Note: This article is a response to "A Real Exit Strategy for Afghanistan."
I was in general glad for the inventive thinking expressed by the author of "A Real Exit Strategy for Afghanistan." Too often prejudice and bias restrict thinking in the realm of the political.
There are two points on which I disagree with the author of this article beyond just my moral reservations about our government selling heroin. The first is that selling it may not so much cut into the current demand for the drug as create new demand, especially in consideration of the addictive nature of the substance. If this happens, which I believe likely then the strategy will be ineffective. The second and more important point is that the point of being in Afghanistan at all is to improve the life of Americans, or rather to keep Americans safe from terrorists flying airplanes into their office building. While terrorism is a real threat that concerns all Americans, and has claimed thousands of lives, drugs have had an ever more drastic effect on the lives of Americans. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) found that the deaths in the U.S. due to drugs has been increasing significantly from 1999 to 2006. In 2006, deaths related to drug use were roughly 35,000 and about 13,000 for opioids. Opium already does more damage to Americans than terrorism and making it worse to combat a lesser evil seems a bad idea.
However, I do very much agree that it would be an excellent idea to employ tactics that damage the funding of the terrorists. It is perhaps even necessary. It will be difficult to get rid of it entirely when the terrorists have enough money to buy jobless and desperate people to fight for them. One of the problems with third world countries almost by definition is that there are a lot of people who fit that description. Focusing our intelligence efforts on helping Afghanistan to crack down on those who sell or grow the drugs and putting political pressure on them to do so is a wonderful idea. Poppy fields are much less mobile and less easy to hide than a terrorist leader. As a bonus, bombing poppy fields with a plant killer is much less politically messy than bombing the Taliban's leaders in Pakistan.
Written by Keith Jackson
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Misplaced Praise
It has become more and more difficult to surprise the American people with the praise that President Obama has been receiving from the international community, but it appears that there are still groups out there that are willing to rise to the challenge. This last Friday, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
It would not have been a surprise if the award had come a year from now, and many of Obama opponents would have agreed with the decision to award the prize to the current sitting president. The President has done many good thing in bring the world together. For example, the President recently spoke to the UN General Assembly in which he called for a new era in international cooperation. The one thing that really has many Americans concerned is the fact that these efforts have been just that, recent.
To receive a Nobel Peace Prize, you must be nominated. Those nominations are due by February 1st, only two week after the President took office. Are there really that many people that believe that the President accomplished enough goals to be awarded the Peace Prize in a meager two weeks?
Let us take a step back in time and think about what was happening in January. If you leave out the pomp and circumstance that is associated with the inauguration of a President of the United States there was a substantial list of things that needed to be done on the domestic front that were considered a much higher priority than international relations. The housing market had collapsed and along with it, the entire economy. Jobs were being lost, the Auto-Industry was on the brink of collapse, and the government was scrambling to pass a trillion dollar piece of legislation to try to prevent the country from entering a second Great-Depression, not to mention the thousands of positions that needed to be fill in President Obama’s Cabinet. The President did not have the time to focus on international peace. The only thing he did was call the Heads-of-State of our allies.
It is clear that the President is a celebrity on the international stage. The last time that it was news that the President was taking his wife too dinner on their anniversary was back when John F. Kennedy was President. It seems that all the international community cares about is that of his celebrity status and keeping Obama’s reputation clean in the international community.
Do not misunderstand, this was not the fault of President Obama or should he be personally ridiculed for the award. Rather, we should be concerned with the fact that those lacking basic requirements are being awarded the most respected award in the world, and suspect of the political motivation of those who give the award. They admit that the award was given in a political move, but does that undermine the underlying intentions of the awards?
That is a question that is not so easy to answer.
Written By David Watts
Political Science Major
©ZionTimes.blogspot.com
It would not have been a surprise if the award had come a year from now, and many of Obama opponents would have agreed with the decision to award the prize to the current sitting president. The President has done many good thing in bring the world together. For example, the President recently spoke to the UN General Assembly in which he called for a new era in international cooperation. The one thing that really has many Americans concerned is the fact that these efforts have been just that, recent.
To receive a Nobel Peace Prize, you must be nominated. Those nominations are due by February 1st, only two week after the President took office. Are there really that many people that believe that the President accomplished enough goals to be awarded the Peace Prize in a meager two weeks?
Let us take a step back in time and think about what was happening in January. If you leave out the pomp and circumstance that is associated with the inauguration of a President of the United States there was a substantial list of things that needed to be done on the domestic front that were considered a much higher priority than international relations. The housing market had collapsed and along with it, the entire economy. Jobs were being lost, the Auto-Industry was on the brink of collapse, and the government was scrambling to pass a trillion dollar piece of legislation to try to prevent the country from entering a second Great-Depression, not to mention the thousands of positions that needed to be fill in President Obama’s Cabinet. The President did not have the time to focus on international peace. The only thing he did was call the Heads-of-State of our allies.
It is clear that the President is a celebrity on the international stage. The last time that it was news that the President was taking his wife too dinner on their anniversary was back when John F. Kennedy was President. It seems that all the international community cares about is that of his celebrity status and keeping Obama’s reputation clean in the international community.
Do not misunderstand, this was not the fault of President Obama or should he be personally ridiculed for the award. Rather, we should be concerned with the fact that those lacking basic requirements are being awarded the most respected award in the world, and suspect of the political motivation of those who give the award. They admit that the award was given in a political move, but does that undermine the underlying intentions of the awards?
That is a question that is not so easy to answer.
Written By David Watts
Political Science Major
©ZionTimes.blogspot.com
Monday, October 5, 2009
States Rights: Today's Panacea
Five reasons why states rights needs to make a big time comeback.
5. Health Care
Does anyone think there is or will be anything near consensus on health care? Why should Connecticut, Wyoming, South Carolina and Oregon all have to have the same policies when their people don't want the same policies? Most of the states are far more homogeneous politically than the country as a whole. If each state addressed health care individually (as Massachusetts did), Americans would have policy that closer approximates their preferences. The counterargument that people from low welfare states will take advantage of high welfare states would die in the face of moderately intelligent policy makers. Figuring out that problem would be much easier than finding one size fits all policy that makes every state happy.
4. Bipartisanship
States rights allows us to "live and let live." Almost all highly divisive domestic issues (excepting those explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution) would be much less divisive if Washington didn't try to push one size fits all solutions on the whole country. It's like going into a hospital and trying to design one pill for all of the patients to take. Democrats and Republicans would be much more civil to each other if they weren't always trying to force each other to live by (and pay for) the opposite side's preferences in every policy. Moreover, states rights aligns beautifully with what each party professes to want, tolerance and small government, respectively.
3. Fiscal Neutrality
The federal government is like a perpetual binge eater. State governments not only can't be perpetual binge eaters (see California now or New York thirty years ago), they also have to foot the bill for federal binging. There are two reasons for this difference: First, states can't use inflation to guarantee debt payment, while the Feds can and do (the Fed has bought hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury-issued debt this year alone). As such, federal checks on excessive deficits are much weaker than state checks. Second, because state tax or debt burden is concentrated, citizens are more assertive in keeping their local representatives fiscally responsible. As we look to the states to do more of our governing, the federal government will have less food on their table to binge on.
2. Voter Empowerment
What motivated your presidential vote last year? Bipartisanship? Iraq? Bush? Health care? The Economy? Abortion? Iran? Income Redistribution? Education? Is it even possible for federal politicians to correctly interpret their mandate? If we pushed more of these areas into the state elections, we could better articulate our voice. All of a sudden your vote expresses more than just red or blue.
1. Better Government
Imagine being the CEO of 50 enormous companies (all undergoing strategy overhauls) while also spending a couple days a week as the head of one of America's major parties. Would you bet on any human alive to be able to manage such a load successfully? Somehow, we actually believe super arrogant Presidential candidates (and they all are) when they says they're just the man to do it. It's like we're 8th graders who really believe the extra vending machines are really coming. President Obama, in his first eight months in office, met with the top general in Afghanistan only once. Why? Not because he didn't care, but because he was dealing with health care, and politicking, and everything else. Our government would be much more effective if we split it up into more manageable jobs.
Written by Spencer Wilcox and Harris Clarke
5. Health Care
Does anyone think there is or will be anything near consensus on health care? Why should Connecticut, Wyoming, South Carolina and Oregon all have to have the same policies when their people don't want the same policies? Most of the states are far more homogeneous politically than the country as a whole. If each state addressed health care individually (as Massachusetts did), Americans would have policy that closer approximates their preferences. The counterargument that people from low welfare states will take advantage of high welfare states would die in the face of moderately intelligent policy makers. Figuring out that problem would be much easier than finding one size fits all policy that makes every state happy.
4. Bipartisanship
States rights allows us to "live and let live." Almost all highly divisive domestic issues (excepting those explicitly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution) would be much less divisive if Washington didn't try to push one size fits all solutions on the whole country. It's like going into a hospital and trying to design one pill for all of the patients to take. Democrats and Republicans would be much more civil to each other if they weren't always trying to force each other to live by (and pay for) the opposite side's preferences in every policy. Moreover, states rights aligns beautifully with what each party professes to want, tolerance and small government, respectively.
3. Fiscal Neutrality
The federal government is like a perpetual binge eater. State governments not only can't be perpetual binge eaters (see California now or New York thirty years ago), they also have to foot the bill for federal binging. There are two reasons for this difference: First, states can't use inflation to guarantee debt payment, while the Feds can and do (the Fed has bought hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury-issued debt this year alone). As such, federal checks on excessive deficits are much weaker than state checks. Second, because state tax or debt burden is concentrated, citizens are more assertive in keeping their local representatives fiscally responsible. As we look to the states to do more of our governing, the federal government will have less food on their table to binge on.
2. Voter Empowerment
What motivated your presidential vote last year? Bipartisanship? Iraq? Bush? Health care? The Economy? Abortion? Iran? Income Redistribution? Education? Is it even possible for federal politicians to correctly interpret their mandate? If we pushed more of these areas into the state elections, we could better articulate our voice. All of a sudden your vote expresses more than just red or blue.
1. Better Government
Imagine being the CEO of 50 enormous companies (all undergoing strategy overhauls) while also spending a couple days a week as the head of one of America's major parties. Would you bet on any human alive to be able to manage such a load successfully? Somehow, we actually believe super arrogant Presidential candidates (and they all are) when they says they're just the man to do it. It's like we're 8th graders who really believe the extra vending machines are really coming. President Obama, in his first eight months in office, met with the top general in Afghanistan only once. Why? Not because he didn't care, but because he was dealing with health care, and politicking, and everything else. Our government would be much more effective if we split it up into more manageable jobs.
Written by Spencer Wilcox and Harris Clarke
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Key Issues in Health Care Reform
The swirl of the health care debate has blown through fascism, socialism, communism, euthanasia, racism, and even Barney Frank's perceived extra-terrestrial invasion; but discussion of the key issue of our system's skewed incentives has been sparse at best.
The critical problem in our system is the removal of the consumer from the indispensable market force: price. Any patient with insurance is insulated from the price of his or her care, and that combined with general ignorance in the face of a doctor's expertise leads to extravagant over-consumption.
Add to that the fee-for-service system. A doctor who is being payed for procedures, and not for outcomes, has no incentive to use minimal and most effective treatment. The outrageous malpractice cases in this country then magnify the over-consumption once again, simply to protect the doctor from a rabid overabundance of lawyers.
The solution to the problem does not lie in a single-payer system, which would also insulate the patient from cost. Nor will it be solved by the insurance industry, which essentially gambles with people's lives while corrupting the market into a monetary jungle. While a pure market would ensure efficiency, it would be inhumane to deny service to those who can't pay. Everyone needs access to health care, but not all the health care they can take.
Key solutions lie in tort reform, abandonment of the fee-for-service system, and a realignment of incentives to create patients who are involved in their own health and their own best and most efficient outcome. This means a proper understanding of prevention and of procedural outcomes' probabilities and value. A diabetic needs an incentive to lose weight and avoid costly treatment. The elderly need proper medical advice on planning the end of their lives.
The current proposals are a mere stop-gap. Democrats are hoping to reduce administrative costs, lower the number of uninsured to reduce the burden on those who pay, and force insurance companies to deal humanely in the business of life and death. However, without reforms at the fundamental level, at the point of interaction between doctor and patient, seller and buyer, costs will continue to rise, and money will drain into an ineffective and impractical system. Once these problems are solved, we can focus on who should pay and how much.
Written by Dave Ogden
The critical problem in our system is the removal of the consumer from the indispensable market force: price. Any patient with insurance is insulated from the price of his or her care, and that combined with general ignorance in the face of a doctor's expertise leads to extravagant over-consumption.
Add to that the fee-for-service system. A doctor who is being payed for procedures, and not for outcomes, has no incentive to use minimal and most effective treatment. The outrageous malpractice cases in this country then magnify the over-consumption once again, simply to protect the doctor from a rabid overabundance of lawyers.
The solution to the problem does not lie in a single-payer system, which would also insulate the patient from cost. Nor will it be solved by the insurance industry, which essentially gambles with people's lives while corrupting the market into a monetary jungle. While a pure market would ensure efficiency, it would be inhumane to deny service to those who can't pay. Everyone needs access to health care, but not all the health care they can take.
Key solutions lie in tort reform, abandonment of the fee-for-service system, and a realignment of incentives to create patients who are involved in their own health and their own best and most efficient outcome. This means a proper understanding of prevention and of procedural outcomes' probabilities and value. A diabetic needs an incentive to lose weight and avoid costly treatment. The elderly need proper medical advice on planning the end of their lives.
The current proposals are a mere stop-gap. Democrats are hoping to reduce administrative costs, lower the number of uninsured to reduce the burden on those who pay, and force insurance companies to deal humanely in the business of life and death. However, without reforms at the fundamental level, at the point of interaction between doctor and patient, seller and buyer, costs will continue to rise, and money will drain into an ineffective and impractical system. Once these problems are solved, we can focus on who should pay and how much.
Written by Dave Ogden
A Real Exit Strategy for Afghanistan
As every American tries to forget, the War in Afghanistan has become a quagmire of 1980’s-Russian-War-in-
Over half of Afghanistan’s GDP comes from the export of a potent form of refined poppy totalling over 4 billion dollars in exports. Although this amount is pitance for the God-fearing American economy, to supplant Afghani heroin production and take all the profits from this market will destroy the Afghani economy and the terrorists’ funding. The costs to the US government will be minimal because they will only have to subsidize poppy cultivation enough to drop the price below that of the Afghanis (the US government already successfully runs programs like this for corn and dairy).
Subsidizing drugs that are to be sold to Americans may seem a little distasteful to some, but the effectiveness of such a program is empirically proven. Along with the sale of weapons to Iran, the Reagan administration supported the sale of Nicaraguan cocaine to Americans. As we all know, the financial backing which the Nicaraguan Contras received was enough to help them not overthrow the revolutionary Sandista government. The adverse effects on American cocaine users was confined to the inner-city areas where unemployment and domestic violence was already high.
Obama is making the same mistakes as George W. by trying to fight an unconventional war conventionally. In this War on Terror Against the Axis of Evil innovative strategies must be implemented. A simple removal of terrorist funding will most definitely end the war. This policy could even be used to end the welfare program: hand out dirty needles after the poppy harvest.
Written by Fahrrad Ums Karree
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
