The Bleeding Heart Capitalist

Why we should open mail delivery to private business

2010-03-02T13:01:00.000-05:00

The USPS is planning on proposing a 5-day mail schedule due to major losses during 2009.

This is a prime example of why we should allow private mail delivery. Companies like UPS and FedEx already have the infrastructure in place to provide mail delivery and they would be able to push down postal rates for first-class mail.

Instead, we continue to have a poorly run, inefficient bureaucracy that wastes our money, and will become slower and more cumbersome as it flails in the wake of email.

Reason Magazine: In Defense of Slums

2010-03-01T22:43:00.000-05:00

I kind of gagged a little when I read the title of this article. Okay, so he is not really "defending slums" but instead comparing them to their economically worse off counterpart - rural countrysides.

But still. The fact that slums are better than the country side and rural areas really only tells us one thing: that the whole country is poor and miserable. Reason should be focusing on how to make slums better places to live - or how to make them disappear - with property rights and sensible limited government policy, not defending them as wonderful enclaves that the poor masses enjoy.

I was struck by a comment on the page, however:

""the conurbations made up of people who do not legally occupy the land they live on—more commonly known as slums""

Illegally occupying land isn't a violation of someone elses's property rights?

What, these cities have never heard of emminant domain? Once they become slums, you need to bulldoze it down and and bring in the real growth. What's the property value of a slum? Isn't a slum pretty much the defintion of urban blight? Bulldoze it, build high rise commercial buildings that will create jobs.

""If there were much hope for a decent life in the countryside of impoverished countries, people would happily live there. Instead, they realize that if they want to make a decent living, heading to the city is their best bet.""

You mean head to the city and illegally squat? While they are at it, they might make a living at picking pockets. If you have to break one law in the name of better living, why not break two?

Would a libertarian argument be against slums?

My response: Illegally sitting on someone else's land is "anti-libertarian." But in slums, the situation is different because the government has made is almost impossible to legally get land. In this case, it is the state's responsibility to reduce barriers to legally obtaining title to land.

The "libertarian" answer would be:
1. Make property rights well-defined. The law must clearly state that property is yours with title and that means you can sell, lease, rent, whatever you want with it.
2. Remove the numerous regulations to obtaining legal title to land. Most slumdwellers and squatters want to own their land, but they cannot get legal title - either it is publicly held and the process to acquire it legally is near impossible, or it is unknown who the land belongs to because of ill-defined property rights systems to begin with.
3. Actually ENFORCE the law (a lot of people technically own property but its not protected in practice). Make sure that the informal "rules in use" are the laws on the books.

Doing this will result in several things:
1. Use of land/property as collateral to get loans. It is a source of capital.
2. It is a potential source of revenue - you can rent out land.
3. Strengthens women against domestic abuse - if she owns land, she is more likely to leave a abusive partner because she can support herself. She also becomes a key decision-maker in the home because she has access to capital.
4. Reduces violent conflict - property disputes can be easily solved.
5. And scores of other positive benefits come from property rights.

If only my GSPIA professors were more like this...

2010-03-01T19:47:00.002-05:00

I should have gone to business school.

Obama's Big Lie ... or, "We're gonna need a bigger stimulus"

2010-02-25T09:52:00.000-05:00

Reason's April 2010 cover story on the failings of the stimulus package to create sustained growth is enlightening. The article is not featured on the web yet or else I'd link to it. But the issue is out there on newsstands and it is a really great article.

The story sheds light into how the Obama administration's claims that our country is headed towards recovery due to the stimulus are absolutely false. Yes, GDP rose... with a huge portion of that rise coming from the purchase of new cars and homes.

The article explains how the automobile industry got a big surge in productivity after the Cash for Clunkers program, but that as soon as this program ends, the industry will slow again - mostly because Cash for Clunkers did not create NEW demand. People did not utilize the program unless they were already planning on buying cars, so the increase in demand was sort of a consolidated demand from the coming months. Why does this matter? Because it cannot be sustainable - not without a bigger stimulus down the road.

Similarly in the housing market, housing credits encouraged the purchase of new homes. This, again, does not create demand, but instead consolidates future and present demand - it encourages people to buy homes now, rather than in 6 months. The Obama administration extended the housing credit until April 2010 because they are aware that their stimulus did not create demand, did not create recovery, and will not be sustainable long term.

The main failings of housing market still have not been addressed. Instead, the stimulus provided a short-term band-aid cure - a politically motivated band-aid cure - that has two outcomes: either a). the programs will end, leaving the housing and auto markets flailing and leaving America with a federal spending hangover or b). the administration will continue to extend federal spending, extending our debt, encouraging inflation, and creating a new bubble.

The climate change debate

2009-12-14T21:31:00.000-05:00

Putting aside the debates about whether climate change is real, that it is a danger to humanity, or that it is man made (and for the purposes of this post, I'm going to assume it is real and it is irrelevant whether it is man made if indeed it is dangerous to humanity), I have strong opinions about what can be done to alter climate change.

Let's face facts, without any cynicism or bitterness: what is currently profitable for our economy (and that includes corporations, governments, and individual people) is cheap energy made from fossil fuels. That is indisputable. In the long run, fossil fuels are no longer going to be profitable, due to the disasterous economic, political, social and human costs they will wreak due to climate change. However, it is (in my opinion) one of the failures of markets to not be able to take into account future costs. I very strongly believe that in the long run, the market can and will adjust to these costs - fuel prices will rise, the market will begin to provide cost-effective alternatives, and we will continue to be able to consume because these alternatives will be cheap.

Markets perform, and they respond to demand. When there is a real and sustained demand for alternative fuel (not this pansy green movement shenanigans), markets will be able to provide them cheaply. Many people think this is naive, but I'd answer, look at personal computers, cell phones, cars, microwaves - each of these things began as incredibly expensive items for the ultra rich. They began cheap because profit-seeking companies sought a way to make them accessible to a massive market of middle and low income people.

Therefore: the only real change in energy policy, the only real answer to climate change, is to make it profitable to be truly green, and make it not profitable to be operating with dirty fuels. People will ultimately change their buying habits when green products are as efficient and cheap as dirty products. New technology must be developed to make green products that are not even marketed as "green" but as BETTER and CHEAPER than our old products.

How do we do this? I have yet to hear a real free market solution to this. I am forced to believe there must be some sort of government policy to make the change. The solutions proposed by free marketers (and I'm not talking cap and trade and those types of policies, as they require government intervention) are basically: "Wait, and the market will provide." Well yes, it will. But is it going to be soon enough to avert a disaster?

A hundred years from now, I'm not concerned about the future hating us for killing off polar bears or rainforests. I'm concerned that people will look at our generation as the only that enabled and furthered the massive humanitarian disaster that will occur if ocean levels rise in the south Pacific, or if droughts increase and intensify in the Sahara.

As much as it pains me to say it, I do not think the market can provide this answer in the short run - which is when we need it. I think the market needs to provide some sort of price signal that takes into account these future costs. Unfortunately, if the market cannot plan for it, I'm sure that government bureaucrats will not be able to adequately predict it either. I'm left feeling, as I do with that unsolvable problem of "development," that I have no idea what can be done.

Sexting: Get OVER it

2009-12-12T17:18:00.000-05:00

Sure, there is no reason to be happy when your middle-school aged daughter is showing her boobs to a guy she likes at school, but when the school officials, her friends and peers, and her family all essentially tell her that her future is ruined, that she is a whore, and that her life is in a downward spiral. The girl ended up committing suicide.

I mean honestly, yes it is troubling that such young people are so overly sexual. But chastising a young girl for trying to be sexy is more troubling to me because it simply reaffirms that our culture asks women to be both virginal AND sexy, and there is no way to win that battle. Its frustrating even at my age; I cannot imagine what it would be like for a 13 year old. Further, lets take a moment and remember that there was a recipient of that text message, who not only showed all of his friends (jerk) but also was probably begging her for the picture in the first place.

If you're under 18 and you're sending pictures of yourself naked, you need to get a lesson from your parents about sex and what is appropriate. You do not need to be chastised by everyone in your life, like the girl in this story, or treated like a felon or a sex offender, like the dozens of young kids that get prosecuted for this "crime" every year.

Help me get to Kenya!

2009-12-09T21:48:00.000-05:00

This coming summer, I am volunteering at Watoto Wa Baraka Orphanage in Kenya! I am so excited to be going on this trip. I have a lot of great information about the orpanage and my tyope. Please take a look at my fundraising page to learn more about my upcoming trip to Kenya!

Any donations would be greatly appreciated!

Dishwashers, Vacuum Cleaners and Feminism

2009-12-08T21:50:00.000-05:00

I've been missing in action on the blog posting lately, mostly because I have been relatively busy with other shenanigans in life.

But anyway, a thought occurred to me today while doing laundry.

Which came first, feminism or home/family technologies?

At the end of the second World War, two things were going on:

1. A lot of middle class women (housewives) were in the workforce for the first time.
2. A lot of new technology had been created for the war, and could now be used to create consumer products.

One of the things that was a great liberator of housewives and contributed to women staying in the workforce was the fact that there were dozens of new technologies that allowed women to not have to be home all day. More and more foods could be purchased prepared or prepackaged, thanks to preservatives, fridges and freezes. Cleaning became easier with vacuum cleaners. Washers, dryers, microwaves - each of these things became suddenly more affordable to the middle-class family in this decade.

Women were no longer as burdened (at least as not as they used to be) by the need to spend the day cooking and preparing the home because such things became easier and simpler. I have one of my grandmothers Better Homes & Gardens cookbooks published in the 1950s, and there are numerous mentions of new gadgets and ways to save time while preparing meals for the wife's family.

Which leads me to my question - did this help to give feminism a little shove going into the 1960s? I think an argument could be made that the convenience driven, consumerist society actually helped liberate women more than we usually give it credit. 1950s housewives were not bra-burning feminists; they just wanted to get their housework done faster. And their demand for products to help them do that may have actually paved the way for future generations of women to get out of the house altogether. Women were still expected to take on the role as primary caregiver and homemaker, but at least the job was slightly easier.

GWU Econ student to Michael Moore: This isn't capitalism, its corporatism!

2009-10-14T20:35:00.001-04:00

This is a great segment of an talk with Michael Moore at GWU.

I think that he totally calls Moore out on calling cronyism and corporatism "capitalism", which a lot of the more radical left does these days. They do it because most people believe that we DO live in a capitalist society, but I think its still important to call our system what it is: overblown government backing elites with protectist policy and corporate welfare.

Best quote from Moore I've ever heard: "We don't really have a free market."

White Man's Burden movie

2009-10-14T20:28:00.000-04:00

I've been MIA for a week as I've been out of town, sorry.

Just got word that a documentary is in the works called the White Man's Burden after Bill Easterly's book - the movie will delve into problems in the World Bank and IMF lending policies. Looks very interesting!

Man arrested for tweeting the location of police

2009-10-06T12:33:00.000-04:00

Police arrested Elliot Madison and his friend for using twitter to update the public on the police movements during G20. Police claim tweets aided "criminal" activity of protesters.

I'm not sure what to say about this. I think its legitimate for police to worry about their actions being monitored by people who are trying to break the law and elude detection. But the people in Pittsburgh weren't trying to break the law.

Fr33 Agents has a good article about this. I find it especially troubling that the seizure of "anarchist literature" has made it into virutally every news story covering this. Since when is it illegal to be an anarchist?

Reason covers G20

2009-10-05T13:56:00.000-04:00

My favorite blogger, Radley Balko at The Agitator, covers the G20 protests in his Reason column this week.

I'm mentioned, about halfway through!

As the week has worn on, it feels as though Pittsburgh has forgotten the whole thing. The lack of media coverage, the lack of questioning the police action....its really quite sickening. The Agitator is very popular, so maybe this will bring some decent coverage.

Why do we trust the state more than Starbucks?

2009-10-05T13:49:00.001-04:00

I've been reading King Leopold's Ghost, by Adam Hoschild, which describes the reign of terror that King Leopold implemented in the Congo in the 1800s. I recommend it to anyone interested in Congo, development, colonialism, or international studies in general. The book reads like a novel, and in some ways its hard to believe this actually happened.

The one thought that keeps coming to me while I read: I understand that certain multinational billion dollar corporations do not always act responsibly. I understand that they can exploit labor or harm the environment. I understand that sometimes companies like Wal-Mart may not be in the best interest of people in poor nations.

But show me ONE private entity that has done as much wrong as our governments - often democratically elected governments - have done in the past several hundred years. What happened in Congo happened because kings like Leopold were allowed to amass wealth using political power; they were allowed to use the military to force people into slavery, to steal resources from the rightful owners, to essentially rape the Congo.

Similarly, what happened in Nazi Germany happened because a (democratically elected) leader was permitted to use government force to achieve the ends of what the majority wanted.

Private companies can't use force. If we provide a legal framework that forbids coercion, private entities must follow the law, they must operate within the law. And whether its right or its wrong, GOVERNMENTS do not have to operate within the law. Throughout history they have been able to break the law - because they are the law.

Slavery and genocide are products of governments. Governments are the architects of colonialism and imperialism; governments are the ones who forced their way into Africa and Latin America and used guns to get raw materials and labor. And as for private companies who participated, like Dutch East and West India Companies? They were granted monopoly power by the state and backed up by a government military.

So all I'm saying, the next time you criticize Wal-Mart, Starbucks or McDonalds for "cultural imperialism" or exploitation or environmental degradation or prolonging poverty, stop and think about the fact that governments have killed more people than natural disasters, or pandemics, or murderers or even terrorists.

Pitt responds to student complaints

2009-09-30T19:05:00.000-04:00

The University is working with arrested students and the Pittsburgh police have decided to drop charges for students who got "caught up" in the Friday night attack, providing they can show that they were trying to follow the police order to disperse.

A few things:
1. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY...our legal system says we do not have to prove our innocence, the state has to prove our guilt. As for the university - well, I was under the impression that standing up for rights would be condoned by an institution of higher learning. I was wrong.
2. Mayor Ravenstahl and the City Councilmen continue to applaud the police for their success in quelling the "riots"
3. No word yet on how the nonstudent detainees will be dealt with.
4. No one other than the ACLU is questioning whether the police SHOULD have given the dispersal order, given that the crowd (of both protesters and students) was not violating any laws (I've learned, via the ACLU, that a permit is only required if the protest is disturbing the traffic or in the streets - Friday night, they were ONLY in the plaza on the grass and in fact the POLICE were in the streets).

Students have responded with numerous facebook groups. One includes an account by 18-year-old freshman who was arrested for HOLDING OPEN THE DOOR TO HER DORMITORY for students fleeing gas and rubber bullets to get inside (and therefore follow orders).

Also, this audio is of an interview with Pittsburgh's Indy Media and a Pitt student, during which he yelled something derogatory at the police from his own property. The police bust into his apartment and arrest him. He was released without charge.

Colonialism and Imperialism - What Can We Do Now?

2009-09-28T22:12:00.001-04:00

Its fairly obvious to any scholar of development that colonialism and imperialism played an immense role in the underdevelopment of Africa. Not only did this wretched institution result in exploitation, coercion, murder and theft, its legacy has remained long after it was disbanded.

Much of Africa was well organized into tribal society prior to colonization. It has been written that the Congo had one of the most advanced civilizations, rivaling that of European states. The nation-state did not exist, but that certainly does not mean that African societies were not highly advanced. The Kingdom of Kongo - though the people of Kongo did not use the word kingdom - was vast. A ruler was chosen to preside over the kingdom by clan and tribal leaders. Despite this, due to the lack of a formalized "state" with boundaries, and the vastness of African lands, it appears that those who were unwilling to submit to the rule of this kingdom could have left - though they would have had to sever ties with their tribal community.

When Europeans arrived, they were treated as equals, and the people of Kongo were eager to learn from their white friends. However, an increasingly devastating slave trade (that was facilitated by Kongo's people and their willingness to sell slaves for European goods) resulted in the deterioration of the kingdom.

Simply by their inability to protect themselves from violent colonialism (meaning: they had no guns), Africans were destined to suffer at the ends of the west. This does not mean they were blameless - Africa had its own hierarchical structure and readily accepted many European ideas. But the Europeans came with a sense of superiority, a sense of rightness - they were justified in taking the land as their own, simply because they were "civilized." Under many banners - imperial greatness, capitalism, saving the savage natives, Christian brotherhood - marched white imperialism, but it amounted to the same thing: destroy the civilization that was there, destroy the culture, destroy the history (See Basil Davidson, the Black Man's Burden, chapter 1: African Without History).

Post colonialism, we continue to see a form of "neocolonialism" in which western states repeatedly attempt to show African states how to develop. Even the African states themselves accept western philosophy, economic theory and political theory as given; Davidson writes that tribalism and much of African history is rejected. We assume democracy is the best form of government. We've struggled between state-centered development and market-centered development, not thinking that perhaps our mere definitions of development and modernization are skewed towards western thinking, or that there was something good in the pre-nation-state society in Africa.

Whats more is that by rejecting African history, we create a self-confidence crisis among African leadership. They are consistently told to follow examples of the rest of the world, and reminded of the worthlessness of their own example. Among many other issues, this may be a primary cause for lack of competency in leadership, and may explain why so many post-independence leaders were so quick to begin "sleeping with the enemy."

What it boils down to: we cannot change colonialism. What can we do, then? I wish there was a way that we could reject the values of western civilization in Africa. I wish we could dissolve the states there and start from scratch and see what happens then. We can't. And its not realistic to say if the west stopped trying to tell African states what to do, things would get better; those leaders are already in power.

Yep, essentially I don't know what we can do. I do not want to say Africa is hopeless. But I do think that Africa will long be held down by its colonial past, in ways we cannot articulate, because we will never know "what could have been." Is a nation-state inevitable? Would centralized governments have emerged? Or would we have seen a free and perhaps anarchical society? The tragedy of Africa is not that it is poor; it is that Africa was rich, and we have made it poor.

Idealism sucks

2009-09-27T23:07:00.000-04:00

After all this weekend, I feel just so frustrated because I sincerely question whether there is anything I can do, anything I can change in this world, to advance the causes of liberty and end the tyranny of states.

There is a constant conflict I feel because part of me abhors the idea of working for the state, in any capacity, but the other part of me believes if I don't, my efforts will be futile.

What can we do against such immense power? How can anyone stand up against the federal government?

March Against Police Brutality on Pitt Campus

2009-09-27T10:54:00.000-04:00

Last night, a group of about 45 or so students gathered to march against police brutality as shown on Pitt's campus Friday night.

We were not there about G20 - we were there to send a message that its NOT OKAY for police to react the way they did to unarmed peaceful nonprotesting students. That it is NOT OKAY to require a permit for a gathering on a university campus. That it is NOT OKAY for the state to regulate speech.

I think we were able to get the message out.

Unfortunately, a number of students in the dorms and around campus yelled at us to shut up, go home, G20 is over, etc. We were accused of wanting to incite more police violence.

Nothing of the sort - the purpose of the march was to say, we should be allowed to do this. Its not about anything but free speech and freedom from police intimidation.

It is interesting to me to note that, though once again we gathered without a permit, and this time we actually were protesting, police did not declare us an unlawful assembly. The ACLU says that if you stay on the sidewalk or out of the streets, you do not need a permit. But Friday night, students were in the plaza, not the streets - the police were in the streets.

It just tells me that police realize that they had gone overboard Friday - they do not have the balls to attack unarmed students a third night in a row.

If you're interested in learning more about the situation in Oakland Friday

2009-09-27T10:48:00.000-04:00

Check out any of the following:

http://www.pittnews.com/
http://www.post-gazette.com/
http://indypgh.org/g20/#
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/index.html

Don't bother with major news media. They're not really examining this (yet?); they're only saying that police were responding to protester violence.

The University defends police

2009-09-26T16:54:00.001-04:00

A university spokesman said of the police situation:

"Primarily it was people forming very large crowds that had the potential of disrupting normal activities, traffic flow, egress and the like. We had a very large contingency of law enforcement to help us keep our community safe. In order to keep things from getting out of hand, there were orders to disperse, orders to keep moving. Those who disobeyed those instructions were arrested. Much of the arrests last night had to do with failure to disperse when ordered." [my emphasis]

Essentially, this person is saying that the POTENTIAL of disrupting "normal activities, traffic flow, egress and the like" justifies tear gas, rubber bullets, LRAD and arrest.

HOW ARE YOU NOT OUTRAGED?

ACLU speaks out

2009-09-26T16:47:00.002-04:00

Finally getting some minor coverage of the situation last night. The legal director of ACLU Pennsylvania, Vic Walczak, echos exactly what I've been thinking about all of the protests this week:

"It was a demonstation that could have been managed by far fewer police officers. The key is it should have been managed and not suppressed," he said. "The problem were not because they were being disorderly but because police tried to force them out of [Schenley Plaza].

Police incited violence by being overwhelmingly violent themselves.

"The reason it's bizarre is it seemed to focus almost exclusively on peaceful demonstrators."

"There was a pattern of intimidation and many questionable orders given to disperse and declaring demonstrations to be unlawful." For example, he questioned the substantiation for the orders to disperse that led to arrests Thursday and Friday.
...
"Police can't indiscriminately arrest people. On [Friday] night they didn't even have the excuse of property damage going on or any illegal actitity. It's really inexplicable."

This is the crux of the issue - their only legitimate authority to arrest and attack these people was that they were "unlawfully gathered." We need to be challenging the concept of lawful gathering.

Freedom of speech

2009-09-26T14:01:00.003-04:00

Christopher Hitchens on free speech:

What they say is it’s not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen, and to hear. And every time you silence someone you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view.

Martial Law on Pitt Campus

2009-09-26T13:02:00.001-04:00

This is a twitter feed from last night. Earlier this kid declared that he wanted the g20 protesters out of his town - he's just a student, clearly not trying to riot or to protest.

POLICE STILL FIRING ON STUDENTS ON FIFTH AVENUEabout 12 hours ago from Tweetie
PITTSBURGH POLICE LAUGHING, TAKING GROUP PHOTO WITH ARRESTED, BEATEN STUDENT. I HAVE VIDEO.about 13 hours ago from Tweetie
I'm back in my dorm room, which is filled with tear gas from a crack in the window. Getting videos and photos off of my camera.about 13 hours ago from Tweetie
I AM SAFE; THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH IS UNDER TOTAL POLICE CONTROL. THOUSANDS OF OFFICERS ATTACKING STUDENTS. THIS MUST BE TOLD!!!about 13 hours ago from qStatus
I ASSISTED A BLEEDING STUDENT SHOT WITH A RUBBER BULLET IN THE FACE AND WAS TEARGASSED BEFORE WE COULD REACH SHELTERabout 13 hours ago from qStatus
REPEAT, I WAS ATTACKED BY THE PITTSBURGH POLICE FOR TAKING PHOTOS, AND TEARGASSEDabout 13 hours ago from qStatus
I AM TAKING SHELTER IN THE ORIGINAL HOTDOG SHOPPE. POLICE ARE FIRING ON STUDENTS WITH RUBBER BULLETS, TEARGAS OUTSIDE.about 13 hours ago from qStatus
I HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY POLICE, I TOOK TEARGAS TO THE FACE WHILE ESCORTING AN INJURED STUDENT SHOT WITH RUBBER BULLETabout 13 hours ago from qStatus
TEARGAS REPORTED IN DORMITORY PATIO AREAS, STUDENTS IN CHAOSabout 13 hours ago from qStatus
Just FYI, were are both safe and have been in the towers lobby for some time now.about 13 hours ago from qStatus
POLICE ADVANCING ON STUDENTS ENTIRELY UNPROVOKED. PROTESTERS ARE NONEXISTANT AT THIS POINT.about 14 hours ago from qStatus
PITTSBURGH POLICE OFFICER: "IT'S TIME TO KICK SOME ASS!"about 14 hours ago from qStatus
SHOTS FIRED IN OAKLAND, POLICE ARE BLOCKING ENTRANCES TO DORMSabout 14 hours ago from qStatus
I have video of both an aggressive assault on a student and of an officer manhandling me when I asked how to return to dorms.about 14 hours ago from qStatus
NATIONAL GUARD MARTIAL LAW HAS BEEN DECLARED IN OAKLAND, SOURCE SAYS. POLICE ARE IN DORM AREAabout 14 hours ago from qStatus
POLICE ARE ADVANCING ON PITT STUDENTS WITH NO PROTEST OR AGITATION WHATSOEVERabout 14 hours ago from qStatus
I AM BEING PURSUED BY POLICE, TEARGAS DEPLOYEDabout 14 hours ago from qStatus
POLICE ARE PUTTING ON GAS MASKS, CALLING STUDENTS FROM UNIVERSITY EVENT AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLYabout 14 hours ago from qStatus
POLICE ARE SEIZING PITT CAMPUS. SPREAD THE WORD, MARTIAL LAW IS EVIDENT. POLICE ASSAULTING STUDENTS ON FORBESabout 14 hours ago from qStatus

The state of speech in America

2009-09-26T12:47:00.001-04:00

Simply the fact that no one is covering this, makes me fearful for the future of this world.

The University of Pittsburgh was the site of an overwhelming display of police brutality and militarization last night. In effect, martial law was declared.

At 10pm, a NONVIOLENT but NONPERMITTED rally of students and protesters met in Schlenley Plaza to protest police brutality. I repeat, this was a group of NONVIOLENT, PEACEFUL PEOPLE.

Police declared it to be an unlawful assembly and set off through the campus, attacking and arresting students, even those just trying to follow orders. They set off tear gas, shot people with rubber bullets, and used LRAD sonic weapons against students and demonstrators.

Watch police teargas outside dorms, enter dorms, threaten students with expulsion

Police storm Pitt dorms

Watch police take a picture with a student they just arrested

Police shoot students with rubber bullets

Students gassed when trying to watch their president arrive

Students trapped in a stairwell being gassed - no exit

POLICE STATE

Look through those videos, and explain how this was justified.

This is what democracy looks like:

2009-09-25T00:23:00.003-04:00

I just got home from a wild night of observing the G20 protests. I'm going to start by saying, I was an observer rather than a protester in this situation.

So Thursday, today, I worked but followed the G20 protests via the G20 Resistance Project, a radical, mostly anarchist protest movement. From followning the news and the project's twitter feed (http://www.twitter.com/g20pgh) I was able to discern this general timeline:

2:30 Massive march gathers in Arsenal Park in Lawrenceville. They estimated about one or two thousand. A peaceful group of protesters, they began to march down liberty avenue. When the protesters reached 38th (or somewhere around there) they were stopped by lines of riot police.

After a few minutes of standoff, police announce that the protest was an illegal gathering and that if they did not disperse they would be subject to arrest and police action. Protesters respond by tipping a dumpster. Police set off teargas and something called an LRAD - a device that emits a high pitched sound that is painful to hear. People go running. This is, to my knowledge, the first time they've been used by American police.

Crowds disperse and make their way to Bloomfield - my neighborhood. In response to police action, violent protesters begin smashing ATMs and PNC bank windows. More tear gas, and use of rubber bullets is reported.

After two hours, at 4:30, the protest reconvenes at Friendship Park (across the steet from my building) and attempts to begin again. Cops circle them, and they are essentially sent running across Bloomfield Bridge in response to more tear gas and shooting of rubber bullets. Small pockets of protesters begin to disperse and calm down.

At this point, I got home. On the way home, I am stopped by police telling me that we are in a "state of national emergency" and I am not going home tonight. He suggests I drive to North Side, grab a beer, and hang out.

I find my way home via another route. I walk to meet up with a few friends and we walk down from Bloomfield, where riot police and cops have entirely blocked Liberty Avenue:

We walk towards Oakland and the University; we pass by a BMW dealership where protesters have smashed windows:

Getting to Oakland and the University is uneventful. Riot police are everywhere but things are pretty calm. We arrive to Schlenley Plaza, which is right outside the bridge to Phipps Conservatory, where the summit is opening.

The group here is mainly students and peaceful protesters. There is NO sign of violence, no chanting, no signs, nothing at all resembling a scary or potentially dangerous situation. Except this:

Seconds after we get there, police begin to advance without warning. They march at students who begin to run, while taking pictures. Riot police begin to surround the students but no action is taken. This crowd is mainly students, NOT protesters. Students are yelling Kent State, Kent State:

We left and went to grab drinks and afterwards I returned to the area. The mood was tense. The police formed a long line along the street forcing students into the plaza. Suddenly, without apparent provocation, a guy was arrested. Everyone rushed to watch and shout about it, not realizing that police were using the arrest to encircle the crowd.

The guy being arrested is mentioned in the video here. The video says he/protesters were out of hand. There is NOTHING to suggest either is true. This guy might have been suspicious and he might of have done something wrong but there was NOTHING going on that was unruly.

The group was not violent in ANY way. They weren't really even a protest, it was mostly students just hanging out, seeing what was going on. Suddenly more police arrive with sirens blazing. They announce that this is an illegal gathering and we must leave.

They begin firing tear gas and advance on the crowd. The crowd moves, dispersing into sections. While I was walking down Forbes, scores of more police arrive in full gear, jumping out of their trucks weilding batons.

At one point, an office jumped onto the sidewalk with his stick out. I immediately threw my hands up and continued walking, and he said to me, "Yeah, keep your hands up, you're the fucking problem."

Small pockets of protesters were singing, playing instruments or otherwise trying to regroup. Tear gas and the LRAD device was used.

At this point, I decided it was best to leave. It was around 11pm, and most students were leaving. Other parts of the anarchist group were showing up and the tear gas was just getting out of hand. On my way home, I saw multiple businesses with glass broken out.

As of right now, protests continue to rage. The twitter feed for the anarchist group is blowing up with information: they have been getting access to police radio frequency and are warning people of what is going on:

two more arrests, cops have blocked off student dorms, using weapons #g20 1 minute ago from API
Lots of police need Fuel, can't find Fuel. Trying to get Tanker Truck to fuel humvees. #g20 4 minutes ago from API
Police Scanner is on to the Group forming at Hot Metal Bridge15 minutes ago from API
forbes and s craig, protestors breaking out windows #g20 16 minutes ago from API
police not responding to other calls. "all units are in oakland" #g20 18 minutes ago from API
Police not responding to other calls. "All units are in Oakland"19 minutes ago from API
police shift change happening now #g20 29 minutes ago from API
RIOT POLICE MARCH DOWN FORBES, SENDING STUDENTS SPRINTING TOWARD TOWERS. TEAR GAS SHOT AT CROWD39 minutes ago from API

I'll be happy to give a long and drawn out diatribe of what I think is a gross violation of free speech and our right to assemble - and how police militarization leads to escalation of violence - but now I'm just exhausted.

The G20 and Global Development

2009-09-23T14:49:00.000-04:00

Today I went to a panel discussion called The G20 and Global Development, presented by GSPIA, ONE, and the Center for Global Development. Moderated by my development policy and admin professor Louis Picard, the panel consisted of Tim Adams (Managing Director, The Lindsey Group; Former Under Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Treasury), Nancy Birdsall (President, Center for Global Development), Donald Kaberuka (President, African Development Bank), and David Lane (President and CEO, ONE).

As I am working on a research paper about management in the African Development Bank, it was exciting to hear President Kaberuka speak. Some of the key points discussed at the panel:

Institutions are important. Governance plays an immense role in the effectiveness of aid and development programming, and without proper institutions and governance, we cannot expect any substantial gains to be made.
That being said, African states recognize they have a major problem with good governance. What is the west going to do to "meet them halfway"? For starters, the G20 needs to include a stronger voice from poor African states. One such solution is to hold a G20 Summit in an African state. We need to recognize that "its not an G7 age anymore."
Protectionism in general, and agricultural subsidies specifically, needs to stop. Every 3 days, a G20 country is involved with some form of protectionism (so says Mr. Adams and Ms. Birdsall). This is really detrimental to Africa and the developing economies. We need OPEN MARKETS, we need open trade.
Birdsall suggested that we tie aid to performance benchmarks or standards, like we are paying states to improve. This is an extension of Easterly's idea that we give aid or loans only to states that follow governance conditions. This rings a little like conditionality (like the IMF) but the IMF conditionality approach was not necessarily bad. Maybe if we change the conditions...

Overall, a very good panel. It was a little short but I enjoyed it. Hopefully I can find a transcript online sometime soon.

Protesters outside of my building

2009-09-22T19:30:00.001-04:00

An anti-G20 group has gathered outside of my apartment. Mostly peaceful hippie types enjoying a picnic of soy hotdogs.Two girls were hula hooping for like 45 minutes. (They're making a real difference!)

The police showed up pretty quickly but they also left quickly after they realized it was just a small number of people.

All humor aside, I'm down for protesting and I think its great that people are standing up for their beliefs. I'd love to get into a serious discussion with some of these people but I'm afraid I am so outnumbered its almost futile.

I wish Bureaucrash were here! Actually: I wish the OLD Bureaucrash were here. The new Bureaucrash is full of awful neocons supporting the 9/12 bullshit.

G20 G20 G20

2009-09-22T16:14:00.001-04:00

Well, its all anyone is talking about here in Pittsburgh.

But to be honest, I'm feeling a bit out of the discussion.

I would be marginalized if I sided with protesters, because most of them think dislike capitalism and the supposed economic and cultural imperialism that "inevitably" follows. But I oppose the G20, because I AM a capitalist and they're really trying to regulate the global economy even further. My issue with the G20 is that, the United States response to the financial crisis has been a bailout and a stimulus package that violate the principles of economic theory, and the G20 will only continue to promote violation of these principles to "solve" the problem.

The crisis was not started because capitalism "failed." On some level, it was caused by government intervention (for example, the promotion of home ownership via Freddie and Fannie, for another example, this article gives a great perspective on the role of the Fed); on another level, it was simply companies and individuals making poor decisions. Those bad decisions do not mean capitalism FAILED, it means people made bad decisions and now the market must correct itself.

In essence, is not recession a market correcting itself when people screw up? It will be painful for a while, certainly, and that is a true concern for those people who lost their homes or jobs. And I recognize that. But painfulness does not necessitate unconstitutional bailouts of banks. And it certainly does not mean to inject billions into the U.S. economy to "stimulate". The stimulus package will cause inflation (excess of dollars chasing after fewer goods) and in a sense it will "trick" the market into thinking we have all kinds of money and credit again. When we run out of federal stimulus money, you will see another crash. Like "Cash for Clunkers" - great, we've boosted sales for FAILING car companies that will inevitably shut down due to foreign competition. We only prolong the inevitable, which is that our economy may contract - not everyone can own 2 cars and a big house in the suburbs.

In essence, this isn't a bad thing; many (including those G20 protesters!*) argue we have been living excessively and certainly beyond our means (we are a nation of debt). Further, this frees up our country's stock of labor and capital to focus on new industry (maybe the green revolution will actually take off).

*Everyone says we consume too much. Then when the recession hit, they all went crazy saying capitalism failed, how are we supposed to buy all the shit we want to consume now? Everyone says that WALL STREET is greedy - but what about those people who took out mortgages on homes that they couldn't afford - homes that were bigger and better and cooler and nicer than the ones that they knew they could afford - isn't that greed?

Well, thats a whole lot of rambling without any real research or evidence to back it up. Good thing this is just a blog. :)

One reason protesters get violent

2009-09-21T18:29:00.001-04:00

As the G20 summit nears, Pittsburgh police are scaling up efforts to maintain order in the city in response to protests. Fear that a repeat of the London protests which led to the death of Ian Tomlinson has led the city of Pittsburgh to anticipate violence around the city.

The protesters might get violent. But its worth noting that many of these protesters are anti-war. Many of them consider themselves peaceful organizations just trying to be heard. Code Pink, a women's anti-war organization that is putting on a "tent city" in Pittsburgh to offer information. They are clearly a non violent group - and in my experience, the people who protest these events usually just want to be heard - not to riot. Rioting is self-defeating - it makes them look crazy, it marginalizes them from the mainstream, which ultimately defeats the purpose of being heard.

So why get violent?

Well, have we ever though that perhaps they get violent because paramilitary tactics by police piss them off. Perhaps they get violent because we have a constitutional right to protest, to gather peacefully to voice our concerns, but they are being harassed by police and required to get PERMITS to protest? This is a democracy - dissent is not only allowed but it should be encouraged. So why do I feel like if I chose to protest, the police would be a major obstacle in my decision?

Are the police there because it could get violent, or do they cause violence? I think its a reinforcing relationship - that is, violence probably resulted in police escalation, which then results in more violence, and so on. But the threat or fear of violence does not justify limits on constitutional rights.

I'm a capitalist. I believe in markets, free trade, and private property. One of my favorite parts of libertarianism is that, despite G20 protesters absolute HATRED of my beliefs and my ideals, I will happily defend their right to do so, and encourage their right to do so, because if we do not have the freedom to say what we believe, then what the hell are we free to do?

the right of humanitarian intervention

2009-09-18T11:22:00.001-04:00

One of my newfound favorite bloggers, William Easterly at AidWatch, posted some interesting words about the origins of development in the West as an extension of imperialism:

But I think the origin of development as cover for imperialism and racism did have toxic legacies for some. First, it meant that the concept of development was determined to fit a propaganda imperative; it was NOT a breakthrough in thought by economists. Second, it followed that development from the beginning would stress the central role of Western aid to help the helpless natives (which shows up in the early development theories like the “poverty trap” and the “Big Push,” and the lack of interest in local entrepreneurs and market incentives). Third, the paternalism was so extreme at the beginning that it would last for a long time – I still think it is widespread today, especially after today’s comeback of the early development ideas in some parts of the aid system. And this history also seems strangely relevant with today’s “humanitarian” nouveau-imperialism to invade and fix “failed states” like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think this raises a few questions...forget our obligation to help the world's poor - do we even have a RIGHT? Development was not only initially part of a larger colonialist agenda, but it also has racist elements (the "white mans burden" and all) because it assumes that western help is "needed" in order to "fix" poverty. Its paternalistic and condescending.

So I guess I'm asking, what right do we have to intervene? Especially considering how intervention has typically failed in the past.

Of course, there is the other side: how can we just ignore global poverty?

Ron Paul and the Fed

2009-09-15T21:10:00.001-04:00

An interesting video from MSNBC shows that Congressman Ron Paul predicted the housing crisis several years ago when bills regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went through the House.

Rep. Paul has an interesting group of followers, notably many "9/11 Truthers" and other fringe groups. But this does not make him part of the fringe or a "nutjob" by any means. Instead, he provides a clear voice of reason the House, and is one of the few politicians that has courage in his convinctions.

I hope that Ron Paul can get rid of his reputation as being crazy, because he does offer very sound economic advice and he is probably the most "libertarian" of all US congressmen.

my first post =)

2009-09-15T18:21:00.000-04:00

I decided to start blogging for because I have a lot of things I want to say, but not a lot of people to say them to.

I expect this blog will be a lot of politically charged ranting, with occasionally rants about my life as a 21-year-old grad student at the University of Pittsburgh.

So here we go.