Insane Sentences

According to the news released today, United States keeps 1 out of every 100 adult citizens in prison. 2.3 million inmates in the country of 300 million. This is crazy. Even such regimes like China (1.5 million inmates among 1400 million citizens), Iran, or Russia does not treat their people like this.

The direct causes of this situation are many: longer sentences, mandatory sentencing laws, criminalization of even most petty offenses. One of the most prominent is the criminalization of the use of marijuana and other "recreational" drugs. Yes. The majority of people arrested in the US are for drug-related offenses, mostly for possession of marijuana. Usually, those are some dope-smoking youngsters, with no violent history, no drug dealing charges and no criminal intent.

This has many negative effects. The most obvious is the financial cost borne by the increasingly cash-strapped states. The most sinister is the transformation of non-violent offenders into hardened criminals, who, after their release will have almost no recourse but join a street gang to survive. The change of potentially productive members of society into taxpayer-supported inmates. There are other social, financial and moral costs.

What's the solution? Well, it would be legalization of marijuana for one, lessening of the penalties for most offenses, or replacing incarceration with a fine for minor problems.

But the most important would be addressing the root cause of this problem. And the root cause is the "my safety above anything" (I wrote about it here) attitude of the American population.We demand that the government "does something" to protect us from the criminals, from the dangers, real or imaginary. Someone steals my doughnut? Send him to the prison, for a year, or five, or thirty! (This is real story from October 2007: "Man faces 30-year prison term for stealing doughnut" on Yahoo!News). And that's what is truly insane. Unless we change our attitude, our prisons will swell...

Live or Die: it is your choice

It is well understood that the US health care system is full of administrative inefficiencies, inflated prices, improper care, waste and fraud. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. Unfortunately, one important - maybe even the most important - element is usually left out of the current debate on healthcare costs. And that is personal responsibility.

Every discussion tacitly assumes that Mr. Joe Blow is entitled to medical services, even if he cannot pay for them. And that is wrong. The result of that is the rest of Americans having to spend over $100 billion a year on the care of uninsured in the form of taxes, higher hospital and doctor bills (who have to cover the cost of services rendered, but not paid), and higher insurance premiums. Granted, $100 billion is not that much compared to the total healthcare expenditures, but it is still about $1000 per year per American family. And there is a lot of good things a family can do with $1000 dollars.

In addition, as the uninsured tend to use the limited resources of emergency rooms for their routine care, the quality of care for everyone in many facilities is falling.

A possible solution to that would be a stricter policy of not providing care for people that cannot pay for it. Even - or especially (as they are extremely costly) - in life threatening situations. Of course that would require also a law shielding the healthcare providers from liability in cases when they refuse to treat an individual that cannot pay.

This will put the responsibility for the healthcare back where it belongs: on an individual. After few well-publicized cases of someone dying because he/she was turned away from emergency room, people would get the idea that after food and shelter the next necessity is health care. People will better understand the need for living healthier lifestyle and taking better care of themselves. More will buy the insurance, which will become more affordable.

That would benefit everyone.

Some may ask what about these who are really unable to pay for the healthcare? We, Americans, are a generous people as a group. I have no doubt there would be charities and churches (even some minimal taxpayer-supported social services) that can provide assistance to those who truly cannot afford it.

But for everyone else, it is their choice: if they prefer to buy a doughnut than pay for a vaccine, they shouldn't complain when they get sick.

Torture Straw Man

The public debate about torture often involves a question similar to the following: "If an acknowledged terrorist knows about impending horrifying attack on our people, would you torture that man or not?" That is known as the "ticking bomb" question. Many presidential candidates were asked this question, most answered affirmatively. Also, if you listen to "conservative" media, this question is often offered as a proof that we should allow our intelligence organizations more leeway during interrogations.

But in fact that is nothing but a straw man question.

Remember the Straw Man arguing technique (or fallacy, depending on whether we are using it, or it is used on us)? It relies on construing a "straw man" - a false position close enough to the position of the opponent, but false enough to be knocked down easily, taking the opponent with it. For example, someone argues: "I do not think the new fighter jet is worth the money". The opponent replies: "You want to leave us defenseless in the face of enemy!" and gets the fighter funded.

The "ticking bomb" question is exactly that, a straw man question. If we know that a person is a real terrorist, with blood on his hands, knowing about another attack, then what the heck! Hang him upside down and flay him alive for all I care. But this is never the case. In reality, our troops round up ten potential suspects on the streets of Fallujah, out of which, as our petty informant tells us, one may know a little abut something or other. Now the question is: are we going to torture these ten, most likely innocent, people to find out who knows what? What about just waterboarding them? Using "advanced interrogation techniques"? Keeping in solitary confinement for years? Without charge, without access to defense? What if it is only two people, does it make it easier? What if it is a hundred, or a thousand?

And so, the real question to ask is: "Are you willing to sacrifice innocent people to protect us from a future attack?" And the debate on the interrogation techniques should include this question rather than the faulty "ticking bomb" one.

For many people the answer to these two questions will be the same, for others it will change. Whichever it is for you, don't let a reasoning fallacy mask the true nature of the issue.

Price of Death

Death penalty may, or may not be an effective crime deterrent. Different people will give different answers to such question, depending on their point of view (usually more "pro-life" and "pro-family-values" individuals are more "pro-death-penalty").

However, the monetary price of the death penalty system in US can be figured out pretty much objectively. To illustrate my points I will use only two States: California (based on Los Angeles Times article from 2005) and New Jersey (from New jersey Policy Perspectives, also 2005).

In California, during the 1978-2005 period (that is, since the death penalty was reinstated) , various state-funded institutions spent about $114 million a year on death penalty cases. That includes the parts of budgets devoted to trying and defending death penalty cases at the Attorney General, California Supreme Court, Office of the State Public Defender, Habeas Corpus Resource Center, federal public defender offices, and death row sections of California Corrections Department. At the same time 11 executions were carried out. For a cost of more that quarter billion dollars per execution. This is insane.

It costs about $200 thousand a year to hire and train a police officer. For $100 million a year California could provide 500 additional officers that would actually have impact on the community. Total budget of California Army National Guard and air National Guard is less than $100 million. Spending a quarter billion dollars per execution is, in itself, a criminal waste of money.

In New Jersey the situation is even worse. They spend, in average, $11 million a year on death penalty cases. And the total number of executions, since 1983, is 0. Zero. Talk about waste of money there.

It is not surprising that in such situation the death penalty is not much of the deterrent for criminals. In both California and New Jersey it is more likely for people on the "death row" to die of old age than to be executed. And for what a cost!

We need to make up our mind. If we believe the death penalty can be effective tool in the fight against crime, we need to reform our system. Sentence, appeal, second appeal, injection, and we are done. Or just abolish it altogether, even though housing criminals for years and years is not that cheap, either.

Either way, the colossal waste of taxpayer money should be stopped.

Life Above All

Various things were written on the flags of nations: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". "God, Honor, Country". "For Our Liberty and Yours". Many people died defending these ideals. But it seems that the motto on our standard nowadays turns slowly into "My life, my safety, my money". It seems as though people are running scared witless, screaming "Yes, take our liberties, our pride, our rights, but let us live! Oh, Government, protect us by any cost!".

Consider: the only thing standing between our liberties and totalitarian oppression by the government is our Constitution, with its checks and balances and the Bill of Rights. And what are we doing when we feel a bit threatened? We dump all of that out, give the central government as much power as they want, and trust that they, unchecked and uncontrolled, will take care of us. Good luck with that.

Yeah, terrorists are a thread that should be dealt with. But in the last 50 years the total fatalities (in US) caused by terrorism (and that both domestic, caused by the likes of Timothy McVeigh, and international, caused mostly by Islamic fundamentalists) amount to about 4000 persons. Which is minuscule compared to one year fatalities from causes like car accidents (~40000/year), falls (~18000/year), drowning (~3000/year), suicide (~30000/year), homicide by firearms (~16000/year), or alcohol-induced deaths (~20000/year)*. An yet we jettison our essential liberties, and our moral ideals, to protect us from such a minor nuisance.

We could go through each amendment one by one and give examples of what is going on, but there is no need: you could search the news as well as I can. However the pattern repeats itself ad nauseam: "We have to limit free speech, otherwise we would endanger our security". "We need unwarranted searches, or our security will be compromised". "Right to speedy trial and right to confront the accusers will jeopardize the security." And so on and so on.

Yes, it may. Yes, it will. But this is not the point. The right to free speech is infinitely more important than some "security" one gets by abridging it. Same with habeas corpus, due process, unwarranted searches, bearing of arms, and any other right enumerated in the Constitution. We will prevail over the terrorists anyway, using lawful procedures, and methods that do not bring us down to their level. But if we surrender our liberties in the meantime, we may never recover them.

Remember, the Constitution does not say "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, [...], shall not be violated, [..], unless someone decides that this may enhance security." It does not provide for freedom of speech "as long as it is convenient to the government". These right are absolute.

And priceless. Even if the price is the highest one an individual can pay.

*All data from National Vital Statistics Reports, 2006.

Why be Afraid of Nuclear Iran?

I can believe that a person can be suicidal. Plenty of those around, in fact. But a nation, as a whole -- that's a different proposition. I do not believe any nation will commit suicide, and Iranians are no exception.

Consider. Iran is a long way from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that not the core of the problem. Making a crude nuclear weapon is rather easy: I remember a schematics of one in my grade-school level physics textbook (yes, we did have physics course in grade school). So lets assume they will create one, sooner or later. So what? The difficult part is to deliver that weapon efficiently. Building -- or even buying -- a working ICBM that can fly between continents is not a trivial matter, in fact, out of the reach of countries like Iran for any foreseeable future.

They may use it against their neighbors, though, in particular against Israel. And here is where my disbelief kicks in. Israel is determined to protect herself, and her will and ability were put to test a number of times, with pretty much uniform results ("Don't mess with us", if you need me to spell it out). As of now, our intelligence organizations put the number of Israel's nuclear warheads to 400. On the other hand, Wikipedia, in their "Modern cities and important towns of Iran" lists 201 places. If Iran dares to attack Israel with its couple of homemade Fat Mans, they may succeed in destroying a city or two. But the response may, and most likely would, erase every single population center in Iran. Twice. As I said -- I do not believe in suicidal nations.

And if they are? If they are truly blind, stupid, and misguided? Well, they commit suicide, we have one problem less. Some bleeding hearts will cry over the "once great nation", and history will resume its march...


whereIstand.com issue: here

Matrix Politics

Originally, I thought of writing how our politicians live in some kind of alternative universe, having only occasional contact with reality -- just like in the movie. But everyone know that already... Instead, I'd like to propose using more descriptive labels for political orientation than "Democrat" and "Republican" (or, "liberal" and "American" as some would have it).

The political orientation is not a spectrum, from far left to far right. It is a matrix. Since a conservative view in one area (e.g., "less taxation") used to implied conservative views in other areas (e.g., "no gay marriages"), dual label system (liberal - conservative), and dual party system (Democrats - Republican) was sufficient. Not anymore. People pick and match their views, more and more often finding themselves in odds with their party affiliations.

There are at least three areas where issues important for the people fall: fiscal, social, and political. (Of course, there is also religious aspect, but, depending on the particular religion it may fall in different categories.) In broad generalization the issues would be as follows:

	Liberal	Conservative
Social	do not care about gays support right to abortion protest death penalty	oppose non-traditional marriages want abortion outlawed support death penalty
Fiscal	demand expanded entitlements advocate "taxing the rich" call for expanding the size and budget of government	call for tax reduction call for less government spending want balanced budget
Political	cede more power to central government indifferent to states' rights more regulations call for strict gun control pro-environmental	advocate moving control from central to local government indifferent to environmental movement more individual responsibility

What is the problem? It is in lack of choice. Once you are a Democrat you have no choice but be "pro-choice" and demand taxing the rich. What if only one of these is what you want? When you are a Republican, you must denounce gun control and support tax cuts, even if you do not agree with one or the other.

We, the people, need more choices. We need parties of different flavors: Fiscal Liberal Social Conservative Party. Social Liberal Fiscal Conservative Party. Etc, etc. And we need candidates for political offices from these parties. We need to know that someone who wants tax cuts will not necessarily oppose gun control, or that pro-choice candidate will not expand welfare (if that is our preference).

No more monochrome candidates!

Border Fence or Immigration Enforcement

According to congressional estimates (as reported by globalsecurity.org and elsewhere) the proposed fence along US-Mexico border would cost between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000 per mile. And, according to security experts, it would be as effective as posting signs "Please do not cross the border" every few miles... Remember the Berlin Wall? That was a real wall, made of 12 ft high and 4 ft wide concrete reinforced by mesh fencing, signal fencing, anti-vehicle trenches, barbed wire, dogs, sentries, watchtowers, and shoot-on-sight "death strip". And yet, thousands of people sneaked through it successfully. What is the use of the proposed chain-link fence then? Just an enormous waste of money, mostly directed to the usual government contractors.

The illegal immigration should be attacked at the core of the problem: the employment of illegal aliens. The flood of illegal immigration would slow down to a manageable trickle if there were no jobs for illegal aliens. And that can be accomplished only by making it not economical for employers to hire illegal aliens.

How? Easy: spend the money not on useless fence, but on real enforcement of immigration and employment laws.

The 1 to 3 billion dollars wasted on the fence would be enough to hire a couple of thousands of new immigration agents for ten years. Their job would not be to scrutinize the employment records of the companies suspected of hiring illegal aliens. Starting with the biggest ones (no names here, but perhaps a big retailer?), moving down to the smaller players. Penalize the offending companies severely, and penalize the managers of these companies as individuals (not many managers would risk going to jail just for some labor cost savings). Soon the jobs would dry out, and with them the incentives to cross the border illegally. An added bonus would be the few thousand decent jobs created this way which would provide some help to border states economies (even though these were government jobs, which I dislike in principle).

Recently Arizona passed state laws making the business of hiring illegal aliens a bit more risky (loss of business license). Very soon after alarming headlines appeared in the news: "Illegal immigrants packing up and leaving Arizona" (from CNN), "Arizona Seeing Signs of Flight by Immigrants" (from New York Times). Wait! Wasn't that just the point? So it can be done!

Don't waste money on ineffective fence. Use it to hire agents that can really reduce illegal immigration by enforcing employment laws.

Case for not drilling in ANWR yet.

Consider the parable: You have three loafs of bread. And your neighbor, Mr. John, also has three loafs of bread. And both of you have slim (but not zero) chances for more food in the future. You learn that Mr. John is willing to sell you his bread. And so you buy his bread (even if it is somewhat overpriced) and eat it first, then use your own (hey, you will have to be able to defend it from the hungry, and angry, neighbor at this point. But that's life.). All the time you are working hard and hoping that the additional food will be available before your supplies run out. That's much better position than using up all your resources first, and then hoping Mr John will share what he has left with you...

The same can be said of the oil reserves in ANWR (or anywhere else in the US for that matter). Save them for the time oil really starts running out. When no money and no military can get us the oil elsewhere, well -- other countries will be in the same spot. But while China will need to return to her bikes, and Parisians will start pushing rickshaws, we will drive our cars (and tanks and airplanes and ...) fueled by the oil from ANWR.

If by that time alternative sources of energy are viable, only the better. But if not, using others' resources first and saving ours for later will give us a bit of time for research and development.

Please, no "Economic Stimulus" rebate

The United States is deep in debt. 9.5 TRILLION dollar and counting. Debts do not come cheap: if you ever had a balance on your credit card, you know that already. Now, to provide the "economic stimulus" our Congress voted 165 billion dollars to be send as tax rebates. Which would be perfectly fine, except that our illustrious leaders did not provide any means of funding it! There will be no corresponding federal spending cuts. There will be no additional foreign trade income. There will be no increase in taxes (obviously, as even the dumbest of dumb will not swallow "let's increase taxes to provide tax rebates" law).

So what will it be? Either the Bureau of Engraving and Printing will print that money (thus increasing inflation and robbing everyone of their buying power), or we will borrow that money (from China and other "friends" that buy our treasury obligations). And that is really smart! Imagine your significant other coming to you and saying "Oh, we do have our credit cards maxed out, but never mind, lets borrow some more to improve our economic situation. We can give them our firstborn as a collateral (as our house has two mortgages already)." *shudder* Yes, firstborn. Who do you think will pay that debt, if not our children?

And therefore I submit: please, do not send out that tax rebates! Or at least find a way to pay for them without increasing our debt anymore!

Abolish Electoral College

Originally the people of United States picked their representatives -- local people they trusted -- to go on their behalf to Washington, DC, to evaluate the presidential candidates, and vote for the best choice. These were known as "electors": members of the Electoral College.

Nowadays, most Americans do not even know what Electoral College is. And very good! This institution outlived its usefulness, and what is left of it only creates problems. Problems such as one person winning the popular vote, but another becoming the president (remember 2000?) Or whole segments of population practically disenfranchised (Texas democrats come to mind...).

It is time to abolish the Electoral College altogether. Passing the Constitutional Amendment is rather difficult and time consuming task, but if enough State Legislatures take action, it will not be necessary. See, for example, http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/