James Stephens – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Wed, 01 Feb 2017 18:33:38 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 James Stephens – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 Panem et lumina https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/31/panem-et-lumina/ https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/31/panem-et-lumina/#respond Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:44:16 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1122176 Forgive me for the Latin title, but I do not think we are seeing a combination of bread and circuses in this first week of the Trump Presidency; I think we are receiving crumbs instead of loaves, but now with the lights flashing in our eyes. Crumbs that citizens have to sift through false reports, poor analysis, sponsored content, and the notion to get a story out as fast as possible in order to truly learn.

The post Panem et lumina appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In Kanye West’s 2007 song “Flashing Lights,” Dwele, a favorite son of Detroit, chorally and reflectively inquires “what do I know?” while the title of the song is repeated. Although “Flashing Lights” is, or can be, about infidelity and the conviction of a woman who has been cheated on, the seductive chorus returns to me in this political climate.

Forgive me for the Latin title, but I do not think we are seeing a combination of bread and circuses in this first week of the Trump presidency; I think we are receiving crumbs instead of loaves, but now with lights flashing in our eyes. Crumbs that citizens have to sift through false reports, poor analysis, sponsored content and the notion to get a story out as fast as possible in order to truly learn.

If this article reaches you, you have heard, seen, skimmed or investigated the Muslim refugee executive order. Muslim citizens of seven nation-states, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, are barred from entry for 90 days, while refugees’ admissions have been suspended 120 days while vetting processes are, ironically, vetted. In Section 5(d), the President claims that more than 50,000 refugees in 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the country. Customs and other security agencies were briefed on the order when it was signed on Friday, which may explain why there were so many misapplications of the order. The National Review argues that the 50,000 cap on refugee admissions is reasonable compared to the Bush and Obama administrations, which is problematic because it makes me wonder why we need new policy if we want to keep things the same: the quizzical “if it isn’t broke, fix it.” So what do we know?

We know that post-inauguration, Sean Spicer stood for the first time as the press secretary, attempting to establish a relationship by calling objective reporting aspersion. Spicer even went so far as reprimanding the media, inimically stating what the media should have reported — a concerning and telling play for the growing mess of a presidential media team. Spicer would later suggest a 20 percent import tax in another press conference, conveying just how much you, as an individual citizen, need to know how to get in touch with your congressional representatives.

We know hate crime reporting has increased in the U.S. since the election, but that may be a phenomenon seen every election cycle. We know that a mosque in Texas was burned down, but we do not know the cause (though over $800,000 has been raised to help rebuild the mosque and churches neighboring the mosque have offered their services and assistance). We know that Canada has opened it doors even wider to refugees. The Canadian refugee resettlement program has become so effective, it is continuing to expand. We know a Canadian mosque was just shot up Sunday night, killing six.

Why does it feel, though, that lights are being flashed before my eyes? A “Muslim ban,” however short, is relatively low-hanging fruit for this administration. Trump led a campaign seeking to divide people, gave an inaugural speech seeking to divide people and seems to carry the trend of divide et impera through his policies. What better way to get people on the right arguing that this a necessary step for national security while the people on the left argue that Lady Liberty is crying. Granted this ban has a bit of sleight of hand, as in an interview with CBS news, Trump argued we need to look at San Bernardino and 9/11 as reasons for this policy. Oddly enough, none of the terrorists from San Bernardino or from 9/11 were from the aforementioned nation-states listed in the ban. Even more oddly, some have called into question where this policy lines up to the Trumps’ business interests.

I am curious as to what the new administration is attempting to do while we are mired in arguably one of America’s most cyclical moments. American history has shown the scales of security and liberty losing balance. John Adams was motivated by the threat of war from France, so come forth the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, which made it difficult for people conveniently deemed dangerous to become citizens. The treatment of another group of individuals from my own family’s history comes to mind — they were seen as dirty, subhuman and uneducated as they came to America attempting to leave oppression and famine. They came across anti-Catholic legislation, signs and advertisements tersely stating, “No Irish Need Apply.” The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 consciously resurfaces, and I recall learning about Japanese Internment camps when I grew up in Japan. The MS St. Louis, a ship of Jewish refugees, being turned away from Florida. These historical instances only shed a small light on a larger portion of American history, but they provide a basis for analyzing the implications of this executive order and what, fundamentally, the administration is willing to trade for a veil of security.

Now, it is difficult not to determine the recent executive action as delineating who is a second-class citizen and who is not. Regardless of how you feel, this haste and the ensuing enforcement of this policy has, in fact, forced people who have earned the right to live, work and laugh on American soil to choose between family and the aspirations they pursue in this country. History cannot be unlived but with humility and diversity, it need not be lived again.

So what don’t we know? What is going on behind closed doors that this administration does not even give us the opportunity to be misinformed about? I do not know, or else my article would be better. But please do not just skim the headlines. One does not live on crumbs alone, and I believe we should prioritize confirming and pursuing our ignorance rather than our intransigent, pyrrhic “knowledge” of an administration rife with uniquely alternative facts.

 

Contact James Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Panem et lumina appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2017/01/31/panem-et-lumina/feed/ 0 1122176
Go nuts! https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/19/go-nuts/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/19/go-nuts/#comments Fri, 20 May 2016 06:59:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1115474 I was speaking with a friend of mine the other night and we came across a topic that has been planted in all of our minds for a couple of years now: Almonds are sucking up the precious water in California. According to some Californian college students, almonds are hella bad for the environment — […]

The post Go nuts! appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I was speaking with a friend of mine the other night and we came across a topic that has been planted in all of our minds for a couple of years now: Almonds are sucking up the precious water in California. According to some Californian college students, almonds are hella bad for the environment — an opinion voiced by The Atlantic’s “The Dark Side of Almond Use.” Almonds are running our rivers dry and forcing wildlife to compete for water. Even The Stanford Daily has brought a taste of almond shaming to campus. If demand for almonds, especially considering the trend of increasing preferences for almond milk, continues to rise, we might as well rename the state Arrakis.

What if, although larger farms may consume an almond a leg in their share of water usage, these nuts are not as insidious as they seem? What if, despite it being used for nut milk, almonds are not the smoking gun of water shortage in California?

Some context: It takes a gallon of water to produce one almond. Eighty-two percent of the world’s almonds are grown in California due to the state’s amicable climate. Almond growers use about 10 percent of the state’s water supply every year (given plus/minus 2 to 3 percent depending on rain and snowfall). Additionally, an almond tree (with a lifespan of 25 years) must continue to be watered, even if it is not producing almonds — which keeps farmers from growing other crops. California’s mountain snowpack, the main source of the Central Valley’s water, is at 5 percent of its historical average for this time of year. Since 2013, almonds have become California’s second largest cash crop, which has soured grape farmers because grapes are no longer the second most fruitful cash crop. Lastly, according to the 2014 Almond Almanac, almonds are America’s favorite snack.

Here is the pitch: Almonds are not the enemy.

Almonds do use a large amount of water, but they use far less water than many other products California produces for the nation. (Here is an interactive tool where you can compare products’ water usage). Almonds use less water, for example, than the production of dairy or beef. Supplanting a glass of California’s happy cows’ milk with almond milk is a net gain for the environment.

If people were so concerned with saving water by watching what they eat, there ought to be more advocacy for sugar beets — a crop that requires relatively little water to grow. Almonds are grown in shells or hulls, but farmers use the outer covering of almonds as food rich in fiber for livestock — which actually alleviates the necessity to grow alfalfa and hay (the crop that consumes the most water in California). Also, almond farmers in the Central Valley have committed to finding new ways to decrease water waste and, in 2014, brought in $11 billion to California. Coupled with the composition of almond farmers (88 percent are family farmers), that money is legitimately being brought into California, where those families will spend what they make.

Almond farmers are working toward a sustainable California. As each acre is valued over $6,000, farmers would like to continue the success of California agriculture. Through innovative irrigation practices, including using recycled water and drip irrigation, growers have reduced the amount of water they use per pound of almonds by 33 percent in the past 20 years.

California can expect an additional 11 million residents in the next two decades, and the questions are and will be about how all of California can improve water usage and what we can do to preserve water. Given those two motivations, I say, go nuts! Let’s not use almonds as a scapegoat. Instead, let’s enjoy the snack that provides 20 grams of protein per cup while informing ourselves on irrigation techniques.

 

Contact James Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Go nuts! appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/19/go-nuts/feed/ 2 1115474
From combat to medical school https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/02/from-combat-to-medical-school/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/02/from-combat-to-medical-school/#comments Tue, 03 May 2016 06:59:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1114571 Since transferring to Stanford and joining the political science research honors track, I have focused most of my individual research on veterans’ affairs and the military. The decision to study military history and theory, veterans’ political behavior and domestic public perception of veterans is intuitive given my upbringing. I was born in Hawaii and lived […]

The post From combat to medical school appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Since transferring to Stanford and joining the political science research honors track, I have focused most of my individual research on veterans’ affairs and the military. The decision to study military history and theory, veterans’ political behavior and domestic public perception of veterans is intuitive given my upbringing. I was born in Hawaii and lived in Japan for the first eight years of my life. My father served 20 years in the Navy, my mother served in the Navy and is currently serving for the Army in Baghdad and my brother served in the Marines. Recently, I was selected as a Truman Scholar finalist as a student focused on fixing the Department of Veteran Affairs. I would like to apply some of my research and experiences to explore an idea to improve the amount of medical professionals working in the Veterans’ Health Administration.

The capabilities of the 152 U.S. Veterans’ Affairs (VA) medical centers are significantly limited, specifically regarding the lack of medical professionals in the Veterans’ Health Administration. VA hospitals need more full-time doctors, specifically doctors that understand veterans’ unique medical challenges. Here are some statistics to set the stage:

  • As of September 1, 2015, over 52,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans had been wounded in combat.
  • An estimated 300,000 veterans are suffering from traumatic brain injuries and an estimated 400,000 veterans are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
  • Regarding veterans of past wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan, 35 percent of pending enrollment applicants for VA healthcare had died before receiving it, according to an internal investigation by the VA.
  • In July 2015, Deputy Undersecretary for Health and Management Janet Murphy confirmed at a Congressional hearing that the VA has more than 41,000 vacancies nationwide for medical professionals. Many of the medical professionals employed at the VA are part-time, which further breaks down communication, continuity of care and accountability.
  • Nearly a third of all VA clinics do not have OB/GYNs. The share of women among the enlisted ranks has increased sevenfold and the share among commissioned officers has quadrupled since 1973 — the year the military became an all-volunteer force.
  • The VA-enrolled veteran population has increased by 78 percent from 2001 to 2014, and the demand on VA hospitals is only expected to increase. There are currently close to 22 million veterans living in the United States and with continued involvement in the Middle East, the veteran population will increase along with the need for more medical professionals.

The Veterans’ Health Administration should create a pathway program for servicemen and women to go through formal civilian education for paramedics, registered nurses and physicians. Several American high schools offer pathways to medical school that only require six to eight years of undergraduate and medical school. This program would allow combat medics and corpsmen and -women to enroll and complete a pre-medical bachelor’s degree after their enlistment and then enroll in a medical school to pursue a Doctor of Medicine degree. Once enrolled in the program, the student would receive guaranteed acceptance into an in-state medical school given certain academic standards are met. Several high schools have a similar program. The students would also be enrolled in a specific Pay As You Earn (PAYE) federal loan forgiveness program. The PAYE program would have an interest rate of 3 percent – close to 4 percentage points lower than the Stafford loan. If the recent graduates are able to maintain a consistent payment plan, after five years, their debt will be forgiven. Funding will originate from the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) portion of the budget.

Funding the program is a major obstacle. The Department of Defense should show its commitment to strengthening the relationship between the two departments by utilizing funds that Secretary of Defense Ash Carter claimed to be a slush fund to support the veterans’ healthcare. Another obstacle will be recruiting participants and publicizing the program. The third obstacle would be to accommodate combat veterans who suffer a service-connected injury or mental health problem who wish to participate in the program.

The program would offer several benefits. Primarily, the VA will have more physicians. Men and women who are looking to explore the medical field will now have a cost-effective option when choosing a civilian career without bypassing necessary medical training and education. Secondly, the program will fit with the benefits of the GI Bill and with the VA initiative to increase the number of registered nurses and physician assistants. Finally, veterans, who already understand the medical, social and psychological challenges other veterans face, will be able to provide specialized preventative healthcare. A program like this could help veterans who are afraid and who suffer from injuries that aren’t visible. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs, with over 30 reports of poor wait-time management in the past decade and with various scandals being investigated across the country (e.g. the latest in Atlanta), must improve on developing accessible healthcare to veterans.

 

Contact James Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post From combat to medical school appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/05/02/from-combat-to-medical-school/feed/ 1 1114571
The DPRK threat https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/17/the-dprk-threat/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/17/the-dprk-threat/#respond Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:59:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1113721 Since 1936, “May you always live in interesting times” has been cited by British statesmen as a Chinese malediction, and even though the validity of the origin story is debatable, the maxim is particularly relevant for the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) in 2016. About a week ago, China announced strengthened sanctions against […]

The post The DPRK threat appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Since 1936, “May you always live in interesting times” has been cited by British statesmen as a Chinese malediction, and even though the validity of the origin story is debatable, the maxim is particularly relevant for the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) in 2016. About a week ago, China announced strengthened sanctions against North Korea. The U.N. Security Council voted in March to increase sanctions following the fourth North Korean nuclear nuclear test and the launch of a long-range rocket in February. The most recent sanctions restrict imports of North Korean coal, iron ore, gold and sales of jet fuel. Is the DPRK a threat to the U.S.? What are the implications of these sanctions, and what are the human costs of the China-U.S.-led attempt to starve the funding of the DPRK nuclear weapons program?

Though the opacity, truculence and belligerence of the DPRK’s nuclear program has continued to make headlines, the DPRK presents little to no direct military threat to the United States and its allies. American politicians must realize that nuclear weapons are political, not military, instruments and that the DPRK is making a statement for its survival by testing nuclear weapons rather than attempting to provoke a sleeping giant. The major threats posed by the DPRK are rooted in the psychological assumptions and uncertainty of Kim Jung-Un as a national leader. Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il were both considered irrational and paranoid survivalists, yet the madman theory does not succeed as an appropriate determination of the DPRK threat to the U.S. Discussions of irrationality are not fruitful academically. If a head of state truly is irrational or paranoid, it is impossible to make any causal link between that psychological state and expected outcomes. Second, such an accusation is not falsifiable. By resorting to an irrational demagogue as an explanatory variable, analysts appeal to a process of thought where any North Korean action can be explained de facto and by which any action can be possible. Even though North Korea is still technically at war — the 1953 armistice was never replaced with a peace treaty — the DPRK has been deterred from any major aggression for 60 years.

These sanctions will have little consequence in slowing down the DPRK’s nuclear weapons program. The loophole in the Chinese sanctions is far too large. China will continue to purchase coal from the DPRK (the DPRK is China’s third largest provider of coal) if revenue is intended for “the people’s well-being.” As trade will continue, the DPRK will continue to take measures to display national strength. Weak states do what they must, and with the U.S. deploying the THAAD missile-defense system to South Korea, the DPRK will continue to pursue a nuclear weapons system that will force other international actors to take it seriously. The lack of effects the 2006, 2009 and 2013 U.N. sanctions had on the DPRK serve as further proof.

The most recent sanctions continue the trend of passively accepting North Korean human rights violations. Human rights measures have still not been brought to a vote in the U.N. Security Council given the certainty that China and Russia would veto it. Mining industry workers will likely suffer the most from the U.N. ban on the export of North Korean minerals. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said in a February report that the North Korean people are already suffering a significant food shortage. The FAO states that the DPRK needs 440,000 tons of food from abroad this year, but so far, international donors have only provided 17,600 tons. North Korea’s state media warned in March that the sanctions may cause another “arduous march,” referring to the famine in the 1990s that killed over 3 million people. The DPRK is more of a humanitarian crisis than an international threat, and I am not sure more unreliable sanctions are the solution. Hopefully, international actors will stop seeing the DPRK as a black box to be bullied by the standard operating procedure of sanctions and more of a nation-state of nuanced issues, constantly reacting from existential threats surrounding the authoritarian state.

 

Contact James Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The DPRK threat appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/04/17/the-dprk-threat/feed/ 0 1113721
The Apple of my FBI https://stanforddaily.com/2016/03/02/me-ay-the-apple-of-my-fbi/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/03/02/me-ay-the-apple-of-my-fbi/#respond Thu, 03 Mar 2016 07:59:09 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1111985 The “Apple vs. FBI” debate has motivated iPhone users to look up from their iPhones to talk about their iPhones. Apple, specifically CEO Tim Cook, has raised privacy concerns regarding the FBI’s recent request for the development of new software to assist in the San Bernardino investigation. Cook, calling this new software a potential “cancer,” […]

The post The Apple of my FBI appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The “Apple vs. FBI” debate has motivated iPhone users to look up from their iPhones to talk about their iPhones. Apple, specifically CEO Tim Cook, has raised privacy concerns regarding the FBI’s recent request for the development of new software to assist in the San Bernardino investigation. Cook, calling this new software a potential “cancer,” set the stage for a privacy vs. security debate. There have been reports that Apple has assisted the FBI with cracking phones similar to this situation, but those reports are false. Apple has extracted data to assist in investigations, but has not unlocked phones for the FBI. After a scrupulous review of ubiquitous Facebook posts of the Apple customer letter that is nothing more than PR campaign, many potentially affected iPhone users may misunderstand the debate. As an Android user, I try to take an impartial view in calling for improved, proactive legislation.

The FBI is not requesting a “backdoor” into iPhones. FBI Director James Comey stated in a press release,

“We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly.”

The FBI is attempting to do its job by investigating to its fullest legal capacity. The iPhone, obtained through a warrant, is owned by the employer of one of the San Bernardino shooters and cannot be unlocked without knowing the user’s password. If the FBI has a warrant, specifically for the purpose of better understanding a legitimate terrorist threat, the FBI should have access to the shooter’s personal data. Subsequently, the FBI, under the All Writs Act, requested assistance in developing software to gain access to just one phone. To provide context, the All Writs Act was a piece of the motivating legislation for the decision of Marbury v. Madison. The major argument against this request is what the development of that software could lead to. Several cybersecurity professionals believe that developing software to gain access into one phone would lead to international state and non-state actors replicating and implementing it. Also, software requests will affect all iPhone users on a global scale. If the American government can request and receive software to guess passwords, other governments may follow suit. So while our personal data is being abused daily in the American private sector, Apple is warning its customers to be aware of federal requests to access encrypted data via software.

Secondly, and more importantly, the debate is exposing a vacuum in legislation and regulation, which ought to alarm the government and should alarm Apple customers. Apple’s position is that neither the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA, nor the All Writs Act obligate it to provide technical assistance to the FBI. We live in a time where new legislation is necessary. The development of information sharing and data collection in the United States is beyond rampant. The distinction between “telecommunications carriers” and companies providing “information services” is blurred. For example, consider iMessage through telephone communications providers. Those services enable “storing . . . retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications,” and therefore meet the CALEA definition of “information services,” yet they are carriers. So while, as carriers, they could be obligated to assist the government, as information service providers, they are not legally obligated to assist the government. Data collection and information sharing cannot rely on reactive, outdated laws. In short, the FBI’s request is coming from the All Writs Act of 1789 and CALEA of 1994, both eras where smartphone usage was slightly less than today.

Another question in the debate is on the legal status of software, source, and object code. Software is subject to copyright protection – which is relevant because the tie between copyrighted subject matter and expression is explicit in U.S. copyright law: Copyright protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” Expression, in turn, is protected under the First Amendment. Thus, when a person writes new software, he or she is engaging in an expressive act. But what about when a corporation such as Apple writes software? Would a Stanford student be willing to apply the “corporations are people” precedent in Citizens United for the first time in their life?

My final question involves what appears to be a security vs. security case, as opposed to a security vs. privacy dilemma. The purpose of this specific investigation is to better understand the network of the San Bernardino shooters in order to improve short-term security against domestic threats of ISIS. The purpose of Apple’s pushback is to maintain the security of its product and its customers’ long-term accumulation of personal data. In reconciling short-term vs. long-term security interests, proactive legislation must be developed to address potential privacy issues regarding regulation, network information sharing, encryption, and data collection and investigation.

Contact James Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post The Apple of my FBI appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/03/02/me-ay-the-apple-of-my-fbi/feed/ 0 1111985
Cutting back on healthcare spending https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/02/healthcare-spending/ https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/02/healthcare-spending/#respond Wed, 03 Feb 2016 07:59:34 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1110153 The United States outspends all other Western nation-states and commits the highest percentage of its own gross domestic product (GDP) to healthcare. According to the World Bank, the United States has devoted 17 to 18 percent of its annual GDP to this sector since 2008. In a campaign season where healthcare is a heavily debated […]

The post Cutting back on healthcare spending appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The United States outspends all other Western nation-states and commits the highest percentage of its own gross domestic product (GDP) to healthcare. According to the World Bank, the United States has devoted 17 to 18 percent of its annual GDP to this sector since 2008. In a campaign season where healthcare is a heavily debated topic, we should try to develop an understanding of the causes of the costs. What are some contributing factors to the high costs of healthcare? The ratio of highly trained specialists to general practitioners (family doctors) and overutilization of medical equipment and prescriptions are two of the largest drivers.

The healthcare system is heavily subsidized. American hospitals and graduate medical schools receive subsidies of up to $13 billion a year to train students, and the result is a healthcare system with higher-paid specialists and a low number of general practitioners. Most medical training occurs in hospitals, which increases the likelihood that medical students will follow role models who are surgeons or in inpatient/critical-care settings. When graduates walk away from five years of medical school with student debt, it is rational that these students would look for a higher income.

General practitioners are decreasing every year. In 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2008, the total number of doctors in general practice was 32,500, 22,800, 15,200 and 9,600, respectively. General practice, out of 29 listed categories, is the only category with a declining trend. Orthopedic surgery, for example, has seen a steady increase from 14,000 doctors in 1980 to 24,800 in 2008. With fewer general practitioners and clinics, patients will have to seek out hospitals and specialists for basic medical issues and concerns. Specialists’ time is more expensive, leading to higher medical bills and more expensive healthcare.

The most important contributor to the high cost of U.S. healthcare is overutilization. Overutilization occurs when hospitals recommend tests such as MRI and CT exams and prescribe medication more often than necessary. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) states that in October 2013, the United States had nearly twice as many MRI and CT exams as the average. The American commercial average for exams like MRIs and CTs is far higher than that of almost all of the other countries. As public hospitals provide more exams, the cost to the hospital to provide the procedures and to pay the specialists increases. The costs then are shifted to the state and federal government.

There is a patient side to overutilization as well. American patients tend to shop for the best prescriptions, which is profitable for the companies. The Mayo Clinic reported that nearly 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug. Physicians ultimately make money on interventions like high-tech procedures and exams, and patients, through their insurance, do not pay a great deal for their prescriptions. Overutilization is inefficient and costly and promotes a culture of intervention which might have no benefit to the patient.

It’s safe to say the U.S. needs to reverse these two trends in healthcare. General practitioners’ roles are vital, and communities need more of them. Larger hospitals, as well, need to cut back on expensive testing.

 

Contact James Stephens at james214@stanford.edu.

The post Cutting back on healthcare spending appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2016/02/02/healthcare-spending/feed/ 0 1110153
Edward Snowden: Not a hero https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/19/edward-snowden-not-a-hero/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/19/edward-snowden-not-a-hero/#comments Tue, 20 Oct 2015 06:59:03 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1105205 Some argue that Snowden went through the proper channels of attempting to redress the issues he saw when he came across surveillance programs he felt were immoral while others, myself included, argue that he was not justified in dumping sensitive information onto the media.

The post Edward Snowden: Not a hero appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I am sorry to say that my opposition will not be writing the column with me this week. I am looking forward to discussing another issue with him in two weeks. The topic we had planned to discuss this week was Edward Snowden and whether or not we ought to consider him a hero.

Edward Snowden, a computer scientist and  former CIA employee, unveiled several National Security agency (NSA) programs as well as a large number of documents and data to three major media outlets, most notably The Washington Post. Since then, Snowden has become a figure of debate and controversy. Some argue that he went through the proper channels of attempting to redress the issues he saw when he came across surveillance programs he felt were immoral, while others, myself included, argue that he was not justified in dumping sensitive information onto the media.

Snowden caused operational and economic harm in his actions. The threats that the U.S. had been tracking have since learned about the surveillance and adapted. According to former NSA General Counsel Rajesh De, threats have changed strategies in the counterintelligence community because of Snowden’s actions. There are sophisticated international cyber threats, and there is a bit of mosaic theory at work here.

In mosaic theory, which appropriately describes how Snowden caused operational harm, several small pieces being aligned at the right time make sense of a greater picture. Programs that had nothing to do with American privacy interests were discontinued, the perfect example being a program used to collect real time intelligence for troops in Afghanistan. So, operationally, Snowden caused harm. Economically, Germany-U.S. relations have now been strained in discussions with ISIS and the economy. International businesses are using this negative cybersecurity attention to essentially beat down the American transatlantic system of data transfer. And as everyone from Stanford probably knows, big data has become the business of business.

Alternatively, he did shed light on the “Section 215 program” that definitely expresses a gap between what public law is and what the public understands. However, what statement are we making by lauding Snowden as a great civil-disobedient citizen who began his correspondence with the media under the pseudonym Cincinnatus?

In Livy’s third book of the History of Rome, we learn that Cincinnatus was a statesman and a diligent farmer who was appointed dictator for 16 days before returning to his farm. In what way can Snowden call himself Cincinnatus? We are not in an early Roman institutional construct in which a dictator is necessary in times of upheaval. The U.S. is a democratic republic, and I do not see the democratic tenets pursued and applied in one man’s making a decision for the entire nation.

After the announcement of three movies, several books and countless articles, is this celebrity who fled the country a hero? Are we to examine the relationship between Socrates, Ghandi, Thoreau and King and their strife and include  Snowden among them? I would like to allow Thoreau to conclude this week’s column, as he stated, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

 

Contact James Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Edward Snowden: Not a hero appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/19/edward-snowden-not-a-hero/feed/ 24 1105205
Super Tuesday: Planned Parenthood in the pro-life, pro-choice debate https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/06/me-kk-super-tuesday-planned-parenthood-in-the-pro-life-pro-choice-debate/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/06/me-kk-super-tuesday-planned-parenthood-in-the-pro-life-pro-choice-debate/#comments Tue, 06 Oct 2015 18:00:26 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1104383 The national discussion occurring over the funding of Planned Parenthood has raised several debates, touching back to those during Roe v. Wade in 1973. Amidst the CEO of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards testifying in marathon committee hearings and Republican Presidential hopefuls powerfully condemning doctored videos of a procedure that may or may not have been an abortion, the federal legality of abortion has come to the country’s attention.

The post Super Tuesday: Planned Parenthood in the pro-life, pro-choice debate appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The national discussion occurring over the funding of Planned Parenthood has raised several debates, touching back to those during Roe v. Wade in 1973. Amidst the CEO of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards testifying in marathon committee hearings and Republican Presidential hopefuls powerfully condemning doctored videos of a procedure that may or may not have been an abortion, the federal legality of abortion has come to the country’s attention.

My opponent and I, after discussing the funding of Planned Parenthood and the Congressional fiscal turmoil surrounding it, have decided to engage in a constitutional and conceptual debate on the legalization of abortion. I am arguing for the Pro-Life side against the legality of abortion. In the September issue of The Economist, an article on Planned Parenthood funding raised an interesting point: Anti-abortion campaigners, including the National Right to Life Committee, have determined that the proposal by the Freedom Caucus — a faction developing in the House of Representatives — to shut down the government over federal dollars going to Planned Parenthood would cause reputational damage to the Pro-Life campaign. Thus, we look beyond the argument over the Planned Parenthood and focus on a much more aged debate.

Primarily, constitutionally speaking, the 10th amendment asserts that the powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the state governments. Additionally, the 14th amendment and the opinion in Mugler v. Kansas determine that state governments address laws concerning the health, safety and morals of the public. The decision and procedure of abortion is a moral situation on the grounds that the basic value of a society is life. Life must be a fundamental right since all other natural rights, including liberty, possession of property and procreation, all stem from the right to a person’s own life. Thus, abortion calls for funding and regulations to originate from the states. The first part of this argument claims that the legal decision should come democratically through state governments (the U.S. nation is almost divided in half on whether abortion in certain circumstances should be legal). The second consideration is conceptual, and based on the premise that life begins at conception.

Natural rights are atemporal. I have the same rights now as I did when my life began. We cannot affirm that a fetus is a person and we cannot affirm that a fetus is not a person. Thus, consider this matrix:

  1. It is a person, and you know it.
  2. It is a person and you don’t know it.
  3. It is not a person and you know it.
  4. It is not a person and you don’t know it.

The only appropriate scenario for the legalization of abortion is #3, on which we cannot rely. I am not stating that the life of an unborn child trumps the rights of a mother. I am simply saying that the right to choose to abort the child does not trump the rights of an unborn child in elective circumstances. Using the same thought process as is used in self-defense cases, I concede that abortion can be made legal for circumstances such as sexual assault. Furthermore, I concede to the premise that being pregnant changes a woman’s identity physically, psychologically, emotionally, socially and economically. Much of the debate on abortion loses sight of this, and that perhaps makes an argument for a woman’s choice trumping an unborn child’s life. It is a process that I, as a man, can never fully understand. Taking those concessions into account, I cannot support the lethal intervention of the process of life and motherhood and claim that a fetus, that is alive, does not have a chance at a life.

After discussing abortion with political science professors, debaters and liberal peers, and gaining an economist’s perspective on abortion, I have yet to be convinced that a woman who participated in consensual sex, living in an economically developed country with sexual education as prevalent as it is, can make a decision on cutting short the life of what could be a person. Even though the quality of sexual education varies from state to state, the basic concept of unprotected sex leading to pregnancy is taught in various ways in biology, health, as well as sex ed courses. Concluding with a Buddhist Precept, a person should abstain from the destruction of life, as a destruction of life, at any stage of life, is the destruction of a world.

Contact Jimmy Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

 

The Republican push to strip Planned Parenthood of about $500 million in annual federal funding is in the news again, and it’s just as terrible an idea as before. Since federal dollars cannot legally fund abortions, defunding Planned Parenthood would instead deprive millions of women, mostly low-income Medicaid patients, of access to affordable family planning services. This is a vital service, and Planned Parenthood is better at it than anyone. This annual half-a-billion-dollars’ worth of health services prevents countless STDs, unwanted pregnancies and health complications every year — saving taxpayers a lot of money and extending lifespans in the process.

Planned Parenthood’s preventive approach to family planning stops hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies (and abortions) every year. And since not one penny of the half-a-billion dollars funds abortions, but rather services that prevent the need for an abortion in the first place, why are Republicans so hell-bent on defunding the organization?

Jeb Bush’s answer was enlightening: “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues.” Oops.

According to his campaign, Bush misspoke. He rather intended to slander Planned Parenthood for “callously profiting off the sale of fetal organs,” even though every state investigation has concluded that Planned Parenthood does not profit from donating to fetal tissue research — research which, by the way, has contributed to Parkinson’s disease treatments, rubella prevention and the development of the polio vaccine.

Of course Bush “misspoke,” but his words sum up the war on Planned Parenthood nicely: Defund Planned Parenthood now and worry about women’s health later.

Look how disastrously that philosophy is turning out in Louisiana, where Governor Bobby Jindal recently provided a federal judge with a list of 2,000 family planning providers he claimed could accommodate new low-income patients after he defunds Planned Parenthood. The judge found the list padded with hundreds of entries for dermatologists, audiologists, and dentists.

“[This is] what you’re representing to the court?” the judge asked incredulously. “You’re telling me that they can provide family planning and related services?” No, Your Honor, they cannot. Planned Parenthood is so affordable and well-run that it’s simply irreplaceable to the millions of women who rely on it.

There are many who agree that Planned Parenthood performs important women’s health services, but who cannot side with an organization that performs abortions. Many would outlaw abortions entirely.

The conviction at the heart of this argument is that life begins at conception, which translates to: The government should consider a fertilized egg a legal person. Specifically, a fertilized egg deserves constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and due process of law.

A fertilized egg cannot survive outside the womb, feel pain or think, so the argument for this position is that a fertilized egg has human DNA. But are we willing as a society to deprive millions of women of essential health services — in other words, to defund Planned Parenthood — in pursuit of granting personhood to a fertilized egg? If so, we must also be willing to tell every woman that if her sexual partner’s condom fails, which happens at a rate of 15 percent, then she may have to carry and give birth to his baby. We must be willing to tell rape victims the same thing.

On one end of the balance is a cell with unique human DNA; on the other are the lives of millions of men and women who would like to have children when they are ready, when it won’t cost them their jobs, disrupt their educations or otherwise negatively impact their lives. With this balance in mind, I think extending due process to a fertilized egg is a disruptive and extreme way to reduce the number of abortions.

I support instead a number of less extreme, more supportive policies to reduce the number of abortions. We should promote sex education in schools, provide low-income neighborhoods with affordable family planning services, and provide federal family leave. Given that 40 percent of women get abortions because of financial concerns, we should support anti-poverty measures. Such approaches reduce the number of abortions without forcing millions of women to have babies that they are not prepared to bring into the world.

And what’s the name of the organization that supports such policies and provides such services? I’ll give you a hint: Republicans want to defund it.

Contact Cory Herro at cherro ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Super Tuesday: Planned Parenthood in the pro-life, pro-choice debate appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/10/06/me-kk-super-tuesday-planned-parenthood-in-the-pro-life-pro-choice-debate/feed/ 14 1104383
Super Tuesday: The Safe and Responsible Driver Act https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/22/super-tuesday-the-safe-and-responsible-driver-act/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/22/super-tuesday-the-safe-and-responsible-driver-act/#respond Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:11:32 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1103557 California Assembly Bill 60 (AB 60), passed in 2013 with the purpose of providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, has been in effect since Jan. 1 2015. AB 60 promotes a substantive argument as well as a quantitative argument.

The post Super Tuesday: The Safe and Responsible Driver Act appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
California Assembly Bill 60 (AB 60), passed in 2013 with the purpose of providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants, has been in effect since Jan. 1 2015. AB 60 promotes a substantive argument as well as a quantitative argument.

Undocumented immigrants should not be given driver’s licenses. Giving undocumented immigrants driver’s licenses makes the statement that people who illegally immigrated to the United States can be given the same privileges as tax-paying citizens, which is based on a flawed process of thought. The main argument for AB 60 is that the bill allows undocumented immigrants to be able to acquire a driver’s license and then car insurance, which in turn would dissuade drivers, licensed and insured, from fleeing the scene of an accident. Also, the process of attaining the driver’s license would force drivers to receive vital education on road regulations and signage. However undocumented immigrants can easily drop their insurance once they receive a licence, to cut costs to their household. Also, they can just as easily learn how to drive in America on their own — access to that information is free online and at every DMV. Furthermore, having car insurance will not deter undocumented immigrants from leaving the scene of an accident because they have so much to lose once the police are contacted to file a report, which is a standard practice whenever there is an accident.

The quantitative argument for AB 60 is spurious as well. There is no significant correlation between the number of driver’s licenses administered to undocumented immigrants and the number of hit and run accidents, according to California DMV data and analysis from ongoing research from Stanford professors Laitin and Hainmeuller. So the very purpose for this iconic legislation is not even being fulfilled. The issue of immigration is far deeper ingrained than the band-aid type of legislation like AB 60 can fix. There should be a greater focus on research and funding into the issue of securing the state’s border, improving the immigration process and offering services to helping undocumented immigrants, who follow the law, find a pathway to citizenship.

To agree with my opponent’s point, offering driver’s licenses will not increase illegal immigration, as he has shown the two are not correlated. Also, I do not see offering driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants as a major national security issue. Undocumented immigrants could use the driver’s license for an I-9 form for employment and could potentially have a smoother path to getting into a position where they could plan some sort of terrorist attack, but that is a stretch for me to see as a premise against AB 60 and is extremely circumstantial. The main takeaway in opposing this type of legislation is in opposing rewarding people with the privilege of driving on roads paid for by taxpayers who have entered the United States illegally.

On a side note, the California DMV has had to open five new DMV locations as well as hire hundreds of new employees, increasing the dreaded bureaucracy of the DMV that tends to strike fear in the hearts and minds of many across the country.

Living in Salinas, California, picking in the strawberry fields and interning in California 30th District Assemblymember Luis Alejo’s office while AB 60 was in the process of being passed, I am lucky to have personal experience and relationships with families that will benefit from this bill. I understand the value in allowing families that are seeking a better, more prosperous life an opportunity to get to work and to get their children to school. But the state finding a way, when Congress will not, isn’t worth the price of the precedent that people can immigrate to California illegally and enjoy the privileges of living in the U.S. without earning them. Opponents of this legislation are not anti-immigration; they just disagree with the principles of developing more bureaucracy and providing immigrants, who did not go through the proper channels, with licensed driving privileges on publicly funded roads.

Contact James Stephens at james214 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

California Assembly Bill 60 (AB 60), titled The Safe and Responsible Driver Act, which took effect this year, gives any California resident, regardless of immigration status, the opportunity to apply for a driver’s license. Allowing undocumented immigrants to take driver’s education — to learn to drive our streets legally and safely — is an excellent public safety measure and a practical, humane piece of legislation.

California is home to two and a half million undocumented immigrants. On a given day these individuals might take to the roads to drive their children to school. Over 13 percent of California schoolchildren have at least one parent who is undocumented. They might drive to work, as a whopping one in ten workers in California’s labor force are undocumented. Many will drive to manual labor jobs  in agriculture or service; some, aspiring lawyers, will drive to take the bar exam, since all 40 licensing boards in California are now required to consider applicants regardless of immigration status.

Some, it can be argued, may take to the roads to traffic drugs or otherwise harm the populace. But the evidence suggests that the damage done by this kind of crime pales in comparison to the damage done by all these undocumented immigrants, unlicensed, driving on California’s roads. Here’s how.

There is strong evidence that unlicensed drivers, many of whom are undocumented, get in more accidents, and more fatal accidents. In part due to lack of proper driver’s education, unlicensed drivers are three times more likely to cause a fatal crash, according to a 2012 DMV study. Furthermore, one in five fatal crashes involves an unlicensed driver, according to a 2011 AAA Foundation study.

Already since AB 60 took effect at the start of this year, the DMV has received over half a million driver’s license applications from undocumented residents, who must now take a proper driver’s training course. A large portion of these applicants would otherwise have continued driving without proper training, resulting in the potential for thousands of fatal accidents. The number of non-fatal traffic accidents would likely decrease as well, saving Californians hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in costs related to property damage, medical expenses, accident-related congestion and loss of economic productivity.

Unlicensed drivers pose another problem: they’re far more likely to flee the scene of an accident, especially if they fear deportation. AB 60 seeks to reduce the number of hit-and-run accidents by filling the roads with more licensed drivers, who are far less likely to flee. Furthermore, it seems that AB 60 drivers, who are seeking licenses legally, are more likely to register their cars legally. To legally register your car, you need proof of insurance, which means AB 60 will also reduce the number of uninsured drivers on the road — probably by the hundreds of thousands.

Driver’s licenses for the undocumented makes sense from a law enforcement perspective as well. As Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said in support of AB 60, “Why wouldn’t [police officers] want to better identify people who are going to be here?”

The counter to Beck’s argument, in the style of Donald Trump, is: If a cop sees an unlicensed driver, he’ll soon discover that that driver is an illegal immigrant, at which point that individual can be deported. In a world of unlimited resources, that argument might work. However, California has neither the resources nor the political will to deport 2.5 million residents. Law enforcement must discriminate, so the question becomes: Would we rather deport the unlicensed driver caught speeding on the way to pick up her daughter from school, or would we rather deport serious criminals?

Simply put, The Safe and Responsible Driver Act allows law enforcement and our courts to focus resources on more serious crimes. This point is best summed up by the author of AB 60 himself, Assemblyman Luis Alejo: “If Congress isn’t going to act [by funding millions of deportations], this state will find its own way.”

Some anti-immigration groups have argued that AB 60 sends the wrong message, and that its leniency encourages more immigrants to enter California illegally. This is unlikely, as immigration trends in California have never correlated with driver’s license policy. Immigration into California surged in the years after undocumented residents were banned from driving in 1994, but since AB 60 passed in 2013, immigration into California has declined. Illegal immigration responds strongly to US economic conditions, so whether California takes a hard line against undocumented drivers seems to be irrelevant to immigration trends.

These critiques of AB 60 look petty when compared to the benefits of the law, in terms of economic savings and lives enriched and saved.

Contact Cory Herro at cherro ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post Super Tuesday: The Safe and Responsible Driver Act appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/09/22/super-tuesday-the-safe-and-responsible-driver-act/feed/ 0 1103557