Here's an update on a previous post.
The Illinois Legislature is considering legislation which would exempt teenagers who text nude pictures of themselves or others from criminal charges. Instead, they would be under the supervision of the juvenile court and receive counseling. (For more details: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-sexting-bill-0319-20100318,0,552959.story)
Good to see common sense is alive and well somewhere in the country.
Certainly not in Pennsylvania where a local D.A. was threatening to file felony charges against a teen girl who sent out a topless pix of herself. The federal appeals court barred the D.A. from doing that but what's wrong with this crazy man in the first place? How can a pair of breasts be a felony? The good news is the Pennsylvania Legislature is working at changing the law for teens so they won't be charged with felonies. My question is: Why is sending a nude pix a crime at all? (For more details: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-sexting18-2010mar18,0,806159.story)
Finally, even seniors are getting into it. Can't get any more mainstream than AARP covering the story. Wow, what a shock for those who thought they were technologically hot and chic. Just think of all the wrinkles floating through cyberspace. (More: http://www.aarp.org/family/love/articles/sexting_not_just_for_kids.html?CMP=KNC-360I-GOOGLE-FAM&HBX_OU=50&HBX_PK=sexting&utm_source=Google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=sexting&utm_campaign=AARP%2BFamily)
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Human Rights More Important
Karl Rove was on the radio today and said that America was fighting for democracy in Iraq. His statement illustrates what I think is the flawed thinking of many Americans in dealing with the rest of the world.
Other people aren’t particularly interested in democracy. They want economic and personal security. In other words they want to earn enough to support their families and enjoy peace and freedom as they live their lives.
Consequently we should be emphasizing human rights, rather than democracy. Jefferson said it best: ALL men (people) are created equal...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our foreign policy would be a lot more successful if we used our economic and military power to promote those rights for individuals and work with other governments based on how they treat their people rather than what form their government takes. On many levels the Saudis are just as despicable as the Burmese junta. Both governments enrich a small coterie at the expense of the vast majority of citizenry.
We wind up as hypocrites when we denounce the generals’ house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi but do nothing, when we pay the Saudis millions for oil and ignore their discrimination against women and when we grant China most favored nation trade status while they suppress dissidents and make a mockery of free speech with internet censorship.
We can do better.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The War on Drugs
Too bad we didn't learn much from Prohibition. We outlawed booze, created a crime syndicate, saw local police corrupted, had our cities ravaged by gang wars over control and distribution while drinkers flouted the law.
Now we're waging the War on Drugs, supposedly to protect our children. Still, many children, as well as adults regularly use/abuse pot, hash, crack, coke, heroin, meth, ludes, lsd, and prescription pharmaceuticals. "Protection" is mere verbiage, an illusion. Those what want to use will find a way, legal or illegal, and there's no way to "protect" them.
If we look objectively at the War on Drugs, it's not working. We've created the drug cartels in Latin American and forced Mexico into a civil war of sorts which is killing innocent people and threatening the stability of the government. Our policies encourage Afghan farmers to raise poppies and thereby indirectly fund the jihadists.
We also have drug dealers here corrupting the police and judiciary with their bribe money. Gangs terrorize the streets in certain communities as they battle each other over the income from drug sales.
We are also spending billions of dollars a year to arm and equip the police and federal drug agents. Yet the drug problem grows ever larger. We're clearly wasting our money.
Some argue that the more police you have, the greater your security. But the inability of ever increasing numbers of police to eliminate the flow of drugs demonstrates that numbers alone are meaningless.
Why do we have a drug problem? Because they are people who want to use drugs and get high. This is not a good thing but it's a fact. Somewhere around 10% of any society will become addicted to some kind of drug: alcohol, opiates, pharmaceuticals, etc.
What should we do? The same thing we do with alcohol. Legalize all forms of drug use for people over 21. Let companies manufacture and sell drugs and then tax the hell out of their sale. With the tax revenues, we should create anti-drug education programs to warn non-users about the dangers of addiction and we should treat addicts who want to get off the stuff in rehab programs that offer effective medical treatment.
By legalizing drugs we would save billions. No need to fund the drug police. We would also sap the life blood out of the gangs and make our streets safer. We would need fewer police and end a lot of corruption--no one would have to pay off.
Some say, "But if you legalize, terrible things will happen." Can they be any worse than what we have now with teenagers shooting up innocent bystanders with assault rifles and the jails packed with people who like to smoke a joint every now and then but got caught holding a little more than the legal limit? I don't think so.
Will people die from drug overdoses and/or do terrible things? Yes, but no more than they do now. After all, millions of Americans are on drugs even as you're reading this. Legalizing it won't change how addicts act but it will decriminalize them which will save the rest of us a lot of trouble.
Another thing to keep in mind is we tolerate a lot damage from alcoholics. Some drink themselves to death. Others drive and get into horrible accidents and sometimes kill people. They also sometimes cause economic devastation and heartbreak for their families. We put up with that because we learned that outlawing booze creates even larger problems. I don't think addicts and drug users are any worse than drunks and should also be tolerated.
Isn't it time to use some common sense and end the War on Drugs?
Now we're waging the War on Drugs, supposedly to protect our children. Still, many children, as well as adults regularly use/abuse pot, hash, crack, coke, heroin, meth, ludes, lsd, and prescription pharmaceuticals. "Protection" is mere verbiage, an illusion. Those what want to use will find a way, legal or illegal, and there's no way to "protect" them.
If we look objectively at the War on Drugs, it's not working. We've created the drug cartels in Latin American and forced Mexico into a civil war of sorts which is killing innocent people and threatening the stability of the government. Our policies encourage Afghan farmers to raise poppies and thereby indirectly fund the jihadists.
We also have drug dealers here corrupting the police and judiciary with their bribe money. Gangs terrorize the streets in certain communities as they battle each other over the income from drug sales.
We are also spending billions of dollars a year to arm and equip the police and federal drug agents. Yet the drug problem grows ever larger. We're clearly wasting our money.
Some argue that the more police you have, the greater your security. But the inability of ever increasing numbers of police to eliminate the flow of drugs demonstrates that numbers alone are meaningless.
Why do we have a drug problem? Because they are people who want to use drugs and get high. This is not a good thing but it's a fact. Somewhere around 10% of any society will become addicted to some kind of drug: alcohol, opiates, pharmaceuticals, etc.
What should we do? The same thing we do with alcohol. Legalize all forms of drug use for people over 21. Let companies manufacture and sell drugs and then tax the hell out of their sale. With the tax revenues, we should create anti-drug education programs to warn non-users about the dangers of addiction and we should treat addicts who want to get off the stuff in rehab programs that offer effective medical treatment.
By legalizing drugs we would save billions. No need to fund the drug police. We would also sap the life blood out of the gangs and make our streets safer. We would need fewer police and end a lot of corruption--no one would have to pay off.
Some say, "But if you legalize, terrible things will happen." Can they be any worse than what we have now with teenagers shooting up innocent bystanders with assault rifles and the jails packed with people who like to smoke a joint every now and then but got caught holding a little more than the legal limit? I don't think so.
Will people die from drug overdoses and/or do terrible things? Yes, but no more than they do now. After all, millions of Americans are on drugs even as you're reading this. Legalizing it won't change how addicts act but it will decriminalize them which will save the rest of us a lot of trouble.
Another thing to keep in mind is we tolerate a lot damage from alcoholics. Some drink themselves to death. Others drive and get into horrible accidents and sometimes kill people. They also sometimes cause economic devastation and heartbreak for their families. We put up with that because we learned that outlawing booze creates even larger problems. I don't think addicts and drug users are any worse than drunks and should also be tolerated.
Isn't it time to use some common sense and end the War on Drugs?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Health Care Debate
Lots of fervor, fury and fast-talk about American Health Care.
Seems to me these are the basic issues:
1. Millions of people don't have health insurance, preventing them from having reasonable health care.
2. The cost of health care increases much faster than the cost of other things.
3. Creating a huge governmental bureaucracy may solve some problems but will surely create others.
4. This is going to cost a lot of money.
The Democrats say this will improve health care for all of us. That's a dubious proposition. Canadians have national health care and it seems to work when you have a cold or need a colonoscopy but many Canadians come to the US for surgery rather than getting in year-long queues. That's not an attractive option.
Republicans claim it's all a socialist plot and an economic disaster which will ruin American Health Care. A bit over the top for the most part but they're right about the cost--huge--and the need to borrow to pay for this at a time when we deep in the hole.
Insurance companies are making tons of money. My personal experience is they love the premiums but only reluctantly pay the bills. I think the way they run their business needs to be redefined and they need to be controlled more tightly.
Am I in favor of Obama's plan? Not really. Government shouldn't be running health care, just protecting me from the excess of profit-mad insurers. But we should do something to cover the millions who have no coverage. That's just wrong. Can't we start there and then take steps to control costs?
It doesn't seem necessary to do everything at once. Step by step may be a better way to proceed, giving everyone a chance to calm down, stop shouting and take a reasoned look at what needs to be done.
Seems to me these are the basic issues:
1. Millions of people don't have health insurance, preventing them from having reasonable health care.
2. The cost of health care increases much faster than the cost of other things.
3. Creating a huge governmental bureaucracy may solve some problems but will surely create others.
4. This is going to cost a lot of money.
The Democrats say this will improve health care for all of us. That's a dubious proposition. Canadians have national health care and it seems to work when you have a cold or need a colonoscopy but many Canadians come to the US for surgery rather than getting in year-long queues. That's not an attractive option.
Republicans claim it's all a socialist plot and an economic disaster which will ruin American Health Care. A bit over the top for the most part but they're right about the cost--huge--and the need to borrow to pay for this at a time when we deep in the hole.
Insurance companies are making tons of money. My personal experience is they love the premiums but only reluctantly pay the bills. I think the way they run their business needs to be redefined and they need to be controlled more tightly.
Am I in favor of Obama's plan? Not really. Government shouldn't be running health care, just protecting me from the excess of profit-mad insurers. But we should do something to cover the millions who have no coverage. That's just wrong. Can't we start there and then take steps to control costs?
It doesn't seem necessary to do everything at once. Step by step may be a better way to proceed, giving everyone a chance to calm down, stop shouting and take a reasoned look at what needs to be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)