Sunday, October 25, 2009

Charlie Palmer Steak Restaurant Review, Washington DC (includes Restaurant Week)

Charlie Palmer Steak is undoubtedly my favorite restaurant in Washington DC. It's pricey, but it's worth it.

The Location

Frankly, you can't beat it. You're in the heart of Washington, literally right next to the Capitol Building. Be sure to ask for a table by the window that has a Capitol view.

The Ambiance

It's not the fanciest ambiance that I've ever seen, but it's on par with most fine restaurants. As you walk in there's a gorgeous fountain that looks more like a pond. The waiters are knowledgeable and friendly. Ours trained at the Culinary Institute of America. It's hit or miss with the sommelier. I've had one fabulous sommelier and a poor one.

The Wine

I'm still working on becoming more sophisticated with the wine, but the one thing that even I can follow is that the wine selection is great. The wine cube, which is in the fountain that looks like a pond, includes 3,500 bottles of wine, according to their web site.

Before Your Meal

The meal can be slow here, which is a big deal to me. After you order, things start out with an amuse bouche, a little freebie. Often it's a small crab salad, which is only a bite or two but is very tasty.

The Meal

I hear there's lots of good choices on the menu, but the steak is the way to go. The steaks are great. What I love about Charlie though is everything else. The sides and appetizers are phenomenal too.

The Experience

Most great steak places I've been to have great steak, but that's it. At Charlie's I find the appetizers and sides to be better and more unique.

Your meal finishes with a plate of desserts, "compliments of the pastry chefs." This platter has two sets of four bite-sized desserts. A fantastic sampling with desserts I normally wouldn't order, but of course end up tasting great.

The ambiance, amuse bouche, and the generous pastry chef make Charlie Palmer different from most fine restaurants. I've been to plenty of restaurants that serve top notch food like Charlie Palmer, but it's a totally different experience here, which makes it my favorite.

The Bill

It's a la carte and a bit pricey. Steaks run around $30. Sides are in the $7 to $10 range; appetizers run more in the $10 to $15 range.

Restaurant Week Review

Twice a year Washington DC has a restaurant week, where restaurants offer limited menus for a lower price.

I tried Charlie Palmer for the first time during restaurant week, and that experience pushed me to try the restaurant for full price, which is still a good value in my opinion. They didn't seem to hold back or go cheap for restaurant week.

But I was very disappointed when I went there for restaurant week in January 2009. I'm hesitant to try restaurant week there again.

Charlie Palmer Steak
Neighborhood: Capitol Hill
Washington, DC 20001
United States of America

Photo Credits: Klaus Post, Clint Rankin

LasikPlus Laser Eye Surgery Review

Some days it feels like a miracle, I can see perfectly and I'm not wearing contacts or glasses. Lasik eye surgery is wonderful, and everything turned out wonderfully in the end with LasikPlus. I have my fair share of complaints though. The short review - the good doctors and machines at LasikPlus make up for its many problems, but the problems are a headache you should be ready for.

LasikPlus Hides its True Prices

It all starts with a phone call to schedule LasikPlus's free consultation (it looks like you can now schedule a consultation on LasikPlus.com too). I am a comparison shopper, so I made a point of comparing prices before even bothering to schedule a consultation. LasikPlus quoted me a very reasonable price, which wasn't technically lying, but it was awfully close. They told me the procedure would cost something under $2,000, but I could tell they were holding back information from me and weren't giving clear answers. They said that everybody's eyes are different and that can affect the price, which is true, but they didn't tell me that the prices fit nicely into 6 boxes on a little sheet of paper, which they could easily have shared with me. In reality, you're going to pay closer to $3,000 or more for your LasikPlus laser eye surgery.

My consultation went well and LasikPlus approved me for laser eye surgery. The only problem was that I have big pupils, so I had to get Custom Lasik. That bumped the price closer to $3,500. I opted to go with the traditional eye cutter, as opposed to the bladeless IntraLase. LasikPlus's IntraLase adds $300 per eye to the cost so you can have a laser cut your eye flap instead of a blade, but IntraLase didn't look any better to me. Either way your eye is getting cut and it's not pretty. It sounded like a $600 "I'm being a baby" tax, so I passed.

Scheduling is Difficult with LasikPlus

Scheduling my surgery with LasikPlus was a huge pain. I tried to plan ahead, but they didn't plan their schedule until very late. They couldn't tell me when they would begin scheduling, so I had to keep calling to make sure I got the date I wanted.

One plus though, LasikPlus has offices all over the country, so you can get your consultation, your surgery, or any follow ups no matter where you are.

LasikPlus Doctors Made Surgery Day Great

I was nervous for surgery day, but the LasikPlus employees seemed as if they did tons of surgeries each day and it was no big deal. While the LasikPlus administrative staff was horrible, the doctors were phenomenal. Make sure you take down your doctor's number so you can contact him or her if you have any questions. The main numbers won't be helpful, but the LasikPlus doctors will be. The doctor answered all of my questions and allayed all of my concerns. He were also very calming, which was helpful.

LasikPlus offers valium or some similar drug for people who are overly anxious, but most people shouldn't need that. They just gave me a Night Time Tylenol so I could fall asleep after the surgery. The doctor gave me two blue stress balls to hold onto and I slipped under the machine. They put a numbing eye drop into my eye and then clamped some ridiculous contraption onto my eye. Turns out it held my eyelids in place so you can't blink and included the blade that cuts my eye. It was weird to see this thing literally in my eye (they place it under your lids), but I couldn't really feel it. Then I felt an odd pressure on my eye, a lot of pressure actually, and then everything goes black. The machine is cutting the flap on top of your eye so the laser can go in and reshape it. Not much later (although it felt like a few seconds because I was afraid my vision wouldn't come back), a blurry red light appears. All you have to do is stare at it - don't look away - as it reshapes your eye. It only takes a few seconds, which is nice, but you can sort of smell the burn. From there, the doctor flips your eye flap back on, smoothes it, and then magically you can see perfectly. It's an amazing feeling! Repeat with the second eye and that's it. You're only in the surgery room for 5 to 10 minutes.

This is rare, but the machine actually popped a blood vessel when they were doing my second eye, which spewed a lot of blood. I thought the second eye took a bit longer, but that's all I noticed. My poor girlfriend watched the surgery on the TV screens that LasikPlus has for friends, family members, and gawkers and was mortified. The surgery looks much worse on the screen though, so I would advise that you don't even look at it until after your surgery. For brave souls, click on the image which shows the bruise from my popped blood vessel.

Overall Review

Despite the mishap, my LasikPlus laser eye surgery turned out well in the end. I had my surgery on Monday and took the week off from work, but there's really nothing stopping you from going back to work on Thursday. The first 48 hours are a little tough, your eyes burn and you should keep them closed most of the time, but after that you're pretty much good to go.

LasikPlus gives you unlimited review checkups for one year after your surgery, which is nice. They also offer free enhancements for life, but you have to get yearly checkups with your own eye doctor to be eligible for free enhancements.

Hamstring Injury - How to Rehab the Muscle Pull to Full Strength


Since I pulled my hamstring, I have done so much research on hamstring injuries, I feel like an expert on the injury. So I thought I should share all my time and effort with the rest of the world. Just a disclaimer: I'm not a doctor or a physical therapist, so don't take my advice too much to heart without consulting a trained professional. I of course am not trained and should not be held responsible for any re-injuries.

How Severe is Your Hamstring Injury?

There are three levels of hamstring injuries. This article is about Level 2 hamstring pulls, the kind when you feel the muscle snap or pull and have trouble walking afterwards.

If you can still walk without pain, then you have a Level 1 hamstring pull. If you have a Level 1 pull, don't be a baby! I'm just kidding of course. Level 1 pulls actually tend to be the most chronic and nagging hamstring injuries. Unfortunately, I haven't learned how to best recover from the Level 1 pull.

If you have a Level 3 hamstring pull, the muscle has detached and usually the muscle lumps in places it shouldn't. If you have a level 3 hamstring pull, you're probably going to need surgery to reattach the muscle. Don't try to rehab on your own - seek medical help.

So for those reasons, let's focus on rehab for the Level 2 hamstring pull. We should have you recovered to full strength within 4-6 weeks.

Days 1-3 of Your Hamstring Rehab

Most likely it's painful to walk, so the early recovery focuses on 3 days of rest. Your hamstring is torn and inflamed, so the first three days focus on controlling the inflammation.

The keys are rest, ice, compression, and elevation. Feel free to take ibuprofen if the pain is bad. Ibuprofen is also an anti-inflammatory, which is an added bonus for your recovery.

Rest - Try not to walk around much. I advise taking a day or two off of work, if possible.

Ice - Apply ice often to your injured hamstring. Shoot for about 15 minutes at least 4 times per day. I tried to straighten my leg while icing, which stretched let the ice work its magic to the full, stretched muscle.

Compression - When you're not icing the hamstring, you should keep it compressed. Use an ace bandage or a compression wrap around the injury. A compressed muscle more quickly heals its broken attachments.

Elevate - Try to keep your injured muscle elevated above your heart as much as possible. This reduces the blood around the hamstring, which keeps inflammation down.

Days 4-7 of Your Hamstring Rehab (usually)

If the recovery is going well, you probably can walk pretty well by day 4. Once you can walk comfortably, you should shift your focus away from controlling the inflammation and towards improving your hamstring's mobility and range of motion. Stretches and eccentric exercises work best. One good eccentric exercise is when you lay on your stomach and curl your hamstring towards your buttocks. Then you quickly swing your leg down towards the ground and "catch" your leg. The key during this stage is to not do anything that hurts. Your hamstring is still healing.

Week 2 of Your Hamstring Rehab (usually)

Generally when you can comfortably walk up and down stairs, you're ready to start strengthening. Leg curls are the key, but just on the injured leg. Your injured hamstring has weakened and you want each hamstring to be equally strong. Start with low weights and work your way up. Again, if it hurts, think twice about doing it. You might be re-injuring the hamstring if it hurts. I've found it to be tough to tell the difference between hurting and sore, which is too bad. Don't worry if you're sore, that's normal. Just be careful not to tear the muscle again.

Massages are also helpful at this stage. When you pull your hamstring's muscle tissues, the recovery process uses scar tissue to heal the muscle. Unfortunately, scar tissue is weaker than muscle tissue. The weaker scar tissue is more susceptible to re-injury. Fortunately, muscle massages can break up the scar tissue.

Week 3 of Your Hamstring Rehab (usually)

At this point, things start to vary a lot case by case, but once you can walk fast for 20 minutes or so, you should be able to start jogging and then running. Avoid quick starts and stops, which put a lot of stress on the hamstring muscle. I suggest 100 yard pickups - start by walking 5 yards or so, then speed up to a jog for 15 yards, run faster for 20 yards, then hit your top speed around 50 yards. Then do it all backwards to make sure you don't stop too quickly.

As you start running, don't let your top speed be too fast. Slowly work your way back to your previous full speed. Again, if it hurts, don't do it. You don't want to re-injure the hamstring.

Hopefully, you'll be fully recovered from your hamstring injury sometime between weeks 4 and 6!

Photo credits: Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body, Joe Zlomek, Lotus Head

Kayak.com Review - The Best Travel Flight Search


Kayak.com is the best travel and flight searcher. Expedia and Orbitz barely put Up a fight.

I don't know why, but for some reason travel sites like Expedia and Orbitz make it difficult to find flights. These travel search sites are bizarrely slow, they only check a few airlines, and they tack on a fee. It doesn't seem like a good way to do business. It seems like this market is begging for a new leader. Well I think I've found it.

Kayak.com looks like it's the best travel flight search out there. The others barely put up a fight.

What makes Kayak.com so great is that it searches the most airlines that I've seen any travel site search. Their goal is to "search every airline in the world", and I think they're awfully close. They have a list of all the airlines they search, and I count 359 airlines. When I search from Kayak, I'm confident that I'm finding as good a price as I'm going to find anywhere.

The only airline I noticed missing is Southwest Airlines. Kayak.com explains that Southwest does not allow any travel flight search engines to search for Southwest flights. So after you check Kayak, make sure to check Southwest too.

With one click, Kayak.com even gives you the option of opening a separate window that brings up the results from Expedia, Travelocity, Hotwire, or Priceline, just to be sure you're getting the best price.

Once you search for your flight and have your list, you can narrow the options by takeoff time, landing time, layover duration, stops, flight duration, price, and airlines. And these aren't basic narrowing options like at the other sites, which might let you choose morning, afternoon, or evening times (and for some odd reason always seem to ignore my choice and show me other times). Kayak.com has a slider, so you can narrow by 5 minute increments.

Like most of the other travel search sites, Kayak lets you search for hotels, cars, and cruises. In fact, while you're searching for your flight, there's a box you can check that will also open up a search for hotel information, so you don't have to fill the information in again.

Next time you're searching for a vacation flight, I strongly recommend Kayak.com. Just don't forget to check Southwest.com on your own. Then you'll have everything covered.

Photo credit: Noel Abejo

Minimum Wage Employment Economics - It's Just a Monopsonistic Labor Market


I'm a free market enthusiast, but even I'm getting annoyed by "free market" minimum wage arguments. I've heard the cliché economics argument too many times now.

"It's simple supply & demand. If you impose a minimum wage, you artificially raise the price of labor. With a higher price, businesses will demand less labor. Therefore, minimum wage causes more unemployment."

Many people use this argument to combat minimum wage laws. I can almost picture them smugly thumbing through an Econ 101 textbook for 10 minutes, then using this simplistic supply & demand argument to oppose something they already didn't like.

It takes more than superficial supply and demand knowledge to explain something as complex as minimum wage laws. I read the Econ textbook for 11 or 12 minutes, so I can tell you there is little to no basis for this economic argument against minimum wage. (To please the CSO requirements, I should tell you that I've really taken 5 economics classes, most graduate level. That's what "makes me an authority on the subject". I may even have read each textbook for more than 12 minutes.)

In the front of that Econ book, there are some important assumptions to be made before describing basic supply & demand. These are:

1) There are many buyers & sellers

2) There is perfect mobility (both buyers and sellers can freely enter and exit)

3) There is perfect information (everybody knows everyone else's prices)

In a market with these conditions, a minimum wage (or any minimum price) will indeed lower labor demand and increasing unemployment.

But does the labor market fit these conditions? I argue that the labor market doesn't meet ANY of these conditions.

1) I can attest that there are very few buyers of my particular labor.

2) There is almost no mobility. If I find that Google would offer me $100 more salary, I can't join Google and then later return to my original job when they offer me $200 more. Mobility is very low.

3) Information is nowhere near to perfect. Often, I don't know much a company is paying for labor until AFTER I've interviewed.

The Supply & Demand model does not describe the labor market very well. So we have to delve a little deeper, maybe even into the Econ 102 book.

We can describe minimum wage laws better with a monopsony model. The word monopsony might sound foreign to you, but it's just like a monopoly, which shouldn't be foreign at all.

In a monopoly there is only one seller. Since the monopolist doesn't face competition, it can set the price. Buyers then choose whether to purchase or not. Buyers can't choose to shop around for a better price. In most monopolistic markets, the seller will set an artificially high price to maximize its profit.

In a monopsony, there is only one buyer. That buyer sets the price, and then sellers can choose to sell or not. In a monopsonistic market, the buyer will set an artificially low price to maximize its utility (in other words, get more stuff for less money).

The labor market displays something closer to monopsonistic competition. This means there are multiple buyers who set their own prices. When was the last time you went to a job interview and said "I'm selling my labor for $50,000. Would you like to purchase?" In reality, the buyer sets the price (Executive Assistant needed, $35,000 salary). There is a little room to negotiate, but for the most part the seller can choose to take the job at the price offered, or not. The business (the buyer) sets the price of labor.

Monopsonistic labor purchasers set artificially low prices, which is economically inefficient. Essentially there is waste which makes society as a whole worse off. A minimum wage will bring the supply and demand equilibrium closer to its most efficient levels. In a monopsonistic market, a minimum wage will often actually INCREASE employment (or reduce unemployment). So if the labor market is monopsonistic, then rejecting a minimum wage law will increase unemployment.

Is the labor market monopsonistic? Economists are divided on the issue. However, there is little question that the monopsony argument better explains labor markets than the simple supply & demand argument.

So next time someone uses superficial economic reasoning, you will know better. It's not nearly that simple. At some point, we'll have to stop trying to logicize our way through the issue. The only way we'll get a clear answer is by testing minimum wage laws empirically, and then observing what truly happens.

Photo Credit: Sanja Gjenero

American History in 2500 Words or Less


American History - This paper explores the entire history of the United States in under 2500 words, making for a quick and interesting introduction to the topic. We've also included pictures in the project.

Columbus Discovers the New World (1492)

Christopher Columbus, hoping to find a trade route to India by going around the world, stumbled upon land. Thinking he was in India, he called the natives Indians (that's why Native Americans are still called Indians). But he was actually in the
Americas.

Colonization

Later, England, France, Spain, and Portugal colonized North America. But the English monarchy heavily taxed the colonists in New England, without giving the colonists the power of government. The colonists complained about "taxation without representation."

Eventually fed up, the colonists revolted. They signed the Declaration of Independence, declaring their independence from the English.

Revolutionary War (1775-1783)

The English naturally didn't like this independence. So they sent troops to New England regain control.

European wars were fought in open fields, with each side lining up in formation, walking towards the other, and shooting. Generally, the larger and better-supplied army won. But England had one of the most powerful armies in the world at the time, while the American army was untrained and low on supplies.

So the Americans became innovative and inventing guerrilla warfare. This meant they hid behind trees, or in cities, essentially changing the way wars were fought. Things were tough at first, but eventually the Americans began winning battles. This brought help from France, who disliked England and decided that England might lose. This helped tremendously. In the end, the Americans were victorious and won the war.

Articles of Confederation (1777)

Since they revolted against the monarchy, Americans feared centralized power after the revolution. They did not want to risk their lives to defeat one of the strongest armies in the world, only to have more tyranny. So they signed the Articles of Confederation, essentially making each state its own country, with a very weak federal government. Each state even had its own currency! This didn't work well, and states feuded. I can't verify, but I've heard that some states marched on each other and fought mini wars.



American Constitution (1791):

Since the Articles of Confederation weren't getting the job done, America needed to come up with a new form of government. A stronger central government was needed, but states still feared a king ruling over them. The solution was a strong central government with a separation of powers. There was a legislature to make laws, the courts to interpret the laws, and an executive branch (led by the President) to enforce the laws. Each branch had some power of the other, creating a system of checks and balances. This would prevent anyone from gaining too much power.

Additionally, the central government would be restricted by a constitution, which guaranteed certain rights to the states and individuals. This further protected the states. The result was an effective central government with protection against anyone gaining too much power.

Louisiana Purchase (1803)

France controlled much of the continent west of New England. But Napoleon was busy taking over Europe, so Thomas Jefferson sent negotiators to France. France needed the money for their European conquests, so the United States got a great deal. 530,000 aces cost $15 million.

War of 1812

After the Revolutionary War, the English never really left America. For the most part, they just fled to less populated northern U.S. territory. Eventually, the United States got fed up and attacked the English. England, still having a strong navy, managed to burn the White House and the Library of Congress. In the end though, the United States won. Some call the War of 1812 the Second Revolutionary War. Now the U.S. was completely free from the English.

Manifest Destiny (1845-1855)

After securing its borders in the War of 1812 and purchasing masses of land in the Louisiana Purchase, the United States expanded westward. President Andrew Jackson claimed that the United States had a god given right to expand to west all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and South to the Rio Grande (which is currently the southern border of the United States). This was supposedly a God-given right, a "manifest destiny".



American Civil War (1861-1865)

Slavery was popular in the southern states, which had lots of farms. Slaves were key to their economic well-being. In the North, factories were the key to the economy. Many northern states abolished slavery. They divided on politics, with relatively equal powers. As new states were created in the frontier, the North and South battled as to whether the new Manifest Destiny states would be slave states or free states. Neither wanted to lose political power to the other. The North starting gaining political control. Fearing that the North would gain control too much control of Congress, the South decided to leave the United States and form its own country. The war was bloody, but the North won, helped largely by their factories. Slavery was abolished and the United States were again United. During the war, President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring slavery illegal in rebel states.

Industrialization

In the later 1800's and the early 1900's, the United States became more industrialized. Factories became much more common. As a result, many immigrants came to the United States to join the industrial labor force.

World War 1 (1917)

Since 1914, Europeans dug trenches and continually shot at each other. Neither side gained much ground, but many people died. The Americans joined the Allied Powers (France, Britain) in 1917, and the war ended in 1918. This war had tremendous repercussions on Europe, destroying entire populations and economies. This opened the door for the United States to become even more of an economic powerhouse.

The Roaring 20's

As the new economic powerhouse, the American economy flourished. With the strong economy, American culture progressed.

Black Tuesday (1929) and the Great Depression

The American economy began struggling. On Black Tuesday, the stock market crashed, leading the United States deeper into economic depression. Quickly, the depression spread to Europe and the rest of the world. Unemployment was high, and life was tough. Poor economies seem to have led people to abandon democracy. Autocratic (this means that one individual essentially holds all the power), rulers like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin were able to gain immense power by during these times of hard ship.

The New Deal (1933-1937)

The United States never neared autocracy, but did give unprecedented power to the federal government during the depression. Trying to end the Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt, instituted a series of policies called the New Deal. The SEC was created to regulate the stock market. Farms were given subsidies. The government sponsored public works programs to create new jobs. The FDIC was created to instill confidence in banks. Social Security was created.

This is when the current interpretation of the word "liberal" began. People who were liberal supported the New Deal and its larger, more active government. Conservatives opposed. Among economists, there is lots of debate whether New Deal policies helped end the Great Depression or prolong it.

World War 2 (1937-1945)

Two of these autocratic rulers, Hitler (Germany) and Stalin (Soviet Union), secretly joined forces. Hitler was the first to become aggressive, taking over most of Europe in only 2 years (1941). Britain was able to resist. The Soviet Union fought with the Germany, helping them take over East Europe.

Japan invaded China in 1937. The United States responded by embargoing iron exports to Japan. Japan then allied with Germany and Italy, forming the Axis Powers. Next, Japan invaded French territory in Indochina. The United States responded by blocking Japan's access to oil. Then the Japanese launched a surprise attack on the United States, bombing Pearl Harbor (1941). The next day, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.

This meant that the United States had to fight two wars.

The war in Europe (and Northern Africa) against the Germans is called the Western Theater or the European Theater. In Europe, Hitler turned against his ally Stalin, launching a surprise attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, forcing the Soviet Union into an awkward alliance of necessity with the Allied forces, the United States and Britain. Germany did well at first, but was stopped outside of Moscow in the cold winter of 1941. The United States was able to land ground forces in German-controlled Europe in 1944. The battle is known as D-Day. In the end, the Allies defeated Germany.

The war against the Japanese is called the Eastern Theater of the Pacific Theatre. The marines did much of the fighting in the Eastern Theater, storming Japanese controlled islands. These battles were often very bloody, with many people dying. In 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. 3 days later, another was dropped on the Nagasaki. An estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians died in the bombings. No other atomic attacks have since occurred. 6 days after Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered and World War 2 was over.

To fight in both theatres of World War 2, American armed forces needed lots of weapons, tanks, ships, and planes. This demand helped spur US industry, boost employment, and end the Great Depression.

Cold War (1945 - 1980)

During and after World War 2, The United States and the Soviets battled diplomatically over German territory. The two countries did not get along well before the war; they allied only by necessity against the German threat. Once the German threat was eliminated, US & Soviet history and ideological differences created tensions. These tensions led to the Cold War.

The feuding allies compromised by splitting Germany. West Germany became Democratically controlled by France, Germany, and the United States. East Germany became Communist and controlled by the Soviet Union. The German capital Berlin was in East Germany. Inside Communist East Germany, Berlin was also split into a Democratic West Berlin and a Communist East Berlin.

The Soviets sought to spread Communism and gain territory. In the US, Harry Truman signed the Truman Doctrine, essentially making it policy to stop the spread of Communism. To help contain communism, Truman also created the Department of Defense, created the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Council

In 1948, the Soviets tried to blockade West Berlin. The Americans beat the blockade by flying supplies over the blockade and dropping them in West Berlin. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic device, ending the US monopoly as the only atomic power. Also, the US supported regime in China fell to a Communist group led by Mao Zedong, giving the Soviets a powerful ally.

Korean War (1950 - 1953)

Japan invaded Korea in World War 2. Like Germany, Korea was split into two. Communist North Korea and Democratic South Korea. With substantial support from the Soviet and Chinese (mainly military equipment), North Korea invaded South Korea. The United States had provided less military equipment to South Korea. Alarmed by the invasion, the United States intervened with American troops and pushed the North Koreans back to the original border. However, the United States continued fighting and began controlling part of North Korea. This took the US containment policy to a new level beyond containment. This alarmed the Chinese, who then committed Chinese troops to the war. From 1951-1953, a stalemate occurred with each side controlling its original territory. The border became a demilitarized zone, with North Korean troops and South Korean troops defending each side of the zone today.

Vietnam War (1959 - 1973)

The Vietnam War was somewhat similar to the Korean War, with a Soviet and Chinese-supported Communist North Vietnam battling with an American-supported Democratic South Vietnam. Weariness grew in the United States as the war lasted longer and longer, eventually leading to widespread protest. American troops left Vietnam in 1973. Communist North Vietnam controlled all of Vietnam by 1975. The Vietnam War is considered to the only American military defeat.

Bay of Pigs (1961)

In 1959, Communist Fidel Castro gained control of Cuba, a country just south of Florida. Thinking locals opposed Castro, the CIA launched an attack on Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The invasion failed, increasing tension with both USSR and Cuba.

Berlin Wall (1961)

Life apparently was better in West Berlin. Consequently, 2.5 million people left Communist East Berlin to live in West Berlin from 1949 to 1962. Since its labor force was vanishing, the USSR built the Berlin Wall to prevent emigration. Only 5,000 people emigrated from 1962 to 1989, after the wall was built.

Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)

The United States had a clear nuclear weapon advantage over the USSR. Americans believed that the USSR could not successfully bomb US territory. But then the USSR began building missile sites in Cuba. With missiles in Cuba, the USSR could launch a nuclear attack on Washington DC.

Negotiating was difficult, as both sides feared beginning a Nuclear War, which could theoretically destroy the world. In the end, President John F. Kennedy decided not to attack Cuba, but to instead institute a naval blockade, preventing the Soviets from transporting nuclear materials to Cuba. In the end, the United States agreed to remove missiles from Turkey, near the USSR, if the USSR removed its missiles from Cuba.

Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)

Eventually, the Soviet economy weakened and a new generation of younger communists began enacting change in the USSR. Eventually, Communism fell. As a symbol of the fall of Communism, the Berlin Wall was torn down, reuniting East and West Berlin. The Cold War was over. The United States lost its major rival and emerged as the world's only superpower.



9/11 Terrorist Attacks (2001)

After a relatively calm period with a continually improving economy, Muslim terrorist hijacked airline jets and crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City. Both buildings were destroyed, killing around 3,000. The attack, the largest on American soil since the Civil War, shocked Americans. The calm was over.

President George W. Bush responded by launching a War on Terrorism, first invading Afghanistan, who harbored the terrorists. After quickly overthrowing the Afghan government, the United States invaded Iraq. The Iraq War did not go as well as the Afghan War. Today, fighting continues in American occupied Iraq.

Photo Credits: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Wikipedia, Alice Wycklendt, National Park Service

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Voter Turnout - Should We Even Bother Voting?


Many people believe that people who vote are more active in their communities and more civic minded. In this sense, voter turnout is important. While there are varying opinions on whether low voter turnout is a problem, the general opinion is that low voter turnout is a detriment to our electoral system.

However, a strong argument can be made that low voter turnout should not cause concern. Even in 1996 when turnout fell below 50%, more than 96 million people still voted. Many people realize that their vote only counts for 1 in 96 million. Even if one person’s vote were worth 100 or even 1,000 votes, the odds that his or her vote would sway an election’s outcome are almost zero. In the controversial and contested 2000 election when George W. Bush won one of the closest elections in US history, slightly fewer than 6 million people voted in Florida . Both candidates earned 48.8% of the votes, but a full 537 votes separated the two candidates. Even in one of the closest elections in US history, one person’s vote would not have swayed the outcome. Consequently, if people strictly followed a rational choice model, nobody would vote aspiring to change an election’s outcome. This argument weakens, however, when applied to local elections with fewer eligible voters and potentially more competition.

Many nonvoters abstain because they believe their vote is insignificant, but vote mobilizers argue that these people could strongly affect even the largest election when aggregated. This makes sense, because if 50% of people are voting, then 50% are not voting. If these nonvoters were to have different opinions than the voters, then the elections would not represent the will of the people; the election would only represent the will of the 50% who are voting. Those who desire higher turnout argue that if voter and nonvoter classes differ, then election outcomes would likely change if everyone voted. They argue that high turnout is imperative to ensure that elected officials accurately represent the general population.

Scholarly research, however, refutes this argument for higher turnout. Cirtin, Schickler, and Sides used profiles of the nonvoting class to simulate how Senate elections (from 1994-1998) would be affected if every eligible person voted. They found that only four of the 91 elections would have had different outcomes. They believe this happened because only a small percentage of these elections were competitive and because the nonvoting class did not differ largely from the voting class. Since an individual’s vote will rarely change an election’s outcome and since most elections would have the same results even with 100% turnout, should low voter turnout even be considered a problem?

Many believe that low voter turnout is a major problem because it reflects the lack of civic participation in the United States. A survey by the Pew Research Center asked, “Some people believe voting by mail should be an option in all elections because it is a good way to increase voter turnout at a time when people are busy with work, family, and travel. Do you think this is a good argument for making voting by mail an option, or not?” 69% of respondents said higher turnout was a good reason to make vote by mail an option, while only 29% said no (2% did not know or refused to respond). Another survey by USA Today asked, “What do you feel is the biggest threat to democracy: low voter turnout, public officials’ ethics, negative political ads, or lobbying?” 64% said low voter turnout was the biggest threat to democracy.

Americans generally desire higher turnout, and consequently support measures to improve voter turnout. There are many possible reasons for this. For instance, low voter turnout reflects political apathy, hurting our government’s legitimacy. However, when people vote, they feel a sense of ownership in their representatives. Additionally, those representatives may be more concerned about the opinions of voting constituents than nonvoting constituents.