magekillr

I read a few blogs: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/ (economist blog) http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/ (economist blog, typically criticizing Obama) http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (fantastic blog about all things politics, by Nate Silver) http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/ (blog about politics, usually focusing on the Drug War) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ (economist blog) http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/ (political blog, Sullivan is an Obama supporter that claims to be conservative) http://scienceblogs.com/ (scientific blogs about new research etc) Those 7, usually. Every once and a while I read DailyKos, but for the most part the users there are just twisting certain pieces of evidence to fit their theories, and it's really just a rag of circle jerking. Oh, and I read Matthew Yglesias: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/

Here's the whole article: [hide=]One in every 31 adults, or 7.3 million Americans, is in prison, on parole or probation, at a cost to the states of $47 billion in 2008, according to a new study. Criminal correction spending is outpacing budget growth in education, transportation and public assistance, based on state and federal data. Only Medicaid spending grew faster than state corrections spending, which quadrupled in the past two decades, according to the report today by the Pew Center on the States, the first breakdown of spending in confinement and supervision in the past seven years. The increases in the number of people in some form of correctional control occurred even as crime rates sharply declined, by about 25 percent in the past two decades. At a time when states are facing huge budget shortfalls, prisons, which hold 1.5 million adults, are driving the spending increases. States have shown a preference for prison spending even though it is cheaper to monitor convicts in community programs, including probation and parole, which require offenders to check in regularly with law enforcement officers. A survey of 34 states found that states spent an average of $29,000 a year on prisoners compared to $1,250 on probationers and $2,750 on parolees. The study found that despite increased spending on prisons, recidivism rates remained largely unchanged. Pew researchers say that as states trim essential services like education and health care, prison budgets continue to grow. Those priorities are misguided, the study says. States are looking to make cuts that will have long-term harmful effects, said Sue Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States. Corrections is one area they can cut and still have good or better outcomes than what they are doing now. Over all, two-thirds of offenders, or about 5.1 million people in 2008 were on probation or parole. The study found that states are failing to increase spending for community supervision in proportion to their growing caseloads. About $9 out of $10 spent on corrections goes to prison financing. One in 11 African-Americans, or 9.2 percent, are under correctional control, compared with one in 27 Latinos (3.7 percent), and one in 45 white people (2.2 percent) . Only one out of 89 women is behind bars or monitored, compared to one out of 18 men. States with the highest proportion of people under some form of punishment regimen include Georgia (1 in 13), Indiana (1 in 26), Louisiana (1 in 26), and Ohio (1 in 25). Peter Greenwood, the executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Evidence Based Practice, an advocacy group that favors rehabilitative approaches, said that states started ramping up their financing for prisons in the 1980s during the last big crime wave and never stopped. Basically, when we made these investments, public safety and crime was the number one concern of voters, so politicians were passing all kinds of laws to increase sentences, he said. President Bill Clinton also signed legislation to increase sentences for federal convicts, he said. Now, crime is down, but were living with that legacy: the bricks and mortar and the politicians who feel like they have to talk tough every time they talk about crime. Mr. Greenwood said that prisons and jails, along with their powerful prison guard unions, service contracts, and high-profile sheriffs and police chiefs, are in a much better position to protect their interests than are parole and probation officers. Traditionally, probation and parole is at the bottom of the totem pole, Mr. Greenwood said. Theyre just happy every time they dont lose a third of their budget.[/hide] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03 ... tml?ref=us Subsidizing the incarceration of millions of people that have never harmed anyone, with a budget that out paces EVERYTHING (social security and medicare included), but Medicaid.

Hey, I don't exactly condone the treatment of chickens in cages, either. I only buy cage-free eggs. I also agree with Zierro. The intent is completely different. Again: do you condone dog fighting?

I actually think they're looking for these people in the US government. Ok, as sad as the reality of this statement was, I lol'd. :lol: Waterboarding was condemned today, so that's good. Still pissed that Afghan prisoners are not given Constitutional Rights, though. Back on topic: Animals can still feel pain, what the hell are you talking about? As they're an essential industry and food item, I wouldn't advocate for vegetarianism, but they still should be treated in a humane manner. We shouldn't test beauty products and shampoos on them, as research has shown that it's not needed. I do, however, think that we should be able to test medication on them. I do cringe at the idea of testing medication on any primates, though.

Well, seeing as there's no proof they have feelings, I don't see the problem... They still have rights to not be abused. This is some [bleep]ed up [cabbage] that so many people support this.

Uh...it definitely should be illegal, and it's definitely as bad as it seems. Do you support dog fighting, too? Jesus christ...

1.) Yes, I do. I believe that people are being desensitized to the idea of it. 2.) No. 3.) No. 4.) Diplomacy first, helping the impoverished (terrorism), etc. 5.) Misunderstandings of culture and history, and as of late, greed. 20, male.

Why? If you want to shell out 40-50 grand a year for an undergraduate degree that's not going to be noticeable to a first time employer when compared with experience, GPA, and extracurriculars, then go for it. Even GPA is barely an indicator compared with experience for a first time job. I'd say GPA really only matters for internships. After your first job, your other employers aren't going to even look at where you got your degree from (and I would say that the first time people won't, either). They'll look at how you did on the job you just left, and call that employer. Hell, many people I know (including Darkrick on these boards) have told me how even during first job interviews they don't even ask your GPA. The only time I see it being mentioned is for internships and co-ops. I'd say it'd only give you an edge if the employer was an alumni.

Lol wut? I'm late all of the time :lol: I always miss the bus that I want (I live in an apartment off campus). They don't really notice. They don't notice if you leave to go to the bathroom, so why would they notice if you come in late? You're paying to be there. They'd rather you go in and out than like, "ask" for permission to use the bathroom.

So long as it's a nice state school, then I see no reason why Harvard would make one more competitive. If your GPA is sound, and you provide strong interest in the Professor's work, you shouldn't have trouble getting offers. This is especially true if you got a 3.5 GPA at Harvard, but had a 3.9 somewhere else. So long as it's not a Bible College or diploma mill/unaccredited program, GPA/interest/interviews are really all that matter. Undergraduate research is very important as well, some would say just as important as GPA. If you don't plan on grad school, though, Ivy League is definitely not worth it. Maybe in England, but not in the US. You go to undergrad in the US, and then 2 years of law school. The law school would determine how well you're hired, not the undergrad.

Undergraduate: ALWAYS go to a state school. I never understood why people think that Harvard undergraduate degrees are more worthy than say, the University of Florida. The only real difference that you'll see in education between a state school and somewhere like Harvard, is for graduate programs and research. This is because most of the best research teams go to these schools, these schools are given the best projects, and you have the most amount of tools at your disposal. Go to a state school. It won't make a lick of difference except in cost.

Im a little confused by this, isnt the democratic party (generally) more likely to approve legalization of marijuana? Democrats being the socially liberal party in america and all. Or were you referencing a bill that failed in a very liberal state(massachusetts) as an example of why these bills are currently hopeless? Yes, the Democrats are more likely to approve of the legalization, however, if something like this cannot pass in Massachusetts, then I see no hope for it in California. The biggest problem we have to overcome are the health care lobbyists and their patents. Marinol is the same exact thing as THC (it's an isomer), but it's patented and can be sold for lots of money by health care industries. Marijuana wouldn't give them much profit. Second, people in state governments are as liberal as their districts. So even if a conservative part of Massachusetts elects a Democrat, he might not support such legislation.

I wish I could believe a Zogby poll, but their methods are so damn flawed on policy that it's not even funny. They're arguably the worst "maintstream" pollster, right above Rasmussen. Second, a bill like this wouldn't pass in Massachusetts which has unbelievably high Democratic numbers (something like 85% Dems in their Senate+House). California has like 65% majorities. It won't pass, or even get much attention. I'm glad that they're trying, though. New Jersey's governor has said that he would NOT veto a bill that legalized cannabis to sell and tax. I think The Governator would veto anything even if it passed, but he has been getting more socially liberal.

My first post said that 90% of their weapons/guns are coming from legal means.

I find social networking a great way to have lists of people that you've come in contact with. I keep a list of my friends' contact information (phone numbers, emails, etc) for the future. You never know if you need a place to stay, or if they know of a job opening. Networking is quite possibly the best way of getting a job or something along those lines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26 ... ss&emc=rss Continued in the link above. This gun is popular among the drug cartels, and it's sold in our gun shops.

Yes, and we bring down the price exponentially by decriminalizing it. The Mexican Authorities are doing everything that they can. Mexico, despite having a fairly large GDP (13th? I think) is still a developing country with a fairly large population. Per capita, they're 57th (just looked that one up lol). I really don't know how much more that they can do. As I said, soon enough we're going to have to send our own National Guard to help them.

One thing many people forget about Marx is that he loved capitalism as well. Of course when I say capitalism, I mean capitalism in today's sense. He abhorred capitalism during the Gilded Age, and he very well should have. As Barihawk noted, this was a time of extreme exploitation of workers, horrible conditions, and a near feudal system. Libertarians and Austrian economics for some reason forget this time in our history, and continue to spew their [cabbage] about the invisible hand and "pure" free markets. The same goes for communists. They seem to forget that Lenin's party starved millions of people that didn't join the party (some collectivism), that Stalin removed Habeas Corpus (effectively turning him into a tyrant) while killing 300,000 that were "put on trial." They also forget Che Gueverra, who was a ruthless bastard that effectively killed thousands of innocence that didn't take up his socialist cause.

It will end the flow of a lot of their profits. First, decriminalize, if not outright legalize, marijuana. That's not the only thing that they're dealing in, but it WILL slow a lot of their profits. We need to strengthen existing gun laws (and renew the assault weapons ban), and reform other drug laws to target traffickers and dealers...not arrest average citizens for posession. People are gonna need to accept some gun control in America, because it's hurting our security on our own southern border (and dare I say it, making people less secure in America as well). edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 YES!

Uneducated, fear, Stalin, etc. Anyway, you very well should be against communism in the real world sense of the word. I'd really rather not have a totalitarian government in place, which is more or less the result of implementing an economic policy like communism. On the flip side, laissez faire capitalism isn't any picnic, either. If I may quote Noam Chomsky: The best system is easily a capitalist market, with a social safety net for its citizens. The government provides health care, controls the energy industry until we're all off of oil (I'm tired of oil driving foreign policy), education, welfare, etc. The free market provides for other industries, and allows for the richer aspect of society to enjoy higher education, faster access to health care, etc. Free market with strict oversight and regulation. Also, stop letting the banks get out of control. Take this test: http://www.mises.org/quiz.aspx?QuizID=4 Despite coming from Austrian, it's a decent test. The socialist answers are quite comical and that annoys me slightly, but for the most part it's a decent test. I scored a 34. I believe the proper market should land between a 30 and a 40, a 50 being the highest. Anything higher than 50 is not enough regulation, and anything below 20 is too socialist.

I would never be friends with my co-workers on facebook, or my boss. For one thing, I believe that keeping your social life and your work life completely separated is essential for a good work environment. Second, my views are so damn radical that I could see myself getting fired from my job, or randomly drug tested. Not that I do any hardcore drugs, but I am a pot head, and I enjoy it in the privacy of my own home (completely away from work, and only on the weekend). Even if I didn't, I don't like my civil liberties being intruded on through drug testing. I'd really rather not be blackmailed, either. It's just simply a bad idea to mix work and social life.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/24/ ... border.php

Yes. Why should they be criminals with criminal records for using drugs? They should be getting help to treat their addictions, not thrown into prison where it will undoubtedly grow worse. I also find it ridiculous to throw the users in prison because prisons are an industry like anything else. The more people in jail, the more they profit. Not only that, but we subsidize their profit with our taxes. It's asinine. I don't mind throwing tax money at prisons because we certainly need them, but the whole way it operates needs to be restructured. Come again? The amount of people dying in these gang wars in the US, and these drug wars between cartels in Mexico are causing far more problems than people using drugs on themselves. Bringing a more sensible drug policy to America than making it criminal is a better approach. Well I'm not calling for legalization, at least not at this point. I'm not even calling for marijuana legalization at this point until the whole system/education is restructured. I'm saying that they shouldn't be criminals for using drugs, just like people aren't criminals for using alcohol. Second, if legalized, they'd be far...far cheaper. Being legal, they wouldn't under any sensible way be distributed through the rich anyway, I'd consider this an FDA matter like anything else. However, I'm not calling for legalization, just decriminalization. Cigarettes, alcohol...some wouldn't exactly call it misery, either. Plenty of people profit off of exploiting others, through other industries. It shouldn't be encouraged, but it's not a justifiable reason to make something illegal. Alright, that's poor wording, as it should definitely be illegal to exploit children for 18 hours of work a day, but I think you understand what I am saying. They already get screwed and exploited with the current laws that we have, as minorities and poor people are targeted. It'd be better if it was federally regulated. We could also use the money taxed to build infrastructure and provide health care benefits. Although I'm more communal than individual... We could also control the dosage, which is very important with regard to addiction and cost. Heroine addicts are gotten off the stuff from small doses from Methadone Clinics. Well I don't believe there would be that many people getting hooked if we had proper education in schools, at least not anymore than there currently are (which is a slim slim minority). The health care costs to take care of such people would also be smaller than waging a war against prohibition. I mean, think about cigarettes. Proper education throughout the years has led to a reduction in the amount of people smoking 1. That's a fairly significant reduction, and I would venture to guess that the 1965 group smoked more often than the group in the present. Because that's an act of preemptive war, and an invasion of a sovereign nation. I suppose America's history shows that we really don't care about the sovereignty of other nations, but I do. Doing something like this would be very illegal, and violate so many other international laws. We'd lose far more soldiers in the process, kill thousands of civilians, and only propagate the problem. They might be staved off for a while, but they'll be back. You're trying to treat a cancer by addressing the patient's cold sweats. Yeah I usually don't hold these people with high regard. Marijuana certainly can cause health problems, and it certainly is addictive. Although the withdrawal symptoms are more or less harmless and cannot cause death, they're still there (loss of appetite, grouchy behavior, some experience headaches and nausea). It has not, however, caused cancer, and repeated studies have shown it reduces cancer. As a matter of fact, another one was done recently (I can't find the recent one, so how's 2007? 2). So can alcohol and tobacco. Withdrawal from alcohol, if severe enough, can easily kill a person. It's not a reason to keep something illegal, and it's most certainly NOT a reason to keep it a criminal activity. No, but this directly affects other people. Moreover, prostitution is a strong contributor to this trade, and it should definitely be legalized (prostitution). I agree with some of the rest of your post, but venomai knows what he is talking about. I don't think anything should be outright legal, not when we have no real grasp of historical precedent of when it once was legal (such as with alcohol and prohibition). It should be slow, and start with decriminalization. A "Drug War" CAN work, but I'm not so sure it can work in our context. Take Sweden, for example. Drugs are illegal to use, including marijuana...yet they have the fewest people in prison, and the lowest drug use among most Western countries. What are they doing different? They don't have a prison industrial complex, and they treat their patients like patients and not criminals. The patients are also offered schooling and job opportunities to better their lives. It's how we approach the "drug war" that's essential. Although, as I said, I have ideological problems with the drug war in itself, but it CAN be successful if implemented the right way (I don't know if it would work in our context because of Mexico being there).

then the guy would endure torture for 24 hours and get his 72 virgins. torture debates are always inspired with the assumption torture actually works. [bleep] torture, we need some kill-bill-truth-serum. We have truth serum. They're CNS depressants like alcohol and work in pretty much the same way. You should trust someone's testimony under "truth" serum to the exact same degree you'd trust someone's testimony if they were blind drunk. The problem is, they tend to mix fact and fantasy, and it's hard to discern from the two. Moreover, truth serum is illegal under international law, and is considered a form of torture.

Really? Millions are addicted to caffeine, and they simply do not know it. I'm not addicted to anything, I don't think. I have no real withdrawal symptoms with regard to cigarettes, marijuana, caffeine, or alcohol; at least I don't think I have any withdrawal symptoms from marijuana. They're a tad harder to pin point, as one of them is simply, "grouchiness", but I digress. Second, I think the way that it begins to be rolled back is through the state initiatives. They're getting more and more popular when placed on ballots, and marijuana is as good as legal in California because of how lax their medical marijuana laws are. Massachusetts just decriminalized small possession, and it's now only a fine of $100 and confiscation. However, because the prison systems aren't profiting by throwing people in jail anymore, $100 is such junk change that they barely even enforce it (unless it's just extremely blatant).