Shaking my fist violently while making strange guttural noises in frustration at the world. Grraauugh

If there's anything that'll be the be-all, end-all of America, it's greed and laziness.

Let's see. We have Hummers because we think they're cool, despite the fact that they are excessive and devour fuel. We drive half a mile down to the nearby elementary school because we're too lazy to walk. Businesses earn tons more money because they make our food cheap by using additives and preservatives, even though it's fattening and carcinogenic. We subsequently encourage these companies to continue poisoning us because we actually buy said food, since we're too lazy to cook and it's easy to get. We watch TV instead of reading because it's too tiring and we would have to think (and who wants to think when you have a TV to tell you what to think?) and there are no pretty pictures to entertain us. We gladly spend $50 on a stupid little ab-shaking machine that doesn't work because we're too lazy to go out and exercise for free. We elect the same officials into office, even though they really don't accomplish anything and lie through their teeth and are generally faker than the French Nationalism. That is, if we even vote at all; I mean, who can bother learning about the issues, reading about each candidate, and make an informed decision? That requires something we quite frown upon here: thinking.

Thinking! How silly. Why would you want to think when so many famous people don't? I'm sure Ke$ha wouldn't be so popular if she woke up in the morning feeling like Louis Pasteur or Socrates or Ludwig van Beethoven or Henry David Thoreau. Intellectualism? Why would you want that? Just get rich quick by either selling something stupid, lying to people, or faking your way through the world. And you know what? Then you can get even richer by making an instructional video series that teaches other people how to get rich by faking their way through the world too.

We don't like smart people in our country. Kids now have a stigma against being "nerdy" and "geeky," as if thinking and trying to excel at something are bad things. Then you have the "cool kids" that teach us that debauchery is the right way in life, as is guzzling down alcohol and having multiple sexual partners. There is immeasurable arrogance in underachieving.

You see kids now that get Cs and Ds on tests who gloat about it like it's something to be proud of. If you don't believe me, just listen to the students in the halls of your local high school: "Oh, haha, hehe, I failed that test. I didn't study at all. But I did get drunk last night and hook up with a random person." Sometimes even the smart kids pretend like they don't care and failed, seemingly ashamed that they did well. Then we wonder why our test scores are so low, compared to those of other countries.

Apathy. I hate apathy, I hate apathetic people, and I will never have respect for apathetic individuals, no matter how rich they are. They are a cancer on our society, a barb in democracy's foot, a poison that just gets worse and worse. To not know should never something to be proud of. It's something to be ashamed of, just as I am ashamed now to live in a country where it is cool not to know and not to care. Our country is not being destroyed by Barack "Socialist" Obama, nor is it being destroyed by retarded republicans. It is being destroyed by stupidity, or - to be more precise - the encouragement of stupidity. I'm sure many of our country's problems would go away if every single able-minded person read just one book every month.

For those of you that think I am being "gay," you are hopeless. I don't even want people like you reading this. Go watch MTV or something.

K, I know we're supposed to only type about deep stuff, but...

What the hell was that? Red card?

It's Time for a Surge in the War on Cancer

Number of cancer deaths, all sites combined, all races, both sexes, United States, 1930–1996.

Source: Vital Statistics, 1999.

Introduction

According to a new edition of the World Cancer Report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, cancer is projected to become the leading cause of death worldwide this year. Every day we see advertisements on television, radio, and in magazines and newspapers emphasizing the human cost of cancer, but the economic cost is just as great, and perhaps a targeted look at those costs will provide an added reason to continue with an even greater zeal the process of researching and developing a cure which can remove both the economic and social burden of cancer from the shoulders of the world.

Treatment

From 1995 to 2004, the cost of treating cancer rose by 75 percent. Cancer treatment approximates 5 percent of all medical spending in the United States, and the cost of cancer treatment is rising faster than the overall cost of medical care, so this number will increase in the future. While these statistics alone are enough to form a mental picture of the economic impact of cancer treatment, it is important to consider that these staggering costs are paid for by the American taxpayer, as the majority of cancer treatment (56.2 percent) is received by patients aged 65 and older who are covered by Medicare. Furthermore, the total number of persons expected to be treated for cancer is expected to rise faster than the overall population as American experiences the “demographic cliff” and the population ages (Warren, Yabroff, Meekins, Topor, Lamont, & Brown, 2008). Assuming that the percentage of cancer diagnoses received by people aged 65 and older remains at 56.2, the yearly cost of cancer treatment shouldered by the federal government, using the 2004 data on the cost of all cancer treatment in the United States, would be $40.5 billion per year. Considering that the population of the U.S. is aging relative to the size of the population as a whole, this cost can be expected to increase dramatically over the next decade as the “baby boomers” retire.

The fundamental problem of Medicare is that the ratio of workers under the age of 65 to persons receiving benefits is decreasing. There are currently 3.9 workers per beneficiary in the United States. That number is expected to drop to 2.4 workers per beneficiary by the year 2030 (The Board of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, 2006). As fewer and fewer working-aged people are paying into the system, the cost to each individual payer will rise proportional to the decrease in the payer to payee ratio. The cost to cover the unfunded liability for the Medicare program today over an infinite time horizon would be $85.6 trillion, which is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy (Fisher, 2008). The present value of unfunded obligations under all parts of Medicare during fiscal year 2007 over a 75-year forecast horizon is approximately $34.0 trillion. In other words, this amount would have to be set aside today such that the principal and interest would cover the shortfall over the next 75 years (United States Government Accountability Office, 2006).

The cost of treating cancer is rising, even for the most basic, non-exotic courses of treatment. Increasing costs, along with an aging population, spells disaster for both the Medicare system and for the 40 million people in the United States who do not currently have health insurance. Even after the passage of the recent health care reform package, up to 23 million people in this country could remain uninsured (Astor, 2010). Leaving all political debate about the proper way to achieve this goal aside, the only way to stem the tide of a social and budgetary nightmare in this country is to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care and that we make real steps towards finding better methods of treating cancer.

Life Lost

While the value of individual life lost to family members and friends is arguably the largest driving force pushing cancer research forward, it is an immeasurable and highly personal cost which cannot be factored in to a discussion such as this. As such, I will seek to highlight the actual economic value of life lost in terms of lost production and contributions to society and the economy.

The value of life lost to cancer is a difficult figure to calculate, not least of all because the value of life itself goes beyond the dollars and cents. There are two methods for calculating this value, the human capital approach and the willingness to pay approach. The human capital approach combines sex- and age-specific earnings projections with estimates of future productivity and approximate year of life lost to estimate the value of life lost in a purely economic sense. This approach necessarily values the life of those with higher earnings (men aged 35-55) greater than that of those with lower earnings. The willingness to pay approach is able to factor in an assumed inherent value of life by combining the economic value of life lost with the average amount a person would be willing to pay for an additional year of life (Yabroff, Bradley, Mariotto, Brown, & Feuer, 2008).

Using the willingness to pay approach, researchers at the National Cancer Institute estimate that the total value of life lost to cancer in 2000 was $960.6 billion, and expect that number to reach $1472.5 billion by the year 2020 (Yabroff, Bradley, Mariotto, Brown, & Feuer, 2008). The total estimated person-years of life lost to cancer in the year 2000 was 8,448,454.

Conclusion

Cancer presents a gargantuan economic burden for the world to bear. In our own country, the system we have in place to provide medical care to the segment of the population most susceptible to cancer is coming apart at the seams as our population ages and Medicare faces massive budget shortfalls.

Yet we as individuals and through our elected representatives continue to allot only a relative pittance for cancer research. The federal government has spent more than $105 billion on cancer research since 1971 (Spector, 2010), and while that number may seem wonderful if you are a politician on the stump, we the taxpayers shell out nearly half of that figure per year just to treat cancer via Medicare.

Curing cancer is a one-time cost: once we eliminate this plague it will never come back. Yet we seem content to continue along, forking over the money to treat the problem but we are too stingy to look for a solution. The $105 billion that the federal government has spent on cancer research over the past 40 years is what we should be investing in this endeavor each and every year.

If we are able to effectively eliminate cancer, our investment in research would be paid back millions of times over. Imagine if those nearly 8.5 million years of life were spared – the unrealized earnings and contribution to the economy and society that could have been were it not for cancer are staggering. By the year 2020 the world will be losing $1.47 trillion per year to cancer. That is approximately 10% of the current gross domestic product of the United States. It is the net worth of the world’s richest man 37 times over, the entire gross domestic product of Canada, and the total value of the global electronic equipment market – and we are not realizing those gains every year because of cancer.

I began researching this topic with a skeptical eye on cancer research, believing that maybe the money we are spending on research was all in vain and would be better used doing something else. But the evidence is overwhelming that what we ought to be doing is increasing government funding for cancer research many times over. What we have spent over the past 40 years should be what we spend every year. The economic and social contributions that could have been were it not for cancer and those that will be because we cure cancer will far outweigh the cost of doing so.

Afterword

This post certainly does not cover all of the aspects of this topic. I have not taken into account the additional tax burden required to fund such an aggressive research initiative as I have advocated for in this paper, nor did I take into account the millions of dollars which are donated and spent by individuals and private institutions. I did not consider the amount of funding for cancer research provided by the states rather than the federal government or provide any type of framework for how new funding should be allocated. However, I believe that these omissions do not even begin to put a dent in the argument in favor of a greatly expanded effort by the federal government to fund cancer research, drug development, clinical trials, and more. The cost of treatment and life lost to cancer is so astounding on an individual, social, economic, and fiscal level that there is no reasonable argument against drastically

increasing the effort to eliminate cancer.

Bibliography

Astor, M. (2010, April 9). Universal Health Care Around the World. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from The Defenders Online: http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2010/04/09/universal-health-care-around-the-world/

Fisher, R. W. (2008, May 28). Storms on the Horizon. San Francisco, California, United States of America.

Forbes.com LLC. (2009, March 11). The World's Billionaires. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Forbes.com: http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/11/worlds-richest-people-billionaires-2009-billionaires_land.html

Google, Inc. (2010). Gross Domestic Product, Canada. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Google Public Data: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:CAN&dl=en&hl=en&q=canada+gdp

Google, Inc. (2010). Gross Domestic Product, United States. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Google Public Documents: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=united+states+gdp

iSuppli Corporation. (2007). Global Electronic Equipment Market to Reach $1.47 trillion in 2007: iSuppli. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from Metrics 2.0: http://www.metrics2.com/blog/2007/01/03/global_electronic_equipment_market_to_reach_147_tr.html

Spector, R. (2010). The War on Cancer: A Progress Report for Skeptics. The Skeptical Inquirer , 25-31.

No Speako English

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127780349&ps=cprs

For those of you too lazy to read this story (shame on you, because I even dug it up on NPR, the only news source that I truly trust), a Harvard student, Eric Balderas, faces deportation back to Mexico. He is an undocumented immigrant and came into the United States when he was four years old to escape a domestic violence situation. He was caught when he used his Mexican Consulate ID card boarding a plane in his hometown of San Antonio bound for Boston.

Here's a particularly complicated situation. Should Balderas be allowed to stay in the country? He barely remembers his homeland of Mexico and speaks English perfectly. He is on a stellar career track at one of the world's premier universities, studying molecular and cellular biology on a full scholarship. He does not fit the social category of "Illegal Immigrant" by society's consensual standards and would be considered an American at first glance and if not for his legal status. I would trust that most non-xenophobic Americans would probably take pity on his situation and just say that we should grant him clemency and give him a green card, if not full-blown citizenship. I, for one, would give him citizenship, if it were up to me; it just doesn't seem right to deport someone in his situation. My gut tells me so.

It's not that simple, though.

For if you are to retain someone like Balderas, then things get a little messy. You can't retain one person simply because it seems wrong to deport him. Laws apply to all people in a country and no one is exempt from that law unless explicitly stated so in the law itself. What would be the guidelines for deciding whether one should stay? If Balderas is allowed legal status, does that mean all the English-speaking minors who come illegally into America with their parents should be granted legal status as well? What about the non-English speaking minors? Are they less American and therefore excluded from clemency? For families that illegally come to America, should we only deport parents and not the children? Who would care for the children, then?

Balderas seems to be exceptional because he has been in the United States for a particularly long period of time and he is extremely successful. However, it would be foolish to say that legal status should be based solely on an illegal immigrant's time period spent in the United States. It would be even more foolish to give legal status to only successful illegal immigrant students, because that brings subjectivity into the judgment process, which never has any good outcomes.

None of these questions have any easy answers. When all is said and done, I think a majority of us would not want to see Balderas deported. If we were in his situation and stripped of a chance to study at Harvard, displaced from the country we have learned to call home, and forced to start over in a foreign country based on legal technicality which was not of our fault at all... well, it would suck a fat one, to say the least. It wouldn't be fair. And while laws should be impartial to bias, no law should be unfair, cruel, or punitive to a party that did not do anything wrong in the first place. The reason we create laws in the United States is to protect ourselves, protect our rights to property, and to establish order in society. A good law never has a cruel outcome.

To lawmakers: With illegal immigration, you've got a daunting task. You have to protect those, like Balderas, who were not at fault to be in their situation and already have way too much to lose. At the same time, you also have to keep out future immigrants, because while there may be potential Balderases, his kind are, quite frankly, few in number in comparison to the rest. You also must draft a law that will distinguish between people that can stay and people cannot stay in the country. These lines should be clear as day, or else you'll see a ton of illegal immigrants doing really ridiculous things just to jump through loopholes to get legal status. Less important are the punitive measures - because, if you think about it, of those that "should stay" in the US like Balderas, these immigrants would probably not think twice about paying a fine, making up for back taxes (over a period of time, of course), etc. We also do not need immigration laws like Arizona's that overly simplify matters.

Balderas' hearing is likely to take place in Boston and the Harvard University administration and student body have thrown their entire support behind him. Let's hope he gets to stay in the United States because, honestly, we need more people like him.

Back on the Soapbox and Talking Sense to the Senseless

Over the past 24 hours I have been engaged in a Facebook comment war with a friend of mine who posted this:

TF: More government oversight and most likely the end of off-shore drilling... obama's administration is a joke

I, of course, couldn't help but stick my nose where it didn't belong.

Spencer: Oh Heaven forfend! What ever shall we do! How DARE those Communists try to impose their rules on our oil companies! I mean, it's not like the oil companies photocopied the same "emergency response plan" and passed it around to placate a bogus regulatory authority. Okay, so BP's plan to deal with the PR fallout from a spill was longer than their plan to actually deal with the spill, but we'll be damned if those big spenders want to waste our money on protecting the environment! Much better to spend it on a laser plane!

And then it snowballed from there.

TF: This is going to get cleaned up inspite of the government, just like Katrina was dealt with inspite of the government. And you know darn well that Obama is glad over this opportunity to shut down oil drilling and press costly alternatives (most likely run by the govt) down the people's throats.

Spencer: This oil spill has gotten worse and worse because BP is trying to collect the oil rather than just stop the flow, because unless they can recover it they'll most likely go under. This will not get cleaned up without the government. And without the government stepping into the reparations process, thousands of people in the Gulf region will get screwed with their pants on. Again. And do you really believe that during a time of national crisis the President of the United States is happy because it means he'll have an excuse to pull one over on the American people? Hmmm... that kind of reminds me of someone... Who could it be? Oh yeah, it was George W. Bush after September 11th!

TF: O yeah, lets compare thousands of people dying in one of the most shocking days of american history to this...thats low. And stopping the flow is the aim. It is near impossible though as Obama even admitted. Its going to take a lot of minds to stop this. And no, BP will not go under by not recovering this oil. The only way they go under is if the current Congress and Administration strangle BP to death.

Spencer: I was not equating the two events, obviously they are not even in the same hemisphere. I was equating your accusation of how President Obama reacted to the spill to how President Bush reacted to the attacks. You say Obama wants to use it to force alternative energy down our throats, I say Bush used his crisis to lead us into an unneccessary and pointless war against a country that had no part in attacking us.

And with tens of thousands of barrels of oil leaking per day and the claims of Gulf residents mounting, there are serious questions as to BP's ability to remain solvent through this crisis.

TF: Questions including how can they pay all the workers that are currently now not working thanks to the "moratorium" on drilling for 6 months. Also, entering the war in 2001 was supported by an overwhelming majority. Obama's actions will have no such support and will have heavy scrutiny from the start

Spencer: I was never part of that majority, thankfully, and the Iraq war only had support because we were told there were WMDs. Anyway, I don't see what's so bad about the government taking steps to get us off of oil. I really don't think that that's a top priority right now, but I'm sure it will be one the immediate crisis is contained. Alternative energies are a chicken and egg problem. People can't adopt alternative fuels (by driving hydrogen or electric cars, for example) until automakers make those cars. Automakers won't make those cars until the infrastructure (fueling stations) is in place. But no energy companies will build the infrastructure until automakers make the cars. This is a perfect example of an economic situation where the market has not failed but the proper incentives are not there to spur new development. I think we can all agree that moving away from foreign oil (and eventually all oil) is in our long-term interest as a nation and a world. But until the proper incentives exist, there will not be much innovation when it comes to taking the concepts and engineering side projects that companies show off at trade shows and putting them on the road. It seems to me that there are two options: more tax breaks for alternative fuels, and increasing the gas tax to a point where demand for alternative fuels rises. Both of these, obviously, require the government getting involved in the market. Both of these would produce a positive outcome in which demand for alternative fuels rises and provides the right incentives for automakers and energy companies to invest in putting new technology on the road. So why is this such an issue, other than because some people just like driving Hummers and don't want to have to pay more to do it?

TF: Sorry, but an increased gas tax would not hurt those driving hummers, but those of us like you and me the most. Do you have an extra 40,000 or so dollars laying around to go buy a new hybrid or energy efficient car? I know I dont. Plus, I thought Obama wasn't going to increase taxes on the middle class? A gas tax would definitely hurt our economy even more.

Also, alternative energy sources can only work in some places, an only if it is the cost-effective choice. I do believe we talked earlier in the school year about how BP's solar company in frederick shutting down was basically a result of the fact that it could not produce a product that was economically viable to the public.

The Government is not the answer to all our problems. But the Obama Administration sure thinks that they are. We are in trouble

Spencer: You're making my point for me. Alternative energy has to be the cost-effective choice or else people won't demand it and companies won't invest in it. That is the point of tax breaks for hybrid cars and investments in alternative energy combined with an increased gas tax.

Gas will become economically unfeasible for the average person eventually. One day, oil will be so scarce that the price of gasoline will be through the roof and that $40,000 hybrid (Honda sells one for $20,000 though) will pay for itself in no time. Are we going to wait for that to happen? Because by then we'll have ravaged the environment and most likely waged several large-scale wars over oil. Or we can modify the conditions in the market now by making alternative energies more economically advantageous for automakers, energy companies, and consumers. I'll take the latter.

TF: So you will take the government basically fixing the market, which will screw over the millions of people currently earning a living because of oil, causing all of us to go get new energy efficient cars and overhauling any current houses currently relying on oil for heat (like mine)? I'm sorry, but all of this within at least the next 10 years is just not feasible, especially for the nearly 10% unemployed (or is it more, i havent seen the number recently) and our country which is still recovering.

The market will naturally turn towards renewable and efficient energy when the time is right (just as it is already doing with wind energy in florida). But the government should not be the ones to initiate such an overhaul unless they want to pay for all the costs associated. O wait, the government does not have any money because their money is yours and mine.

TF: It looks like we the people lose regardless

Spencer: Sometimes that's how it goes. We spend about $1.5 billion per day on crude oil. That's not an easy habit to kick.

TF: divided by how many people use it a day? For the next decade or so while we have it, that is the cheapest source of energy for the people. As it starts to run out, it will naturally be more cost effective to switch to other sources (which at that time, companies will have realized new sources of energy will definitely be the way to go and they will be ready and set up for the transition)

Spencer: I understand that but I don't see why we need to leave it alone and let oil run itself out when we can make changes to move away from it now. Global warming is a reality, political tensions over oil will only get worse as it gets more scarce, so why not start making other fuels more economically attractive now? We will have to endure the pain of higher fuel prices at some point. Yes, it will hurt the middle class more than the wealthy. But why not now? Why is it better to wait and let our environment get worse and remain beholden to countries run by people who want to kill us. Let's just suck it up, bite our collective lip, and pay an extra buck for a gallon of gas. We'll be better off for having done it.

TF: That extra dollar a gallon can be much better used for other things right now. I say we trust the market. Energy companies (old and most likely new ones) will know when oil is no longer a wise choice. If old companies dont create new sources down the road when oil prices will rise for good due to its scarcity, new companies will sprout upmarketting new forms of energy which will then be naturally the cost effective choice. Manipulating the market and telling the people it is for our own good is wrong. I am surprised you would be in support of such a thing.

Spencer: Unless you're an anarchist, you believe that on some level it is right for the government to manipulate the market and tell people it's for their own good. Child labor laws are a manipulation of the market. Those laws drive up prices by reducing competition in the labor market and removing a pool of unskilled workers who could be employed cheaply. But nobody has a problem with child labor laws. Most people support the existence of the minimum wage, the progressive tax code, social security, medicare, and the list goes on and on and on and on. Everything the government does manipulates the market in some way. There is nothing wrong with manipulating the market. We slayed that sacred cow long ago, and for good reason. The government is a part of the market just like we are. The market will shift us to alternative energy, but not before the world goes through an environmental and political crisis because of oil. We can stop that from happening by making changes that encourage the switch now rather than when we're standing on the brink of World War 3.

TF: Child labor laws go hand in hand with the law requiring children to go to school. This is a far greater manipulation by the govt then those things you just listed. As for World War 3, I would say that is very possible but not soley based on oil. Like i said, some new companies will spring up with clean renewable sources a year or two prior to such a war over oil, and those new companies will take over the energy market just like exxon and BP today.

Spencer: You think a higher gas tax would have a greater effect on the market than social security, medicare, and requiring a higher percentage of income to be taxed as income rises?

Anyway, we can keep doing what we're doing, wreaking havoc on the environment and hoping that the market fixes our dependence on oil before we go to war over it (I don't believe it will), or we can make the change now. And even if oil doesn't force us into a global war, it is, as I write this, funneling billions of dollars into the hands of countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We are funding governments that fund terrorism and publicly denounce the United States because of our dependence on foreign oil.

TF: yes, a flat tax increase on gas definitely has a greater effect on the market that the tax brackets because everyone will be paying the same amount, and the middle and lower class will be hit way harder (although a flat tax isn't a bad thing, but on gas it is)

A flat tax increase on gas, like you said, would lead to new forms of energy eventually. However, the lower and middle classes would not have the money to go out and get the new forms of renewable energy, and the upper class would just go on and buy the gas with the tax not effecting them.

And last I checked, Venezuala, Saudie Arabia, and Libya don't really have the means to do much of anything. Iran, I am sure we are keeping close tabs on and we basically run Iraq and we won't pull out of there until we are sure they have a stable gov't set up.

And yes, the market will ultimately fix our dependance on oil at a much lower cost than Pres. Obama will try to shove down our throats

Spencer: 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the second largest source of oil imported into the United States. Libya was responsible for the deaths of 270 people when Pan Am 103 blew up over Scotland. Venezuela, the fourth largest source of our oil, is fast becoming a communist dictatorship. So you may want to check again. Aren't Republicans always accusing Democrats of being soft on national defense? We're the ones saying that maybe it would be a good idea to stop sending money to people who are actively trying to kill us, especially considering that while we were doing that we then ran the national debt and budget deficit through the roof waging the so-called War on Terror when its quite possible that the threat of terrorism would be much less severe if we weren't funding the terrorists.

And yes, a rise in the price of gas hurts the poor more than the rich. But even if we leave this to the free market, eventually the price of gas will rise due to its scarcity and that rise will still hurt the poor more than the rich. There is no way around the fact that when prices rise it hurts the poor more. So the only question is, do they have to endure it now or later? Considering that enduring it now means helping to slow global warming, creating millions of jobs inside the country creating and building new energy plants, technology, and infrastructure, and making the country safer by cutting off the flow of money to terrorist organizations and rogue nations, I say do it now.

TF: We can go round and round. The fact is, you say do it now. I say let it happen because it will work out eventually. You say increase gov't intervention, I say it should stop now because the gov't will only keep gettting more and more involved with private industry.

The amount of gov't involvement is already too much for my liking, but it will only continue to get bigger. Who knows what other crisis will occur down the road. Are we just going to turn to the gov't for the answers for everything? The American people are smart, we can figure things out for ourselves. That is why come November, there is definitely going to be a shift toward the people slowly starting to take some control back. The gov't was originally set up for national defense and regulate the currency. Now? It has a hand in everything. It's time to ease back the influence of gov't and it can only start when the people say enough is enough. It certainly won't happen with the gov't stepping in for every single "crisis", and then totally blowing an industry (oil) out of the economy for one freak accident.

How many oil rigs do we have? A heck of a lot. How long have we been drilling for? A long time. I'd say we are lucky to have only one accident of this size. But now saying that all the oil drilling has to stop because of one accident is totally overblowing the problem. It was an accident, but you dont shut down everything for 6 months. Did we shut the country down after 9/11 for 6 months? We didnt even shut down for a day. And anyone would say that 9/11 dwarfs this.

My point is simply that this was an accident, granted BP shouldnt of cut corners in trying to go faster, but I am sure they won't let it happen again because the definitely don't want to pay out the billions of dollars in claims the gov't is making them pay (which I don't see how they can be made to do this legally in the first place).

Spencer: It's legal because companies are liable for damage just like people are. If I crash my car through your front door, I have to pay for it. So when BP takes away thousands of people's livelihoods, they have to pay them lost wages and damages. It's the whole point of civil law. The only question is whether the spill warrants criminal charges as well, which would be criminal negligence in this case.

And to be honest I just don't understand the idea that all government is bad. Government is a prerequisite for a civilized society. Taxes are the price we pay for that civilized society. Government is not the solution to all of our problems, but it can help in many ways. The free market had senior citizens starving to death. The government created Social Security. The free market created the richest men the world had ever seen (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan). The government created the progressive tax code. The free market gave us the great depression. The government gave us the Federal Reserve.

The market is a powerful thing. But all that a market system means is that people control the means of production, set prices, and are free to choose from the options available to them. Taxes don't make a market less free, nor does government spending. They are just a part of the market. Just like how Warren Buffett has the power to move the stock market, the government has the power to move the economy. The unfettered free market often gives us outcomes that the majority of people do not want, which is natural given that it is a Darwin-esque system. Naturally, all of the wealth in a completely free market tends to accumulate in the hands of the few. It is when the market produces undesirable outcomes that the government's role becomes important. Because of its powers to tax and spend, the government has the power to influence the market and produce the outcomes that the majority of people want.

The free market system is like a supercharged 454 motor. That's why it produces better outcomes than communism, because central planning is so inefficient that it's more like a go-kart motor. But if you have an engine that powerful without steering and brakes, you usually end up crashing. That's the role of the government.

TF: Can you not see that the government is taking an increasing role in society? Where will the line be drawn? I would love to see the gulf coast states governors stand up and take control of this situation just like Arizona has done with immigration. I just want to know how far you are willing to letthe government go until you say enough. Will it already be too big by then to do anything? I say enough now and we need to start drawing the boundaries of federal govt again. After all, it always boils down to federalism and states rights.

Spencer: You can't just draw some arbitrary line. You look at each situation and look at the choices and the outcomes and decide what the best option is, just like with everything else. And I know you agree with me. You and I just have different ideas of what the government should and shouldn't do. I think the government should protect consumers frompredatory lenders and force oil companies to clean up their spills and prevent frivolous lending practices and lax oversight from plunging the country into a recession. You think that they should ignore all of that because personal choice is important. That is, of course, unless the choice has to do with who you marry or what you can do to your own body or what your children learn in school. Republicans don't believe in small government. Libertarians do. You guys just have your priorities all screwed up.

TF: Lol. oook. lets just see what kind of shape we are in after obama and his cronies cycle through. i garuntee we will be worse off than with bush. That is why real change is coming, not that fake change obama preached like a want to be MLK.

Firstly, introductions are in order. For those of you who do not know me, my real name is Galen Hench. Lando is a fun alias I picked up from Frisbee; a name I felt it appropriate to use on here as well. While I like to believe that I’m as up-to-date as the others about political and economic issues I confess that I’m not the best commentator on such topics. I believe it is therefore in the best interest of our readers to leave those subjects Jessa and Spencer. I would instead like to veer the topics of my writings towards those dealing with philosophy and ethics.

The beauty of philosophy is that it encompasses literally every angle of human life. There is no aspect of humanity that cannot be grasped firmly in the hands of philosophical thought. Philosophy does not have to be limited to mundane texts criticizing sex (thanks, Kant) or criticizing your weekly hamburger (we see you back there, Singer). It is instead merely a way to examine ourselves, our society, our world, and our universe.

The goal of my blogging shall be to blend the classic schools of philosophical thought with modern day technology and innovation (ever wonder what Socrates would have too say about time travel?). My goal is not to shift any sort of political affiliations or religious beliefs. I simply wish to jumpstart the imagination that already exists in each of us, daring all who read to think outside of our primordial box.

As a side note, I am quite busy at the moment. Therefore, for the time being, my blog posts will be quite random. I will write and post when I have time.

The Wild, Wild West of Lithium

Quick introduction...  Let's just call me the resident foreign policy junkie.  Though please, don't assume that I know as much as I pretend I know.  Or that I'm as well-informed as I seem to be.  Rather, I'm a tad obsessed and I have a big mouth.


And in regards to our blog's name:  The Big Four?  Wilson, Clemenceau, George, and Orlando.  I call Lloyd George, bitches.  And George Big Africa Fu called Clemenceau.  Spencer and Galen are now aware that they must fight it out over Orlando and Wilson.  Suckers.

So today on the agenda: Afghanistan.  I've already discussed the issue with a few friends and of course the topic popped up on NPR this morning (88.5 WAMU, hosted by American U in DC---> yes, a shameless plug for my own school).  But not solely about the war (you're sick of hearing about that by now, yes?)  Instead, let's discuss those mineral deposits that, according to some, are gonna "change the face of the conflict in Afghanistan," or even "change the face of Afghanistan," itself.  Yes, you should hear the cynicism dripping from my voice.

Well let's address the issue from a US foreign policy stance: What is the US's best approach to this newfound information?

First, let's assume that these deposits are as large as everyone says they are.  The most common number being tossed around is one trillion dollars worth of minerals.  I've heard other numbers as well, but either way... it's a lot of money.  So if it's worth it to extract the deposits, how does that affect the US?

Herein lies the general dilemma which faces US foreign policy:  Does the US work entirely in its own national self interest or does it uphold those Wilsonian ideals of democracy and personal right and freedom?  As a statesman, a policy analyst would surely argue that the US should work in its self interest.  No one can deny the pragmatic intelligence in that course of action when addressing US security.  This approach, however, does not consider morality, which the American people are quite adamant about upholding.  Is it possible to reconcile the two?

One friend argues that, in summation, we should colonize Afghanistan and take control of the deposits.  Perhaps not literally.  But, he argues that what Afghanistan really needs right now is a new breed of government official bred "under Western tutelage in military and civil matters."  Well let's considered how that's worked in the past:  This same point was brought up by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Brinkley on NPR this morning, who referenced two historic examples: Chile and the Congo.  The US CIA intervened in Chile during the War of Chilean Independence to derail Marxist presidential candidate Salvador Allende's obvious public support.  The operation succeeded and Chile has since risen to be an economic and political power player in South America.  In the DRC, the US supported anti-communist leader Mobutu and helped his rise to power.  Under Mobutu's regime and US support, the political situation in the DRC (at that time, Zaire) was stable but rife with human rights violations, etc.  History has shown that Western puppets, or Western "pupils," do not always make the wonderful leaders that the West hopes them to be.

Paul Brinkley argued on NPR that the mineral reserves in Afghanistan could be a path towards economic sovereignty in Afghanistan.  The phrase he failed to mention was "economic stability."  One critique of this potential mining industry (which, by the way, could tap not only lithium but iron, copper, cobalt, and gold as well) is that it could lead to fighting within Afghanistan over control of the mines.  It's clear that Karzai has little control over his country.  Many of the mineral deposits are located in Taliban strongholds such as Kandahar and the road to Kabul (part of the reason why they have not yet been tapped).  If Afghan forces are permitted to control the mining operation (which is entirely within their rights) then there is a high probability that the deposits will fall into Taliban or warlord hands.  Few Americans would wish to see this happen.  However, another friend argues that US security is key and one of its greatest threats is international terrorism.  If the mineral deposits fall into the hands of irresponsible (to put it lightly) Afghans and the internal fighting which some analysts predicts ensues, then the US has actually scored a point on the field of international politics.  If the Afghans are fighting among themselves, then they're much less likely to focus on anti-US offensives with other non-Afghans. US security has been assured.

Two problems with that approach:  Americans aren't going to like it and furthermore, it doesn't guarantee long term security.  Eventually the fighting will die out (in five, ten, fifteen, fifty years) and American resentment returns (perhaps stronger this time, with blame placed on the US for allowing the war to occur).  In order to guarantee security of America, one must guarantee security of the deposits.  In order to guarantee security of the deposits, one must guarantee infrastructure (which just so happens to be part of the US's counterinsurgency action already).  And infrastructure, my friends, is something that Afghanistan is sorely lacking.  Mining essentials such as electricity and railroads are almost entirely non-existent and it would take years to build the infrastructure necessary to both mine the deposits and protect the mines.  Even if this were accomplished, one of my greatest apprehensions would be that Afghanistan would become the Saudi Arabia of lithium.  (Fun fact:  A memo from the Pentagon used the exact same comparison).  In such a situation, a few would reap the benefits of many and the Afghan people would remain in the same impoverished, inflammatory (metaphorically speaking, of course) state that they currently live in.  The economy of the nation may be booming, as Brinkley argued, but the typical people would be no better off and the economic stability of the Afghan family would be just as poor as it is now.

One also ought to keep in mind that China an India have already placed bets on the mineral deposits.  Both want in, as it is believed that the current deposits contain the largest un-mined deposits of iron in all of Asia.  Well here's another fun fact: one mining association in the US estimates that even if one trillion dollars worth of resources could eventually be extracted from Afghanistan, it would take two trillion dollars worth of capital to do so.  It's worth considering, why not leave the whole problem to China or India to deal with?  Either way, as one article on Foreign Policy argues (and this is true despite the obvious left leanings of the article's author) someone has got to buy the resources once they're mined.  And if the US wants to buy them, well then on the world market that will happen.

What the US really needs (and what it needs to do with its entire foreign policy) is to quickly come up with a unified approach to this part of the situation in Afghanistan and actually do something in accordance with said policy.

Here's the reason for my cynicism.  First, it's been well known for quite a while by anyone who knows anything about Afghanistan that these deposits exist.  Click here to see irrefutable support.  So if the American government has known about these deposits for well on thirty years, what's the big deal now?  A spokesperson for the Pentagon admitted to the Times that this information has been on hand for several years.  He also stated that the administration made an announcement because "The trillion dollar figure seemed to be newsworthy."  Well I'd hazard guess and place my bets with those who claim that the Obama administration is looking for a little shoot in public ratings here what with the slowly sinking morale concerning the war in Afghanistan.  Sure, it's a claim that bodes well for the US if successfully attended to.  Unfortunately, there are severe obstacles hindering any immediate positive results from mineral mining in the area (resources, capital, power hungry warlords...)  Frankly, if this information has been out for several years and nothing's been done yet, I can't say I see anything pertinent being done about it in the near future.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/world/asia/15afghan.html?src=tptw

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100614/ts_nm/us_afghanistan_minerals

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7149696.ece

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10909407

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100614/ap_on_bi_ge/us_afghanistan_mineral_treasures

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7150081.ecehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-geologists-view-it-could-be-a-gold-mine--but-not-for-a-long-time-2000508.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/06/201061594440469863.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-afghan-minerals-20100615,0,4058818,print.story

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/is_afghanistan_really_the_next_el_dorado

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/14/minerals_in_afghanistan_mais_oui

NPR radio

For more information on Afghanistan, see:
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/

Also in today's news:

Refugee crisis in Kyrgyzstan continues but aid is on the way.

Congress meets with oil executives on Capital Hill this morning in order to discuss the environmental crisis.  --NPR

And if you decide to travel to Afghanistan, here's a few words you may want to know:


I'm taking a class in Pashto and it's full immersion with no writing involved (scary?  indeed).  Therefore, please be aware that these spellings are completely phonetic.

Hello:  Salam walay kum.
Response:  Walay kum-e salam.

What is your name:  Sta su num day?
My name is:  Zama num InsertName day.

Author's note:  All views by others have been re-stated to the best of my ability.  I take responsibility for any subsequent misunderstandings and apologize for any misinterpretations.