This was an article in "Reuters" and can be found here.
A man from New York was recently arrested and accused of attempting to fly to Yemen to join the Al-Qaeda network in the Arabian Peninsula. The man has plead not-guilty to all charges.
I won't summarize the article anymore than that, because that is all that is really important, and if you want to know more you can click on the link above.
I have to admit my first thought was that this vaguely reeked of McCarthyism. As a nation we have become paranoid and are becoming more and more intense in our desire to prevent another 9/11. I agree with this sentiment, but disagree with all of the stigmas now associated with those from the middle-east and of the Muslim faith. That is beside the point, though, because this man wasn't from the middle-east, so it's not an issue of racism. Investigators found lots of pro Al-Qaeda material on his computer and retrieved a semi-automatic weapon that he had sent to a friend prior to his planned trip to Yemen. That seems pretty suspect to me.
The real ideological question to pose: should a person be allowed to associate with any group or party even if that group or party is Al-Qaeda? The Nazis? Communists? Some are easier to answer than others, because they pose real life tangible threats to our safety as a nation. It sure would be nice if we could operate idealistically without all of these threats to consider. The evidence compiled suggests that this man was going to participate in premeditated, malicious acts, so it is not just association we are talking about, but he hadn't committed any crimes. Yet. So was his arrest justified? I understand the apathy associated with parts of this question, as it isn't the most prevalent issue in our society, and I think for the most part the majority of this question could probably be answered in most of our minds and that the discrepancies are tangential. I appreciate any comments or questions below.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Marijuana is Just as Bad Legal as it is Illegal
This was an opinion piece from "Reuters" that can be found here.
It argued that since the recreational use of marijuana is occurring whether legal or not, that rather than pay to enforce the ban on it and propagate the criminalization of the business that we should tax it and use the funds for both school construction and the regulation of its use.
First of all, I thought there were several fallacious and egregious points made in the article, but even if the article had been sound, I strongly disagree with the legalization of marijuana.
I am opposed to marijuana morally, but that is not the main reason I disagree with its legalization.
Firstly, lets take a trip back to elementary school. Does the term "gateway drug" ring a bell to anyone? No, marijuana doesn't have any direct negative medical ramifications other than those shared by traditional tobacco smoking; however, it does lead to drugs that do. It's not marijuana that is the problem - the problem is all the other drugs. If marijuana is legalized that inevitably leads to an increased availability and an increased consumption. With the increased consumption of marijuana comes an increased market for other drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, and other extremely self-destructive drugs because of marijuana's role in piquing curiosity and wetting an endorphin-based appetite. So, if you increase the market for recreational marijuana, you increase the market for other drugs. Simple. No, not all users of marijuana will partake of these other illicit substances, but if you simply look at the population of hard drug users, out of all the increase in the marijuana usage population you will have a drastic increase in controlled substance abuse. The two categories are not mutually exclusive in any sense of the term.
Secondly, the idea that you will be able to regulate a drug that you have legalized that is already extremely difficult to regulate when illegal is fallacious. And to base that regulation off of taxes derived from the sales of that drug? How do you propose to legalize the presence of marijuana in households that contain the same children that you are spending marijuana-based prevention funds on and expect those funds to work? To elaborate, let me pose an example. If you never want to drink alcohol, where is a bad place to spend your time? A bar. So, if you are trying to prevent marijuana use in children, where is a bad place to legalize marijuana? The home.
Thirdly, the legalization of marijuana will eventually lead to the legalization of other, harder drugs. To begin this point I must address a common view. A lot of people think that much of the appeal of marijuana comes from the fact that it is illegal and that once legal the consumption of marijuana will wane. This may be true, but the appetite to partake in an illegal substance won't wane with it. If it is true that the appeal of marijuana lies in its unobtainable, illegal image, then the same is true for other things that are unobtainable and illegal, so as soon as marijuana becomes legal, its image becomes displaced. Soon, other drugs assume the role and the same debate we are having now ensues. Sure the debate will take longer because of the more immediate and direct detriments of harder drugs, but eventually, since every one is doing the drug anyway and it is becoming more and more expensive to enforce the regulation and since it makes so much more "pragmatic" sense to legalize it, the drug will become legal. And the next. And the next. I promise you that, although it sounds ridiculous now, after 50 years (or less) of these debates, the debate will be every bit as legitimate as the debate for the legalization of marijuana is now. Conclusion: it won't stop with the legalization of marijuana. Even if people are using marijuana right now in face of the illegalizations, let their sense of defiance be satisfied by the use of a drug that, like I said earlier, won't have any direct negative medical ramifications. If they go into deeper drugs, well, we told them so, and there will be much less of them than if marijuana was legalized.
Fourthly, the ramifications of a society with a high market for hard drugs (and there will be one; see my first argument) will be drastic. There will be very significant repercussions if the market for drugs is raised. It will extend into economics, education, ethics, the moral structuring of our nation, and the stratification of classes. If you think things like the glass ceiling, minimum wage, and education exclusion are stratifying America, wait until drugs are legalized. It will be a heavy hitter in the low classes especially. Those classes are where the markets for heavy drugs are already most prevalent, and as soon as it is even more available, cheap, and commonplace, class mobility will drop into the metaphorical hole. You think the incentive for an inner city child with working class parents or a single mom to go to college is already rare or even nonexistent? Wait until they are raised in a home with drugs. And if you think legalizing it will make it more cheaper, well you'd be right on. And so will the consumption. So will the overdoses. So will the domestic prevalence increase. So will the waste increase. Employment and income (and, as a result, national revenues) will drop. High school dropout rates will increase. Education will become more exclusive if it doesn't become outright oligarchical (and privatized. Don't forget privatized.) I don't mean to be delving into ad hominem arguments, but I don't think they are actually all that ad hominem.
I'm sure there are arguments that I am forgetting. If I remember them I will post them in the comments. Ultimately, the legalization of marijuana isn't about personal rights. It's about that, although it is expensive to enforce the current regulatory laws and the illegalization of marijuana, it is much more expensive in the long run and much much less sensible and pragmatic on so many fronts to legalize marijuana. I appreciate any comments or questions below.
It argued that since the recreational use of marijuana is occurring whether legal or not, that rather than pay to enforce the ban on it and propagate the criminalization of the business that we should tax it and use the funds for both school construction and the regulation of its use.
First of all, I thought there were several fallacious and egregious points made in the article, but even if the article had been sound, I strongly disagree with the legalization of marijuana.
I am opposed to marijuana morally, but that is not the main reason I disagree with its legalization.
Firstly, lets take a trip back to elementary school. Does the term "gateway drug" ring a bell to anyone? No, marijuana doesn't have any direct negative medical ramifications other than those shared by traditional tobacco smoking; however, it does lead to drugs that do. It's not marijuana that is the problem - the problem is all the other drugs. If marijuana is legalized that inevitably leads to an increased availability and an increased consumption. With the increased consumption of marijuana comes an increased market for other drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroine, and other extremely self-destructive drugs because of marijuana's role in piquing curiosity and wetting an endorphin-based appetite. So, if you increase the market for recreational marijuana, you increase the market for other drugs. Simple. No, not all users of marijuana will partake of these other illicit substances, but if you simply look at the population of hard drug users, out of all the increase in the marijuana usage population you will have a drastic increase in controlled substance abuse. The two categories are not mutually exclusive in any sense of the term.
Secondly, the idea that you will be able to regulate a drug that you have legalized that is already extremely difficult to regulate when illegal is fallacious. And to base that regulation off of taxes derived from the sales of that drug? How do you propose to legalize the presence of marijuana in households that contain the same children that you are spending marijuana-based prevention funds on and expect those funds to work? To elaborate, let me pose an example. If you never want to drink alcohol, where is a bad place to spend your time? A bar. So, if you are trying to prevent marijuana use in children, where is a bad place to legalize marijuana? The home.
Thirdly, the legalization of marijuana will eventually lead to the legalization of other, harder drugs. To begin this point I must address a common view. A lot of people think that much of the appeal of marijuana comes from the fact that it is illegal and that once legal the consumption of marijuana will wane. This may be true, but the appetite to partake in an illegal substance won't wane with it. If it is true that the appeal of marijuana lies in its unobtainable, illegal image, then the same is true for other things that are unobtainable and illegal, so as soon as marijuana becomes legal, its image becomes displaced. Soon, other drugs assume the role and the same debate we are having now ensues. Sure the debate will take longer because of the more immediate and direct detriments of harder drugs, but eventually, since every one is doing the drug anyway and it is becoming more and more expensive to enforce the regulation and since it makes so much more "pragmatic" sense to legalize it, the drug will become legal. And the next. And the next. I promise you that, although it sounds ridiculous now, after 50 years (or less) of these debates, the debate will be every bit as legitimate as the debate for the legalization of marijuana is now. Conclusion: it won't stop with the legalization of marijuana. Even if people are using marijuana right now in face of the illegalizations, let their sense of defiance be satisfied by the use of a drug that, like I said earlier, won't have any direct negative medical ramifications. If they go into deeper drugs, well, we told them so, and there will be much less of them than if marijuana was legalized.
Fourthly, the ramifications of a society with a high market for hard drugs (and there will be one; see my first argument) will be drastic. There will be very significant repercussions if the market for drugs is raised. It will extend into economics, education, ethics, the moral structuring of our nation, and the stratification of classes. If you think things like the glass ceiling, minimum wage, and education exclusion are stratifying America, wait until drugs are legalized. It will be a heavy hitter in the low classes especially. Those classes are where the markets for heavy drugs are already most prevalent, and as soon as it is even more available, cheap, and commonplace, class mobility will drop into the metaphorical hole. You think the incentive for an inner city child with working class parents or a single mom to go to college is already rare or even nonexistent? Wait until they are raised in a home with drugs. And if you think legalizing it will make it more cheaper, well you'd be right on. And so will the consumption. So will the overdoses. So will the domestic prevalence increase. So will the waste increase. Employment and income (and, as a result, national revenues) will drop. High school dropout rates will increase. Education will become more exclusive if it doesn't become outright oligarchical (and privatized. Don't forget privatized.) I don't mean to be delving into ad hominem arguments, but I don't think they are actually all that ad hominem.
I'm sure there are arguments that I am forgetting. If I remember them I will post them in the comments. Ultimately, the legalization of marijuana isn't about personal rights. It's about that, although it is expensive to enforce the current regulatory laws and the illegalization of marijuana, it is much more expensive in the long run and much much less sensible and pragmatic on so many fronts to legalize marijuana. I appreciate any comments or questions below.
UN asks US for Drone Strike Transparency
You can find the article I read here, in "BBC."
President Obama's use of drone technology in the middle east is drawing a lot of criticism. A British lawyer, Ben Emmerson, has been investigating the US use of drone technology to report to the UN. He recently gave and interim report to the UN's Human Right's Council saying that national security doesn't justify withholding middle-eastern civilian casualty reports. He ultimately states that use of drones themselves is not illicit, but the withholding of reports is.
On this case, I am pretty ambivalent. I think that drones are a pragmatic, efficient method of counter-terrorism. I do however, admit that since US intelligence is sometimes ambiguous, it does not necessarily lend itself to exactness. I do think that there is a lot of paranoia associated with the word "drone" and I think that since the military is a volunteer organization that it doesn't lend itself to quite as much corruption as people tend to think it does.
On releasing civilian casualties, I think that if it were only the UN the US were accountable to that the US could justify withholding the reports; however, the US is not only accountable to the UN, it is accountable to its people. I think that there ought to be a little more transparency (and I realize that some of the reports relate to ongoing counter terrorism and therefore must remain secret) toward the people. I won't go into the manifestations of this transparency, because, frankly, I don't know what would be a pragmatic way to do so. Perhaps I am just being ideological and that realistically the US is just as transparent as it can safely get.
I appreciate any questions or comments.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Obama Challenges Boehner on Budget Vote
This article, here, in "The New York Times" focuses on President Obama's recent visit to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In his address given while there, he challenges Speaker of the House John Boehner to call on the House to vote. He accuses Boehner of having alternate interests in not calling the vote, which is an allusion to Boehner's firm stance regarding ACA concessions. The President states that he believes there are enough bipartisan Republicans and Democrats to pass a budget bill and that Boehner is prolonging the government shutdown unnecessarily. President Obama reiterates his willingness to discuss the ACA as well as other policies, economic and otherwise, but says it is inappropriate to harm Americans in order to gain leverage in the ACA debate.
This is not President Obama's first call for a vote. I don't have a link to the video, but President Obama appeared the day prior to the actual day of the shutdown and called for congress to pass a budget bill. He said that holding the nation hostage to prevent the ACA is irresponsible.
Party affiliation is irrelevant when I say that Boehner and the Tea-Party minorities in the House are handling the budget bill and ACA concessions extremely ineffectively.
Let's muse for a minute. Suppose I was adamantly opposed to Obamacare; defunding it is an excellent way to undermine it. However, it is not the only way. If the ACA is just as detrimental to our economy and society as its opponents make it out to be, even in its worst form it is a slow killing policy, much more slowly than the damage a shutdown government is doing right now. Remember in class when we talked about the projected 1 to 1.5 percent decrease? That's in the space of just two weeks. That's not in anyway comparable to the damage that the ACA would do, and that's assuming it would have any damage at all.
On a side note, I tried to find sources that explicitly defined the ACA's methodology and implications, but was relatively unsuccessful in finding one that was objective. I found the .gov sites about it, here, here, and here, and "Forbes" did an article on the implications here, but those were the best I could find. If someone could comment below and give me some good ones, I would be appreciative. I would really like some quantitative work that show things like, the intended effect, the theoretical effect, the effect on different demographics, the business implications, and other things like that.
Now, back to strategy. If I were trying to repeal a bill and do so with national consent, I wouldn't hold the economic growth of my voters contingent on that repeal. To the voters, that shows that agenda comes before them. I would pass a budget bill and include funding for that bill, and then engage in post-bill negotiations. Then the economy can breathe while the debate over repeal is hashed out, and even in the bill's worst form, I still have more time to prevent an economic breakdown than I would have otherwise. The irony is that in trying to prevent economic breakdown and the devolution of medicine and insurances, the GOP is accelerating that process by threatening economic breakdown.
It seems to me that there are more than just the ideals of the GOP and the economy of the U.S. at stake for the Republican Party right now. I just can't quite put my finger on it. One idea that has been thrown around by Obama and the media is that Boehner is more afraid of the Tea-Party element of his party than he is of the damage a shutdown government would do. I think this has some merit. In this article, Paul Krugman theorizes that the Republican Party is devolving due to extremism (Note: This is an opinion piece and I myself am not sure what I think of it. It has a real lack of objectivity, but opinion pages by definition aren't objective. I think he makes some interesting points, but I don't think the Republican Party is quite as blind as he makes them out to be). I think that the uncompromising nature of the Tea-Party minority is causing Boehner to make some decisions that he himself doubts, but to maintain the full support of the Republicans, he is being forced to make a stand on the ACA.
In this poll done by "The Washington Post," we see that with regards to handling negotiations over the budget bill, The President's approval rate has risen, while the approval for both Democrats and Republicans have fallen, with the Republican rating the lowest (70 percent disapproval). This is probably due to the fact that Obama has been very vocal about an end to the shutdown, while Republicans have also been vocal about an end, but they include their conditional concessions about ACA in their vocalizations. To the public, not even necessarily an educated one, this sounds less compromising than Obama has or even the House Democrats. I think if the budget bill isn't passed soon, that the GOP will suffer a lot more than if they relinquished their demands for concessions.
As far as the ACA goes, I am ignorant. Like I said earlier, I would love some sources that could further develop and form my stance. If you wish to comment on what you think is the prudent decision with the standoff right now, I appreciate any comments. Thanks.
This is not President Obama's first call for a vote. I don't have a link to the video, but President Obama appeared the day prior to the actual day of the shutdown and called for congress to pass a budget bill. He said that holding the nation hostage to prevent the ACA is irresponsible.
Party affiliation is irrelevant when I say that Boehner and the Tea-Party minorities in the House are handling the budget bill and ACA concessions extremely ineffectively.
Let's muse for a minute. Suppose I was adamantly opposed to Obamacare; defunding it is an excellent way to undermine it. However, it is not the only way. If the ACA is just as detrimental to our economy and society as its opponents make it out to be, even in its worst form it is a slow killing policy, much more slowly than the damage a shutdown government is doing right now. Remember in class when we talked about the projected 1 to 1.5 percent decrease? That's in the space of just two weeks. That's not in anyway comparable to the damage that the ACA would do, and that's assuming it would have any damage at all.
On a side note, I tried to find sources that explicitly defined the ACA's methodology and implications, but was relatively unsuccessful in finding one that was objective. I found the .gov sites about it, here, here, and here, and "Forbes" did an article on the implications here, but those were the best I could find. If someone could comment below and give me some good ones, I would be appreciative. I would really like some quantitative work that show things like, the intended effect, the theoretical effect, the effect on different demographics, the business implications, and other things like that.
Now, back to strategy. If I were trying to repeal a bill and do so with national consent, I wouldn't hold the economic growth of my voters contingent on that repeal. To the voters, that shows that agenda comes before them. I would pass a budget bill and include funding for that bill, and then engage in post-bill negotiations. Then the economy can breathe while the debate over repeal is hashed out, and even in the bill's worst form, I still have more time to prevent an economic breakdown than I would have otherwise. The irony is that in trying to prevent economic breakdown and the devolution of medicine and insurances, the GOP is accelerating that process by threatening economic breakdown.
It seems to me that there are more than just the ideals of the GOP and the economy of the U.S. at stake for the Republican Party right now. I just can't quite put my finger on it. One idea that has been thrown around by Obama and the media is that Boehner is more afraid of the Tea-Party element of his party than he is of the damage a shutdown government would do. I think this has some merit. In this article, Paul Krugman theorizes that the Republican Party is devolving due to extremism (Note: This is an opinion piece and I myself am not sure what I think of it. It has a real lack of objectivity, but opinion pages by definition aren't objective. I think he makes some interesting points, but I don't think the Republican Party is quite as blind as he makes them out to be). I think that the uncompromising nature of the Tea-Party minority is causing Boehner to make some decisions that he himself doubts, but to maintain the full support of the Republicans, he is being forced to make a stand on the ACA.
In this poll done by "The Washington Post," we see that with regards to handling negotiations over the budget bill, The President's approval rate has risen, while the approval for both Democrats and Republicans have fallen, with the Republican rating the lowest (70 percent disapproval). This is probably due to the fact that Obama has been very vocal about an end to the shutdown, while Republicans have also been vocal about an end, but they include their conditional concessions about ACA in their vocalizations. To the public, not even necessarily an educated one, this sounds less compromising than Obama has or even the House Democrats. I think if the budget bill isn't passed soon, that the GOP will suffer a lot more than if they relinquished their demands for concessions.
As far as the ACA goes, I am ignorant. Like I said earlier, I would love some sources that could further develop and form my stance. If you wish to comment on what you think is the prudent decision with the standoff right now, I appreciate any comments. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)