Posts Tagged With: Social Commentary

Class Debate – Drug Legalization

"Ladies and gentlemen, legalization of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin may at first glance feel uncomfortable. It may seem like a dangerous and unsafe policy. The affirmation today will show that the opposite is the case: banning these drugs is the unsafe policy. Because the drug market is illegal, we cannot control or regulate who plays and by what rules. Legalization of hard drugs will eliminate the obscene profits organized crime rackets make from importing and selling cocaine and heroin. It will rid our streets of much of the drug-related crime that plagues our impoverished neighborhoods. Furthermore, it will help reduce budget deficits and prison overcrowding. The affirmation would like to legalize possession of recreational amounts of Schedule Two drugs like cocaine, heroin, and LSD. To keep corporations and their greed for profits away from these addictive substances, government will Purchase, Regulate, Tax, and Distribute these drugs, similar to the way medical marijuana is distributed now. No drugs will be sold to pregnant women or to persons under 21 years of age. Our current policy is to ban these drugs and imprison anyone who sells or uses them. This War on Drugs, despite costing the taxpayer nearly $40 billion a year, has had a negligible effect on consumption and sale of hard drugs. Our inner cities are full of people selling and using these substances. It is time for government to wake up. Thank you.” Ladies and gentlemen, the Prohibition era of American history was expected to reduce crime and corruption, reduce the number of alcoholics, reduce the number of prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and safety. When Congress banned the sale of alcohol, evangelist Billy Sunday gathered ten thousand people together and proclaimed, "The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and comcribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent." Unfortunately, Prohibition increased consumption of alcohol, marked the beginning of organized crime, pushed prison systems past their capacities, and deprived the government of a source of revenue. These problems did not go away with the end of Prohibition; they are still here, because of our bans on various other drugs. Addicts commit half of all street crimes today. The Mafia and other organized crime rackets make huge sums from importing and selling cocaine and heroin to addicts. Turf wars erupt over profitable street corners. We ignore, imprison, and impoverish addicts, the people that need our help the most. Legalization would eliminate turf wars and the incentive for crime bosses to import drugs. Government regulation and taxation would make consumption safer for users - remember 35% of new AIDS cases come from illegal drugs. What's more, we could spend the $40 billion we're now spending in a drug war on antipoverty and rehabilitation measures. Yes, legalization might increase the number of addicts, but this is not a clear cut conclusion. And if adults want to become addicts, we don't have the right to stop them. As Milton Friedman said, "Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs." Our attempts to plan society in the 1920's had miserable consequences, and our attempts now have been about as successful as the Soviet Union. While legalization may be uncomfortable to some, it creates a better situation for the addict, and makes society better off. It is by far the best policy option. Thank you for your time.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

What I Want in a Phone

I've had my old, simple phone for two-plus years now, and Verizon's telling me I need a new one. Fair enough. I started looking at phones and realized that Verizon is focusing its product specs in all the wrong areas. I don't care how nice the camera is, or how many MBs of music it can play, or what things I can buy online for it. These are the things I want to know about a phone: Can I put it on silent mode without it making a sound? How many button presses to turn on/off the ringer? How many button presses to send a text message? How many button presses to look up someone in the phone book? How big are the buttons? How big is the screen? If I try to make a call will I have service? (To its credit, Verizon usually has a signal) How navigable is the menu? How many recent calls will it store? Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, LG, and whoever else makes phones, this is the Apple approach. Design phones with the user in mind and you'll reap the benefits. Maybe not immediate fiscal benefits, but rewards in terms of user loyalty.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

It’s Still 2006, And the Midterms Were A Month Ago

Do we really need to start wondering now about who's going to run for president in 2008? The election is a full two years away and yet we are already casting the unforgiving glare of public attention on our potential candidates. That's a long two years of not screwing up any Senate votes, staying consistent with your opinions (avoiding categorization as a flopper), and not pulling any George Allens. I want a rest from political speculation. Let's focus our attention on the current officials.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Fake Your Space – Digital Candygrams

Need some good-looking, fake friends? They're available for 99 cents at FakeYourSpace.com I've finally found a good use for my Wall - get some attractive male models to post cool things to it. Or, better yet, a good use for my friends' walls!! Want to make your friend appear like he's into men? Confuse the hell out of him? This website is perfect. This reminds me of those Candygrams you could send anonymously for a dollar back in middle school.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Is Bush the Worst President of All Time?

Washington Post has 5 historians opining on how Bush will stack up against other US presidents, and they're not saying very good things about Bush. The problem here, to me, is that we voted to affirm Bush as president - twice. Were the signs not there in 2000 and 2004? C-student from Yale? Failed as an oilman? Alcoholic? I mean, there are 10 million plus eligible Presidents (and by eligible, I mean rich white American men above the age of 35) and we can't find a better candidate? Worst president of all time or worst job voting, two times in a row?

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

An Open Letter – what do you think?

To whoever's willing to listen: In my humble, college-freshman opinion, the failure of Congress boils down to a matter of incentives. Congressmen want to get themselves re-elected and make sure their party's in power at all times. However, the purpose (I assume?) of Congress is to increase the welfare of the American people and protect the Constitution. This failure has two consequences - extreme short-sightedness, and the political gambit-izing of legislation. I don't know if it matters so much anymore what a piece of legislation says, as long as Democrats will say 'it's all a political ploy' and each side will claim victory. The loser is the public interest. Take for example the recent decision by GOP leaders to shelve the Vietnam free trade vote, which was supposed to be a rebuke to the White House from the Republicans in Congress. The American people just lost, because this vote is now going to fail. What concerns me the most is the apparent lack of consideration for whether or not American people would be better off with a free trade agreement from Vietnam. I propose two solutions. The first is to make every Congressional vote anonymous. This would free people to vote rationally (or as rationally as they can, given all the noise from the Cato Institute about how we vote), rather than to vote in fear or with some external motive. This would also decrease the effect of lobbying and of voting as a bloc. As I see it now, with econ 1 analysis, there are two cartels in Congress preventing vote equilibrium. If we made votes anonymous we would see more of how people actually feel and less of two talking points. Moreover, politicians would no longer be able to blame "the other side" for failures. Furthermore, I feel that 20 years down the road we won't be able to elect anyone, because of Facebook and weblogs. The public will very quickly learn that no one's perfect, and attack ads will have loads of material to work with (Drunk pictures, questionable opinions, etc). Our candidates, I believe, won't have personalities or opinions (besides "I'm against crime, for democracy, and for education"). Making votes anonymous would stop attack ads based on decade-long voting records. My second idea is for mandatory 30-year prediction and long-term goal statements, updated every 4 years (this has no way of passing, because it sounds similar to the old Soviet central planning idea). My goal here is to get Congress to realize that problems like "our budget is unsustainable," "global warming is something we need to deal with," and "many Americans and Iraqis are dying every day" are statements that can't be passed from session to session without action. Let me know what you think. Thanks for reading this. Kevin

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

If You Really Want Me to Vote…

Don't tell me the outcome beforehand. Freakonomics Blog has an interesting proposal - ban all polls and surveys before the election. The uncertainty about the outcome would probably spur much more debate and consideration about issues (heaven forbid we have to consider a response without seeing what everyone else says!), and drive many more people to the polls. I'll be watching Fox News tonight.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

The Difference Between Knowledge & Intelligence

Right now I'm reading Justin Menkes' Executive Intelligence. Menkes points out that many top businessmen aren't competent and fail basic management objectives, and wonders how the screening process failed to winnow out the bad executives. He defines executive intelligence, shows examples of exec-intelligent CEO's who lead their companies to success, and proposes ways to screen for it that would be better than our current measures. I'm reading it because I think the SAT is a crappy, racist test, and I want to see what tests Menkes proposes and if they'd be good for high school seniors. By far the heaviest hitting part of the book was when he talked about the difference between knowledge and intelligence, and how we confuse the two.
"The distinction between knowledge and intelligence is frequently blurred. For example, most people are familiar with the popular television show Jeopardy!, on which contestants are rewarded for the amount of knowledge they possess of a wide variety of topics. Often the winners are referred to as "exceptionally smart." But the truth is that they are exceptionally knowledgeable. Successful Jeopardy! contestants haven't really proven anything about their intelligence...[Joseph Fagan, chair of psychology at Case Western] has done research focusing on racial differences in test scores, and his experiments found that measures that required certain kinds of academic knowledge, such as vocabulary or complex math, yielded significantly different scores between racial groups. But tests focused on reasoning or processing skills, such as picture and spatial pattern recognition, showed no such differences."
I generally score well on IQ and SAT tests and people call me smart, but I don't think my ability to take tests well is any measure of 'intelligence.' I run my mouth when I shouldn't, run in with cops when they have the power to detain me, and sometimes fail to grasp the rules of simple social situations. What I can do, I think, is aggregate information, discard the useless parts, repeat things other more intelligent people say, and use my fantastic memory to recall information and arguments at will. If we are going to rely on tests as much as we do as a society (just look at No Child Left Behind), we need to make sure the tests are measuring what they're supposed to measure, and that we want to rely on test measures to determine success.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

How to Fight Terrorists

English TV stations have a sensible policy whenever there's a pitch invasion or a streaker or someone running onto the field. Rather than show off the person and glorify their actions, they deliberately show scenes elsewhere, of fans watching the game or of players looking disgusted at the person taking over the field. Bruce Schneier has a smart article on how to respond to terrorism, plots, and attacks. The point he makes, correctly, is that the object of a terrorist attack is symbolic and not really important. One plane going down will not destroy Western Civilization. The fear, panic, grandstanding, increased security, and possible recession because of the attack, or planned attack, are much more devastating. The more everyone in the media, in politics, and in security discusses the attacks, the more scared and hyped-up we feel, which is exactly what the other side wants. I was in Oxford when the July 7 bombings hit. The nation mourned for its fallen, yes, but people mainly carried about their business. No one stood around watching the TV for more news about the attacks. Afterwards, the slogan "We Are Not Afraid" was a perfect reaction. People kept riding the Tube like normal. This is the way you defeat terrorists - don't glorify them, ignore them.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.