“We need a medic!”: Dispatch from the RNC

I have yet to finish all my Democratic National Convention posting since I’ve been on near constant travel ever since I left Denver (I’m in Alabama right now in a hotel where some Gustav refugees are also staying). I am however, in touch with an Indian American woman (let’s call her PK) who is in Minneapolis this week. PK is at the RNC as a medic who is treating protesters (and possibly some anarchists) who are at the convention. I asked her if she’d be nice enough to send me a dispatch and she sent the following last night:rncprot.jpg

Today I spent most of the day at a street clinic, organized by local and national activists concerned about the health of those involved in protests, especially those subject to police brutality. We’re housed in a church, right across from one of the main hospitals in St. Paul (this is where I do some of my medical rotations). We’re close to the capitol building, but a mile from the Xcel Center. This center is here to address the acute needs of those in medical need, but either unable (due to lack of health insurance) or uninterested (due to lack of trust with the medical establishment or record system) to access their medical care at the mainstream health center.

Yesterday, many of the medics out on the streets were taken in with the protestors. The general belief is that medics are being targetted for arrest particularly because without the support staff there to help the “rioters”, the protestors will be less likely to attempt further action.

The Poor People’s March for Economic Human Rights took place today. It was notably smaller than yesterdays demonstration, and the arrests and retaliation was smaller, though the police presence is out of proportion to the number of marchers. In clinic, the entire afternoon and evening we kept getting texts that tear gas was used at this-and-that street and we were expecting a deluge of tear gassed individuals to show up, any minute. But we had very few visits, mainly because people are being decontaminated on the streets. At the clinic, we have a larger makeshift decontamination center (basically, the person strips, we hose them down to remove all residues of the gas, clean out their eyes with solution, and have them put on new clothes), and it seemed to attract a lot of unneccessary attention late in the evening because we had all the “fresh clothes” set up on the grass and the Poor People’s March veered towards our street. A collection of police came by and began asking what we’re doing, who is renting the space, and other unnecessaries. They were told to return with a warrant, and the remainder of the evening was high stress, as the main organizers began to prepare us for being taken in, in the case of a raid. My main worry through this whole thing was typically desi– I’m studying for the USMLE and can’t afford to go to jail right now! AND WHAT WILL MY PARENTS THINK??!

I didn’t take many pictures, except for a helicopter shot up in the sky, and my arm sharpie’d up with the numbers of lawyers’ agency we were supposed to call in the case we got arrested– our one call! I was a bit worried about taking photos of things around town— less attention, the better.

Anyways, when I left the clinic, there were tons of police all over the streets. More than the number of “civilian” people. It was a nerve-wracking walk, particularly because we had been warned that others leaving the clinic with medic badges had been taken in for no reason earlier today. I didn’t have any trouble, except for some police stare-downs.

I had heard there was some sort of impromptu march led by Rage Against the Machine, and that was where a lot of the direct drama was happening, especially use of tear gas. Did not get to the Xcel Center area today.

There are definitely a lot of parties happening all over town. I had to go pick up some milk and was a little surprised at the number of places decked out with lights and lanes closed on main throughways. This definitely is not the sleepy-town Minneapolis I am used to, but at the same time, I feel like outside of the three mile bubble around St. Paul, you can live business-as-usual if you’d like. I don’t feel excitement tingling the Cities. But maybe that’s because I’m not a “good-ol-boy” and am not around the right crowd to pick up that vibe.

83 thoughts on ““We need a medic!”: Dispatch from the RNC

  1. thanks for all the coverage. Double thanks for posting the medic’s account.

    I have to wonder though…what have the protesting population achieved other than highlighting for the nth time, how over-the-top law enforcement’s response was/is/will be and giving michelle malkin the photographic fuel for her indignation-at-exercise-of-1st-amendment-rights machine?

  2. 1 · Nayagan said

    I have to wonder though…what have the protesting population achieved other than highlighting for the nth time, how over-the-top law enforcement’s response was/is/will be and giving michelle malkin the photographic fuel for her indignation-at-exercise-of-1st-amendment-rights machine?

    Word. As much as I wish I were there, I don’t much see the point this time around. Denver this year? Maybe.

    In the end, though, the final justification that you can’t argue against is the public shaming aspect of it and the individual cathartic effect of saying “Shame on you. You don’t represent me. Not in my name.”

    The “meaning” of carnival is the present experience of the participants. As passive bystanders, we will never understand.

    [/grasping at straws]

  3. 3 · Rahul S said

    Let the anarchists rot.

    Are SM moderators going to let this stand? Insert “Hindu/Muslim/Sikh/Asai” with “anarchist” and how long before you guys would ban this fool?

  4. Mottos:

    • Buy stocks in companies with largest number of naysayers but still comes out strong
    • Follow a religion which prevails despite being attacked from all sides for millennia
    • Vote for a party that bears the maximum brunt of protesters and critics

    M. Nam

  5. KB asks: >>So we can have more of the last 8 years?

    The question to ask yourself is: Over the last eight years, what were the beltway policies that impacted me in a personal manner? If they impacted the other 330 million Americans or Iraqis or Martians, it does not count. You’re alone in the voting booth – you have to vote based on your personal interests.

    The next question to ask is: Out of the policies that impacted you personally, which ones were negative and which positive, and who contributed to each.

    Now you have logically determined the candidate you want to vote for (or not vote for).

    M. Nam

  6. My main worry through this whole thing was typically desi— I’m studying for the USMLE and can’t afford to go to jail right now! AND WHAT WILL MY PARENTS THINK??!

    This reminds me of the first time I found myself in an arrestable position where my parents might find out. (All the demonstrations I’d previously been to had either been organized by my parents or had been in towns far away from them.) It was 2004 and we were publicly shaming Halliburton at their annual shareholders’ meeting. I told my mom before I left that she might be getting a call from jail, but I was too scared to tell my dad.

    When I was still free after the demo (if not freer for the exhilaration of shouting down war profiteers), I called to reassure them of my safety. My dad answered–turned out my mom had ratted me out–and the jerk teased me for being a ‘fraidy cat.

    “What, you’re not in jail?” he asked. “Did you get scared.”

    My parents rule. Years later, when they had to bail me out for something ignoble he said, “Today I feel so ashamed. I would have felt so proud picking you up for going to jail after that demonstration, but today you’ve blackened my face.”

    Incidentally, that “WMD–Whitey Makin’ Dolla$” remains one of my all-time favorite signs I made. Others include “Up with justice, down with pants!” and the one I made for the Swiss consulate when they were involved in an Indymedia server seizer where I’d painted a bunch of holes on the cardboard and wrote “Swiss is no gouda.” I’m cheesy like that.

  7. 7 · MoorNam said

    The question to ask yourself is: Over the last eight years, what were the beltway policies that impacted me in a personal manner? If they impacted the other 330 million Americans or Iraqis or Martians, it does not count. You’re alone in the voting booth – you have to vote based on your personal interests.

    Some of us identify our “Self” as a much larger organism than the one within the bounds of our individual skin, so “self-interest” has a different meaning for us.

    Isn’t there something in the Vedas or Upanishads about “self” vs. “SELF?” I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of that.

  8. 9 · MoorNam said

    Buy stocks in companies with maximum number of naysayers but still comes out strong…

    If money is the measure of all things, you’re a god, MoorNam. But it’s not.

  9. 7. MoorNam said

    The question to ask yourself is: Over the last eight years, what were the beltway policies that impacted me in a personal manner? If they impacted the other 330 million Americans or Iraqis or Martians, it does not count. You’re alone in the voting booth – you have to vote based on your personal interests.

    The next question to ask is: Out of the policies that impacted you personally, which ones were negative and which positive, and who contributed to each.

    Now you have logically determined the candidate you want to vote for (or not vote for).

    The problem with your theory is that you forget we live in a society! And that social harmony is required for an individuals well being. The policies pursued in the last 8 years have had a net affect of decreasing that social harmony and therefore can and probably will affect my individual well being.

    And please don’t make light of the impact on Americans and Iraqis who have suffered directly due to the policies in question by including fictional beings! That doesn’t help the discussion.

  10. Harbeer/KB,

    By all means, you have every right to determine what your self-interest is, and you may include social harmony in the world, environmental concerns, welfare for poor and anything else that you may think is important to you.

    Unfortunately, I don’t believe that folks like you grant folks like me the same leeway in deciding what our self-interest is. You sound elitist and mocking while running down our priorities. Just listen to Jyotsana’s comments on the other thread demeaning the choices that Americans in flyover country make as opposed to “learned” people on the coasts. Pardon my disbelief that your candidate will “heal” and “build bridges”.

    Isn’t there something in the Vedas or Upanishads about “self” vs. “SELF?”

    Uh Oh. Spoorlam – it’s not me who said it! It was Harbeer! Harbeer!

    M. Nam

  11. Uh Oh. Spoorlam – it’s not me who said it! It was Harbeer! Harbeer!

    Moornam only believes in the portion of the scriptures that declares Narendra Modi the god who can beat up all other gods.

  12. 14 · MoorNam said

    Unfortunately, I don’t believe that folks like you grant folks like me the same leeway in deciding what our self-interest is.

    This reminds me: check out Alan Blinder on data that indicate that Democrat presidents are better stewards of the economy.

    United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.[..D]ata for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats. That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut…. [..i]f history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like?

    Disclaimer: Blinder is one of those very learned people on the coasts.

  13. GNP is a net average for the whole country. The fact this it goes up does not necessarily mean that those who are above average do well. It definitely means that those who are below average made out like bandits.

    Are you below average, average, or above average?

    M. Nam

  14. 17 · MoorNam said

    It definitely means that those who are below average made out like bandits.

    Lucky bastards! Just like that Obama guy who’s now so popular just because he’s black!

  15. 16 · portmanteau said

    This reminds me: check out Alan Blinder on data that indicate that Democrat presidents are better stewards of the economy.

    problem is the biz cycle doesn’t operate in a 4 yr cycle. thus reagan inherited double digit inflation from carter, which lasted into his first 2yrs. Bush II inherited the Internet bubble and accounting scandal from clinton. when clinton came into office the economic recovery was well under way, as virtually all economists now concede.

    plus, ironically, we get into more big wars with dems (wwII, korea, vietnam) and wars can jumpstart an economy in the beginning.

  16. 5 · MoorNam said

    Mottos: – Buy stocks in companies with largest number of naysayers but still comes out strong – Follow a religion which prevails despite being attacked from all sides for millennia – Vote for a party that bears the maximum brunt of protesters and critics M. Nam

    I have just one: do the opposite of what Moornam says.

    🙂

  17. plus, ironically, we get into more big wars with dems (wwII, korea, vietnam)

    I think you should also go back further so you can boost your count even further. Woodrow Wilson who belligerently led the US into World War I was also a democrat.

  18. thus reagan inherited double digit inflation from carter, which lasted into his first 2yrs

    the deficit, though, reagan sank into the hole on his own. as did dubya. let’s give credit to the great republican leaders where it’s due.

  19. 21 · moronam said

    I think you should also go back further so you can boost your count even further. Woodrow Wilson who belligerently led the US into World War I was also a democrat.

    well, blinders stats begin with 1948

  20. 17 · MoorNam said

    made out like bandits.

    The article elaborates:

    The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent.

    People over the 95th percentile are the super-rich. People below the 95th percentile constitute both the above average, average, and below average (by definition). So the figures are applicable to 95% of American families, and about 45% of families making over the median income i.e. income obtained by the families at the 50th percentile. So in fact, those who are above average also do fine under Democrat presidents. In fact, higher economic growth attributable to a Democrat president will likely yield more wealth than a Republican tax cut (you could call it a ‘trickle up’ effect):

    That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut….
    Are you below average, average, or above average?

    Moornam, my take-home is usually a dime. But it’s enough for me.

  21. 1 · Nayagan said

    thanks for all the coverage. Double thanks for posting the medic’s account. I have to wonder though…what have the protesting population achieved other than highlighting for the nth time, how over-the-top law enforcement’s response was/is/will be and giving michelle malkin the photographic fuel for her indignation-at-exercise-of-1st-amendment-rights machine?

    To play devil’s advocate, following a couple of decades of “the police are your friends and heroes” and cultural ideas like the Batman movie still, it could help on occasions when people might pay attention to reveal what naked power looks like. And in addition, as a Democratic partisan, I think attaching Republicans to the idea of chaos is not a terrible thing – but I have no idea if that’s what the protesters were going for, since I don’t know any.

  22. 7 · MoorNam said

    KB asks: >>So we can have more of the last 8 years? The question to ask yourself is: Over the last eight years, what were the beltway policies that impacted me in a personal manner? If they impacted the other 330 million Americans or Iraqis or Martians, it does not count. You’re alone in the voting booth – you have to vote based on your personal interests. The next question to ask is: Out of the policies that impacted you personally, which ones were negative and which positive, and who contributed to each. Now you have logically determined the candidate you want to vote for (or not vote for). M. Nam

    This is an excellent philosophy (sincerely). I too believe in class conflict (if only at the voting booth). I also agree that this whole election should be downplayed somewhat in its significance compared to a lot of other important things like local races and day-to-day actions people can take.

    The only troublesome part of all this is what you would do if people actually took their class interests out of the election booth and on to the street. Will you support them in thinking “well, Moornam is my landlord, and he made me pay exorbitant rent that I can’t afford this year, and so I’m going to expropriate his property.”

    Otherwise, you may want to support the hegemony like your wiser capitalist friends 😉

  23. 22 · moronam said

    the deficit, though, reagan sank into the hole on his own. as did dubya. let’s give credit to the great republican leaders where it’s due

    yes, but one must go by % of gdp, in which case reagans spending was justified (as it bought us back to where we were with ike, approximately)especially when his cold war build up paid off handsomely by freeing millions from tryanny. he was right to go into debt during bad econoic times. clinton psid it off during great economic times, the rise of the new economy, tech and globalization, forces begun well before him. He wisely benefited from this and from reagan’s policies.

    plus in america, the dems and repubs are not too different ecomically. its like two ends of the tory party battling it out. nixon was rather left of clinton, in these regards. thats what makes america great.

    obama is in that mold.

  24. 19 · Manju said

    Bush II inherited the Internet bubble and accounting scandal from clinton.

    he also inherited the largest surplus ever from clinton, but i don’t see you bring that up in your litany of excuses, Manju. might you also be privy to inside information that blames carter for the iranian revolution that raised oil prices and thus, inflation?

  25. 16 · portmanteau said

    14 · MoorNam said
    Unfortunately, I don’t believe that folks like you grant folks like me the same leeway in deciding what our self-interest is.
    This reminds me: check out Alan Blinder on data that indicate that Democrat presidents are better stewards of the economy.
    United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.[..D]ata for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
    That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut…. [..i]f history is a guide, an Obama victory in November would lead to faster economic growth with less inequality, while a McCain victory would lead to slower economic growth with more inequality. Which part of the Obama menu don’t you like? Disclaimer: Blinder is one of those very learned people on the coasts.

    The trouble with this is that partisanship and support for the disempowered are not equivalent. Democrats may be better stewards of the interests of capital as a whole (i.e. the economy) but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the system as a whole is going to deliver much for the American poor or the global working or poor classes ever. And a system predicated on people voting their self-interest that denies 5.7 billion people in the world who are affected the opportunity to vote is no democracy.

  26. his cold war build up paid off handsomely by freeing millions from tryanny.

    Surely we can do better than this ideological crap. There are myriad causes to the collapse of the Soviet Union, like most major geopolitical events, and attributing it to increased defense spending by itself is absurd. Above and beyond which the management of the actual collapse by the United States is indicative of how the primacy of the U.S., the IMF, the World Bank, and neoliberalism (i.e. Reaganism) put BILLIONS under tyranny.

    he was right to go into debt during bad econoic times.

    And now you’re a Keynesian. And yet you love Reagan enough to write stuff like the above even though everything his party did and still does stand for is formally opposed to Keynesianism while backhandedly supporting it through militarism. Make up your mind what you like-Keynesianism or Reaganism, truthtelling or massive hypocrisy, and then let me know when you’re going to blame poor people for the easy credit crisis so I can have a response prepared.

    plus in america, the dems and repubs are not too different ecomically. its like two ends of the tory party battling it out. nixon was rather left of clinton, in these regards. thats what makes america great.

    HOORAY FOR HEGEMONY! /vomits

  27. 30 · Manju said

    plus in america, the dems and repubs are not too different ecomically.

    in that case, i take it that you usually vote on the ‘social issues’, Manju? I guess abstaining is definitely easier for some 🙂

    but, back to the issue: blinder is explicitly refuting this. yes, both parties are capitalist in outlook, but there is a pretty big difference in terms of tax/(re)distributive policies, and the role of the government in market regulation.

  28. but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the system as a whole is going to deliver much for the American poor or the global working or poor classes ever

    not accoring to blinder. he’s supports free trade but thinks it means 1.5 billion people form formerly impoverished lands will be entering the world economy and that bears ill for american workers in the short term. so he’s been picked up by some of the more protectionist people in the dem party

    plus, according to the world bank, the # of people living with less than $1/day has gone from like 60% to 10% in areas most affected by free trade and globalization, a whopping % change not unlike the rise out of povery stats in india alone.

  29. 32 · Dr AmNonymous said

    Democrats may be better stewards of the interests of capital as a whole (i.e. the economy)

    I was just reminding Moornam that he should vote with his interests, rather than being carried away by his sentimental relatives in Kansas. No one seriously thinks that the current political system is set up to be justice maximizing (‘just’ access to political power and basic resources — whatever you take that to mean — the libertarian/rawlsian/utilitarian/or hell, the communist conceptions are far from being realized anywhere). But I also find it puzzling that you (an avowed idealist) take it that it’s ok for the US to be top dog and worldwide arbiter. Yes, it’s true that the president of the US has disproportionate power over world affairs, but it is unfortunate. The antidote is not to have the rest of the world vote for the American president, but to treat the US as a nation which is just as accountable to the world as any other. If we are talking about ideal theory, that is.

  30. 33 · Dr AmNonymous said

    Above and beyond which the management of the actual collapse by the United States is indicative of how the primacy of the U.S., the IMF, the World Bank, and neoliberalism (i.e. Reaganism) put BILLIONS under tyranny.

    nice way to erase the suffering of those who lived under one of the most evil ideologies of our time. if they lived at all.

    There are myriad causes to the collapse of the Soviet Union, like most major geopolitical events, and attributing it to increased defense spending by itself is absurd

    i agree. at the end of the day the system was not sustainable,as fukiyama explains in detail. and thing were much worse off than most mainstream economists even knew at he time (lester thurow comes to mind). reagans build up, especially star wars and afghnistan just bought upon the inevitable.

  31. 34 · portmanteau said

    in that case, i take it that you usually vote on the ‘social issues’, Manju? I guess abstaining is definitely easier for some 🙂

    well, i actually don’t really vote on my own self interest. i’m big one the supreme court–which handles the eternal issues–which i’m decidedly republican. also, free trade and globalization are the big human rights issues of our time.

    now the 2 parties are similar but the dem rhetoric is scary, racist even, as anyone watching mark warner rail against bangalore india during the DNC knows. Its no coincidence both hill and obama went ant-nafta while trying to get hard working white americans in ohio and PA.

    but i take comfort in the fact that they don’t really mean it, they are just playing the xenophobia protectionist card. so i could hold my nose and pull the lever.

  32. 1 · Nayagan said

    I have to wonder though…what have the protesting population achieved other than highlighting for the nth time, how over-the-top law enforcement’s response was/is/will be and giving michelle malkin the photographic fuel for her indignation-at-exercise-of-1st-amendment-rights machine?

    Here is a link to a blog post by the brother of an arrestee sent to me by my better half which attempts to provide one perspective on “why protest”:

    It is all too easy to fall into “protesting for the right to protest”. Lest I fall into this, I want to make it clear: protest itself is not the goal. 600,000 Iraqis dead. And to what ends? No ends at all? Unlikely! There is a purpose. It is a purpose architected by people who would throw away hundreds of thousands of lives. People may argue about whether war is valid. I don’t believe it is, nor do Monica or Eryn, but whatever your feelings: this is not an abstract war. This is a specific war. And this specific war is a war made by liars, by people who treat human life lightly, by people whose primary ambition seems focused on power itself.
    600,000 dead, and what’s so different in America? Do you feel this war? If you didn’t turn on the TV or listen to the news, what would remind you that we are at war? What would remind you of all that’s happened? We are a nation at war, and yet there is nothing to show us this, it has no presence. Our nation is so large, our institutions so abstracted, our military so partitioned from most of society… we are numb to war. Moving around while numbed is dangerous. You can’t feel what you are doing. A cut doesn’t hurt, a bruise is just a faint sensation. We are a numbed nation and this is dangerous.
    If I was to give one reason for civil disobedience, it would be this: to acknowledge this war is real. This isn’t just a difference of opinion, this isn’t just a debate. This is about how we exercise our collective power, the power that is exercised in the form of the state. This is our war, whether we feel it or not.
  33. 37 · Manju said

    not accoring to blinder. he’s supports free trade but thinks it means 1.5 billion people form formerly impoverished lands will be entering the world economy and that bears ill for american workers in the short term. so he’s been picked up by some of the more protectionist people in the dem party

    not at all. blinder is not for protectionism, and has the standard academic’s view on free trade (even though Blinder thinks that he has this unique insight, it is widely shared in the community). he feels that the transition for american workers, while inevitable, is likely to be painful.

    It’s going to be painful because our country offers such a poor social safety net to cushion the blow for displaced workers. Our unemployment insurance program is stingy by first-world standards. American workers who lose their jobs often lose their health insurance and pension rights as well. And even though many displaced workers will have to change occupations — a difficult task for anyone — only a fortunate few will be offered opportunities for retraining. All this needs to change. What else is to be done? Trade protection won’t work. You can’t block electrons from crossing national borders. Because U.S. labor cannot compete on price, we must reemphasize the things that have kept us on top of the economic food chain for so long: technology, innovation, entrepreneurship, adaptability and the like. That means more science and engineering, more spending on R&D, keeping our capital markets big and vibrant, and not letting ourselves get locked into “sunset” industries.

    the most immediate benfits of free trade (and i am all for it) are most IMMEDIATE to the educated in third world (“readers of Vogue India”) and those who control capital in the first world (“Dick Cheney and shareholders of Halliburton and Blackstone”). what people like blinder are saying is to cushion the hard landing for those badly affected through wealth and resource transfers. again, this is very standard for economists in the academia. they treat laid-off american workers as people who suffer the negative externalities of free trade. those who create externalities should pay for them, right, Manju?

  34. 38 · portmanteau said

    32 · Dr AmNonymous said
    Democrats may be better stewards of the interests of capital as a whole (i.e. the economy)
    I was just reminding Moornam that he should vote with his interests, rather than being carried away by his sentimental relatives in Kansas. No one seriously thinks that the current political system is set up to be justice maximizing (‘just’ access to political power and basic resources — whatever you take that to mean — the libertarian/rawlsian/utilitarian/or hell, the communist conceptions are far from being realized anywhere). But I also find it puzzling that you (an avowed idealist) take it that it’s ok for the US to be top dog and worldwide arbiter. Yes, it’s true that the president of the US has disproportionate power over world affairs, but it is unfortunate. The antidote is not to have the rest of the world vote for the American president, but to treat the US as a nation which is just as accountable to the world as any other. If we are talking about ideal theory, that is.

    IMO the best we can do is to “remind” Moornam not to vote 🙂

    I don’t think it’s okay for the U.S. to be an imperial power or from a group of countries to be vastly wealthier than other countries (which are two different ways of saying the same thing)- simply pointing out that is the the world as it is today — the majority of people affected by this election can’t vote and therefore Moornam’s theory of self-interest is somewhat lacking unless you believe in oligarchy / international warfare / pervasive global inequality. The soluton to this is incremental, but I think a global government is a more reliable one for equitable redistribution of political/economic costs. The problem with the approach you’re advocating is that a) the only check on it is warfare and a few select institutions that approach global governance like the WTO but that are heavily weighted right now in a corporate interest and b) it ignores that there’s never been a time int he nation-state system where there weren’t power differences among nations; if it’s not the U.S., it could be China; or it could be Russia; or it could be India; or it could be Brazil; or it could be Japan; or it could be the E.U. – it doesn’t change that the global power inequalities are structurally there.

    Anyway, the rest of the world is not going to get the vote in the U.S. elections any time soon, but what you suggest is a good short term solution. Another minimal step would be non-citizen voting. But the structural problem remains and I would like to see a remedy in my grandchildren’s lifespan.

  35. 42 · portmanteau said

    not at all. blinder is not for protectionism, and has the standard academic’s view on free trade (even though Blinder thinks that he has this unique insight, it is widely shared in the community). he feels that the transition for american workers, while inevitable, is likely to be painful.

    yeah, thats exactly what i said port. or at least meant. blinders pro-free trade but thinks its inevitably painful for americans in the short run, as the income inequality gap world wide inevitably decrease. i think world bank stats back him up on this.

    the point is even this realist, who is not ideologically constrained vis a vis criticizing globalization, believes its good for the world’s poor, assumming they don’t live in N. Korea or Cuba or under other evil regimes.

  36. 37 · Manju said

    but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the system as a whole is going to deliver much for the American poor or the global working or poor classes ever
    not accoring to blinder. he’s supports free trade but thinks it means 1.5 billion people form formerly impoverished lands will be entering the world economy and that bears ill for american workers in the short term. so he’s been picked up by some of the more protectionist people in the dem party plus, according to the world bank, the # of people living with less than $1/day has gone from like 60% to 10% in areas most affected by free trade and globalization, a whopping % change not unlike the rise out of povery stats in india alone.

    I don’t care what Blinder thinks. Free trade as currently constructed (free movement of capital and goods, unfree movement of labour, political tradeoffs like farm subsidies and IP laws that benefit rich countries most) is a damaging damaging idea, particularly when you take into account the power behind it (which will immediately stop supporting it if it comes close to the idealized version of a borderless world). It also has a genealogy – every country that industrializes supports protectionism when it is industrializing to protect its industries and free trade when it needs to export capital. Those are the realities, imo, of “free trade.”

    I also don’t care what the good-governance good cop (World Bank) says about poverty – Arjun Sengupta of the Sengupta Commission has pointed out that 77% of the Indian population is economically vulnerable…and that’s a statistic that (I think) was produced the downturn.

  37. What else is to be done? Trade protection won’t work

    yes he said this. i know. but you know how politics work: ,people pick what they like and throw out the rest. like , “even alan blinder says US workers will suffer…therefore we need to stop outsourcing.” did you hear obama and clinton tell ohio factory workers they’re going to put them on welfare, retrain them, or did you hear them say they’ll protect AMERICAN JOBS FROM GOING OVERRSEAS (to stinky, skinny indians).

  38. 44 · Manju said

    42 · portmanteau said
    not at all. blinder is not for protectionism, and has the standard academic’s view on free trade (even though Blinder thinks that he has this unique insight, it is widely shared in the community). he feels that the transition for american workers, while inevitable, is likely to be painful.
    yeah, thats exactly what i said port. or at least meant. blinders pro-free trade but thinks its inevitably painful for americans in the short run, as the income inequality gap world wide inevitably decrease. i think world bank stats back him up on this. the point is even this realist, who is not ideologically constrained vis a vis criticizing globalization, believes its good for the world’s poor, assumming they don’t live in N. Korea or Cuba or under other evil regimes.

    Wait you mean an American economist supports free trade? no f@#king way! 😉

    Suggest you look at this.

  39. I don’t think it’s okay for …a group of countries to be vastly wealthier than other countries

    Do you think it’s ok for a group of companies(Apple, Microsoft, Google) to be vastly wealthier than other companies? Do you think it’s ok for a group of basketball players/ movie stars to be vastly wealthier than other basketball players/movie stars?

    M. Nam

    PS: Do you think it’s ok for a group of women to be vastly prettier than other women?

  40. Do you think it’s ok for a group of companies(Apple, Microsoft, Google) to be vastly wealthier than other companies? Do you think it’s ok for a group of basketball players/ movie stars to be vastly wealthier than other basketball players/movie stars? M. Nam PS: Do you think it’s ok for a group of women to be vastly prettier than other women?

    Thanks for minimizing the political and economic implications of global inequality. Go read about the hundreds of thousands of people in Bihar now for penance. Or give some money to doctors without borders. Or are they leftist / anarchist / nazi / pseudo-secular / democrat / fascists too?

  41. Harbeer – “If money is the measure of all things, you’re a god, MoorNam. But it’s not.”

    Isn’t money or the opportunity to make more money why most of our parents immigrated to the states from India and other places in South Asia?