Hemp was one of the first plants ever cultivated by humans. It provides society with many different uses including; paper, biodegradable plastics, food, textiles, and fuel. Hemp is harvested all over the world from Canada to China. One country that is not reaping profits from hemp is the United States.
Industrial hemp production has been banned in the United States since the Marijuana Tax Act was passed in 1937. This law was passed to stop the recriational use of marijuana but it also doomed the industrial use of the hemp plant. This law overlooks the fact that marijuana has a THC content of up to 20% while hemp only contains a THC content of .3%.
Hemp has a very fast growth rate and needs very little pesticide and no herbicide. Hemps low use of dangrous pesticides and herbicides would make it a great replacement for cotton. Other environmental benifits could be obtained if hemp replaced trees as a source of paper.
It is time for the federal government to recognize the difference between marijuana and hemp. The United States spends large amounts of capital on imports of this product when we have the potential to become a leader in the production of this comodity.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Is Neo-Colonialism Beneficial? It Depends
Between the 15th and 20th centuries colonialism was a mainstay for any European power that engaged in empire building. Colonialism provided an advantage because the colonising power was able to exploit the resources of the conquered territory. In the modern world many countries, including the United States, engage in neocolonialism.
Much of neocolonialism is about controlling another nations natural resources and this can provide a benefit. An example of this morally precarious activity is China's control of Africa's natural resources. This backdoor control of a nations resources is certainly a large part of neocolonialism, but another part is the direct control over a territory that is not directly linked to the main country.
This form of neocolonialism is the residue left over from years of European and American empire building. Former empires, such as the United States, Great Britain, and France, now control many territories that do not have a direct link to the main country. Where as controlling a nations resources can provided an economic advantage, this other form of neocolonialism often acts as an economic liability for the people of the colonising power.
France is by far the best example of the possible economic liabilities of neocolonialism. France is in control of many territories including French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, Guadeloupe and Martinique, Reunion and Mayotte off the coast of Madagascar, and the nation sized overseas territory of French Guiana in South America.
In total, these overseas territories add an additional 2.5 million people to the population of France. In the modern world these overseas territories no longer provide a benefit to the nation of France and large amounts of wealth must be used to support their populations, no small matter considering the high rate of poverty and unemployment in these far off lands.
The United States is also of guilty of possessing territories that no longer provide a benefit. The U.S. Virgin Islands, America Samoa, and Puerto Rico are all great examples of welfare states that receive a considerable amounts of money from the federal government. Puerto Rico is the most extreme case because 20% of the islands personal income comes from federal aid.
There are some notable exceptions when it comes to American overseas territories. The island of Guam is a great example of a territory that provides a brilliant strategic advantage for the United States. Guam is an island of 170,000 people that is positioned only 2,507 miles from Beijing. This closeness to China is important because our long range bombers only have a range of 8,000 miles and must have a land based airbase to get off the ground. If we did not have Guam we would not have a naval and airbase close enough to protect our interest in the region.
The greatest example of a beneficial overseas territory is the island of Diego Garcia. This tiny island in the Indian ocean provides the United States and Great Britain with the unique ability of reaching Eastern Africa, the Middle East, India, and the Oceania with our long rang bombers. It should be noted that the original population was removed from the island and given very little financial support. I believe that it is the United States governments responsibility to provide vast support for the original population and their descendants that now number 4,500. That being said, the great importance of Diego Garcia means that we cannot allow the original population to return to Diego Garcia or the surrounding islands.
If a nation is going to engage in neocolonialism, it must make certain that the territory in question provides a benefit and not a liability. If a territory, such as Puerto Rico and America Samoa, provides a liability then there is no reason to provide large amounts of wealth for a group of people that has very little cultural and historical links to the mainland. Territories like Guam and Diego Garcia, which provides a strategic advantage that is the envy of all aspiring superpowers, should be provided for because of there unique importance.
Much of neocolonialism is about controlling another nations natural resources and this can provide a benefit. An example of this morally precarious activity is China's control of Africa's natural resources. This backdoor control of a nations resources is certainly a large part of neocolonialism, but another part is the direct control over a territory that is not directly linked to the main country.
This form of neocolonialism is the residue left over from years of European and American empire building. Former empires, such as the United States, Great Britain, and France, now control many territories that do not have a direct link to the main country. Where as controlling a nations resources can provided an economic advantage, this other form of neocolonialism often acts as an economic liability for the people of the colonising power.
France is by far the best example of the possible economic liabilities of neocolonialism. France is in control of many territories including French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, Guadeloupe and Martinique, Reunion and Mayotte off the coast of Madagascar, and the nation sized overseas territory of French Guiana in South America.
In total, these overseas territories add an additional 2.5 million people to the population of France. In the modern world these overseas territories no longer provide a benefit to the nation of France and large amounts of wealth must be used to support their populations, no small matter considering the high rate of poverty and unemployment in these far off lands.
The United States is also of guilty of possessing territories that no longer provide a benefit. The U.S. Virgin Islands, America Samoa, and Puerto Rico are all great examples of welfare states that receive a considerable amounts of money from the federal government. Puerto Rico is the most extreme case because 20% of the islands personal income comes from federal aid.
There are some notable exceptions when it comes to American overseas territories. The island of Guam is a great example of a territory that provides a brilliant strategic advantage for the United States. Guam is an island of 170,000 people that is positioned only 2,507 miles from Beijing. This closeness to China is important because our long range bombers only have a range of 8,000 miles and must have a land based airbase to get off the ground. If we did not have Guam we would not have a naval and airbase close enough to protect our interest in the region.
The greatest example of a beneficial overseas territory is the island of Diego Garcia. This tiny island in the Indian ocean provides the United States and Great Britain with the unique ability of reaching Eastern Africa, the Middle East, India, and the Oceania with our long rang bombers. It should be noted that the original population was removed from the island and given very little financial support. I believe that it is the United States governments responsibility to provide vast support for the original population and their descendants that now number 4,500. That being said, the great importance of Diego Garcia means that we cannot allow the original population to return to Diego Garcia or the surrounding islands.
If a nation is going to engage in neocolonialism, it must make certain that the territory in question provides a benefit and not a liability. If a territory, such as Puerto Rico and America Samoa, provides a liability then there is no reason to provide large amounts of wealth for a group of people that has very little cultural and historical links to the mainland. Territories like Guam and Diego Garcia, which provides a strategic advantage that is the envy of all aspiring superpowers, should be provided for because of there unique importance.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Fuel Efficiency as National Security
In the United States the status quo has always been that only liberals and granola freaks can care about issues related to environmentalism. This mode of thinking should be shunned as outdated and dangerous. Conservatives need to take a closer look at ideas arising from the environmental movement.
Global warming does not have to be the only reason for adopting environmentally savvy ideas. In fact, global warming may be inevitable due to rising energy consuption in the developing world. It is this rising consumption that will lead to future energy shortages and why fuel efficiency standards must evolve.
Energy, in the form of oil, will always be in short supply for the United States. Further aggravating the problem is the fact that much of the worlds oil supply is located in nations that are unfriendly to the United States. These petrostates(Russia, Iran, and Venezuela) have been a thorn in the side of the United States for some time.
Increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles will decrease the power of the petrostates by keeping oil prices low. This is increasingly important as Russia increases its influence in Central Asia and South America. Venezuela has also been flexing its muscles by throwing oil money around in South America, a move that has lead many countries to stray from Washington. High oil prices have made Iran a regional superpower, a fact that is troubling due to the situation in Iraq.
It is true that oil prices have dropped dramatically in recent months reducing the power of the petrostates as well as crashing the economy of Russia. However, this can only last for so long. At some point the world economy will revitalize and oil consumption and prices will rise. When this happens America needs to be positioned to deal with the petrostates.
Global warming does not have to be the only reason for adopting environmentally savvy ideas. In fact, global warming may be inevitable due to rising energy consuption in the developing world. It is this rising consumption that will lead to future energy shortages and why fuel efficiency standards must evolve.
Energy, in the form of oil, will always be in short supply for the United States. Further aggravating the problem is the fact that much of the worlds oil supply is located in nations that are unfriendly to the United States. These petrostates(Russia, Iran, and Venezuela) have been a thorn in the side of the United States for some time.
Increasing fuel efficiency for vehicles will decrease the power of the petrostates by keeping oil prices low. This is increasingly important as Russia increases its influence in Central Asia and South America. Venezuela has also been flexing its muscles by throwing oil money around in South America, a move that has lead many countries to stray from Washington. High oil prices have made Iran a regional superpower, a fact that is troubling due to the situation in Iraq.
It is true that oil prices have dropped dramatically in recent months reducing the power of the petrostates as well as crashing the economy of Russia. However, this can only last for so long. At some point the world economy will revitalize and oil consumption and prices will rise. When this happens America needs to be positioned to deal with the petrostates.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Pentagon's Budget is Out of Shape
Monetary constraints are making the Pentagon rethink how it manages its budget. The Pentagon’s budget is dominated by spending that is geared toward a conventional war. The only problem with this is that we are currently fighting two unconventional wars. Furthermore, future conventional wars seem unlikely due to the United States’ revulsion toward war casualties.
The Pentagon is debating whether or not to make cuts to the Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 raptor, C-17 transport plane, V-22 Osprey, the Army's Future Combat Systems, and many other programs. The spending cuts to these programs are seen as a way to meet present spending needs, while putting future needs on the back burner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18defense.html?ref=us
United States military spending is greater than the rest of the world put together. This huge budget cannot last during an economic downturn and barrowing money from China presents a strategic problem. Defense Secretary Gates demonstrates his understanding of this during his testimony to Congress by saying, “One thing we have known for many months is the spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing.”
If the Pentagon is to thrive in the twenty-first century it must focus on cost effective programs instead of producing white elephants that it cannot afford.
The Pentagon is debating whether or not to make cuts to the Joint Strike Fighter, F-22 raptor, C-17 transport plane, V-22 Osprey, the Army's Future Combat Systems, and many other programs. The spending cuts to these programs are seen as a way to meet present spending needs, while putting future needs on the back burner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18defense.html?ref=us
United States military spending is greater than the rest of the world put together. This huge budget cannot last during an economic downturn and barrowing money from China presents a strategic problem. Defense Secretary Gates demonstrates his understanding of this during his testimony to Congress by saying, “One thing we have known for many months is the spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing.”
If the Pentagon is to thrive in the twenty-first century it must focus on cost effective programs instead of producing white elephants that it cannot afford.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
The long awaited American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has finally been passed by the U.S. Congress. The Senate voted 60-38 in favor of the Stimulus bill, while the House of Representatives passed the bill in a 246-183 vote. The controversial $787 bln stimulus plan had widespread Democrat backing but Republican support was lacking. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app09.html#h1
The bill contains spending for tax relief($288 bln), State & Local fiscal relief($144 bln), Infrastructure & Science($111 bln), Welfare($81 bln), Health Care($59 bln), Education & Training($53 bln), Energy($43 bln), and $8 bln in additional spending. http://www.recovery.gov/
The bill also contains a controversial “Buy American” provision. This section of the bill has been criticized by governments around the world due to its protectionist nature. The “Buy American” clause favors American manufacturing companies but must also follow all WTO agreements. Thus, under U.S. law, the 42 other countries that signed the World Trade Organization agreement on government procurement will also be able to provide manufacturing materials used in the U.S. stimulus package.
It is true that a stimulus package is essential for economic recovery. However, it is easy to notice the presence of significant spending that could be considered non-stimulus spending. This spending can be found in the welfare, healthcare, and education sections of the legislation. This spending will not be affective in stimulating the economy and should have been put in a separate bill, instead of being pushed through with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The bill contains spending for tax relief($288 bln), State & Local fiscal relief($144 bln), Infrastructure & Science($111 bln), Welfare($81 bln), Health Care($59 bln), Education & Training($53 bln), Energy($43 bln), and $8 bln in additional spending. http://www.recovery.gov/
The bill also contains a controversial “Buy American” provision. This section of the bill has been criticized by governments around the world due to its protectionist nature. The “Buy American” clause favors American manufacturing companies but must also follow all WTO agreements. Thus, under U.S. law, the 42 other countries that signed the World Trade Organization agreement on government procurement will also be able to provide manufacturing materials used in the U.S. stimulus package.
It is true that a stimulus package is essential for economic recovery. However, it is easy to notice the presence of significant spending that could be considered non-stimulus spending. This spending can be found in the welfare, healthcare, and education sections of the legislation. This spending will not be affective in stimulating the economy and should have been put in a separate bill, instead of being pushed through with the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)