An addendum to the decriminalization of drugs post

Although I agree with the main thrust of the post, I would encourage the adoption of the following amendments:
1. Employers must be allowed to "discriminate" based on drug use, as it impacts workplace productivity.
2. Incredibly high excise taxes, so prices don't fall upon legalization due to increased availability and socially-adjusted prices don't fall due to less of a stigma on drug use, and such that the revenue from the tax is approximately equivalent to the cost of lost productivity, increased police force needed due to decreased inhibitions, and increased medical costs of addiction.
3. DUIs should be expanded to include not only a BAC over a certain level, but a "Blood-Drug Content". Also, there should be lower BAC limits in the presence of a non-zero BDC, and lower BDC limits in the presence of a non-zero BAC (mixing your drugs and driving is bad).
4. Drug companies should not be allowed to advertise to to children, on TV, or in public places (billboards, etc). All restrictions imposed on tobacco companies must be applied to drug companies.

The above being said, some other benefits of decriminalization involve:
5. Less crowded jails (USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world).
6. More equal opportunity among races (the criminal justice system along with its juries has been shown to be racist, imprisoning a black man for something a white man would be fined over; less gang violence).
7. No more wars started or lengthened over drugs -- the United States military could stop paying attention to the opium growers in Afghanistan, concentrating on the terrorists instead, while giving people more jobs and hope, stealing from the terror recruiters. Also, certain countries in Latin America could be less threatened by their bullying northern neighbor.

Topic: Drugs. Decriminalize them?

Alright, so this argument isn't complete and it probably has flaws. But here's what I've got.

A distinction needs to be made amongst all of the different types of drugs that people may choose to use. The law punishes no one for caffeine consumption; Starbucks is rather widespread. While prohibition of alcohol did increase bootlegging and black market sales, in order for people to continue their consumption of alcohol, they had to put in more effort to obtain their liquor. The illegality of drugs has not stopped or diminished their use, and contrary to what Wilson claims, while heroin use decreased due to increased costs of acquiring it, its use also decreased because crack cocaine gave users a better high—a more addictive high. Decriminalization may be just the right action to take for certain drugs, because their effects are no worse than the effects of currently legalized alcohol and tobacco.

Decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing, but I agree with Douglas Husak’s version of decriminalization and would like to take it a step further ("Why We Should Decriminalize Drug Use"). Husak states that decriminalization would ban production and sale of certain drugs, but not the use or possession; I would extend that definition and only ban the production and sale of unsafe drugs. I make this claim for several reasons. Legal drug sales would be a good source of tax revenue, which could be used to combat excessive use of the drug. Similar to alcohol legislation, a legal age would curb drug use to some extent in certain age groups, and a legal intoxication level would allow law enforcement agents to punish users instead of providers.

Fear of the law prevents some people under the age of 21 from drinking or abusing alcohol, but wild high school and college parties still persist. On the same note, lowering or abolishing the drinking age wouldn’t definitively lead to a sharp increase in the number of abusers because young people drink because they want to, and those that want to are not usually deterred by the laws. Similarly, drug use might increase a little if it were decriminalized, but those that never wanted to abuse drugs wouldn’t start now. Decriminalization would affect desire to some extent, but people would still make their own decisions about using drugs. Suppliers would be taxed, and thus the sale price of the drug would remain high enough to prevent some from turning drugs into their next hobby. The government could fine suppliers if the drug was deemed unsafe or produced undesirable consequences, which is similar to the idea that Husak condones of making supplies pay for harm caused by their drug. This way suppliers would have incentive to make their drugs safer for use, and the amount of crime directly related to drug consumption would decrease.

I do not believe that drug decriminalization would lead to our entire society becoming drug-addicted leeches on our social welfare programs. James q. Wilson uses statistics to show that heroin use declined when its costs rose and its harmful health effects were more widely publicized and that cocaine is starting to follow that trend as fewer people are beginning to use the drug, after its negative health effects were discovered ("Against the Legalization of Drugs"). He furthers his argument against the legalization of drugs claiming that decriminalization would not lead to the sort of decline that has occurred naturally. I disagree and believe that even if those drugs had been decriminalized, people would have still been deterred from using the drugs once the health effects were discovered. If drugs were to be decriminalized, some percentage of drug users would lose their motivation to abuse drugs when given the chance. Many people under the age of 21 abuse alcohol and drink to excess, but most of those people give up such habits after college, once they enter the world of careers, employers, family, and responsibility. Similarly, those adolescents who abused certain drugs would find them less appealing as they grew older if the drugs were legal and could be obtained in a pharmacy alongside cigarettes and beer. Furthermore, the sales of the drugs could be monitored to prevent sales in excess, and a limit could be placed on the amount of a certain drug that could be bought by one person at any given time. Such legislation is in effect with legal drugs like Sudafed in many states in the U.S. requiring the consumer to provide a valid driver’s license by which to track sales of the drug to that person.

This brings me to the idea of a legal intoxication level, which would allow policing of drug use, allowing people to indulge a little but preventing most people from overindulging. When police raid parties, they can test for drug use and those who have been overusing or who is underage can be punished. If limits are in place for how much of the drug can be bought at one time, testing for overuse should not be too difficult. It would be more difficult than the simple Breathalyzer test for alcohol use, but it would be funded by the taxes from the drug sales. After all, crime rates from alcohol abuse are not much different from crime rates from drug abuse. Bedroom shootings, traffic accidents, and gang fights occur from any form of substance abuse, and punishing the individual people involved will probably have more of an effect than just punishing the distributor. People will be more careful about the amount of drugs they use and the situations they use them in if they would be held directly responsible for their actions. I agree with Husak about certain drugs; in the event that a drug should prove to be more dangerous and harmful than alcohol, that drug could continue to be illegal and its distribution, production, and sale banned from the country. I use alcohol as the benchmark for tolerable harmfulness because its effects are minimally harmful compared to the effects of hard drugs such as LSD. At this point, I would like to clarify that I extend decriminalization only to drugs whose effects do not impair motor functions any more than soft drugs like alcohol do. If certain drugs were proven to be a direct cause to violent or dangerous behavior, those drugs would remain criminalized.

In addition to a better regulation of drug quality and a better opportunity for safe usage, drug decriminalization would allow for better de-stigmatized access to health and rehab programs. With legalization, clinics could be set-up such as the ones currently available for alcohol and tobacco addicts, allowing people to get help for their problems without fear of prosecution or persecution by those who know them. This would prevent people from continuing to spiral downwards without any hope for ridding themselves of their addictions, and would decrease the incidents of crime related to acquisition of drugs by those fueling their addiction.

The revenue from tobacco and alcohol tax funds policing of the use of those drugs, and similarly, the revenue from the taxes levied on the currently illicit drugs would fund their policing once they were made legal. Legislation about those drugs in the form of legal levels of use and a legal drug use age—possibly 21, just like the drinking age, because most of those drugs impair people to the same level that drinking alcohol does—would allow the police to effectively combat use in individuals. Decriminalizing drugs would probably decrease the number of people who abuse alcohol and tobacco, the latter of which has a harmful effect on anyone in the surrounding area by way of secondhand smoke; and would also increase the number of people who would seek help for their addiction without fear of being imprisoned for usage or possession. Decriminalization of drugs would be a benefit to not only drug users, because many people frown upon helping those addicted to vice, but also to society as a whole.

Email #3

Your website makes no mention of the role of strict immigration limits on long waiting lists for legal immigration of skilled workers, academics, and the like, who could make an immediate and beneficial contribution to the American economy and public discourse.

Would you support as President, or introduce this year as a Senator, legislation to increase the limit by a factor of five or eliminate it for these categories of immigrants?

If the reader of this email would send acknowledgement of receipt to the above address, it would be appreciated.

Email #2:

As President, or this year, as a Senator, would you support or introduce legislation that would provide economic incentives to major urban areas (say, with over half a million residents) to develop, expand, or improve mass transit systems? These have major economic and environmental benefits, and also revitalize urban centers.

Today, I emailed the following to both of the major parties' presumptive nominees (to suggest policies, go to http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/mypolicy and http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/), who both trumpet a cap-and-trade system as their method of reducing carbon emissions:

I understand that it is almost never politically viable to propose a tax increase of any sort. However, a carbon tax (or gasoline tax) would be a much more economically efficient method of reducing carbon emissions than the propsed cap-and-trade system on your website. Why do you support cap-and-trade over a carbon tax?

The carbon tax proposal could be coupled with an income tax cut for the bottom half of wage earners with a revenue-equivalent of approximately three-fourths of the expected revenue from the carbon tax, with the last fourth going to either paying down the federal debt or giving incentives for alternative energy developement.

Support the Troops

...and let them come home.

They've been in Iraq for so long, and Bush is talking about extending their terms. What does he know anyway? He's never actually served. Ceremonially, he's the Commander-in-Chief, but did I mention that that's just a formality? This July, they're withdrawing the 5 extra units that were deployed, or at least, they were set to withdraw them all, but instead, Bush is talking about extensions. Petraeus needs to get his head checked before he continues to go on about the instability of the region. The area was unstable to begin with, and the US interference only served to make it worse, not better. Putting US troops in there has only succeeded in killing our troops. *Texas accent* That ain't real friendly behayvyer, sugar */Texas accent*. I just wish that we could set a final deadline, and begin an structured withdrawal of our troops. Unless we stay there for 100 years, basically 3 generations, nothing will be accomplished, and the strain on our forces for such an extended period of time is unnecessary. Also, dedicating our forces to one region increases the likelihood of attack on our soil, and also decreases our strength in the face of a new adversary. We've been there for 5 years now--we should be commencing withdrawal soon. It will take 5-10 for a properly structured withdrawal and hopefully the collapse of the Iraqi government won't be too sudden. Hell, if we're lucky, it won't happen, and democracy will hold. But where's our luck? A missile shield in Czechoslovakia? A wall on the US-Mexico border? Russia hates us and the Mexicans continue to get in here... we're not in Luck's favor, I'd say.

All this because yesterday on Marsh Plaza there were people protesting the war, and they had pasted a sign to a streetlight and left some chalk. I drew a heart-- I guess it was my way of sending symbolic love and support to the troops. They need support, and they need love. But most of all, they need to come home.

It's hard to lead the life you choose.
[All I wanted]
When all your luck's run out on you
[All I wanted]
You can't see when all your dreams are coming true

Just out of curiosity, how big of a social death does one actually die if one deletes one's facebook account?

Chat Conversation (edited). Comments (deeper than "wow, you really are nerds") appreciated.
Too lazy to actually write a blog post, so the actual questions and claims under discussion are italicized. These would normally comprise the post.


Part One: Ec and Evidence

12:57 PM

me: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-right-and-left-differ.html

i'm increasing my knowledge of econ by reading the blogs of ec profs @ harvard

12:58 PM i think you'll enjoy that post

ridiculous: lmao okay

I'll go read it

12:59 PM haha very nice

me: ok.

so my question is:

1:00 PM has there been any experimental or controlled observational evidence favoring either side, on any one of those issues, and if not, how do people choose a side rationally?

1:01 PM ridiculous: Idk if there's been any evidence of either kind. I suppose there has been somewhere in the world. Maybe Columbia. They do studies 24/7.

Rationally? What's that all about?

1:02 PM hmm.. Can a person claim allegiance to either the right or left unconditionally?

that just strikes me as narrow minded

me: with data? like how there are enormous ec think-tanks, and ec advisors, and people who spend their lives theorizing about ec, but how do they gain their perspective, with no (assumed) experimental data?

of course not unconditionally.

1:03 PM ridiculous: life is experimental data for ec, is it not?

me: yes

--tangent about textbooks, small sample sizes, teachers, and conclusions--

1:08 PM me: so, back to experimental evidence and ec. has there been?

ridiculous: I dunno. Its not something I've read a lot about.

But now I'm going to start looking...

I want to learn too much. There isn't enough time for this.

1:09 PM Well... if I don't sleep there is

perfect!

me: ha.

Part Two: Social Psych and Authority (and rational thought)

1:11 PM me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Frank

interesting theories your author has

1:12 PM and although they strike me as "rational" and "correct," i have seen no experimental evidence. how did i make my split-second decision to agree?

ridiculous: I think you should start reading about social psychology

1:13 PM me: except i don't want figuring out why i agreed to be an end in itself

i want it to be a way to make ec more evidence-based

ridiculous: People might have been conditioned unknowingly, based on their childhood environment, to think a certain way. Thus, to see certain things as "rational" and "correct" without real evidence.

okay....

me: or (fill_in_field_of_knowledge_here) more evidence-based

ridicuous: you just want life to be evidence based

1:14 PM throws irrationality at you

1:16 PM me: no, i think that although social heuristics where taking on the beliefs of authority without demanding evidence makes sense on an evolutionary scale, and in social contexts, when decisions affect a country or global system, choices should be rational, evidence-based and experimentally proven with low probability of error to be the optimal solution

ridiculous: yeah but see, life doesn't work that way.

otherwise our president, and several others, would never have been voted into office.

1:17 PM Are you going to set about trying to singlehandedly change the facts of life?

me: because although the cost of a sub-optimal solution in social contexts is less that the cost of questioning authority, on a national scale, the cost of a sub-optimal solution is much greater

why not?

ridiculous: This is very true.

1:18 PM Sounds like a fun adventure- I'll join the brigade.

me: ha.

this conversation looks like an eventual blog post

i'll get around to it. maybe.

not like it matters.

--tangent about how I am lazy--

Part Three: We are abnormal.

ridiculous:

1:21 PM I just re-read this conversation. It just struck me as to how nerdy I must come off to people that don't know me. You know... when I start referencing the NY Times or The Economist to back up any argument

Or even people that do. But to them it doesn't matter.

1:22 PM me: you need to reference the nytimes and economist! it elevates the level of discourse!

:-P

ridiculous: It's why I do it.

Part 4: Alternative Theories

ridiculous, quoting an econ book:"in studying choice under scarcity, we'll usually begin with the premise that people are rational"

hee

1:29 PM me: so right wing...

ridiculous: yeah

me: it is an issue here that the intro ec class is very conservative

there is an alternate course affectionately referred to as "Comenomics"

1:30 PM ridiculous: its a similar issue we have

except our alternate class is taught by a prof everyone hates

1:31 PM me: sad.

ridiculous: yes. I know.

me: until one is experimentally "proven," they should both be taught.

ridiculous: well yes. they are both being taught

me: wow, i sound kinda like a Creationist. except by proof i mean evidence.

1:32 PM and not god coming down and telling everyone that he didn't actually design everything

ridiculous: but the thing is- this class has a right wing book.. that the prof didn't require. so he may not be ultra conservative. Also- people tend to like him lots.

although.. it'd be pretty ridiculous if god walked into a baptist church and told them all that everything they were preaching was wrong.

1:33 PM me: hee hee

"hey dudes, it's cool to see how my algorithm turned out."

ridiculous:

lmao

1:34 PM baptists faint from shock/die of heart attacks

Grandma Arrested at McDonald's Drive-Thru. ...Seriously?

So I heard about this from my dad, who just saw it on ABC Action News, so I went and found it online.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=e426606f-0a50-4312-bd00-e3c8cd522a7f
and
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/2008/01/19/not_lovin_it/
and
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/20/me-french-fry-stop-lands-grandma-in-jail/

While this is completely random, I felt like it deserved some airtime. Honestly, maybe she was blocking some cars, but does the police's 5-10 minute wait really decrease his quality of life that much that he felt the need to arrest grandma? Also- she might have cursed at him, but that's also within her constitutional rights. Just because he couldn't deal with being pwned by an elderly lady doesn't mean he needs to get so official. And really? One has to wait in line at a drive-thru before getting served? There's a revelation.

Random comments to bring to attention:
On the TBO site:
URY914 : "You have no idea what the lady said to the cop when he asked her to move up. What if she said, "I ain't movin' for no GD babyface punka$$ cop like you. I want my GD fries and I got a gun under my seat." I'm taking the cop's side on this one. Maybe one day you a-holes will need a cop's help with something."

Just imagining Grandma saying that cracks me up to no end. Funny mental image eh? The records as posted on other sites say that she called him a "brat" and a "dumb shit." Honestly, that's not grounds for arrest. McDonald's is private property. Ever heard of freedom of speech? Isn't that one of the core foundations of this country anyhow?

On http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1956787/posts:
Cherry: Good! Happy to see the police cracking down on people blocking the drive-thru. After illegal immigration, it’s a major problem.


I think that about sums up what I had to say. I guess this cop just didn't have enough donuts that morning. I feel so safe now that police in this country are tackling such important issues on a daily basis. After all, grandmas getting decaf coffees and salt-free fries pose a grave threat to civilians' safety.

Thought: Wow, the democrats actually answered (most of) the questions put to them in today's debate at Drexel! Based only on answers to tonight's debate questions, the following is the rough order of who is closest to my positions, and thus, who is most likely to get my vote in the primary:

Dodd
Biden/Richardson/Clinton
Senator Barack "Freshman" Obama
Senator John "Populist" Edwards
That Random Guy Shouting On the Street Corner
Senator Dennis "Impeach the President" Kucinich

Seriously, is Kucinich insane? Drop out already! And Edwards is just getting on my nerves. His only points from me came in education and medical policy. Grrr. Obama seems listless, and only began to smile when he dropped that line about caring more about life on earth than life beyond earth, minutes from the end. Although Dodd will probably get minimal press which will be focused on either attacks on the frontrunners or legalization of marijuana, these two issues cost him points with me while still winning overall. Issue number one: support of a carbon tax, even if it is only for corporations, because (unstated) it will also be passed along to consumers, helping adjust the market into taking into account the negative externalities of carbon consumption. Biden still gets points for his federalism-in-Iraq plan, but loses points for stating he would stop imports from China. Come on -- you know as well as I do that that would lead to an enormous economic downturn.

I wonder: if all I had to go by for my opinions of the candidates were this debate, coupled with recent poll results, would it be smarter to vote for Dodd, the "highest rank," or to choose the highest rank of the frontrunners, namely Clinton?

Sorry that this post contains mounds of what I despise in political commentary, and lacks issues, but I have homework. i will return to the issues at a later date.

Thought: Should States Mandate Universal Healthcare?
Answer: No!!!

Universal Healthcare is a wonderful idea, right? But what happens when it is mandated? What happens when states REQUIRE everyone to purchase healthcare?
Mandates require enforcement. Non-compliance with said mandates leads to punishment. These punishments could take the form of a fine, or maybe denial of a tax deduction, or even jail time.

Rising public subsidies will be hard to fund-
Example of Massachusetts-
Healthcare costs rose by 199% from 1998 to 2005, however the state’s own revenues only rose by 131%... So the government needs to raise taxes in order to support providing healthcare to people at lower costs. And taxes would need to raised substantially because they would have to cover costs for every person rather than just those that opt for government subsidized healthcare.

Increased abuse of the system-
Mandating healthcare eliminates patient responsibility-
For example- Take a person who smokes… this person develops high blood pressure and is rushed to the ER. Because of state-mandated healthcare, he is given a bypass operation, which costs him next to nothing. Soon after the operation, he begins smoking again. Is it fair for your tax dollars to pay for his second operation?

Alternative Medicine-
Government-mandated healthcare would create a coverage plan that excludes certain types of treatment. Under the mandate, if a person did not comply with the healthcare plan’s treatment methods, the government could legally punish them (with a fine, jail, or forced medical treatment) because they would enforcing the law.

Ex. Cancer treatment- Suppose a person is diagnosed with cancer and the government healthcare professional or the healthcare plan calls for intensive surgery or chemotherapy. If the patient decided against those methods and opted for holistic treatments, they would be punished. Where’s free will?

Higher Premiums-
If the government has to offer everyone insurance at the same price, the premiums would be raised to compensate for people who would take more out of the systems. Should a healthy 20-something be forced to pay the same premium as a sick 50-something who needs medical attention regularly? Mandated healthcare would end up taking away specialized coverage and prevent people from opting not to purchase healthcare, especially if they cannot afford to pay for it.

Familiarity-
If people were forced to switch to the government plan because of work, people who have long-standing relationships with their doctors, specialized health plans, or special needs, could suddenly find themselves in the scary situation of having to find new doctors, hospitals and other medical facilities that participate with the state plan.

Who REALLY pays for state-mandated healthcare??
The government alone cannot foot the bill to provide healthcare to all of the 46 million currently uninsured Americans. Businesses will have to foot part of the bill for all of their employees. This plan would devastate small business.
Take for example, the California Senate Bill: SB 2 would require every California employer with 20 or more employees to foot 80 percent of the bill for health insurance. Employers with 200 or more employees will have to pay for family coverage. Employees, by law, will be required to pay 20 percent of the cost of health insurance, even if they pay less than that now. Employees earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level cannot be required to pay a fee of more than 5 percent of their wages for insurance--state or employer sponsored. According to the 2004 federal poverty guidelines, this means a family of four making less than $36,800 cannot be required to pay more than 5 percent of its wages for its coverage under SB 2. Which means, the employer pays the rest of that bill. I haven't found out what happened to the bill at the end... I'm still looking up that, but seriously!


Relevant Links-
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38163
http://www.epionline.org/studies/yelowitz_09-2004.pdf
http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=77
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/employment-regulations/165205-1.html
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3094

danieljw613: ...
SmarterChild: What's that?
danieljw613: ellipsis.
SmarterChild: Ellipsis? Why did you say that?
danieljw613: you asked.
SmarterChild: Yeah yeah, whatever.

Halloween: It is wonderful that on one night out of the year, we gladly open our doors to stranger and practice hospitality. It is a shame that on the other 364 days of the year, the crime scene has caused us to regard any stranger at thhe door with suspicion, and definitely not with candy.

Why do people see intelligence as strange?

--grrr

The wonderful world of college apps!

Thought: Senior year is more difficult than it needs to be. What with college applications, the "most challenging curriculum available" at my high school, college applications, "leadership roles" in extracurricular activities, college applications, standardized tests, scholarship applications, and college applications, a senior gets to wondering whether going to the best school possible is worth it -- wouldn't it be easier just to apply to State U like everyone else for a stress-free year? Then, the senior gets to wondering why each aspect of the application is necessary "to get a complete and accurate view of the applicant as an individual."

Now, I don't know about you, but if I could sacrifice some aspects of the application process in exchange for hours upon hours of my time, knowing that no other applicant was gaining an advantage over me, I would make that trade in a heartbeat. The self-serving colleges don't care whether you get in, they care about what their closs, as a whole, looks like. THe process has become institutionalized, and the reason for making the application more complicated is not to better understand the applicant, but to block out those applicants who are not truly interested in attending the university. THe application itself has become the first screening program of the elite universities. Now, I understand the college's need to maximize matriculation rates, and to get a more diverse class, but I believe that more transparency is necessary in the process, and there should be accountability afterwards.

When applying for a job, the applicant knows what the employer is looking for. If you are rejected, you are told why. You can try again later, after improving your portfolio. In the past generation, biases and prejudices have factored in less and less into whether you get a job. In direct contrast, an applicant to college has no idea what the college is looking for: well-rounded or focused? Toughest curriculum no matter what, or straight A's? Casual essays or formal ones? How arbitrary are decisions? And most of all: what are my chances of getting in?

Colleges need to publish more detailed statistics about the acceptance rate. The overall acceptance rate tells most students absolutely nothing. It would be more beneficial to students, and possibly even to colleges, if colleges woud publish in .pdf or .xls format their acceptance rates for each SAT score, for each state, for each rank in class (Penn actually published this), for each gender, for each economic group, and (the most politically charged, but one of the greatest determining characteristics), for each race or ethnicity. This would help alleviate the mystery and anxiety surrounding the college process, prove the colleges' statements when they say there is only a higher percentage of Early students admitted because they are "a stronger pool overall"(BS), and disprove Harvard College's assumption that the advantaged students benefit more from Early Action. Although I see how Early Decision benefits the rich (it is a binding contract, before viewing the aid package), I fail to understand how getting applications in early benefits the rich, if the college claims that an applicant gets no benefit from applying early in the admissions process.

I need to wrap up this rant. My Emory application is calling.

On the Efficiency of E-Mail

Thought: How well does e-mail improve time efficiency, communication, and collaboration over the previously used mail, phone, and meetings?


In e-mail's defence, it has helped increase the number of the average person's regular contacts. However, it has had an adverse effect on the quality of relationships. It is so easy to keep a friendship going on 30 seconds a week, while this was not the case in the earlier mail era. However, this has cheapened long-distance friendships. They used to be something rare and valuable, and one knew that the friend truly cared about them, because of the effort required.
In e-mail's defence, it is now less time-consuming to carry out a specific conversation. However, because of this fact, more conversations are expected, less is done in each conversation, and when factoring in the time it takes to sort out junk mail, email is perhaps less time-efficient than thought.
In email's defence, it has increased the number of "telegrams" among citizens of the world. However, by using email, one loses nuance, facial expressions, and sarcasm. A comment that is not well thought out can have unseen consequences. Blackmail is easy, because everything is saved and one can forward snippets of conversation to an innumerable number of people. Communication is more casual, less thought out, and with more opportunities for unintended insult than had been the case before email. Communication has suffered, overall, as a result of online communications.
In email's defense, collaboration among various businesses, departments, and countries has been simplified. However, studies have shown that people are more likely to accede to a face-to-face request than to a written one, especially one via email. People can forge true friendships or business relationships at meetings or over the phone in ways unlikely via email. So, although collaboration has increased, it is likely more strained, working with nameless figures rather than with known entities.

The prosecution rests.

Oil, Gas, and Renewable Energy

Thought: With crude oil selling at an all-time high of $75.19 per barrel yesterday, what is going wrong?

First, to those who claim free market, I would agree, except the profits are funding the worst regimes in the world, the least democratic, and the only reason these countries don't change is because they are backed by obscene oil prices. At $20 per barrel, Iran has no funding for its nuclear program. At $30 per barrel, Saudi Arabia can't afford to support the families of terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza after they blow themselves up in public places. At $40 per barrel, Hugo Chavez wouldn't be as outspoken.

The problem in the United States is primarily one of demand. To curb demand in the United States, the most oil-hungry nation in the world, by far, prices must go up even higher. "But wait," you say, "you just said that high prices are bad!" The high price of oil is only bad if the profits are going to fund the oil nations. Therefore, the federal legislature must set a large gas tax, per gallon, in the vicinity of 1-3 dollars. This will cut down on demand, and will help eat up the deficit at the same time. Give people who make under 25k per year a new tax break on their income tax equal to a half of their gasoline expenses, and give people who make under 50k per year a break on the income tax equal to a quarter of their gasoline expenses, to curb hardship. To those who complain about the effects of high consumer gas prices on the economy, I respond that this will only put the United States' prices more in line with those that the rest of the Western world will pay. Furthermore, the tax will make the citizens of the United States more aware of the coming energy crisis. Needless to say, the billions of dollars in aid for the poor, impoverished oil companies must stop immediately.

A second method to curb demand is through manipulation of the auto industry. Legislation should be passed in favor of high gas mileage. One example would be to require all car companies to have an average of 30 mpg or higher on all cars sold, or face severe fines. The 30 mpg average would be increased by 2 mpg each year. This would force companies to try to sell more of their higher mileage cars, and research new ways to improve mileage. To help the auto industry out, this would be counteracted by federal subsidies of $1000 to both the seller and buyer of any car with mileage of over 40 mpg (this, too, would increase by 2 mpg each year). Thus, the sales drop in the truck and SUV categories would be accompanied by higher profits in the gas-sipping categories.

The solution is not drilling more in the Gulf, or in Alaska. These are temporary solutions, and will be much more valuable in a few years or decades when the rest of the world's oil begins to run out (or to "peak"). On the supply side, instead of producing more oil, the United States should try to produce more clean energy. Clean solutions need to be funded lavishly, and wind and solar energy need to be made cheaper, as these are the most renewable resources of them all. Perhaps solar panels could be subsidized, and homeowner property taxes could be reduced if the roof is paneled.

With lower demand, brought about in part through more efficient cars, and a greater supply of energy through the use of renewable sources, the world can be made a better place.

Big Political July 4th Howdy

Thought: Wow, these politicians are really good at pandering.

And, just in time for our Independence Day, the Repubs thought it would be a good idea to protect the flag by amending the constitution. A few pointers:
--it's the first amendment, folks.
--flag burning hasn't been in vogue since the hippies
--I thought the Constitution was supposed to be for important things...
--We already have flag legislation - this is not a Constitutional issue
--How would you enforce this Amendment? Would you tie people to the stake for daring to desecrate a symbol of our freedom not to be tied to a stake?
--How would you define flag? How can you stop kindergardeners from ripping up a piece of paper on which they had just drawn a rudimentary flag? If someone makes a flag with a slightly different shade of red, is it still a flag?

Washington, get real.

Iranian Solutions

Thought: The biggest threat to global security is currently Iran.

According to intelligence reports, they already have enriched uranium. Diplomatic solutions will not work, because the key to being a power in the 21st century is being a member of the nuclear club, and no other incentive or disincentive can counterbalance that reward. Ahmadinejad, the "President" of Iran, recently stated that Iran was not a child whom the Western World could tempt with candy to give up their nuke program, and who can blame him for this?

So the 6-billion-person question is who can stop Iran. The United States is suspect number one, but the citizens are war-weary, and politicians want to stay in office too much to bring troops to another country against the will of the voters. Russia and China each have too many economic interests in Iran, and political interests in anything that disrupts a uni-superpower world, to want to interfere. India can do nothing in the Muslim world because of Pakistan's nukes.I therefore turn to history. In 1981, Israeli F-16s and F-15s destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, after Begin had gathered enough intelligence to determine that it was to be used to create weapons-grade fuel. Had Osirak not been destroyed, Iraq would not have been set decades back in her weapons program.

Israel must stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, or she will be Iran's first target (our friend Mahmoud believes Israel, the "stain on the Islamic world," must be "wiped off the map"). She should use Turkish airspace (the Turqs can pretend not to notice). Although Iran 2006 is no Iraq 1981, and have 14 known nuclear reactors (according to wikipedia, so this is a lower limit), Israel still has a large enough air force to achieve this. The operation would also require additional support planes for refueling purposes, as roundtrip to Iran is too much for one tank of fuel. Even so, Israel has the best means, motive, and opportunity to take out one of the most dangerous programs of our time.