End Prohibition Part II

I'm a couple of days late (16 to be exact) but 75 years ago on Dec. 5 1933, prohibition of alcohol ended in the United States. Yet, without understanding history, we have repeated our same mistake and created prohibition part II aka the war on drugs. Here is an excellent article discussing the burdens, costs and failed promises of the war on drugs.

Preview:

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish. Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of
thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same
policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

This isn't about morals or simply wanting to get stoned (I don't even do drugs). It's about failed policy and its burdens on our economy and liberty.

The Bush Legacy

Torture and the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

The approved use of torture has never been a part of American history until Bush authorized its use against detainees in violation of U.S. and international law. If you want to know the last time a government of ours has used torture, you will have to go back over 500 years to the Star Chamber in Britain.

Here are some figures on Bush's spending:

The result of deficit spending is debt. When President Bush took office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Now it is $10.6 trillion -- and Congress voted in October to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion, the seventh such hike since President Bush to office and the second since last July. If, as is quite likely, we reach the new ceiling by January 20, the outgoing President will have managed to amass more debt than all of his predecessors combined.

Is there any acceptable excuse for either? Total and complete government failure.

Pro-life Fundamentalism

I attended a private Christian school from pre-school all the way through my undergrad college. Even though Mount Union is pretty much Methodist in name only, my grade school and high school were very religious and leaned to the right. Apart from teaching me that dinosaur extinction was caused by relocation stress when they exited Noah's Ark, they made concerted efforts to denounce Planned Parenthood and portray the organization as a baby-killing factory. Even today, go into almost any church and tell a member or the pastor you work for Planned Parenthood and they won't be very friendly. If that isn't enough, pro-life supporters are now requesting that government funding be revoked from Planned Parenthood in order to fight against abortion.

Doesn't this seem like spending a dollar to make a nickel? Planned Parenthood doesn't just perform abortions. The majority of their work is aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and women's health issues (mammograms, pap smears etc...). Only 2-3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions. Thus, in practice, Planned Parenthood has the very real effect of reducing abortions. Instead of being content with that, these irrational pro-life zealots (just to be clear, there are rational pro-lifers) completely ignore these facts and insist that we only focus on abstinence only based education, which in the aggregate produces more abortions!!

Today in Slate, Will Saletan gives the Pro-life case for Planned Parenthood. Preview:

I'll say that again: If you define pro-life as preventing abortions, Planned
Parenthood is the most effective pro-life organization in the history of the world. No, it doesn't give teenagers the idea of having sex. That idea comes to them quite naturally, thank you very much. What Planned Parenthood does, more comprehensively than anyone else, is to distribute the means and knowledge to control your risk of getting pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. And those two things, combined with pressure to exercise that control assiduously, are the surest way to prevent abortions. If you wait till women are already unhappily pregnant, you're too late.

Last week I didn't understand the logic behind the outrage on the far-right when Planned Parenthood decided to accept gift cards. The method of payment wasn't likely to increase the number of abortions. In all likelihood, the gift cards would probably have the effect of preventing abortions by allowing the poor to have better access to contraceptives. However, now I get it. It seems that it was just another occasion for manufactured and uninformed outrage against Planned Parenthood.

Che

What's up with people's obsession and idolization of Che Guevara? Sure the picture looks cool, but does anyone know what he stood for? Reason interviews Paquito D'Rivera who fled Cuba to escape persecution:

"Che was an inspiration for me," D'Rivera tells reason.tv. "I thought I have to get out of this island as soon as I can, because I am in the wrong place at the wrong time!" D'Rivera did escape Cuba, and so far he's won nine Grammy awards playing the kind of music Che tried to silence. But D'Rivera says Che's crimes didn't end with censorship. "He ordered the execution of many people with no trial." Che served as Castro's chief executioner, presiding over the infamous La Cabana prison. D'Rivera says Che's policy of killing innocents earned him the nickname-the Butcher of La Cabana.

Here is Nick Gillespie adding his two cents:

We're rightly horrified by fascist murderers like Adolph Hitler. Why aren't we
also horrified by communist killers?

Doesn't anyone else find it amusing that merchandise with Che's grille on it is being spread by the forces of capitalism?

Mets Fan Pays for CC Sabathia

ESPN is reporting that an agreement has been reached between the Yankees and CC Sabathia for a record setting 7 yr deal worth over $160M. What ESPN fails to tell you is that in the meantime, the Yankees are building a new stadium that is financed by public bonds. Basically, the tax-payer is subsidizing the new Yankee Stadium, even though there was nothing wrong with the current stadium. Here is Ilya Somin discussing the situation:

In this 2006 post, I criticized these public subsidies for the new Yankee Stadium,
as well as sports stadium subsidies in general. Studies by economists almost uniformly show that stadium subsidies create no net economic benefit for cities, but are instead a pure transfer of wealth from taxpayers to owners and players. The latter, to put it mildly, are not exactly needy. Public subsidies for stadium construction might even leave cities worse off by diverting valuable land and public funds from more productive uses.

Money is a finite resource and must be budgeted accordingly (someone please tell the government). Thus, without the bonds to cover the construction of the stadium, the Yankees would have been forced to choose between a new pitcher or a new stadium. However, by allowing tax payers to fill the pockets of the private organization, they can have the best of both worlds, thus creating a situation where non-Yankee fans are paying for good 'ol CC. One more tidbit from Ilya:

As regular VC readers know, I'm a big baseball fan. However, I also believe that baseball teams (and other professional sports teams) should pay their own way with funds earned from willing fans. Taxpayers who aren't baseball fans shouldn't be forced to subsidize the entertainment of those of us who are.

It's no wonder I don't watch baseball.

In Defense of Bush

A reader (one of millions I'm sure) pointed me to this article about the great work President Bush has done in regards to fighting AIDS. I've been critical of Bush here and I'm still not a big fan of his, but since I have made posts about Matthew 25 and "helping the least of us" and "the sick" I should give credit where credit is due.

Please, no comments on how it isn't really his money or that it could be considered a forced transfer of wealth. She specifically calls out those on the left - those who have no problem spending other people's money (see bailouts).

Mona Charen:

But for the most part, the beautiful people in America — the Hollywood and the university types, the book and magazine publishers, and of course, the major media — have shown complete indifference to George W. Bush’s dedication to a cause they purport to value. In fact, they’ve pointedly ignored it. It goes without saying that if Obama does even half of what Bush has done for AIDS sufferers in Africa, he will be — in the eyes of those same people — a candidate for canonization. Of course the Left can say whatever they like about George Bush and the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But when he does something completely in line with their own stated principles and values, it is simply mean-spirited of them to deny him his due.

Secret Santa

For those of you that have been or will be blessed with wealth, here is a story of who you should aspire to be like.