I know a lot of people used to play the game Attack! on Facebook, which is a game similar to Risk, but it goes a lot faster since it's on the internet. Anyways, I was really disappointed when Zynga bought Attack! and took it off the internet. However, I recently found a game on Facebook called Conqueror that is exactly like Attack! but judging by how many people play Conqueror compared to how many people played Attack!, nobody knows about it. The game is here:
http://apps.facebook.com/conquerorgame/?ref=ts
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Drug Policy in the United States
The incarceration rate in the United States is the highest in the world. We send more people to prison per 100,000 people than China, Iran, Syria and Zimbabwe combined. The majority of the people incarcerated, 55% as of 2004, are there for drug offenses, a symbol of America's failed "War on Drugs." In 2006, 49.3% of state prisoners were incarcerated for non-violent crimes, and as of 2008, 90.7% of federal prisoners were also non-violent offenders. The United States has only 5% of the world's population, but 23% of the world's incarcerated population. The term "War on Drugs" was first used by President Richard Nixon in 1971 after passing the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which established the schedule system and consolidated numerous laws regarding the manufacturing and distribution of various drugs and chemicals used in production of controlled substances. In 1973, the Drug Enforcement Agency was formed to coordinate the effort of other agencies also involved in drug enforcement.
The schedule system is very confusing if you've ever experimented with drugs yourself. The DEA and FDA decide which substances are added to or removed from the various schedules, although Congress can schedule substances through legislation. According to the DEA, Schedule I drugs must have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. In Schedule I, marijuana, acid, ecstasy, peyote and psychadelic mushrooms are accompanied by heroin and the date-rape drug GHB. At first glance it doesn't seem that strange, until you find that cocaine and PCP are Schedule II. Yet another inconsistency is the drug pholcodine. Pholcodine is mildly addictive drug used as a cough suppressant in lozenges and cough syrups. It was developed as a replacement to codeine, because pholcodine has a much lower potential for dependence. Why, then, is pholcodine Schedule I while codeine Schedule II? Other mild opiates used for relief from moderate pain, diarrhea and coughing such as benzylmorphine, nicocodeine, dihydrocodeinone enol acetate, tilidine, meptazinol, propiram and acetyldihydrocodeine are Schedule I, even though they have a long history of medical use. Schedule II drugs are classified by (supposedly) having a high potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. I cannot believe that marijuana is a Schedule I while cocaine is Schedule II. Medical marijuana has been legalized in 16 states. How is it possible that the DEA and FDA believe it has no accepted medical use in treatment? I suspect lobbyists have a lot of influence in these decisions, especially when it comes to scheduling previously used medicines.
Another problem with the United States justice system is the length of prison sentences. The United States has much longer prison sentences than any other part of the world. This is caused largely by the U.S. Congress and state legislatures around the country creating mandatory sentencing for certain offenses. A first-time drug offense in a federal court is five to ten years, while the same offense in other developed countries would get six months. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established mandatory minimums for many different drugs, including cocaine and marijuana. The real problem with this legislation is the difference in sentencing for powder cocaine and freebase cocaine. Powder cocaine users can possess up to 100 times as much of the drug as freebase, or crack, cocaine users while still falling under the same mandatory sentence. This targets low level street dealers who deal mainly in crack, which has a disproportionate effect on minorities. In 2009, Pew Research Center compiled a report on the cost of locking up so many people. According to Pew, states spent an estimated $51.7 billion on corrections in 2008 and spent $29,000 a year per inmate, while the average cost of probation and parole was $1,250 and $2,750. Mandatory sentencing should be phased out in favor of probation, which would save taxpayers billions each year.
The schedule system is very confusing if you've ever experimented with drugs yourself. The DEA and FDA decide which substances are added to or removed from the various schedules, although Congress can schedule substances through legislation. According to the DEA, Schedule I drugs must have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. In Schedule I, marijuana, acid, ecstasy, peyote and psychadelic mushrooms are accompanied by heroin and the date-rape drug GHB. At first glance it doesn't seem that strange, until you find that cocaine and PCP are Schedule II. Yet another inconsistency is the drug pholcodine. Pholcodine is mildly addictive drug used as a cough suppressant in lozenges and cough syrups. It was developed as a replacement to codeine, because pholcodine has a much lower potential for dependence. Why, then, is pholcodine Schedule I while codeine Schedule II? Other mild opiates used for relief from moderate pain, diarrhea and coughing such as benzylmorphine, nicocodeine, dihydrocodeinone enol acetate, tilidine, meptazinol, propiram and acetyldihydrocodeine are Schedule I, even though they have a long history of medical use. Schedule II drugs are classified by (supposedly) having a high potential for abuse, currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. I cannot believe that marijuana is a Schedule I while cocaine is Schedule II. Medical marijuana has been legalized in 16 states. How is it possible that the DEA and FDA believe it has no accepted medical use in treatment? I suspect lobbyists have a lot of influence in these decisions, especially when it comes to scheduling previously used medicines.
Another problem with the United States justice system is the length of prison sentences. The United States has much longer prison sentences than any other part of the world. This is caused largely by the U.S. Congress and state legislatures around the country creating mandatory sentencing for certain offenses. A first-time drug offense in a federal court is five to ten years, while the same offense in other developed countries would get six months. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 established mandatory minimums for many different drugs, including cocaine and marijuana. The real problem with this legislation is the difference in sentencing for powder cocaine and freebase cocaine. Powder cocaine users can possess up to 100 times as much of the drug as freebase, or crack, cocaine users while still falling under the same mandatory sentence. This targets low level street dealers who deal mainly in crack, which has a disproportionate effect on minorities. In 2009, Pew Research Center compiled a report on the cost of locking up so many people. According to Pew, states spent an estimated $51.7 billion on corrections in 2008 and spent $29,000 a year per inmate, while the average cost of probation and parole was $1,250 and $2,750. Mandatory sentencing should be phased out in favor of probation, which would save taxpayers billions each year.
The justice system in the United States is unfair and costly. These issues have arisen from a concerted effort from politicians to be seen as tough on crime. If a congressman or governor proposed changes in these policies, their opponents would slam them for being soft on crime. The political rhetoric in this country has yet again stymied our government's ability to solve national problems. No one wants to take on judicial reform, and no one will until the hostile rhetoric is toned down and bipartisanship reigns. I'm not holding my breath.
Friday, March 2, 2012
State-Owned Banks
North Dakota has an unemployment of 3.3% and is the only state with a budget surplus. The Bank of North Dakota is state-owned, and profits go into the budget. It isn't backed up by the Federal Reserve, but by the state's taxes, and it isn't preoccupied with record profits or million dollar bonuses for it's executives. This allows the bank to loan money to promising small businesses and entrepreneurs without the predatory lending and Wall Street millionaires. North Dakota was protected from the financial crisis by a state-owned bank that kept interest rates low and stimulated the economy. Other states are thinking about doing the same thing.
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/growing_movement.php
The major problem with the idea of a state-owned bank is it runs the risk of becoming like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislators could push the bank to make risky investments for the sake of economic growth, and the credit crisis happens all over again. The Bank of North Dakota is a success story, but North Dakota is a much different state that California or Michigan. In a largely populated state, a state-owned bank might be pressed to get into more and more mortgage lending, which could cause problems when a real estate bubble occurs.
A benefit of having a state-owned bank would be that regulations are much easier to enforce, although in being state-owned, the bank is subject to political changes and new legislation. If a newly elected legislature goes on a de-regulation spree and appoints a free-wheeling bank president, you have a real financial crisis on your hands, and there's no Federal Reserve to bail you out; the taxpayers are footing the bill. Although, as we saw with the "Great Recession," the taxpayers eventually foot the bill anyway.
This is something that is and should be discussed in legislatures around the country. The Bank of North Dakota acts as a miniature Federal Reserve, partnering with local banks and supporting them by making loans. It does not compete for commercial deposits since virtually all of the bank's deposits come from the state itself. In partnering with community banks, the Bank of North Dakota helps secure funding for local projects that wouldn't get support from the big Wall Street banks, and also funds infrastructure projects as substantially less cost since the state owns the bank and gets the interest back. North Dakota has more banks per capita and the lowest default rate in the nation. A state-owned bank is a good idea, but safe-guards are needed against ever-changing politics, much like the Federal Reserve is an independent organization free from partisan influence. Hopefully another state legislature will model the Bank of North Dakota so we can all see what happens.
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/growing_movement.php
The major problem with the idea of a state-owned bank is it runs the risk of becoming like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Legislators could push the bank to make risky investments for the sake of economic growth, and the credit crisis happens all over again. The Bank of North Dakota is a success story, but North Dakota is a much different state that California or Michigan. In a largely populated state, a state-owned bank might be pressed to get into more and more mortgage lending, which could cause problems when a real estate bubble occurs.
A benefit of having a state-owned bank would be that regulations are much easier to enforce, although in being state-owned, the bank is subject to political changes and new legislation. If a newly elected legislature goes on a de-regulation spree and appoints a free-wheeling bank president, you have a real financial crisis on your hands, and there's no Federal Reserve to bail you out; the taxpayers are footing the bill. Although, as we saw with the "Great Recession," the taxpayers eventually foot the bill anyway.
This is something that is and should be discussed in legislatures around the country. The Bank of North Dakota acts as a miniature Federal Reserve, partnering with local banks and supporting them by making loans. It does not compete for commercial deposits since virtually all of the bank's deposits come from the state itself. In partnering with community banks, the Bank of North Dakota helps secure funding for local projects that wouldn't get support from the big Wall Street banks, and also funds infrastructure projects as substantially less cost since the state owns the bank and gets the interest back. North Dakota has more banks per capita and the lowest default rate in the nation. A state-owned bank is a good idea, but safe-guards are needed against ever-changing politics, much like the Federal Reserve is an independent organization free from partisan influence. Hopefully another state legislature will model the Bank of North Dakota so we can all see what happens.
Introduction
I started this blog because I'm tired of my views not being represented in the public square. I believe in universal health care, protecting the environment, a free education for everyone through college, a woman's right to choose, same-sex marriage and I'm a strong advocate for federalism. I do not support the war on drugs, gun control, corporate welfare, government debt, and interventionist foreign policy. I abhor the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, the torture of terrorist suspects, warrant-less wiretapping, and indefinite detention without trial. I cannot point to a politician that represents my views, with the exception of (maybe) Bill Richardson or Russ Feingold, and Feingold only because he was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. I think a lot of libertarians out there think that Ron Paul libertarianism is the only way to go, but there are different kinds of libertarianism that aren't so anti-government. This blog will express my views, a combination of libertarianism and social democracy. I hope you enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)