One of my former professors sounds off on the new economic stimulus package:

Such stimulus, however, is futile. Government cannot create genuine spending power; the most it can do is to transfer it from Smith to Jones. If the Treasury sends a stimulus check to Jones, the money comes from taxes, from borrowing, or is newly created.

If it comes from taxes, the value of Jones’s stimulus check is offset by the greater taxes paid by Smith, who will then have fewer dollars to spend or invest. If Uncle Sam borrows to pay for the stimulus checks, this borrowing takes money out of the private sector. Any dollars borrowed – whether from foreigners or fellow Americans – for purposes of stimulus would have been spent or invested in other ways were they not loaned to the government.

It makes sense.  If $300 appears in the hands of every person in the United States, it’s not as if we now have more purchasing power as a whole.  The total stock of dollars in circulation can always buy the same amount of goods, no matter how many dollars are in circulation…

American politics today has gone so far from what the founding fathers desired.  To be politically charged in the past was all about passionately advocating ideas and informing one’s self about the state of the nation.  Today, people who watch the news on TV are plenty informed - about statistics.

When I turn on the news if I’m running on a treadmill or taking a break from studying - it’s always the same: “so-and-so has momentum here;” “this state is more likely to vote for a woman;” “study shows 56% of people like good candidates.”

I would wager today that a good chunk of the US population that claims they support a particular political candidate today has absolutely no idea why they do.  This is because most Americans get their political news from the TV, and talk about the issues on TV is rare.  You can go a full hour on CNN without actually hearing about what a candidate stands for, even though you know the percentage of independent voters that need to turn out in state Z for him to win.

This morning I read an interesting article in the Washington Post entitled “When the Rules Run Up Against Faith.”  Essentially, the article was about an excellent female high school cross country and track runner, who was a practicing Muslim and was thus forbidden from showing skin except for her hands and face.  Thus, at track meets, she was wearing a unitard that covered her arms and legs, and was equipped with hood to cover everything but her face, which she wore under her team’s uniform.

Everything was fine for the past three years, in which she raced in that uniform at many track meets.  However, at a recent meet, and one that was very important to her, a meet director told her that her uniform was unacceptable and she was disqualified.   Essentially, his argument was that technically, her uniform violated the rules (his argument is wishy-washy to begin with), so she has to be disqualified.

Assuming that the meet director was entirely correct when he said that her uniform violated the rules, he is still wrong in disqualifying her, because he is ignoring the entire purpose behind the rules.  As far as I can see, there are three purposes behind the rules: (1) to prevent an unfair advantage; (2) to make team uniforms the same to differentiate one team from another; and (3) to prevent athletes from wearing something obscene.

In Virginia, there is some debate as to whether or not people convicted of DUI three times should be issued bright yellow license plates when they regain the ability to drive. Initially, when I heard this, I thought: “why not?” It could warn others around the drunk driver, and it’s not like three-time DUI convicts have much room to protest.

However, after further consideration, I’ve concluded the yellow license plates are a bad idea. For one, if someone is convicted of driving drunk three times, they should permanently lose their driver’s license. Sure, that sounds inconvenient, heavy handed, or what have you. But come on, three convictions is A LOT. If someone gets three drunk driving convictions, it does not mean they simply drove drunk three times. I’d be willing to bet that most people who drive drunk do not get caught. So if someone is convicted for DUI three ties, it essentially means that driving drunk is a regular thing for them. It also means they really don’t care about the consequences of getting behind the wheel drunk. Someone like that does not deserve the privilege of a driver’s license. They can learn how to use public transportation, or a bike, or find a friend who can drive them.