Comment on a colleague's work

Brandyss Drost is one of my classmates who wrote an interesting commentary piece on a bill about banning an unhealthy ingredient, artificial trans-fat, in Illinois. Brandyss believes that it is not the U.S. Government responsibility to prohibit an ingredient. I think Brandyss made a compelling argument against this bill. Right at the beginning there is brief explanation about the bill in question and its context. Then there is a short background about the ingredient that is going to be ban from restaurants and bakeries. 

However, I disagree that the Government has no business getting involve in Americans food choice. The food regulations are there for a reason. Not everyone is aware of all the harmful aspects of eating trans-fat. Most of us do not bother reading all the fine print ingredients at the back of our snacks. Moreover, some of  us who bothers reading the label probably won’t understand all the ingredients and their benefits or harms to our body.

If this Government's decision would result in lowering teenager’s obesity rate, why do we think it is such a bad idea? Isn’t it better to have one less poison out there on supermarket shelves? If the “ingredient has been tied to 30,000 (U.S.) heart disease deaths a year” what is so wrong by banning it? I think we have to be thankful for a government who is concerns about its citizen’s health.

Original

The United States Government is looking for tactics to cut expenditure or increase revenue. There is a controversial discussion about legalization of mind-altering drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. I found a monograph by a lecturer in economics at Harvard, Jeffrey Miron, which provides some statistics regarding this proposal.

There is an estimate of $41.3 billion reduction of government expenditure every year by legalizing the illegal mind-altering drugs. The savings would come from the reduction of law enforcement expenditure, judicial, prison and jail expenditure. Furthermore, legalizing the illegal drugs would arguably increase the federal and state tax revenues. He estimates the increase to be about $ 46.7 billion a year. There is also additional revenue from the income tax paid by the drug sellers.

Although I think there are some moral and ethical hazards regarding this legalization, there is potentially substantial revenue gain from it for the government and subsequently the whole society. I am not denying that there is a considerable social benefit of prohibition of mind-altering drugs. However, I think we can use the same arguments that were used 1933 for legalizing alcohol consumption. Moreover, the tax on these drugs would raise their price; therefore the consumption would be automatically moderated.

Comment on a colleague's work

Eugene Lee's original editorial about the Airport security is a very thought-provoking critique.

However, I have to disagree with Eugene due to my personal experience. About three month ago, I was travelling to Maryland. At the airport, after removing my jacket, I was asked to remove my long sleeve dress!! When I asked the officer why? She responded that I just have to without any further explanation. I refused and told her that is not possible. As a solution, I told her I would not mind to be fully scanned through the Body Scanner if necessary. She refused my offer because of the scanner malfunction.

Finally, the officer patted me down everywhere for a while, and then decided that I am not carrying anything underneath my clothes. My point is that, I would have gladly accepted a “virtual strip search” rather than wasting so much time. I don’t understand how is a full body pat down less embarrassing than a full body x-ray? I feel more violated when some stranger harshly touch me down head to toe.

Original

I learnt in my US Government course that the power to declare war or launch a military action against terrorists is the authority given only to the Congress. However, President Barack Obama's speech last week on Libya suggested otherwise. Mr. Obama explained his ambitious actions as an act to protect the Libyan people. He also said the decision to intervene in Lydia is justified since the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi was preparing to commit a massacre. I believe President Obama made compelling arguments why military intervention is needed. The president argued that this decision is not only based on the moral duties toward Libyan citizens, but also a strategy to send a message to other oppressors that  violence is not the best approach to cling to power. Obama was clear enough on why military forces are necessary to enforce the UN no-fly zone, though there is plenty to critique. He failed to mention why US has to participate. He left some questions unanswered. Questions like, Does the US government have a plan or are we going to go down the same route as Iraq invasion? What is the next step for Libya after we remove the danger by forcibly removing Gaddafi from power?
I am all for a change of this brutal regime and I know United States, as a member of NATO has to stand up for Democracy and freedom. Nonetheless, we have to note that Libya is not the only place that innocent people are being slaughtered right now. Do we have to intervene in Sudan, Congo, Bahrain as well?

"Drill, baby, drill"

In the blog ‘PowerLine’ I found an article written by John Hinderaker, a Minnesotan lawyer. Hinderaker has been writing for the past twenty years and some of his articles have appeared in National Review, The American enterprise, and American Experiment Quarterly. In this article he questions President Obama’s oil production policies and his decision to freeze oil drilling in Gulf of Mexico. Hinderaker claims that the President Obama is obstructing Gulf oil production and this is the main reason behind rising gas prices. I believe he has not been paying much attention to all the recent turmoil’s in the Middle East, a major oil importing region to US. It is true that the drilling permissions have been denied by the Obama Administration. However, the reason behind this decision is quite different from what the author has explained in his article. After the Deepwater Horizon spill and its severe damages to the environment, Obama put in place some limits to offshore drilling in an attempt to protect our environment not to make US more dependent of foreign energy sources.

In his press conference President Obama emphasizes that the US only controls 2 percent of world oil reserves and as a result we need to think of alternative energy sources for long term. John Hinderaker calls this a “long-discredited canard that is a favorite on the Left”. He claims that the definition of “proven reserves" of petroleum is not universal. I agree with him that maybe we control 4, 6 or even 10 percent of world oil, but what does it matter how much oil we control. The fact that fossil fuels will run out one day is not arguable. Americans have to think of the future. This is the reason President Obama encourages and invests money on alternative energy. Not to “waste money on subsidies for inefficient sources of energy like wind and solar.” Mr. Hinderaker concludes that that Barak Obama is a fraud with respect to energy; he is “anti growth and anti wealth.” I believe this an invalid conclusion with respect to the evidences provided. Just because the President actually care about the environment does not mean he is against Americas’ economic growth. 

Let's Move on

“Is Anyone Watching?” is a commentary piece written by Linda Greenhouse on Feb 23 for New York Times. Linda Greenhouse is a Law professor at Yale University. She is the winner of 1998 Pulitzer Prize. The commentary explores the question whether section 5 of Voting Right Act of 1965 is constitutional or not. The section 5 requires nine Southern states and part of North Carolina to obtain "preclearance" for any changes in voting procedure such as redistricting their state by the Department of Justice. Greenhouse believes this act is like “the heavy hands of the federal government weighing” on regions of the country where there has been undeniable improvement in “race relations and black political participation.” She emphasizes that those who defend this act are more concerned about how much power is given to congress and federal government. I agree with her on the fact that those who support this fact are more concerned about their own agendas than undermining minorities' voice. 
Section 5 of Voting Right Act is an unusual piece of legislation in place that divides the nation between those states that have the authority in changing the voting procedure and those who don't. If there is any concern or fear of manipulation of minority groups' votes, shouldn’t the Voting Act be in place in all the states? Back in 1965 this Voting Act came into place because of the Southern attempts to neglect the black voters, but America has changed. Nowadays, not only we have to protect the minorities votes, but also we have to be aware of those altering voting procedures for their own partisanship benefits.

There was an amendment to this act in 1991 enforcing liability on employers that were disadvantaging minorities through their practices like educational requirement higher than necessary. Greenhouse argues that this amendment violates the “racial neutrality,” and it only has “disparate impact” since the employers have to be “racially conscious.” I disagree with her on this point. I believe that the results are more important than the intentions. Whether employers undermine a minority group intentionally or due to lack of knowledge about that specific group they cause the same damage. In spite of what they intended, such harms could be prevented if the employers are “racially conscious.”   

"The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard"

I have been following trend of the revolution in Egypt for the past couple of weeks. Now that the “Egyptians voices were heard,” like many others I was wondering what President Obama’s reaction will be to Mubarak stepping down from office? In this FoxNews article I found that the President of United States congratulated and applauded the successful protesters. He compared this achievement to the fall of Berlin wall and added that the Egyptians are an inspiration because of their “nonviolent activism.”

Hosni Mubarak has been a long term, expensive ally to United States, $1.3 Billion annual military aid. However, President Obama did not mention his name in the statement and only said “we will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt." Obama warned that there are “difficult days ahead,” but expressed his confidence in the capability of Egyptian people to achieve a democracy peacefully that “brings all the Egypt’s voices to the table.”