Power of the Logos

4 Problems That Could Sink America ... Really?

2009-09-12T06:11:00.000-07:00

Rick Newman of the U.S. News and World Report has written an article about four threats to America's future prosperity. In the article the four threats he outlines are: 1. We don't like to work, 2. Nobody wants to sacrifice, 3. We're uniformed, and 4. Selfishness (the iCulture) . Here is my critique on his four reasons.

1. We Don't Like to Work

Summary: Newman basically sums up that we are just too darn lazy. He gives the example of an entrepreneur who works 16-hour days and says not to complain about money if you only want to work 8 hours a day. So, again, if we all just work harder!

My Take: As usual, another half-sided, poorly thought out idea by a journalist out of touch with at least 50% of the real world. The state of our country today is NOT because we don't work enough. The housing crisis was not a result of people not working hard - that roofer who wanted a $500,000 house probably worked harder than the average Wall Street broker. The real problem is this: people make poor life decisions. The roofer made a poor life decision by buying more house than could be afforded, and probably needed. The mortgage company made a poor life decision, for the business, when it decided to loan the money. It doesn't matter how hard people work if they squander whatever they earn, regardless of how much or little.

The article also quotes an economist (one of the most clueless and overrated of professions) as saying: "Instead of buying stuff at the mall, spend the money on evening classes. Learn a language or skills you don't have." So learning Spanish or Mandarin is going to help that roofer pay his mortgage? Too bad he can hardly handle English.

Oh yeah, and 16 hour days? If most people did that, who is going to raise the children? Our society now has as many, if not more women in the work force as men. We would have to return to a far more traditional way of life that allow for at least one parent to stay home in order for that to work. The problem with that however, what's the point of being married to someone who works 16 hours a day? How on earth do you find someone to marry if you're working 16 hours a day. I hope that entrepreneur is already married, or not. I'm not sure. Also, "regressing" society to one working parent in a home would take a HEAP of production out of the economy. I thought the idea was to produce more, not less.

Despite the obvious flaws with this first reason, Newman did get it half right, many of us do not work hard enough - FOR WHAT WE HAVE. Too many make their living off the efforts of others with no respect or appreciation for those efforts. I don't have a problem with someone who doesn't want work - that's just more opportunities for those that do. The problem I have is with the government that forces me to support those who refuse to work. Now that's a reason worth investigating!

2. Nobody wants to Sacrifice

Summary: One statement from the article sums is up - "It would just be too uncomfortable to tell the middle class that if they want something, they need to earn it themselves." On the face of it, it looks like a statement I would actually agree with. But look a little more closely and we will see that it falls flat on its face. The key words that destroys the validity of the state it are "the middle class". Actually, at last check it was the middle class that was working the hardest and earning the most from their OWN efforts. The correct statement would read like this:
"It would just be too uncomfortable to tell AMERICANS that if they want something, they need to earn it themselves." Why does he exclude the lower and upper classes from his statement? Something is seriously amiss with his thinking.

He also makes a comment about the government providing "expanded health care". This is important to note as I expose his utter hypocrisy in a few moments.

3. We're Uninformed

Summary: We are just too ignorant. Newman says, "The health care smackdown -- sorry, "debate" -- is Exhibits A, B and C. The soaring cost of health care is a problem that affects most Americans. It's shrinking paychecks, squeezing small businesses, bankrupting families and swelling the national debt."

My Take: Newman is just too ignorant. Not about the cost of healthcare, but about the idea that the government paying for healthcare is somehow supposed to prevent all of the things he stated the cost of healthcare is causing.

Tell me this, how is it that the government spending MORE money, by providing universal healthcare, supposed to make the national debt LESS? If he thinks the cost of healthcare is shrinking paychecks, wait until the 50%-60% tax rate the government imposes to pay for healthcare "reform" hits the fan.

Also, did Newman not just say something about a problem with the cost of the government providing "expanded healthcare"? So now he is criticizing people for opposing it, FOR THE SAME REASON HE JUST STATED IT WAS A PROBELM? Wow. (That's all I better say about that.)

4. iCulture

Summary: Everyone wants the best of everything for the least effort. Newman says, "Rationing is a dirty word, so we can't have a system that officially rations something as vital as health care or education. Instead, we have unacknowledged, de facto rationing that directs the most resources to those with the best connections, the most money or the savvy to game the system."

What?! No rationing? But, but, what about all of the hard work and sacrifice he was just talking about? Is not rationing a major form of sacrifice? The fact that healthcare and education is involved doesn't change the need to sacrifice, despite the fantasy world Newman lives in. That's why I don't have a Master's degree. I have kids. Whatever money and time I have is primarily spent on them. Therefore, I sacrifice my desire to obtain more education. Same thing with healthcare. If I hire a personal trainer and cook, that would be far less money for my children. The fact that a personal trainer and cook would do more to improve my health than any doctor or medicine on the planet is irrelevant. That's what is known as sacrifice.

Newman also makes a half-true, whole lie of a statement in saying "Americans still believe they deserve the best of everything -- the best job, the best health care, the best education for our kids. And we want it at a discount -- or better yet, free -- which brings us back to the usual disconnect between what we want and what we're willing to pay for". No Mr. Newman, only those that are not willing to ration, um, sacrfice, believe that. I, and many like me do NOT believe that. Newman uses a general term when he should use a specific term, and a specific term when he should use a general term. According to Newman, when it comes to working, only the middle class is involved. But when it comes to sacrifice, everyone is involved? Unless of course, you don't work hard, and therefore have nothing to sacrifice. In that case, the government is supposed to force someone else to pay for it. Right, Newman?

If I were to have a conversation with Mr. Newman, I would direct him to the very ancient, very wise words of Ecclesiates 2, notice verse 11:

"Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun."

What the scripture is saying is that everything we do as people is ultimately doomed to failure. Whatever we gain materially will have little spiritual value, and therefore fail to satisfy. If we work hard and yet are driven by vain desires with no spiritual guidance or purpose, we will likely end up losing whatever we do gain, or destroying ourselves and others in the process. That is the underlying reason why many of us don't want to work hard or sacrifice, and choose to be lazy and ignorant.

So, are we as Americans, as humans, doomed to failure. NO! Now read Ecclesiates 2:24-26:

"A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without Him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the man who pleases Him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind."

Basically there is only one problem that will sink America: Life without God.

God Bless. Even you, Mr. Newman.

Love and Music

2009-09-11T20:41:00.000-07:00

A lot of serious things are happening in the world right now, as always. However, it's all in God's hands anyway, and He has already finished the novel (read Revelation), so I thought I would write about something perhaps more enjoyable - love and music!

First, MUSIC!

Maxwell, whom I am a big fan of, recently released a new album. Of the nine songs I like all but two, Playing Possum and Phoenix Rising. Those two songs seem to have a disjointed harmony, actually making it difficult for me to listen to. Pretty Wings and Bad Habits both have the classic quality of thoughtful lyrics and and passionate melody that Maxwell is known for. "Cold" has a nice up tempo jazz feel. Also, the song count of 9 is a little low for the abilities of someone like Maxwell. With such a low song count, I think he should have dropped the last two, and worked on one more really solid piece. I rate it 3.5 out of 5.

Over the years, I have enjoyed the music of Lenny Kravitz. I recently checked out his new album, It is Time for a Love Revolution. Impressive. Classic retro sounds brilliantly put together. I especially like the energy of "Love Revolution", "Bring it On", and "If You Want It". The sincerity and heart break of "I'll Be Waiting" and "A Long and Sad Good Bye" are truly touching.
The only song I don't like is "Good Morning" - a little too cheery for my taste, maybe because I'm NOT a morning person. I rate it 4 out of 5.

The news is out that SADE (purposefully spelled in all caps) and her band are working on a new album to be released perhaps as early as November. Take your time your highness, it will be worth the wait. Eagerly looking forward to it.

Next, LOVE!

I was reading on Maxwell's Sony music site the following quote about the song, "Pretty Wings": "How you meet the person of your dreams but at the wrong time." There is a lot I have yet to learn in this life, but one thing I have strongly concluded is this: When it comes to love, THERE IS NO WRONG TIME. There is time, and love. Period. Seriously. Max, if you really met the love of your life, and she wasn't married, and you let her go, you messed up - BIG TIME (See Proverbs 31:10-12). That's one reason why the divorce rate is 50+ percent. People think it's the "right" time, but quickly find out, the "right" time is fleeting - the next year it often turns out to be the "wrong" time. That's also why some people can know each other for a week, get married, and celebrate their 50th anniversary. Other people can live with each other for 10 years, finally get married, and divorce the next year. Love is more than a feeling, it is a DECISION. You DECIDE to love someone, regardless of the time, right or wrong, good or bad. When it comes to love, hopefully that decision is based on true and genuine feelings along with much thought and honest reflection, but it is still a decision, nonetheless. When the times change or the feelings change, it is STILL a decision. I was watching an interview of James DeBarge talking about his marriage to Janet Jackson: "Right love at the wrong time". James, please, there was nothing wrong with the time, YOU were what was wrong. If James DeBarge was as sober as a choir boy when he married Janet, would 10 years later be the right time to be a crack head?

Think about this, what if God decided to stop loving us every time we did something REALLY stupid or evil? I shudder to think....

I would also like to reflect on Biblical examples of romantic love (we can talk about agape later). One of the most prominent examples, of course, is Song of Solomon. But there are also the examples of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and possibly my favorite couple, Jacob and Rachel. These examples demonstrate a passion and a purpose that is a model for us in our relationships today.

Song of Solomon - the epitome of passion and virtue. In my opinion, the defining example of romantic love as God meant it to be.

Abraham and Sarah - God gave them a baby when Sarah was 90 and Abraham was a 100, thousands of years before Viagra OR fertility treatments. God IS good.

Isaac and Rebekah - Their marriage was arranged before either set sight on the other. Talk about trust and faith in God! God is the tie that binds a marriage.

Jacob and Rachel - Moments after Jacob first saw Rachel, in front of other men, at that time and in that culture, he KISSES HER and weeps for joy. Then Jacob proceeds to work 14 YEARS for FREE, before he marries her! Imagine THAT wedding night!

On a personal note, I am missing my husband right now, as he is working out of town. So I have been thinking a lot about how people take their spouses for granted, and how special love really is - in spite of the work and monotony that tends to set in a marriage. I was listening to a sermon recently in which the pastor said that Jesus made love a verb. In other words, while love is definitely an emotion, just as importantly, it is something we must DO in order for it to become real in our lives. This applies to ALL kinds of love.

So remember, when it comes to love, JUST DO IT! Preferably in the presence of some good music, ;).

God Bless.

Fellow Believers in God - Stop Trying to Convert Atheists

2009-06-15T08:29:00.000-07:00

One of the more frustrating things to me is to come across conversations between people who believe in God and those who don't.

Although we mean well, the believer can save himself much time and energy in better pursuits by excepting this one simple fact: No human being can ever prove the existence of God to another human being. We don't have the power or authority over God to make God prove Himself to anyone. Our experiences as believers is OURS, not someone else's. When we speak in tongues, or have dreams and visions, or experience answered prayers and miracles, those belong to us, not to them. They would have to trust our experiences, on a faith they do not have. And quite frankly, without the benefit of faith or a close, personal relationship, like that of a parent or spouse, outside of faith, they have no reason to trust us at all.

The other fact we need to consider is this, some people will not believe in God, no matter what. We have ample evidence of this in the Bible in the Old and New Testaments - remember the Israelites and the Golden Calf or the Jews rejection of Christ? So stop trying. Stop rationalizing. Just pray and ask God to reveal Himself to those we want to know Him. But it is totally up to God to reveal God to anyone (Matthew 11:27). And it is up to each of us to accept God or not.

So if anyone asks me if God exists, like both of my older sons have, I tell them to ask the only true source of the answer: God. I also pray that God will reveal Himself to that person.

Understand, that doesn't mean we shouldn't share the Gospel of Christ with people. But arguing with an athiest? Pointless.

What Lafif Lakhdar Failed to Mention

2009-01-08T06:11:00.000-08:00

Quoted from the Middle Eastern Media Research Institute:

"On October 17, 2008, liberal Arab thinker Lafif Lakhdar posted an article on the reformist e-journal www.elaph.com, in which he characterized Hamas as another link in the chain of Palestinian rejectionism, i.e., in their tendency to refuse all suggestions of compromise. This tendency, he said, is rooted in religious extremism and brings disaster upon the Palestinians. Lakhdar called on the Palestinians to take stock of their situation and start making realistic decisions based on pragmatic political considerations."

The excerpt to his article can be found here here.

Mr. Lakhdar hit the nail on the head, however, at least from the excerpt, what he failed to mention, is that the same extremist religious thinking that leads to Hamas rejection of compromise with Israel, also demands that Hamas dies fighting Israel, rather than living in peace with Israel. Note the example of senior Hamas leader Nizar Rayan.

Mr. Lakhdar also failed to mention that any change in the Hamas political stance MUST come with a religious conversion, becuase Hamas' political thinking is based on its' religious beliefs.

In order to change, Hamas would ultimately have to become "moderate" Muslim in nature, which will be difficult to justify on a religious basis, or become completely non-Muslim.

Good luck with that. Although, with God, all things are possible.

What the Israeli - Arab Conflict Reveals

2009-01-07T09:28:00.000-08:00

Being married to someone who was raised in a conservative, Islamic, Middle Eastern country, AND personally being a native born American, born-again Christian, obviously raises a lot of potential discussion, and conflict, especially around the subject of Israel. Here is what I have learned from this experience:

1. The information that many people in the Middle East have about people in the West AND the history of their own cultures is often times very limited and comes through sources that are not at all objective. Becuase of the lack of freedom in the Middle East there are limited differences in political viewpoints.

2. The information that many people in the West have about people in the Middle East AND the history of their own cultures is abundant and well-rounded, however, most people in the West choose to care only for the information that fits their politicial viewpoints. Becuase of the abundance of freedom in the West, there are many different political viewpoints.

3. The relative peace and abundance of freedom that exists in the West allows for primarily rational thought, discourse, and disagreement. However much I may agree or disagree with others opinions, I am more than willing to peacefully allow them to have those opinions.

4. The lack of peace and/or freedom in the majority of the Middle East allows for mainly emotional thought, discourse, and disagreement. Disagreements in the Middle East are usually dealt with in a violent, often irrational manner. The more serious the topic of disagreement, the more violent and irrational the method of handling the disagreement.

Basically, Middle Eastern culture, is fine, even admirable in some respects - UNTIL -you have the inevitable disagreement. This is why, in my opinion, Israel reveals much about the Middle East that most people in the West simply did not realize or understand until the return of Jews to the land that is today Israel in 1948. Prior to this time, most people in the West, during the 20th century at least, knew very little of Middle Eastern culture, and what they did know was limited to a "tourist" point of view. This "tourist" view of the Middle East allowed many in the West to mysticize much of the culture, without fully understanding or dealing with Middle Eastern culture on a deeper basis. Perhaps, this "tourist" view of Middle Eastern culture is responsible for why many in the West are supporting the obviously terrorist Hamas organization, which the Palenstinians overwhelmingly voted into power. Perhaps many reason: "They're human, just like us, so of course they want to live peaceful lives. And they're so poor, how can they possibly be a threat to Israel?". What many of these people don't realize, or refuse to acknowledge, is that while they are every bit as human, THEY ARE NOT JUST LIKE US (meaning Westerners). Middle Eastern culture is not about living peacefully, it is about ensuring a homogenous, agreeable, society, by any means necessary. Even if it means that you don't have religious, political, or social freedoms. Even if it means your very death by expressing view points, or living by beliefs that are in disagreement with the establised culture.

What Israel's modern day existence has done is show the world what Middle Eastern culture is truly about, beyond the "tourist" view most have had until now. If, that is, they are willing to allow the truth, not their political preferences, to determine their understanding.

Greek "Youth" Riots

2008-12-16T08:21:00.001-08:00

The Greek youth riots continue, since December 6, 2008:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467567,00.html

I only have two questions about this.

First question: If you have a loaded gun, and someone intent on causing you injury attempts to throw a gas-filled explosive device at you, from close range, what would you do?

Second question: Where are the PARENTS?

Iraqi Shoe Bomber

2008-12-16T07:59:00.001-08:00

Check out the following excerpt from FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467524,00.html):

"Those experiences helped mold a deep resentment of both the U.S. military's presence here and Iran's pervasive influence over Iraq's cleric-dominated Shiite community, according to his family.

'He hates the American physical occupation as much as he hates the Iranian moral occupation," Dhirgham said, alluding to the influence of pro-Iranian Shiite clerics in political and social life. 'As for Iran, he considers the regime to be the other side of the American coin.'"

Since he hates Iranian influence as much American influence, is he going to visit Iran and throw his shoes at Ahmadinejad? Not likely. I wonder why?

My take: A cowardly and highly emotional response, from a very unprofessional journalist. He knows that in a "democratic" society he can get away with that sort of thing. Why didn't he throw shoes at Sadam Hussein while he was in power, especially when he was torturing and killing Shiites and Kurds in droves?

Average Iraqi take: He's a hero.

This is why I think we should never have invaded.

The Real Socialists Are Upset With Obama

2008-12-09T08:17:00.000-08:00

Check this out:

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2008/12/08/still-in-turmoil-the-liberalleft-and-obama/

Wow, they actually thought Obama was a real socialist. Think again. They got played - big time. First of all, the last thing a real socialist would do is go to law school, I don't care how liberal he is. If they wanted a real socialist, the liberal left should have split from the Democrats (who are only pretend socialists), and formed their own socialist party outright. Then they should have nominated Bill Ayers for president.

9/11 Suspects Confess

2008-12-09T07:46:00.000-08:00

So, they finally admit it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial

Now before anyone gets all teary-eyed for these thugs and want to claim these confessions were coerced, realize that this is the absolute best thing that these guys could do for themselves.

Why? Becuase prosecutors in this case are seeking the death penalty. Being the devout Muslims they are, according to their beliefs, this is the only sure way to secure a place in heaven. Islam teaches that there are no guarantees that despite leading a relatively good life, that anyone will be allowed into heaven. The "prophet" Mohamed was quite fickle about this actually. Some Muslims even believe that EVERYONE goes to hell for a period of time, and after they have been adequately punished for their sins, they will allowed into heaven. The ONLY way, according to the "prophet" Mohamed, that someone can guarantee they can get into heaven, and not go to hell, is to sacrifice their lives in defense of Islam.

If they confess and get the death penalty, they sincerely believe they will go to heaven. In fact, it is the only way they can be sure they'll go to heaven. Seems like a no brainer, to me.

I don't think it is a coincidence that these confessions are timed to coincide with the Hajj, either.

Political Philosophy

2008-12-08T21:30:00.000-08:00

Since this is a new blog, I will take this opportunity to express my political philosophy. I guess I most fit the mold of a Libertarian. However, I do understand that the Libertarian philosophy only works in a world where EVERYONE is a moral, ethical, responsible individual. So sue me for dreaming! What I appreciate most about Libertarian ideals is the respect and recognition of people as INDIVIDUALS. Theoretically, American society and politics in general is supposed to respect and recognize citizens as individuals, however, there is much about government and politics that fails to do so. Whether you are talking about Liberal Democrats that tout the importance of "ethnic diversity" or Conservative Republicans that wish to ban gay marriage, the major political parties generally want to push group ideals onto society in general. I am not naive, I do realize there has to be a line drawn, but seriously, does hiring someone of a different race, just because they are of a different race, really promote diversity? If so, that is racist - simple as that. And is banning gay marriage somehow going to prevent people from being homosexuals? (I feel differently about abortion becuase it involves the life of another human being that cannot defend him or herself . It is also for this reason I support WELL RUN government orphanages. What grown folks of at least adequate intellegence do, is another matter.)

If you're wondering, I did not vote for Obama, or McCain. That's right, I am one of the less than one-percent that voted my ideals - Libertarian. I didn't vote for Obama, becuase deep-down, I knew he was just lying through his teeth to get elected, and I have serious disagreements with much of his political strategy. I didn't vote for McCain becuase he had no political strategy at all.

I feel the goverment has two basic responsibilities: 1) protection of the lives and rights of individuals through the provision of law and order, and 2) defend the borders. Those two basic responsibilities alone create more than enough government for any nation, and if done properly would keep plenty of people busy. All of this other stuff (marriage ceremonies, hiring policies, public education, healthcare, transportation infrastructure, etc...) would ultimately best be left to the people to maintain. Sure, our economy won't be as large, and our communities would probably be much smaller on average, but I feel in the long run, things would be better. And far more sustainable.

In my political utopia, would we still have the internet? I say yes, becuase it was initially developed for the purposes of aiding national security, which falls under the category of defending the borders. That's my theory anyway. What do you think?

P.S. - I did not always feel this way. I was once a die-hard liberal - when I was a bit younger, and "far less experienced" (i.e., politically correct for "far more foolish"). Currently I am a registered Independent.

The Financial Crisis - SOLVED!

2008-12-08T21:20:00.000-08:00

So, potentially millions more people could be laid off, many of our major industries are failing, we are still fighting two wars, and there seems to be no end in sight.

No problem! What you say? That's right all of this can be solved, for most of us, with one simple solution - move in with your mother. Or have her move in with you. If that doesn't work, move in with your cousin, uncle, aunt, college roommate, or anybody with a job.

Problem solved! :)

Seriously though, I think many of us would benefit from coming together as families and communities, to best utilize our resources. This will require that many of us become far more humble, far less selfish, much harder working, much less wasteful, and hopefully much more appreciative of the other human beings in our lives. There may be a silver lining to this after all.

I pray that all experiencing these difficult times find their needs met and their faith sustained.

The Reason I am a Christian

2008-12-08T20:42:00.000-08:00

The path to, or from faith, for many people can be complicated. For many others, it is rather simple. I guess you could say my path is unique to me, as are all paths for all people. There may be similarities in the paths we follow, yet, the paths are unique, because all people are unique.

Having said that, aside from logical conclusion based on academic studies of different religions, I guess I have to say that one of the main reasons I am a Christian is due to the fact that I am "Holy Spirit" convicted. Yes - that means I have spoken in tongues, as well as seen visions.

Now, I assure you, I am not mentally ill, with no family history of mental illness - that I am aware of (not counting that one crazy great-uncle, who may have just been demented from old age). The only drugs I use are birth control pills (I am married with three children - cut me a break). So trust me, this is not the raving of a lunatic here. In fact, before my encounter with the Holy Spirit, I would very much say I was a "Doubting Thomas". But like Thomas, seeing, and hearing, and feeling, is believing. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I didn't believe in Jesus Christ, before my experience. However, before that point, I wasn't CONVICTED that He alone is the Way, the Truth, and Life. Most people who know me would say that I am a fairly intelligent, highly logical thinking person.

So for me, it's a matter of what I cannot logically deny, based on my experience. I wish my faith were greater, however, before my experiences. It was an unpleasant road that led to my conviction. Perhaps with greater faith before hand, I would have been spared much of the bad that I have experienced in life.

While the Holy Spirit is a main reason, the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is just as important, in part, for this reason:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2008/12/07/damon.lok.arafat.walk.cnn

Notice the comments from the Doctor at about :54 seconds into the video.

How sad that with all that Jesus Christ has done, is doing, and will do for mankind, people still feel compelled to go through great personal expense and hardship to gain something they can never seem to grasp - forgiveness. Ladies and gentlemen, enough. As He said - IT IS FINISHED.

The Power of the Logos

2008-12-08T20:24:00.001-08:00

This blog is named the "Power of the Logos" for one main reason - in homage to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, also known as the "Logos" (see John 1 in the New Testament of the Bible). The fact that He is referred to as the "Logos", which is Greek for "Word", expresses to me the tremendous power of words that the Creator intended them to have. I believe that God created language, along with all else, and that the power of words in language is merely a hint at the infinite power of God. Also, I realize, that if we can speak or write words, we are all, at least a little powerful, in our own right.

Having said that, I will also say this - while I do consider myself a born-again Christian, I am respectful to ALL human beings. In the category of human beings I include: Atheists, believers in all faiths, all races or ethnicities of people, individuals of all political and social ideologies, and sexual orientation. I must say, however, I may need a little help regarding pedophiles - I have to REALLY pray when it comes to them. Respect does NOT mean agree - it just means I will treat you with the same dignity and consideration that I would expect in return.

This blog is intended to cover any and all topics - although I tend to write and think more heavily on subjects such as politics and social policy, and religion. I also like sports, American football in particular, science and technology, and movies.

Thanks for visiting!

The Case Against the Legalization of Illicit Drugs

2008-12-08T20:10:00.000-08:00

The “War on Drugs” has been waging now for two decades. The many detractors of “The War on Drugs” point to the continued prevalence of the illicit drug trade in many inner cities and increased use in rural and suburban areas as evidence that law-abiding society is losing the war. I contend that the detractors are perhaps overlooking the possibility that perhaps they misunderstand the real intentions of the “Drug War”.

To those detractors, I say, define “victory”. What exactly does it mean to “win” the Drug War? Could it be, perhaps, that the Drug War is doing and achieving exactly what it was designed to?
I propose this: the Drug War is being won in that it is achieving the actual aim of confining the majority of violent, illicit drug use to definable, geographic areas that can be relatively, (I will explain “relatively” later) easily policed. I contend that the Drug War was never about eliminating the use of illicit drugs (that would be like eliminating prostitution, which would increase the divorce rate by another 25%). Rather, it was about controlling the prevalence of drugs in polite society. By that standard, I would have to say the Drug War is an astounding success. If you are skeptical that this is true, then why is it that tabloids and mainstream media alike make great fair in the arrests of celebrities for illicit drug use? If the Drug War were not successful, a celebrity drug arrest would garner no more news than a celebrity parking ticket.
That brings me to my second proposition, and the real subject of this writing: the case against legalizing drugs.

One reason against legalizing drugs is that it would undermine the control of drugs in polite society, thus making it far more difficult to police the abuse of these drugs. This is where “relatively” easily policed geographic areas come into play. While it is by no means easy for the many hardworking and dedicated police officers that deal day in and day out with the harsh and dangerous realities of drug-infested inner city neighborhoods, imagine having to police those neighborhoods, in addition to the more affluent areas of the city, along with the surrounding suburbs in much the same fashion. Whether or not the affluent city areas and suburbs would reach the level of crime and violence as the inner-city is not the question. The question is how much increased illicit drug use in polite society do we really want to tolerate?

The second reason against legalizing drugs, and perhaps the best, is that it would not eliminate illegal drug use, rather it would actually serve to increase it. To understand why, simply ask a drug dealer why he or she deals drugs. The answer is simple: what other business can you start with virtually no capital or start-up costs, little or no overhead, tax-free, and no bureaucratic labor laws or regulation, that will garner you an almost instant profit? Answer: prostitution – which is also illegal, not as profitable as drug dealing, just about as dangerous in many instances, and on top of that, most drug dealers ain't that pretty. Besides, drug addicts want drugs even more than johns want sex. Right now, from where I sit, I can drive about 5 miles from my home, and become a drug dealer. No resume, no interview, no W-4, nothing. Just a vehicle and the ability to do very simple math. On one good night, I could probably make more than I make at my legitimate job in a month. Guess what happens when you legalize drugs – all of those benefits go away. Now, it becomes “legitimate”, with the all of the overhead and regulation that comes with it, especially with the medical red-tape that would come with legally selling drugs. How many drug dealers in East Baltimore would actually have the motivation and basic business sense to deal with the hassle of running a legitimate business. See, in a legitimate business, if an employee steals from you, you have to have hard evidence (video-tape or paperwork), call the police, file a report, press charges, go to court, probably never get your money back, and if you can't prove the employee stole the money, if you fire him or her, you might even have to pay unemployment compensation. BIG HASSLE, with a high risk of loss. In traditional drug dealing, an employee steals from you, you kill them and hire someone else. SIMPLE, with low risk of loss. This is where good 'ole capitalism comes into play, and the black market kicks in. With the legalization of drugs, the overhead of drug dealing goes through the roof, vastly increasing the cost of the product, giving the black market, “traditional” drug dealers the advantage because they have almost no overhead and can offer the product at a substantially reduced price. The only thing legalizing drugs would really accomplish is giving greater access to drugs to those who would now not normally pursue them. Eventually, once the addictive quality of the drugs kick-in, and funds get low for what was once monthly trips to the “spa”, now turning into daily trips, these new users will abandon the high cost of legal drugs and go straight to the black market. So now, the “traditional” drug dealers not only have their regular customers of inner city natives, they have even more business from polite society, willing to pay even higher prices than their inner city counterparts. All this serves to make “traditional” drug dealing more lucrative and competitive, and thus more violent..

Having stated my very simple case, I will say that I am speaking primarily of hardcore drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, and crystal meth. In my opinion, the jury may still be out on marijuana.

What do you think?