You tell 'em, George!

In my blog profile, created back at the beginning of the course when I was young and naive, I mentioned that I shared George Carlin's opinions on voting. For today's entry, I feel like elaborating just a little bit more. Here is the exact material that I was referencing:

You tell 'em, George! While I admit that the arguments George makes in this video are quite cynical (and hilarious), there are also a few resoundingly truthful points made that, to me, ring true about the American system as well as the typical American attitude surrounding voting. George's two points are as follows:

1) Voting is meaningless - At least, it can certainly feel that way. There are a ton of people out there, roughly 314 million here in America. An individual vote can be looked at as a single drop in a vast ocean, in a majority of cases there is almost no telling if the vote that you cast made any difference what-so-ever. This is especially true with national elections and the Electoral College, which takes the idea of "one person, one vote" and flips it completely on its head. All of this paired up with voter registration and numerous other rules and regulations that can make voting not only seem daunting, but completely and utterly not worth it. To me, there has simply never been a desire or a need. I do not agree with the system itself. Our constitution is outdated, our politicians corrupt, the population complacent. Under what circumstances will voting in a system I inherentlty disagree with do me any good? The government is already running, and has been running, with or without my input for decades upon decades. As George said: "This country was bought, sold, and payed for a long time ago."

2) If you vote you have no right to complain - This is a twist on the normal opinion, but I wholeheartedly agree with it. Many will say those who don't vote have no right to complain because they did not contribute, however, George thinks the opposite. If you voted and you elected someone truly awful or despicable or corrupt into office you have no right to complain because it is your fault that they made it there in the first place. By not voting, I have made the tactical decision not to participate in a system I do not agree with and therefore hold every right to complain about everything screwed up that the American public helped put into place. This is one of the very reasons I am absolutely terrified to vote. Politicians are tricky and cannot be taken at face value, I would never want my vote to be even partially responsible for electing somebody into office that I later found out I could not ethically or logically stand behind. By avoiding voting I avoid having that responsibility placed on my shoulders.

For my parting sentiments on the subject, I will share with you all another video regarding a man whom you would least expect to have elaborate and poignant opinions on the subject of voting. Ladies and gentlemen, Russel Brand:

(Don't feel obligated to watch the full video, but some very solid points are made)

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

Posted as a comment on Minh Pham's blog: United States Government

Wow! Horse meat? Can't say I'm that tempted to try it either, Minh. I honestly don't see much of a purpose in the production of horse meat. Don't we Americans already eat enough cows for our own good? I did a little searching on the internet and found an article on the topic. The USDA has only recently approved the production of horse meat after after a previous ban expired in 2011. While Obama has stated he does not approve the production of horse meat, not much has been done to reinstate the ban since its expiration. Slaughter houses are extending an interest in horses because they can be obtained relatively cheaply and do not usually have to be maintained or raised before slaughter, the highest cost is simply the transportation of the animals.

Want to know the saddest part of the whole ordeal? Unlike cows, who are generally raised strictly for meat production, a large number of these slaughtered horses come from various horse owners who have, for whatever reason, decided to have their horses killed (illness, injury, or economics). So not only are you partaking in an animal that could have been put to much better use, you are more than likely also partaking in what used to be someones beloved pet. I may be a meat eater, but it'll be a long while before I feel tempted to try any horse burgers.

War Never Changes

The war on drugs is a colossal failure. A recent article on CNN reports that, despite an increased amount of drug seizures, prices of all illicit substances continue to decrease while purity continues to increase. In the article, Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Drug Policy Alliance, makes this claim: "The punitive prohibitionist approach to global drug control has proven remarkably costly, ineffective and counterproductive... it has generated extraordinary levels of violence, crime, and corruption while failing to reduce the availability of psychoactive drugs." 

Eloquently put, if I do say so myself. I completely agree with Mr. Nadelmann. The war on drugs is a deep blemish on our country that is desperately in need of the balms of better alternatives. It is my firm belief that any and all illegal substances should be legalized and decriminalized. I can think of a plethora of reasons as to why this would be beneficial, but I'll focus on three main points to narrow my focus.

1) Eliminate the criminal drug market: If drugs were made legal, readily available, and taxable by the government it could potentially eliminate, or at least drastically reduce, unregulated drug trade. When substances are restricted their demand increases, the only people who profit from this are the illegal dealer. If the government could regulate the distribution and pricing of these drugs then the criminal market would not be able to compete. Drug users would no longer have to turn to shady, back-alley dealers to get their fix. Addicts would no longer need to turn to petty crimes to afford their habit. A simple trip to a drug store would replace a trip to the drug dealer and ultimately lead to a reduction in crime, which brings me to my next point...

2) Reduce prison overcrowding and free-up the courts: Prisons are overcrowded with drug offenders and the courts could get better use of their time dealing with more important issues. As of 2011, there were 1,341,804 imprisoned drug offenders and 3,971,319 adults on probation. The legalization of drugs would immediately reduce the strain on prisons and courts. Any previous drug offenders would be released and make more room for real criminals. The reduced burden would also mean reduced costs of prison operations and court costs, which would be a welcome boon to any tax paying citizen. This would also eliminate the potential of prisons creating hardened criminals out of hard drug users, which often is the case when non-violent people are placed in the violent prison system.

3) Focus on the treatment of addicts: Imprisoning non-violent drug addicts and abusers does nothing but perpetuate crime. Drug addiction is not criminal activity, it is a health condition that can be successfully treated through rehabilitation. If addicts were given a chance to enter health programs then the very root of the nation's drug problem could begin to get treated. Less imprisonment means less addicts. Portugal, for example, has managed to reduce drug addiction by half by offering drug offenders social and mental health services.

While not everyone will agree with my views on legalization, I think a majority can at least come to an agreement that the war on drugs has been a failure. There are better options than the system we currently have in place, no amount of forceful seizures or restrictions will ever stop the sale and distribution of illicit substances. If ever there was a point to reconsider one of our many "wars," that time should, and could, be now.

Somin's Suppositions

Leave it to the fellows at The Volokh Conspiracy to pinpoint the truly important issues of tomorrow. Ilya Somin writes an article entitled "The Case for Designer Babies," in which he explores the possibility that the babies of the future will all be genetically modified, or, at least, the ones with rich parents will be. Not only will the future's babies be inherently more intelligent than today's, they will feature a wide array of  "abilities" that stand to be a net gain for all of mankind. Afterall, who else but our genetically modified children will stand to save us when a intrinsically superior alien race of intellectual, hive-minded, super-mutants try to enslave our feeble planet. I, for one, can barely wait for the model of babies that shoot laser beams out of their eyes.

In case you couldn't tell, that last paragraph was whole-heartedly sarcastic. Mr. Somin's article was ridiculous enough that I simply couldn't help myself. While I do believe that thinking preemptively about the possibilities of tomorrow is wise, making assumptions about how undeveloped technology will operate, especially when that technology is quite a far off prospect, is anything but wise. The focus of Somin's article is that this possible technology will increase average IQ's which will "eliminate political ignorance," and "reduce cognitive inequality," but he does not address what evidence made him come to that conclusion. Intelligent Quotient tests themselves are virtually meaningless as they assess only one aspect of a persons knowledge: their ability to take a test. If Somin's only basis that genetically modified babies equate to a better tomorrow is that they will be better test takers then he himself is in need of some genetic modification.

Moralistically, who is to say that genetic modification is to ever even become prevalent? I can't say I know many people who would be willing to have their children subjected to any sort of modification, let alone having their DNA, the essential fabric of their being, tampered with just so that they can sit on the high end of the bell curve. I may not have children but I know that loving them for who they are is an important part of the whole equation. While I may be a geek that finds the idea of genetic modification more than awesome, I still think Mr. Somin's concerns are more than a little ahead of their time.

Boehner Bunglers Boggle Cranky Krugman

A recent New York Times article written by Paul Krugman, entitled "The Boehner Bunglers," is one of many, many opinion articles to hit the web this week about the government shutdown and the looming debt ceiling. Krugman, who identifies himself as a liberal, writes about the incompetence and radicalization of the Republican party, calling them bullies and would-be extortionists. He goes on to say that "the modern Republican Party is no longer capable of thinking seriously about policy," and that if Obama were to back down and negotiate under the threat of an economic crisis that it would "legitimize extortion as a routine part of politics." The focus of the entire article is restated at the end: "Incompetence can be a terrible thing."

In many ways I agree with Krugman, incompetence can be costly, Republicans like Boehner have reached an undeniable degree of radicalization, after all, shutting down the government is no small trick. The Affordable Care Act has already been signed into law and refusing to budget the government as a means to delay is akin to a childish tantrum. As Jon Stewart put it: When the Giant's lost 31-7, they didn't shut down the NFL. However, I think a certain amount of incompetence can be attributed to all parties involved. I see too many articles like Krugman's which are quick to scold and point fingers but offer no insight into any sort of solution, or take responsibility for the shortcomings of their own political orientation. All faults aside, any day now someone is going to have to give into compromise and I am eager to witness the outcome.

National Parks Still Off-Limits to Washington and Colorado's Marijuana Users

According to a recent Time article, Colorado and Washington have an obligation to keep any marijuana use, medical or otherwise, off of federally owned property. Though both states have recently changed their stances on marijuana, bringing any of the substance onto federal property is still considered a crime. In fact, thousands of citations are given each year to those who bring marijuana to places such as national parks, forests, or monuments. This comes as part of eight federal law enforcement priorities that any states must follow if they wish to take part in marijuana regulation. These eight priorities include keeping the drug in state borders, off the black market, away from children, and, of course, off of federally owned land.

While this may seem like a no-brainer to many of you reading, there have already been 146 arrests in Washington and at least 135 arrests in Colorado in the last seven months for this very reason. Medical users are dumb-founded as these federal guidelines place limits on where they can take their medicine. Recreational users traveling on roads that run through or around federal property take the risk of being cited and fined, even while following their state's laws.

Needless to say, these are interesting times we find ourselves in as new laws take effect and the details begin to get hammered out. Marijuana regulation is an issue that pushes the boundaries between state and national government and allows us to look at the grey area between. In my opinion, anything that causes our nation to take a critical look at it's own inner-workings is more than worth the time.