1 Month Anniversary

It seems these days that we always find reasons to celebrate. Well here’s one, I’ve been blogging for a month. So here’s a few reflections before I go to sleep.

A few statistics:

1. There have been 145 page views (not including my own) in total this month.

2. The most page views there have been in a day is 13.

3. There have been 2 comments left by visitors.

4. I’ve written a little less than 7000 words.

People have found their way onto my site in weird ways, this is a list of some of the most common search terms (in no particular order) people used to get to my site

1. “Colbertopoly” — for the record as of 2/29 I am the only result.
2. “leaking brain ?” — A very interesting question
3. “physics and child labour” — We all know that the reason why India has so many more physics students is because they are forced to calculate De Broglie wavelengths in a sweatshop all day.
4. “leaking from the right side of the brain” — A personal favorite, since I assume this person wanted medical attention I will say that if you are leaking from the right side of the brain, you probably don’t have much time left so you might as well read some articles here before going on to WebMD.

Writing this blog has not been easy but to all my (at most 13 on any one day) readers I say, ‘Thank You for taking the time.’

A Good Speech and a Disgrace to Liberalism

It has been said that it is easier to tear down a home than it is to build one. This point was illustrated by Alberto Gonzales today, with the protesters has his proof. Regardless of what one thinks about the former Attorney General (personally I think he abused his position of power and overly politicized a position that ought to be at most, advisory) it is was nice to actually here him speak.

I had a couple of thoughts while I heard him speak, here they are:

Hearing him speak about how his poor immigrant background and his rise to the highest position in the US Government a Latino has achieved made me realize that he had to do something right. As much as we often criticize those in our government (on both sides of the aisle) for stupidity or untrustworthiness it is always humbling to remember that for them to have gotten to the position they did, they had to do something right. Example A is George W. Bush, while some say that he achieved everything in life do to his father’s influence, we ought to remember that while George W. and Jeb were both successes in life, brother Neil Bush has largely been a failure. So logically there must be something that George W. and Jeb did right that their brother did not.

Similarly, while we criticize politicians for their mismanagement of the government, in reality we know very little as to whether the government was actually mismanaged. In Plato’s book, “Crito”, Socrates who is in prison, having been convicted of corrupting the youth and sentenced to death. In reality, very few people in Athens actually wanted Socrates dead, they hoped that he would exile himself and they would not have to deal with him anymore. So he sat in prison with the population hoping he would escape and leave their country. Crito, Socrates’ rich friend, is sitting at his bedside telling Socrates that he has bribed the guards and arranged safe passage to other city-states in Greece and abroad. He begs Socrates to escape but Socrates refuses. He tells Socrates that if Socrates is put to death people will blame him because he is rich and could have freed Socrates. People will say that he is greedy because he wouldn’t give some of his fortune to spare Socrates’ life. Socrates responds that Crito shouldn’t worry about the opinion of the uninformed masses because the only people who matter are those who know the truth, who are himself and Crito. While we often criticize the government, we are so uninformed that our criticism is often irrelevant if not downright wrong.

Speaking of which Alberto Gonzales made a good point when he responded to a question about the United States violating the Geneva Convention in our treatment of terrorists. The Geneva Convetion says that the following groups of people (among others) shall be considered soldiers and therefore can be considered prisoners of war if captured:

-Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

- Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

 

-Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Anyone who fulfills one of these requirements has the rights accorded to soldiers under the Geneva convention. Since terrorists are not members of an armed force that has a “fixed distinctive sign,” nor do they carry “arms openly,” or conduct “their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” The laws and customs of war explicity prohibit the purposeful killing of civilians. Since these rules are violated, terrorists technically don’t get Geneva convention rights. But even if you do think that terrorists deserve Geneva Convention rights, among other stipulations the Geneva Convention says:

The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter.

So detaining terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is technically legal. I’m not saying I support the torture of detainees, I am very much against it. But to those people who put up signs and argue about the law, it would be nice if they got the facts right.

Finally, I commend the protesters for doing a good job today. They made their point without resorting to violence or smear tactics. The protesters who wore orange jumpsuits (prisoner outfits) and watched Alberto Gonzales speak were generally respectful and allowed him to say what he had to say.

As for the disgraceful, unfortunately there were a incredibly annoying people at the speech. To those few people who stood up in the middle of Gonzales’s speech and yelled things like “Torture” and “Perjury” before walking out of the speech I just have one thing to say, “Immature”. We are college students and therefore, I hope, capable of using logic to make a point.

One last thought. The one major point I on which I agreed with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was on his call to public service. It is, in my opinion, a noble act to serve one’s country and should be undertaken by more citizens. Besides, as George Carlin once said, If everyone always complains about corrupt politicians, where are all the honest citizens ready to take their place?

The Case For Lowering the Voting Age

Children are the most unrepresented group in America. It is not surprising that this occurs, after all, children cannot vote. The fact that children cannot vote is a logical idea in a democracy. Representative democracy requires a citizenry that can make an informed decision about a candidate and young children simply cannot do this. It would be illogical to have mothers go into a polling place and cast a vote not only for themselves but also for their child. So what then am I actually proposing? It is my opinion that the voting age should be lowered to 16. This proposition is not new, it has been brought forth in several states such as Washington and California and has been enacted in several countries such as Austria and Brazil.

Suffrage has always been an incremental process. In ancient Greece is was all adult, non-enslaved males; in the United Kingdom it was all titled, white, adult, male, land owners; in the 13 colonies it was all adult, white, male landowners; eventually it was all adult, white, males; then all adult males, and finally all adults. In America adult was defined as 21 until the Twenty-Sixth Amendment when it was lowered to all citizens over 18 and up. These changes came about due to increasingly more progressive interpretations of who was qualified to vote. The original argument for changing the voting age from 21 to 18 did not hinge on whether 18 year olds were qualified to vote, but instead on whether a person who was old enough to go to war deserved the right to vote for the leaders who sent him. Congress, as well as the America people, believed strongly in the slogan “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote,” which resulted in the Twenty-Sixth Amendment being the fastest amendment to be ratified by three-fourths of the states legislatures.

It seems clear therefore that 16 year olds deserve the right to vote. It is true that 16 year olds cannot legally serve in the military, however, the argument that those who have to go to war should have a say in who sends them there still applies. To make things clearer let’s start with an example: A person turns 18 in December 2010. At that point he is old enough to serve and, it being peace time, decides to enlist. A few months later in February, his commander in chief asks congress to declare war on another country. Our soldier now has to fight in a war authorized by politicians he never voted for, and which he will not have the opportunity to vote for until November 2012, 2 years into the war. So how do we rectify this situation?

For the United States to officially go to war Congress must pass a resolution authorizing action against another nation. While the senate has terms of 6 years, making it hard for a determined citizenry to effect change in the senate, representatives have a term of only 2 years. Thus by lowering the voting age to 16, anytime House of Representatives that declares war was voted into power by the people who can be drafted. No matter what year a person’s birthday is, they will have been able to vote one time before they are able to be drafted.

There are many other arguments both in favor of and against lowering the voting age. Every argument against lowering the voting age seems to apply as well to lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 as it does to lowering the voting age from 18 to 16. From the fact that the voting age was in fact lowered and few people argue that we should raise it, we can surmise that being able to control one’s destiny is more important than the fact that he is too young. Similarly most arguments in favor of lowering the voting age from 18-16 apply just as well to lowering the voting age from 18-6. From this we can surmise that there must be very important concerns to outweigh the potential for damage and abuse. It is my opinion that there is no more important concern than controlling who sends a person to war.

Granting more suffrage is rarely a popular viewpoint among politicians. In our countries history we have only done it 3 times. The reason for this is simple, because the people who want suffrage don’t have the right to vote, no one represents them enough to grant them the right to vote. It will take immense public support and courageous politicians to spearhead such a plan. It will be an uphill battle, but will be worth it in the end.

Why The Candidates of Change Aren’t the Best Candidates

In this election year much has been made of change from the president, however I would like to examine the theme of change in candidates in general.  Despite all the talk of bringing in Washington outsiders to clean things up, is voting against incumbent candidates really in a voter’s best interests?  Somebody find a tissue, I think the leaking is about to begin:

            Acting in one’s own self-interest is the foundation of Democracy.  All citizens come together and by acting in their own self-interest they elected the candidate who represents the best interests of the most people.  In this way, democracy can almost be defined as a capitalistic utilitarianism in which the greatest majority of people are benefited by acting only to help themselves, and in doing so help others.  First I draw the analogy to economics in that it is found that by increasing the benefit to oneself, the benefit to all is increased as well.  While this does not always work in practice, it does have a greater success rate than other economic theories, just as democracy which does not always benefit everyone in practice, has a higher success rate than other political theories.  Thus, with this analogy drawn we can see that by everyone acting in their own rational self-interest the greatest common good can be achieved as in the saying, “A rising tide lifts all boats”.

            So why is voting for incumbents acting in a voter’s best interest?  There are many arguments made as to why people should vote against incumbents.  According to Vote Out Incumbents Now (VOID), a major complaint against incumbents is their perceived tendency to “vote irresponsibly”.  They define “voting irresponsibly” as, voting for “pork-barrel, graft, waste, corporate welfare…” and failing “to pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms (e.g. campaign finance reform, election reform, one-purpose-per-bill amendment, balanced budget-amendment, tax reform, etc.).”  These are serious claims and our country must be on the verge of collapse, as dramatic as these claims are they are, thankfully, untrue.  I am disinclined to believe the assumption that newcomers to congress are any less beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests as incumbents.  According to a February 1^st, 2007 article of The Hill,

“Many Democratic freshmen raised tens of thousands of special-interest dollars toward their reelection even before they were sworn in for the 110th Congress…Rep. David Loebsack (D-Iowa), who surprised former Rep. Jim Leach (R), has already raised $71,000.  About $60,000 of that came from political committees such as the American Bankers Association PAC, which gave him $5,000 on Dec. 18, and the National Association of Realtors PAC, which also wrote him a $5,000 check the same day… The numbers show that although they said during their campaigns that they would reform the “culture of corruption” in Washington, many quickly immersed themselves in the town’s lobbyist-dominated fundraising network to fill up their coffers and retire their debt.”

This is not one isolated incident, as the article went on to say,

“Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) raised about $50,000 in PAC money between Election Day and taking the oath of office. Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) raised about $40,000; Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) about $35,000; Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio) about $35,000; and Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) about $50,000.” 

This confirms a logical conclusion that a freshman congressman who wins a close race against an incumbent faces much more pressure to raise money for reelection than an incumbent with name recognition and the organizational backing to run a campaign already set up.  So if freshman congressmen are at least as likely, if not more, to be beholden to special interests, how can they benefit their constituents more than incumbents?  What do *John Conyers, Rush Holt Jr., *Edward Kennedy, Rosa Delauro, *George Miller, Barbara Lee, *Ed Markey, Richard Durbin, Maurice Hinchey, John Tierney, and Maria Cantwell have in common?  In a January 5^th 2007 article of The Nation they were cited as sponsors of the “Top 10 [pieces of legislation] for a More Perfect Union”.  What else do they have in common?  None of them were freshman senators or congressman (Technically Maria Cantwell had just started her second term as senator but she had previously been a member of the US House of Representatives).  In fact a few—Conyers, Kennedy, Miller, and Markey—have been serving in the House of Representatives for over 30 years.  This list didn’t even include important pieces of legislation that had already been enacted such as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act (sponsored by two veteran Senators).  So it seems that when it comes time to “pass many badly needed, common-sense, no-brainer, constructive reforms” it is the veteran congressman who are getting the job done.  So fine, veteran congressman do good things for the whole country, but they harm their own constituents, right?  Freshman congressmen are going to go in, like Mr. Smith himself, and clean up Washington with nothing but hard-work and determination.  They are going to make sure that their constituents get a fair share, right?  Lets analyze one of the complaints that VOID makes against veteran congressmen, they say that adding pork-barrel spending is one of the most corrupt things a congressmen can do.  On this they are partially correct.  Most pork is useless (quite literally in the case of the famed “Alaska Bridge to Nowhere”) and simply wastes taxpayer dollars.  Of course being a pragmatist I ask myself, ‘as long as pork spending still occurs why shouldn’t my district get a piece of it?’  Indeed, when citizens reelect incumbents they are adding to an already powerful incumbent’s power.  As more senior congressmen retire, die, and lose elections the local congressmen moves up the list of senior members until he finds himself in a position that allows him to direct spending toward his district.  If the government is going to spend $5 Billion developing a new fighter jet, I would logically want it to be built in my town, where my neighbors will benefit.  In a sense, reelecting incumbents is like investing money for the future.  While people will argue against me saying that all I am doing is perpetuating a cycle that hurts the country I answer that electing new congressmen doesn’t reduce pork spending it merely redirects to a place with a  more powerful congressmen.  I am a strong believer that governmental spending should be controlled and pork should be reduced, but cutting off your nose to spite your face is never the correct tactic because as long as there is money to divide up, someone is going to try to use it in his district to try to win reelection and it is in a citizen’s best interest to make sure that that district is his own.  If citizens want to eliminate pork the only way to do that is with across the board reforms (better find a veteran congressman with some power to push that across, because a freshman won’t have a chance).

            I’ve asked a lot of questions but I have one more left, ‘What is the benefit of electing a new congressman?’  As I have shown, doing so is neither beneficial to the country nor the district.  Unless a congressman no longer represents you on the issues, a citizen shouldn’t vote them out of office.  Thinking about it, I was wrong in the beginning, self-interest isn’t the basis for making decisions in a democracy, belief is.  A congressman should believe in the same things as you, that way he can represent you, the length of time he has been in office shouldn’t matter.

A Paper-Free Lifestyle

Yesterday the New York Times published an article entitled: Pushing Paper Out the Door about Google engineer Chris Uhlik and his efforts to make his home paper-free.

 

This got me thinking. How convenient would the paper-free lifestyle be? I take a look at my desktop. Sheets of paper are strewn everywhere. Take away the paper products and I have JBL Creature Speakers, Sennheiser headphones, a TI-83+ Calculator, A Maxtor external hard-drive, A TV remote control, my laptop, a lamp, a small Dasani water bottle, and a bottle of multi-vitamins. Gathered together, they have a footprint of about 6 square feet. My desk itself is about 7 feet long and 3 feet deep (including my dresser which is adjacent to my desk, forming one counter) creating 21 square feet of desk space. So while my technology uses less than a third of my desk, I can hadly see any part of my desk due to the masses of paper and books that occupy it. In addition to this clutter, my shelf unit is overflowing with books, notebooks, and loose papers.

My Cluttered Shelves

My Cluttered Desk

 

 

While I complain of my room being too small it occurs to me that my room is just too cluttered with papers. So how nice would my room be without paper? Well I’ll find out eventually since I will now be attempting to reduce my “Paper Footprint” (And yes I’ve just trademarked that phrase).

There is a bonus. Thanks to former Vice-President Al Gore we all know that our wasteful lives have irreparably changed the planet. As landfills overflow countries turn to burning their garbage as a means to both generate energy and deal with their trash problems. In response to activism the cliché response is, “But what can I do?”, well I’ve figured out what I can do. By reducing, and perhaps one-day eliminating, my paper-footprint I can reduce the strain we put on the planet. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Greenpeace loving environmentalist but I do understand that it is important for people to protect the planet, if only out of self-interest (more on my opinions on protecting the planet in future posts).

 

I pose this question to my readers, few though they may be, if you could change one thing in your life to help the planet, what would it be and why?