foxchasefive.com

Simply put, Adam Drucker is wrong as usual. Let’s see why:

“Let’s say that, if elected, he would solve the world, in general. Well, this is why even if he was the best candidate ever, he would be horrible to vote for: 2000. In the year 2000, Ralph Nader took a small percentage of the votes in many different states, totalling about 2.5% of the popular vote. Not only does this show that, even WITH the backing of the Green Party, which he may not align himself with (IE, the 2004 election), but more importantly, his involvement was the REASON that Bush is the President of the United States right now.”

If you’re seriously suggesting that Ralph Nader would somehow cause Obama to lose to an old white man, then I think you have no idea how the real world works. If his candidacy causes Hillary Clinton to lose, so much the better. Besides, this still doesn’t show why he isn’t a good candidate, because if he won he wouldn’t be a spoiler anymore (and according to you we can assume he “solves the world”). Read the rest of this entry »

+

So it appears that Ralph Nader is making his fourth run for President, though no doubt this will be the least successful of his runs. After all, both parties have managed to put out candidates that (at least seemingly) offer substantive change. Even the fringe folks have someone to back in Ron Paul. What could Ralph Nader possibly offer?

The answer is simply that he will offer us the same thing he always has: the voice of the Democratic Party that continuously gets silenced. The people who were backing John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and anyone else who actually believes in true liberalism will finally have someone to at least point to and support. And with Romney out of the race, not a single candidate (or if you’re a Ron Paul fan, not a single sane, intelligent candidate) can provide fiscal responsibility anyway, so you might as well go with the one whose policies would best help the nation.

Basically, only Nader is willing to both reduce our military spending and implement a single payer health care system, and that’s enough for me.
By Alex Zhao, who is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation, fascism, the US government, the War on Drugs, US Presidents, immigration, President Bush, children who are sick, the environment, and elections.

The current consumer society has many problems. It has abused workers, put people out of work, or created an enormous gap between the rich and the poor. However, these problems are not as serious as they seem, because all of them can be fixed with legislation. The bigger harm of consumerism and capitalism in general, however, can never be fixed. It is an intrinsic problem, one that threatens to entirely supplant human nature as we know it. On the surface, this problem might not seem obvious. It’s not because the problem itself doesn’t exist, but because it’s hard to quantify. The problem comes through slowly, in the form of the typical annoyances of the day. Read the rest of this entry »

Congratulations global warming skeptics. You’ve won. The world is yours, and the arguments of the global warming believers have fallen away. All of their predictions are wrong: sea levels will not rise, natural disasters will not occur with greater frequency, and global climate change will not harm any of us.

Well, I’m being dishonest. Global warming skeptics haven’t won in the traditional sense. Rather, they’ve managed to cast enough doubt that no effective action has been taken against global warming, and the predictions of those who warned us are no longer predictions, they’re reality. As the sea levels rise, wiping island nations, as natural disasters flood through Mexico, the United States, Europe, China, Australia, and beyond, and as the loss of farmland, marine life, fisheries threatens our world’s basic ability to feed the population, everyone can thank those skeptics who’ve “won” the debate. Read the rest of this entry »

It is a generally accepted rule of politics that that bills which help poor sick children at the expense of people who smoke cigarettes should become law. After all, smokers aren’t exactly the most powerful group on Capitol Hill, and hardly any politician is willing to take the risk of appearing to be anti-children. Our President, however, appears to be an avid risk taker, because apparently being painted as a person who hates sick children doesn’t bother him in the least bit. That’s exactly why Mr. Bush decided that now is the time to block the passage of the SCHIP bill, a measure designed to try and insure approximately 10 million kids without private insurance. The logic behind such a veto is baffling. Read the rest of this entry »

Ever since the invention of both capitalism and communism, the two ideologies have been in serious conflict. Although in this modern day and age it would appear that capitalism has won out decisively with the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of China, and that free markets would rule the day. Key exceptions arose, however. While most countries continued on their path of freedom in the marketplace, Latin American nations like Venezuela managed to maintain socialism. Others, like Norway, have continued without opening their markets any more extensively than since the end of World War II. How can countries all across the world still manage to defy free markets, and how can countries that have indeed opened up their markets also fail to see sustained consistent economic growth?

The short answer is oil.

The long answer is much more sophisticated, and the truth of the matter is that a country’s internal economy no longer matters. Almost all of your industries could be non-profit or unprofitable, or inefficient, or otherwise nonexistent. Because of the nature of globalisation, all of that doesn’t matter. Your political regime and economic system just has to meet three requirements:

1. You can buy goods from other countries easily.
2. You can sell goods to other countries easily.
3. You have a resource (any resource) that is rare, expensive, or otherwise necessary for the world economy.

Oil is a clear example resource, and Venezuela a clear example country. Crude oil is rare, expensive, and necessary for the world economy. The only things that Hugo Chavez has to do are to allow the oil to go out of the country and buy stuff from abroad. This has fueled his country’s economic growth, allowed him to suppress freedom, and otherwise implement his ideal nation.

Keep in mind that a global economy means that the free market has already “won” in a sense. It’s just that globalisation has created a vast free market on the biggest level possible (i.e. that of
trade between nations). Individual nations can thus act as essentially vendors of a single “product” or a variety of products.

This explains why nations that would otherwise be unable to support themselves without oil are still afloat, and why simply opening up a country’s markets doesn’t lead to instant better lifestyles or countries.

Capitalism in effect has destroyed the concept of nationhood and reinforced it at the same time. Globalisation makes it entirely possible for the most anti-capitalistic governments to succeed incredibly as well as allow free markets inside of other countries to fail. The world can take two paths, one more likely than the other. The world’s governments could slowly dissolve away into nothingness as the market makes them irrelevant. Or those governments could become reactionaries and seize more power for themselves and return the world to nationalism. Most likely, though, would be a world where some of the nations lost their governments to the market while others maintained nationalism. Either way, the world economy will soon enough bring about yet another ideological clash that will rival that of the World Wars once again.

By Alex Zhao, who is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation, fascism, the US government, the War on Drugs, US Presidents, immigration, and globalisation. He also writes on another site.

Congress has passed some ridiculous bills in the past. It has put a
$150 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska as a higher priority than
relief for New Orleans. It has funded completely unnecessary projects
in the federal bureaucracy and has created laws that cannot be
enforced. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, a bill
with two lies in its name, is just the most recent in a long line of
bills that highlight how Congress has failed when it has come to
immigration policy. The bill not only manages to solve absolutely none
of the problems caused by the current influx of illegal immigration,
but it also creates new ones and shatters American ideals as well.

While the American public has been clamoring for change in the
current immigration system, the Senate bill isn’t what they have been
waiting for. With an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants in this
country, any solution to the problem of illegal immigration must
target the root cause of why people decide to risk their lives to get
into this country. But the bill doesn’t deal with the causes of the
why people are entering the US; it simply treats the symptoms of the
underlying disease. The bill fails simply because it cannot solve for
the problems of poverty and lack of opportunity in the native
countries of those who cross the border illegally.

Worse still, the bill would simply add more problems to the current
immigration system. As demonstrated by a North Carolina state guest
worker program, hiring seasonal workers from foreign countries
requires a huge amount of paperwork. Every single worker would need to
be union approved, government regulated, and constantly monitored, all
of which would require a huge increase in the government bureaucracy.
All of the increased regulation would also mean serious problems for
agriculture in this country, as even the slightly delay for guest
workers due to government inefficiency would result in a destroyed
crop harvest for the year.

The Senate’s immigration bill doesn’t decrease risks for the workers
either, as recruitment for jobs is done through unions in the foreign
countries, opening up the possibilities for corruption from foreign
unions. All that a guest worker program proposed by the Senate would
do is to legalize human trafficking cartels from across the border.
Rather than reducing the inherent dangers for immigrants, a guest
worker program would simply systematize corrupt immigrant smuggling
cartels and give them a legal means by which to operate.

The bill’s major provisions would also be impossible to implement,
because under the conditions of the bill, being an illegal immigrant
would still be better than being a legal one. Illegal immigrants would
actually have more freedom than guest workers, because they actually
retain their freedom of travel as well as their freedom to choose an
employer. No immigrant would want to come to this country legally
under the current guest worker program.

The biggest problem caused by the Senate bill isn’t its provisions
for new immigrants, however. Its major harms come from what it
requires of current illegal immigrants already in the country. By
imposing a $2000 fine on people to remain in this country, Congress is
sending out the message that American citizenship is something that
can be bought. This bill would ultimately degrade citizenship into yet
another product that people can buy, like sneakers or ice cream.
American citizenship would be less valuable than a cheap Kia, and
worse, it would form a basis for buying away American rights. The new
immigration bill cannot be passed for the simple reason that it would
finally destroy any semblance of freedom that America has left.

By Alex Zhao, who is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation, fascism, the US government, the War on Drugs, US Presidents, and immigration.

Serious change is needed for the White House. The election next November will be critical to setting world agenda for the 21^st century and assuring America’s relevance on the world stage. If we pick correctly, America could be assured another 230 years of success as a nation and as a world power. If we pick incorrectly, then the nation could go the way of France and become an irrelevant, strike ridden and Muslim hosing nation. In this crowded field of candidates, very few hold the qualifications to truly lead this country. Some of the clearly able leaders have had proven track records, like McCain and Kucinich. Others shouldn’t be in the race at all, like Tom Tancredo or Rudy Giuliani. And while I have no effect on the outcome of the elections, based on my unqualified ability to judge candidates, the two candidates most qualified to be the major party’s nominations for the November general elections should be Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.            Nobody likes Hillary Clinton. This is partially because men think that she actually isn’t a woman, and because women who don’t support her enjoy being in the kitchen. There are very few legitimate reasons to actually hate her because of her capabilities as an elected official, and one of them has little to no relevance on the world stage. However, with the possible exception of Bill Richardson, who is completely unelectable on the national stage, no candidate in the Democratic Party stands as qualified as Hillary. Hillary is the most electable candidate who actually has a real track record, unlike Obama. In terms of qualifications, she is the only one fit for the job, with the benefit of her husband being an advisor. The biggest flaw that everyone hated about the Clinton presidency, sexual immorality, would instantly disappear, however, because the number of people who actually want to sleep with Hillary Clinton are 0.

            On the Republican side, every candidate is unqualified for the job of leading the nation save two, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Of these two, Romney is more likely to be a success based both on his background and history. Romney knows how to compromise as the Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. In terms of effectiveness in the White House, not a single other candidate would be able to match him. History has also shown us that being governor almost always leads to excellent presidencies (if you ignore Carter).

            Of these two candidates, either could win and not screw up this country. Both would be able to set dynamic policies that sustain America, but the best one for the job ends up being Romney. There are three reasons. Firstly, Hillary winning would result in yet another situation where Congress and the Presidency are controlled by the same party. Another situation like the last 7 years would be disaster for this country. With Romney in charge, however, compromise and effective government will be almost assured. An America with Romney as President is an America with a bright future.

By Alex Zhao who is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation, fascism, the US government, the War on Drugs, and US Presidents.

The goal of government is to do as the people wish it to. However, like everyone else, the government creates consequences whenever it decides to enact laws. Some of these consequences are very much intentional: laws against murder, for example, are intended to stop people from killing others. Other consequences, however, are completely unintended, and can cause havoc with people’s lives as well as various societal and economic institutions. One law in India that paid a bounty for rat pelts, intended to reduce the number of rats, has ended up encouraging rat farming. These problems are categorized under the law of unintended consequences: despite the best efforts of any organization or government, certain consequences of their actions will be unintended and will end up having adverse affects on people. This is especially true in the case of laws preventing individuals from engaging in voluntary behavior that may harm them.

The most obvious case of laws intended to protect people going wrong is that of anti-drug legislation. While intended to prevent people from using drugs, which have adverse health effects, the current “War on Drugs” and anti-drug legislation has ended up creating a bigger drug problem, with stronger cartels, more sales to minors, and a host of unintended consequences. While intended to decrease the amount of illegal drugs sold and to stop its trade, the War on Drugs has failed. By making the drugs illegal, it has limited the sale of such substances to only those involved in already illegal activities, giving gangs a new source of funding.

One unintended consequence of anti-drug legislation has been the increased sale of drugs to minors. Because drug sales are illegal to both adults and minors alike, dealers have no incentive to avoid selling to children. In fact, they have a greater incentive to sell it to minors, because minors are less likely to rat them out, since minors have very few avenues of recourse against the dealers. Because youths are unable to legally purchase weapons, or pursue other judicial means, it becomes much harder for them to retaliate against drug dealers. As such, it becomes safer for drug dealers to sell to minors rather than adults, because it is safer for them personally. If anti-drug legislation were replaced merely with laws allowing only the sale of drugs to adults, dealers have an incentive to not sell to young people. However, because anti-drug legislation considers all sales equally, dealers sell more drugs to minors.

With the increase in drug trade, people are made worse off by the law. Increased drug sales means increased revenue for criminal organizations and gangs. Like in the era of Prohibition, criminal cartels make vast amounts of money selling drugs and circumventing the law. More funding for criminals means more crimes, more murders, deaths, and violence. The problem is especially bad in areas such as the cities, and has even crept into places normally considered far removed from drug problems. Even suburban areas and rural towns now face a drug problem.

There are, of course, better alternatives. Legalizing the sale of drugs will cut off drug dealing as a source of revenue for criminals. Drug users can get treatment, since using drugs will no longer be a crime that they are punished for. People who sell drugs will not sell to minors, because it would be disadvantageous and unprofitable. Legislation that doesn’t restrict drugs entirely, but rather sets a minimum age, would increase individual freedom to use drugs. It would also reduce the current drug problem in the United States, by mitigating the effects of shady criminal dealers with unsafe drugs and ties to members of gangs. The end result is greater freedom for the individual, and a better life for all.

Alex Zhao is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation, fascism, the US government, and the War on Drugs.

You people are pathetic. The US government has just taken away your right to a trial and you don’t care? Where is your sense of moral outrage? Don’t give me the crappy excuse that none of you have heard about it. You’ve had time to catch the news somehow in between two days ago and now. None of you have realized that the right to habeas corpus is gone?

Do you not realize that any one of you, regardless of being an American citizen or not, can now be held indefinitely for absolutely no reason at all? It’s not hyperbole. It’s fact. There is no legal defence that you have left against government agents coming to your house and literally taking you away forever.

Does no one care? Does anyone really want a right to a fair trial? I don’t get why people just don’t care. Do you think that your daily lives will matter if at any moment they can end because of the whim of some person? We’re not even talking about the whim of some president here, we’re talking about any local police officer who thought that you looked at them the wrong way. We’re talking about the loss of your status as citizens, as human beings.

Don’t celebrate. Don’t bother justifying the Military Commissions Act, the newest Republican assault in the War Against America. 900 years of common law, 900 years of progress from the Magna f***ing Carta has been lost with 1 single bill.

Why are you still reading this? Why aren’t you expressing your outrage at our local Senators and Representative to the House? Here, I’ll give you their phone numbers. Tell them why they’ve just committed a grave sin against the American people.

Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen
(202) 225-5034

Senator Bob Menendez
(202) 224-4744

Senator Frank Lautenberg
(202) 224-3224

I know I will.

Alex Zhao is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation, fascism, and the US government.

Posted by Alex Zhao