Next year, juniors Stephon Gilmore (CB) and Alshon Jeffery (WR) will enter the NFL Draft instead of playing another year at the University of South Carolina. A non-Gamecock need only review the highlight reel of the Capital One Bowl to understand why this is disappointing. Many of us can only drool at the thought of a season with these two as seniors, a healthy Marcus Lattimore (RB), defensive ends Ingram and Clowney, and the up-and-coming Connor Shaw (QB). Despite the possibility of this dream team, Gilmore, Jefferey, and college football players nationwide entering the draft have a responsibility to do so.
The focus it takes to achieve a place in the NFL necessarily excludes these players from dedicating much, if any, time to preparing for an alternative career. This is even more unfortunate because the average career length for an NFL player is 3.2 years. Of course the stars play longer, but even the average career of a first-round draft pick is only 9.3 years.
This a sport in which one extra hard hit can end a career. Every extra year of college play is not only a year of lost income but also another year they risk having their careers cut short before they get any income at all.
One may argue that these players have nothing to worry about because they make millions of dollars every year. However, median annual salary by team ranges from $537,990 (St. Louis Rams) to $1,177,280 (San Francisco 49ers). After considering that in some municipalities, the combined federal, state, and local taxes on high earners exceeds 50%, these salaries become even less impressive compared to the stereotypical image of astronomical annual pay.
The short average career means these players have a very narrow window of time to gather the majority of their lifetime earnings. Foolish players blow their money on expensive lifestyles, assuming the money will come in forever. Wise players recognize that the money could stop at any moment and save and invest to support themselves in the future. While the NFL has a pension plan for players who have played at least three seasons, it only amounts to $200 a month per season played starting after age 55. This means an athlete with an average length career will receive an annual pension of $7,200. Not only that, they will need something to sustain them from their career end around age 25 to the beginning of their pension payments at age 55.
Players not only have a responsibility to support themselves, but also a responsibility to their family. They have spouses and children, and they often have aging parents or other relatives relying on them for help getting by.
While the glory of a national championship would be amazing for the players and fans, it is only a temporary achievement that in twenty years will probably be noted only by a banner in a stadium, a trophy, and the memories of those who experienced it. However, building a better life for the players, their children, and their families is a far more enduring and impressive achievement. It is for this reason that I, as a Gamecock, thank Gilmore and Jeffery for their time at Carolina and applaud them for making the decision to put their future and their family above temporary personal glory.
Is Ron Paul Really an Isolationist?
Ron Paul criticizes the US military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan, opposes foreign aid, refuses to unconditionally support Israel, and denies that war with Iran is absolutely necessary. Because of these views, conservatives label him as an “isolationist. This criticism exposes a disturbing simplicity in traditional Republican thinking about American interaction with the world.
An isolationist is one who believes his or her nation should close itself off from interaction with the world. Because Republicans view Paul’s opposition to rushed wars and entangling alliances as isolationism, they must believe this is the primary way America should interact with the world. In reality, however, Paul is not an isolationist.
To start, Ron Paul supports completely free trade. He is against tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers that slow the free movement of goods and capital. He also supports ending economic sanctions and embargoes, believing the best way to increase friendly relations with a nation’s people is to trade with them (see: Japan).
Further, Paul supports increased immigration and free movement of people. This leads to the exportation of our cultural influence, which is much more powerful than any military influence.
Finally, Paul opposes the invasion of other countries, particularly without a declaration of war. It’s difficult for anyone to argue that ten year military operations in the Middle East shouldn’t be considered wars.
Ron Paul’s campaign summarizes his foreign policy with the following quote from Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” – Thomas Jefferson
I’ll admit that my foreign policy positions lean to the hawkish side, especially when compared to Paul’s. I think an Iran with nuclear weapons would increase danger in the world. I believe foreign aid is a powerful tool to influence foreign governments to adopt policies favorable to the US. I even would have supported the initial operations in Afghanistan had there been a declaration of war.
However, the point of this post isn’t to support Ron Paul’s positions. It’s simply to counter Republican accusations that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Ron Paul supports free trade, open diplomacy, free travel, and cultural exchange with the people of the world. Republicans, on the other hand, often support hawkish warfare policies and a force-over-persuasion ideology that lead to global animosity toward the US. You decide which of those sounds more “isolationist.”
I’m a few days late but I just had to commemorate Milton Friedman’s birthday (July 31)! Friedman was incredibly adept at explaining the logic behind free markets so that anyone could understand. In this video, he explains how free trade and free markets make it possible for people all over the world, many of whom may hate each other, to voluntarily cooperate and improve humanity.
A Double Blow to Global Warming Alarmism
NASA models show that the amount of heat being let out of earth’s atmosphere is far greater than what alarmist climate scientists have been predicting. This means carbon-dioxide is having far less of an impact on our planet than we thought. Additionally, the biologist who wrenched the collective heart of humanity with his reports on polar bears drowning due to a melting ice shelf has had his scientific credentials stripped and is under investigation for scientific misconduct. No doubt, this dual blow must be hard for global warming alarmists to swallow.
It has been entertaining if not chilling to watch people associate seemingly erratic weather with global warming fears. It’s a bit like giving someone a rabbit’s foot and telling them it’s lucky. Every time something good happens to them they will instinctively attribute it to the rabbit’s foot. Unfortunately, a large group of people are preying upon this human trait.
Some of them have constructed entire schemes to get rich off of the hysteria. Al Gore managed to establish a carbon-offset trading company in between his various paid speaking arrangements. Perhaps he came up with the idea while flying to an environmental conference on his private jet? Many other businesspeople have large stakes in alternative energy companies or hope stronger regulations will push out their smaller competitors.
Others don’t stand to make millions, but their careers rely on people being scared of climate change. Let’s face it: without global warming, climate science is not terribly exciting. The only way for climatologists to ensure hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants is to scare the populace until they demand the government fund research to combat this threat. No scientist would dare come up with anything but alarmist results. The scientist who says, “Everything is pretty good actually,” is not going to get any grants and will be shunned by his peers for threatening their livelihoods.
Next come the politicians. They pay the scientists large grants to come up with alarmist results in order to justify the carbon tax or cap and trade. Generally, politicians just want to get their hands on more of your money with which they can buy more votes. Additionally, a global crisis paves the way for global regulation of carbon. Since businesses produce so much carbon, this primarily means global regulation of business. It also gives Western governments an excuse to condemn the growth of new competitors like India and China.
It’s not a conspiracy theory… okay it kind of is. But it isn’t that outlandish. Certain global warming promoters have bet a lot of money on cap and trade and alternative energy, climatologists want to increase their research grants (and their paychecks), and opportunistic politicians see a way to increase their power.
This Business-Climatologist Complex will be difficult to unravel. Many people have staked their livelihoods on continued fear over global warming. As Upton Sinclair said:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”
The sad thing is that real environmental threats get pushed off to the side when so much attention is focused upon global warming. In an attempt to protect and improve their livelihoods, the members of the Business-Climatologist Complex have forgotten their original mission: protecting nature and human health
There are pollutants which harm the earth and harm people. Milton Friedman, the greatest 20th Century proponent of the free-market, proposed taxing these toxins in order to encourage businesses to innovate away from them. Every tax we add will hurt the economy. If we don’t have a carbon tax, we will be able to afford discouraging companies from producing toxins that are empirically shown to be harmful. While this idea may make conservatives flinch, we must remember that one of the primary roles of government is to prevent people from harming one another, specifically without the victim’s consent. A tax is much better than a mandate, regulation, or subsidy as it incentivizes ingenuity while minimizing the risk of politicization (subsidies going to politicians’ friends, regulations designed to protect monopolies of certain companies, etc.).
Panic is often harmful, but rarely because the supposed doom actually comes true. More often than not, it is the response to a panic that causes the harm. Orson Welles’ radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds caused mass panic. There was no “alien invasion,” but several people were killed and property damaged as Americans tried to escape it. We can only hope America escapes from the theater before it’s too late.
Like this:
In a recent Fox News interview Herman Cain told Chris Wallace that communities in America “have the right” to ban the construction of mosques. On Stossel Herman said he would be wary of nominating a Muslim to his cabinet because he didn’t want to nominate “a potential terrorist.” While the second comment is just dumb (I’m sure Herman has enough interview experience to prevent Islamic terrorists from infiltrating his cabinet), the first is disturbing.
Specifically Cain is referring to the construction of a mosque in Murfreesboro, TN. A group of activists in this town have been protesting the construction of a mosque for some time now. Cain sides with the protestors saying they have the right to ban this construction from their community.
Cain’s argument for this view is a bit disjointed. First, he says the Constitution’s First Amendment protection of freedom of religion gives the protestors the right to ban the mosque because Islam is a combination of a religion and a set of laws. Since Muslims want to combine the Church (Mosque) and State into one entity, they are against the Constitution and therefore communities should be able to bar mosque constructions (I wonder if this applies to those Christians who want to institute prayer in schools?)
I know, it’s hard for me to understand too. When Chris Wallace asks if this means Muslims should be barred from worshipping in the United States, Herman Cain responds with an emphatic, “No!” He talks about how there are peaceful Muslims in the United States who are not threats and who have the right to worship freely. The contradiction is obvious. How can communities ban mosques because Islam is fundamentally a violation of the separation of church and state and yet acceptable Muslims also exist?
When Wallace says “This isn’t Ground Zero; this isn’t hallowed ground.” Cain responds with, “It’s hallowed ground to the people in Murfreesboro.”
What? I really have no idea what he’s talking about here.
It’s true. Fundamentalist Islam is very incompatible with America’s political culture. So are fundamentalist Judaism, fundamentalist Mormonism, and Christianity of the sort practiced in Middle Ages Catholicism. Sharia law says a thief’s hand must be cut off while Old Testament law says the punishment for homosexuality is stoning. Hopefully, neither of these would be accepted in America today.
The problems with Cain’s view are obvious. First, the Constitution is very clear that the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court later ruled this doesn’t allow religious people to commit crimes while practicing their religion. So a cult could hold child sacrifice as a central tenet and it would be free to exist in the United States, as long as it never actually commits that crime. It’s distasteful but so are many things.
The other problem is the precedent this ban would create. If governments are granted the ability to ban religions based on their contradiction to a community’s culture, I wonder how many years it would be before San Francisco bans fundamentalist Christian churches for preaching against homosexuality. The power to ban religious buildings essentially destroys the rule of law. As the founders warned, when mob rule exists the majority will always persecute the minority.
So while I was initially very excited about Herman Cain’s speaking ability and strong conservative positions, he has unfortunately been sucked into the trap of populism. Regardless of whether a dislike of Islam is justified, those people who want to deny Muslims their rights are contradicting one of the main points of the Constitution: Tolerance (not acceptance) of those whose views you find disagreeable.
I’m really not sure who to vote for in this primary. The candidates seem to be either lame (Romney, Huntsman, Gingrich) or populist (Cain, Palin, etc.). Maybe I’ll just vote Ron Paul!
For simplicity’s sake, let’s boil down the three primary categories of illegal migrants to migrant laborers, drug traffickers, and terrorists. Of course there are those who come simply for the attractive welfare or to gain citizenship for their soon-to-be-born children but we can disregard these for the moment. Migrant laborers come to work seasonal jobs for low wages and are generally a boon to the American economy. In fact, the Social Security fund gains about 9 billion dollars a year from illegal immigrants who work under fake social security numbers.
The other two primary categories are drug-traffickers and terrorists. Drug-traffickers generally bring with them violence and, of course, illicit drugs. Again for the sake of simplicity we can branch general criminals in with this category. The final category of terrorists encompasses anyone exploiting the nation’s porous southern border in order to wreak havoc through terrorist activities.
While the exact values are not known, we will use the following estimates:
I believe you would be hard-pressed to disagree with these estimates. If you wish to enlighten me with contrary data proving that 100% of illegal immigrants are terrorists please leave it in the comments below!
Consider the map above. The green channels represent legal pathways through which Mexican migrants can enter rather easily. Instead of waiting for months to get a visa, anyone could come to the border and have their ID checked, their car searched, and their information taken. Labor rules would need to be modified to a degree so great that it cannot fit within the confines of this post.
Anyhow, those migrants coming with the right motives (i.e to work, start businesses, or spend money) would be redirected from crossing the border illegally to passing through these checkpoints.
What does this mean?
Consider this. Currently, every person crossing the border is lumped together. This means that hidden within the 90% of people coming with acceptable reasons are hidden a 10% with more nefarious motivations. What better shield is there to hide your drugs, guns, criminal record, or nuclear device behind than a bunch of well-intentioned migrants?
See the red arrow in the map above? Those are the people who have something to hide. Otherwise, they would take the legal channels of entry and avoid the risk of death and the other high costs related to crossing the border.
By dividing the desirables from the undesirables, the job of patrolling the border becomes infinitely easier. Instead of weeding through millions upon millions of people, border patrol officers can know that when they see someone crossing illegally, they must have something to hide.
Obviously there are several other issues connecting to this one. Should Americans have the right to compete with migrant laborers by working below the minimum wage? How can state governments keep migrants and their families from breaking an already strained welfare state? To be honest, all of these are issues for the states to figure out.
The point is that by using this method of splitting the good from the bad, we can save resources and also be much more effective with our border control. Simultaneously we can embrace the free market principle of the free movement of labor.
I am not so naïve as to think a solution like this is likely. I can only supply the logic for my view and let the chips fall where they may.
Let me know your concerns and opinions in the comments and I will respond to them in a follow-up post.
What is the Point of the War in Afghanistan?
When we entered Afghanistan over ten years ago, the conditions for victory were clear: punish the Taliban, destroy Al-Quaeda in the nation, and kill Osama Bin Laden. Since then we have accomplished at least two of those goals. While the mission started out with a rather clear purpose, why are we there now?
The goal of destroying our enemy has morphed into the ambiguous mission of nation-building. I suppose fatal conceit causes our leaders to believe we can take the poorest, most anti-liberal nation in the world and create a marvelous paradise of democracy, capitalism, and liberal values.
In terms of tangible goals, we have none. Many people warn against time-tables for withdrawal. I agree. Setting an arbitrary date for leaving the country is a terrible strategy. There is nothing to guarantee we will have accomplished our purpose within the allotted time. If we have no purpose there, then we should have a complete and instant withdrawal. Why draw it out and risk American lives in the process?
We must set real goals for our mission in Afghanistan. Simply occupying the nation is not an option. Some say we must stay “until we win”; however, without objectives for victory, we literally cannot win.
As Sun Tzu says in The Art of War: ” Therefore, the victor creates the conditions for victory before he enters the fray; the vanquished fights first and then tries to work out how to win the battle.”
The choice between timetables for withdrawal and infinite occupation is a false one. America needs realistic objectives for its operations in Afghanistan and the sooner we can decide on these the better.
