Drugs

Specifically the crucial distinction between illicit and prescription only.

Both have great potential for abuse, both are abused on a large scale, and both have physically harmful and chemically addictive variants.

What is the difference that warrants the legal distinction between these drugs? The primary stated reason is the lack legitimate medical uses for the illegal drugs. In most cases this claim is highly questionable; I won't go down the list here, but the majority of illicit drugs have or have had accepted medical uses, and almost all of them have some potential, if only very slight (Feel free to provide counterexamples; I am honestly curious about this).

There are two glaring differences between them;

The first is the way in which society perceives the drug. There is a more significant and widespread stigma associated with the use of illegal drugs than there is with legal ones. Some of this is due to the stigma associated with crime in general, and some of it has to do with use of the drugs themselves regardless of law. What is considered popular or acceptable to society is meaningless when one is considering what the best thing to do is.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the price of illegal drugs, which creates a massive, extraordinarily profitable, and violent business built upon their sale - the highest cost of prohibition in terms of corruption and human suffering.

I've rambled a bit, but perhaps you've taken my point; why make some drugs illegal and others available by prescription if both are addictive and harmful? Why is opium legal and heroin illegal?

Drug law ought to be based on chemistry and medical science; instead it is and has been based on popular opinion, public fear, and as a reaction to the other criminal acts of those who sell them.

The Scum of the Earth

Consider the worst of humanity; those individuals who, for whatever reasons, contribute virtually nothing to anyone else, and whats worse actually do significant harm to others.

This includes everyone from historical monsters such as Hitler and Genghis Khan to serial killers to particularly brutal pimps. It also includes the relatively sympathetic destitute, illiterate, callous young man who understands the world only in terms of what he can get away with.

What ought to be done with these people? Certainly, there is potential in almost every case for their redemption; there does exist the possibility that they could see the error of their ways and improve themselves. However, this is often very difficult, and costly in terms of time and resources. Given that there is no shortage of humans themselves, nor is there any likelihood there will be for a very long time, would it not be more expedient to simply exterminate these individuals and replace them with new humans, who have a decent chance of becoming, well, decent.

There are some definite problems with this method that are more important than the initial gut reaction that "it's horrible". Killing the scum of the world is not too practical, simply because it requires both effective definition of what constitutes such an undesirable individuals and means of identifying said individuals. And then, of course, there is the question of how ethical such a policy would be, even if these requirements could be fulfilled (not considering the ethics of defining these people, but rather

For the first problem, that of definition, we can see the most obvious pitfall is to choose too broad a definition, as did Draco in declaring anyone who violates any law was to be killed. So let us sidestep this blatant error and be at least reasonable by choosing only the absolute worst of the worst; I would argue these are the murderers, which is at least the popular opinion.

And now we have stepped from the arena of speculation into actual policy. We do eliminate these individuals. The question I pose to you is how much farther could we go? How many murderers, and violent, worthless individuals that simply haven't killed anyone yet could we dispose of, and how would we be worse off if we did?

To clarify, I am not talking about instituting actual policy changes; the greatest argument against the death penalty is that the government is not responsible enough to have legal power over life and death. What I ask is if it were possible to eliminate the worst of humanity, should we? And how would you define them? 

Persepolis

I haven't recommended any non-classic movies to anyone in recent history, but I really have to mention this one:
It's an animated, autobiographical, and historical. If you want to better understand Iran (an increasingly relevant nation) while taking in a good story involving a character you cannot help but sympathize with, give it a look.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808417/

The Japanese and the Jews

We don't normally think of Jews and Japan having much to do with each other, but there is in fact a storied history. Back in 1904, while Europe was slowly tensing up and preparing for war, Russian and Japan had already gotten into it (It started with a sneak attack by the Japanese, if that is not foreboding enough).

Anyway, Japan was holding its own but probably losing, and to make matters worse was running low on funds. So a man was sent to London (the financial center of the world at the time), to procure a substantial loan. Days passed; no significant European bank or group of investors was interested. The prevailing wisdom was that Russia was going to win the war, and any money paid to Japan would be unpaid (and would engender hostility from Russia).

One man, however, had a different take on things. Jacob Schiff invited the Japanese emissary to New York, where he provided the entire requested amount, a fantastic sum of 200 million dollars (in 1904). The Japanese asked, why, after everyone else had rejected his requests out of hand, that Schiff would agree so readily and thoroughly. Schiff replied that indeed, the investment was a bad one and a banker should not make it; however he was not extending this credit as a banker interested solely in profit. Jacob Schiff was a devout Jew, and was concerned about the plight faced by Jews in Tsarist Russia. One presumes a decrease in the strength of the central government of Russia would result in lessened pressure and scrutiny of mostly poor, rural Jews.

Japan went on to win the war. The origin of this crucial money was popularly known, and it created a grossly exaggerated conception of the Jewish People in Japan.

Mitsubishi

Best known in the States as a passenger vehicle manufacturer, this conglomerate also consists of a bank (The Bank of Tokyo, no less), a chemical company, and a heavy machinery division (trains, planes, nuclear energy systems).

Most interesting to me, is the A6M carrier fighter, known to US forces in WWII as the Zero or "Zeke" was also of Mitsubishi design and manufacture. It was actually superior to American fighters in terms of speed and maneuverability, but due to an almost complete lack of armor, suffered from very high pilot mortality.

International Nongovernmental Organizations (That are not very influential)

There are a number of very powerful organizations that are not formally affiliated with any actual nation, but still command the respect and often obedience of countries across the world. Indeed, between the UN, World Bank, and much more importantly the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO), a vague semblance of a world government is created; if nothing else, it has thus far been a stabilizing influence. Of course, there are many, many more organizations out there that, well, no one really cares about too much, at least here in the first world.

As a probable citizen of one of its members, you've likely heard of the G8 (Group of Eight); an association of eight of the most powerful and wealthy nations. But what about the much larger and much less important G77?

The Group of 77 (Which actually has 131 members) consists primarily of developing nations, but more literally it encompasses almost every member nation of the UN that isn't in the G8.

Analogously, there exists a near-irrelevant counterpart to the cold war treaty nations - NATO (US aligned) and the Warsaw Pact nations (Soviet controlled more than "aligned").

It's called, descriptively enough, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), who's define themselves as not formally aligned either with or against any major power bloc. However, they were nowhere near cohesive as either of the military groups they had meant to emulate and indirectly oppose (no mutual defense agreements). Moreover, many of their members

These guys do have websites, but they look like they were set up by the nephew of a guy who runs a landscaping business out of his truck. Read more about them on their sites or wikipedia; as you may have guessed, they don't actually do very much at all.

Better yet, read more about the important institutions i mentioned; IMF, WTO, World Bank, UN Security Council, etc...

Howdy.

Mere introductory post, likely to be rendered pointless by a FAQ or similar and summarily be deleted.

I'll write on a very wide range of topics; geopolitics, history, philosophy, math, science, poetry...and in all likelihood too many others. The only common thread is that it should be somehow either interesting or enriching, and both whenever possible.

I'm not a fan of ado anyway, and so...