Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts
June 03, 2009
March 04, 2009
Advice
On a lighter note, I like thinking about what cabinet meetings are like for Hillary Clinton after this:
February 26, 2009
Michael Phelps will be psyched.
The Obama administration has so far shown a willingness to, in many ways, seek out and subsequently ignore controversy, whether the controversy is legitimate or contrived. This willingness has taken many forms, ranging from a nearly $1T stimulus bill to a declaration that the deficit will be halved within the next four year, from the appointment of Judd Gregg to the declared but un-planned closure of Guantanamo. In some cases Obama has argued his case pretty well (think Guantanamo) whether or not he was arguing the correct point; in others he has demonstrated a brashness and confidence unexpected by many observers despite being on the wrong side of the argument (think Judd Gregg). It seems as if Obama has chosen to make the most of the impossible situation he faces by attempting to handle not only the immediate crises (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the credit market), but also many less-pressing issues that other presidents would have left for later (e.g. the elimination of the Global Gag Rule, the institution of limits on congressional pay, and the recommendation of increased fuel efficiency standards). Obama has thus used the cover of “the worst recession since the Great Depression” to slide through some policies that would have brought down hellfire on the White House during past administrations. (This argument is related to Chris’ point that the stimulus was passed in a manner similar to the Patriot Act.)
It seems as though Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided to open another front in the Obama administration’s backdoor war on outdated, inappropriate, and absurdly expensive policies: Holder declared that federal agents will no longer raid marijuana clubs in states that have passed legislation legalizing medical use of marijuana. [On an embarrassing note: without “The first black […]” leading his name I almost feel as if Holder’s title is missing something.]
Chalk one up for states’ rights. While this is far from legalization of marijuana federally it represents a significant deviation from past policies, and I can only hope that this indicates a shift in focus in the War on Drugs. As the above chart from 538 illustrates, public opinion is slowly moving in favor of the legalization of marijuana (both from the support and opposition sides), a trend I interpret (while hindered in no way by data or fact) to mean that the public as a whole is gradually coming to understand the differences between marijuana, which can lead to mental addictions, and more serious drugs that form both mental and physical addictions and lead to very serious health and general welfare problems (read: crime). As Nate Silver points out, though, it seems likely that, “[…] we'll see other some other once-unthinkable things like legalized gay marriage [before we see legalized marijuana].”
I guess my main point is that the War on Drugs needs to be refocused in two major ways. First of all, the government should exert different efforts for the control of different drugs, with the distribution of funding and resources determined by an honest assessment of the impact of each drug on individuals and the country as a whole. Stated another way, marijuana related arrests should not account for nearly half of all drug arrests (see table below) in a country in which 97 million people have ‘admitted’ to having tried pot.
Source.
The other major change I support is less likely to be implemented, but who knows what this crazy Obama administration will do next? That change is a shift from a supply-side focus to a demand-side focus. Let’s try a mental experiment: imagine if the DEA made a bust in which it confiscated 80% of the heroin in the USA overnight. The next day, as junkies head to the corners, what will happen? Will the ‘drought’ lead users to rehabilitate, to realize the dangers of being a drug addict, to avoid crime and seek out Christ? Or will price go through the roof, likely leading to more drug-related crime as users attempt to scrounge up the necessary cash to buy some of the tiny supply? I think the latter is significantly more likely.
It is certainly easier to publicly justify supply-side programs to limit drug use: the publicity of drug busts; the visibility of border patrol agents; the high recidivism rates of addiction treatment programs; etc. Simply because a course of action is easier and less controversial, though, does not mean it is the best choice. I believe that if the United States wants to seriously attempt to combat the use of dangerous drugs it needs to rethink its classification system and the mechanisms by which it combats drug purchases.
There are a number of potential problems here, I admit. First, assuming demand for a drug falls, prices will fall. When prices fall the suppliers have less incentive to be there (less profit per unit sold), but the users have a greater incentive to use (more units of drug per dollar spent). I think these effects would interact differently based on the drug in question and the level of addiction it creates. Second, drug treatment programs are expensive. I would argue that some of this cost would be offset by the lowered costs associated with the reclassification of some drugs (e.g. if marijuana were not a drug for which one could be jailed, the country would no longer have to pay to jail those arrested with marijuana, or may not even have to arrest those people at all). Again, the net effect is ambiguous in this hypothetical world I have imagined. Lastly, and I am sure I am missing arguments for both sides, opponents of these reforms may argue that by enforcing treatment programs rather than jail time the country is choosing to give criminals a second chance at the expense of those who may have never committed a crime. I imagine an opponent thinking, “Why is that criminal allowed to walk near my child? Why do I pay for his wrong decisions with my fear over my own property and safety?” I have no rebuttal for this except for my own belief that even the best of men can fall prey to addiction and that each and every person who does deserves at least a second chance, if not more.
I hope to one day live in a country in which one mistake on the order of taking a drug does not ruin one’s life permanently. If he feels compelled to continue sneaking legislation through based on false pretenses, let’s hope Obama chooses some of the right legislation to sneak through. I apologize for the length of this ramble. I hope it received at least one drug-addled, "Hooray!" from the crowd.
It seems as though Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have decided to open another front in the Obama administration’s backdoor war on outdated, inappropriate, and absurdly expensive policies: Holder declared that federal agents will no longer raid marijuana clubs in states that have passed legislation legalizing medical use of marijuana. [On an embarrassing note: without “The first black […]” leading his name I almost feel as if Holder’s title is missing something.]
Chalk one up for states’ rights. While this is far from legalization of marijuana federally it represents a significant deviation from past policies, and I can only hope that this indicates a shift in focus in the War on Drugs. As the above chart from 538 illustrates, public opinion is slowly moving in favor of the legalization of marijuana (both from the support and opposition sides), a trend I interpret (while hindered in no way by data or fact) to mean that the public as a whole is gradually coming to understand the differences between marijuana, which can lead to mental addictions, and more serious drugs that form both mental and physical addictions and lead to very serious health and general welfare problems (read: crime). As Nate Silver points out, though, it seems likely that, “[…] we'll see other some other once-unthinkable things like legalized gay marriage [before we see legalized marijuana].”
I guess my main point is that the War on Drugs needs to be refocused in two major ways. First of all, the government should exert different efforts for the control of different drugs, with the distribution of funding and resources determined by an honest assessment of the impact of each drug on individuals and the country as a whole. Stated another way, marijuana related arrests should not account for nearly half of all drug arrests (see table below) in a country in which 97 million people have ‘admitted’ to having tried pot.
Source.
The other major change I support is less likely to be implemented, but who knows what this crazy Obama administration will do next? That change is a shift from a supply-side focus to a demand-side focus. Let’s try a mental experiment: imagine if the DEA made a bust in which it confiscated 80% of the heroin in the USA overnight. The next day, as junkies head to the corners, what will happen? Will the ‘drought’ lead users to rehabilitate, to realize the dangers of being a drug addict, to avoid crime and seek out Christ? Or will price go through the roof, likely leading to more drug-related crime as users attempt to scrounge up the necessary cash to buy some of the tiny supply? I think the latter is significantly more likely.
It is certainly easier to publicly justify supply-side programs to limit drug use: the publicity of drug busts; the visibility of border patrol agents; the high recidivism rates of addiction treatment programs; etc. Simply because a course of action is easier and less controversial, though, does not mean it is the best choice. I believe that if the United States wants to seriously attempt to combat the use of dangerous drugs it needs to rethink its classification system and the mechanisms by which it combats drug purchases.
There are a number of potential problems here, I admit. First, assuming demand for a drug falls, prices will fall. When prices fall the suppliers have less incentive to be there (less profit per unit sold), but the users have a greater incentive to use (more units of drug per dollar spent). I think these effects would interact differently based on the drug in question and the level of addiction it creates. Second, drug treatment programs are expensive. I would argue that some of this cost would be offset by the lowered costs associated with the reclassification of some drugs (e.g. if marijuana were not a drug for which one could be jailed, the country would no longer have to pay to jail those arrested with marijuana, or may not even have to arrest those people at all). Again, the net effect is ambiguous in this hypothetical world I have imagined. Lastly, and I am sure I am missing arguments for both sides, opponents of these reforms may argue that by enforcing treatment programs rather than jail time the country is choosing to give criminals a second chance at the expense of those who may have never committed a crime. I imagine an opponent thinking, “Why is that criminal allowed to walk near my child? Why do I pay for his wrong decisions with my fear over my own property and safety?” I have no rebuttal for this except for my own belief that even the best of men can fall prey to addiction and that each and every person who does deserves at least a second chance, if not more.
I hope to one day live in a country in which one mistake on the order of taking a drug does not ruin one’s life permanently. If he feels compelled to continue sneaking legislation through based on false pretenses, let’s hope Obama chooses some of the right legislation to sneak through. I apologize for the length of this ramble. I hope it received at least one drug-addled, "Hooray!" from the crowd.
February 05, 2009
Morning Thoughts
I strongly disagree with the President's decision to cap executive pay at $500K for (some) bailout recipients. I certainly think he has the right - you want our money, we make the rules - but I think something like $5 million would have been fine. Like it or not, some of these "executives" are not actually spawn of Satan and some of them are very talented. Why would they work for $500K if they could get $10M elsewhere? Especially if they, say, have taken out a mortgage based on future expectations of salary. And I'll just say it - if you're a powerful, wealthy person living in New York City, $500K is not a lot of money.
So, it's clearly written from the perspective of a whiner, but this article about Obama capping total compensation at $500K when his total compensation is quite a bit higher was actually worth reading.
Glenn Beck is willing to go all-in on Obama being a Communist. The last 15 seconds are classic.
Tim Geithner did know he owed the other half of the Social Security and Medicare taxes (if you don't know, US employers pay half of these taxes and you pay the other half. Americans working for int'l organizations are still on the hook for the whole thing even though their employer won't pay it. Geither claims that missing this was the mistake in question). How do we know he knew? He applied - and received - reimbursement for the taxes from the IMF. He later acknowledged a failure to pay the taxes, but didn't actually pay them until his nomination was dicussed. It's all right here in this brochure. (For the record, I don't put a lot into the "rough estimate of $600B" that the article mentions.)
PS - As I was labeling this post, it just made me realize - I want to make it clear that I know I've switched from using "bailout" to using "stimulus", even though the media's switch was arbitrary/socialist.
PPS - I know I've been a little overboard about this recently, but I stand by my "incorrect" ordering of quotation marks and commas above. I used to refer to the "Government Bailout" but I've never referred to the "Stimulus, Package" so I see no reason to put the comma inside the quotation mark.
PPPS - In the first paragraph I said $500K isn't a lot of money for wealthy, powerful New Yorkers. But it's really not a whole lot of money for anyone. Think of it this way, New Yorkers - the proportion of my income that goes to rent is 5.5% before taxes and 7.4% after taxes. Divide your rent by those numbers to see what your income would be if your rent was the same as it is now but it only took the same amount of your income as mine does. My figures do not include utilities.
So, it's clearly written from the perspective of a whiner, but this article about Obama capping total compensation at $500K when his total compensation is quite a bit higher was actually worth reading.
Glenn Beck is willing to go all-in on Obama being a Communist. The last 15 seconds are classic.
Tim Geithner did know he owed the other half of the Social Security and Medicare taxes (if you don't know, US employers pay half of these taxes and you pay the other half. Americans working for int'l organizations are still on the hook for the whole thing even though their employer won't pay it. Geither claims that missing this was the mistake in question). How do we know he knew? He applied - and received - reimbursement for the taxes from the IMF. He later acknowledged a failure to pay the taxes, but didn't actually pay them until his nomination was dicussed. It's all right here in this brochure. (For the record, I don't put a lot into the "rough estimate of $600B" that the article mentions.)
PS - As I was labeling this post, it just made me realize - I want to make it clear that I know I've switched from using "bailout" to using "stimulus", even though the media's switch was arbitrary/socialist.
PPS - I know I've been a little overboard about this recently, but I stand by my "incorrect" ordering of quotation marks and commas above. I used to refer to the "Government Bailout" but I've never referred to the "Stimulus, Package" so I see no reason to put the comma inside the quotation mark.
PPPS - In the first paragraph I said $500K isn't a lot of money for wealthy, powerful New Yorkers. But it's really not a whole lot of money for anyone. Think of it this way, New Yorkers - the proportion of my income that goes to rent is 5.5% before taxes and 7.4% after taxes. Divide your rent by those numbers to see what your income would be if your rent was the same as it is now but it only took the same amount of your income as mine does. My figures do not include utilities.
February 02, 2009
Conservapedia Nuance
It's clear "the trustworthy encyclopedia" is raising the level of debate when it comes to Commerce Secretary-nominee Judd Gregg.
There's no link to this directly but for a few days it should be on the main page: of the Republican whose departure from the Senate could give the Democrats the overblown total of 60 senators, the encyclopedia asks: "Benedict Arnold or Judas?"
(Actually, they had an extra comma in the question. Also, this is one of the few instances when I do agree with the standard rule on quotation mark/punctuation mark ordering)
There's no link to this directly but for a few days it should be on the main page: of the Republican whose departure from the Senate could give the Democrats the overblown total of 60 senators, the encyclopedia asks: "Benedict Arnold or Judas?"
(Actually, they had an extra comma in the question. Also, this is one of the few instances when I do agree with the standard rule on quotation mark/punctuation mark ordering)
January 27, 2009
500th Post!
Somebody Think A Little has made it to the 500th post. I don't know about everyone else, but I am really happy with the progress of the blog so far.
On another positive note, as of yesterday Obama has his full cabinet.
On another positive note, as of yesterday Obama has his full cabinet.
January 22, 2009
A few things (Updated Twice)
(Update: I was going to say that I never thought Caroline had much of a chance. And using your uncle's collapse to find a way out is not just total BS, it's horrible.)
Random thoughts and rants.
Should Tim Geithner's tax issues be a bigger deal? I hear more about that than if he's really the best guy to be in the position. For what it's worth, I heard O'Reilly belligerently defending Geithner against a conservative caller yesterday.
***************************************
Obama's speech was not that bad. Everybody's ripping on it. Not everybody, but many people. I thought the speech was very good. Expecting it to be epic is like expecting Babe Ruth to hit three homeruns just because you're at the game. People, he can't give one of the greatest 20 speeches in American history every time he opens his mouth.
Besides, I actually took a copy of the speech and read it line for line, trying to choose the ones that might be "remembered" in history. In so doing, it became quite clear that there's no way to know, because it all depends on what happens in the future. It needs to sound prophetic. If the energy crisis somehow got much worse, and he got us out of it, the line about "harnessing the wind, sun, and soil" could very well be the hallmark of a 21st century presidency. Or not. It all depends, and the whole speech is like that. But I thought that the tone was appropriate, and that the style achieved the sort of timelessness you're looking for in an inaugural address (i.e., except for a few specifics, it basically could have been given by any president).
******************************************************
As was the case with the Golden Globes, Heath Ledger is nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe I'm delusional here, but whether you want him to win or not, I would have thought he'd be in the best lead actor category. He's got to have pretty similar screentime to Batman I'd think, and his performance certainly leads the movie. A pretty minor controversy, to be sure, but just a thought I'd had.
Also, I think it was underreported that Kate Winslet won Best Lead and Best Supporting at the Golden Globes. Then again, it is the Golden Globes.
(Update2: An interesting coincidence is that the nominations for the Oscars were announced today, on what I just read is the one-year anniversary of Ledger's death.)
********************************************************
This whole re-oath thing is pretty stupid, but dammit Barack, why didn't you use a Bible the second time? Just save us the grief! On a related note, Konservapedia is still sure he's Muslim. ("He took the oath on a Bible and not a Koran? Well that's what a secret Muslim would do.")
*******************************************************
I knew I had something else but I can't remember it so I'll do this instead.
Starting with 2008 GDP of $13.84 trillion and debt of $10.6 trillion, and assuming long-term growth of 2% and inflation of 1%, and also assuming the CBO estimate for debt as a percentage of GDP, then in 80 years the nominal GDP will be $150 trillion and the nominal debt will be $1 quadrillion.
Random thoughts and rants.
Should Tim Geithner's tax issues be a bigger deal? I hear more about that than if he's really the best guy to be in the position. For what it's worth, I heard O'Reilly belligerently defending Geithner against a conservative caller yesterday.
***************************************
Obama's speech was not that bad. Everybody's ripping on it. Not everybody, but many people. I thought the speech was very good. Expecting it to be epic is like expecting Babe Ruth to hit three homeruns just because you're at the game. People, he can't give one of the greatest 20 speeches in American history every time he opens his mouth.
Besides, I actually took a copy of the speech and read it line for line, trying to choose the ones that might be "remembered" in history. In so doing, it became quite clear that there's no way to know, because it all depends on what happens in the future. It needs to sound prophetic. If the energy crisis somehow got much worse, and he got us out of it, the line about "harnessing the wind, sun, and soil" could very well be the hallmark of a 21st century presidency. Or not. It all depends, and the whole speech is like that. But I thought that the tone was appropriate, and that the style achieved the sort of timelessness you're looking for in an inaugural address (i.e., except for a few specifics, it basically could have been given by any president).
******************************************************
As was the case with the Golden Globes, Heath Ledger is nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe I'm delusional here, but whether you want him to win or not, I would have thought he'd be in the best lead actor category. He's got to have pretty similar screentime to Batman I'd think, and his performance certainly leads the movie. A pretty minor controversy, to be sure, but just a thought I'd had.
Also, I think it was underreported that Kate Winslet won Best Lead and Best Supporting at the Golden Globes. Then again, it is the Golden Globes.
(Update2: An interesting coincidence is that the nominations for the Oscars were announced today, on what I just read is the one-year anniversary of Ledger's death.)
********************************************************
This whole re-oath thing is pretty stupid, but dammit Barack, why didn't you use a Bible the second time? Just save us the grief! On a related note, Konservapedia is still sure he's Muslim. ("He took the oath on a Bible and not a Koran? Well that's what a secret Muslim would do.")
*******************************************************
I knew I had something else but I can't remember it so I'll do this instead.
Starting with 2008 GDP of $13.84 trillion and debt of $10.6 trillion, and assuming long-term growth of 2% and inflation of 1%, and also assuming the CBO estimate for debt as a percentage of GDP, then in 80 years the nominal GDP will be $150 trillion and the nominal debt will be $1 quadrillion.
January 21, 2009
Opinions on Barack's Speech
I would like to see the speech again before giving my review, but I really enjoyed reading some of the Daily Beast correspondents' reactions to Barack's inaugural address.
Obama's first act as president
In his first official act as president Barack Obama issued the following statement declaring a national day of reconciliation (My source was the White House blog):
NATIONAL DAY OF RENEWAL AND RECONCILIATION, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
As I take the sacred oath of the highest office in the land, I am humbled by the responsibility placed upon my shoulders, renewed by the courage and decency of the American people, and fortified by my faith in an awesome God.
We are in the midst of a season of trial. Our Nation is being tested, and our people know great uncertainty. Yet the story of America is one of renewal in the face of adversity, reconciliation in a time of discord, and we know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven.
On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright -- it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more.
So in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, let us remember that: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.
January 13, 2009
FYI - Clinton Hearing
In case you're interested, the Senate hearing on Hillary Clinton's Secretary of State nomination is available here. (Hey, she just spent time talking about microfinance! Awesome!)
December 24, 2008
Obama team probe of Obama team finds no Obama team impropriety
At the risk of seeming somewhat critical of Obama on something, I must say I pretty much liked this article.
December 18, 2008
I Still Hate Sean Hannity
Yesterday on Radio Show (paraphrase):
And now we hear that Rahm Emanuel is on the tapes having 21 phone calls with Governor Blagojevich! And they won't tell us what's on the tapes. But we know Rahmbo is a bitter partisan Clinton-era official, and since they won't tell us what's on the tapes, it's seems pretty clear that he was willing to play with the governor's scheme.
Today on Radio Show (paraphrase):
And now we hear that there's hardly anything incriminating at all on the tapes, and that the usually-bitter Rahmbo was calm and straightforward! And this is just more Clinton-era politics, folks. First the scandal breaks and they make it seem as huge and incriminating as possible, and then when things aren't so bad, nobody pays attention. The Clintons did it to us before, and now their acolytes are at it again!
(almost without a pause to think)
And now there's one more question. We need to know what Obama knew and when he knew it. He has not gone on record about this whole thing and we the American people cannot stand for what he and liberal friends are trying to do to corrupt Washington.
*******************
All smartassery aside, I really don't know how you live with yourself, even if you take the angle that you're playing a character on the radio. This is obscene.
And now we hear that Rahm Emanuel is on the tapes having 21 phone calls with Governor Blagojevich! And they won't tell us what's on the tapes. But we know Rahmbo is a bitter partisan Clinton-era official, and since they won't tell us what's on the tapes, it's seems pretty clear that he was willing to play with the governor's scheme.
Today on Radio Show (paraphrase):
And now we hear that there's hardly anything incriminating at all on the tapes, and that the usually-bitter Rahmbo was calm and straightforward! And this is just more Clinton-era politics, folks. First the scandal breaks and they make it seem as huge and incriminating as possible, and then when things aren't so bad, nobody pays attention. The Clintons did it to us before, and now their acolytes are at it again!
(almost without a pause to think)
And now there's one more question. We need to know what Obama knew and when he knew it. He has not gone on record about this whole thing and we the American people cannot stand for what he and liberal friends are trying to do to corrupt Washington.
*******************
All smartassery aside, I really don't know how you live with yourself, even if you take the angle that you're playing a character on the radio. This is obscene.
December 12, 2008
And I couldn't have said it better
OK, so it appears that the aforementioned constitutional crisis, wherein Hillary Clinton would be ineligible to be Secretary of State because she was in Congress when Congress gave the position a pay raise, has been averted. And I couldn't have said it better myself:
"She’ll make $4,700 less per year than the current black Secretary of State, because that’s how Barack Obama’s America rolls."
"She’ll make $4,700 less per year than the current black Secretary of State, because that’s how Barack Obama’s America rolls."
Cynical Politics?
OK, so it's possible I'm just being overly political here, but do you think it stands to reason that Barack Obama appointed Janet Napolitano to DHS as an olive branch to John McCain, as it removes a very large (and really the only) challenger to his Senate seat in 2010? Just a thought ...
December 03, 2008
Hillary's next battle.
Apparently Hillary Clinton will always be fighting an uphill battle in politics. This time it is because the salary for the Secretary of State was increased while Hilary was serving in the Senate, which, according to the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, makes her ineligible for the SoS position. Apparently Nixon ran into this and got around it, but his solution doesn't look feasible in this case.
December 02, 2008
Presidential Pardons
This article, about Eric Holder's involvement in the Marc Rich pardon, reminded me of a question I've often pondered:
Why the hell do Presidential pardons even exist anymore?
Why the hell do Presidential pardons even exist anymore?
December 01, 2008
The new security team
A comparison of the new:
And the old:
Clinton clearly did not get the message that the gravity of state security issues must be met with a firm gravitas that is, preferably, so strong that one can only look at one's own feet. Maybe she missed the memo about shortsightedness; maybe this is the first in a long line of changes to come. Let's hope for the latter.
And the old:
Clinton clearly did not get the message that the gravity of state security issues must be met with a firm gravitas that is, preferably, so strong that one can only look at one's own feet. Maybe she missed the memo about shortsightedness; maybe this is the first in a long line of changes to come. Let's hope for the latter.
November 25, 2008
November 21, 2008
Two interesting articles
This article is about Tom Daschle and the long-term problems that could result if Obama's health plan passes. I don't agree with a lot of it and unfortunately it is largely written from the doomsday perspective of a post-election Republican, but one point that stood out to me was that if the government picks up a program that doesn't work, it'll be like social security - we won't be able to get the people to let it go even if better solutions arise.
This article is about what closing Guantanamo would mean for US foreign/counterterrorism policy, as well as the very relevant question of what exactly we'll be doing with the detainees there.
I'd like to have a conversation going at some point about this sort of stuff, as well as torture. I'm not on the hardcore side, but in my experience, my views on torture lie to the right of most of my friends.
This article is about what closing Guantanamo would mean for US foreign/counterterrorism policy, as well as the very relevant question of what exactly we'll be doing with the detainees there.
I'd like to have a conversation going at some point about this sort of stuff, as well as torture. I'm not on the hardcore side, but in my experience, my views on torture lie to the right of most of my friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
