The way we enforce
If we were serious about drug interdiction/etc then we wouldn't have the city of Atlanta as being the central shipping point and merchandizing center for drugs East of the Mississippi. I mean Atlanta is hundreds of miles from the closest sea port and is generally not considered to be a land border state. How lax does our drug enforcment have to be to result in a city a thousand miles from Mexico being the center of the drug trade in the USA?
I really think drug laws should be enforced to a draconian extent because that is the only way you could effectively limit the drug criminal industry. If you made the consequences severe enough and actively sought out users and suppliers, you could prevent 90% of the drug industry from functioning. But do you really want potheads in jail for 25 years for having a joint? And do you want to have to effectively prevent any and all cross-border movement that isn't inspected for drugs?
The drug law enforcement could work. But then again the public tolerance to actually enforce the laws is limited. I'd give people 18-25 a bit of a break for their first offence. Say 1 year in a halfway house and 5 years community service. For other people, I'd give a graduated scale. Having Mj nets you 10 years in federal prison no parole. Cocaine or a derivative there of 15 years federal prison, no parole. Amphetamines/Speed/Meth/Ludes/ Fraudulent Prescription 20 years in federal prison, no parole. For Acid/Dust/ any other morphine/opiate derivatives or mind altering drug 25 years in federal prison, no parole. And all the above sentencing guidelines are despite how little or how much quantity of drug is found at the time of arrest.
If a user realizes that he can get 25 years in prison for doing a speedball, he may stop buying it. If a dealer realizes he could get 25 years in prison just on the cocaine and hash residue in his vehicle- he might change lines of work. The dubious distinction of being a well connected drug user or supplier would seriously impeed your daily life until you either quit cold or got busted by the feds. Offer bounties of $5,000 for each drug tip that leads to a conviction.
Pretty quick people would get the message drugs, or being around someone who might have drugs, or tolerating drugs in your personal life ultimately is a risk no sane person could or would tolerate. The meth heads, crack addicts, and potheads would all disappear quickly from the free environment. Those homelss people who have mental handicaps and drug addictions would be incarcerated and undergoing forced treatment for their mental illnesses- something that they don't get right now. Fact is that even a recreational level of use has negative consequences at some point. The weed you buy or the coke you score, or the hash that gets gifted to you for your after work week personal relaxation came from somewhere.
And more than likely that somewhere at some point in time involved a pointed gun and people under duress as the drug moves from origin to end user. It is a horrible reality to know that almost all drugs that are illegal and of illicit nature cause unmitigated suffering far beyond even that caused by the user of the drug.
But if we aren't going to get serious about enforcement, then it is time to make it all 100% legal. At a very least result, the duress and violence that accompanies your drug supply line would end. Narco states would probably still be run by former narcotics dealers, but their access to easy cash would be gone and with time their ability to influence their governments would cease. On the downside, a lot of idiots will OD or otherwise self destruct. And for the friends and family involved it will be a horrible experience. But in the grand scheme of things, most addicts are not of the redeeming type as Coleridge, Black or Doyle. Meaning their self destruction is probably a net good to society rather than a loss.
When I think of it on that scale and point of view, I really do think drugs should be totally legalized. It would eliminate much violence and rid the world of a lot of dead weight to society. It might even cause the inner American city to diversify its economic activities away from the thug-gangsta/drug dealer/pimp popularity contest that it is now. Without drug money and without the inequity of the relationship between user and supplier due to criminalized drugs, most users would be able to more from the margins of the society to at least a functional basis. Spending money treating the chronic abuser of drugs will likely be cheaper than attempting to enforce drug laws as they exist right now.
Call me crazy, but the world would be a much more peaceful place with legalized drugs.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Violence as an Unintended Drug Consequence.
Friday, April 10, 2009
OS X or Vista
I have used both over the years. And I used to be a near absolute Microsoft fanboy. I think the problem with Windows became most noticeable during the early launch and adoption of Windows XP. I'll skip the reasons for this to get to the punch line that XP was a can of worms when used by the average office pool secretary. By this I mean the layout of Teletubbie land on the new XP systems prevented her from installing her prefered media player, the email she wanted to use, the chat software she wanted, etc. So one of two things happened. Either she was the "local administrator" who "knew more" about computers than her boss and proceeded to screw up her system unknowingly or the IT guy would simply give up having to constantly allow her account to install some stupid piece of software and simply set the secretary to run as an administrator at all times.
XP really did seem to offer the end user an Apple like desktop, but the XP systems run by idiots unfairly added to the reputation that Windows XP doesn't work. It did work, but people tended to use them without any training or understanding of how much more jacked up both XP's capabilities and settings were over Win98se or even Windows 2000 Pro. You may have had an Apple like startbar and dock area, but it wasn't OSX.
I found that it was increasingly common for systems in offices to start out like they all had Porsche computers and a month later they had Yugos needing a complete rebuild. It really was not Microsoft's fault. The real problem is the user.
As a uber geek, having access to everything to tweak and otherwise customize within the limits set by Microsoft was great. But for an average user it was like giving someone who has never even held a gun a fully automatic M-16 with a grenade launcher and a night vision scope and laser sites. Most people have no idea- or even need to have that level of equivalent power vs responsibility. Most XP users- and for that matter most Windows users currently- who are suffering problems are the result of self inflicted wounds.
The reality is that if you purchase a Windows based system, and you intend to customize software installations or otherwise move beyond simple web browsing, email, and media activities you will find yourself soon having issues. From conflicting drivers, software, inconsistent hardware compatibility, or unintended consequences from installing different hardware and software from different vendors, the average user will find himself having issues. It has gotten progressively batter through the years as Microsoft has strengthened the vendor certification standards for hardware and software. But the fact remains, a windows based system may have a proprietary software operating environment but the hardware and other software is a series of independent products produced with conflicting goals, standards, and ideas.
And that is why unless Microsoft starts building computers, the problem will never go away.
The Apple path is certainly more costly upfront. Fact is Apples cost comparatively more compared to a comparable Windows Vista system. On a Vista system you can get more memory, hard drive space, and a bigger display compared to an Apple iMac for example. And often the cost of this hardware on the Vista system is hundreds of dollars less. Further, if you buy a Vista system, virtually any store with a computer department will have tons of additional hardware you can buy that is pre-certified to be Vista compatible. You don't have to drive an hour to find a store with a single shelf worth of Apple specific hardware. If you need a Windows compatible caple or slot card, odds are you can get it in minutes.
The Apple though has several features which over the long haul make it a better purchase for most people. The first is that Apple is both a proprietary software operating system and a proprietary hardware system. What this means is if it has an Apple logo on it- it will function exactly as advertised. There is no issue as to whether the software you just bought will work or if the new hardware you bought will inadvertently fry your graphics card. To a do it for your self kind of person, that simple feature means that it won't require any technical capacity to use your system in a reliable manner. The other feature which makes Apples generally superior to Windows systems is that natively out of the box an Apple system does both what an average computer users wants to do as well as also do what the most hardcore computer user needs a computer to do.
If you consider that most computer users want something that lets them check their email, surf the web, video conference with family, and write the Great American Novel, then they will find that an Apple does exactly that right out of the box. Further, with the iLife suite that comes pre-installed, just about every common user task is supported without you ever even needing to buy another piece of software. To explain the difference better, an Apple computer is like buying a very high quality razor that never needs a new blade. To a user that simply wants to have a computer unobtrusively contributing to his productiveness instead of being a hinderance to the process of using a computer, the Apple wins hands down.
If you happen to be an uber geek the Apple is something that appeals to you since the Apple comes out of the box in a form factor that is pretty bullet proof. It runs faster and leaner. Gets its kick from Unix, and lets you run virtual Windows Vista, XP and Linux flavors to your heart's content. You want to render graphics or otherwise engage in processor intensive activities- you can without the chug found on comparable Vista systems. In short, the uber geek that hacked you two ways to Sunday last night and wiped out you bank account probably used a mac Pro to do it.
The potential flaw of being proprietary in both hardware and software OS is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Apple has jumped on the open source bandwagon and even released a lot of its code and hardware specifications. Because of this, Apple gets tons of free quality development. See the iPhone for an example of this fact. Who knew someone would create a dyno program that lets you accurately use your phone to time your car's horsepower over a quarter mile? So unlike Microsoft, Apple does get a large degree of stability of hardware and software simply because they base their OS on a public domain Unix.
The real benefit of having an Apple however is how long you go before you have to replace it. People use Apples long after they ceased to be supported by anyone. The numbers of people still using Apple OS9 systems is staggering. And they often are using it on systems that have had nothing done to them since they opened the packaging. To put it in perspective it would be like someone using a Windows 95 system today who can still use the system as though they just bought a new Windows system.
When you look at the cost of entry it is indeed steep. I could have bought four computers for the price of the two Apple computers I bought this year. But I can reasonably expect that I won't be replacing either computer for the next 8 years barring a critical hardware error or Web 2.0 becoming Web 6.0. When you amortize the cost over that time it makes my computers cost about $200 a year- and that also includes my terrabyte Apple Time Machine, a new iPod Shuffle, and two Apple TV.
Couple years back my father in law asked me what I would recommend he buy now that he was retiring and would no longer have a government supplied laptop PC. I told him point blank he should buy an Apple iBook based upon both his utter lack of computer expertise and also what he intended to do with it. He promptly ignored my advice and went out and bought a Toshiba laptop running Vista. A month after he bought it, he had me removing some virus files and undoing several items that I should have charged him $500 for. Last week he told my wife on the phone that the system was unusable and it would cost him $500 to get it wiped, cleaned, and then have the OS reinstalled.
He spent $2,000 on that system.
The particular model he bought now shows up on eBay for around $300. The iBook I recommended still sells for $600.
Windows Vista is an excellent OS if you are equipped with the personal capcity that enables competent computer software and hardware administration. Apples are generally best for most users with the qualification that you have to either be willing to pay a lot upfront or pay a lot of money for a used Apple if you cannot afford the new ones.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Pax Americana
Simply put the Roman Republic, Roman Empire, and Byzantine Empire < early stages of the latter> were really the first time in human history where the majority of humans on the planet were not worried about being exterminated by the people one valley over to the left if they ever made contact. From about the time Sumer became a going concern, there were enough people concentrated to the point that actual warfare was plausible.
So from the region of Iraq to Egypt on today's map, you had city states at war. And the war was continual and increasingly the focus of more an more peoples. People tended to build up a local population, then kill the next door neighboring city state. It really wasn't until the Republic of Rome began expanding that the largest concentration of people on the globe- i.e. Mediterranean/ Near East were actually living at "peace" By the time of Imperial Rome, unless you lived way far out on the borders of the far North, if you lived within Rome or one of its vassal states, you had a reasonable expectation of living well into your early 70's.
Of course if you lived outside of Rome your life expectancy was only 30 odd years even if you were lucky enough to live in the more advanced Chinese city states or the more laid back principalities of the Indus Valley.
Prior to Rome's dominance, people who lived in the territories that eventually made up Imperial Rome had life expectancies of middle 30's at best for males and late 20's for females on average. Once you had Rome as your overlord you tended to be able to survive as a civilian. After the fall of the Western Empire, life expectancies in the former Roman territory dropped back to what it had been before the Roman Republic. Same thing happened with the Eastern Empire. As it contracted in size, those that lived outside its territories suffered a precipitous fall in life expectancy.
So the Pax Romana can be accurately determined by simply looking at life expectancy. For a very long time even before Rome ruled the world, the Romans had substantially longer lives than their neighbors. The expansion in physical territory combined with the explosion of populations as they came under Roman rule marks the beginning of the Pax Romana. The end can be determined by reversing the standards.
Being fair, Rome had a PAX that lasted at least 300 years. A fairer argument would be that the Pax lasted at least 600 years for the majority of people living from Gibraltar to the borders of India & from the Baltic Sea to the northern limit of the Saharan Desert. Compared to what came before and after, the Pax was most definitely a "peace" It would be almost 700 years before a majority of the world's population enjoyed Roman standards of life expectancy under Pax Britannia. That doesn't mean the people who benefited from the PAX in both instances were either Roman or British.
What it means is that the influence of any particular Pax often is greater and longer than the geographical and temporal extant of a leading power. Gibbon may have judged Rome to be at its zenith for 200 years, but the actual impact on peacefulness lasted far longer.
With the collapse of Rome the effects of the Pax evaporated. Then again when the Pax Britannia collapsed we had two World Wars that made the Napoleonic Wars look like a nursery game. You have to wonder that if we are indeed in a Pax Americana, and that when a Pax collapses it is followed by an amazingly intense period of open conflict and plunging life expectancies as a universal rule of human history----what will the post Pax Americana world go through before the next great power?
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
"Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money."
STUART VARNEY Wall Street Journal
Obama Administration and TARP 1 Reimbursement
TARP 1 is a case where the government forced the leading domestic commercial banks to do something that the well run banks didn't need or even want to do. But even though competently run, these banks had to take TARP 1 money to obscure the banks that took the money who really did need it.
Imagine if tomorrow one of the top ten domestic commercial banks comes out and states publicly two things.
A. It does not need/never did need TARP 1 and is giving it back.
B. It also recognizes that the TARP liquidity injection has not worked at all, therefor a better solution would be to allow healthy banks to compete for the market place.
The healthy banks of course would repay TARP1 money immediately and protest loudly if the government refused to take the money back.
The weak banks? They would be silent or stammering about how its a liquidity problem.
The public would get the hint really quick. The banks that got TARP 1 and needed it would fail- and the public would have had it up to their eyeballs with the entire bailout process. 60% of American registered voters no longer supported TARP I or a TARP II. The issue of the reinsurance costing far more than expected has wiped out TARP 1 funds anyway-as much as 38% more than originally thought.
It is time for the reinsurers- also known as AIG to pay up with their own investment pool instead of collateralizing taxpayer monies. AIG owes banks big. If AIG fails, several of Europe & China's biggest banks and re-insurer firms will collapse as well. It will send Europe and China straight into a severe recession. But it won't cost the American tax payer another $2 Trillion in public debt load. The cascade of bad American banks would be impressive to see failing. The rumor mill is 4 of the now 10 top American domestic banks would indeed fail were it not for TARP 1.
Let them fail.
It would mean liquidity for free. Instead what we have right now is liquidity for public debt. The fact that liquidity isn't the real issue is another issue. If it was liquidity in the first place, then ramping up $2 Trillion in public spending in 10 years, directly providing cash to the banks via TARP I, and the issue of the US Treasury "printing" nearly $1 Trillion in unbacked Federal Reserve Notes should have improved the credit markets or lending to commercial enterprises.
Economists in The Economist are starting to point out that this hasn't worked yet. The GAO agrees.
But then again, that doesn't seem to be the point. The point it would seem is to indirectly control the entire American commercial banking system by directly having federal ownership in the top 10 commercial NA banks. The federal government may be a minority holder, but its stock is an entirely new classification of stock never before seen in the American capitalist markets. It isn't a common stock, a preferred stock, a non-voting stock, or even a bond stock. Instead it is a stock that acts as an identification for specialized treatment.
If a company with this identification doesn't follow the government agenda, then it can see its executives fired, earnings taxed at 90%, or otherwise see day-to-day control removed from the other owners of the bank. If they do follow what the government wants as policy, then the bank gets tax payer funded cash infusions and an almost virtual assurance that the bank will never be allowed to fail.
So when you have a bank attempt to give back money- especially now that no one is even remotely worried about any bank runs or bank holidays, you have to wonder what utility is served by refusing to accept back a gift that wasn't needed in the first place.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Former Senator Stevens- crook or innocent politician?
A little of both. The telephone recording of him talking about his political relations to contributers is largely dependent on your personal bias context in how you understand his guilt or innocence. I have not been a fan of Stevens for years. I think that when a person gets as much power as Stevens or even Byrd has without attempting to blow it all on a Presidential run, it is more than likely that the man is in office for the sake of personal power. Therefore, when I listened to the audio/ read the transcript, I was predisposed to think he was caught in an admission of corruption.
Thing is, while I think it is a good thing he lost his re-election, the more I read about the charges and the more that became public in the prosecution's case, the less I thought Stevens really was guilty of the charges presented against him. As someone else pointed out, many of the charges were based upon things that on consideration are pretty petty. It was more a situation where he was seemingly being prosecuted on the technical limits of the laws behind the charges instead of the spirit and intents of the laws behind the charges.
Someone here once commented that once a person achieves a political office beyond dog catcher, they become increasingly corrupt to the point that many choices they make may not be technical legal violations, but they certainly cross over into the realm of being violations in spirit. Stevens is undoubtably a text-book example of this process. The man was in power for so long that he rose up the Senate seating charts to the point that Alaska wielded far more senatorial clout than just about any other state in relation to its population. There is a reason Alaska got so many "Bridge to Nowhere" projects.
So while I think the charges that were actually prosecuted are in hindsight pretty trumped up, the reality is that Stevens has had so much influence for so long that undoubtably he has concealed far greater violations of the laws. The best the Department of Justice could come up with was technical violations. They certainly did a poor job of arguing their case. And their procedural choices were so bad that their argument has no basis on appeal.
When Capone was convicted of tax fraud, he was in technical violation of the law. And compared with the extent of his criminal actions, being convicted of failing to pay a federal tax seems almost amazingly petty considering that we routinely have famous and infamous people not paying far greater taxes. Capone got 11 years for not paying $215,000.00 in taxes. In today's money that doesn't even come close to sums owed by people like Nicholas Gage or Wesley Snipes even if you adjust for inflation. Capone was also so corrupt that he could almost flaunt his criminal status. Everyone knew he was a criminal, but no one attempted to prosecute him on the real activities of his enterprise because it would have been impossible. He was instead convicted of a concealed weapons charge, contempt of court charge for failure to appear in a timely manner, and tax underpayment.
Of course he never was charged with the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.
So too I guess it goes with Stevens. I still think he is a crook, but even though his prosecution was realistically a accumulation of trumped up technical violations, the existence of "The Bridge to Nowhere" style pork projects to Alaska represents Stevens own personal Saint Valentine's Day Massacre.
Posts
