for this power, the pact-holder must pay a "fee" or restitution for the powers used. This restitution is always different for ever pact-holder and can range from a loss of emotions to the need to cannibalize after each time the power is used. In terms of magic realism, it doesn't make much sense, but it at least is an internal system of logic that given certain inevitable suspensions of belief, is still logically feasible. I think...

HEAR HEAR!

People. Yes. This is a HIT on the nail when it comes to writing fantasy stories. Thought I'd share it with you. Props to Innermost from Nanowrimo:

Please, can you guys help me out, here? I've been trying to think of a solution to this question for months, and, since I have a small, insignificant brain, I've come up with nothing, and now it's a week 'til November...

Y'know what I mean. I'm getting mighty tired of reading about Evil Lord X, the mad dictator who wants to rule the world. Or Frightening Force X, which is going to destroy the world if it isn't stopped.

Why do the heroes in all of these stories always have to be reacting to something negative? They're always trying to foil someone else's evil plans.

Don't heroes ever plan anything for themselves? Start a small business? Build a nursery and have kids?

Proactive, yes, but these examples are not very quest-like. The thing that makes a quest worthy, I have read (from Noah Lukeman, I think), is how high the stakes are.

So, are there any high stakes quests that are proactive?

I try to think of them, but it always ends up like: "Mr. Hero must go collect the Seven Swords from across the treacherous land! Why does he need these swords? Well... to... defeat the Seven Evil Lords, of course! They plan the Deadly Plague!"

NaNoWriMo

Hello people. This month is November, which means it's the National Novel Writing Month. I'm currently writing a novel this month and given the continued pressures of school and college applications, I might be sacrificing some time from blogs to my story. I will post my story URL later though!

Great Onion article

Ok. That was a slight misnomer of a title. Every Onion article is brilliant. Just this one made me laugh a lot more than usual.

"Japanese government officials confirmed Monday that the damage wrought on Japan's national infrastructure by the July 16th earthquake—particularly on the country's protective force field, quantum teleportation system, zero-point fusion energy broadcasting grid, and psychodynamic communications network—was severe enough to set the technologically advanced island nation back approximately 300 years to a primitive mid-22nd-century state of existence.

'Japan finds itself in crisis, with our society and culture temporarily reverting to a pre-cyberunification era,' said Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, communicating non-telekinetically for the first time in his nearly 150 years of post-cryogenic life. 'Though many citizens have been limited to algorithm-based emotion detection, neutron baths, speed limits below the speed of light, and other barbaric inconveniences for over a week now, I promise we will pull through.'

The United States' offer of $20 million and a shipment of steel, tractors, forklifts, and cranes was politely declined."

Pure brilliance. Read the entire article, there's just too much to copy and paste onto this blog.

¿Plan México? ¡Pienso que no!

As the Economist of October 27, 2007 reported, on October 22nd of this year, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement that renewed both side's efforts to crack down on the drug cartels of Mexico in which the United States would send "$1.4 billion in aid over the next three years to fight drug traffickers."

Great! If you've seen the iRack Mad TV parody before, then you'll know how futile it is to throw money at the iRack. You can't just give Mexico "aircraft... scanning equipment at the border, and new communications systems, training and technical advice for Mexican police, including help on a witness-protection programme" and expect that to be a good solution. It's costly, and it doesn't target the root of the problem.

Allow me to explain: this new agreement reached after weeks of talks by negotiators from President Bush of the United States and President Calderon of Mexico is not bad. Its intentions are good. However, expensive technological trinkets will only have limited success vis-a-vis reducing drug trafficking in Mexico. The new plan, dubbed "Plan Mexico" by many newspapers, does not target the heart of the problem.

“They are overemphasizing the technology.”
-Luis Astorga of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City.

The heart of the problem is that poverty is a widespread structural problem in Mexico that creates a situation in where normally law abiding citizens of Mexico help the drug cartel through their desperation for money. This problems even infects Mexico's local policemen who oftentimes are the ones who help the drug cartels. Thus, the reason why the new plan will be ineffective is because the technology can only help insomuch as the authorities using the technology are actually using it to crack down on the drug cartels in their country. However, if such authorities are helping the drug cartel and corrupt, then that technology will not reduce the drug trafficking in Mexico.

Speaking of technology, many Mexican officials that believe if America would stop selling the drug traffickers arms and weapons, then maybe Mexico's drug cartel wouldn't be as powerful. The October 20, 2007 LA Times notes: "An estimated 95% of weapons confiscated from suspected criminals in Mexico were first sold legally in the United States, officials in both countries say."

Hm... I wonder what could be a more effective way to help Mexico fight the War on Drugs... Give that $1.4 billion to our Border Patrol and ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to prevent the exporting of arms illegally to Mexico (since it is illegal to carry arms and ammunition to Mexico from America) and make our borders a safer place. We're complaining that drugs are entering our country? How about we get tighter borders and promote more US investment in Mexico and have Mexico create new legislation to improve their nation's economy, set up a better welfare system (maybe), and get more worker rights laws in place in addition to their already preexisting policy of using brute force to deal with the drug cartels of Mexico (Calderon sent 30,000 troops last December to six Mexican states that were known bastions of drug cartels).

Star Gazing

Looking up from my lawn at the night sky is always a little hobby of mine that never seems to grow old for me. I’ve always been fascinated by astronomy and captivated by the starry night sky. Whenever I get the chance, I’ll go to my front lawn and lie down on the grass and just stare at the infinite expanse of space and blankly gaze at the bright, faint, and twinkling lights in the sky. After taking in the initial awesomeness of the infinite expanses of the speckling night ceiling, I start to think about how grand it is that I, an individual, can see something as massive as a star from my perspective. Oftentimes, my friends will tell they feel insignificant seeing the magnificence of the sky because they feel so small compared to celestial bodies above them. I, on the other hand, look at such objects in the sky and feel the complete opposite. It should make the individual feel empowered that he is able to see so much from his perspective. He should feel significant for that alone, not insignificant. He should not feel lost in the sky, but he should feel a master that he can see so much, so far, and so clearly. Looking at the stars makes me feel reinvigorated.

US places sanctions in Iran... again.

What's new here? Nothing. America has placed sanctions in Iran before, has tried and failed to place UN sanctions on Iran, got one to work in December of 2006, are still trying to get more sanctions on Iran, and now they have another one.

According to the BBC of October 25, 2007:

"The US has stepped up its sanctions on Iran for "supporting terrorists" and pursuing nuclear activities. The new measures target the finances of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and three state-owned banks."

Do sanctions work? I would have to say that on balance it does not. Certainly, in the case of the South African apartheid, it did work. But in other cases, especially the Darfur issue, it has not worked. I think that the reason for this is that we live in an increasing globalized society. The obvious logical extrapolation to that is the decreased effect one economy can have another's economy. The US taking unilateral of even weak multilateral sanctions against Iran will have highly limited effects compared to the strong multilateral response in the case of South Africa because the other countries that are not in support or bound to honor the sanction will fill in the vacant spots of trade and what not and thus continue to prop up that nation's economy.

In other words, because of globalization and the fact that we all trade with one another,when one or several countries to ban trading with a nation in a limited regard, it is ineffective because the targeted country can find other ways to fill in that missing trade by trading with other countries. The only way for sanctions to truly work is for it to be a strong multilateral response.

On Tony Blaire in Oakland

Tony Blaire gave a speech at Paramount Theatre in Oakland yesterday, Tuesday October 23, 2007 on the topic of gloalization. Not that this note is a bad thing, but his "link" of globalization was a weak one, since his speech was more about the current state of affairs of our nation, his nation, and the evolution of global politics over the past few years. Regardless, the content of his speech was excellent and his humor, though largely with jokes unrelated to the topic at hand, well placed.

Here are some quotes (quoted as accurately as I can remember) that I would have to say "hear, hear" to:

"Globalization is a fact, but the values with which we approach it are not. We must approach this global phenomenon with not only democracy and freedom, but also justice, tolerance, and opportunity."

"Globalization is truth. We are becoming more interconnected with one another and our economies are going interdependent of one another as well. The absolute corollary to that is care for one another."

"A good leader is one who does what he believes is correct."

Props to Mr. Blaire, and props to his defense of himself with regards to his unpopular decision to support the US in the War on Terror and in Iraq. I respect his insight, I hope his Middle East Envoy position yields him more success, and I admire his ability to make decisions that he felt were correct despite being unpopular- for a politician who is unpopular for making choices he feels is right is better than a politicians paralyzed by fear, public opinion, and inaction.

Organic Food: What Lurks Beneath the Green...

Usually when we think of organic food, we think of Whole Foods, self-conscientious eaters, and people who like to think they're eco-friendly.

But are we really helping the environment when we're going organic?

On one hand, going organic means no pesticides and chemical treatment of food, which is good for human consumption health-wise and the environment.

But, as the Economist of several months ago noted, going organic means losing food per acre yield, which means that more land needs to be turned arable- which ultimately means clearing forests and wildlife to have more farmlands. The reason for this statement is that while chemical fertilizers might have a negative effect on the soil and might even be potentially harmful for human consumption, these chemical fertilizers reduce the need for land to farm with because it makes the land more potent and thus produces more crop. Some scientists predict that going organic globally would mean increasing farmlands by 20% of what we currently already use. The February 21, 2007 Times Online of the UK noted that in the case of organic milk, more CO2 was released and more land was needed for such cows:

"The impact of organic milk was singled out for doubts about its environmental-friendliness because, while having higher levels of nutrients and needing less fertilizer, its production generates more carbon dioxide emissions. Additionally, it takes up 80 per cent more land."

Even more surprising is that many people are finding that organic might not even have those so claimed health benefits that made such food so popular. The UK Times Online of January 7, 2007 noted that "Sir John Krebs, a former chairman of the FSA [Food Standards Agency]... said that there was no evidence that organic food was more nutritious or safer than conventionally produced food, despite its cost." The British Nutrition Foundation also voices this opinion, as the BBC of April 26, 2007 adds. The Heartland Institute also found organic food to have negative environmental effects as well.

Of course, many pro-organics say that such studies ignore other key factors, such as improving biodiversity and longer-term benefits that cannot be measured over a short period of time. And granted of course, there are definitely some benefits to going organic.

In the end, most think tanks, organizations, and environmental analysts have concluded that there is not enough information to truly decide whether or not organic food helps the environment- let alone its supposed "health benefits" for human consumption.


As for me, I have almost always been a GMO supporter. I don't mind genetically spliced food, and if we can have GMO crops that are super efficient that don't need pesticides and other potentially dangerous chemicals, then that's the best solution of them all! (The obvious problem with GMOs is reduced genetic diversity and thus mass susceptibility). But the ultimate solution to this all for now, as Heidegger said in his ontological inquiry Being and Time, is just to let things be (I know, a horrible cross-application of his philosophy to agriculture). Let some farms go GMO and let some farms go organic and some go local. Let the people decide what they want- as long as they are an informed mass. GMO labeling is fine, and in fact labeling of all foodstuff might be good. If the means is so important nowadays, might as well tell the consumers the growing methodology of their foodstuff.

Then... there's those local farms... and those local, organic farmers that we didn't even consider...



[Note: the organic debate has not yet entered mainstream American attention yet because 1) the British always seem to be ahead of us on these things and 2) organic food is more of a sore spot in Britain since foreign GMOs have been banned from being imported into the nation (think WTO conflicts), stringent labeling laws for GMO foods are in place in Britain, and organic food is thus a more popular choice for the British than in the US, where most people don't know if food is a GMO and the organic movement has just begun here. That's why most of my sources are British.]

For more reading on the issue go to..
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20945
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6595801.stm
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8380592
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1415464.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/britain/article1290334.ece

Credit in America: Part 2

While the housing bubble has not entirely popped and the negative effects of the rapid overheating of the housing market will still be felt for sometime, the worst of the the popping of the bubble is over.

However, the credit crunch is an entirely different beast. The article here is about the credit crunch and it re-sparked my interest in the current credit situation.

What can we do to solve the credit crunch? Obviously, credit has become all too easy to get, with so may different types of credit options such as neg-am, subprime, etc that allow even people of lower socioeconomic and thus lower credit scores to obtain loans. While I believe that credit should be available to people of all socioeconomic statuses, credit is too easy to obtain.

The Federal Reserve of last year noted that consumer credit debt is around 11 trillion dollars. That's a lot of money not being paid back. This strain is felt by the families in debt possibly going to bankruptcy, by the lending institutions who have to pay the costs, and the economy as a whole.

It's a lose-lose situation.

So what do we do?

1. Enact usury laws.
2. Actually enforce our the pre-existing laws we have to prevent corrupt lending techniques
3. Tighten credit standards so that consumers who won't be able to pay back won't get the loans to begin with.
4. Install a government program to give credit with little to no interest topeople with lower socioeconomic status based on willingness to work so that they can get the basic necesities to establish themselves in a location.
5. Make a law so that banks and lending institutions better explain their loan programs to consumers and help them plan a fiscal plan to make sure they can pay back the loan in a timely fashion.

Credit in America: Part 1.5

Oh and also, don't get me wrong when I'm saying the worst of the housing bubble's over. It doesn't mean I believe the credit crunch in America is over. Ohhh no.

Credit in America: Part 1

Well, after all the chaos that's been present in my life has somewhat subsided, I can finally begin to write a new post on this blog. =]

Here is part one of my diatribe on credit in America... after this section, I plan to go to address the issue of organic food.

So, today's question on credit relates to the industry hit hardest by the rapid and easy growth of credit in America- the housing industry. Earlier this summer, our stock market took a huge hit in on day. Economic analysts attributed this plunge to a bursting of the housing bubble. The question now is... is the worst of this bubble over?

To a large degree, I'd have to say yes. Here are three reasons why I feel this way.

First, the response of lending institutions to the housing bubble reveals that the housing bubble is starting to rescind. As the CBS News of September 20, 2007 reports the current housing market was largely in part created by the reckless and lax lending policies of lending institutions, namely the subprime lending branch of such institutions: “Banks used to … be careful (often too careful) not to issue a mortgage the borrower could not pay. In the current market [banks spew them out].” Furthermore, as the Wall Street Journal of August 21, 2007 adds, the lending institutions of today hardly even bother to do a background check on the people who are requesting to borrow money from them. All of these factors contributed to the overheating of the housing market, as consumers were able to obtain record-high amounts of money on credit and use that money to buy houses. A Federal Reserve report of March 2007 noted that in 2006, total outstanding consumer credit totally around 11 trillion dollars, which is larger than the current federal debt. However, with the housing bubble popping in summer of 2007, lending institutions have begun to reverse this trend. As the Fox News of CNN of October 2, 2007 reports, lending institutions have already lost 10% of all their subprime loans due to consumer delinquencies and bankruptcies resulting in banks having to foot around $346 billion in defaults. The article also notes that around $700 billion in loans are in risk of going sour for banks and that’s a lot of money. In the face of so many loans potentially going south, banks and lending institutions are tightening their credit standards to ensure that only credit-worthy consumers can get loans. The significance of this trend, as the Fox News of October 3, 2007 notes, is that the housing bubble will start to rescind as less credit is being pumped into the housing market, thereby cooling the industry and decreasing the bubble.

Second, government response to the housing bubble will ensure that the worst of this crisis is over. As the Economist of March 20, 2007 reports, the US federal government had hearing in the Senate Committee on Finance regarding usury laws and credit practices to solve the housing bubble. The primary preliminary result of this hearing was a stern commitment by the government to reduce credit to decrease the housing bubble. One example of this policy can be seen in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae’s, two government-sponsored lending powerhouses, decision to cut support of subprime mortgage lending. In addition, as the CNN of October 2, 2007 reports, the federal government has been considering enacting stricter regulations upon banks to make sure they do a more though investigation of potential borrowers and their credit score before approving loans to decrease the number of loans given to consumers. Furthermore, the Washington Post of March 15, 2007 notes that the government has enacted new criteria on consumer bankruptcy laws to discourage consumers from obtaining loans they know they will not be able to afford. All of these policies indicate the federal government’s attempt to reduce credit in the economy to cool off the housing bubble. Since these policies have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented, the US economy will being to recover from the housing bubble.

Lastly, current market indicators show that the market once again has confidence in our economy and thus the worst of the housing bubble is over. As the International Herald Tribune of October 4, 2007 reports, consumer confidence in the US economy rose by almost nine percent this past month, indicating a widespread belief on the part of investors and consumers that the worst of the housing bubble is over. Peter Morici, an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland said that "consumers are cautiously more optimistic than a month ago. There is a growing sense that the credit crisis is resolving. It is not wholly resolved but it is resolving." Furthermore, the Federal Reserve’s decision to cut interest rates by a half percentage rate is another market indicator revealing a belief that the worst of the housing bubble is over. As the Economist of September 30, 2007 reports, a decrease in federal fund rate, the first time the Federal Reserve had done so in four years, indicates that the Federal Reserve is trying to spend the economy by promoting investment. If the Federal Reserve believe that the hosing bubble was still a serious problem, then it would be trying to cool the economy to decrease the bubble. However, by pursing an expansionary monetary policy, the Federal Reserve is indirectly asserting its belief that the worst of the housing bubble is over and that increasing inflationary factors would not inflame the housing bubble and cause it to overheat again.

Of course, I'm not an economist. So don't take this as golden advice. Then again, economists can never agree on anything, so it doesn't matter what you think, you'll always be able to find an economist to back you up on it.

Credit Crunch Reponse: Hold your horses!

I plan to respond to this story within the near future on the credit crunch/housing bubble...

This story, by Jennifer Ablen of the Reuters seems like a good attack point for my discussion of our credit situation.

Update: After homecoming...

Blog Action Day

I just found a site that promotes the grassroots power of bloggers by having bloggers from around the world all blog about one political issue on a given day to promote global awareness of that issue.October 15th will be the international debut of this program and the first Blog Action Day! I firmly believe this event is a great extension of my belief in the power of the individual granted by open source collaboration and the Web 2.0 and that this is a great way to exercise our power as a creative collective. The theme is the environment! Though I won't have time to actually do this program because of prior engagements on that day, expect to see some green tinted rants in the upcoming days.

Here is the banner to promote the site:

Supreme Court denies Alabama women mechanically induced orgasms

As taken from Boingboing.net...

“

Talk about sex toys is once again the buzz around Alabama. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the Alabama sex toy case, ending a nine year battle for the right to keep and bear (well, more accurately, purchase) sex toys in the state. Sherri Williams provided the money quote in this AP article:" An adult-store owner had asked the justices to throw out the law as an unconstitutional intrusion into the privacy of the bedroom. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving intact a lower court ruling that upheld the law.

Sherri Williams, owner of Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur, said she was disappointed, but plans to sue again on First Amendment free speech grounds.

“My motto has been 'They are going to have to pry this vibrator from my cold, dead hand.' I refuse to give up,” she said.

Alabama’s anti-obscenity law, enacted in 1998, bans the distribution of “any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for anything of pecuniary value.”

“

Hmmm... in other news, I've eaten 6 blueberry bagels today and that number is continuing to rise at an alarming rate.

The Big Three Englightenment Thinkers on Democracy

Sometimes it can irk me when people oversimplify the beliefs of philosophers. [Not that I'm totally innocent of that crime...] Take for example the big three Enlightenment thinker on democracy: Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. People tend to clump these three thinkers as proponents of some form of democratic institution.

Not exactly.

Locke was not necessarily a fervent supporter of democracy- direct or indirect. Rather, it is a common misconception to say that he supported any kind of democratic government. Lock believed that any government could be legitimate as long as it fulfilled certain criteria. He lists the essence of why men enter government in his Two Treatises on Government, “The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society: to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society.” For Locke, as long as a government could protect the natural rights of men: “life, liberty, and property,” the government was doing its job. Thus, the government could be a monarchy and still be legitimate as long as if protected other men from encroaching upon those rights, including the monarch himself. Locke’s philosophy, in fact, was one of the main contributors towards a movement of “Enlightened Monarchs” who believed that their legitimacy as monarch came not from a divine source, but from the consent of the governed.

Rousseau was clearly against a representative government in theory. In his Social Contract, he writes, “Sovereignty cannot be represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated; its essence is the general will or it is something else ... Thus the people's deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; they cannot decide anything finally. Any law which the people have not ratified in person is void; it is not a law at all.” This quote is his most direct attack against a representative democracy and reveals his staunch opposition to the belief that a representative democracy can actually “represent” the people. For Rousseau, another person cannot truly possess another person’s sovereignty and make decisions as a proxy because the point of the government is to guarantee that sovereignty to begin with, thus making any representative system an inescapable paradox. It should be noted, however, that Rousseau ultimately conceded to an imperfect system of representative democracy because it did have the advantage of being able to support larger numbers of people.

Montesquieu, much like Locke, never blatantly supports democratic governments. In fact, in Book 3 of his Spirit of Law, he insinuates that a democracy may be the hardest government to maintain: “There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.” While he is highly critical of the mechanisms a representative democracy would need to be functional- namely high virtue- he seems even more adverse to direct democracy than representative democracy. Montesquieu states that “The principle of democracy is corrupted … likewise when they fall into a spirit of extreme equality, and when each citizen would fain be upon a level with those whom he has chosen to command him. Then the people, incapable of bearing the very power they have delegated, want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges.” Montesquieu states that in a society, men must give up some of their equality so that those in power, by power of virtue, can make laws to protect men and their equality and rights. Thus, for men to be truly equal, as in a direct democracy would be to re-enter into our natural state of being. Thus, Montesquieu’s argument itself could be construed as an attack on the legitimacy of a direct democracy. His closing words to the essay seem to be a warning that a direct democracy is not a valid form a government, but rather an advanced form of the state of nature: “In the state of nature, indeed, all men are born equal, but they cannot continue in this equality. Society makes them lose it, and they recover it only by the protection of the laws. Such is the difference between a well-regulated democracy and one that is not so, that in the former men are equal only as citizens, but in the latter they are equal also as magistrates, as senators, as judges, as fathers, as husbands, or as masters.”

More than meets the eyes...

Yes people. That graphic on the top that says pull, you do pull it.

Sometimes you shouldn't press the red button; but sometimes, like in this instance, you should.
Enjoy!

Do we need a balanced budget?

Ronald Reagan once quipped that “the nine words Americans fear most are ‘I’m here from the government’ and ‘I’m here to help.’” Unfortunately, it seems that this quote fits perfectly in today’s fiscal situation, as more and more Americans are becoming increasing scared of the looming federal debt, which has grown tremendously over the past six years. In March 2006, the United States Congress passed a bill to raise the nation's debt ceiling to $8.96 trillion. On September 28, 2007, merely eighteen months later, Congress passed a law to further raise the debt ceiling to $9.815 trillion, this raise will be the fifth time the debt ceiling has been increased since Bush’s administration. Given that the national debt is continuing to skyrocket with no signs of receding, many senators and representatives have been calling for balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to force Congress to maintain fiscal responsibility. Therefore, we must ask ourselves the crucial question: “Does the federal government need a balanced budget?” While the current federal fiscal situation is unacceptable, the answer to this question is a resounding no. We can better examine this answer by delving into the following three areas of analysis: first, the harms of an increasing debt; second, the prevention of the use of deficit spending; and lastly, the increased likelihood of default.

First, it is important to establish why the federal government even needs to bother with reducing its federal debt. After all, the government is almost always in debt and nothing bad has happened. Fiscal responsibility is a crucial component of promoting the general well-being of Americans. When the federal debt increases, the American public experiences a slew of negative impacts. David Lazarus, selected journalist of the year by the Northern California Society of Professional Journalists and the Consumer Federation of California, reported in the Los Angeles Times of September 23, 2007 that “the nation's debt load will almost certainly result in … higher interest rates” for private borrowers. This impact is one of the many negative consequences of increasing federal debt and is particularly harmful considering that an increase in interest rates would reverse the Federal Reserve’s expansionary monetary policy, as indicated by its reduction of interest rates in mid-September 2007, as the CNN of September 22, 2007 reports. Therefore, the national debt must be significantly reduced.

However, a balanced budget will hurt Americans. As the Economist of October 1, 2007 notes, a balanced budget in the United States would hamper the government’s inherent duty to “promote the general welfare” of the people. This fundamental goal of the government is established in the Constitution’s preamble. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin stated in the March 1997 edition of the Congressional Digest that a balanced budget prevents the government from engaging in deficit spending during times of economic slowdowns, turning “slowdowns into recessions, mild recessions into worse ones, and bad recessions into depressions.” If it were forced to have a balanced budget, the government would increase economic distress and unemployment during recessions. Furthermore, as the CNN of September 2, 1997 reports, a balanced budget would force the government to be unresponsive during a time of crisis. “For example, in September 1989, Hurricane Hugo struck the Carolinas, causing billions of dollars of damage. After President Bush [Sr.] declared a major disaster, Congress took action by appropriating $2.7 billion in emergency supplemental assistance to help the area rebuild. Under the balanced budget amendment, if the budget were otherwise in balance, this could not be done until after a vote of 60 percent of both houses.” In more current example of how a balanced budget would have been disastrous is with Hurricane Katrina, had we had a balanced budget, we would not have been able to financially help after the wake of hurricane’s destruction.

Lastly, a balanced budget will increase the likelihood of a national default. As a economist for the Federal Reserve reported in the Chicago Federal Reserve newsletter, “limits on our flexibility [to spend past our budget] would increase the risk of default on the Federal debt. The possibility of default should never be on the table. Our creditworthiness is an invaluable national asset that should not be subject to question.” Indeed, a default on the payment of our debts would undermine our credibility with respect to meeting financial commitments, and that in turn would have adverse effects for decades to come.” The reason why a balanced budget would have a reverse effect on limiting our chances of defaulting is because a balanced budget forces the government to not borrow money past a certain point, even if the government would default on a debt if it did not borrow that money. The inflexibility of a balanced budget clearly hurt the American government in the long run.

Felix Culpa!

I just watched a fascinating anime movie called Appleseed. If you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend it to anyone, even if you don't typically watch from the anime genre. Appleseed is great for its action and its plot, but even better for its profound technoethical inquiries into the right to life of man-made life forms and the purpose of man's existence upon the creation of a man-made life form that is intellectually and sociologically superior to man.

In a world where man's imperfections and sins act as a barrier to the continued progression of society, what do you think if the point of man's continued existence?