Phelps Suspension

Olympic phenom Michael Phelps was recently suspended by USA swimming for three months for the now infamous photo of him, apparently, using a bong to use marijuana, now popularly termed "Bonggate."

What does this have to do with politics? Simple: this is folly. The legal prohibitions of such substances as marijuana have done nothing to prevent their consumption by various members of society. According to the World Health Organization, over 40 percent of American adults will have used marijuana for non-medicinal purposes in their life time. Now I am not willing to commit a blatant argumentum ad populatum fallacy and assert that because so many people use it, it should be legal. However, what I am willing to assert is that like alcohol prohibition before it, marijuana prohibition has failed to prevent consumption of that which it was meant to reduce.

The benefits of marijuana legalization have been explored, explained, and expounded upon by far wiser and better minds, and they are too numerous to fully cover here. But those benefits alone pale in comparison to a simple principle:

Marijuana consumption by an individual is an individual's choice which leads to no harm save for the person that would consume it. And even then, many people assert that that assertion is flawed. Even if it were not, it is known that alcohol and tobacco are two of the deadliest substances on this Earth, yet they remain legal. Far more deadly, and dependance forming than marijuana, according to the chart of dependance and harm, according to the British medical Journal, Lancer's chart of drug categorization.

In essence, this argument boils down to the famous English philosopher, John Stuart Mill's harm principle. Unless an act causes concrete harm to another person, we ought not to even concern ourselves with it, let alone seek to prohibit it by force.

The New Political Landscape

In his Washington Post Op-Ed piece Eugene Robinson scathingly rebukes the entirety of the Republican members of the House of Representatives, for their unanimous opposition to President Obama's 800 billion dollar plus economic stimulus package. Saying

What I've been hearing from Republicans in both the House and Senate has been a kind of attenuated, distorted echo of the economic doctrine that the party has preached, if not always practiced, since the Reagan years. It's perfectly appropriate, of course, to ask whether a specific spending proposal would have the desired stimulative effect; indeed, some items were removed from the stimulus bill for that reason. But underlying the Republican criticism has been a familiar formula: more tax cuts, fewer spending initiatives.

But Americans know that this philosophy has already taken us as far as it could. Americans know that taxes can be cut by only so much before the federal government's effectiveness inevitably suffers. Americans know that spending money doesn't necessarily mean wasting it. Americans know that the economic crisis means that taking the position that government is inherently oppressive, if not fundamentally evil, is now intellectually bankrupt, because government is the only instrument we have in the high-stakes attempt to induce financial and economic recovery.

If Republicans hadn't broken the bank with drunken-sailorish spending during most of George W. Bush's time in the White House, their complaints about the cost of the stimulus package and its impact on future deficits would be more credible. As things stand, we have to let actions speak: absolute solidarity among House Republicans in voting no.

(Source)

While I would not agree with the tenor of Mr. Robinson's criticism, and do not agree with a few of his premises regarding tax cuts and spending intiative cuts, the most important theme of his arguments is one that all sides of the political landscape must come to realize: The political landscape has changed.

I do not mean to say that it has irrevocably changed, as American politics is the poster-child for cyclical movements. But for the moment the Republican party is standing on the wrong side of history. The issue now becomes whether or not the GOP will be able to recover in short order to the changing American mindsight and reform conservatism to become a viable option for the electorate. Like it or not, the last 8 years of President Bush's administration has harmed the ability of conservative politicians to act. Including, but certainly not limited to, the GOP nominee for President having to publically and repeatedly distance himself from the incumbent.

Given the United States history, I would normally postulate that the GOP would be able to hunker down with its current policies, weather the storm of their down turn on the wheel of American politics and return to prominence in 8, 12, or maybe 16 years. But this is not the case. Presently the Democratic Party and the Left are led by one of the better, if not best, political minds of the last decade. This is not to say tha I like or even agree with President Obama's views and policies, but it is indisputable that he is a consumate politician. His greatest act and ability is also the area that poses the gravest threat to American consevatism.

President Obama's campaign showed us the grand appeal he has for not only securing his political base of the Left but in consolidating the vast Center of American politics. What is telling about this is that his opponent, Senator McCain, thought he had a dualistic choice between either running a moderate campaign and losing the base, or maneuvering hard right to consolidate the base. he choose the latter with predictable results.

What I mean by all of this is that the GOP needs crucial reformation of its policies and stances. Not so much a reform per se, but a Renaissance. A return to our earlier past of such great minds as Willliam Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and (partially) Ronald Reagan.

What this entails is a rejection of the big government spending of the neoconservative movement, a rejection of the influence of those party members who advocate the regulation of our nations social aspects, and embracing the more libertarian past.

In short, in order for the GOP to survive, it must start being a viable option, once more, for the Center.

Renaissance

Hello again, remember me? Doubtful, I haven't posted since September. And for that I apologize. But after a lot of thinking I've decided to both rename this blog and alter it's focus.

I intend to make this blog regarding the outlook and viewpoints I have in the realm of politics, foreign affairs, US government policy, etc. In short, I am narrowing the focus of this blog. A subsequent post of mine shall be forthcoming and I will now be keeping a regular schedule of posting every Friday.

The Burden of Responsibility

Responsibility is a word often bandied about from parents to their children, instructors to their students, older generations to those that will soon take up the mantle of prominence. Rarely, however, does that message sink until some cataclysmic event shocks that person or group into a newfound level of consciousness. Perhaps this is premature on my part, but I'm of the firm belief that I have received such a revelation in my, admittedly, short time here at Ohio University.

Here in college responsibility truly comes into true form. There are a myriad of activities that, normally, others would do so without us even having to raise a finger. Academically, the consequences even in High School were relatively low stake. If you slipped up and putzed around the entirety of a quarter, the consequences would not be that great. As I was told, and I'm sure a great deal of my fellow students were as well, that such mistakes are gone now. Relegated to the dust bin of history. How many job applications will be accepted or rejected upon the basis of HS grades or accomplishments?

But the same can not be said of college. What we do with out time, academically, extra-curricularly, socially, all have such greater magnified impacts that it is not even comparable to our previous lives.

I firmly believe that being shocked into such an awareness is the greatest accomplishment of the college system. It forces us, as both students and young adults, to realize that our actions have consequences. That idleness serves no other purpose than extremely limited and short term gratification.

But as excitement of what I'll be doing with the various extra-curricular activities, meeting new people, learning varied and exciting courses, I find myself no longer treating this new responsibility as a burden, but as a veritable battering ram on the door of life's oppurtunities.

Explanation of Title / Introduction

Hello all,

This first post of mine will serve both as an introduction to this blog and myself, and as an explanation of the title.

My name is Frank Bumb, aged 19, of Wauseon, Ohio (about 45 minutes west of Toledo). I am currently enrolled in the prestigious Scripps College of Communication at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. I am seeking a journalism degree (sequence / specialization undecided) from the redunantly named E.W. Scripps School of Journalism. My hope is that the expierences at this university, both academic and extra-curricular, will propel me into the field of either sports or political journalism.

My hobbies include American football, poker (specifically Texas Hold'em), video games, discussing / debating politics, history, and a variety of other issues and activities.

Owing to the source of the inspiration for this blog, my Journalism 101 professor, Professor Robert Stewart, much of this blog will deal with my academic activities, extracurricular activities (more on these at a later point), and just general college life. Though this by no means limits me from going off on a tangent concerning politics or even ancient history.

As to the title, my last name, owing to the final "b" being silent, is phoentically equivalent to that of a common word for the homeless. Thus my title is meant to conjure the image of a "Bum(b)" at a card board desk, with a laptop, blogging away.

Like my wit? There's much more to come.