So I thought this was an interesting article. Lots of stuff to talk about here really, starting with the fact that 1 in 100 people (well, adults; 1 in 130 of all people according to the DOJ) in the United States is in prison. One in 9 black males between 20 and 34. Obviously there are larger issues here (mostly poverty, although the glorification of drugs and guns probably has had some role in it). But there are two issues I want to discuss here.
The first is that the study is incorrect, or at least has not proven, that there has been no increase in public safety as a result. I'll refer you to this chart and discussion. I'm not saying that there is necessarily a causal link, but the crime rate has gone down. You can argue the causality and whether or not the increase in spending is worth it, but the public is, at least statistically, safer.
Second, there are two things that contribute to the prison population. The first is the amount of activity that is criminal. The second is the length of sentencing. I think in this case the length of sentencing (especially in the federal system) is more to blame here. Drug sentences are especially long and in certain cases can be very unfair and potentially ruin a life that otherwise might have been saved. There are a large range of conversations here: the fairness of mandatory minimums, the crushing punishments for the use of a firearm, whether or not the criminal justice system is properly serving its rehabilitation purpose by applying huge sentences, etc... Overall I think the punishments are eventually acceptable (perhaps with some exceptions) because of the deterrent effect. The ones you hear about are usually the exceptional case.
I think in order to deal with this problem, the solution is not shorter sentences but solving the underlying problems: poverty, lack of education, etc... Certainly there will always be someone who is looking for the easy way out and wil turn to criminal activity in order to take advantage of others. But in some cases it is desperation. I also think there needs to be better advertisement of the fact that the penalties are so crushing; it will increase the deterrent effect of some penalties. I doubt most people know that using a gun in any crime subjects someone to a minimum of 7 years under federal guidelines.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Americans Switching Faiths at a Higher Rate
I thought this was an interesting article, although not particularly surprising. I suppose I'm a little surprised that people change faiths so much, although increased information available means that people have more exposure to different religions and therefore an increased opportunity to choose the one that best suits them. Historically this information really wasn't available so people had to choose between the faith of their parents and nothing really.
I'm far less surprised by the fact that a lot of people are leaving organized religion altogether. I have a hard time dealing with someone who is given the power to decide what is morally right by an institution, especially when there is, it seems, little accountability. This is underscored, I suppose, by a lot of the recent church scandals, making people question why these particular people have such authority. THis also explains the heavy rate of attrition for Catholics in part. I also find it dangerous to give any institution the power over morality, since they can then bend it to their will. Look at the history of the Catholic Church. It is one of greed and bloodshed and powerhungry tyrants.
I'm not saying I'm against all organized religion for all people. Some people like it, and that's their choice. I just think that they should recognize its shortcomings.
I'm far less surprised by the fact that a lot of people are leaving organized religion altogether. I have a hard time dealing with someone who is given the power to decide what is morally right by an institution, especially when there is, it seems, little accountability. This is underscored, I suppose, by a lot of the recent church scandals, making people question why these particular people have such authority. THis also explains the heavy rate of attrition for Catholics in part. I also find it dangerous to give any institution the power over morality, since they can then bend it to their will. Look at the history of the Catholic Church. It is one of greed and bloodshed and powerhungry tyrants.
I'm not saying I'm against all organized religion for all people. Some people like it, and that's their choice. I just think that they should recognize its shortcomings.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Democrats
I've been researching the Democrats and there really aren't any huge differences in their positions. Clinton favors requiring health care for all people, while Obama favors only requiring it for children. I personally dislike when the government requires a person to do anything. I prefer when people have the ability to choose for themselves. Of course, the government does sometimes utilize mandates. The prime example is requiring insurance. But the auto insurance requirement is for the protection of others; if a person chooses not to have insurance, and that person gets into an accident, the other person in the accident could suffer horribly. This is not that. I prefer Obama this respect because it leaves more choice to the people.
Both would pull out of Iraq immediately, although Clinton would leave a larger residual force. I believe that the US has some obligation to Iraq. We need to determine whether Iraq can be stabilized or whether a civil war is inevitable. A larger residual force would have a greater chance of stabilizing Iraq, if possible, while also giving the Iraqi people space to figure out what theur country will be. Additionally, while both would seek diplomatic solutions, it seems like Obama would give greater concessions to Syria in Iran in order to do so. In this area I favor Clinton.
Clinton would end the "unfunded mandate" of No Child Left Behind, while Clinton would end it, although it is unclear what she would do. Obama believes the problem is that No Child Left Behind has not properly been funded and would improve the assessments used to track progress. I think education should be a state - or more specifically a local - issue. No Child Left Behind forces schools to teach to a test. Obama has acknowledged this by stating he will change the assessment methods. However, it is not clear what he would use as a replacement. Whatever it is, teachers would teach to that instead. I support the position that local authorities are in the best position to judge the adequacy of education. No Child Left Behind is exactly the opposite of that. Until I know more I cannot say I prefer Clinton, but I do not agree with Obama.
Obama has a slight lead in terms of the economy. His stimulus package, which used tax refunds, received higher marks from economists than did Clinton's, who favored subsidies for mortgages and heating. This, of course, means Obama's package gives greater flexibility to the people, which I favor. But mainly it comes down to the fact that Clinton believes in using the government as an economic prod, which includes placing a cap on executive pay. I want to make it clear that I believe that executive pay is way too high. I just believe that market forces should take care of the problem.
As for intangibles. Clinton is smart. But I dont like her and I dont trust her, which I think are related. The not liking her is a PR problem. The not trusting her is a result of her actions. The cattle trading controversy. Her willingness to do anything to get elected. This is just one example, but her sports allegiances have switched when they affact her chances of being elected. This may be just a small thing to some, but I believe it to be a sign of a certain type of character and a reflection of things to come. I am not sure she belives anything she says, but I am sure that she bellieves everything she says and does will get her elected (like the crying in New Hampshire). She is more experienced than Obama, but I am wary of having two families control the White House for 28 years. Obama is smart as well and more genuine. He is inspiring and a breath of fresh air, something this counrty needs now. I believe he believes what he says. I am concerned about his lack of experience, but believe he has the capacity to lead and can handle the office of the president.
As you can guess, then, I am endorsing, for the Democratic nominee for the presidency, This Man.
Both would pull out of Iraq immediately, although Clinton would leave a larger residual force. I believe that the US has some obligation to Iraq. We need to determine whether Iraq can be stabilized or whether a civil war is inevitable. A larger residual force would have a greater chance of stabilizing Iraq, if possible, while also giving the Iraqi people space to figure out what theur country will be. Additionally, while both would seek diplomatic solutions, it seems like Obama would give greater concessions to Syria in Iran in order to do so. In this area I favor Clinton.
Clinton would end the "unfunded mandate" of No Child Left Behind, while Clinton would end it, although it is unclear what she would do. Obama believes the problem is that No Child Left Behind has not properly been funded and would improve the assessments used to track progress. I think education should be a state - or more specifically a local - issue. No Child Left Behind forces schools to teach to a test. Obama has acknowledged this by stating he will change the assessment methods. However, it is not clear what he would use as a replacement. Whatever it is, teachers would teach to that instead. I support the position that local authorities are in the best position to judge the adequacy of education. No Child Left Behind is exactly the opposite of that. Until I know more I cannot say I prefer Clinton, but I do not agree with Obama.
Obama has a slight lead in terms of the economy. His stimulus package, which used tax refunds, received higher marks from economists than did Clinton's, who favored subsidies for mortgages and heating. This, of course, means Obama's package gives greater flexibility to the people, which I favor. But mainly it comes down to the fact that Clinton believes in using the government as an economic prod, which includes placing a cap on executive pay. I want to make it clear that I believe that executive pay is way too high. I just believe that market forces should take care of the problem.
As for intangibles. Clinton is smart. But I dont like her and I dont trust her, which I think are related. The not liking her is a PR problem. The not trusting her is a result of her actions. The cattle trading controversy. Her willingness to do anything to get elected. This is just one example, but her sports allegiances have switched when they affact her chances of being elected. This may be just a small thing to some, but I believe it to be a sign of a certain type of character and a reflection of things to come. I am not sure she belives anything she says, but I am sure that she bellieves everything she says and does will get her elected (like the crying in New Hampshire). She is more experienced than Obama, but I am wary of having two families control the White House for 28 years. Obama is smart as well and more genuine. He is inspiring and a breath of fresh air, something this counrty needs now. I believe he believes what he says. I am concerned about his lack of experience, but believe he has the capacity to lead and can handle the office of the president.
As you can guess, then, I am endorsing, for the Democratic nominee for the presidency, This Man.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Candidate Endorsements
I've found that if you put these things off too long, they eventually are forgotten. In that spirit, I am proposing that the first topic of discussion be the presidential primaries. I think the best way to do this is to endorse a candidate. You can do it however you wish, but I intend to select my favorites in both the Republican and Democratic races. The caveat is that it must be someone who I believe has a chance to win. For the Democrats, this means Obama or Clinton. Edwards does not have the support, although he is likely to play the role of kingmaker at the convention and could swing that into a vice presidential nomination. For the Republicans, it is McCain, Huckabee, and Romney. I intend to make these selections sometime after the Florida primary and wil include Giuliani if and only if he wins Florida; if not, he'll likely be out shortly after Super Tuesday. Let me know if you have any thoughts or additional topics for discussion.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Haha Looks Like it works
Hey, looks like we're up and running. I'll eventually post something, but I've been busy writing this paper for a class about transitional justice. It's pretty interesting I think, but I may be the only one. If I hadn't been working on that all day, I would have set somthing up, so thanks for taking care of it. Although I was thinking about naming it Jason's Basement, in honor of the place where so many arguments occurred. Anyway, let me know what you think of Gogol Bordello. I know its pretty far out there, which I suspect is why I like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)