Last night as my house settled down after a busy Sunday of yard work, I turned on my television at 8 o'clock, and I saw breaking news coverage with the headline, 'Osama bin Laden killed by US forces'. I called my wife and children into the room to watch the reporting of this historic news. As we watched the exhilerated crowds celebrate in front of the White House, my 12-year-old son Brodie asked if we could get out the noise-makers we use on New Year's Eve and go out in our neighborhood and celebrate, too.
I understand the need to celebrate a victory over my enemy, and I do celebrate the fact that bin Laden's death came at the hands of American forces. But what does his death really mean?
As the face of al-Qaeda, bin Laden's death is noteworthy, but long overdue. Shortly after 9/11 President Bush set a $25 million bounty on his head, ordering bin Laden to be taken dead or alive. Even with this death sentence hanging over his head bin Laden evaded US forces for almost 10 years. And like the families of victims of a convicted murderer, those who lost loved ones on 9/11 waited too many years for the justice and closure brought, too late, by the death of the one responsible for their loss. It has been said that revenge is a dish best served cold, but I think that the families of those killed by bin Laden's plans would rather have enjoyed this moment if it had happened in the days immediately after the attacks, when their losses ached most and when America's passions were at their hottest.
The death of this one man does bring some element of closure to the terrible events of that day, but for the 3,000 killed that day in 2001, bin Laden's death offers only a thimble-full of blood to each victim. Add to the number of those killed on 9/11 the other victims of al-Qaeda's acts, the bombing of the US Embassy in Nairobi in August 1998, the attack of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, and all those others killed by terrorist attacks inspired by bin Laden's leadership, and that thimble-full of blood is halved for each victim. Add the lives of US servicemen killed in pursuit of bin Laden and his organization and there are only a scant few drops of blood for each victim to treasure as a trophy of this 'justice'.
Osama bin Laden was but one man. It would be nice to imagine that, as the putative leader of al-Qaeda, killing this one man would be like decapitating his terrorist organization and with one stroke we would have attained victory. But the truth is that al-Qaeda is a many-headed Hydra, and chopping off this one head will only result in two more heads growing to replace it.
The war on terrorism is important, and bin Laden's death at our hands is definitely a noteworthy landmark in this war. This is not a war of our choosing, we are forced to extend this war to protect ourselves from those who have already attacked us and done us harm. I honor all the brave American soldiers who have put themselves in harm's way to fight this war and protect our country. Osama bin Laden's death won't end the threat and resolve of those who fight against us. His death may be just as symbolic to our enemy as it is to us. Let this day do more to bring us together as Americans than it does to unite our enemies against us.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Monday, March 22, 2010
Our Crumbling Infrastructure
If I were President, I would bring back the WPA.
After the stock market crash of 1929 the country (and in fact, the world) faced years of the Great Depression. The banks had no money to lend, businesses closed right and left, unemployment rates skyrocketed. Sound familiar?
America had never had a financial breakdown of this magnitude before, so the government was caught a little off-guard by the far-flung and lasting effects. In 1932 President Herbert Hoover authorized the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to help rebuild the wealth lost due to the Depression. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt expanded on Hoover's 'stimulus package and created a number of other agencies to provide aid, among them, the Works Projects Administration (WPA).
Roosevelt knew that millions of Americans were out of work and unable to support their families, but he was against a welfare system to provide aid. He thought that Americans would take more pride in working for their living than in accepting handouts. With millions of jobs to create, the WPA needed to create millions of opportunities. Roosevelt used this vast labor pool to build roads, bridges, dams, public parks and public buildings. People were paid a fair wage for a fair day's work. Most of America's public highway system was laid-out and built by the WPA. As a result of this work the United States was connected like never before.
It can be argued that the billions of dollars the US government spent on these WPA projects returned huge dividends. The nation's new highway system created the means for business to move its goods to market quickly, and to ship those goods to all corners of the country. The dam-building projects ensured the safety of numerous towns and created power generation for our growing cities and industry. Parks and libraries built by the WPA added to the quality of life for many Americans.
But by 1942 we had largely recovered from the Great Depression. Indeed, with World War II workers were much in demand. Factories were working round the clock to produce war-time goods and many of their strongest and best workers had gone off to war. The WPA, having served it's purpose, was not funded and was allowed to end.
Now, nearly 80 years later we are still driving on those same highways and bridges built by the WPA. A road system built to carry 1940's traffic is struggling to serve conditions in the 21st Century. Bridges are weakening, and even when reinforced, are too narrow to carry the traffic that funnels into them and become traffic bottlenecks. Highways that cross through cities are gridlocked, carrying ten times the traffic they were designed for. Water, telephone and electrical delivery systems are outdated and failing in many parts of the country.
What is the cost of gridlock? How many hours of productive time are lost with workers spending 2 or 3 hours each day sitting in their cars trying to get to work? Those are hours they could spend with their family or volunteering in their community. How many extra trucks are on the road everyday because traffic limits the number of miles and the number of deliveries any one truck can complete in a day?
A modern and robust infrastructure is required if we, as Americans, want to ensure our high standard of living. A dated and decaying infrastructure will drag us down and hinder the efficient running of our economy. The phone companies have done a good job of updating their infrastructure because there is a lot of money to be made there, but our electrical and water delivery systems are run by government-controlled utilities and there is no incentive for them to spend money and manpower on upgrades.
So now we find ourselves again in economic turmoil. Once again millions of Americans find themselves out of work and unable to support their families. And once again, the infrastructural framework of our country is in need of repair and rebuilding. So, let's spend that stimulus money on reinventing the WPA. Let's spend that money creating millions of jobs and give that money directly to the people who need it the most. No more of this trickle-down stuff, where we give the money to companies so they can hire new workers. Let's have the government give every American who wants to work a job building roads, building bridges, building subways and trains and monorails. Let's build the America that will carry us through the next 80 years.
After the stock market crash of 1929 the country (and in fact, the world) faced years of the Great Depression. The banks had no money to lend, businesses closed right and left, unemployment rates skyrocketed. Sound familiar?
America had never had a financial breakdown of this magnitude before, so the government was caught a little off-guard by the far-flung and lasting effects. In 1932 President Herbert Hoover authorized the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to help rebuild the wealth lost due to the Depression. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt expanded on Hoover's 'stimulus package and created a number of other agencies to provide aid, among them, the Works Projects Administration (WPA).
Roosevelt knew that millions of Americans were out of work and unable to support their families, but he was against a welfare system to provide aid. He thought that Americans would take more pride in working for their living than in accepting handouts. With millions of jobs to create, the WPA needed to create millions of opportunities. Roosevelt used this vast labor pool to build roads, bridges, dams, public parks and public buildings. People were paid a fair wage for a fair day's work. Most of America's public highway system was laid-out and built by the WPA. As a result of this work the United States was connected like never before.
It can be argued that the billions of dollars the US government spent on these WPA projects returned huge dividends. The nation's new highway system created the means for business to move its goods to market quickly, and to ship those goods to all corners of the country. The dam-building projects ensured the safety of numerous towns and created power generation for our growing cities and industry. Parks and libraries built by the WPA added to the quality of life for many Americans.
But by 1942 we had largely recovered from the Great Depression. Indeed, with World War II workers were much in demand. Factories were working round the clock to produce war-time goods and many of their strongest and best workers had gone off to war. The WPA, having served it's purpose, was not funded and was allowed to end.
Now, nearly 80 years later we are still driving on those same highways and bridges built by the WPA. A road system built to carry 1940's traffic is struggling to serve conditions in the 21st Century. Bridges are weakening, and even when reinforced, are too narrow to carry the traffic that funnels into them and become traffic bottlenecks. Highways that cross through cities are gridlocked, carrying ten times the traffic they were designed for. Water, telephone and electrical delivery systems are outdated and failing in many parts of the country.
What is the cost of gridlock? How many hours of productive time are lost with workers spending 2 or 3 hours each day sitting in their cars trying to get to work? Those are hours they could spend with their family or volunteering in their community. How many extra trucks are on the road everyday because traffic limits the number of miles and the number of deliveries any one truck can complete in a day?
A modern and robust infrastructure is required if we, as Americans, want to ensure our high standard of living. A dated and decaying infrastructure will drag us down and hinder the efficient running of our economy. The phone companies have done a good job of updating their infrastructure because there is a lot of money to be made there, but our electrical and water delivery systems are run by government-controlled utilities and there is no incentive for them to spend money and manpower on upgrades.
So now we find ourselves again in economic turmoil. Once again millions of Americans find themselves out of work and unable to support their families. And once again, the infrastructural framework of our country is in need of repair and rebuilding. So, let's spend that stimulus money on reinventing the WPA. Let's spend that money creating millions of jobs and give that money directly to the people who need it the most. No more of this trickle-down stuff, where we give the money to companies so they can hire new workers. Let's have the government give every American who wants to work a job building roads, building bridges, building subways and trains and monorails. Let's build the America that will carry us through the next 80 years.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Why I Stop at Red Lights at 3:00 am
Why do you follow the law?
Is it because you are a good citizen? Do you do it to build good Karma? Are you afraid of the consequences of being caught? Peer pressure? Is it okay to break a rule that you think is useless or unecessary?
Imagine this: It is 3 AM on a Tuesday and for some reason you are alone in your car, driving home from some event. You are near your home on familiar streets when you come to a traffic light and it changes to red before you. You are tired and ready to be home. After 30 seconds of waiting for the light to change you look to your left, up the street and there is not a car in sight. You look to your right and there are no other cars visible. A quick glance in your rear-view mirror shows you to be all alone at this intersection. So, what do you do? Do you cross on the red or do you wait for the light to change?
I mean, really, the traffic lights are meant to keep traffic safe, to prevent accidents at busy intersections and smooth the flow of traffic. Does this red signal really serve any of those purposes at 3 AM on a Tuesday?
So what do I do? I wait for that light to change. Obeying the law is part of our contract with our community. We, as citizens of a community, take much comfort from the knowledge that most of those around us obey the laws. It makes us feel safe when driving on the roads to know that a green signal means it is truly safe for me to drive through an intersection without fear of injury. Imagine what it might be like if people only obeyed the laws when it was convenient for them to do so. So, at 3 AM on that Tuesday I wait for the light to change because, if I don't, that way lies chaos and the end of civilization as we know it.
Of course, I sometimes have been known to exceed the speed limit by a little bit . . . .
Is it because you are a good citizen? Do you do it to build good Karma? Are you afraid of the consequences of being caught? Peer pressure? Is it okay to break a rule that you think is useless or unecessary?
Imagine this: It is 3 AM on a Tuesday and for some reason you are alone in your car, driving home from some event. You are near your home on familiar streets when you come to a traffic light and it changes to red before you. You are tired and ready to be home. After 30 seconds of waiting for the light to change you look to your left, up the street and there is not a car in sight. You look to your right and there are no other cars visible. A quick glance in your rear-view mirror shows you to be all alone at this intersection. So, what do you do? Do you cross on the red or do you wait for the light to change?
I mean, really, the traffic lights are meant to keep traffic safe, to prevent accidents at busy intersections and smooth the flow of traffic. Does this red signal really serve any of those purposes at 3 AM on a Tuesday?
So what do I do? I wait for that light to change. Obeying the law is part of our contract with our community. We, as citizens of a community, take much comfort from the knowledge that most of those around us obey the laws. It makes us feel safe when driving on the roads to know that a green signal means it is truly safe for me to drive through an intersection without fear of injury. Imagine what it might be like if people only obeyed the laws when it was convenient for them to do so. So, at 3 AM on that Tuesday I wait for the light to change because, if I don't, that way lies chaos and the end of civilization as we know it.
Of course, I sometimes have been known to exceed the speed limit by a little bit . . . .
Monday, January 12, 2009
Illegal Immigration
If I were President, I would represent and protect all Americans, but wouldn't do too much for those who are not.
Yes, I know. We are a nation of immigrants. The strength upon which America's greatness is built is the diversity of it's peoples. There are only about 3 million Native Americans out of our national population of over 300 million who did not descend from relatives who emigrated to America at one time or another. Personally I am only a third-generation American, descending from Grandparents who came to this country from Russia and Hungary. My wife's mother was born in Germany and came to America at the age of 17. That doesn't make us less American than those who came over on the Mayflower; If anything, it makes us more thoroughly American, another fiber in the fabric of America.
I have no problem with the current generation of immigrants to our country. I understand their desire to find a better life like my mother-in-law, or to flee persecution and find safety like my grandfather. I understand the great lure of the promise of America, where wages are higher, living conditions are better, and freedoms are broader than the countries from which they travel.
I do have a problem, though, with those who come here and stay here unlawfully. My grandfather came to America in 1906 on a steamer ship and was processed with the throngs at Ellis Island. My mother-in-law obtained a visa to work in the U.S. as an au pair for a family in California, and when she met her future husband and decided to stay in the country she followed the steps to obtain permanent residency status and be issued her green card. My issue is with those who enter the country illegally and stay here illegally.
I'm not necessarily one of those who believes that illegals take more from the economy than they add to it. That's not the basis of my argument with them, and to be honest, the book is still open on that question. I don't believe that they drive down the price of labor and steal jobs from legal Americans either. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any white or black citizen willing to work in the produce fields at any price, or who would be satisified to work for years at a restaurant as a dishwasher.
My problem with them is that by entering the country illegally they are de facto criminals. They knowingly broke the law to get here. Their very existence here is an affront to those of us here legally. And what's worse, after they establish themselves, they think that they have rights here. A right to work, a right to collect social services, a right to seek medical care they cannot pay for, a right to be represented, and a right to stay here.
In May 2006 immigrant's rights groups staged "The Great American Boycott, A Day Without An Immigrant", urging all immigrants to not work that day, not buy anything or sell anything. It was to show the extent to which the American economy benefits from the contributions from illegal immigrants, and to demand legislation for amnesty for those illegals and a way to formalize their status here.
Are you kidding me! That's like crack dealers withholding their drugs for a day, forcing hundreds of thousands of addicts to emergency rooms with withdrawal symptoms to prove the drug dealer's value to society and then demanding the legalization of their crack dealing. The police and immigrations enforcement should have cordoned off the streets and funneled them onto buses bound for the nearest border.
They thought that by showing their numbers that politicians would be forced to consider their demands. Well, the politicians don't represent them, they represent their constituents, those who are citizens here legally. I hope the immigrant's rights groups didn't mean to imply that all those millions of illegal aliens would somehow register to vote illegally and demand their rights at the ballot box. I hope that politicians are smart enough to not be influenced by the tactics of people who are already acting criminally just by their presence here.
So, how do you solve the problem of illegal immigration? By taking away what they came here for. Many states, including California where I live, have legislation in place that requires you show proof of your right to work in this country. The problem is that there is no meaningful enforcement mechanism for these laws. Business complains that the burden of enforcing immigration laws falls on them. Likewise, schools, hospitals and public service departments have all complained that they don't want to be placed on the front-lines of the immigration battle by being tasked with proving residency before providing services. Stemming the tide of illegal immigration is a huge job, and everyone will have to do some of the work whether they want to or not. If illegals cannot find a job here, if they are turned away from schools and public government services, if we take away the very things that they came here unlawfully to obtain, they will stop coming. They will go back.
If I were President I would enforce the immigration laws of this country and insist that everyone else does, too. And oh, yeah, I would change that stupid provision of the law that says that any baby born in America is a citizen. I would change it to say that any baby born here to a mother here legally is entitled to citizenship. No more 'anchor babies'.
Yes, I know. We are a nation of immigrants. The strength upon which America's greatness is built is the diversity of it's peoples. There are only about 3 million Native Americans out of our national population of over 300 million who did not descend from relatives who emigrated to America at one time or another. Personally I am only a third-generation American, descending from Grandparents who came to this country from Russia and Hungary. My wife's mother was born in Germany and came to America at the age of 17. That doesn't make us less American than those who came over on the Mayflower; If anything, it makes us more thoroughly American, another fiber in the fabric of America.
I have no problem with the current generation of immigrants to our country. I understand their desire to find a better life like my mother-in-law, or to flee persecution and find safety like my grandfather. I understand the great lure of the promise of America, where wages are higher, living conditions are better, and freedoms are broader than the countries from which they travel.
I do have a problem, though, with those who come here and stay here unlawfully. My grandfather came to America in 1906 on a steamer ship and was processed with the throngs at Ellis Island. My mother-in-law obtained a visa to work in the U.S. as an au pair for a family in California, and when she met her future husband and decided to stay in the country she followed the steps to obtain permanent residency status and be issued her green card. My issue is with those who enter the country illegally and stay here illegally.
I'm not necessarily one of those who believes that illegals take more from the economy than they add to it. That's not the basis of my argument with them, and to be honest, the book is still open on that question. I don't believe that they drive down the price of labor and steal jobs from legal Americans either. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any white or black citizen willing to work in the produce fields at any price, or who would be satisified to work for years at a restaurant as a dishwasher.
My problem with them is that by entering the country illegally they are de facto criminals. They knowingly broke the law to get here. Their very existence here is an affront to those of us here legally. And what's worse, after they establish themselves, they think that they have rights here. A right to work, a right to collect social services, a right to seek medical care they cannot pay for, a right to be represented, and a right to stay here.
In May 2006 immigrant's rights groups staged "The Great American Boycott, A Day Without An Immigrant", urging all immigrants to not work that day, not buy anything or sell anything. It was to show the extent to which the American economy benefits from the contributions from illegal immigrants, and to demand legislation for amnesty for those illegals and a way to formalize their status here.
Are you kidding me! That's like crack dealers withholding their drugs for a day, forcing hundreds of thousands of addicts to emergency rooms with withdrawal symptoms to prove the drug dealer's value to society and then demanding the legalization of their crack dealing. The police and immigrations enforcement should have cordoned off the streets and funneled them onto buses bound for the nearest border.
They thought that by showing their numbers that politicians would be forced to consider their demands. Well, the politicians don't represent them, they represent their constituents, those who are citizens here legally. I hope the immigrant's rights groups didn't mean to imply that all those millions of illegal aliens would somehow register to vote illegally and demand their rights at the ballot box. I hope that politicians are smart enough to not be influenced by the tactics of people who are already acting criminally just by their presence here.
So, how do you solve the problem of illegal immigration? By taking away what they came here for. Many states, including California where I live, have legislation in place that requires you show proof of your right to work in this country. The problem is that there is no meaningful enforcement mechanism for these laws. Business complains that the burden of enforcing immigration laws falls on them. Likewise, schools, hospitals and public service departments have all complained that they don't want to be placed on the front-lines of the immigration battle by being tasked with proving residency before providing services. Stemming the tide of illegal immigration is a huge job, and everyone will have to do some of the work whether they want to or not. If illegals cannot find a job here, if they are turned away from schools and public government services, if we take away the very things that they came here unlawfully to obtain, they will stop coming. They will go back.
If I were President I would enforce the immigration laws of this country and insist that everyone else does, too. And oh, yeah, I would change that stupid provision of the law that says that any baby born in America is a citizen. I would change it to say that any baby born here to a mother here legally is entitled to citizenship. No more 'anchor babies'.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Prisons
If I were President, I'd make the prison system a for-profit enterprise.
Here are the sad facts:
There are a lot of factors that go into making up these shocking numbers. Yes, we have a lot of laws. Yes, the same freedoms that we enjoy as Americans make it easier to comtemplate "bending the rules", in the name of equality for all and free speech. Stricter sentencing guidelines require those sent to prison to stay there for longer periods of time. Poor rehabilitation techniques result in a high recidivism rate.
This is too big a subject for me to cover in this brief blog entry, but I'll tell you what I would do if I were President: I'd put them to work. I could write entire essays on why so many Americans go to prison, and write other essays on why so many go back again and again, and maybe some day I will write those essays, but today I'll ignore all the causes and talk about the reality of the present.
As more and more Americans go to prison, more and more prisons must be built to accomodate them. More guards must be employed and more and more dollars are spent on this unproductive part of our country's economy. It costs $88 per day for each prisoner, over $60 Billion a year! I say, lease them out and make them pay for their keep.
These prisoners mostly spend their days locked in their cells or exercising in the prison yard. Some of them work within the prison in the kitchen or the laundry, or even making license plates. They are paid between $0.25 and $1.25 and hour for their work, money which they can spend at the prison canteen to buy small luxuries.
What's wrong with leasing prisoners out to American business and forcing them to contribute something positive to our economy? Factory owners could staff their production lines with prison labor, and the wages would go to the prison to pay for the cost of the prisoner's incarceration. It's a win-win-win situation, where the factory owners pay lower wages for labor, taxpayers are relieved of the cost of supporting the prison system, and criminals earn job skills and experience in the workplace.
This might even be a solution to our illegal immigration problem, too. If cheap prison labor is readily available it might drive immigrants out of the jobs for which they come to America. Why not let rapists and murderers pick our lettuce? Why not let drug pushers wash dishes and mop the floors at Dennys? Why not have embezzling CEOs working the sewing machines in the fashion district, turning out High School Musical 3 fashion tees?
Of course, not all jobs are appropriate for all classes of prisoners, and not all prisoners will want to do all types of jobs. There would need to be guidelines about which types of criminals would be allowed to work which types of jobs. Dangerous criminals would need to stay in a controlled environment, so perhaps some factories might build their plants adjacent to maximum-security prisons to take advantage of the ready labor pool.
This system could be the basis for completely revamping our criminal justice system. Instead of criminals being sentenced to "do their time" and wait out a period of years and months before being released, criminals would be forced to "pay their debt to society" and be sentenced in dollars and would not be released until they had done the work to "pay their sentence." There would be different pay rates for different jobs, with the more undesireable jobs paying higher rates than the easy ones. A low-risk prisoner could hold a road-work sign for $3 per hour, or he could be the one working the jack-hammer, breaking up the roadway for $7 per hour. It's up to him how hard he wants to work and how quickly he wants to be released. Prisoners could be rewarded for good behavior (and a strong work ethic) by getting a raise or being promoted to a better-paying position, effectively shortening their time behind bars. Those who refuse to work, or who don't work hard enough can have their pay docked or be demoted to a truly undesirable job, like digging ditches or doing brush clearance.
The companies who benefit from this arrangement would have responsibilities, too. They would be required to bear the cost of security to prevent escapes and protect the public. Companies would be required to hire any prisoner who had completed his sentence working for that company, and to pay him 150% of his last wage as his new pay rate. This assures that the criminals will have jobs waiting for them when they leave prison, and have a place to apply the job skills they learned while inside.
If I were President, criminals would truly pay their debt to society.
Here are the sad facts:
- 1 out of every 133 Americans is behind bars.
- The U.S. has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's incarcerated population.
- On a percentage basis, England imprisons 1/6th the percentage of its citizens compared to the U.S.
- Only China approaches the U.S. in terms of the percentage of its population imprisoned, and most of those are political prisoners.
There are a lot of factors that go into making up these shocking numbers. Yes, we have a lot of laws. Yes, the same freedoms that we enjoy as Americans make it easier to comtemplate "bending the rules", in the name of equality for all and free speech. Stricter sentencing guidelines require those sent to prison to stay there for longer periods of time. Poor rehabilitation techniques result in a high recidivism rate.
This is too big a subject for me to cover in this brief blog entry, but I'll tell you what I would do if I were President: I'd put them to work. I could write entire essays on why so many Americans go to prison, and write other essays on why so many go back again and again, and maybe some day I will write those essays, but today I'll ignore all the causes and talk about the reality of the present.
As more and more Americans go to prison, more and more prisons must be built to accomodate them. More guards must be employed and more and more dollars are spent on this unproductive part of our country's economy. It costs $88 per day for each prisoner, over $60 Billion a year! I say, lease them out and make them pay for their keep.
These prisoners mostly spend their days locked in their cells or exercising in the prison yard. Some of them work within the prison in the kitchen or the laundry, or even making license plates. They are paid between $0.25 and $1.25 and hour for their work, money which they can spend at the prison canteen to buy small luxuries.
What's wrong with leasing prisoners out to American business and forcing them to contribute something positive to our economy? Factory owners could staff their production lines with prison labor, and the wages would go to the prison to pay for the cost of the prisoner's incarceration. It's a win-win-win situation, where the factory owners pay lower wages for labor, taxpayers are relieved of the cost of supporting the prison system, and criminals earn job skills and experience in the workplace.
This might even be a solution to our illegal immigration problem, too. If cheap prison labor is readily available it might drive immigrants out of the jobs for which they come to America. Why not let rapists and murderers pick our lettuce? Why not let drug pushers wash dishes and mop the floors at Dennys? Why not have embezzling CEOs working the sewing machines in the fashion district, turning out High School Musical 3 fashion tees?
Of course, not all jobs are appropriate for all classes of prisoners, and not all prisoners will want to do all types of jobs. There would need to be guidelines about which types of criminals would be allowed to work which types of jobs. Dangerous criminals would need to stay in a controlled environment, so perhaps some factories might build their plants adjacent to maximum-security prisons to take advantage of the ready labor pool.
This system could be the basis for completely revamping our criminal justice system. Instead of criminals being sentenced to "do their time" and wait out a period of years and months before being released, criminals would be forced to "pay their debt to society" and be sentenced in dollars and would not be released until they had done the work to "pay their sentence." There would be different pay rates for different jobs, with the more undesireable jobs paying higher rates than the easy ones. A low-risk prisoner could hold a road-work sign for $3 per hour, or he could be the one working the jack-hammer, breaking up the roadway for $7 per hour. It's up to him how hard he wants to work and how quickly he wants to be released. Prisoners could be rewarded for good behavior (and a strong work ethic) by getting a raise or being promoted to a better-paying position, effectively shortening their time behind bars. Those who refuse to work, or who don't work hard enough can have their pay docked or be demoted to a truly undesirable job, like digging ditches or doing brush clearance.
The companies who benefit from this arrangement would have responsibilities, too. They would be required to bear the cost of security to prevent escapes and protect the public. Companies would be required to hire any prisoner who had completed his sentence working for that company, and to pay him 150% of his last wage as his new pay rate. This assures that the criminals will have jobs waiting for them when they leave prison, and have a place to apply the job skills they learned while inside.
If I were President, criminals would truly pay their debt to society.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Who Do You Want To Answer The Phone at 3AM?
Apparently, Barack Obama was listening to those campaign ads, too.
Remember back in late spring when Hillary Clinton was still battling Obama for the Democratic nomination, she ran a very effective TV ad attacking Obama's lack of experience?
"It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep," the announcer says. "But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing — something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call."
Yesterday, Barack Obama announced Hillary Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State, arguably one of the most important cabinet positions in any President's administration. Her job will be acting as the "voice of America" to the world's governments, meeting face-to-face with foreign heads of government and carrying the official position of the United States to them.
At the very least, Obama is certainly surrounding himself with experienced people to counsel him as President. Hillary finds herself in a very influential position on the world stage. Presumably, Barack will forward the White House phone at night to Hillary's number.
Remember back in late spring when Hillary Clinton was still battling Obama for the Democratic nomination, she ran a very effective TV ad attacking Obama's lack of experience?
"It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep," the announcer says. "But there's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing — something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call."
Yesterday, Barack Obama announced Hillary Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State, arguably one of the most important cabinet positions in any President's administration. Her job will be acting as the "voice of America" to the world's governments, meeting face-to-face with foreign heads of government and carrying the official position of the United States to them.
At the very least, Obama is certainly surrounding himself with experienced people to counsel him as President. Hillary finds herself in a very influential position on the world stage. Presumably, Barack will forward the White House phone at night to Hillary's number.
Monday, November 24, 2008
You Say You Want A Revolution? (We All Want To Change The World)
In the presidential election of 2000 Al Gore collected more votes than George Bush, but Bush won the election. And life went on.
In the popular vote Gore tallied 48.38% of the total votes nationwide and Bush tallied 47.87%, but U.S. Presidential elections aren't decided by counting the votes at the ballot box. Presidential elections are decided by earning electoral votes. The electoral college process is designed to ensure that each of the 50 states reserves their full voice in a national election, with each state having the number of votes that represents its proportional size of the national population. California had about 10% of the national population at the last census, so California owns 10% of the total electoral votes. In this way California is limited in its ability to affect the national election. If 75% of California's voters show up at the polls and all vote for Gore, that's a lot of popular votes in Gore's column, but he doesn't get more electoral votes because of it.
In 2000, with every state decided except for Florida, Gore had 266 electoral votes and Bush had 246. 270 were needed to win the election, so Florida's 25 electoral votes would decide the contest. At the end of the day, no one knew who had won. The first count showed Bush had won by only 2,000 votes. A recount the next day narrowed his lead to only 500 votes. Florida, at Gore's request, started a third count of the votes, this time inspecting ballots by hand and not mechanically. Gore's team argued that George Bush's brother, Jeb, the Governor of Florida had influenced the election by not allowing over 58,000 Floridian's to vote, most of them blacks and latinos who would favor Democrats. Ultimately the election wasn't decided until more than a month later, and it was decided when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the recount process to be stopped and the election results to be certified in Bush's favor.
And life went on.
It's an amazing thing that life went on. We were choosing who would be the most influential person on the planet for the next 4 years, the new leader of the free world. Americans woke up that morning of December 12th to read their papers over their morning coffee and find out how this decision had been decided by the courts, not the voters, and each of them got dressed and went to work, just like any other day. In most other parts of the world there would have been wide-spread rioting, demonstrations, and possibly revolution.
In December, 2007, Presidential elections were held in Kenya. The incumbent, Mwai Kibaki of the Party of National Unity (PNU) was running against Raila Odinga of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). As results came in during the day, it was clear that there was a huge shift of power under way. Out of 190 Ministers of Parliment defending their seats only 71 were re-elected. The ODM ended up winning 115 seats in Parliment out of 207, and the PNU only won 43. As it became clear that the results were going against him, Kibaki ordered the media to stop reporting election results. 2 days later the election commission declared Kibaki the winner by about 2% of the total votes and he was sworn in immediately. Odinga protested that the results were obviously fraudulent and all hell broke loose. Life did not go on.
Kenya, like much of Africa, is still very tribal. Kibaki was Kikuyu and Odinga was Luo. While the Luo are one of the more populous tribes in Kenya, the Kikuyu have traditionally been the more priviliged group. Odinga called on his Luo supporters to protest the results and they did; Not by signing petitions or holding a candle-light vigil in front of the Presidential mansion, but by rioting and taking out their aggressions on their Kikuyu neighbors with their pangas (machetes). All across Kenya from the agricultural regions in the West to the large cities of Nairobi and Mombasa violent rioting was carried out. Bands of panga-wielding men wandered the alleyways of Nairobi's slum neighborhoods attacking Kikuyu when they found them, dragging them out of matatu taxis and chasing them through the streets. Homes and businesses were burned. A church in Western Kenya sheltering 200 Kikuyu was set on fire, killing 35 inside. In the end, over 800 people were killed and over 600,000 were displaced in the month of violence.
But here in America in December of 2000 life went on. Why did the people of America not rise up in anger? Why did the tribal Democrats not strike out at the tribal Republicans? Why didn't a tide of angry people descend on Florida and sieze the ballots from the state elections office? What does it take to incite the apathetic people of America to rise up against their government?
Maybe nothing will ever incite the American people to such passion, and that's dangerous. This country was founded in revolution against the British monarchy. George Washington and the other founding fathers of our nation were officers in the British army and sworn to their king. When they decided to declare independence from Britain, they knew that their actions were treason. If they failed in their efforts they would have been hung as traitors and ended up not even a minor footnote in some British history text. It takes amazing courage to stand up against your country, a courage that America lacks today.
Our founding fathers understood that the government should serve the people, and that the people should be able to change a government that doesn't represent them. The Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. States can form militias and individuals can protect themselves. Our representative government was formed in a way that the people could peaceably overturn an unpopular government by election, but allowed for the populace to wrest it away by more forcible means if necessary. Sadly, Americans have lost their will to exercise this power.
I am not advocating violence. I don't call on the people of America to rise up and throw the bum out of the White House by violence. I, too, have sat idly by. I knew that the Florida election results were probably rigged (by both sides) and I did nothing about it. I felt (and still feel) that our invasion of Iraq was lawless, foolish, and would cause irreparable harm to the United States, and I went to work the next day. I didn't feel that my one voice would make any difference, so I did nothing.
Peaceful change of government is something that we take for granted here in America, and it's a wonderful thing. In 60 years of independent rule the 53 nations of Africa have only had a peaceful change of government by election a handful of times. Coup, corruption and violent dictatorship are the rule, even today. I don't wish that on our nation.
Protest is organic, not manufactured. One voice alone, standing on a soap box in the middle of the street will go unnoticed, but if everyone with a grievance goes out alone into the street, they might find themselves surrounded by the supporting voices of all the others who feel the same. We don't need to wait for the first Tuesday in November every fourth year to add our one voice to the din at the ballot box. Americans owe it to their country to make their voice heard whenever there is something worth saying.
Just because Americans have lost the will to rise up in arms against their government doesn't mean that we shouldn't rise up at all. Make your voice heard.
In the popular vote Gore tallied 48.38% of the total votes nationwide and Bush tallied 47.87%, but U.S. Presidential elections aren't decided by counting the votes at the ballot box. Presidential elections are decided by earning electoral votes. The electoral college process is designed to ensure that each of the 50 states reserves their full voice in a national election, with each state having the number of votes that represents its proportional size of the national population. California had about 10% of the national population at the last census, so California owns 10% of the total electoral votes. In this way California is limited in its ability to affect the national election. If 75% of California's voters show up at the polls and all vote for Gore, that's a lot of popular votes in Gore's column, but he doesn't get more electoral votes because of it.
In 2000, with every state decided except for Florida, Gore had 266 electoral votes and Bush had 246. 270 were needed to win the election, so Florida's 25 electoral votes would decide the contest. At the end of the day, no one knew who had won. The first count showed Bush had won by only 2,000 votes. A recount the next day narrowed his lead to only 500 votes. Florida, at Gore's request, started a third count of the votes, this time inspecting ballots by hand and not mechanically. Gore's team argued that George Bush's brother, Jeb, the Governor of Florida had influenced the election by not allowing over 58,000 Floridian's to vote, most of them blacks and latinos who would favor Democrats. Ultimately the election wasn't decided until more than a month later, and it was decided when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the recount process to be stopped and the election results to be certified in Bush's favor.
And life went on.
It's an amazing thing that life went on. We were choosing who would be the most influential person on the planet for the next 4 years, the new leader of the free world. Americans woke up that morning of December 12th to read their papers over their morning coffee and find out how this decision had been decided by the courts, not the voters, and each of them got dressed and went to work, just like any other day. In most other parts of the world there would have been wide-spread rioting, demonstrations, and possibly revolution.
In December, 2007, Presidential elections were held in Kenya. The incumbent, Mwai Kibaki of the Party of National Unity (PNU) was running against Raila Odinga of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). As results came in during the day, it was clear that there was a huge shift of power under way. Out of 190 Ministers of Parliment defending their seats only 71 were re-elected. The ODM ended up winning 115 seats in Parliment out of 207, and the PNU only won 43. As it became clear that the results were going against him, Kibaki ordered the media to stop reporting election results. 2 days later the election commission declared Kibaki the winner by about 2% of the total votes and he was sworn in immediately. Odinga protested that the results were obviously fraudulent and all hell broke loose. Life did not go on.
Kenya, like much of Africa, is still very tribal. Kibaki was Kikuyu and Odinga was Luo. While the Luo are one of the more populous tribes in Kenya, the Kikuyu have traditionally been the more priviliged group. Odinga called on his Luo supporters to protest the results and they did; Not by signing petitions or holding a candle-light vigil in front of the Presidential mansion, but by rioting and taking out their aggressions on their Kikuyu neighbors with their pangas (machetes). All across Kenya from the agricultural regions in the West to the large cities of Nairobi and Mombasa violent rioting was carried out. Bands of panga-wielding men wandered the alleyways of Nairobi's slum neighborhoods attacking Kikuyu when they found them, dragging them out of matatu taxis and chasing them through the streets. Homes and businesses were burned. A church in Western Kenya sheltering 200 Kikuyu was set on fire, killing 35 inside. In the end, over 800 people were killed and over 600,000 were displaced in the month of violence.
But here in America in December of 2000 life went on. Why did the people of America not rise up in anger? Why did the tribal Democrats not strike out at the tribal Republicans? Why didn't a tide of angry people descend on Florida and sieze the ballots from the state elections office? What does it take to incite the apathetic people of America to rise up against their government?
Maybe nothing will ever incite the American people to such passion, and that's dangerous. This country was founded in revolution against the British monarchy. George Washington and the other founding fathers of our nation were officers in the British army and sworn to their king. When they decided to declare independence from Britain, they knew that their actions were treason. If they failed in their efforts they would have been hung as traitors and ended up not even a minor footnote in some British history text. It takes amazing courage to stand up against your country, a courage that America lacks today.
Our founding fathers understood that the government should serve the people, and that the people should be able to change a government that doesn't represent them. The Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. States can form militias and individuals can protect themselves. Our representative government was formed in a way that the people could peaceably overturn an unpopular government by election, but allowed for the populace to wrest it away by more forcible means if necessary. Sadly, Americans have lost their will to exercise this power.
I am not advocating violence. I don't call on the people of America to rise up and throw the bum out of the White House by violence. I, too, have sat idly by. I knew that the Florida election results were probably rigged (by both sides) and I did nothing about it. I felt (and still feel) that our invasion of Iraq was lawless, foolish, and would cause irreparable harm to the United States, and I went to work the next day. I didn't feel that my one voice would make any difference, so I did nothing.
Peaceful change of government is something that we take for granted here in America, and it's a wonderful thing. In 60 years of independent rule the 53 nations of Africa have only had a peaceful change of government by election a handful of times. Coup, corruption and violent dictatorship are the rule, even today. I don't wish that on our nation.
Protest is organic, not manufactured. One voice alone, standing on a soap box in the middle of the street will go unnoticed, but if everyone with a grievance goes out alone into the street, they might find themselves surrounded by the supporting voices of all the others who feel the same. We don't need to wait for the first Tuesday in November every fourth year to add our one voice to the din at the ballot box. Americans owe it to their country to make their voice heard whenever there is something worth saying.
Just because Americans have lost the will to rise up in arms against their government doesn't mean that we shouldn't rise up at all. Make your voice heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
