A nice summary of why legalization is almost always the most environmentally sound path

You can find it here in the New York Times, and it's about shooting rhinos.

I shall soon return to regular activity (for real)

by jess.
Explore more infographics like this one on the web's largest information design community - Visually.

Inflation makes your shirts cheaper?

CNN is opining about the collapse of a textile factory in Bangladesh, impugning US consumers who buy cheap clothes.  I agree with the basic premise, that Americans buying cheap clothes aren't appreciative of the actual cost of their savings.  Where the CNN piece goes wrong is when it identifies collapsed factories as the only hidden cost.

I'm all for paying higher prices for better working conditions for textile laborers.  I buy a lot of my clothes from American Apparel.  I don't agree with all the politics behind the firm, but it's nice to know my t shirts are made in LA.  Even better, the quality of American Apparel is consistently higher than the stuff I get from Bangladesh.  I would pay more-- double, probably; triple, maybe-- to get all of my clothes from the States.

For me, it's not about human rights in Asia.  I'm not pleased people died making socks in Dhaka, but I understand vesting authority in the UN or some national government to regulate wages and working conditions will inevitably result in misallocations, a slowed economy, and an infinitely more harm than we'd experience with a true free market.  What troubles me is the quality of my shirts.  The fact is most of the clothes I buy today-- which are mostly made in the developing world-- fall apart faster than clothes I bought years ago.

I still have shirts from twenty years ago.  Those shirts were made in America and while they have faded, they're still holding up.  But low end shirts from China, Malawi, and Haiti are simply not as well made.  This is not an indictment of foreign craftsmanship, it's the reality of a marketplace that balances price and quality.  

Americans have driven quality lower by demanding lower prices.  And I think that trend is increasing.

My instinct tells me this started because people wanted nice stuff cheaply.  A natural thought.  When manufacturers started to move offshore (I try and avoid the term "globalization;" haven't we been "globalized" since the 15th century?) they found they could make the same products abroad for cheaper than they did in the US.  There was some sacrifice of quality, but generally standards were similar.  But as Americans became more enamored with wearing brand names (a never-ending fad that's been parabolic since I appeared in the world) the demand for quality names outstripped the pace of quality clothes.  Corners were cut.  

The real slide came as the USD weakened in the early 2000s.  In the decade since then I have observed a significant decrease in the quality of imported clothes.  The only way manufactures can keep prices low enough to sell their items, in light of a weakening dollar and wounded American consumer, is to keep cutting costs.  Cheaper materials, less skilled workers, inferior oversight-- that's what's drives me crazy about our addiction to cheap clothes.

I'm sorry those people in Bangladesh died.  But the solution to that problem will come about as workers demand better protections and employers find a still-profitable solution.  There's no need to interject an intermediary there-- they will work it out.

My problem is that it's tough to find a decent sweater.  That sounds petty relative to loss of life, but my point is that the issues are not connected.  The solution in Bangladesh is that absent outside interference-- the market will work this out.  But the solution for American consumers is to be more discerning.  As it is today you either pay $900 for a high-end sweater from a New York fashion house or you pay $19 at Marshals.  Isn't there a place for $150 sweaters?  That might sound expensive, but what if you knew it was of good quality?  And made in America-- would you pay the premium?  I would.

Why are the Feds wasting time on laughing gas?

The LA Times has a write up today on the arrest of dealers selling (what in my youth we used to call) whippets, technically known as nitrous oxide.

I was surprised to see the highlight because it had never occurred to me that the USG was in the business of criminalizing air.  I've never used illegal drugs and have no aspirations to do so-- the idea of taking any drug, let a substance from an unknown source-- seems dangerous.  And the concept of recreational drugs, including alcohol, has limited appeal to me.  I enjoy a drink a few times per year, but generally I'm happy enough without distorting my reality. 

But in my younger days I did indulge in alcohol a bit more frequently than I do now.  The only other brush with drug use I had was nitrous oxide, and only after I researched the matter and concluded that it was basically harmless.  It is certainly far less troublesome than alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, or sugar.  Several times in college I did inhale-- whippet balloons, enjoying a two to three minute rush from the indulgence.  While popular belief at the time held "it killed more brain cells than a year of drinking" the Straight Dope debunked that theory years ago.  At some point in my brief and only occasional nitrous inhaling (I recall doing it outside of concerts, more than anyplace else-- this was the era of when "The Spin Doctors" were dominating the charts-- we needed the help) the state I was living in made the sale of "crackers" illegal.  Crackers were the devices used to manipulate nitrous tanks so that balloons could be filled-- at least, that's what I was told.  I never actually saw one.  But someone said that when one time, perhaps at a "Gin Blossoms" or some equally forgettable early-90s concert, we noticed there were no whippets around.  But a neighboring state did still have whippets.  Just like alcohol, nitrous was a state matter.  I think perhaps my last foray into the world of nitrous oxide was at a "Peal Jam" concert in that less restrictive state in about 1996.  Or maybe a can of whipped creme (another method of ingestion) around this same time.

It never crossed my mind that the Feds might get in the business of criminalizing the stuff.  Regulation-- that I can see.  I don't agree with the extension of the commerce clause to virtually everything, but I can understand why the argument might be made that whippets moved across state lines are subject to regulation.  But why criminalize it?  In addition to the USG lacking the authority, this seems like a silly drug to attack.  For me it was the perfect non-gateway drug.  I knew it was safe, I tried it, it was amusing, I moved on.  I just didn't find it as amusing as I found other things.  I don't play racquetball anymore for basically the same reason.  Nitrous oxide is not addictive and the supposed deleterious effects outlined by the policy can be easily dismissed.  It enables rapes?  Very brief sexual assaults, perhaps, but one could say the same of any substance or activity that incapacitates a person momentarily.  Shall we criminalized spinning in a circle and booming dizzy?  It causes dealers to steal from one another?  We should ban copper, gasoline, Tide detergent , and OJ Simpson football memorabilia-- all things subject to larceny.  I heard some nutcase on the "Joe Rogan Experience" Podcast the other day rambling on about how he can get high from holding his breath (essentially the same idea as with nitrous).  Should we restrict breath holding now?

Maybe I'm missing something here.  I haven't researched nitrous since Midnight Oil was on top of the charts, but if that reading is still correct than this is a waste of time and an unjustified intrusion into personal liberty.  

Let's move the funds for this program to the top of the sequestration list.

Drone strikes are not the problem

I was delighted to see Rand Paul filibuster against domestic drone strikes but am concerned too many observers are failing to see the real problem with this issue.  The problem is not drones, the problem is the purported authority of the USG to execute American citizens without due process.  Killing an American citizen without trial, whether it is by drone or guillotine, is shocking violation of the fifth amendment (and very likely the fourth and fourteenth, as well).  

I understand the concerns of civil libertarians about drones.  Drones give the government, and many other organizations, the ability to exploit the relative freedom of the skies to potential spy on us at any moment.  But rather than try to simply proscribe one sort of intrusive action-- the use of drones to attack our liberty or lives-- the better approach would be to question the authority of government to spy on or kill us to begin with (private entities can already be held liable in the private courts, and are therefore already accountable for inappropriate use of drones).  

Drones have value and there are situations where the USG might carry out its constitutional role properly by employing drones.  I can imagine scenarios where the military would use drones overseas, or the Border Patrol might use drones to secure our borders.  Let's not narrow our protection of liberty to simply a restriction on drones.  I fear that if we gain some sort of prohibition on drones, this will be seen as a concession from the federal government.  That if the drones are restricted, then it will be assumed "okay, we can't execute people with drones because people don't like the concept of flying robots, but death in a secret prison is allowable."

An extreme example, yes, but even Senator Paul's filibuster was littered with extremes.  

That's the essence of this argument.  No one believe that this president will go on a murderous streak against uncountable numbers of Americans.  It is the surrender of basic constitutional protections that are at issue here.

There's one other angle to this issue that has not been fully covered that I'd like to address: the notion of the fleeing felon.  Common law has long recognized that certain homicides, being necessary for the common good, are lawful.  The most common are self-defense and the death penalty.  Also allowed is the killing of a felon fleeing from arrest or an attempt to be arrested, who is known or highly likely to commit grave harm to his pursuers to the public.  In those instances, officers can kill such a felon and the homicide is justifiable.  These proposed drone attacks against American citizens might hit such a standard, provided certain circumstances are met.  For example, if a drone were zipping above New York City and observed someone about to detonate a device in Times Square, that individual might be killed by the drone pilot if it is deemed impossible to arrest or otherwise thwart the attack.  I think.  It depends very much on the circumstances of the situation.  But two things are certain: first, there can be no standing kill list, as the Obama Administration proposed, whereby drones are deployed looking to execute specific persons, even if those people are sitting around playing cards and not about to commit an immediate crime.  Difficulty in arresting someone is not a reason to kill them.  The USG knew Al Capone was a murderer, but Eliot Ness built a case on him, he didn't just shoot him on the street.  Secondly, there should be no drones flying around because the existing threats to the United States are not so drastic that we should have to worry about abrogating liberty in the name of security.

It is completely heretical but true that terrorism is not a serious threat to the sovereignty of the United States.  During perilous times the government can suspend habeas corpus, draft soldiers, and otherwise act in an exceptional manner.  But the danger imagined in the constitution is one of foreign invasion or domestic insurrection.  That is not the case today.  Despite the talk of a "Global War on Terror," supposedly a phrase abandoned but one I still hear, there is war here.  Terrorism consists of criminal acts against the United States by disparate groups.  Despite the talk of "an Axis of Evil," there are no countries at war with the United States (well, there was Iraq, but we started, and have mostly, ended that one).

I was very pleased to hear Rand Paul defend liberty so powerfully and equally content to hear the media follow his message.  I hope the public at large understands though that his objections to drone strikes are grounded not in some sort of Ludddite hatred of drones, but in the simple relaity that the Executive cannot pass sentence on us without first judicial process.