List it: The 10 Biggest Losers from Marijuana Prohibition (Part 2)

Just when I thought that the only news I would get to read today would have to do with the "end" of open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), I was pleasantly surprised to be greeted with another news story worth spreading.  Reading the USA Today I found an article about The New Jersey Municipal prosecutors coming out in favor of marijuana legalization.  Chris Christy would likely veto any bill (he is known to be against legalization) but it is still a sign of the time that prosecutors in the state have stepped up and taken a stand.

Before finishing my list of the 10 biggest losers in marijuana prohibition (Part 1 found here), I want to respond to one part of the story that appeared to be contentious.  It seems like the only legitimate opposition to legalization found in this article was the possibility of increased motor vehicle accidents.  While this concern is certainly worth entertaining, it doesn't hold up to strict scrutiny.  For starters, those who would be likely to smoke and drive are likely already doing so, without much in the way of noticeable enforcement difficulties.  When they complain about the fact that there is no reliable way to test those who may be under the influence (since the tests reveal consumption dating back weeks, long after the individual has stopped being intoxicated), they seem to forget that it is already currently illegal to smoke marijuana and then drive a vehicle.  Any difficulty they are likely to incur, they are likely already incurring; legalizing possession does not significantly change much.

Now back to the list.  As a refresher here are the first five losers from marijuana prohibition.

10) Convicted Dealers
9) The Constitution
8) Recreational Marijuana Users
7) Mexico
6) Inner-Cities

5) Those who need it medically:  Again, I was surprised this wasn't higher on my list.  The idea that we have kept so many people who can be helped by medical marijuana from accessing what is sometimes the only effective drug (or one that is preferred over others for a variety of reasons) is appalling.  Fortunately they have usually been able to acquire some (assuming they know of its potential) on the black market (subjecting themselves to all the problems from #6) and many states are making it easier and more legal for them.  This fact coupled with relatively lighter punishments (assuming they aren't young men of color) is all that kept this group from the top of this list.

4) Young men of color:  They live in greater numbers in our inner cities which subjects them to greater risks.  It is much easier to become a drug addict or a gang member when you are surrounded by it as a part of daily life.  Then to top it off, they are arrested, convicted, and given greater sentences in disproportionately higher numbers.  They are stigmatized, profiled, stop & frisked, held back and pushed down.  If our goal was to keep them from succeeding in life, we couldn't have devised a better plan.

3) Drug Addicts:  Some of the more cynical out there won't think this is such a bad thing.  We're intentionally arresting, prosecuting and sentencing them after all, aren't they supposed to be losers in the war on drugs?  Actually, no.  The theoretical basis for arresting drug addicts is to prevent others from going down that path and helping addicts recover.  It appears that we have failed on both fronts, and at great expense.  By expense I'm not referring to the amount of money it takes to conduct these arrests, nor am I alluding to the billions in lost tax revenue; I'm talking about the cost we face by ruining so many people's lives.  Being arrested on drug charges can derail a career, disrupt a family and stigmatize a person for life.  Even if they do eventually get clean (from outside help not from prison) then they still carry the stigma of felony records that dampen the opportunities they have for the rest of their lives.  Remember, most drug users are non-violent people, few marijuana users move on to try harder drugs and only 4% of people who ever try marijuana become addicted.  For those people who do become addicted to harder drugs, marijuana can often be a stepping stone back down from addiction (quite the opposite of the gateway theory that we hear all about).  Doesn't the law seem a little crazy in this light.

2) Their Families:  The families of drug users suffer even more than the users themselves.  Children are being separated from their families, wives are seeing their husbands go to jail, and we are incarcerating the primary bread winner in far too many families.  These people are suffering, often through no fault of their own (especially the children).  It isn't unreasonable to take children away from neglectful or abusive parents; but it makes no sense to do so over a drug whose use is widespread, relatively benign (compared to most other illicit drugs and even most legal ones), and when the users are non-violent working class people.  We have to remember, it isn't just the users we are punishing with marijuana prohibition, it is everyone that knows and loves them, their community and most importantly their children that depend on them.

And the biggest loser from marijuana prohibition is...

1) America (i.e. the people): We are all the biggest losers in the war on marijuana.  Not only are we spending billions in enforcement, but we are losing out on billions in lost tax revenue.  But the costs we face go far beyond dollars and cents.  We are condemning entire communities to anemic growth, we are subjecting children to unnecessary burdens, we are tearing the Constitution to pieces, we are funding the largest and most violent criminal organizations in the world, we are diverting resources from helping the millions of people who die from prescription drug overdoses (marijuana overdose figures for all of recorded history = 0), we are stigmatizing entire racial demographics and breaking the bonds of trust between minority communities and the police who serve them.  Perhaps most important to me is that we are lying to our children and they know it.  Your kids are more tech savvy than you, it is pretty easy for them to find out that Santa isn't real and even easier for them to recognize our obvious hyperbole over the dangers of marijuana use.  The biggest problem with this is that they won't believe us when we try to tell them about about the real and honest dangers associated with drug consumption.  We can't teach them about tolerance, withdrawal, addiction or dependence because they don't believe us anymore.  Far from alleviating the problem we are only exacerbating it.

Isn't it time for a change?  Isn't it long past time for a change?  Even if you don't support or condone the use of marijuana (a perfectly reasonable position) can't we realize that trying to prohibit it is a counterproductive and futile effort.  The tides are turning on marijuana legalization... it's about time.

Stay tuned tomorrow for the conclusion of this three part series.  List it: 5 Biggest winners from Marijuana Prohibition.

List It: The 10 Biggest Losers from Marijuana Prohibition (Part 1)

People who know me well know that I believe one of (if not the) worst failures in American public policy is prohibition of marijuana.  I'm not terribly fond of the war on drugs at all, but it is particularly problematic when it comes to marijuana.  I have yet to think of one positive accomplishment that prohibition has achieved, and even where a case can be plausibly made it certainly does not merit some of the catastrophic consequences we have had to endure.

So rather than write about the end of Obamacare's open enrollment (kind of), something I did yesterday, I decided to make a list of the 10 biggest losers from marijuana prohibition. Today's post includes numbers 10-6, check back tomorrow for the rest of the list.

10) Convicted Drug Dealers:  It would be ridiculous not to include them in this list, but it was very easy to put them on the bottom.  Sure it sucks to get caught and go to jail, but odds are that they made buckets of money before being arrested and had the time of their lives.  These people knew what they signed up for when they began selling illegal drugs, they understood the risks and rewards and decided it was in their best interest.  For every dealer that we arrest a hundred walk freely(don't fact check that), enjoying the fruits of selling a product at wildly inflated prices because of scarcity and danger.

9) The Constitution:  I'm actually surprised that this didn't make it higher on my list considering the flagrancy of these abuses.  Let's just look at the Bill of Rights.  Non-violent drug users convicted of a felony are prevented from voting (1st amendment free speech), owning a gun (2nd amendment keep and bear arms), and has been the basis for stop and frisk and inland border patrol stop (4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure).  Mandatory minimum sentences require decades long sentences for even small-time dealers (8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment) which force well over 95% of all those arrested to plea out to lesser charges (5th amendment due process, 6th amendment public trial).  Finally, had always been mandated by the federal government even raiding medical marijuana facilities in states that had passed laws that allowed for them (interpretation of right to privacy via 9th amendment, and 10th amendment state authority over non-enumerated federal powers).  The only reason it didn't make it higher on my list is because when it comes to the erosion of the Constitution it is far from the only culprit.

8)  Those who use recreationally:  I suppose it can be hard to feel bad for this group of people, especially if you aren't one of them.  I really don't like it when marijuana advocates condemn alcohol and tobacco to try to make their point; the truth is that trying to prohibit any of these popular drugs would be a fools errand.  They are just way too popular for any campaign (that isn't educational) to succeed.  Still, marijuana is much safer for the individual than alcohol or tobacco and way less costly to society.  Despite that, those who choose marijuana over alcohol are not only subject to outrageously inflated prices but they are also susceptible to criminal prosecution, social stigma, job loss, asset forfeiture, loss of child custody and other draconian punishments.  Seems crazy to punish people for making a better choice.

7) Mexico:  This includes other Latin American countries.  In Mexico the country has been divided into regions, not by the government but by the cartels.  These borders are in constant dispute, resulting in constant violence and bloodshed.  It is easy to see how an influx of so much money (as well as weapons) could corrupt the entire political system.  The integrity of our southern neighbors government as well as the health and well being of their people is suffering because we insist on criminalizing a drug with wide appeal.  Why wasn't Mexico further on this list, see #9.

6) America's Inner Cities:  This is without even considering the harm done to the people who live there.  The war on drugs doesn't just fund the foreign cartels, it funds America's home grown gangs.  Because there is a huge market for a product that is illegal, there are great profits to be made by those who can avoid criminal prosecution.  The allure of so much money brings kids (especially those who haven't been shown another path) into gang life, hoping to get a taste of prosperity for once.  We are effectively bankrolling gang violence, sexual harassment and rape and the futures of so many of our own children.

Lots of harm already done and we haven't even gotten to the top five.  This is all making me very sad, but we have to make the change we want to see tomorrow, today.  Oh look it's almost 4:20 ... I gotta go.

"Hunting" Deer

I read a story today by Ryan Sabalow of The Indianapolis Star about deer breeding and deer hunting.  I didn't get the full story, just the snippet he wrote for USA Today.  I must admit I found something in this article terribly disgusting.  As a (mostly) vegetarian it would seem likely that it was about hunting and killing deer in general.  Maybe I should be mad about the potential for the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) among wild deer across our country.  Maybe I should be mad about the "shoddy record keeping and meager penalties for those caught breaking the rules."  Maybe I should be mad that these deer hunting preserves fall into a "regulatory gap" where "anything goes."  I'm fairly certain that I should be mad that hunters feel that the industry is capable of self regulation and that politicians seem to agree.  Some people would probably be mad that these deer have been selectively bred to having the most outrageous and freakish antlers possible, regardless of the health concerns associated with such large antlers.  And really, we should all be mad that Ryan's story discovered that the "industry costs taxpayers millions of dollars, compromises long-standing wildlife laws, endangers wild deer and undermines the government's miltibillion-dollar effort to protect livestock and the food supply." All these things bother me, but it is not what makes me really mad.

 What really makes me mad is the "captive-deer facilities."  Let's go over that again, captive deer facilities.  These are reserves where selectively bred deer are sent to roam about until some wealthy "hunter" comes along to shoot them for their antlers.  I call these people "hunters" because these are captive deer.  Let's be clear, it is NOT HUNTING if you are shooting deer that are unable to escape because they are encircled in high fences.  It is literally like shooting fish in a barrel.  I can not, for the life of me, understand how anyone could get a thrill out of shooting a captive deer.  These aren't even normal deer, they are weighed down by their huge antlers and stupid from several decades of inbreeding.  Who gets a thrill from this?

Sadly, too many of us do get off on this ridiculous hobby; it is a billion dollar industry (that's billion with a 'B').  I'm not here to trash the people who own/love/use their guns, I don't understand it but it's not really my business.  I'm just not sure that I will ever get gun love, but I know I will never understand captive hunting.  If you want to prove that you are a real tough guy (I don't because I am not) and you feel the need to shoot something, join the army and fight for our country.

When it comes to gun laws I don't think it's fair for a liberal Californian (like me) to tell midwestern/southern states how they should live their lives or that their culture is stupid.  Similarly, though, I don't think these gun lovers should keep suburban populations from imposing stricter gun laws when they have violence epidemics.  For those people that profess a love of states rights it is time to show it even when you don't agree with what some states are doing.

Signing Up Today- Healthcare for Everyone

I didn't think they gave us enough credit.  They said that young people were going to sign up for healthcare but we were all going to wait until the last few days in March.  I actually believed them, but I thought I was better than that...

Well here we are, March 30th and still no healthcare for me.  I'm going to sign up (who wouldn't) but I'm kind of annoyed that it has taken me this long to get to it.  I've actually been on the site a few times, looked around, poked my nose into things and got a feel for what I could expect.  I must admit that I was furious to find out that dental coverage isn't included.  That is probably an unwarranted critique since dental coverage always seems to be disjoined from health coverage, but that still doesn't make any sense to me.  Anyway, when I found out that dental wasn't included, I started looking around the internet to see how to get dental coverage and ended up leaving the healthcare exchange without signing up.  As someone who has had to constantly defend the Affordable Care Act (being a liberal in a conservative part of town) I am pretty annoyed that I haven't proven the critics wrong.  It's not that I am head over heels in love with this program (single payer anyone?) but there is no doubt in my mind that it is better than what we had and better than anything (if anything) the "other guys" are putting out there.

Despite the fact that many young Americans have yet to sign up for health insurance, many others have.  One of those people is a really good friend of mine, and it turned out to be an incredibly wise choice.  Just days after signing up (but before it had actually began covering him) he went to see a doctor about an irritated patch of skin on his back.  Turns out he had skin cancer.  He did have to pay for that initial visit out of pocket (insurance hadn't kicked in yet) but he did get covered just in time for the treatment he would end up undergoing.  Now I'd like to believe that in 21st century America that even without health insurance he would have received the treatment he needed to save his life, but I have serious doubts that it would have been at a similar level and especially that it would have been accomplished without tremendous headaches and financial strain.  Getting covered might not have physically saved his life (we can thank doctors and medicine for that) but it might have saved his financial life and his mental health (things that do affect your physical well-being).  Knowing someone with a story like this makes it really hard to understand (and remain calm) why some politicians make it their mission to destroy this legislation.

There is good cause to have honest and open dialogue about the state of healthcare in this country, and there is a lot of good reasons to be critical of the affordable care act; but what we have seen goes well beyond constructive dialogue and has turned into an ideal representation of the vile partisanship with which our country is now deadlocked.  With all the debates it's all too easy to forget about the real people that this law is affecting, not just those who get covered but all Americans.

What I can't seem to understand about opposition to the Affordable Care Act is its characterization as a generous government program.  When we have people show up at hospitals who need healthcare, we treat them whether they have insurance or not.  This expense gets passed on to the rest of us who pay our bills and have insurance.  What the ACA did was tell all these people that don't have insurance that they have to pay their fair share, they need to contribute (what they can) so that the burden of caring for them doesn't fall to everyone else.  Now there are obvious benefits to the uninsured, many are eligible for free coverage through the Medicaid expansion (I'll have to write about that another time), most others get subsidized insurance based on their income, and most importantly is that when they need coverage that can be assured that it will be there, that they won't be stigmatized and that they aren't burdening anyone else.  What is amazing to me is that so many poor and low income people are willing to step up and say that they want to pay their fair share, they want to contribute, they want to be healthy and they want to do it without passing on the burden to everyone else.

I am one of those people, a graduate student making a meager living who feels he owes it to society to pull his own weight.  It shouldn't be so hard to better yourself and contribute to society and it shouldn't be so controversial.  Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go get me some of that Obamacare... first thing tomorrow morning.

Time for the European Union to Step Up

We are currently living in the midst of an unprecedented opportunity to showcase the power of globalization in the de-escalation of conflict through nonviolence.  In America we are fortunate to have a sitting president that has shown a great deal of restraint and reluctance to engage in military interventions.  Our global image may not yet reflect this but Obama has refused calls to engage in Syria, Lybia, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Argentina, Pakistan, Palestine/Israel and now Ukraine (am I missing some?).  That's not to say that we have significantly decreased our military global presence, only that it could have been much worse.  Now, with the situation with Russia and Ukraine there is a chance to see if the world is ready for 21st century diplomacy.

For those Europeans that have criticized the United States for its overzealous inclination towards military engagement it is time to set the path towards bloodless diplomatic resolutions.  In America the press continues to highlight the conflict as a battle between Putin and Obama, but the reality is actually much different.  This conflict is really one between the European Union and Russia, the United States is primarily an auxiliary player (on the side of the EU).  Crimea is a European territory belonging to a member state and the EU is a huge consumer of Russian energy exports.

Europe has a chance to resolve this conflict with minimal blood loss, but it must act in a unified and decisive manner.  If Europe responds with economic force by refusing Russian exports & freezing Russian assets the results could be revolutionary.  To be sure, there would be immediate pain felt on both sides; Russia would immediately take a huge economic hit but Europe would also be starving itself of necessary energy imports.  Here is where the global community would need to step in.  The United States would have to provide financial assistance and the middle eastern oil states would need to help fill the energy gap.  If all the worlds players stepped up in this manner, we could show how the power of isolation is superior to the power of intervention.

Of course there is no realistic military option on the table against Russia, the results would be just too catastrophic.  What we are really faced with are non-militaristic choices.  We can either take a rational pragmatic approach and decide that the loss of Crimea is not of sufficient concern to warrant the repercussions associated with responding: or we can set a precedent that says that the world will not condone these hostile maneuvers and will respond with great force and solidarity.  The resistance will economic and peaceful, it will be cooperative and firm.  Here is a chance to show how all future wars will be won over dollars and cents rather than guns and bombs.  If Europe fails to act, or the global community flinches in their support then we will have blown a unique chance to lead the world toward bloodless economic diplomacy.

Imagine You're a Cell

This is part two in my religion/spirituality series.  This topic actually came to me while I was having a friendly drunken debate with a bible thumping friend of mine (that's right, I branch out).  He would laugh at the title of this post since I must have asked him to imagine himself as a cell at least several dozen times during the course of the night.

The idea is that you would be able to consider a new perspective on the vastness and complexity of the universe.  I was somewhat dismayed that he felt compelled to argue with me, especially since what I was trying to prove was the plausibility of the existence of some sort of "God" (a term I use here somewhat liberally).  This idea does fit into a broader context, of course, but for the sake of brevity I will stick somewhat strictly to the thought experiment.

So, I ask you to imagine yourself as a cell within your own body.  You go about living out your cell lives, doing everyday cell things.  You live in a community of like minded cells going about their own work.  Outside of your little community there are other groups of cells that have different jobs and all live together in their own little tight knit neighborhoods.  Outside of your home-organ there are other cells that all have jobs and regular cell lives.  You don't know too much about them but they work within the same human ecosystem so you interact, albeit mostly indirectly.

The picture I tried to paint is one where cells live suspiciously humanistic lives, and where you (the human) actually resemble a mostly self contained universe.  Most of the cells in our body only interact with a handful of cells in their vicinity, they have no real clue what's going on with the rest of the cells in the "universe" (you).  Even brilliant cells that knew a great deal about your own body would have a hard time imagining or conceiving of another human that would have its own universe of cells, much less of realizing that the universe itself had consciousness and could act intentionally to affect the landscape of their universe.  With that in mind, let's once again re-imagine ourselves as one of our average, workaday cells just doing his job and minding his business.

The word spread quickly across the different cell communities.  In an act of unusual solidarity, all the cell groups rallied in opposition to some new cells that had just moved in and were already causing havoc.  These so called "cancer" cells had started taking over entire villages and were spreading like wildfire.  They seemed unable to live side by side with other kinds of cells and were intent on breaking the harmony that had been achieved.  The normal cells sent all the brigades of soldiers they had at the cancer but would eventually succumb to an overwhelming force.  Tired and defeated, the normal cells would retreat and wait for their eventually melancholy fate.

 Just when it seemed that all hope was lost, something miraculous happened.  A force appeared that seemed to cause the cancer cells a great deal of stress.  This miraculous force had never before existed within the universe, it appeared to violate all the cells scientific laws and understanding.  Sure the force was applied somewhat liberally and there was a great deal of collateral damage, but for the most part it appeared to be targeted at the cancerous cells specifically.  Damaged by the miraculous force, the cancer cells were easily defeated by the rejuvenated "normal" cell brigades.  Though their lives depended on it, the cells could never comprehend the miraculous strike against the cancer onslaught because they had never considered that the universe had its own consciousness and could act intentionally in its own self preservation.

Zoom back out... now you're a human trying to make sense out of the thought experiment I just asked you to take.  If you take this cellular (not the phone) perspective back with you to your human form, it becomes reasonable to imagine that our universe itself has some degree of consciousness.  It may be able to act intentionally on our physical laws with forces that originated beyond the edge of our universe.  Within this analogy, the chemotherapy might actually be represented by black holes.  They say that the two places that our understanding of the laws of physics break down is at the first instant of the big bang and at the center of black holes.  Black holes might be sent in to destroy some cancerous cells, indiscriminately sweeping up anything that comes in its way.

If our universe acts intentionally and with powers beyond our comprehension, wouldn't that be kind of like God?  Its not the same Judeo-Christian God that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent but it's definitely something.  Plus if you believe in a multi-verse (coming soon), they you actually get to call yourself a polytheist.  Never be afraid to imagine yourself as a cell, its a whole new world (or universe).

Rabbits Defy Evolution

I want to spend a few blogs writing about faith, religion, belief, spirituality, disbelief and science.  I, like all humans, believe in things that I cannot necessarily prove; most of these things can be explained, just not by me.  I know that there are some people out there that think they don't believe anything, if you are one of those people might I ask you to explain how an internal combustion engine works?  Odds are you would have a hard time doing so, yet every time you go to drive somewhere you have faith in the fact that turning the key in the ignition is going to start your car and it will be able to drive you around.

This isn't really the belief that I am really concerned with here.  Rather, I'm interested in belief in things that are beyond anyones ability to prove.  My "faith" is constantly evolving, not only as I work through some of the challenging questions I have yet to resolve, but also because the science which lies at the foundation of my beliefs is also ever improving.  I want to explore some of the burning questions I still have, some of the insights I've developed and some of the controversial beliefs that I hold.  In today's post I want to write about a paradox that got me thinking about this subject again recently; surprisingly enough it is all about rabbits.

That's right the cute little fluffy bunnies that have so often been anthropomorphized as some of our favorite cartoon characters (what's up doc?).  I had some friends over about a year ago and they brought their pet rabbits, since I have a cat we had to be careful to keep them separated.  I asked them how their rabbits would respond if I let my cat in the room with their rabbits (obviously hypothetically) and was surprised to hear their answer.  They told me that it is entirely likely that their rabbits would actually die from the shock of seeing my cat (a 12 Ib mainecoon).  Apparently, rabbits can literally be frightened to death.  I suppose this shouldn't be too surprising, its basically a heart attack and humans have those too.  The surprising part is that this can happen relatively easily and quite frequently.

On the one hand, this all makes perfect sense: if you are in a situation where you face certain death it seems that it would be much better to die suddenly of a heart attack that having your flesh torn apart by an attacker.  On the other hand, however, something about this seems off: why would rabbits have evolved this ability (to be easily frightened to death) when it could never help in the promulgation of the species.  My understanding of evolution suggests that adaptations evolve because they increase procreation, either by increasing mating frequency or by living longer.  I don't quite see how being scared to death can fall into either of these categories, instead it seems as if it is a purely humane adaptation.  As far as I know, evolution is not compassionate, it should only work toward increasing the survival rate and procreation of the species (or gene).  Even if most of the rabbits that have been scared to death would have died anyway, a few would have survived given a few seconds, quick reflexes, and maybe some good fortune.  With that in mind, there is no way that rabbits could have evolved this reflex.

As you can imagine, this whole thought process came as quite a shock to me.  Having understood evolution to be the sole mechanism in the transformation of species I was perturbed by this conundrum and set out to figure it out.   I developed a few theories but one of them seemed to stand out in terms of the greatest amount of plausibility.  The evolutionary explanation that best explains this phenomenon is that rabbits have always been pray animals and so they have evolved a great deal of cautious behaviors.  Over time, rabbits that were the least curious, the least adventurous, the most timid and the most fearful have been the most successful in surviving the elements and the dangers in their life.  This forced rabbit evolution towards greater and greater timidity until they became the animals we know today.  In this light, the "scared to death" reflex is merely a consequence of a positive fearful adaptation.

Still, have there never been rabbits that were both incredibly timid but also incredibly hardened to shock and not susceptible to the "scared to death" reflex?  Wouldn't this variation have occurred enough times that we should see some degree of increased life span?  Haven't they been evolving for enough time so that this small attribute would be locked into the genetics of all rabbits by now?  In other words, why haven't they evolved out of this reflex yet?

It seems silly to allow this concern to tarnish the incredible explanatory power of biological evolution, but it does make you wonder if it is the only player in the game.  Maybe there is something more going on here, maybe something much bigger.  I don't know, and likely never will; but that won't stop me from taking my mind on an adventure that seeks to at least ponder some of the greater questions in life.  Why are we here?  How did we get here?  How BIG is everything?  I make no promises that you will agree with much (if any) of what I think is going on, I can't even promise that my beliefs are correct or even firmly held; I can only promise that i'll be open to new ideas and honest in my assessment.

The Power of Mass Communication

I was sitting in class the other day and someone brought up the White House petition to deport Justin Bieber.  We weren't talking about Biber per-say but the conversation was really about the power and efficacy of the internet.  Most of my peers had a negative outlook on the transformative power of the internet's mass communication social media platforms, but I took a different approach.  It's not that I don't see that proliferation of trolls, the incessant and unnecessary vulgarity, the lack of cohesiveness and purpose; I do, but maybe its just a phase (I hope so) and eventually our internet will emerge from its adolescence and become the transformative power we all hope it can be.

The internet's web of mass communication has already done so much from connecting people to their loved ones, providing information in times of crisis, and mobilizing entire nations (See Arab Spring).  Still, we have only just begun to scratch the surface of the potential that mass mobilization and open information access can do to transform the world.  There are a great many obstacles to even begin confronting some of the global threats that our planet faces and will continue to face; our politicians are locked in a deadly stalemate, for every action we must take there are those who resist because of rational self-interest.  The people of the planet are ready to confront our global challenges, our governments are not: this is where the internet can come to the rescue.  As soon as we realize that there are better and more rewarding ways to harness the power of mass communication we can make real change a reality.

One of the internet's tools that I see as making a real difference is crowd-funding websites.  Kickstarter, Indiegogo and GoFundMe have already helped 10's of thousands (100's of thousands, millions? I don't know I've only got 10 minutes and can't spend it researching but lets just leave it at "a lot") of entrepreneurs begin to realize their dream of making a difference.  The range of people, products, stories, support, charities, etc. that have been mobilized by small contributions from large numbers of people is truly astonishing.  Who knows which of these people are going to be the next great think in American enterprise, but I have a feeling they are already looking for support on one of these crowd-funding sites.  Every once in a while one of these projects takes off, it goes viral, it crosses the "tipping point" (Read Gladwell's book, its worth the time) and that is what the internet can do in the 21st century.  If you have a great idea then just do it, the tools are there and you can succeed; its the modern American dream realized.

Now for a little un-solicited promotion.  I got interested in this topic because a great friend of mine is beginning his own project today.  I really admire him because he lives his life with a "get what you want and figure it out later" philosophy.  It reads a little narcissistic in writing, but really its all about deciding how you want to live your life and then living it that way.  He has a great project going on and I hope you all can support it, even if only by sharing it with others.  Not only is their mission great but their products are even better, i'd tell you all about it but that'd be redundant since they've already done all the work for me.  Check them out here.

By harnessing the power of the internet, we can decide what kind of life we want to live but even more importantly, we can decide what kind of world we get to live those lives in.  Make a difference, make a change, it's up to all of us.

Cheers

Open Spaces

Apologies to any of my regular readers (are you out there?) I went to Joshua Tree this weekend and didn't get any blogging done.  I did, however, have an amazing time.  There is nothing quite like breaking out of the daily grind and spending some quality time out in our country's lovely open spaces.

As Americans, we haven't exactly been good stewards to the environment but if there is one thing we did do right, its to set aside some of our most treasured land for preservation as National Parks.  These places are oases in a sea of industrialized development and tract houses, we can and should continue to preserve and protect these national treasures.  Unfortunately in the era of austerity these "non-essential" expenditures are often the first and hardest hit casualties in our funding budgets.  Our parks have been operating on bare-bones budgets for too long.  Not only should we be putting an emphasis on funding our national parks, we should also focus on using them.

We don't spend enough time outside, we feel no connection to nature, we are suffocated by air pollution and dense city centers; this may be the 21st century's way of life, but thats all the more reason to keep our parks in pristine shape and ready for our much needed breaks.

Heading to J-Tree I was pleasantly surprised by the wonderful turn-out that the park had.  It's prime time for desert camping- hitting that sweet spot between way too cold at night and way too hot in the day, the goldilocks of weather in the desert.  Even our short trip, about 30 hours, was such a refresher I felt compelled to write about it.  We did some hiking, some bouldering, some sitting around the campfire (with a few cold beers I might add), and one intense off-road trip out of the park.

I've been to J-Tree quite a few times now, it's one of my favorite camping spots (when the weather is right) but still find new sights, sounds and adventures in every trip.  On this trip we even experienced an adventure just leaving the park.  My friend (who was driving) decided that it would be a fun idea to take some little 4-wheel drive, unmaintained and seemingly desolate "road" out through the south side of the park.  I was (appropriately) hesitant, but what the heck we came for adventure right?

After the first hour my hesitation turned to outright fear.  We were in the middle of the desert, no cell service, no sign of activity, on a road we had never traveled and with some ominous signs warning us to continue "at our own risk."  As it turned out the road was (barely) "passable" and we made it clear to the other side of the mountainous pass we were traveling.  I was white knuckling the whole 2 hour trip and my stomach was churning and tied in knots, but just 24 hours later- I already remember it fondly as an extraordinary adventure.

Our parks can be adventurous, fun and sometime a little scary but they needn't be.  They are there for all of us to enjoy- they're there for us to relax and unwind.  What are you waiting for?  Finish reading the rest of my blog, get packed and go get out there.  You'll thank me soon enough.

A Different Farm Bill

Here's a bill I think that I could support, and one that could conceivably pass in Congress as well.  I know that is a bold prediction, but I have a plan.  Maybe it's the liberal big spender in me, but I thought if there is something that you want then the best way to get it is to throw a bunch of money at the people that might be likely to oppose it.  In this case it is a liberal bill, so i'd be throwing money at conservative states.

The bill I am proposing is a food production bill, but it would be quite different from what we now call the Farm Bill.  The Farm Bill is a regularly renewed program that spends a bunch of money subsidizing agriculture production (or like crop insurance, maybe some other stuff I don't know exactly) which generally goes to conservative states in the South and Midwest (but probably elsewhere too).  It also funds a lot (if not all) of the food stamp programs that feed some of our nation's low income earners.

I would like to see a bill that encourages a lot of domestic production of a variety of produce grown in an environmentally sound manner (not just Organic but with concerted land management).  This produce would be directed toward the domestic market and would be provided at a significantly reduced cost, especially targeting low income earners.  In exchange for voting for this generously liberal program, I would be willing to spend a bunch of money subsidizing the farmers who would grow this food.

I'm happy to subsidize American farmers and American food production, but in exchange for these subsides shouldn't we at least expect that we would get the most natural and wholesome food?  Why should we have to eat "food" that many other countries refuse to import?  And furthermore, why should we ever pay farmers to leave fields fallow (unplanted) in an effort to keep commodity prices at a certain point, when we have children in our country and others who are hungry and relying on food stamps to get low cost low nutrition food?

I think that we could remedy this problem, the key is to offer to send a whole bunch of money to conservative states' agriculture business.  Even if these conservative senators don't like "big government" (or poor children if you're a bit more cynical), once their constituents find out about the windfall we're offering them, I think they'll have to come on board.

Let's do it!

Obama's Gals

President Obama is set to begin a multi-city tour where he will push gender specific issues. (USA Today) He is expected to discuss the gender wage gap, raising the minimum wage and affordable child care.  I'll set aside my hesitations in calling anything women's issues (because I think all issues are women's issues) to thank him for fighting the good fight.  Obama's presidency has not shied away from combating women's issues, (though to what extent he has had success in alleviating some of these problems has yet to be determined) by noting women's institutional and structural obstacles.  Good for him, I wish him great success.

This story reminded me of another recent Obama initiative but this time dealing with race.  In presenting his "My Brother's Keeper," a program aimed at young men of color, Obama spoke frankly about some of the challenges he faced as a young black man.  To those who followed Obama's presidency closely, this might actually come as a surprise.  He has made remarkable few comments or initiatives aimed at the Black community.  I assume this is a conscious decision on his part, an effort to prevent a perception that he favors his own community over the country as a whole.  It's actually a smart strategy in this light, even subdued concerns of this nature might make it harder for any future presidents who want to break our traditional mold.  I've frequently joked (sarcastically) that Obama and Hillary cut a deal during the 2008 presidential primary, if he won he'd focus on women's issues, if she won she'd tackle racial discrimination.  If that's true (it's not) then that'd be one good reason to vote for Hillary in 2016.

Having finally broken his silence on racial problems, you'd think he be met with emphatic support by the African American community.  This was not exactly the case.  While many cheered for him and are encouraged by this sign, there were others who thought that his approach left a great deal to be desired. I actually think that their critique is augmented by a comparison with his concern over women's issues.  His approach with women notes the structural difficulties that women face: income inequality, affordable child care, and an inadequate minimum wage.  With "My Brothers Keeper" his tone was a bit different, he seemed to stress individualistic or cultural deficiencies.  That's not to say that he isn't aware of institutional race based inequality, nor is it to say that there may not be legitimate individual or cultural concerns, only that his approach was different even though there are many similarities.  Is this a continuation of his aversion towards racial inequality because of his historic presidency?

Let me end with a couple of points that should be made clear.  If you want to get young Black men back in the family taking care of their children, stop disproportionally arresting them for non-violent drug offenses.  If you want Black children to do better in school, look to the quality of their schools not their individual efforts.  If you want Black men to succeed in their careers and to save for a comfortable retirement, tear down the structural walls that hold them back.  If you want Black men to be healthier, help them get insurance support programs that make quality healthy food cheaper than the terrible fast food crap we've all been inundated with.  If you want Black men to quit smoking dope, well... I don't know what you could do about that (or why you'd want to).

Why Am I (mostly) Vegetarian?

If I had a quick and simple answer to that question I would tattoo it on my forehead so that people would stop asking me.  I think that part of the problem is that I don't fit within most people's construction of vegetarianism.  I am a young American male with an affinity for football, bowling and beer; not exactly your typical vegetarian.

I should point out that I'm technically not a vegetarian, I am actually a pescatarian which means that I eat seafood.  Essentially, I drew the line at sushi.  Technically, I'm not even a strict pescatarian as i've been known to sneak little bites of turkey on Thanksgiving.  Generally speaking though, I am mostly vegetarian and our house is exclusively vegetarian.  But why?

Again, I don't find this a terribly easy question to answer.  I know that for some people it is, but I was motivated by a variety of factors.  I actually decided to go vegetarian on a whim; I didn't think long and hard, I didn't consider the complications, I didn't feel compelled, I just decided to try it.  It was always supposed to be an experiment, I knew people that had stopped eating meat and I was curious about what that was like.  Besides, I was already not eating a great deal of meat anyway, you know that whole starving student thing.  So why did I (mostly) stick with it?

1) I spend less money on food.  I can afford to spend a little more money now than then, but i've already allocated it on better beer and (some) organic produce.  Besides, who wants to spend more money?

2) I feel better.  I noticed this immediately, I'll spare you the details but by my next mornings cup of coffee (or like 5 cups) my dietary change was already evident.  I will admit that at first some of my meals weren't terribly satisfying but eventually I leaned how to cook a little bit and that hasn't really been a problem of late.

3) No dead animals.  I don't have anything in particular against eating meat, but i'm not particularly thrilled with some of the ways that we raise farm animals (though to be fair, i'm not terribly excited by way we grow plants either).  I know that for some people this is a huge motivation, good for them... but it's not really my primary concern.

4) It's better for the planet.  The science is clear, methane is a terrible greenhouse gas, and eating meat in this country actually causes more emissions than all the cars combined.  This actually is a pretty good motivator for me, but I don't talk about it that much because I don't live every aspect of my life in an environmentally conscious way and I don't need to hear about my own hypocrisy.

5) Path dependence.  Well, I don't eat meat.  As it turns out, if you go a long time without eating meat, then eating meat will make you sick.

6) I date a vegetarian.  Before you ask, I was a vegetarian when we met thank you very much.  It doesn't really make sense for me to decide to eat meat again if I live in a meatless house.

7) I'm actually healthier.  You can eat a healthy carnivorous diet or an unhealthy vegetarian one but i've found that my own personal diet has improved.  I've found a taste for vegetables I never liked before, and I eat a lot more leafy greens.  It might not work for everyone, but it helped for me.

So why am I mostly vegetarian, little bits of all these things (and probably more that i've forgotten).  I should point out a caveat, if i'm traveling outside the country (maybe that'll happen again someday) then i'll eat whatever is put in front of me.  You might only get one chance to taste different and authentic cuisine and i'm not gonna miss out.  I don't want to be one of those...

Celebrate Science

Pi is a mathematical term used to describe the number of times the diameter of a circle fits in its circumference.  It is an irrational number whose decimal points extends into infinity, but we commonly associate 3.14 with Pi.  For this reason, there has been growing interest in celebrating "Pi Day" on March 14 (3-14) although I suppose this only applies to countries that list month prior to day (14-3-14 doesn't quite work).  I'll temporarily set aside my preference for Tau over Pi in order to celebrate what is really a marvelous development.

Any recognition for a celebratory day that is dedicated to science (math specifically here) is actually a tremendous breakthrough for our society.  All of the major holidays that we celebrate in America are either religious or nationalistic, none (to my knowledge) are meant to celebrate the truly monumental advances in human knowledge through scientific inquiry.  Still, I think we are not yet taking the best approach to science holidays, maybe we should learn a lesson from the Christians of long ago.

Most non-believers (and indeed many believers) know that we celebrate Christmas nearly as far away from Jesus' birthday as possible.  All accounts indicate that Christ was born during the summer months in the northern hemisphere, we know that Christmas was set in late December to appeal to Pagans who celebrated Saturnalia around this time of the year.  Christmas is, at its core, really a celebration of the Winter Solstice and the life bringing potential of longer days.  That Christmas was celebrated around the Winter Solstice is no trivial matter, it helped in the conversion of Pagans to Christians which fueled the growth and spread of Christianity (I assume, though I have not actually done any research about this impact).  Might we be wise enough to situate secular holidays so that they coincide with traditional religious festivals?  Might this help the Atheists in their "conversion" efforts?  I'm not sure, but it seems unlikely to hurt the movement.  Let's imagine how this might work.

It seems to me that there are two main holidays that need to be addressed, Christmas (obviously) and Easter.  Our goal should be to create holidays that occur around the same time (indeed I argue they should be held on exactly the same day) and they should at least resemble the holiday they intend to replace.  Let's begin with Easter.  Easter falls on a different day every year (at some point I learned how it is calculated but i've since forgotten and no longer care) but shouldn't be too hard to find since it is always on the Sunday that follows Good Friday (that's a joke).  Easter is a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ after he (supposedly) died for our sins, we celebrate by eating chocolate rabbits (especially the ears, if my mom didn't get to them first...), looking for hidden eggs (more candy and chocolate, does this seem like bribery to you or is it merely a reflection of our poor eating habits?), and (sometimes) going to church.  Our holiday should have an equally serious motivation and equally ridiculous celebration.  I would propose a day of remembrance for all those that have left us mortals behind, celebrated by looking for hidden eggs containing messages and quotes from those we most miss and respect (ok fine, lets throw some candy in there too, we don't want to be buzz-kills).  We could even have an egg from Jesus himself (he was, after all, a righteous and respectable man) but it wouldn't be just about him, it would be about all of us.  The eggs would actually mean something too, they would symbolize evolution, not so much biological but social (it's about how ideas are passed from one generation to the next, each one refining and molding them to fit their own landscape).  Sounds like fun doesn't it?

Christmas is a bit harder for me.  It is supposedly about birth, renewal and generosity but is awfully commercialized.  Two ideas came to mind: 1) Move Earth Day to coincide with Christmas, little could symbolize birth, renewal and generosity better than Earth Day.  The downside is that it doesn't really resemble how Christmas is actually celebrated, and there is certain to be backlash that would damage the work that environmentalists have already put in to get us to celebrate the earth at all. 2) Move National Service Day to Christmas.  I like this better, it allows us to give back to each other (and time is more valuable than possessions anyway) plus, Christians can celebrate too as soon as they finish opening presents.  The idea then, would be a gradual shift in emphasis from religion to secularism (but keep it quiet, they don't need to know 'till its already happened).

If you've got better ideas for holidays that coincide with Easter and Christmas, I'm all ears.  But for now, Pi day is good (even if Tau is better) and we can all be thankful for that.

Did Scientists Just Find Proof Of The Big Bang?!?

They did, at least according to a USA Today article title.  Has the moment finally arrived when we can put an end to all this religious lunacy and accept a scientific worldview?

The most recent episode of Cosmos, (Episode 2) a major remake of Carl Sagan's 1980s hit by Fox studios and National Geographic, gave reason for hope.  The episode was all about evolution and it was being presented intelligently and to a large audience.  Now, sitting and scrolling through the news I saw the title that struck out at me "Scientists find proof of the Big Bang."  I was hopeful but also hesitant, if this really was the groundbreaking story I was hoping to see I would have expected it to be the main story not 3rd in line as it was placed.

Well, the first two articles consisted of Russia moving to "Swallow" Crimea and about the efforts to find the jumbo jet that has been missing an unprecedented 10 plus days are both major stories and proof of the Big Bang did top "'Dancing with the Stars' Kicks off Season 18" so maybe not all is lost.  Reading through the article I was impressed by the findings.  They found a "signature curl" that models had predicted for gravitational waves created from the massive and extraordinary expansion of the early universe that has been called inflation.  The telltale curl was seen on microwaves that were ejected during inflation which we currently see as cosmic background radiation, scientists interviewed for this article called it the "smoking gun."  Is this really the panacea for remedying belief in creationism?

Sadly no, you see this article made one major and critical flaw... it used science.  I don't mean to sound condescending, what I mean is that it was technical.  This, of course, is the dumbed down version of what academics will actually write to each other and even it relied on my understanding of a lot of concepts to which I was at best only vaguely familiar with.  I tend to see myself as a little bit science geeky (though more as a hobby than a devotion) and I have a best a crude understanding of "inflation theory," "microwave radiation curls," and "cosmic background radiation."  This article may prove to be a smoking gun, but only to those who were already predisposed towards accepting the Big Bang theory.

I find it somewhat depressing that major scientific discoveries such as this (assuming the results will be confirmed) are not heralded and celebrated with great vigor in America.  So many Americans feel that science is attacking their beliefs that, instead of celebrating, we are defending science against the wrath of God.  Maybe the breadth of the appeal of a show like Cosmos can bring the joy of scientific discovery to a new generation, lets hope so; but just incase, i'll pray on it...

It's a Grand Grand Bargain

Yesterday I talked about how Republicans might consider a tax increase, which I argue would actually help them develop the next generation of fiscal conservatives, so long as they work the process carefully.  I promised to spend by post today talking about a plan that they might pursue which could actually deliver on a number of ideological and campaign promises.  I am aware that the pursuit of tax increases is political poison for any Republican, but that doesn't mean that the party can't explore the option.

You might remember that towards the end of 2013 there was talks of a "grand bargain" between the two political parties, where they would rally around some blueprint for the future of our countries health.  This, of course, was not the first time.  You might remember the "super-committee" charged with finding significant budget reductions in order to offset "devastating and indiscriminate" cuts across broad swaths of the federal government's budget.  They failed and eventually the government needed to fund it's own operations again, and we ended up putting ourselves through a series of unnecessary fiscal crisis, one after another.  This story is quite interesting but highly tangential to the topic at hand.  I already doubt I'll come close to the 10 minute time limit so I will try my best to be succinct.  Suffice it to say here, that both parties found themselves at the bargaining table, under significant time constraints, attempting to forge some groundbreaking bipartisan compromise.

I think many of us were surprised when they actually came up with some modest compromises and effectively funded the government for about 2 years (I believe till just after the 2014 election cycle, how about that).  Nevertheless, this compromise bill is a far cry from the fiscal overhaul that filled the dialogue leading up to the discussion.  I had, at the time, developed a broad, groundbreaking, idealistic and (ideally) bipartisan idea.  This idea I will outline briefly below:

1) This bill would be strictly a policy bill, there would be no spending or spending cuts attached.  The idea here is that Republicans could then vote for the bill, despite the possibility of raising taxes, because it was revenue neutral.  Also, we have seen that the debates regarding specifics usually fall apart because of in-fighting and bickering.

2) This bill would incrementally reduce the budget over 10 years, ending with a balanced budget after one decade.  I don't think that Democrats would go along with a balanced budget amendment that went into effect immediately.  This would greatly tie their presidents hands with no guarantee that any future presidents would hold themselves to the same standard.  Besides that, austerity might work but it has to be implemented incrementally, shocking the system is likely to make any economic situation worse.

3) This bill would mandate that we hit specific budget reduction targets and would guarantee we did so.  This would happen by setting the tax rate for the following year based on the prior year's expenditures. The more the government spends, the more it taxes; this is very simple and how it should be.  I should be clear, this isn't an argument against government (I think there are many things that we do, and should, rely on for) it is merely an argument for fiscal discipline.  Because this burden would be shared across the board (save perhaps for some very low income individuals) there would be incentive for people across the socio-economic spectrum to carefully consider the costs of the programs that they advocate for.  There would be limited and specific mechanisms that would allow lawmakers to bypass this control device; off the top of my head i'm thinking a significant pattern of sluggish economy that created unacceptably high unemployment & a declaration of war by Congress.  Otherwise, a supermajority would be required to remove the budget reduction mechanism.

4) This bill would allow the tax code to vary and fluctuate yearly.  It would NOT create a flat tax, this proposal is a guaranteed deal-breaker with democrats and for good reason.  I'm no mathematician, but I think the principles i'm advocating for here are relative simple to think about logically.  Instead of having tax brackets where income up to a certain threshold is taxed at one rate and income over that threshold is taxed at another rate, all income would be put onto an income slope and every dollar would be taxed at a slightly higher rate than the one before.  Essentially, the further you are from the mean and median income range, the greater the variation in your tax rates.  If your income is two standard deviations from the average income, than the last dollar that you made would be taxed two standard deviations more than the dollar you made that was the average amount of income across the country.  I get that this seems complicated, but I think the statisticians and mathematicians could actually make this happen rather easily.

5)  It would simplify the tax code by eliminating all tax breaks and deductions across the board.  This applies to businesses and individuals, to families and students; both parties would not approve of some of these eliminations but should remember that by eliminating them they are lowering the tax burden on everyone.  It would not prevent lawmakers from re-establishing some or many or even all of them again in the future, it just voids the ones that have already passes.  We do this because every deduction we have approved has been on the backs of future generations, has been on the credit card and may not have been carefully thought out.  Now that we know that they will all be paid for, we should again debate the merits of each.  Admittedly this process would take a lot of time, I assume that the passage of this bill would require at least a one year waiting period to work out some deals as far as what deductions we want to keep and which we should get rid of.

6) This bill would raise the debt ceiling to the point where it would end up at 10 years into the future when the budget has been guaranteed to be balanced.  It would also guarantee that the government be funded in its entirety or not at all, there would be no piecemeal funding plans that attempted to circumvent funding programs that some party didn't approve of but which were passed legally.  By ensuring that all funding would be stopped if any funding were stopped, we could eliminate any potential that the government would be taken hostage by any party hell-bent on an ideological pursuit of some goal that was contrary to those which had been passed.

If we put all these things together, I think we come up with a bill that largely resembles the Republican party's platform, but is one that Democrats could actually vote for.  Ironically, i think it might be the GOP that would actually prevent this from passing, just because of their knee-jerk aversion to the potential that taxes could go up at all.  I hope that my last blog, Republican Budget Strategy, sufficiently explains why I think this is a short-sighted strategy.  What do the Republicans get?  A bill that does not spend even one penny of money for new programs, that guarantees a balanced budget within 10 years, that simplifies the tax code for businesses and individuals, and one that fosters the growth of the next generation of fiscal conservatives.  The Democrats, however, would stop having to hassle over funding the government in stop-gap measures, the ability to show that they are actually the fiscally responsible party, protections against any flat-tax movement, elimination of subsidies for large corporations and most importantly, budget reduction that functions primarily through increased tax revenue rather than mandatory spending cuts.  This, I think, is really a grand bargain.

Republican Budget Strategy

I, like many other commentators have frequently wondered about what exactly is the Republican budget strategy.  Ok, I understand the ideology: lower taxes, less regulation, federalist principles (sometimes), smaller government, reduce the deficit, etc.  This part is clear, what is a bit murkier though is the strategy that has been employed and its outlook on fostering a greater acceptance for fiscal restraint.  I just finished reading Frank J. Thompson's Medicaid Politics: Federalism, Policy Durability, and Health Reform for one of my classes and, while it was not the focus of the book, he did touch on the strategy that the GOP has employed in the modern era.  Thompson calls their strategy "starve-the-beast" (though I doubt he coined the phrase) and points to a specific one-two punch, "One, cut taxes with little regard for the impact of such action on the deficit... Two, rigidly insist that belated effort to bring down the deficit could succeed only through spending cuts with no revenue increases." (Thompson, Kindle location 4958)  Republicans are purported to believe that this could massively shrink the federal government, but there is reason to question this assumption; and by proxy, their entire fiscal strategy.

Looking at this strategy in real time we see two troubling results for republicans.  First, even when they have succeeded in generating a significant amount of "deficit fear," translating this fear into specific policy recommendations appears to diminish enthusiasm for their side.  Second, the fact that they haven't been particularly effective in promoting budget savings policy recommendations means that they haven't successfully shrunk the size of government.  What has happened, it appears to me, is that this partisan conflict has increasingly allowed American's to "have their cake and eat it too."  Basically, we get all the government benefits that the Democrats espouse, without having to pay for it because of Republican insistence on low taxes.  In this light, both parties seem to be responsible for the growing deficit, and a marked change in policy stance between either or both is necessary to halt this growing trend.

With that in mind, I think that it should be the Republicans who change their position, not because I tend to be fairly progressive, (I do) but because it is actually a wise strategic decision.  If Republicans focused on a balanced budget rather than tax reductions, they could generate millions of future fiscal conservatives.  Their branding as a "small government" party (a contestable assumption to say the least) would be much more appealing if taxpayers actually had to pay for all the services that government provides.  During the talks over a "grand bargain" I had hope that the GOP would pursue this stance.  I believe they could get a lot of concessions if they allowed taxes to rise (insisting that all groups share in this burden) to cover the entire deficit.  This tax raise would actually boost the number of people flocking to their ranks, it would enliven their base and propel many young Americans towards their ranks.  This would be a risky strategy for sure, but I think if they put out a plan that shrunk government at the same time as they allowed for the tax increases to take effect, I think they could offset some of the skepticism from within their own ranks.

Giving people government services, and then insisting that they don't pay for them is not an effective strategy for developing the next generation of fiscal conservatives.  I argue that (reluctantly) raising taxes is the real strategy for increasing the Republican ranks, especially among younger voters.

In my next blog, I'll outline the plan I thought up during the "grand bargain"discussion to show how the GOP could really push for significant concessions if they were to take up this strategy.  Maybe it'll work and they will listen to my advice... wait, is that really something I would want?  I kind of like having my cake and eating it too.

Hey, Nice Haircut!

I get it, ok?  So... I'm bald, but this isn't really news to me.  Surprisingly, I actually own a mirror and, believe it or not, I'm the one who shaves my own head.  Ever since I gave up on my thinning hair and shaved my head, I've noticed one particularly peculiar trend.  Other bald men come up to me and, with a sense of camaraderie, say "hey, nice haircut."  Usually they say this with a stupid grin while pointing to their own bald head.

Look, I'm not particularly self-concsious about my bald head; I've had thin hair all my life.  In fact, I take sort of a guilty pleasure seeing some of my friends and especially acquaintances start to lose their own hair.  I've already gone through denial and stepped out into acceptance, but seeing others go through what I've already handled does feel a little good.  I know I shouldn't be too hard on my fellow bald men, after all "nice haircut" is a lot better than the "I can see your scalp..." I used to get from some guy's (and girls) in high school.  But there is something I really just can't seem to wrap my brain around.

Why would other bald men assume that we share anything in common?  I mean, I get that we both have bald heads, and we've both probably experienced some levels of stigma attached with that, but aside from that point, what else can we assume.  I can honestly say that in no way does the amount of hair on my head (or lack their of, as the case may be) have any relationship with my sense of conscious identity.  Seeing as how my ideology more closely aligns with women, minorities and the counter culture it is likely that there is actually a negative covariance between the amount of hair on someones head and the likelihood that we will share similar convictions.

I suppose it isn't that farfetched.  Lots of hairstyles are reflective of a particular identity.  This issue is particularly salient among the female African American community that seems to struggle with a desire to promote an anglo hair style at great expense and personal sacrifice.  But they aren't the only identity tied to a hairstyle.  Dreadlocks present a bohemian, and now often Rastafarian lifestyle choice.  Bald men, like myself, have historically been presented as skinheads and neo-nazis.  I feel lucky that I live in a time where so many people are compelled to shave their heads as a fashionable alternative to thin hair, that it has become commonplace and mainstream.  There really is very little in common among bald men other than a genetic predisposition to male pattern baldness, but certainly not ideological beliefs.

This whole experience did get me thinking?  What other groups do we create based on purely physical attributes?  Do all members of those groups share similar sentiments?  Do they have a sense of shared struggle?  What about people to appear to belong to a certain group but don't believe the same things as the consensus of other members?  Do all groups that we identify even have a sense of group consciousness? If they don't, should they?  Obviously I can't answer these questions, but I can ask them and that is the first step.  For now, suffice it to say this: it makes no sense to say nice haircut to a stranger, you never saw what it looked like before... maybe its a terrible haircut.

It's For The Kids, We Promise!

Yesterday I wrote about the tax revenue from Colorado's legal recreational pot sales.  One of the things that I noted was that it went to "a good cause" but I want to make this point a bit clearer today.  For starters, my calling it "a good cause"was a bit tongue in cheek, but I imagine those things are hard to get across in writing.  Anyway, Colorado's revenue is slated to go towards "youth use prevention, substance abuse treatment and public health." (USA Today) We should be skeptical of this claim though, how much of the funds that already were allocated towards these programs are now being displaced?

In a perfect world when we say that the funds we generate from a specific tax increase will go towards some particular program, we would mean that it will be added as an addition to what was already be put towards that program.  In this case, that would mean that Colorado now has $2 million more dollars to spend on the positive substance abuse related problems.  Unfortunately, I think this is very rarely the case.

You may have noticed that anytime there is a proposition for raising a "sin" tax (i.e. tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, gambling etc.) that the funds are always promised towards some noble cause.  Usually it is some good intentioned program, even a necessary one, that is drastically underfunded for one reason or another.  Typically, public education for K-12 fits the bill nicely and voters are left with a choice.  Vote to raise a tax on some behavior I don't approve of to fund a program I do approve of that desperately needs the funds.  Seems like the decision is relatively simple, no?

There are a few problems with this.  As I have already alluded to, there is no way to know that the specified program won't have the funds it was already receiving cut and spent elsewhere since there was a sudden windfall from the new tax.  If this is the case, then all "sin" taxes and all taxes in general really contribute to the general fund not any specific program.  Why disguise it then?  We know from studies that people are more likely to approve a tax if the funds are promised for some specific worthy program.  But why is this a problem?  Frequently sin taxes are among the most regressive.  They apply disproportionately to low income earners and minorities specifically.  I should note here that both political parties are responsible for this particular behavior.  While I have presented this argument from a rather liberal perspective (surprise surprise) the same thing holds true from the conservative side.  When conservatives complain that funds for planned parenthood contribute to their ability to perform abortions, they are right.  Even when funds directed towards specifically non-abortion activities, it frees up other funds that were being used on those other services to be moved towards performing abortions. We should really always think of all income, all taxes and all funds as belonging to a general pool from which no tight distinctions for allocating the funds can be made.

Colorado Made How Much Now?

Colorado received 2 million in tax revenue for recreational marijuana sales in the first month of legalized pot sales.  Huzzah! Great news right? For those who have long advocated ending the war on drugs (or at least marijuana) it is a well earned chance to say "I told you so!" but this argument can only take you so far.  Here are two reasons why the 2 million won't significantly change the course of the marijuana legalization movement.

For starters, money is all relative.  Two million sounds like a lot, and indeed it is, but relative to the size of the Colorado state budget it's likely puny.  Here's how this story is expected to play out: First, advocates for legalization point to the large amount of money raised. Next, opponents say it will never cover the costs of the consequences on society and point to the fact that alcohol tax revenue doesn't even come close to paying for the cost in alcohol related traffic accidents alone.  Then advocates will say that marijuana is way different from alcohol, and that even if the analogy held true, much of the cost of alcohol related social problems would still be bore even if we tried to instill prohibition again.  Then the opponents say that it was never about money anyway and that we should think about the message were sending our kids.  Blah Blah Blah, I've heard it all before.  After a day or two, this story will drop out of the news and we won't really even remember it until November when several more states go to the ballot box for some type of policy reform.

Wait, did you catch what happened there.  That sounded kind of funny... what was that last part again? "It was never about the money anyway... think about the message were sending our kids."  This is really the heart of the second and major reason why Colorado's tax revenue won't be changing anybody's mind.  Advocates for reform have long touted the economic benefits of legalization and argue that enforcement is a failed policy from the beginning.  But opponents never took this instrumentally rational argument and instead framed legalization as a morality concern.  Until legalizers respond to this specific argument, they will continue to have a hard time convincing legislators who have to be concerned with re-elections.  The sad irony here is that they could take on this argument and win.

Drug crime punishment is so radically draconian it defies logic.  We're locking non-violent offenders up for decades, confiscating their assets, disqualifying them from government programs and educational loans, labeling them as felons and dramatically impeding their future prospects.  Beyond that, these punishments are being applied with an overt racial/ethnic bias.  Families are being torn apart, and frequently these families are clustered in the same neighborhoods.  But what I think is most important, is that we are lying to our kids and they know it.  We use hyperbole when we tell them about the dangers of drug use, and then they go on the internet and find out the "truth" (scary to think that the internet is better trusted than parental authorities).  When we tell obvious lies we break the bonds of trust that keep them from hearing about the very real dangers of drug use.  Recreational marijuana should be legal, but until we show that morality is on our side the journey is likely to be slow and bumpy.

EITC, the GOP and Minimum Wage Workers

Paul Ryan's review of the War on Poverty comes out and in very abject terms says that we have failed. Cutting through all the obvious Republican rhetoric we find a glimmer of hope.  It turns out that Paul Ryan actually has a few nice things to say about the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).  This program essentially allows people to collect more in tax returns than they paid in taxes, it is a way to boost the income of people who sit in the very bottom wrung of society.  Well, this is great news, isn't it?  Am I the only one surprised to see the GOP "fiscal wonk" come out in support of a proven anti-poverty tool?

I am compelled to temper my optimism and really question why he is demonstrating this support.  There is a push going on right now to raise the minimum wage, could the EITC act as a suitable proxy or alternative?  The answer is no.  The GOP is smart, they see the writing on the wall, and they know to get behind the EITC now in order to fight against the minimum wage hike, but why?

Both programs work to boost real earnings for the bottom of societies wage earners.  The difference is that the EITC is contained and the minimum wage is subject to "trickle up" economics (however modestly).  If you raise the minimum wage to $10 then everybody making $10, $12, $14 or anywhere in that range see's the value of their work diminished in comparative earnings.  This pushes the semi-skilled laborers who work in this pay range to demand comparable wage increases.  All workers near the bottom end up with increased earnings as a result of a minimum wage increase.  This does not happen with the EITC, it is hidden from view, someone making $12 an hour doesn't realize that it is effectively comparable to someone making minimum wage who is supported through government wage subsidies.  What this effectively does is increases the percent of workers at the very bottom of the wage scale, and further diminishes any sort of lower middle class worker.

This is essentially a tax subsidy for companies that hire a large ammount of low payed workers but wants the government to step in to ensure that they have just enough income to purchase the products that they themselves sell.  The GOP tax dream works like this.  Whoever is still left in the middle class has to subsidize major businesses hiring Americans at unsurvivable wages.  The businesses themselves can't be taxed or asked to raise wages or they'd leave America and go create jobs somewhere else.  The rich people who run/own the businesses can't be taxed or they won't be able to "create" jobs that middle class workers end up having to subsidize.  Eventually, the natural distribution of income switches from its normal bell and turns into a horse saddle; lots of poor people and a few really rich ones too.  Whats the problems with this argument?  All jobs that be shipped overseas, already have been.  You can't outsource retail, service and restaurant jobs; they stay in America no matter what.  Shouldn't these Americans earn a decent living in a way that allows all of the lower income earners a chance to improve their lot in life?  Don't support expanding the EITC; push for raising the minimum wage!

Introduction to the 10 minute blog

What is it & why am I doing it? Very good questions, thanks for asking.  For some time now I have tried to write and maintain a blog, none of these efforts have been successful to date.  Ideally I would learn from these mistakes and try again under a new format, accounting for the problems I've had in the past. This is just such an attempt.  I really want to blog because I have a great deal to say, and hopefully, a worthwhile contribution to make.  But all my previous efforts have failed, why?  Well, I think it all boils down to overzealousness.  I wanted to dig deep into issues, I wanted to source my ideas, logic, rationale, etc. in empirically sound evidence, and to point to it within my writing.  I wanted to do big writings and I wanted to do it daily.  After only a few days (If that sometimes) I knew the project was doomed.  Ambition expressed through idealism is good, but pragmatism realized through reason is better.  That's where the 10 minute blog comes in; 10 minutes... that's all you get, what've you got?

The idea came to me without even the first thought of writing a blog. Originally, I just wanted to be more productive.  I realized that my biggest obstacle to productivity was sluggish mornings.  If I woke up and started working right away, I would get much more done, and not just the things I got done when I would normally just be sipping coffee and lounging about.  When I start my days with a sense of urgency and productivity it carries on throughout the day.  Starting fast leads to exponential productive growth.  With this realization I decided to make a "1st hour checklist," essentially 10 things I wanted to get done in the first hour I was awake everyday.  The list was never intended to get me to change my behavior, for the most part it was things I do already anyway; it was a way for me to engage the first hour of my day with a sense of urgency, to start every day with a plan and to get moving.  That's why things like making coffee, brushing my teeth and taking a shower are on there; it's not that I wouldn't do these things, its that I would take too long to get to them.  That being said, a few items were new; 10 minutes of creative writing, making a to-do list for the day and (perhaps surprisingly) eating.  Here's the full list:
1) Brush teeth
2) Make coffee
3) Take a shower
4) Tell Sarah you love her
5) Eat something
6) Make a to-do list
7) Listen to music
8) Write for 10 minutes
9) Skim the news
10) Start your day

I could go into an explanation for why I selected each item, but I'm almost out of time.  I don't want to go over time (10 min.) because the idea is to be focused in on one thing, plus having it only take 10 minutes means I have no excuses not to get it done.

A few quick notes as my time expires:
1) I will try (but no promises) to write every day.
2) There is no theme for this blog, it is merely a creative exercise for me.
3) This is for me, not you. (Though I do hope you enjoy it)
4) Keep your expectations reasonable, there are no editors or time for editing.  I can only do what I can do in 10 minutes (or a little more in this case).  Spelling, grammar and organization are likely to suffer as a result.  C'est la vie.