overseas

Mysteries of the Liberal Mind: Inmate Voting Good, Soldiers Voting Bad

by Hans Bader on October 25, 2010

in International, Legal, Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

Liberal judges insist that it’s racist to keep prison inmates from voting, because inmates are disproportionately members of minority groups.  See the dissents of liberal judges Calebresi, Sotomayor, and Katzmann in this appeals court ruling upholding New York’s law prohibiting prison inmates from voting (Hayden v. Pataki).

But some liberals are not very enthusiastic about soldiers voting.  As noted earlier, Illinois officials missed the deadline to mail ballots to U.S. troops overseas, but they hand-delivered ballots to inmates in liberal Cook County, Illinois, and the Obama administration is failing to enforce federal laws that require states to mail ballots to overseas troops in a timely fashion.

Sadly, to a few liberal commenters, the soldiers who protect America are just “right-wing neanderthals” who lack the “intellectual” capacity to “vote intelligently” and fail to appreciate the need for “social change.”

The irony is that soldiers are a bit more likely to be black than the general population (see this graph for the percentages of army recruits by state), so failing to protect the votes of soldiers also has a “racially disparate impact.”  If liberals really care about such “discrimination” — as they claim in arguing that prison inmates should be allowed to vote — why aren’t they defending the voting rights of soldiers, rather than turning a blind eye to violations of their voting rights?

Presumably, the answer is that soldiers aren’t liberal enough for them — the way inmates are perceived as being.

EWaste Recycling Bans: Wasting Opportunity

by Angela Logomasini on May 20, 2009 · 1 comment

in Environment

Computer giant Dell Inc. has announced that it will stop sending computers for recycling to developing nations. Green groups have been fighting to stop such trade because they say lax labor standards overseas pose unreasonable public health risks for the workers.

This is ironic since the greens are always pushing for recycling at any cost in the United States! And Dell has worked hard to be a good citizen, leading the charge for computer recycling by taking old computers from consumers and finding ways to recycle them. CEI documented the value of such efforts in our paper on ewaste a while back (see summary here). While Dell may be trying to meet an even higher standard with this voluntary ban on trading with developing nations, it’s more likely counter-productive.

What people need in the developing world are jobs with paychecks—and the economic progress that brings. They won’t move forward without trade and industry.

People tend to move toward the best available opportunities. When we stop trading, opportunities, like recycling computer components inside a factory, are simply removed from the list of options. And removing it does not mean they move up the ladder to the next-best opportunity. Instead, the people who would have worked in that factory move downward.

In any case, it’s not clear that all these materials are recycled overseas in terrible and dangerous conditions. But as New York Times reporter Nicholas D. Kristof explains very well, even jobs under what we call “sweatshop conditions” are a luxury compared to the “jobs” people must take when those opportunities don’t exist. Where jobs are lacking, many people survive by digging for items in open dumps.   Kristof notes: “Talk to these families in the dump, and a job in a sweatshop is a cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty.” In many places, the other option for a young woman is a life of prostitution.

The other question is whether shipping these wastes to other nations is creating an environmental waste disposal nightmare. Environmentalists say that nations leave this waste to pile up, pollute rivers and eventually poison people. No doubt, there are tragic cases around the world associated with terrible waste management, but it’s not just computers. We too had open dumps at less prosperous times in history.  As we grew richer, we cleaned them up and found better, safer ways to manage our trash. Developing nations have problems managing all sorts of waste, including their own. If computers are in the dumps, poor people will inevitability will dig out the valuable parts to sell so they can feed their families.  Surely, there are risks–as there are with harvesting other wastes in open dumps.  Still greens exaggerate the risks associated with electronics and focus only on the worst cases .  There are some success stories as detailed on ComputerAid.org.  Check out the CNN video there too.  Surely there are other examples of companies looking for and developing solutions.  But greens ignore all benefits as well as the situations where recycling jobs help people step up from a more dismal life.

Clearly we should investigate the extent of waste management problems and support policies to help address them. But the best policies will be the ones that worked for us: growth enhancing policies. Although it may seem counter-intuitive in this case, trade the best solution because it’s a critical vehicle for wealth creation.

To sum it up, developing nations don’t have the same environmental standards as we do for the same reasons they don’t have the same labor standards—they are too poor. Keeping them poor will only keep them poor! That’s hardly a policy for progress!

Photo: Produced by Venetia Joubert Sarah Oosterveld.