The detainment center at Guantánamo Bay is shameful. It is cruel, it is unfair, it is unsanctioned. And despite the calls from the international community and from within the U.S. to shut it down, it remains as a horrible blemish of the already-unpopular United States foreign policy.
First off, Cuba hates it. The naval base is situated in land taken from Cuba against its will in a "one-sided treaty," according to the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República de Cuba. To the natives, the site stands as a place of aggression and provocation, of violence and crime. Cubans have declared emphatically that "they will not accept any other negotiation concerning this territory illegally occupied unless the unconditional withdrawal of the foreign troops quartered there against Cuba's people will."
Members and groups within the U.S. government have also challenged the legality and humaneness of the prison. In June, according to William Glaberson of The New York Times, the Supreme Court "stripped away the legal premise for the remote prison camp that officials opened six years ago," allowing prisoners to challenge their detainment in federal courts. Granting detainees the right to habeas corpus means "that federal judges will now have the power to check the government’s claims that the 270 men still held there are dangerous terrorists." This highlights the fact that many of the prisoners are there without significant proof of guilt, perhaps being held captive arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the human rights violations absolutely necessitate the cessation of the center. A report from Amnesty International describes the instances of cruelty and torture; prisoners were taken "hooded, shackled and tied down" and have been subjected to high levels of stress and isolation. "Contrary to international standards, the cells have no access to natural light or air, and are lit by fluorescent lighting which is on 24 hours a day and controlled by guards," the report continues, and the government has ignored the "severe psychological impact on detainees" of the stifling, madness-inducing conditions. It's repulsive that now, in the twenty-first century, in the nation that calls itself most civilized, most democratic, that such centers still exist.
But despite all of this, Bush has still failed to shut down the center. According to Steven Lee Myers (also in The New York Times), our president has adopted the view that closing down the center "would involve too many legal and political risks to be acceptable, now or any time soon" and it could "remain open not only for the rest of Mr. Bush’s presidency but also well beyond." Our leaders, then, are continuing to run this center of torture because it would be inconvenient to close it. For a government supposedly built on the preservation of individual rights, it is insulting, even terrifying, to know that an institution like Guantánamo Bay still exists; hopefully, with the promise of change that surrounds the 2008 presidential election, we will see an end to this bastion of inhumanity.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell, McCain, and Obama
Colin Powell’s endorsing of Obama is significant in that he is the highest ranking Republican to support Obama in this presidential election. Powell is high-profile with respect to not only the White House but also the military. A popular Secretary of State in the eyes of the people, Powell clashed often with other members of Bush’s cabinet during his first term, more so than ordinary citizens knew until his public falling out with the rest of the cabinet near the beginning of Bush’s second term. The falling out was made all the more ironic because Powell is seen to differ from the neoconservatives who populated Bush’s cabinet (Rumsfeld and Cheney to name a few prominent examples), yet one of the sharpest moments in Powell’s legacy is his speech before the UN attesting to the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in an effort to convince the international community of the need for military action against Saddam Hussein. This memory is a tarnishing mark upon the record of such a distinguished individual, and the irony lies in the strong possibility that Powell was pushed to make his impassioned case for war based on the opinions of more hard-lined neoconservatives in the cabinet, who held wider influence and were more adept than Powell at political manipulation and “playing the game.”
Indeed, Powell’s falling out with the neoconservatives highlights an important difference between the neoconservatives and moderate conservatives. Powell is noted for some “liberal” positions (compared to the positions that hard-liner conservatives take), for example regarding abortion and gun control. He also disagrees with the way the Iraq War was waged and initially attempted to persuade the President not to invade Iraq. Based on these deviations from what can be seen as “standard” positions of conservatives, Powell might even fit the description of a RINO, a disparaging term used by Republicans to deride fellow liberal-leaning members of the GOP as “Republican in Name Only.”
It seems, as a result, that Powell and McCain have something in common, as McCain was often labeled as not a true Republican before receiving the 2008 nomination; he has always been seen as a maverick who has opposed party lines on issues, which is why he received so much support in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary. Although one may accuse McCain of bowing to pressure based on his newfound support for off-shore drilling and support for the Bush tax cuts, one should not mistake the positions he take that happen to be in accord with Bush’s as positions he takes because they are in accord with Bush’s. Sure, McCain might be trying to appeal to core party supporters in terms of extending the tax cuts, but he was also trying to appeal to core party supporters (albeit really core party supporters) when he was adamantly in support of the surge in Iraq, but no one can deny that supporting the surge was a mark of a maverick. Being a maverick does not necessarily always mean opposing one’s party; it can also mean opposing the overall popular sentiment of the time—in this case, the overall popular sentiment of the American people against the surge. Regardless, McCain has still done more in terms of bucking party lines; refer to his unpopularity and the scathing attacks directed at him for his sponsorship of campaign finance reform, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold Act (2002). McCain, in fact, has been just as much of a political maverick as Powell that, in the past, McCain has been labeled a RINO by a variety of right-leaning blogs and discussion boards (see this and this, for example).
Now examine the reasons for Powell’s support for Obama. Powell’s comments include, among others, that:
-Obama “reach[es] out in a ‘more diverse and inclusive way across our society’ and offer[s] a ‘calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach’ to the nation’s problems.” (New York Times)
-McCain’s ads have become too negative and “beyond just good political fighting back and forth” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
-“As gifted as he is, [McCain] is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda, with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he’d be quite good at it.” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
The third comment can reflect rather negatively on Powell himself by painting him as a hypocrite. Given that mavericks fight for the ideals in which they believe, regardless of whoever else holds those ideals, Powell is accusing McCain of the ability to execute the ideals in which McCain believes, ideals (for example, fighting the war in Iraq) which happen to coincide with that of the Republican agenda. It is clear that Powell himself disagrees with this agenda. But why then, did he help execute the Republican agenda when he was Secretary of State under Bush, given that he, unlike McCain, did not actually believe in those ideals of going to war in Iraq? First, Powell explicitly praises McCain’s competency by saying McCain would “be quite good” at what he wants to do. Then, Powell implicitly praises McCain by admitting that regardless of whether McCain’s goals are right or wrong, at least McCain believes he is doing the right thing – that’s why McCain is a maverick. Finally, Powell paints himself as a hypocrite because both did what Powell is accusing McCain of doing: furthering the Republican agenda, albeit at different times and different ways. Except McCain seems to be the better man, because at least he is doing what he believes to be the right action, whereas Powell helped Bush make the case for war even though Powell believed war was the wrong action. Powell’s comment, therefore, does not bolster his message as much as it could; it might not be the best thing to say when endorsing another candidate for the presidency.
But even if we ignore the implication of Powell’s comment, the overall message presented by Powell, at least what is implied in the obviously summarized perspective of the New York Times article, is twisted in a whole different way by Obama’s campaign. Looking at the first and second comments referenced before the above paragraph, Powell basically praises Obama’s freshness of character and his appeal to very different groups and highlights specific qualities (intellectual, patient, etc), in essence arguing that Obama will bring a new face to Washington. McCain, on the other hand, is resorting to an increasingly negative campaign, implying that McCain will bring the same old politics back to Washington. These claims are legitimate, and notice that they focus more on the character of the candidates and the candidates as symbols, what can be seen as big-picture qualities as opposed to small-picture policy details. Refer again to Powell’s third comment, which accuses McCain of his execution of the “orthodoxy Republican agenda” (New York Times). Given Powell’s phrasing and tone, and given knowledge about his stance on issues, it is clear that Powell expresses personal discontent with the details of this Republican orthodoxy. Furthermore, given Powell’s disapproval with certain neoconservative figures affiliated with McCain’s foreign policy advising staff, it was obvious “to people who know him well and within Washington’s foreign policy establishment” that Powell would eventually endorse Obama (New York Times). Based on his past public clash with neoconservatives, Powell certainly would not endorse a presidential candidate who was becoming more affiliated with those neoconservatives. In essence, Powell’s endorsement of McCain can be seen as a message of disapproval to the direction that McCain has chosen in the path of foreign policy, not as a message of approval about Obama’s ability to direct foreign policy. Added to the idea that the first two comments made by Powell praise Obama’s character and the freshness and symbolism of his prospective presidency to bring, one can see that Powell is not giving an active adulation regarding Obama’s foreign policy ability, at least not within the scope of the New York Times article.
But the “Obama campaign welcomed [Powell’s endorsement] as a powerful reassurance to voters about Mr. Obama’s national security credentials” (New York Times). If anything, Powell is mostly reassuring voters of the path Obama plans to take (ie, the opposite of the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda) rather than how well Obama is going to take Americans along the path, which is reflected in the idea of “credentials.” Of course, Powell would not claim that his endorsed candidate is not ready, but based on Powell’s comments described in the New York Times article and his past experiences with political disagreement within the Bush administration, it is most likely that Powell is endorsing Obama more as a sign of discontent that the McCain camp is being taken over by neoconservatives than a vote of confidence in Obama’s foreign policy experience, which the Obama campaign is suggesting and promoting.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5423.html
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Colin_Powell.htm
http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/Powell-Lehrer_transcript.pdf
Indeed, Powell’s falling out with the neoconservatives highlights an important difference between the neoconservatives and moderate conservatives. Powell is noted for some “liberal” positions (compared to the positions that hard-liner conservatives take), for example regarding abortion and gun control. He also disagrees with the way the Iraq War was waged and initially attempted to persuade the President not to invade Iraq. Based on these deviations from what can be seen as “standard” positions of conservatives, Powell might even fit the description of a RINO, a disparaging term used by Republicans to deride fellow liberal-leaning members of the GOP as “Republican in Name Only.”
It seems, as a result, that Powell and McCain have something in common, as McCain was often labeled as not a true Republican before receiving the 2008 nomination; he has always been seen as a maverick who has opposed party lines on issues, which is why he received so much support in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary. Although one may accuse McCain of bowing to pressure based on his newfound support for off-shore drilling and support for the Bush tax cuts, one should not mistake the positions he take that happen to be in accord with Bush’s as positions he takes because they are in accord with Bush’s. Sure, McCain might be trying to appeal to core party supporters in terms of extending the tax cuts, but he was also trying to appeal to core party supporters (albeit really core party supporters) when he was adamantly in support of the surge in Iraq, but no one can deny that supporting the surge was a mark of a maverick. Being a maverick does not necessarily always mean opposing one’s party; it can also mean opposing the overall popular sentiment of the time—in this case, the overall popular sentiment of the American people against the surge. Regardless, McCain has still done more in terms of bucking party lines; refer to his unpopularity and the scathing attacks directed at him for his sponsorship of campaign finance reform, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold Act (2002). McCain, in fact, has been just as much of a political maverick as Powell that, in the past, McCain has been labeled a RINO by a variety of right-leaning blogs and discussion boards (see this and this, for example).
Now examine the reasons for Powell’s support for Obama. Powell’s comments include, among others, that:
-Obama “reach[es] out in a ‘more diverse and inclusive way across our society’ and offer[s] a ‘calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach’ to the nation’s problems.” (New York Times)
-McCain’s ads have become too negative and “beyond just good political fighting back and forth” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
-“As gifted as he is, [McCain] is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda, with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he’d be quite good at it.” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
The third comment can reflect rather negatively on Powell himself by painting him as a hypocrite. Given that mavericks fight for the ideals in which they believe, regardless of whoever else holds those ideals, Powell is accusing McCain of the ability to execute the ideals in which McCain believes, ideals (for example, fighting the war in Iraq) which happen to coincide with that of the Republican agenda. It is clear that Powell himself disagrees with this agenda. But why then, did he help execute the Republican agenda when he was Secretary of State under Bush, given that he, unlike McCain, did not actually believe in those ideals of going to war in Iraq? First, Powell explicitly praises McCain’s competency by saying McCain would “be quite good” at what he wants to do. Then, Powell implicitly praises McCain by admitting that regardless of whether McCain’s goals are right or wrong, at least McCain believes he is doing the right thing – that’s why McCain is a maverick. Finally, Powell paints himself as a hypocrite because both did what Powell is accusing McCain of doing: furthering the Republican agenda, albeit at different times and different ways. Except McCain seems to be the better man, because at least he is doing what he believes to be the right action, whereas Powell helped Bush make the case for war even though Powell believed war was the wrong action. Powell’s comment, therefore, does not bolster his message as much as it could; it might not be the best thing to say when endorsing another candidate for the presidency.
But even if we ignore the implication of Powell’s comment, the overall message presented by Powell, at least what is implied in the obviously summarized perspective of the New York Times article, is twisted in a whole different way by Obama’s campaign. Looking at the first and second comments referenced before the above paragraph, Powell basically praises Obama’s freshness of character and his appeal to very different groups and highlights specific qualities (intellectual, patient, etc), in essence arguing that Obama will bring a new face to Washington. McCain, on the other hand, is resorting to an increasingly negative campaign, implying that McCain will bring the same old politics back to Washington. These claims are legitimate, and notice that they focus more on the character of the candidates and the candidates as symbols, what can be seen as big-picture qualities as opposed to small-picture policy details. Refer again to Powell’s third comment, which accuses McCain of his execution of the “orthodoxy Republican agenda” (New York Times). Given Powell’s phrasing and tone, and given knowledge about his stance on issues, it is clear that Powell expresses personal discontent with the details of this Republican orthodoxy. Furthermore, given Powell’s disapproval with certain neoconservative figures affiliated with McCain’s foreign policy advising staff, it was obvious “to people who know him well and within Washington’s foreign policy establishment” that Powell would eventually endorse Obama (New York Times). Based on his past public clash with neoconservatives, Powell certainly would not endorse a presidential candidate who was becoming more affiliated with those neoconservatives. In essence, Powell’s endorsement of McCain can be seen as a message of disapproval to the direction that McCain has chosen in the path of foreign policy, not as a message of approval about Obama’s ability to direct foreign policy. Added to the idea that the first two comments made by Powell praise Obama’s character and the freshness and symbolism of his prospective presidency to bring, one can see that Powell is not giving an active adulation regarding Obama’s foreign policy ability, at least not within the scope of the New York Times article.
But the “Obama campaign welcomed [Powell’s endorsement] as a powerful reassurance to voters about Mr. Obama’s national security credentials” (New York Times). If anything, Powell is mostly reassuring voters of the path Obama plans to take (ie, the opposite of the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda) rather than how well Obama is going to take Americans along the path, which is reflected in the idea of “credentials.” Of course, Powell would not claim that his endorsed candidate is not ready, but based on Powell’s comments described in the New York Times article and his past experiences with political disagreement within the Bush administration, it is most likely that Powell is endorsing Obama more as a sign of discontent that the McCain camp is being taken over by neoconservatives than a vote of confidence in Obama’s foreign policy experience, which the Obama campaign is suggesting and promoting.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5423.html
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Colin_Powell.htm
http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/Powell-Lehrer_transcript.pdf
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Education? I Can Vouch for That
The government spends an inordinate amount of money on education, ranging from a low of $5,257 a year per student in Utah to a high of $14,119 per student per year in New York. Spending has increased, adjusted for inflation, over 100% since 1971. Still, American children are being left behind in the pursuit of decent education. A recent international test found American students score twelfth in the world in 4th grade, but fall to 28th by 8th grade. Schools vouchers, in theory and in practice, have been shown to be an effective and cheap way of educating the public by means of the private market. Vouchers, rather than interminable calls for further funding, should be the foundation of American educational policy in the 21st century.
Though the issue of vouchers is one incredibly important to education, a recent study found that up to 40% of American adults admit to not understanding vouchers completely, if at all. School vouchers, in essence, are a means by which public money would be used to fund the education of students in the school of their choice—public, parochial, or private. For example, if a lower income student wished to attend a private school—and was accepted—public funds would be allocated for this student’s education. School vouchers offer a means by which all schools are in direct competition with one another; schools that do not attract enough students eventually close while schools that do attract students thrive, and expand.
It has been said that the private market, with exception, offers the most efficient engine for delivering the most goods to the most people. Education is no different. The exceptions offered above present clear instances in which the government should step in to regulate the invisible hand: when a certain good is non-excludable and/or non-rival. Non-excludable goods are such that one cannot be excluded from enjoying them, like the benefits of national military protection. Non-rival goods are such that one person utilizing the good does not detract from another’s ability to do so, like certain kinds of cable television. Education, however is both excludable and rival. Clearly, one can be excluded from a formal education, and formal education is rival insofar as there are a limited number of seats in a classroom. Standard economic theory dictates, then, that the private market should be able to provide education more efficiently.
Opponents of school vouchers systems claim that the system would create a vicious cycle, in which the smarter students end up attending the best schools and the less talented students are relegated to worse schools. This would be true at the onset of a voucher system (though maybe not much different than the system now). However, parents would not indefinitely send their children to bad schools. New schools would spring up—and/or better schools would expand—to address the increased demand for quality education (now that students have the funds to attend these schools). This is the case with college education; private, public, and parochial schools have been competition with one another and have constantly improved to attract students. Eventually, with competition, the level of education would increase for all.
Other opponents of a voucher system argue against it from a First Amendment standpoint, or specifically the clause that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This argument is based on the fact that, under a voucher system, parochial schools, like Catholic schools, would most likely receive public money if students decided to attend these schools. First, this argument is spurious, as the government would not be actively supporting religious institutions, but only directly, and through individual choice. Secondly, public financing would not only go to a particular religious sect, or even religion. Students would elect to attend—yes Catholic schools—but also Jewish schools, Muslim schools, and many more would attend secular or non-denominational schools. The government, through indirect financing, would not be actively supporting “the establishment of religion.” This interpretation was legally verified with the Supreme Court ruling of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002.
Empirically, school vouchers have been shown to work not only in the United States, but around the world. Milwaukee has led the nation in the implementation of school vouchers in a program that has existed for more than 15 years. Sweden, a country hardly known for its political conservatism and stalwart adherence to the free market, has had a partial, though significant, voucher system since 1992. Though there have been minor problems, school vouchers, in a short time, have been shown to work.
School vouchers are,an intelligent way to improve American education. With education as a private good—one funded by the government to ensure universality—competition among schools would raise the tide, lifting all boats.
Sources:
http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/education/publicview/redflags
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=639
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010218.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
Though the issue of vouchers is one incredibly important to education, a recent study found that up to 40% of American adults admit to not understanding vouchers completely, if at all. School vouchers, in essence, are a means by which public money would be used to fund the education of students in the school of their choice—public, parochial, or private. For example, if a lower income student wished to attend a private school—and was accepted—public funds would be allocated for this student’s education. School vouchers offer a means by which all schools are in direct competition with one another; schools that do not attract enough students eventually close while schools that do attract students thrive, and expand.
It has been said that the private market, with exception, offers the most efficient engine for delivering the most goods to the most people. Education is no different. The exceptions offered above present clear instances in which the government should step in to regulate the invisible hand: when a certain good is non-excludable and/or non-rival. Non-excludable goods are such that one cannot be excluded from enjoying them, like the benefits of national military protection. Non-rival goods are such that one person utilizing the good does not detract from another’s ability to do so, like certain kinds of cable television. Education, however is both excludable and rival. Clearly, one can be excluded from a formal education, and formal education is rival insofar as there are a limited number of seats in a classroom. Standard economic theory dictates, then, that the private market should be able to provide education more efficiently.
Opponents of school vouchers systems claim that the system would create a vicious cycle, in which the smarter students end up attending the best schools and the less talented students are relegated to worse schools. This would be true at the onset of a voucher system (though maybe not much different than the system now). However, parents would not indefinitely send their children to bad schools. New schools would spring up—and/or better schools would expand—to address the increased demand for quality education (now that students have the funds to attend these schools). This is the case with college education; private, public, and parochial schools have been competition with one another and have constantly improved to attract students. Eventually, with competition, the level of education would increase for all.
Other opponents of a voucher system argue against it from a First Amendment standpoint, or specifically the clause that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This argument is based on the fact that, under a voucher system, parochial schools, like Catholic schools, would most likely receive public money if students decided to attend these schools. First, this argument is spurious, as the government would not be actively supporting religious institutions, but only directly, and through individual choice. Secondly, public financing would not only go to a particular religious sect, or even religion. Students would elect to attend—yes Catholic schools—but also Jewish schools, Muslim schools, and many more would attend secular or non-denominational schools. The government, through indirect financing, would not be actively supporting “the establishment of religion.” This interpretation was legally verified with the Supreme Court ruling of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002.
Empirically, school vouchers have been shown to work not only in the United States, but around the world. Milwaukee has led the nation in the implementation of school vouchers in a program that has existed for more than 15 years. Sweden, a country hardly known for its political conservatism and stalwart adherence to the free market, has had a partial, though significant, voucher system since 1992. Though there have been minor problems, school vouchers, in a short time, have been shown to work.
School vouchers are,an intelligent way to improve American education. With education as a private good—one funded by the government to ensure universality—competition among schools would raise the tide, lifting all boats.
Sources:
http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/education/publicview/redflags
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=639
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010218.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
Monday, October 13, 2008
Republicans Bash Obama’s Abortion Views
Sarah Palin spent ten minutes of a short 30-minute speech she delivered in Pennsylvania last Saturday (October 11) “painting Sen. Barack Obama as a radical on abortion rights.” Obama and Palin agree that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and Palin has voted against abortion under all circumstances, including rape and incest—except when the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. In opposition, Obama disagrees with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and voted against an act to ban partial birth abortions.
In the speech, Palin emphasized a remark about sex education made by Obama in March. Obama told a voter that if teenagers are not educated about sex and STDs, they might unknowingly make mistakes and end up “punished with a baby” or “punished with an STD”—a valid argument. She quoted him out of context:
"So I listened when our opponent defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions and he said he said that a woman shouldn't have to be 'punished with a baby’. Ladies and gentlemen, he said that right here in Johnstown. 'Punished with a baby.' It's about time we called him on it."
Why would suddenly Palin focus on such a controversial topic to gain support? Up until now, she has mostly avoided the topic in her campaign. Palin’s very conservative views on abortion alienate many voters, especially moderates and the women voters her nomination was expected to draw to McCain’s side. Could it be that Palin is slipping up again, or is this some sort of tactic to win over voters? Hard to tell, but it certainly is drawing more attention to both campaigns as we approach the November election.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/campaign.wrap/index.html
In the speech, Palin emphasized a remark about sex education made by Obama in March. Obama told a voter that if teenagers are not educated about sex and STDs, they might unknowingly make mistakes and end up “punished with a baby” or “punished with an STD”—a valid argument. She quoted him out of context:
"So I listened when our opponent defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions and he said he said that a woman shouldn't have to be 'punished with a baby’. Ladies and gentlemen, he said that right here in Johnstown. 'Punished with a baby.' It's about time we called him on it."
Why would suddenly Palin focus on such a controversial topic to gain support? Up until now, she has mostly avoided the topic in her campaign. Palin’s very conservative views on abortion alienate many voters, especially moderates and the women voters her nomination was expected to draw to McCain’s side. Could it be that Palin is slipping up again, or is this some sort of tactic to win over voters? Hard to tell, but it certainly is drawing more attention to both campaigns as we approach the November election.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/campaign.wrap/index.html
“Drill, Baby, Drill”
As energy demands increase and gas prices stay above $3 a gallon at the pump, Americans are pressuring the federal government to take action in the wake of the escalating energy crisis. Although the price of oil has seen a sizeable drop from its near $150 high to $75 per barrel due to recent economic troubles, (1) consumer confidence is at a record low (2) and the average citizen is still feeling the pinch in their pocketbook.
Senator Obama and Senator McCain outline very similar plans to address America’s growing energy demands in the name of the country’s economic and national security. Commendably, both candidates understand the necessity in pursuing and promoting research for alternative, renewable fuels in ultimately achieving long-term energy independence. However, commercialization of such technology does not come quickly and the markets are hungry now for more oil. As ideal as it would be to have the United States petroleum-independent within twenty years, Americans demand an immediate solution.
In response to these growing needs, both candidates have scrambled for a short-term resolution. And, in lieu of a viable answer, they’ve offered us offshore drilling.
While the plan seems good on paper- opening up a domestic supply of oil, creating more job openings for skilled labor, keeping more petrol dollars in the country, support from 57% of Americans (3)- the proposal costs us one thing we don’t have- time. Analysts say that the newly procured oil would take a decade to reach the consumer (4) and would not impact prices until 2030. (5) Definitely far from what one would call a short-term solution. Further, the Department of Energy estimates that by that time, the price impact to consumers would be relatively insignificant. (6) Not to mention the potential environmental impact on our coastlines and marine life.
So why would the candidates support a policy that would have no positive impact on the average American, but could result in 10,000 barrels spilling into the Gulf of Mexico every four years? (7) Senator Obama says that he would only agree to offshore drilling as part of a greater bipartisan negotiation for energy reform, stating that drilling alone is not the answer to our short or long-term needs. (8) Senator McCain, however, sets domestic drilling as its own initiative, (9) satisfying the American people with a cheap façade of swift, timely governmental action.
Simply to secure the votes of the American people, both candidates are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of the coastal environment for a cheap, political gimmick by supporting offshore drilling. Perhaps it is deceitful. Perhaps neither candidate is intent to follow through with little more than their political ambitions. Regardless, both candidates will continue be pressured by 57% of American voters, “drill, baby, drill.”
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107827/Gallup-Daily-Consumer-Confidence.aspx
3, 4. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92570077
6., 7. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm
8. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/
9. http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Senator Obama and Senator McCain outline very similar plans to address America’s growing energy demands in the name of the country’s economic and national security. Commendably, both candidates understand the necessity in pursuing and promoting research for alternative, renewable fuels in ultimately achieving long-term energy independence. However, commercialization of such technology does not come quickly and the markets are hungry now for more oil. As ideal as it would be to have the United States petroleum-independent within twenty years, Americans demand an immediate solution.
In response to these growing needs, both candidates have scrambled for a short-term resolution. And, in lieu of a viable answer, they’ve offered us offshore drilling.
While the plan seems good on paper- opening up a domestic supply of oil, creating more job openings for skilled labor, keeping more petrol dollars in the country, support from 57% of Americans (3)- the proposal costs us one thing we don’t have- time. Analysts say that the newly procured oil would take a decade to reach the consumer (4) and would not impact prices until 2030. (5) Definitely far from what one would call a short-term solution. Further, the Department of Energy estimates that by that time, the price impact to consumers would be relatively insignificant. (6) Not to mention the potential environmental impact on our coastlines and marine life.
So why would the candidates support a policy that would have no positive impact on the average American, but could result in 10,000 barrels spilling into the Gulf of Mexico every four years? (7) Senator Obama says that he would only agree to offshore drilling as part of a greater bipartisan negotiation for energy reform, stating that drilling alone is not the answer to our short or long-term needs. (8) Senator McCain, however, sets domestic drilling as its own initiative, (9) satisfying the American people with a cheap façade of swift, timely governmental action.
Simply to secure the votes of the American people, both candidates are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of the coastal environment for a cheap, political gimmick by supporting offshore drilling. Perhaps it is deceitful. Perhaps neither candidate is intent to follow through with little more than their political ambitions. Regardless, both candidates will continue be pressured by 57% of American voters, “drill, baby, drill.”
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107827/Gallup-Daily-Consumer-Confidence.aspx
3, 4. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92570077
6., 7. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm
8. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/
9. http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Politics of an Economic Nobel
Princeton’s own Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science this morning, a fact that should make us all proud, and which made my microeconomics lecture this morning considerably more fun. Professor Krugman received the prize for his “work on international trade and economic geography”(1). In particular, his theories of “intra-industry trade” and “new economic geography” deserved merit. This first theory explains why countries import and export the same type of goods, an assertion Krugman made in the 1970s, when the standard model of international trade was based solely on comparative advantage. The latter idea deals with how economic incentives literally shape our landscapes, describing why core urban areas inevitably spring up, the implications of such a heterogeneous landscape, and what this means for trade at a small (intra-country) level.
While there is no doubt that Krugman is a brilliant economist, and deserving of recognition, there have been some negative whispers in the press. Krugman, a Democrat and liberal, has gained popular appeal as a Op-Ed columnst for the New York Times, a forum in which he has strongly and consistently opposed the Bush administration. Considering the current (Bush induced?) global market crisis, perhaps the Nobel Committee also made their decision with a some bias, wanting to thumb their noses at someone? Indeed, none of the major “Nobel betting pools” listed Krugman as a favorite for the honor.(2)
I’d like to think that the Nobel Committee does not avidly read the Times, or stoop to political maneuvering, and that Professor Krugman’s recognition is wholly justified. But I think the topic should be open for debate.
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14econ.html?hp
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/13/nobel.economics.prize.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest
While there is no doubt that Krugman is a brilliant economist, and deserving of recognition, there have been some negative whispers in the press. Krugman, a Democrat and liberal, has gained popular appeal as a Op-Ed columnst for the New York Times, a forum in which he has strongly and consistently opposed the Bush administration. Considering the current (Bush induced?) global market crisis, perhaps the Nobel Committee also made their decision with a some bias, wanting to thumb their noses at someone? Indeed, none of the major “Nobel betting pools” listed Krugman as a favorite for the honor.(2)
I’d like to think that the Nobel Committee does not avidly read the Times, or stoop to political maneuvering, and that Professor Krugman’s recognition is wholly justified. But I think the topic should be open for debate.
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14econ.html?hp
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/13/nobel.economics.prize.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Majors
An article in today’s Prince describes a University study on the relationship between a student’s social class and his major. The Committee on Background and Opportunity released statistics that 30% of lower-class students believed that “expected financial prospects” was a “significant factor” in choosing a major, compared to 12% of self-identifying upper-class students. “Finding a job” was a significant factor for almost a third of low-class students but only 22% of upper-class students. The implication was that the University–run Major Choices initiative started in 2004 has not succeeded in convincing students that they can find a fulfilling job regardless of their major. Maybe the issue does not begin with lower-class versus upper-class students. Maybe the issue has deeper roots to begin with.
While it is true that exceptional students can find jobs in any industry they wish, exceptional students are just that: the exception. The fact is that some majors lead to specific jobs. The reason that “toolshed” was defined by the Prince as a synonym for the Woodrow Wilson School in the “common terms” list that all freshmen received before school is that so many Woody Woo graduates have an easy time going into i-banking and consulting that the School has built a pre-professional reputation. Irrespective of whether this reputation is deserved, the fact that this reputation exists was also a major reason behind the Robertson lawsuit, which accused the Woodrow Wilson School for graduating too many seniors into lucrative private industry jobs instead of public service. Similarly, ORFE is also seen as another pre-professional major because of the percentage of students who go to Wall Street (definitely not as much starting from this year, haha). Reputations are not founded on air, and that these reputations exist and have perpetuated until today serve as a reminder that yes, if you are looking for a certain job after graduation, you have a better chance at obtaining those jobs through certain departments.
I remember students telling me during Prefrosh weekend that employers want to hire students who learn how to think, and that any Princeton education teaches one to think. This idea, although true in circumstances, is not categorically true. In fact, very few companies besides from consulting firms advertised as welcoming “all majors” on the website of the Princeton job fair that took place last Friday. It is not as if companies seek only science and engineering majors; humanities majors are also explicitly sought after by companies that came to the job fair. The point is that the explicit advertising of specific majors by companies, regardless of what those majors are, suggests that companies care about one’s major. Otherwise companies would not bother listing the majors for which they are looking.
Furthermore, this issue would be less contentious at other schools that do not have Princeton’s reputation. The message of Major Choices—that students should pick majors based on interest—is too broad; Major Choices should emphasize that Princeton students are lucky to consider this choice. The method by which students during Prefrosh tried to convince me to attend Princeton is important. I paraphrased their arguments, but what they kept emphasizing was the fact that Princeton classes teach one how to think, that all Princeton majors achieve this goal, and that employers would understand the nuances of a Princeton education. They were predicating their arguments upon the Princeton name, just as other famous schools probably do the same with their name. Insofar as some companies and industries do recruit on campus, the benefit of an Ivy-League name becomes important. Although students at other schools are just as bright and are just as flexible going into the real world regardless of what their majors were, those students are at a disadvantage because they do not have an easy exposure to a variety of companies that recruit on campus. These companies do not give those exploring students the benefit of the doubt of a “Princeton” education, even though they received just as good of an education. The result is that these students would end up choosing majors to facilitate their job search. So Major Choice’s message is deceptive in that it implies that all students can choose their majors based on academic passion and graduate with a job at Goldman Sachs, whereas in reality not all students are as lucky as we are.
But let us focus on the students who do choose to major in their academic passion and graduate with a high-paying job on Wall Street. The question is, even if this can be done, should it be done? It seems to me that someone who has an academic passion in a particular subject should not give it up after graduation simply to make as much money as possible. From the condescending silences that surround me whenever I tell someone that I am a prospective ORFE major, I get the feeling that they believe I am taking the low road and, therefore, that they are taking the high road. But if those students patronize me for caring too much about a job, then they would be hypocrites if they graduated from the high road of Princeton only to take a job for practical benefit. If those students were really the better people, then they should not lose dream of their academic passion—the same academic passion that they so thoroughly defended during their time at Princeton—after graduation and do exactly what they criticize me for doing. Maybe we have more in common after all.
I realize this was more a haphazard exploring of thoughts than an actual blog post. I also realize that my points were assertions and not statistics, so feel free to disagree with every point that I have made.
Source: Benner, Kate and Erbe, Anastasia. “Study Finds Social Class, Majors Link.” Daily Princetonian, Page 1. October 7, 2008.
While it is true that exceptional students can find jobs in any industry they wish, exceptional students are just that: the exception. The fact is that some majors lead to specific jobs. The reason that “toolshed” was defined by the Prince as a synonym for the Woodrow Wilson School in the “common terms” list that all freshmen received before school is that so many Woody Woo graduates have an easy time going into i-banking and consulting that the School has built a pre-professional reputation. Irrespective of whether this reputation is deserved, the fact that this reputation exists was also a major reason behind the Robertson lawsuit, which accused the Woodrow Wilson School for graduating too many seniors into lucrative private industry jobs instead of public service. Similarly, ORFE is also seen as another pre-professional major because of the percentage of students who go to Wall Street (definitely not as much starting from this year, haha). Reputations are not founded on air, and that these reputations exist and have perpetuated until today serve as a reminder that yes, if you are looking for a certain job after graduation, you have a better chance at obtaining those jobs through certain departments.
I remember students telling me during Prefrosh weekend that employers want to hire students who learn how to think, and that any Princeton education teaches one to think. This idea, although true in circumstances, is not categorically true. In fact, very few companies besides from consulting firms advertised as welcoming “all majors” on the website of the Princeton job fair that took place last Friday. It is not as if companies seek only science and engineering majors; humanities majors are also explicitly sought after by companies that came to the job fair. The point is that the explicit advertising of specific majors by companies, regardless of what those majors are, suggests that companies care about one’s major. Otherwise companies would not bother listing the majors for which they are looking.
Furthermore, this issue would be less contentious at other schools that do not have Princeton’s reputation. The message of Major Choices—that students should pick majors based on interest—is too broad; Major Choices should emphasize that Princeton students are lucky to consider this choice. The method by which students during Prefrosh tried to convince me to attend Princeton is important. I paraphrased their arguments, but what they kept emphasizing was the fact that Princeton classes teach one how to think, that all Princeton majors achieve this goal, and that employers would understand the nuances of a Princeton education. They were predicating their arguments upon the Princeton name, just as other famous schools probably do the same with their name. Insofar as some companies and industries do recruit on campus, the benefit of an Ivy-League name becomes important. Although students at other schools are just as bright and are just as flexible going into the real world regardless of what their majors were, those students are at a disadvantage because they do not have an easy exposure to a variety of companies that recruit on campus. These companies do not give those exploring students the benefit of the doubt of a “Princeton” education, even though they received just as good of an education. The result is that these students would end up choosing majors to facilitate their job search. So Major Choice’s message is deceptive in that it implies that all students can choose their majors based on academic passion and graduate with a job at Goldman Sachs, whereas in reality not all students are as lucky as we are.
But let us focus on the students who do choose to major in their academic passion and graduate with a high-paying job on Wall Street. The question is, even if this can be done, should it be done? It seems to me that someone who has an academic passion in a particular subject should not give it up after graduation simply to make as much money as possible. From the condescending silences that surround me whenever I tell someone that I am a prospective ORFE major, I get the feeling that they believe I am taking the low road and, therefore, that they are taking the high road. But if those students patronize me for caring too much about a job, then they would be hypocrites if they graduated from the high road of Princeton only to take a job for practical benefit. If those students were really the better people, then they should not lose dream of their academic passion—the same academic passion that they so thoroughly defended during their time at Princeton—after graduation and do exactly what they criticize me for doing. Maybe we have more in common after all.
I realize this was more a haphazard exploring of thoughts than an actual blog post. I also realize that my points were assertions and not statistics, so feel free to disagree with every point that I have made.
Source: Benner, Kate and Erbe, Anastasia. “Study Finds Social Class, Majors Link.” Daily Princetonian, Page 1. October 7, 2008.
A Secular Society?
A designation between church and state: it is the main foundation of American society, and something that has set us apart from so many other nations in the past. But are we abiding by this distinction that we so proudly uphold? Recently the largest group of atheists and agnostics in the United States, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, sued various governmental leaders, including President Bush, for designating a National Day of Prayer. The group claims that President Bush’s call for a day of prayer violates the ban on governmental officials sanctioning religion.
This day of prayer, signed into law in 1952, calls for Americans of any and all religions to gather on the first Thursday in May to pray for their country. But what about the nonbelievers of America? Although no one is required to participate in prayer, and all actions are voluntary, the lawsuit is claiming that the day of prayer creates a “hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders.” On the contrary, one might argue that this is an extreme view of this National Day of Prayer. No such “hostile environment” is created; it may be felt hostile due to the self inflicted feelings of a nonbeliever, but to state that we should disband the National Day of Prayer because it might cause a small amount of the American population to feel like “political outsiders” is a stretch. For a day that is meant to bring peace and unity to America is now just another center of controversy. And we have to ask ourselves: are there not bigger fish to fry in the world today than arguing over the National Day of Prayer?
sources: http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=15522
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-06-prayer-day_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Palin adopts new campaign strategy: name-calling
Seeing as how criticizing Obama's lack of political experience is not a strategy Palin can employ, she has instead turned to stretching the truth about her rival's past. Obama lives in the same Chicago neighborhood as radical activist Bill Ayers, who in the 1960s led militant group Weather Underground in the bombings of several government buildings, and the two men have crossed professional paths several times. Palin, however, has tried to significantly exaggerate the extent of the relationship to make specious insinuations about Obama's character.
Sure, the two have worked together. According to The Los Angeles Times in April, both were part of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a group focused on combating the area's poverty. But as Laura Washington, chairwoman of the organization, said, it is "ridiculous to suggest there's anything inappropriate" about the two serving together on the board; last year, the organization gave $3.4 million to local arts, civic, and housing groups. It hardly seems that Obama's participation in the charitable, well-intentioned organization should frighten the American people.
While it is clear that Obama has tried to downplay his connections with Ayers, the two were definitely not tight. As Scott Shane writes in The New York Times on Friday, "...the two men do not appear to have been close," and Obama has never "expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" It is absurd to claim that Ayers has remotely influenced the presidential candidate's political beliefs.
A separate NYT article reports Palin as saying in Colorado, “Our opponent...is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” But let's be clear: Obama did not participate in the terrorist acts. His involvement with Ayers is unrelated to issues of terrorism or violence. The two are not close, and Obama has not adopted Ayers' beliefs. Palin's allusions to the senator's anti-patriotism are thus unjust and outright ludicrous.
Sure, the two have worked together. According to The Los Angeles Times in April, both were part of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a group focused on combating the area's poverty. But as Laura Washington, chairwoman of the organization, said, it is "ridiculous to suggest there's anything inappropriate" about the two serving together on the board; last year, the organization gave $3.4 million to local arts, civic, and housing groups. It hardly seems that Obama's participation in the charitable, well-intentioned organization should frighten the American people.
While it is clear that Obama has tried to downplay his connections with Ayers, the two were definitely not tight. As Scott Shane writes in The New York Times on Friday, "...the two men do not appear to have been close," and Obama has never "expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" It is absurd to claim that Ayers has remotely influenced the presidential candidate's political beliefs.
A separate NYT article reports Palin as saying in Colorado, “Our opponent...is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” But let's be clear: Obama did not participate in the terrorist acts. His involvement with Ayers is unrelated to issues of terrorism or violence. The two are not close, and Obama has not adopted Ayers' beliefs. Palin's allusions to the senator's anti-patriotism are thus unjust and outright ludicrous.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Death Penalty: An Economic Analysis
The death penalty is an extremely divisive issue, shown by the fact that there is no clear consensus on its moral validity even in the United States; 34 states permit the death penalty while 16 do not. However, putting aside the moral implications of the death penalty, there is substantial evidence to show that it is economically inefficient, and wrong.
One could argue that the death penalty, viewed through an economic lens, is justifiable because the death penalty acts as a strong deterrent. In the words of Gary Becker, an economist from the University of Chicago: "[f]or each murderer not given capital punishment, approximately three generally innocent victims would die. This argument means that the government would indirectly be 'taking' many lives if it did not use capital punishment. The lives so taken are usually much more worthwhile than that of the murderers who would be spared execution. For this reason, the State has an obligation to use capital punishment if such punishment significantly reduces the number of murders and saves lives of innocent victims."
Let us approach the issue in economic terms as Professor Becker does. Though I tend to doubt his statement about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, assuming it is accurate, I think his economic analysis fails to take into account a fundamental economic concept: opportunity cost. In Becker’s analysis, through the death penalty, society saves 3 innocent lives as 3 potential murders are deterred. However, the cost of executing a criminal is not $0. Indeed, recent research has shown that, due to the mandatory appeals process that can—and often does—take decades to complete, the incremental cost of executing a person compared to keeping that person in prison for life is, in New York and Florida, approximately $23 million (not to mention that the $23 million will grow in decades to come). I don't know how to put a precise value on a human life. Maybe no one does (though there have been impressive attempts by well-known Princeton economics professors). However, I would guess that the $23 million saved by not executing each prisoner could be spent on a number of extremely worthwhile projects such as funding preventative medicines and medical procedures or cleaning up toxic waste sites that could be shown to save far more than the 3 lives that Becker claims are saved by each execution. In economic terms, therefore, the death penalty costs our society lives many more lives than it saves.
There are other fundamental economic problems with the pro-death penalty position, most notably the probability that in a small but meaningful number of cases, the death penalty results in the execution by the State of innocent people. Amnesty International lays claim to the fact that there have been, since 1973, 125 people released from death row due to “evidence of their wrongful convictions”. However, the loss of the lives of these innocent people is real as compared to the theoretical deterrent savings of lives through executions.
The death penalty is a controversial and emotional issue. If one removes him or herself, however, from instinctual reaction, it is clear that, economically at least, the death penalty simply does not make sense.
Sources:
Ashenfelter, Orley. "Measuring the Value of a Statistical Life: Problems and Prospects," The Economic Journal, Vol. 116, March 2006.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=25995
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/12/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Claims_Innocent_Lives/page.do?id=1101086&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
One could argue that the death penalty, viewed through an economic lens, is justifiable because the death penalty acts as a strong deterrent. In the words of Gary Becker, an economist from the University of Chicago: "[f]or each murderer not given capital punishment, approximately three generally innocent victims would die. This argument means that the government would indirectly be 'taking' many lives if it did not use capital punishment. The lives so taken are usually much more worthwhile than that of the murderers who would be spared execution. For this reason, the State has an obligation to use capital punishment if such punishment significantly reduces the number of murders and saves lives of innocent victims."
Let us approach the issue in economic terms as Professor Becker does. Though I tend to doubt his statement about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, assuming it is accurate, I think his economic analysis fails to take into account a fundamental economic concept: opportunity cost. In Becker’s analysis, through the death penalty, society saves 3 innocent lives as 3 potential murders are deterred. However, the cost of executing a criminal is not $0. Indeed, recent research has shown that, due to the mandatory appeals process that can—and often does—take decades to complete, the incremental cost of executing a person compared to keeping that person in prison for life is, in New York and Florida, approximately $23 million (not to mention that the $23 million will grow in decades to come). I don't know how to put a precise value on a human life. Maybe no one does (though there have been impressive attempts by well-known Princeton economics professors). However, I would guess that the $23 million saved by not executing each prisoner could be spent on a number of extremely worthwhile projects such as funding preventative medicines and medical procedures or cleaning up toxic waste sites that could be shown to save far more than the 3 lives that Becker claims are saved by each execution. In economic terms, therefore, the death penalty costs our society lives many more lives than it saves.
There are other fundamental economic problems with the pro-death penalty position, most notably the probability that in a small but meaningful number of cases, the death penalty results in the execution by the State of innocent people. Amnesty International lays claim to the fact that there have been, since 1973, 125 people released from death row due to “evidence of their wrongful convictions”. However, the loss of the lives of these innocent people is real as compared to the theoretical deterrent savings of lives through executions.
The death penalty is a controversial and emotional issue. If one removes him or herself, however, from instinctual reaction, it is clear that, economically at least, the death penalty simply does not make sense.
Sources:
Ashenfelter, Orley. "Measuring the Value of a Statistical Life: Problems and Prospects," The Economic Journal, Vol. 116, March 2006.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=25995
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/12/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Claims_Innocent_Lives/page.do?id=1101086&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
