"Capital Punishment" Critique

  I think Elizabeth Sexton's editorial on capital punishment does a great job engaging the reader and highlights serious issues with the current system. I think that the debate over capital punishment often focuses on the morality of taking a persons life but she brings up an interest point of whether it is  constitutionally acceptable to kill someone. I suppose one could compare it to the country's ability to wage war, essentially killing people to stop inhumane acts. If capital punishment could be considered war against heinous crimes, then I could concede that government could require a persons life. The key to the issue currently, as Sexton points out, is that the justice system is in no way fool proof. I agree that there needs to be an iron-clad guilty verdict for someone to be considered for the death penalty. I would certainly hate to imagine myself at the mercy of "peers" with my life at stake. With a crime that is so terrible it warrants the death penalty, I think that emotion could cause the judgment of those involved to be suspect.

  All that being said, I still think that the death penalty may not be the "right" option. It is very hard to decide that we should be killing people. Ideally, I would say that those people, and all criminals, should be made to work for the benefit of the citizens. I have a hard time understanding how you can have all these prisoners and not have them doing something that would make up for their costs of living, besides making license plates... I think that capital punishment should definitely not be a cost consideration. Is it okay to pay these costs for a rapist, but not a rapist and murderer?


  So, if there isn't the cost incentive and the system is just, should we still use capital punishment? My answer is I don't know. I think that the government could, for the good of the people, although this is somewhat accounted for by simply imprisoning the criminal. I think it comes down to revenge vs retribution, as Sexton writes. If I was affected by a crime like these, I would want more than death for the criminal, but with a policy standpoint I don't like giving this power to others.


  In conclusion, I think Elizabeth Sexton does a great job presenting the issues on a very controversial topic. She provides many examples showing where capital punishment might have work as well as those situations where it seems to have been lacking, and ultimately may have cost an innocent person his or her life. I think she makes a very good argument for improving the system by which people are given these sentences and I enjoyed reading and commenting on her work.

Those Lying Politicians

If someone was to ask you whether you believe most politicians have lied at one time or another in their career, what would be your answer? Mine would absolutely be yes. Why is this though? I can't give any examples of a politician lying off the top of my head, with the exception of the whole Bill Clinton deal... But for some reason I still have a deep distrust of them, even to the extent of questioning simple statements that have no real importance. I assume that it's been an accumulation of questionable behavior that has led to my distrust, but I wonder why do they lie and why do others still get so involved.

If I had to guess as to why politicians feel like it is acceptable to lie, I would say that they most likely feel like they can get away with it. You would think that media would lessen this, and I'm sure it does, but when you are talking to an audience and they hear you say something they are much more likely to believe you then they are to take that information and filter it for credibility. Politicians will say what you want to hear to get your vote. If they say something and gain 100 votes then half hear that it wasn't true then they are still ahead 50 votes. It is a numbers game, if you have the potential to gain more votes by lying then you risk losing then it is a good bet.

Eventually the outcome of lying is voter distrust and apathy. Democracy depends on the voter, and if voter turnout continues the way it has been going, then officials will become less and less the representatives of the governed. I think this is the way things have been moving towards for a long time. The government is a club of wealthy men and women who seek to stay in office more than serving in the office they're in. I hope that one day I can trust that politicians have the greater good as their top priority but I think that they won't be the ones to lead us into the future. I think it's the innovators that will open up new opportunities for us in the future and that policy and policymakers will keep trying to play catch up and grab as much power and money as they can.


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/22/why-politicians-get-away-with-lying/when-lies-become-the-norm-in-politics
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201104/why-politicians-lie-and-how-they-get-away-it

Gas Price Review

In Mr. Verheyden's editorial last week he reviewed gas prices and whether they are they result of any one party. He notes that there have been considerable debate to who's fault it is, with each side blaming the other. I think it is reasonable that he says "The truth... lies somewhere in the middle." He mentions that Obama's administration has said that it is not the supply side that is causing the high gas prices, which I think is not an clear statement. As Mr. Verheyden pointed out in his editorial, if there is insufficient supply, prices will go up. What I believe Obama was most likely saying was that increasing domestic supply, as Republicans seek, will have little effect on gas prices. This I can agree with, and Mr. Verheyden points out as well. He says that domestic production has increased in the time that Obama has been in office, it's smart to note that it may not be his doing, and that gas prices have not gone down. It is important to realize that oil is a global commodity and that many factors can affect the prices including global supply reductions from unrest in the middle east to the continual increase in demand in growing countries like China. I think that if domestic production could have a great effect on the price of gas, than we would have seen clear evidence of this. I believe that oil is out of our control and that the best choice is to remove ourselves from depending on it.

Trying to Make Sense of it All

  My friend once called me the most capitalistic guy he had ever known, but I think he missed the point. I had always been the type to try to make money off of anything, taking the most random ideas and working them in every possible direction in order to find a niche market and make a little money. More times than not there was already a market for what I wanted to do but I still made money and it was fun and I learned a lot. I don't think it was about the money though, but about getting around the way things were supposed to work, the way all my friends did their lives. When I had to begin trading my time to my boss I began to realize what I now refer to as my "middle class trap," which is what the blog I'll be reviewing tonight is about.
  I found the blog at The Smirking Chimp called The One-Percent's Doctrine For The Rest Of Us: Slavery, Feudalism, La-Da-Da, Dee-Dee-Dee... by Mark Ames. Ames had a newspaper in Russia that was shut down after a raid by Russian authorities, I don't know if that gives him any credibility when writing about capitalism and social class dynamics but it is certainly more credibility than I have, which is good enough for me tonight.
  His argument is that it is in the best interest of the 1% wealthiest to keep people where they are by treating people as stock. He suggests that this is the same thing wealthy southerners did with slave trading and eventually led to the South seceded in the Civil War. The slave owners viewed their slaves as assets that would only increase in value as their population increased and were great stock to have in their "asset portfolio." He gives evidence to show that major corporations also view their employees in the same terms. A corporation wants to maximize its profits by maximizing its return on its employees. It is hard for me to see these corporations as villains for this though. This isn't an idea that is just carried by the largest corporations but is the foundation of capitalism and all business. Why should anyone hire me? They should hire me because I can create more profit for them than I will cost and more profit than the other guy interviewing. No business is going to hire someone if they think that it will cost them more to pay the employee than they will benefit the business. The author says that the "profit per employee metric" is a new way big business is looking at employees rather than trying to maximize their return on their investments, but I think that an employee is an investment.
  The author cites a report from a consulting company saying, “if a company’s capital intensity doesn’t increase, profit per employee is a pretty good proxy for the return on intangibles. The hallmark of financial performance in today’s digital age is an expanded ability to earn ‘rents’ from intangibles." The author uses this as a point to show where business is focusing on exploiting employees but I think that he may be taking it out of context some. The quote is saying that if a company doesn't invest more money into the business that profit per employee is a good measure to explain profits in an increasingly digital age. Profits from the "intangible" is the value added by employee creativity and hard work. It is a business' purpose to increase profits and you need to know where your profits are coming from, even if that means measuring your employees.
  In the end, I think that the author's point that it's the goal of the business to extract value from their employees is valid and that it definitely treats people like cattle. I do not think this is exclusive to the wealthiest 1% though, but of society as a whole. It is necessary and reasonable that we do this, there are things that need to be done and people have to do it. Maybe one day this won't be the case, but until then, those that do it best or got a head start will have much more wealth than those who don't.

Our Oil Dependence

  The editorial I am writing about tonight is titled "Drill Baby Drill, Redux" from The New York Times. When I first began reading this editorial, I was put off by the author's obvious disdain for republicans. I got about half-way through and I was still thinking of trying to find another piece to write on because this guy didn't seem to want to make any point besides that Obama is the greatest and republicans have it all wrong. He maintains this perspective throughout the article, but he does eventually say somethings worth reading. His general stance is that republicans are blaming Obama for the high gas prices for political reasons and that it's actually largely out of his control.
  He begins by saying that republicans think that drilling is the key to solving our oil problems and they believe Obama has held them back. He defends Obama saying "oil production is actually up from 5.4 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5.59 million now." I am skeptical how relevant this data is, assuming it is correct. I mean, he is saying that over the last 8 years, 4 of which had nothing to do with Obama, the crude oil production has gone up by a whopping 3.5%. I'm sure that any republican would reply that gas prices have gone up much more than our production because drilling efforts have been stifled. This is a weak beginning to his argument, I think, but it does get better.
  His second point is one I often think about when I hear of some ridiculously large company complaining about taxes. He says that republicans are blaming Obama for high gas prices because of a proposed repeal of $4 billion tax break for the oil industry, when the "five biggest players posted $137 billion in profits last year." I think it is really silly how quick people jump on the no tax bandwagon. The effect of the proposed repeal of a tax break on such a large industry, I think, would be negligible.
  So what is the cause of the rising gas prices? He claims that the demand for gas is continually going up and that the supply is often erratic. He cites China as a growing gas guzzler, and the recent tension with Iran has caused world-wide problems. He claims that America, which uses more than 20% of the world's oil supply, only owns 2% of the oil reserves. No amount of drilling is going to make up for our lack of a nonrenewable resource, in the long term.
  The solutions he proposes, which I actually completely agree with, are to continue to produce as much oil as possible while cutting our consumption and looking to alternative fuels. Our dependence on oil is a huge problem for the US, we are slaves to gas prices. How much stronger would our economy be if we didn't throw so much money away overseas? Yes, there are a lot of Americans that make money off of oil but, as a nation, we are making other countries rich. As someone who loves science and innovation, I know that there are ways we can revolutionize the way we fuel our country. The hard part is getting anyone to buy into it and look ahead. We need to be a little less capitalistic and a little more reasonable.

The Future of Our Education System

Looking through several mainstream media sites, I was trying to find an article that suited me tonight. I wasn't really feeling like disagreeing with anyone really so when I came upon an article on education at NBC Politics, I decided to run with it. The main issue the article addresses is the affects of rising higher education costs on students and how the government should be dealing out taxpayer's money for it. Obviously, this is an important topic for many people in school, trying to get back into school, preparing for their children's education, and even those just leaving. The article claims Obama is taking a "tougher" position on the educational system, suggesting that the government should regulate the amount of financial aid being distributed. Each college would basically be getting a score based on the cost of attendance versus the economical value they are creating in their students. This has some worried that it could adversely affect the arts, where the dollar value of a degree may not be as competitive as another degree's.


After reading the article, my first notion was to question whether our government, with its' ballooning debt, should be given any power over the educational system. My initial response was no, but who else can rein in the tuition costs which are indoctrinating youth into the debt society right out of high school? It is a shame that this is where we are as a nation, debt ridden. I think that by the time there is enough change in education or federally that we will have slipped even further from a leader status globally.

The article also brings up a good point saying "that college isn't just to create foot soldiers for industry." I really like this statement because I don't like the feeling of being a pawn in the greater economic machine, I'm a person who doesn't want to have to work my whole life, or even much more of it. But what is the end game? What is our educational system supposed to do for us in the global market? Will 10% more "highly" educated people in the U.S. make us more competitive against the 500% more people in China in the long term? I don't think it will help very much... I think that our future does rely on American education, but not focused on being financially superior to other countries but focused on making America self-sufficient. An example of this would be to not be in debt and actually having a profit that can be used to continually better the country. Of course one could argue that we need more jobs and improved workforce to make the extra money to balance the budget. I think that if we were a little more concerned with progress and our future and not milking every last dollar from oil, for example, we could begin to build a foundation for an independent America again.

My Political Persuasion

The last thing I want to do, is have a political discussion with someone. That is my honest political position. This is not something I like to advertise and I am especially reluctant to say so here for my politics class. Why? Because I feel like that if I don't agree with you, then I will be attacked.  This is hard for my particular aversion because I don't really agree with anyone. I tend to plead the other sides case, whatever it may be.

When I meet someone who is different from myself, I am interested in how they became who they are. What influenced them to become who they are? I don't really care about their political standing usually, more often than not I am asking why they chose their occupation or friends or spouse. What mannerism or ideas do they share with their close friends or family? These are interesting questions. Questions that lead me to understand them and to better relate to them. I have never found this to be true in politics. In politics I find people to be argumentative, often biased, polarized, and at times hostile. I am not your enemy, and thinking differently does not make anyone the bad guy.  I think politics brings out the worst in people, whether its for the "common good" or not.  In pursuit of ideals, we act petty and manipulate each other.  For these reasons I'd rather spend time with my family or doing anything else I enjoy than dealing with politics. Through this class I hope to see how politics does work because it's easy to see the evils.  I'd also like to hear classmates' reasonings and why they believe what they believe.