Recently, a self-proclaimed ‘anti-prohibitionist’ on our city council had an article in the paper about how we shouldn’t allow a wine on the sidewalks ordinance to pass, because of the litter we would see, the open alcoholism, the moral dilemma and the cost involved.
I cannot fathom what is not wrong about this idea. First of all prohibition anywhere hasn’t netted us anything. We tried it decades ago with alcohol, and even had the votes to constitutionally amend it into law. Finally, the problems exacerbated so greatly that we constitutionally amended our mistake. The war on drugs needs no introduction or comment on its utter failures.
While he is not a prohibitionist, he would rather prohibit it on Main street, as well as continue the prohibition on your own street and sidewalk that you pay for. The only options he can see are other taxpayer funded government jobs, like more parks, city parking lots, more statues around town for tourists to see… All expensive and may do nothing for tourism, we really have no idea.
Allowing alcohol on the other hand, costs taxpayers $0, reduces police time enforcing the prohibition and allows them to focus on problem drinkers that disturb the peace, etc. In effect it cannot be anything more than a net gain for the city. If the allowed drinking would cause such a problem, why hasn’t the city seen a crimewave every night at 2am when the bars close down? It seems relatively straight forward to me.
If you want to learn more about what I write about, or why I write about it, the best place to go (besides asking me directly) is the above link.
Social Security – $20.5T in unfunded obligations according to its own actuaries
Medicare – $38.6T in unfunded obligations according to its own Trustees
Unemployment – 2007 OECD Employment outlook even acknowledges that increasing benefits bring increased length of use of those benefits.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – two of the single biggest linchpins, if not culprits, in the housing bubble collapse for backing MANY underfunded and non-creditworthy homebuyers? Then, when people realize their cash is in danger, pull out of the market and it all collapses?
Corporate welfare – Who begs for welfare other than those who A. Get it, or B. Make money (or take the ‘moral high-ground’) off of ensuring it is given? …moral high-ground gained from forcing people to do what you want them to do.
Farm subsidies – The biggest recipient of Farm subsidies doesn’t do a ‘lick’ of farmwork himself. He’s a corporate farm owner. He wouldn’t let John Stossel videotape his jet hangar. Also, the average farmer makes twice what the rest of us make.
A thought occurred to me while reading Thinking about inequality: Living by our desires rather than our needs by Trevor Burrus, over at Libertarianism.org. If you read the article, it’s a great read on the subject of income inequality, but not to fear, that wasn’t necessarily the basis for this article, so don’t get confused as to how “A” met up with “B”, so to speak.
I hear an awful lot about the ‘high cost’ of healthcare, and the great expense that Americans, compared to other nations, spend on this good. (Note my lack of using the term RIGHT.) This article should not be at all confusing the desire for good healthcare, and the desire for high prices, because they are not mutually tied, unless government is involved. If I’m in a hurry I can go to McDonalds or BK and get a very good burger or other sandwich for only $1. There are other examples but I will save those for you to ponder.
According to kaiseredu.org, Americans spent nearly $2.3T on healthcare (and its related overhead) in the year 2010. This is a great deal of money, to be sure. However, my question to those who decry this, (without tackling the overhead costs due to insurance paying for everything and education/licensure requirements limiting even basic doctoral access, among many other factors,) is this:
What else would you rather spend money on than the care of your LIFE? Is a flatscreen more important to you than potentially having enough money to cover your cancer surgeries? What about that broken leg you might get jumping off the steps to avoid the dog that just ran up them towards you? You’d rather get extra time at the Knicks games this season, and next?
It appears our priorities have come to a stark and disturbing conclusion – your life is worth only what someone else will pay for it.
On another note: healthcare expenses have risen dramatically from the 50s, nearly 2000%. The cost of government, however, has increased 3000%. Government’s ability to rein in anything in terms of cost, is so ridiculous as to be criminal.
The following is a conversation taken from a forum to which I belong: the names have been excluded, but even a novice googler can probably figure out from whence it came.
No.I believe what he’s suggesting is a proactive defense.Let’s use Pearl Harbor as an example again.
Our intel has cracked the Japanese code and sensing a possible attack has deployed submarines and scout aircraft. However, in this scenario, by a stoke of luck, a submarine manages to see the Japanese fleet on December 4th, 1941. He tails them for a day and has no doubt they are headed to Pearl Harbor. He breaks contact so that he can surface and send a coded message to Pearl Harbor warning of the attack.
The US commander dispatches several submarines in a “wolf pack” to intercept the Japanese. He also has all bombers loaded with 500 lb bombs and ready to launch as soon as the Japanese are within range. He contacts the US carriers and gives them a likely rendezvous location to attack the Japanese from.
On the morning of December 7th, at 4:30 AM, the B-18 bombers take off from Oahu on the heading the submarines have given for the Japanese fleet, so as to arrive at first light.
The bombers arrive overhead at 5:45 AM and drop their bombs, concentrating on the carriers, while the Japanese are still preparing to launch their first wave. At the same time, the submarines also concentrate on the carriers.
In this first attack, all 6 carriers receive sufficient damage to prevent launching aircraft.
The next wave is en route from Oahu and consists of dive bombers and torpedo attack planes. It arrives at 7 AM. In this attack, 2 carriers are sunk and 1 crippled so badly it is dead in the water. During this attack, the planes from the Enterprise arrive and finish off the rest of the carriers.
Since the crews of the Fleet were on their ships and ready for action and the boilers were already up to pressure, the fleet sails from Pearl Harbor upon word of the bomber attack on the Japanese and engages the Japanese by mid-afternoon
After this attack the few remaining ships and submarines of the Japanese fleet makes a run for Japan. However, the Lexington is steaming to intercept them after being recalled from Midway. In the ensuing attack, the remainder of the Japanese fleet is ravaged since they have no air cover and the Lexington makes several successful sorties against the them.
By the time Lexington breaks off it’s attack, all but a handful of Japanese subs are sunk.
Due to the preemptive attack by the US, Pearl Harbor is never actually attacked and the American casualties were numbered in the low hundreds, rather than the thousands.
The Imperial Japanese Navy is completely demoralized, the Japanese land forces are left without adequate supply, and the US forces, with the only carrier fleet in the Pacific, destroy any supply and troop ships in the southern Pacific before they can resupply or reinforce islands like Guadalcanal and Tarawa. Wake Island is quickly retaken.
The bomb is never dropped on Japan, but the US fleet has a total blockade of the Japanese Islands and are attacking with massive firebomb attacks that accomplish the same thing. Total Japanese surrender. However, the Pacific campaign is ended in early 1944 rather than August of 1945.
This is what can be accomplished with a preemptive strike against a known enemy. (who was literally about to pull the trigger, not who hadn’t even found his gun yet, much less left his house to get to yours.)
Some words from Sun Tzu.
Chapter VIII – 11. The art of war teaches us to not rely on the chance that the enemy will not come, but on our own preparations to receive him; not on the chance of an enemy not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.
GSH, your entire article is still premised under the fact that we were under a no-BS attack from another nation, not some supposed would-be could-be possibly having the remaining capability to refine nuclear material in weapons grade form at some time in the indescernible future and then perhaps sell or give to some other third party to make an untraceable attack on any given target.
Your Situation: We had a good defense, so we beat off the attack before we were harmed.
Our (national) situation now: We attack them first, without other real provocation, much less a fleet fifty miles off our coast, in order to stave off some unforeseen and vague possible future attack.
You have to see the logical differences between the two. PROACTIVE DEFENSE I understand, when DEFENSE is the key word. PROACTIVE in any other form is simply ATTACK with a different nomenclature.
I bolded some of the parts which highlight arguments made by myself (and many others here) as obvious proof that you seem to want the same thing we do, but somehow cannot fathom our desire to NOT invade everyone else on even “great” intelligence (like we did IRAQ.)