Abolish the Death Penalty

With the current publicity of the supreme court trial Madison v. Alabama, the citizens of the United States should once again ask themselves if the death penalty is necessary. There are several reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. It does not deter criminals from committing homicide, it is more expensive than a life sentence without parole, it publically desensitizes the morality of killing a human, it needlessly punishes the families of criminals, and it is irreversible if the suspect is later found to be innocent.

One of the most common misconceptions among proponents of the death penalty is that it is more economically sound than imprisonment; however, this is incorrect. Amongst prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges, it is common knowledge that the costs of a capital case begin long before the execution and consequently consume several years of time and enormous amounts of money. Even after the initial trial of the murderer, a second trial for capital punishment must then ensue which requires experienced prosecutors, state-funded defense attorneys, a long period of investigation, pre-trial hearings, jury selection, the prosecution itself, and initial appeals. All of the studies conducted on this matter have concluded that the death penalty system is far more expensive than a maximum life sentence in prison. In 2000, a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state of Oregon equal $9 million per year.

Perhaps the primary argument for maintaining the death penalty is that it acts as a deterrent against criminals; however, there is not the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide. There have been 1,184 executions in the southern United States in the past forty years compared to a mere four executions in the northeastern states. If capital punishment were an effective deterrent, one would expect the homicide rates to correspond, yet homicide counts in 2015 were nearly 70 percent higher in the South. Additionally, it’s reasonable that the likelihood of a sociopathic criminal to be deterred due to the remote chance of execution many years later is incredibly small, especially when considering that life imprisonment is a similarly devastating punishment.

Another principle to consider is the irreversible nature of the death penalty. Between 2012 and 2015, nearly 150 people were removed from death row because while waiting to be executed, they were found to be innocent. For example, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Following his execution, further evidence revealed that Willingham did not set the fire that caused their deaths, but it was already too late. The death penalty is irreversible and rash judgments lead to innocent people paying for crimes that they did not commit.

On a fundamental level, if our criminal justice system is to improve, it should be designed not just to punish, but also to prevent crime and rehabilitate certain criminals. Nietzsche wrote that “When fighting monsters you must take care not to become one yourself,” As citizens of America, we are the state and when the state kills, we, the citizens, are participants. We do not need to kill people to teach that killing is wrong.

I am responding to the blog post Military Spendings and Investments by Lilas Al-Hakim. While the points made were accurate and well referenced, there was no strong argument as to whether we should increase or decrease the military spending. Instead of providing statistics and information regarding how the military is being funded, whether that money could be utilized differently, or why the military is so costly, Al-Hakim delves into great detail on one particular Gallup Poll concerning the American public opinion on the Military Budget. At one point in the third paragraph, there are two sentences that begin to express an opinion that the United States should indeed increase military spending due to a need in "missile defense" and "warfighting readiness," however, earlier in the post, Al-Hakim mentions that there is no outline for how the United States plans to fund its objectives. Overall, the blog post is vaguely neutral and provides excessive information that is hardly relevant to the core issue of the topic.

America's (Military) Shopping Addiction

It's no secret that the United States spends enormous amounts of money on its military. In June of this year, the U.S. Senate approved a military budget of $716 billion for 2019. The new budget passed with an 85-to-10 vote and is one of the most massive military budgets in the history of the world. Despite the rapid growth of the federal deficit, the United States is en route to spend $106 billion more on its defense than it did in 2017. Jumping up by 9.3 percent from 2017 to 2019, this raise is one of the most substantial budget increases in U.S. history.

Compared to the rest of the world, America spends dramatically more on its budget than any other country. In 2017, America alone spent more than the next seven countries combined. China, the second largest spender in the world, spent a modest $228 billion on its defenses—that's $382 billion less than the United States.

Proponents of increased spending claim that the defense budget is necessary to prevent other countries from attacking the United States, a belief in "spending for peace, not for war," but by expanding its military, America is actually doing the opposite: it's sending a signal to the world that it is preparing to go to war. William Hartung, director at the Center for International Policy in Washington D.C., stated "This is not only wasteful, it's dangerous: It tells other countries that the nuclear arms race is back on,"

Additionally, defense officials stated that the funds are necessary for military preparedness and crisis intervention, but as demonstrated by the disaster following the invasion of Iraq, critics doubt the assumption that the United States can use military force to solve international political problems at all. Shortly after the U.S. Budget was passed, President Trump urged European nations at a NATO summit in Brussels to similarly increase their military budget. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas publicly responded that "military spending will, however, not make our world any more secure... Instead, we urgently need more respect to the international rules and order,”

With the national deficit rapidly worsening, it's clear that the United States needs to spend less money, and at the very least, it needs to reallocate its money into more productive and lucrative investments such as the education and welfare of its citizens. How the government should reduce military spending is a controversial and confusing topic, but it doesn't need to be.

In 2015, the Pentagon requested an internal study be performed by the Defense Business Board in order to streamline their bureaucracy. The findings, outlined in this study, were that the Pentagon could save  $125 billion in administrative waste. The report revealed that the Pentagon was spending twenty-one percent of its $580 billion budget on unnecessary overhead such as accounting, human resources, logistics, and property management. Ironically, this meant that the salaries supplied by the U.S. defense establishment and the Pentagon had become America's most extensive social program. Mckinsey and Company stated that the investigative report laid out “a clear path” for the Pentagon to save $125 billion over the next five years.

In addition to streamlining the bloated bureaucracy of the Pentagon, the United States could also save significant money through a strategy of restraint in foreign affairs. By remaining out of international troubles, the United States could reduce the necessity of military power and create reductions in spending. It's no surprise that a less active military is also a cheaper military.

On October 19, 2018, Dan Corjescu published a blog post titled The New Politics of Climate Change on Counterpunch.org. Dan Corjescu is an activist for the Green party and writes almost exclusively for Counterpunch. Corjescu's credibility and background does not extend any farther than merely being passionate for environmentalism and fighting climate change, but regardless, I agree with him. His intended audience is the American public and since this editorial was posted to a liberal-leaning blog, it seems that he is not spending as much effort convincing his readers that climate change is an issue as he is describing potential ways that political parties need to be addressing climate change. He claims that climate change is an urgent issue and that as it accelerates, it will become a more prominent and "boiling" issue within political parties. Corjescu states that there will be two political outcomes. One outcome being reactionary and one outcome being progressive. He briefly skims over the reactionary outcome and states that it will tend to "put up strong national defenses and seek out convenient sacrificial lambs such as migrants and refugees." The remainder of the article focuses on the progressive outcome and that the existing American political parties need to broadly transform themselves or else other parties "such as the Greens" will seize dominance. In his final paragraphs, Corjescu suggests that the green party employs tactics similar to the ones used by minority groups in the civil rights era such as "Earth Marches" and "Green Demonstrations" in order to be seen as more "hip," "cool," and appealing.  Overall, I agree with Corjescu and the pressing necessity of more legislation for decarbonization and technological-ecological innovation.

On September 29, 2018, Jennifer Rubin published an opinion piece to the Washington Post titled If we want to protect the Supreme Court's Legitimacy, Kavanaugh should not be on it. This article is interesting for many reasons.

Firstly, Rubin has held a moderately conservative perspective in her past writings, but in her piece which was submitted on Saturday, she took a liberal stance. She even went as far as to write that "the GOP became a right-wing, radical party that eschewed long-held principles such as truth, humility, decorum, and respect." These are bold words for someone that would have previously voted as a part of the GOP. Before journalism, Rubin practiced labor law which aids in her writing for The Post. The intended audience for this article is presumably the American public and any readers of The Washington Post.

Secondly, as most of the country and press are focusing on the investigation into whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted three women, Rubin's article shifts the focus towards the bias and partisanship that Kavanaugh has exposed during the investigation. She argues that he has revealed himself as a poorly tempered individual that believes in conspiracy theories and blames liberal groups for orchestrating an "attack on his integrity, his decency, and his very life as well as the life of his family." She relies on quotes from the Harvard Law Professor, Laurence H. Tribe, that state Kavanaugh should recuse himself in any case where such liberal groups appear before the Court due to the bias and personal involvement that he has expressed towards such groups. Kavanaugh has even revealed that he harbors a personal vendetta against the Democratic party when he shouted, "what goes around comes around!"

Finally, I agree with Rubin's overall argument, especially when she points out that the Supreme Court is already akin to a mini-legislature of two warring factions and that putting such a highly partisan judge into the fifth seat would demolish whatever is left of the Supreme Court's intellectual integrity. While it is incredibly crucial to determine whether Kavanaugh committed the crimes that he is accused of, we should also be questioning whether or not he is worthy to be a Supreme Court Justice at all, even if he is found to be innocent.

American Consumers Are Paying the Price of Trump's Ego

On the 7th of September 2018, The New York Times published an article by Alan Rappeport titled Trump Threatens Tariffs on All Imports From China, Escalating Trade Feud. Alan Rappeport is an economic policy reporter for The New York Times in Washington. He played a significant role in reporting the 2016 presidential election for many outlets, but currently covers news regarding taxes, trade, and fiscal matters for The New York Times. This article is important because it holds the most recent updates into Trump's ongoing trade wars with China, Canada, and the European Union, which will significantly affect American consumers and the U.S. trade deficit.

Trump previously stated that reducing the U.S. trade deficit is one of his chief economic goals, which is ironic considering how much his antics have worsened it. The deficit is currently widening at its fastest rate since 2015, and economic growth has been damaged not only in the United States but around the world as well, primarily amongst the main trade partners of America: China, Europe, and Canada.

Robert E. Lighthizer, Trump's top trade negotiator, stated that he was concerned that the United States would take the hardest hit from the new tariffs. Regardless, Trump repeatedly disregards the repercussions and threatens to impose more taxes on exports to China. Trump claims that he's "being strong on China," but it is apparent that he is instead being reckless and foolish.

Introduction Test Post

Howdy, colleagues!