Liberty & Power: Group Blog
Entries by Keith Halderman
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Those Reponsible
There are really only 545 people who bear direct responsiblity for the appalling condition, both financially and morally that this country is in. Charlie Reese makes a compelling case for the truth of that statement. From time to time I have wondered if a political movement based on the idea of making sure that in the next election every single incumbent who ran lost, no matter what party they belonged to or what they espoused, would have a chance to triumph. Even if it did not totally succeed such a concept would surely scare them. The major drawback to this notion is that Ron Paul would have to go too.
Hat Tip to Kenny Rodgers
Monday, February 15, 2010
Unexpected Good Policy Choice
It is very difficult to find any aspect of the Obama Administration that most libertarians would view in a positive light. Here, however, is an exception to that situation.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Patriot Act Reauthorization Ploy
According to an e-mail from the Campaign for Liberty Obama’s plan is to attach the reauthorization of the Patriot Act to the upcoming massive $85 billion special interest giveaway to be labeled a jobs bill. This is an interesting ploy testing Republican Senators’ commitment to fiscal responsibility by pitting it against their love for the national security state.
Since the Patriot Act is an abomination to anyone who cares the least bit about civil liberties I signed the petition below. I agree with all of the whereas statements and in fact would go further arguing that it actually hinders the effort to keep us safe. If the authorities were not collecting the enormous volume of useless intelligence allowed by such laws then perhaps they would be better able to discern whether or not a particular piece of information , such as a group of Arabic men attending flight schools learning how to fly large jets but not learning how to land them or a father telling the government it is highly likely that his Muslim son is planning on becoming a suicide bomber, was important.
Liberty Petition
Petition to Senator Ben Cardin
& Senator Barbara Mikulski
Whereas: Giving up Liberty for Security is a false choice, and causes us to lose both; and
Whereas: American citizens are entitled to 4th Amendment protections against secret searches, National Security Letters, and warrantless searches and wiretaps; and
Whereas: Law enforcement and national security can adequately do their jobs without accessing the private information of innocent, law-abiding citizens; and
Whereas: The misnamed Patriot Act violates our constitutional rights and takes away the very freedom we are claiming to protect from terrorists; and
Whereas: The Patriot Act gives too much power, shrouded in too much secrecy, to government agencies;
Therefore: I urge you to uphold your oath to the Constitution and your duty to protect the rights of your constituents by voting and working for the defeat of the Patriot Act at every opportunity
If you are opposed to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act then why not take a minute and let your Senators know by clicking here?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Benefit of Long Term Marijuana Use
For some time it has been acknowledged that the cannabiniods in marijuana smoke have potential antitumor properties. Now an epidemiological study conducted at Brown University has found that the practice of long term marijuana smoking reduces the risk of developing head and neck cancer (HNSCC). The researches discovered that “20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of HNSCC (OR10-<20 yrs vs never users=0.38, 95% CI=0.22–0.67). Among marijuana users moderate weekly use was associated with reduced risk (OR0.5-<1.5 times vs. <0.5 time =0.52, 95% CI=0.32–0.85). The magnitude of reduced risk was more pronounced for those who started use at an older age (OR15-<20 yrs old versus never users =0.53, 95% CI=0.30–0.95; OR>=20 yrs old versus never users =0.39, 95% CI=0.17–0.90, ptrend <0.001). These inverse associations did not depend on HPV 16 antibody status.” They concluded that “our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC.” However, it should be noted that when cannabis was combined with tobacco use and alcohol consumption the risk increased.
Hat Tip to Ian Goddard
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Depraved Indifference to Atrocity
I had hoped that by now the blatant murder of three innocent prisoners at Guantanamo and the subsequent cover up by both the Bush and Obama administrations, well documented by Scott Horton, would be a topic of intense discussion at least on the level of Tiger Woods marital infidelities or Sarah Palin’s book tour. However, this atrocity seems to have inspired profound public indifference. Certainly our political class and their sycophants who make up the mainstream media are ignoring it. Now Horton has written a follow up piece and Chris Floyd’s commentary on this latest essay asks us to ”read the whole piece -- and keep it constantly in mind when wading through all the earnest, endless disquisitions about the weighty affairs and political fortunes of our great and good, all of them written as if these people, our leaders, our bipartisan elites, are somehow normal, as if they are not brutally depraved and indifferent to the point of moral insanity.”
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Bi-Partisan Cover Up
The answer to the question would the Obama Administration continue a cover-up of the murder of innocents at Guantanamo begun under Bush is yes they would.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tenth Amendment Defense in New Jersey
Medical marijuana has achieved another success, this time in New Jersey. The legislature has passed the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act and Governor John Corzine has already pledged to sign it. Marijuana law reformers can count another state, fourteen in all, in their victory column but another group of political activists, those concerned with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution also have reason to celebrate.
When the law makers in New Jersey decided to change their policy concerning Cannabis use they did so with the full knowledge that the Supreme Court has ruled that federal law supersedes state policy when it comes medical marijuana. In effect these legislators were asserting their rights spelled out in the Tenth Amendment. In an article for the Tenth Amendment Center: the tenther grapevine author Michael Boldin points out that an “honest reading of the Constitution with an original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers makes it quite clear that the federal government has no constitutional authority to override state laws on marijuana.” In his dissent of Gonzales v. Raich, the decision asserting federal supremacy on this issue, Justice Clarence Thomas countered the majority’s argument that the commerce clause applied by saying that the respondents “use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.” Boldin calls this effort to justify an unconstitutional federal intrusion into the affairs of the various states at best dubious and “at worst an intentional attack on the Constitution and your liberty.”
The Democratic Party has long history favoring the constitutional right of the states to resist federal interference, unfortunately most of this support has been associated with unconstitutional slavery and racial discrimination. Would it not be a good thing for both us and them if they reaffirmed that tradition in a much better cause, a more humane and effective drug policy?
Plainly, the issue of whether the politicians in New Jersey have the right to legitimize the use of medical marijuana has implications far beyond the limited subject of cannabis. For example, even before it has passed numerous state attorney generals are talking about challenging the federal health care reform bill with it thousands of unread, by those voting for it, pages and unfunded mandates. No matter what medical reform law President Obama signs there will surely be attempts to nullify it on Tenth Amendment grounds.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Hopefully this is the Start of a Trend
Bravo to the Lexington County GOP in South Carolina who voted to censure Senator Lindsey Grahman a noted disparager of libertarian ideas. Predictably, the legislator blames “fringe Ron Paul supporters” rather than his own abysmal record of championing ever more government control over our lives for this event. Since the tally was thirteen to seven perhaps people who believe in liberty are not as much of a fringe as Graham seems to think.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Untrustworthy Chase Bank
JP Morgan Chase & Company sponsored an online contest though the social networking system Facebook called The Chase Community Giving contest. The top one hundred nonprofit organizations receiving the most votes were to receive $25,000 and a chance at a $1 million donation. However, an e-mail from Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) informs us that “during the final days of the contest, Chase rigged their own system to obscure the vote count and then revoked the winnings of a few groups, including SSDP and the Marijuana Policy Project” (MPP). At the time according to unofficial vote counts both organizations were well within the top one hundred with SSDP being in fourteenth place. Chase stopped giving voting information three days before the contest ended and has announced the winners but is refusing to release the final vote tally.
The New York Times story on the controversy quotes Micah Daigle, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy as saying that, “They never gave us any indication that there was any problem with our organization qualifying. Now they’re completely stonewalling me.” The paper also reports that the two above groups “believe that Chase disqualified them over concerns about associating its name with their missions.”
Apparently, Chase Bank wishes to be associated with greater use of alcohol and a class based higher education system. You can join the boycott against Chase by clicking here.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Thursday, December 17, 2009
U.S. Support for Drug Dealers
Federal pronouncements on drug policy have been remarkably consistent over the years. Despite a recent increased tolerance of medical marijuana, the law enforcement approach of prohibition is still deemed the only acceptable course of action. Drug dealers continue to be portrayed as immoral uncaring fiends deliberately poisoning and killing their fellow human beings.
Now, it seems that our leaders are willing to work clandestinely with the sellers of illegal narcotics even though publicly we label them enemies of humanity. Citing an article containing a first hand account published in Harper’s Magazine the website OpEdNews.com alleges that our military is intimately involved in supporting the drug trade in Afghanistan. Author Glen Ford writes about cooperation between certain drug dealers and our troops saying that an “alliance was forged by American forces during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and has endured and grown ever since. The drug lord, and others like him throughout the country, is not only immune to serious American interference, he has been empowered through U.S. money and arms to consolidate his drug business at the expense of drug-dealing rivals in other tribes, forcing some of them into alliance with the Taliban. On the ground in Pashtun-speaking Afghanistan, the war is largely between armies run by heroin merchants, some aligned with the Americans, others with the Taliban.”
Hat tip to Kenny Rodgers
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Obama’s Easily Discredited Speech
In addition to Robert Higg’s excellent post directly below, Justin Raimondo’s complete and superb rebuttal of President Obama’s speech attempting to justify escalation in Afghanistan deserves our attention.
He ends his essay by quoting the president’s talk: "We are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes."
Raimondo then answers with: “The resolve of fanatics and fools is perpetually ‘unwavering.’ Aggressors and bullies are always ‘going forward.’ And the mighty are always supremely assured of the rightness of their cause. They claim to want only ‘security,’ and their appeal is invariably to the ‘highest of hopes.’ And it always ends in oceans of blood.”
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Just the First of Many Attempts
An article found on The Huffington Post, by UC Berkeley Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics George Lakoff, thanks Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for saving the lives of 47, 000 women. While it is true that she has said that people should ignore the government group’s recommendation that women postpone getting yearly mammograms until they are fifty years old instead of beginning at age forty and that continuing to follow the earlier advice will save lives, would her position be the same if the public reaction to the idea had not been so overwhelmingly negative?
Lakoff absolves the Obama administration of any bad intentions never considering the possibility that the money saving suggestion might have been made in order to test reaction to state cost benefit analysis applied to health care. Rather he argues this idea is nothing to worry about, even joking that “as expected, the most radical conservatives have seen this not only as an Obama move, but have likened it to mythical ‘death panels.’” Yet, how could one call the Preventive Task Force anything other than a death panel, it recommended that 47,000 women die. The members of the team claim that cost did not enter their deliberations but as Lakoff points out the different reasons put forth are spurious. Besides expense what other motive could explain a policy that would result in so many extra fatalities?
We should not be too optimistic about the seeming defeat of this noticeably ham handed attempt to trade lives for funds. There will be further efforts because the government will have no choice as there will not be enough resources to pay for everyone’s health care. Why any rational being would want a single payer medical system when the single payer has 40 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities is beyond me.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
A Portent of Things to Come
Many individuals, including myself, believe that the true goal of Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress is a single payer government run health care system. So it is vital that we all understand exactly what that would mean for the American people. A most important question is would the availability and quality of care improve or decline with such a change?
Those who argue that there would be a significant change for the worse are ignored, ridiculed, and labeled as enemies of the state, especially when they point out that a decrease in the accessibility of care would result in an increase in the mortality rate, after all the government would never kill anyone. An overwhelming amount of publicity highlighted a study which claimed that the American system of private insurance led to an extra 45,000 deaths per annum. However, a British report,which argued that the state controlled system in place there caused 17,000 unnecessary fatalities each year in that much smaller country, received very little attention from our biased media. It is essential to determine the creditability of each assertion.
In the article on the American research linked to above they describe the inquiry’s methodology this way: “The researchers examined government health surveys from more than 9,000 people aged 17 to 64, taken from 1986-1994, and then followed up through 2000. They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The researchers then extrapolated the results to census data from 2005 and calculated there were 44,789 deaths associated with lack of health insurance.” Now, if this description is complete there are two very obvious serious problems with this research. First there does not seem to be consideration of the fact that those without insurance are going have as a group less financial resources and it is a well documented fact that being poor includes all kinds of negative consequences, such as worse food, for ones health that have nothing to do with access to medical care. Many of their deaths can be attributed to factors other than lack of coverage. Secondly, the uninsured includes persons with medical savings accounts, income enough to pay for care themselves, and brother in laws who are doctors they do not have insurance but they have access to medical services. Their deaths can not be attributed to lack of health care but it seems in this analysis they are.
The British data pointing to government caused casualties is more in line with the truth because we can already see the mechanism at work here in America. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force has just recommended that women wait until they are fifty years old before beginning yearly mammograms. This new pronouncement supersedes the government’s old advice that these procedures start when women turn forty. This latest guideline will result in two things, the overall cost of medical care will significantly decrease while the number of women who die of breast cancer will increase.
This afternoon I heard a telephone interview on CNN with one of the members of the panel who asserted that monetary expense played no role in the determination that women wait until fifty before being tested. I find this extremely difficult to believe since both conclusions were reached with the same data set. The only thing that changed between the earlier finding and this latest one is that financial burden of health care has become of intense concern.
The government has always been willing to trade lives for money, why do you think that in the beginning our soldiers were riding around Iraq in vehicles with no armor on the bottom? With the incredibly sorry state of our economy and its prospects the pressure to make this exchange in the medical field will be irresistible.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Controversial Firing in Great Britain
In America as well as Great Britain drug policy is most decidedly political policy with scientific evidence playing a very inadequate role. Stating such an elementary truth can get you fired as British psychopharmacologist Professor David Nutt head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) found out two weeks ago when he lost his job for criticizing the Home Office’s decision to reclassify cannabis from a class C drug, the least harmful, to class B. In a lecture given at the Center for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London Professor Nutt accused then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith of basing the move to change the marijuana classification on a willful "distorting and devaluing" of the scientific evidence. He stated that "we have to accept young people like to experiment -- with drugs and other potentially harmful activities -- and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives. We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."
Needless to say, the sacking of the head of the ACMD has caused a great deal of controversy with two members of the drug council, chemist Les King and clinical director Marion Walker resigning in protest. This week current Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who is responsible for Nutt’s dismissal, agreed to meet with the remaining members of the ACMD. The session described as tense by The Independent led to the resignations of three more council members, chemist Dr Simon Campbell, psychologist Dr John Marsden and scientific consultant Ian Ragan. Science spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats, Evan Harris, contended that "the latest resignations represent a deepening in the crisis of confidence of scientists in the Government – in particular in the Home Secretary. That they come after Alan Johnson met the ACMD demonstrates that he just doesn't get it when it comes to the importance of respecting the academic freedom and integrity of independent, unpaid science advisers."
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, November 6, 2009
Severity of Punishment Not a Factor
The most recent information on marijuana arrests verifies many facts that argue for a repeal of prohibition. A new report, Marijuana Arrests in the United States posted on The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform contains a wealth of significant data including state by state breakdowns.
The account tells us that from 1991 to 2009 the number of marijuana arrests doubled while the number of users has remained consistent. Also, punishment for infractions falls disproportionately on young people and African-Americans and most tellingly that strictness of the law has almost no effect on usage rates. In his executive summary author Jon Gettman points out that “there are wide disparities between states in both marijuana arrest rates and the severity of penalties. These differences bear little relationship to rates of use, while the penalty structure actually serves as a price support for the illicit market.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Prohibition Hurts Prosperity
The human costs, including loss of liberty and the direct monetary support of drug prohibition are widely recognized, however, hidden economic damage also occurs. Take the case of Mexico which seemed poised to take off economically in the 1990s but failed to achieve the expected results. In his analysis of the Mexican disappointment Alvaro Vargas Llosa suggests that that country’s so vigorous pursuit of drug control could be a partial reason for their financial shortfall. He contends that Mexican President Felipe Calderon “made what a large number of his Mexican supporters think was a colossal mistake in devoting to the drug war the energy and resources that he should have committed to completing the truncated reforms. The evidence indicates that the drug cartels are simply shifting some of their operations to Central America while continuing to corrupt the Mexican institutions and suck the blood out of an administration consumed by the struggle with the enemy it has picked.”
Whatever the true economic costs of the Mexican drug war, it is clear that human costs have become enormous. In its weekly update of the situation, which includes an astonishing day by day accounting, the Drug War Chronicle reports that death toll for 2009 has just surpassed 6000.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Real Reason for Gates' Anger
Recently, Associated Press reporter Julie Jacobson took a photograph of 21 year old Marine Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard who was dying at the time because his legs had been blown off. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tried very hard to have the picture suppressed but he failed and it appeared in a number of newspapers. Gates cited the anguish of Bernard’s parents as the reason for his attempted censorship. However, Fred Reed, a Vietnam combat veteran who was seriously wounded there, explains, in an article titled Killing America’s Kids posted on LewRockwell.com, exactly why the publication of this image made Robert Gates so furious and it has nothing to do with the feelings of Joshua Bernard’s mother and father.
Also, with so many criticizing Julie Jacobson for taking the photo, Reed feels it is appropriate to point out that she “has more combat time than the aggregate for Bush II, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Obama, Biden, Gonzalez, Clinton, Perle, Abrams, Kristol, Feith, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, George Will, Dershowitz, and Gates. These men, if the word is appropriate, killed that kid. Jacobson just caught them in the act.”
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Another Lawless DA
For some time now when it comes to the issue of medical marijuana the federal government has been seen as the problem with local officials perceived as being much more reasonable. However, with the promulgation of a Justice Department memo ordering personnel to stop prosecuting medical marijuana suppliers in compliance with state laws that allow it and the declaration by Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley that he intends to shut down medical cannabis clinics that make a profit these roles are being reversed.
Cooley’s intentions raise a number of questions. He says he will “target stores who are profiting and selling to people who don't qualify for medicinal marijuana.” Since he has no medical expertise how is he to determine who does and does not deserve relief? This becomes just another case of law enforcement putting their ill informed judgments ahead of doctors. Also, physicians, hospitals, laboratories, and insurance companies all make profits supplying all sorts of medical services why should medical marijuana clinics be any different? In addition, city government has “been unable to pass an ordinance governing the dispensaries.” How can people follow rules that do not exist? It seems that whether or not you are in compliance depends upon the whim of Steve Cooley. Lastly, because robberies, rapes, and murders occur in Los Angles County on a daily basis would not the public be better served by a different employment of limited law enforcement resources?
Clearly, the people living in Los Angles County are in the same predicament as those residing in San Diego County. They both are saddled with vicious district attorneys who care much more about the welfare of their political careers than they do about the well being of the citizens they are supposed to protect.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
No Proof of War Crimes Just Accusations
In an article published by the The Jewish Daily Forward Richard Goldstone is quoted as stating that “if this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven. I wouldn't consider it in any way embarrassing if many of the allegations turn out to be disproved.” However, because these charges are made against Israel no proof is necessary. The unsubstantiated word of Hamas terrorists is good enough for the UN Human Rights Council.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
IDF Did Not Commit War Crimes
This powerful statement by British Colonel Richard Kemp exposes the Goldstone Report for the tissue of bigoted lies that it is.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Real Life Example in Oakland
One of the more unfair aspects of the debate over drug prohibition is the demand that those who oppose proscription describe in exacting detail the consequences of a change while those who favor law enforcement approaches get to assume that the only result will be the cessation of use. Well now in Oakland, California there is a concrete example of marijuana legalization in action. A nine block area in downtown Oakland surrounding Oaksterdam University, a school for people wanting to enter the expanding marijuana business, has become a gathering place for users of virtually legal cannabis.
The primary noticeable effect of this occurrence seems to be increased commerce. The Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency reports that 160 new businesses have moved into the downtown area while the vacancy rate has decreased from 25% to 5%. The city has passed an excise tax on marijuana and it is expected to bring in over $1 million during the first year. The founder of the cannabis college, entrepreneur Richard Lee, points out that "the reality is we're creating jobs, improving the city, filling empty store spaces, and when people come down here to Oakland they can see that."
Those who oppose these recent developments use the same tired unfounded arguments they have always employed, unfortunately repeated in the Newsweek article linked to above. However, there is nothing that has happened in Oakland which bolsters their position that legal marijuana is a problem. Quite the contrary it is proving to be beneficial.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, October 16, 2009
A Step Forward in Massachusetts
Efforts in California to legalize pot have been receiving a great deal of attention but that is not the only state moving forward on this issue. In Massachusetts Rep. Ellen Story (D-Amherst) has filed H2929 which would make lawful the adult use of marijuana. The legislation begins by stating that; “The governor and the representatives of the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging that previous efforts have not succeeded in eliminating or curtailing marijuana use and abuse; determined to exercise some measure of control over the use of cannabis consistent with respect for individual freedom and responsibility; and declaring our objectives to be the reduction of cannabis abuse, the elimination of marijuana-related crime and the raising of public revenue, do hereby ordain and enact The Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act.”
This bill, the idea of former NORML and StoptheDrugWar.org board member Northampton attorney Richard Evans, got a hearing before the legislature’s Joint Revenue Committee this week. Arguing that state revenues would be greatly enhanced Evans testified that "whether you like it or you hate it... it is undeniable in 2009 that marijuana has become inextricably embedded in our culture. It is ubiquitous and it is ineradicable. Members should put on your green eye shades and give close scrutiny to marijuana prohibition." While the law is not expected to pass in this session its proposal and the hearing are nevertheless important steps in the right direction.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Help Hold The Fed Accountable
In order to continue in his current position Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke must be reconfirmed by the U.S, Senate. Congressmen Ron Paul and Alan Grayson view this fact as an opportunity to extract some information about The Fed that is vital to the American people. It used to be widely thought that concern about the activities of the Federal Reserve was the sole province of rightwing nut jobs. You can help change this perception by contacting your Senators and telling them not to reconfirm Bernanke unless he answers some pointed questions.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Federal Prosecutors Gone Wild
The founding fathers never intended the federal government to be in the business of prosecuting ordinary crime. This task was supposed to be left to the states. However, with the advent of alcohol and drug prohibition that line became increasingly blurred to the point where all sorts of seemingly mundane behavior can land someone in federal prison.
In a very alarming article by Brian W. Walsh, a senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, the movement by the federal government to turn everyone into a criminal is discussed. The piece begins by describing a SWAT team raid by the Fish and Wildlife Service that trashed the home of George Norris. Walsh tells us that “Mr. Norris ended up spending almost two years in prison because he didn't have the proper paperwork for some of the many orchids he imported. The orchids were all legal - but Mr. Norris and the overseas shippers who had packaged the flowers had failed to properly navigate the many, often irrational, paperwork requirements the U.S. imposed when it implemented an arcane international treaty's new restrictions on trade in flowers and other flora.”
Mr. Norris is an elderly man with significant health problems and the two years in prison, along with the years fighting the charges, constitute a tremendous physical and financial burden on someone for what was essentially faulty paperwork. He represents a growing class of people, victims of overzealous federal prosecutors enforcing intrusive irrational laws. So many individuals and their families have had their lives ruined that the problem has warranted Congressional hearings. The question becomes who will be next person receiving this kind of injustice?
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Lawless District Attorney of San Diego County
In order to make herself more politically palatable to conservative voters for an upcoming election the lesbian District Attorney of San Diego County, Bonnie Dumanis, is once again persecuting medical marijuana users with a vengeance. In an outrage provoking article the Drug War Chronicle is reporting that in early September, contrary to state law, fourteen medical marijuana dispensaries were raided and closed. The event resulted in thirty three arrests and the spectacle of a man being dragged out his wheelchair by law enforcement. Despite President Obama’s assurances that such federal actions were a thing of the past the DEA took part in some of the incursions.
Trying to have it both ways, Dumanis claims to be a friend of medical marijuana, however, no clinic, despite great effort to do so, ever seems to be able to live up to her exacting legal standard. Dion Markgraff, San Diego coordinator for Americans for Safe Access, argues that “she can't follow the plain language of the law, but instead she holds some impossible standard that no one else knows about. We're on the front lines of the most terrorist county in the whole state. The DA is sending in cops who lied to doctors to get valid recommendations, and then busting dispensaries that are operating according to the law. At worst, maybe somebody didn't file this or that piece of paper or had a zoning issue, but there was certainly nothing criminal."
The Drug Policy Alliance is petitioning California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown asking them to help put a halt to Dumannis’ unjust harassment. You can sign it here. With all of the discrimination and maltreatment that gay women have had to endure over the years you would think that someone with the DA’s background would be little more hesitant to inflict such treatment on other people, especially the sick.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Other Middle East Refugees
Throughout the world there is much sympathy lavished on the between 500,000 and 750,000 Palestinian Arabs who left Israel in 1948 despite the fact that their current status as refugees is deliberate. However, there are very few tears being shed over the much less known ordeal of the more than 850,000 Jews forced to flee Arab countries between 1948 and 1970.
The story of one of these persecuted people, Linda Abu-Aziz Menuhin, has now been told in the pages of The Jerusalem Post by Lela Gilbert. After the Six Day War Menuhin wrote a letter to her aunt in America describing the shocking conditions Jews were enduring including the banning of Jewish institutions, people disappearing, and the horrific execution of nine innocents in front of a large joyous cheering crowd. The letter under the title, Anne Frank from Baghdad, was published in Israel.
In the piece Gilbert points out that, “these forgotten refugees were members of ancient Jewish communities that predated Christianity. More than a few were wealthy, powerful and successful. Nearly all of them left their homes with little more than the shirts on their backs, leaving behind houses, bank accounts, investments, personal treasures and their means of livelihood. They resettled, mostly in Israel. From then until now, they have received no reparations, no inventory of their lost possessions and virtually no consideration in negotiations for Middle East peace.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Sunday, September 13, 2009
This is Not a Review
You can tell from the second sentence that this so called review of Ron Paul’s new book, End the Fed, is going to be a piece of mindless partisan garbage, written by someone who knows nothing of history or economics, when the author calls Dr. Paul’s last book, The Revolution: A Manifesto a rant against big government, instead the cogent well reasoned argument that it is.
The piece composed by the slanderous fascist ignoramus, Justin Moyer, makes no attempt to describe or refute Paul’s manuscript; it is merely two measly paragraphs of ad hominem attack. This happens because it is axiomatic to this hack and his ideologue editors that society should be run from the top down organized on principles of force and coercion and anyone who disagrees that this is the ideal must be a crank. No wonder The Washington Post, which published this junk review, is hemorrhaging readers.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
When Vandalism is Heroic
I often think that the only thing Orwell got wrong was the date. Then I look at things like this article as well as the comments on it, the health care reform town hall meetings, the growing following of Ron Paul and I begin to have a glimmer of hope that the American people will not go quietly into slavery.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Marijuana's Cultural Influence Ascendant
From the Club des Hachichins in 1840s Paris where the literary lights of France gathered, to the jazz loving vipers of America in the 1920s and 1930s and the hippies congregating on the corner of Haight and Ashbury in 1960s San Francisco marijuana has often exerted a profound effect on popular culture.
According to Adam Tschorn writing in in the Los Angeles Times we are now in a period where marijuana’s cultural influence is ascendant. He argues that, “after decades of bubbling up around the edges of so-called civilized society, marijuana seems to be marching mainstream at a fairly rapid pace. At least in urban areas such as Los Angeles, cannabis culture is coming out of the closet.”
While this article is accurate, it is also incomplete. There is, like almost all articles about marijuana, no mention of the fact that numerous commissions, investigations and studies such as the Nixon appointed Shafer Commission and the Canadian Senate report have consistently found that there is no valid reason for marijuana to be illegal in the first place.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Health Care Reform Preview
Since certainly some kind new government interference with the health care system will be passed into law, whether the American people want it or not, the question becomes will these health care reforms, that the Obama Administration wants enacted, actually benefit us? In order to evaluate the chances of this happening perhaps we should take a close look at how the administration has “helped” people facing mortgage foreclosure?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Obama Loves Big Pharma
The Democratic Party and the left in general want people to believe that they are for the poor and middle class, protecting them from the greed of big corporations. Well, apparently someone forgot to tell Barak Obama because as Greg Palast informs us his administration has been holding secret meetings with pharmaceutical company lobbyists that have resulted in policy proposals that do not reflect the tough stance Obama took against these giant corporations during his campaign.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Celebrity Ayn Rand Fans
Mother Jones Magazine has posted a list of celebrity Ayn Rand fans. Some of you might want to leave a comment as many of the magazine's readers are in need of broader education.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Who Said This
"Tolerate injustice or end it. When it’s all said and done, those are the only two choices we have." (click on read more for answer)
Friday, July 24, 2009
Walter Cronkite Opposed Drug Prohibition
When Walter Cronkite died earlier this month the American people lost someone they felt they could trust. In the 1960s after Cronkite began to publicly question the war in Vietnam President Johnson felt he had lost the support of Middle America. And, Vietnam was not the only war that caused Cronkite enough concern to speak out.
In 1995 Cronkite was involved in a program broadcast on The Discovery Channel, The Drug Dilemma - War or Peace?, where he said that, “just about every American was shocked when Robert McNamara, one of the master architects of the Vietnam War, acknowledged that not only did he believe the war was 'wrong, terribly wrong,' but that he thought so at the very time he was helping to wage it. That's a mistake we must not make in this tenth year of America's all-out war on drugs.” Three years later he along with numerous other notables from around the globe signed an open letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stating that, “we believe that the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself.”
Later Cronkite agreed to become an honorary board member of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) where he helped produce fund raising letters. In one such missive he wrote, “And I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: the war on drugs is a failure.” As Ethan Nadelmann head of the DPA put it, “Walter Cronkite got it -- and he got it early. He knew a failed war when he saw one.”
Is it not time for the American people to get it also? It would indeed be a fitting tribute to Walter Cronkite to once again trust him and end the failed policy of drug prohibition.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, July 17, 2009
Fund Raising Human Rights Watch Style
Human Rights Watch recently sent a delegation to Saudi Arabia but it mission was not to investigate mistreatment of Saudi women or the fact that homosexuals are subject to the death penalty in that country. No they went there to raise money and as David Bernstein reports in the Wall Street Journal their main strategy involved highlighting Human Right Watch’s anti-Israeli bias. Spokesperson Sarah Leah Whitson asked the wealthy Saudis for help with her organization’s battles against "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations."
Bernstein also quotes Nathan Wagner at Opinio Juris saying that, “surely there is a moral difference between raising funds in free nations through appeals to ideals of universal human rights and raising money in repressive nations through appeals highlighting pressure brought against their enemies.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Climate Change Rip Off
How do you get climate change legislation through Congress that will do nothing to change the climate but will cause even more job loss, double some people’s electricity bills, and enrich the likes of Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi as well as others in the know? You suppress information and you buy votes at $3.5 billion a pop.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Transfer of Wealth
When America elected Barak Obama almost everyone thought there would be new massive transfers of wealth from the rich to the poor in the socialist tradition. What we did not know is that the money would be mostly moving in the other direction.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Who are the Real Pushers?
Anyone familiar with the film Reefer Madness is acquainted with one of the stock characters of drug prohibition literature, the pusher. He, sometimes she, is an immoral sinister figure who busily spends his day addicting youth to his wares, the lowest of the low. The problem with the picture of this figure is that there really is no need to go out of your way to find customers. In this country if you want to sell heroin or cocaine all you need to do is stand on any urban street corner and your often desperate customers will come to you. Giving free samples in order to hook kids is not necessary. When it comes to illegal drugs demand is usually much higher than supply. One of the most influential drug dealers of all time Milton Mezzrow in his autobiography took great pride in the fact that he did not sell marijuana to children.
On the other hand, modern pharmaceutical companies do sell drugs to children, some of them with suicide warning labels on the bottle. These large corporations also spend millions upon millions of dollars pushing their drugs on the American people. Just turn on any television or radio station and you will find advertisements for drugs to be ubiquitous. And, the trend has been to market these kinds of drugs to younger and younger people.
This pattern continues as an article in The Washington Times reports that the “Food and Drug Administration is reviewing drugs from AstraZeneca PLC, Eli Lilly & Co. and Pfizer Inc. for use in patients between the ages of 10 and 17. The drugs - already approved to treat schizophrenia and bipolar mania in adults - had combined sales of more than $7.4 billion last year, according to IMS Health.” A look at a list of the supposed symptoms of bipolar disorder (click on the whats in this article link for list) in adolescents covers a very wide range of behavior and seems to be saying that if you are not happy all of the time or you are not sad all of the time then you have this disease. So the customer base will be very large. Never mind saddling a ten year old with the proven side effects of weight gain and high blood sugar these drugs need to pushed, $7.4 billion is not enough.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Drug Cartel Intimidation
Not too long ago then Speaker of House Dennis Hastert rightfully earned the scorn of many clear thinking people when he suggested that drug law reformer George Soros was funded by the drug cartels. Recent events in Mexico are demonstrating just how far from rational an American politician can go on the subject of drug policy. The Drug War Chronicle is reporting that members and candidates of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) are being subject to violent attacks. The SDP Party Chairman Jose Carlos Diaz Cuervo believes this is happening because the party’s platform strongly calls for the legalization of drugs. He asserts that, "doubtless, unlike the federal government, it appears the drug traffickers do understand that the regulation of that market would take the business away from them and would be a more intelligent way to combat them."
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Camp NAMA and Task Force 121
Those who still think our government only tortured high value prisoners in search of critical information needed immediately to save American lives should read this article. Published in Esquire, by John H. Richardson, it is a fascinating eyewitness account of torture American style. The piece relates the experiences of an Army interrogator assigned to Task Force 121 at Camp NAMA who “conducted or participated in about fifteen harsh interrogations, most involving the use of ice water to induce hypothermia. By his reckoning, at least half of the prisoners were innocent, just random Iraqis who got picked up for one reason or another. Sometimes the evidence against them was so slight, Jeff would go into the interrogation without even knowing their names.”
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this essay is the numerous mentions of Obama’s new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, as the high ranking officer who sanctioned and even encouraged the repugnant activities described.
Hat tip to Scott Horton
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Is History Repeating Itself?
In the 1920s, the decade after alcohol prohibition passed, dissatisfaction with the policy grew at a tremendous rate. As the violence became widespread the ranks of politically wet groups swelled while membership in dry groups declined substantially. Yet it was not until the economic collapse of the Great Depression that repeal of Prohibition became a concrete possibility. In his book Repealing National Prohibition historian David Kyvig writes that the ”growing malaise of the Great Depression introduced new political and social as well as economic circumstances, greatly accelerating the revolt against prohibition and causing the prospect of repeal to be taken seriously for the first time.”
Perhaps in a way history is repeating itself, as new polls show an increased support for the legalization of marijuana. An essay in The Christian Science Monitor reports that a poll conducted last week by Zogby International shows a nationwide majority support for legal pot, 52%, for the first time ever. This is up from an ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted last month which revealed 46% in favor of marijuana decriminalization. In addition, a recent poll of California voters had 56% of the respondents favoring taxation and regulation of legal cannabis. The article asserts that NORML deputy director Paul Armentano ”traces the changing stance to three developments: the economic downturn, which is forcing people to consider new sources of revenue; the violent Mexican drug war, which he says many Americans see as the result of prohibition of the drug trade and not directly linked to personal usage; and lastly, more experience with the drug.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Is Murder by Drone a War Crime?
Anthony Gregory’s most recent post below has inspired me to ask some moral questions of my own. I seem to remember that awhile ago we found out that the CIA once planned to assassinate Fidel Castro and that this revelation caused a great deal of controversy. If I remember correctly the outcome of this debate was a consensus that the killing of enemy leaders by the U.S. Government was wrong and it would not be done. Now my question is this; if it is not OK to assassinate Castro, Iran’s president, Assad in Syria or Kim Il Jong, why is it alright to kill what are probably mid-level clerics, not to mention any women and children in the vicinity, with drones in Pakistan? Are we not assassinating these people? And, who exactly are they? What is the justification for their deaths? We know that the government was not too concerned with guilt or innocence when they started throwing people into Guantanamo, are they being anymore careful in this case? Lastly is it just fine to murder these people because Barak Obama is a Democrat?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Innocent Until Proven Guilty Already Gone
In his post directly below this one James Otteson rightly criticizes an aspect of plans to eliminate tax deductions for companies that make money overseas. He quotes an AP article which says "Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.”
However, there is no major shift here because asset forfieture laws which supposedly target those who violate drug prohibition have already eliminated the American legal idea of innocent until proven guilty. Too many people take the attitude that I do not use any of the currently illegal drugs so why should I care about drug prohibition. Well here is yet another example of a pernicious concept developed for the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs being applied to everyone. And, because those being punished before or without even a trial are subhuman users of the "evil drugs" many do not even ackowldege this prior twisting of legal principle.
I would also like to add that demands to prove a negative have been the driving force behind our foreign policy since 2003, when we made the impossible requirement to fulfill, that Saddam Hussein prove he had no WMDs, to avoid invasion. Before the war Hussein released a massive amount of documentation showing he had destroyed the weapons in question but that was still not enough to save the lives of over 4000 American soldiers. We are now doing the same thing to Iran with regards to a nuclear weapons program that our own intelligence services said in 2007 did not exist.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Abuse of a Grand Jury Subpoena
The government does not like Siobhan Reynolds who is head of The Pain Relief Network an advocacy group fighting against the state persecution of pain patients and their doctors. The immediate cause of animosity is Reynolds defense of Kansas Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife, Nurse Linda Schneider, who have been accused of operating a pain clinic responsible for 56 overdose deaths. The network has been organizing patients in support of the defendants and generating publicity about the case.
The Schneider’s federal prosecutors tried to impose a gag order on Reynolds’s group but the judge denied the motion. Now the Drug War Chronicle reports that she “has been targeted for a grand jury investigation of obstruction of justice for her role in supporting a Kansas physician and his wife in their legal battle against federal prosecutors.” In her subpoena Assistant US Attorney Tanya Treadway “demands that Reynolds turn over all correspondence with attorneys, patients, Schneider family members, doctors, and others related to the Schneider case. She also demands that Reynolds turn over bank and credit card statements showing payments to or from clinic employees, patients, potential witnesses and others.” Reynolds has stated that she has no intention of complying with the order and has filed a motion seeking to have the subpoena thrown out.
Gore Vidal has said that, “America is a quarter of a billion people totally misinformed and disinformed by their government. This is tragic but our media is -- I wouldn't even say corrupt -- it's just beyond telling us anything that the government doesn't want us to know.” Given the large amount of truth in that statement, this pernicious governmental attempt to silence an advocacy group should be all the more frightening to us.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, April 17, 2009
My New Hero
A member of the European Parliment speaks truth to power in a most eloquent and forceful way.
Hat tip to David Adelman
Monday, April 6, 2009
Betrayal Thy Name is Obama
Consider Obama’s promise of no more raids on medical marijuana clinics coupled with another strike a week later and his constant suggestion that corporate greed is the root of all evil while simultaneously doling out billions in corporate subsidies. It becomes clear that Obama is at least inconsistent and at worst a full blown liar in the George Bush mold. In his latest column Justin Raimondo takes up this theme and aptly describes the problem writing that; ”The Janus-faced American hegemon speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and in two voices: one for the masses, who delight in his soaring idealism and seeming ability to express their deepest aspirations, and one for the elites, who hear a promise of continuity rather than change.”
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Another Sign that Our Future is Fascism
The federal Transportation Safety Agency (TSA) is a disgustingly thuggish organization. This segment from Judge Napolitano’s show on Fox makes that clear. The TSA was supposedly created to protect airline passengers, apparently its mission has expanded and now includes punishing the wrong political opinions.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The Suffering in Gaza
There can be no doubt that the people living in Gaza have had to endure a great deal of suffering. The question becomes, who is responsible for their plight? Former resident Nonie Darwish provides this answer.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
American Opposition to Harm Reduction
So far, sending mixed messages would be a very apt description of the Obama Administration’s approach to drug policy. In the week after taking office there were federal raids on medical marijuana clinics but subsequently the Attorney General announced that there would be a change in that aspect of the federal/state relationship. Next the administration named the most forward thinking and humane person to hold the job of Drug Czar in the history of that office; however, the administration made the appointment a non-cabinet position and stated that veteran dedicated drug warrior Vice-President Joe Biden would have a significant role in forming policy. Also, that while some military leaders are expressing a desire to intervene in support of Mexican drug prohibition the administration itself seems to be very reluctant.
In the latest signal though, the Obama Administration has opposed the idea of harm reduction at the UN. During a meeting in Austria to determine the direction of UN drug policy for the next decade, the concept of mitigating the effects of drug use was not included in the final statement and 26 countries, including some of our closest allies, tried to change this despite strong opposition from the U.S. delegation. Eyewitness SSDP Executive Director Kris Krane reports that, “over 100 countries chose not to speak in support or opposition to harm reduction, yet the United States willingly chose to align itself with countries that are responsible for some the worst human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of the War on Drugs, rather than staying silent or aligning with America’s traditional allies. The Obama administration has promised to rebuild America’s traditional alliances, yet they willfully set this process back in order to continue the disastrous global war on drugs and drug users. Clearly, this behavior will not change unless President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton hear a loud message from citizens that global drug policy must be based in science, reason, evidence, and human rights, rather than worn-out ideology and Drug War orthodoxy.”
Indeed, Obama does need to make a decision, will his drug policy be based on the same old inhumane, immoral, violent, costly, and failed concepts or will he instigate meaningful change that will benefit both his place in history and the lives of the American people. Before he makes such a choice he would do well to heed Anthony Gregory’s latest comprehensive and well argued talk on the subject. To make clear the stakes involved Gregory quotes Ludwig von Mises as asserting that, “opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual against his own foolishness, no serious objections can be advanced against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.”
Some of Barak Obama’s opponents on the political far right are arguing that the new president’s real agenda is the imposition of totalitarianism. We would do well to monitor his drug policy choices as a gauge to the accuracy of his adversary’s claims.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Army to Become DEA
It appears that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has a habit of confusing the United States Army with the Drug Enforcement Agency. First an American General in Afghanistan under his supervision announces that henceforth American personal will shoot on sight anyone connected with the opium trade, thereby vastly increasing support for the Taliban, and now Gates wants to move U.S. troops into Mexico to enforce drug prohibition there. On the television program Meet the Press he stated that, "I think we are beginning to be in a position to help the Mexicans more than we have in the past. Some of the old biases against cooperation between our militaries and so on, I think, are being set aside."
However, in an article for the McClatchy website Marisa Taylor and Nancy A. Youssef present evidence that the Mexican Army, Laredo police, numerous federal agencies, and the Obama Administration in general all have little enthusiasm for Gate’s vision. Also, moving this project forward is not made easier when “during a trip designed to expand U.S. Mexican-military relations, Adm. Michael Mullen, the highest-ranking U.S. military officer, visited the graves of American troops who died during the Mexican-American war just as Gates did during his first visit in August.”
In 1916, the last time the United States Army entered Mexico, it went to fight opponents of the Mexican government who were involved with drugs and it quickly withdrew because of more important conflicts on the world stage. Hopefully, history will not repeat itself because that would be wrongheaded, expensive, and deadly.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, March 6, 2009
Obstacle Not Put in Place
Another good sign for the marijuana law reform movement came with the news that CNN’s medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta will not be the new Surgeon General. Dr. Gupta wrote an article for Time magazine in which he used specious logic and misinformation to categorically reject marijuana decriminalization. His elevation to the above position would have been an impediment to needed change.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Solution to Violence that Must Never be Discussed
The exponentially increasing violence as a result of the Mexican government’s ill conceived attempt to crack down on the drug cartels is finally garnering some attention. The television program Sixty Minutes had a segment on it Sunday night. However, as per usual the piece had plenty of questionable scary sensationalism with virtually no analysis of the root of the problem, the drug laws. There was also no mention of the recent statement by former leaders Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil), César Gaviria (Colombia) and Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico) calling for a paradigm shift in drug policy. Instead, CBS attempted to blame U.S. demand for drugs and lack of gun control laws for the problem.
Meanwhile Defense Secretary Robert Gates is praising Mexican President Felipe Calderon for initiating the chaos and he promises more U.S. assistance, including joint military operations, to keep the violence going.
On the other hand, essayist for the Orange County Registrar, Alan Bock places the blame for the killings squarely where it belongs on drug prohibition. He asks us to substitute the phrase “drug law related violence” for the misleading drug related violence now commonly in use. Bock is arguing that so called successes in this war are actually failures when he points out that those “who have sought to win the ill-considered War on Drugs by main force have discovered time and time again, that the drug cartels are hydra-headed monsters. Kill or imprison the head of a particularly brutal cartel, as the authorities were able to do recently with the notorious Felix Arellano organization in Tijuana, and a half dozen contenders for leadership quickly emerge, all of them skilled to one extent or another in the dark arts of violence, concealment, intimidation, and cruelty.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Why You Do Not Torture People
Although there is a considerable amount of dispute over the actual figure, some have attached great importance to the number of recidivist terrorists among those released from Guantanamo Bay. Here is the story of Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi who left the American prison to end his days as a suicide bomber. However, should he really be considered a recidivist or was he a terrorist created by the United States government?
After his release and return to Kuwait that country put Ajmi on trial for terrorist actions and he was acquitted. The written decision of his Kuwaiti judges stated that “they believed that the U.S. military elicited information from the defendants by using physical and psychological torture. They deemed the U.S. investigative summaries unreliable, and they concluded that the Kuwaiti government had based its reports on unsubstantiated U.S. allegations.” The fact that he was released from the base at all is a tacit admission that there was little or no evidence that he was a problem in the first place.
To his family Ajimi’s time in prison had a profound effect on him. His younger brother describes “a normal teenager. He spun the car around in circles. He smoked. People liked him. After he came back from Guantanamo, he seemed like a completely different person. He stared all the time. You could not have a normal conversation with him. . . . It seemed as if his brain had been washed." And, his lawyer believes that, “here was this poor, dumb kid -- I really don't think he was a bad kid -- who was thrown into a hellhole of a prison and who went mad, should we really be surprised that somebody we treated this way would become radicalized, would become crazy?"
Monday, February 16, 2009
Wesley Fager R.I.P.
Unhappily one of the stalwarts in the fight against drug treatment abuse, Wesley M. Fager has passed away. He died on Friday in Baltimore at Johns Hopkins Hospital and the funeral is tomorrow in Chesapeake, VA. Because of experiences within his own family Fager took up the important and neglected cause of those abused, sometimes very seriously, while confined to drug treatment facilites. He is the author of the e-book A Clockwork Straight and he will be sorely missed.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, February 14, 2009
A New Drug Czar
The drug law reform community put much effort and faith into the election of President Barack Obama and until just recently they have experienced nothing but disappointment in return. First, during the transition Obama nominated hardline drug warrior Eric Holder, who sought to make simple misdemeanor marijuana possession a felony with mandatory minimum sentencing in the District of Columbia, to be Attorney General. The president then named as Surgeon General television personality Sanjay Gupta who has demonstrated astounding ignorance on the subject of cannabis use.
The new administration’s measures in this field so far have been just as bad as his nominations. During his first week in office there were federal raids in California on medical marijuana clinics operating legally under state law, an action that broke a campaign promise to change this Bush policy. Although, the leader of NATO in Afghanistan, a U.S. general under Obama’s command, did announce a policy change, henceforth his subordinates were to kill on sight anyone involved in the drug trade irregardless of any connection with the insurgency. Also, when the City Council of El Paso Texas voted for a resolution merely calling for a national discussion on legalization of drugs they were threatened with a loss of stimulus package funding from the Obama Administration. And, there is no evidence that any of the above actions has displeased our new leader.
However, last week Obama did do something that drew praise from the nation’s drug law reform organizations, he nominated Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Drug Policy Alliance for example cited the facts that Seattle had legalized medical marijuana, made recreational marijuana the lowest law enforcement priority, allowed the implementation of needle exchange programs, and pursued a progressive policy when it came to dealing with overdoses as very good signs. Perhaps the greatest cause for optimism is the fact that Chief Kerlikowske has followed in the footsteps of retired Seattle police chief Norm Stamper now a prominent member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) who “believes the drug war causes untold misery, undermines effective law enforcement, and does not begin to pass any sort of cost-benefit analysis.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Is Obama on a Drug?
With our government already trillions of dollars in debt and the private economy in a shambles of historic proportions the pressure to do something on President Barak Obama is enormous. He has the added stress of a foreign policy which must maintain the tough on terrorism posture of the previous administration while simultaneously reaching out diplomatically the world’s Muslims. The political necessity of matching expectations with results must be taking its toll and perhaps Obama is turning to a particular drug as a means of coping. Here is some evidence that may be the situation.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Michael Phelps and Marijuana
Winner of a record eight Olympic gold medals, swimmer Michael Phelps, foolishly allowed himself to be photographed taking a hit of marijuana from a bong. With millions of dollars in endorsement deals a stake Phelps has already apologized for his actions promising never to do it again.
Despite the request for forgiveness this incident has a much greater potential to harm Phelps’ prospects than a previous drunk driving arrest. Commentators are questioning the sincerity, asking was he sorry he did it or was he sorry he got caught? And, of course, the charge that he has failed to provide a good role model, thereby hurting the nation’s youth, is being made.
However, if marijuana were legal then the America’s young swim fans would not know about Phelps’ smoking habits because the picture would not be a news story. In fact, the whole situation is an indictment of cannabis prohibition. It is not very likely that this photo depicts the first time Phelps has used marijuana, yet none of the alleged reasons such use must be punished severely can be found in the swimmer’s behavior. Because of his prowess as an athlete he is one of the most scrutinized people on the planet but there have been no signs of murderous rampages, blatant insanity, or any violent actions. He often appears in public wearing only a speedo with no hint of needle tracks indicating the use of heroin or any other drug through injection. Also, is anyone seriously going to accuse Michael Phelps of being apathetic and lazy due to amotivational syndrome?
There is no damage to Michael Phelps that can be attributed to the use of marijuana other than the fact that the press found out about it. That this one photo can instantly turn a beloved icon in to a disgraced loser says more about the hypocrisy of our society than it does about him.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, January 30, 2009
Global Warming Heresy from the Left
When snow is covering the United Arab Emirates for only second time in recorded history it becomes significantly more difficult to sustain belief in the problem of man made global warming. In his most recent column Deroy Murdock documents the growing cracks in the leftist wall of faith in global warming. However, the real reason to read this piece lies in the comments section where the 12th comment down by Concerned Citizen presents an astonishing litany of evidence that the earth is getting cooler. It is testimony to the mendacious nature of the main stream media that more people do not know about the points brought up in this statement.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Stimulus Package Side Effect
The murder rate in the city of Juarez, Mexico doubled last year because of increased efforts to enforce drug prohibition. The city council of its sister city, El Paso, Texas, voted 8 to 0 in favor of a resolution calling for a national debate on the legalization of drugs. The mayor vetoed the legislation and six votes were needed to override this action. Despite the powerful testimony of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) member Nubia Legarda and the articulate and authoritative support for discussion from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) the veto was sustained in a 4 to 4 vote.
Why did four members of the council change their votes? The answer quite simply is that they were coerced. Ryan Grim writing on The Huffington Post reveals that “Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a Democrat who represents El Paso in Congress, lobbied each council member, making it clear that if the resolution calling for a debate passed, El Paso would risk losing money in the upcoming stimulus legislation. Five Texas House representatives made the same threat.”
Here is an opportunity for Barack Obama to prove that his promise of change has at least some substance. His administration should contact Rep. Reyes and the four state legislators for the purpose of finding out if anyone working in the federal bureaucracy indicated that funding would be cut off if the resolution passed. If any such persons are found then Obama must fire them immediately. He ought to also make a very public statement that discussing issues is not grounds for denial of stimulus or any other government funds. If he does not take these actions then we will know for sure that it is business as usual in the nation’s capital.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Why is Hamas Still Popular?
Despite the death and destruction rained down upon the people of Gaza, in response to terrorist attacks upon Israel, writers sympathetic to Hamas and the organization itself are claiming that the Gazans do not blame them for the current tragedy. They assert that Hamas is more popular than ever.
If this is true then people living on this unfortunate strip of land must take their share of responsibility for any violence that descends upon them in the future. Talal Nassar, the chief Hamas spokesman in Syria, has said that “future violence was inevitable.” Article 13 of the Hamas charter states that, “the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Hamas promises the people of Gaza nothing but an endless cycle of carnage until the people of Israel are totally destroyed and there is no reason not to take the organization’s word on this.
If the 1.4 million Gazans not only condone but enthusiastically support the continued killing of Israelis by a relatively small number of Hamas cadres, can they really be considered innocent victims? Does not this Gazan television personality (use close captioning) share some of the blame for the high number of civilian casualties when she laughs upon learning that Hamas has fired a missile from right underneath her office? Do those people who allow their homes, schools, and Mosques to be sites for storing explosives and launching attacks have any kind of justified complaint when those structures are destroyed?
It is unrealistic and unfair for the people of Gaza to expect the people of Israel to continually be on the receiving end of violence with no response. Despite all of the Hamas braggadocio, the past few weeks make it clear that they can not defend the people of Gaza therefore the people of Gaza should not allow them to invite further retaliation.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Alzheimer's Disease and Marijuana
Studies finding that cannabis, or marijuana as it is more commonly known, has both a mitigating and prophylactic effect with regards to Alzheimer’s disease continue to accumulate. One of the latest articles comes from researchers working at the Department of Physiology and Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, Trinity College Dublin. They found that “certain cannabinoids can protect neurons from the deleterious effects of β-amyloid and are capable of reducing tau phosphorylation. The propensity of cannabinoids to reduce β-amyloid-evoked oxidative stress and neurodegeneration, whilst stimulating neurotrophin expression neurogenesis, are interesting properties that may be beneficial in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease” and the Scientists concluded that “cannabinoids offer a multi-faceted approach for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease by providing neuroprotection and reducing neuroinflammation, whilst simultaneously supporting the brain's intrinsic repair mechanisms by augmenting neurotrophin expression and enhancing neurogenesis.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Hat tip to Ian Goddard
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Power of the Clan
There is concern that the $50 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by financier Bernard Madoff and the media coverage of it may spur a new wave of American anti-Semitism. A pointed history lesson presented by syndicated columnist Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, should go far towards diminishing this apprehension Her essay tells the very similar story of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Richard Whitney, president of the New York Stock Exchange during the 1930s, who ended up in Sing Sing Correctional Facility.
With regards to worry about Madoff and guilt by association, Shlaes states that her “advice is to have no such fear. The Madoff scandal is not about how different a Jewish clan is from a Protestant clan. It is about how the two are alike. And how Jewish and Protestant clannishness resembles that of Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans, Chinese-Americans and on down the line. Clannishness transcends any specific group. The clan can add value as a cultural or economic institution. It also harbors a unique power to destroy.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, January 2, 2009
Reason Foundation VP Advocates Higher Gas Taxes
An Associated Press story on the 15-member National Commission on Surface Transportation’s call for higher gas taxes, increased tolls, and rush hour fees quotes Adrian Moore, a Vice President of the Reason Foundation. He says that, "I'm not excited about a gas tax increase, but the reality is our current gas tax doesn't pay for upkeep of the system we have now. We can either let the roads go to hell or we can pay more." God forbid that we use some of the money going into our overseas empire or to pay useless commission members to fix the roads. Instead, screw all of the people who drive for a living and screw all of the people who buy products delivered over the roads.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Perceptive Remark
An article which was essentially a list of many of the victims of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme inspired a comment which is worth repeating. The Snarkmeister said that ”what this Bernie Madoff did privately is no worse than what Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke are doing publicly to the U.S. taxpayers. In a sad way, Madoff should be admired for having been able to accomplish such a swindle without the help of the U.S. Congress.”
Hat tip to Justin Raimondo
Friday, December 19, 2008
GLobal Cooling
According to a column by Deroy Murdock the members of the world wide religious cult of global warming may soon have a lot of explaining to do. It appears the Sun is not cooperating with their much bigger government agenda.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Heroin Prohibition Kills
One of the consequences of our government’s prohibition of heroin use is a black market for the drug where the strength of any individual dose is unknown. This leads far too often to problems with an overdose. Also, because heroin is illegal when someone does have a problem the people around them are often reluctant to seek help not wanting to put themselves in legal jeopardy.
Both of theses factor came into play in suburban Fairfax County Virginia where 19-year-old Alicia Lannes overdosed on heroin and died. The Washington Post is reporting that when her “boyfriend, Skylar Schnippel, realized Lannes was in trouble, he didn't call her parents or 911. He dialed some buddies and asked them to check on her, said her father, Greg Lannes. Schnippel's friends crept to the family's windows about 4 a.m. March 5 and saw that Alicia was unconscious. They went to a pay phone and made an anonymous call to 911.”
If heroin were legal and regulated then the chances are that Alicia would not have taken an overdose. However, even if she had overdosed under a legal regime those around her would have sought official help immediately and greatly increased her probability of survival. No doubt those who support and benefit by the illegality of heroin will exploit the sad death of Alicia Lannes to bolster their position but the reality is that if drugs were legal she would most likely be alive today. We as a society may not like heroin use but it should not be a capital offense.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obana's New PLan
On the advice of Justin Raimondo I called the Obama Transition Team (202 – 540 – 3000) to express my intense displeasure at the thought that the pro-war Hillary Clinton will be our next Secretary of State. I also sent an electronic communication to them pointing out that their new Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr. is dedicated to the racist war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. These two appointments send a strong signal that the change promised during the campaign is not going to materialize.
The transition team promptly responded to my concerns by sending me an e-mail touting Obama’s new plan to create 2.5 million jobs. This reminded me of something I once heard said by a Libertarian running for a seat in the Michigan Legislature to the effect that, if every job promised by a politician were actually created then we would all have to have three jobs and the dog would have to have a job too.
A press report (note the larger than life picture) on the plan unintentionally suggests a certain disconnection with reality. Obama promises not to raise taxes on the rich and to lower taxes for everyone else while at the same time tremendously increasing domestic spending. This plan brings up the same question that the larger more active military and various bailouts do, where is all this money coming from?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Drug Prohibition and the Rainforest
In the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Jerome Taylor, a writer for The Independent Of Britain, has an essay titled Cocaine is destroying Colombian rainforest. In it he describes damage to the environment done by cocaine producers. He asserts that, “on top of the vast tracts of rainforest that are destroyed to make way for coca fields millions of tons of herbicides and fertilizers are washed into Colombia's rivers.”
Taylor also notes efforts to convince users of cocaine that they are responsible for these bad effects. He quotes Colombia's Vice-President, Francisco Santos Calderon as arguing that, "every time you consume one gram of cocaine you are destroying 4.4 square meters of Colombian rainforest."
All of the problems described by the author would be mitigated or disappear if the coca plant were legal. The reason people plant coca deep in the rainforest is because it is illegal. The reason the chemicals used to make cocaine are just dumped into the nearest stream is because the industry is outlawed and therefore unregulated. Also, let us remember that the herbicides mentioned in the piece are there because of governmental efforts to eradicate the coca plant. If the drug was legal people would be able to partake without causing any more environmental damage than other crops do, so it is clearly not the user’s fault. The blame lies with drug prohibition and anyone who cares about the rainforest environment should be advocating an end to war on people who use certain kinds of drugs.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Obama Picks Enthusiastic Drug Warrior for Attorney General
One of the strongest constituencies to support the election of Barak Obama was the drug law reform community. His victory has been seen as a good opportunity to advance the agenda of a more sensible legal regime. However, these hopes have suffered a significant setback with the announcement that committed drug warrior Eric Holder Jr. will be the new Attorney General.
In a misleading article published by The Washington Post, attributing increased violence to marijuana rather than its real source marijuana prohibition, Holder is quoted as asserting that, "we have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," as he advocated more active enforcement along with stiffer penalties for marijuana offenses. Also, The Washington Times reported that, “Eric Holder yesterday said he will seek to make marijuana distribution in the District a felony and reinstate mandatory-minimum sentences for convicted drug dealers. Mr. Holder … said the D.C. Council's vote a year ago to repeal mandatory minimums was ‘misguided,’ leading to a backlog in the court system. He also warned that the city is on the verge of an explosion in violence associated with the sale and use of marijuana.”
The war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is the most racist institution in modern America. How ironic and sad that our first black president has appointed as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer another black man who so enthusiastically supports the racism inherent in drug prohibition.
Cross posted on Trebach Report
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Academic Freedom Assaulted Again
The Baltimore Sun is reporting another case of political correctness infringing on reasoned academic discourse. Some members of the Loyola College of Maryland Economics Department signed a letter apologizing for the racial and gender insensitivity contained in a guest lecture given by economist Walter Block. In his very interesting and detailed account of this incident Block notes that the school is in the process of changing it name to Loyola University of Maryland. He goes on to say that, ”it takes more to make a University, worthy of the name, than number and quality of students, publications of faculty, physical facilities. It also requires a certain openness to ideas, enthusiasm to tolerate different opinions, civility, politeness, willingness to dialogue instead of shutting down debate. Attempts to squelch support for free enterprise and laissez faire capitalism, by smearing adherents as "racists," or "sexists," is simply incompatible with being a great institution of higher learning, worthy of the name ‘University.’”
Hat tip Kenny Rodgers
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
A Tenacious Government Failure
It has been reported more than once that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) anti-drug ads are ineffective and there is strong evidence that they have a reverse effect actually increasing drug use. In December the issue of the American Journal of Public Health yet another study will be published proving the above facts to be true.
The investigation was conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School of Communication and the Drug War Chronicle quotes the authors as saying that, “The evidence does not support a claim that the campaign produced anti-marijuana effects. There is little evidence for a contemporaneous association between exposure to anti-drug advertising and any of the outcomes... Non-users who reported more exposure to anti-drug messages were no more likely to express anti-drug beliefs than were youths who were less exposed.” They went on to assert that, "Despite extensive funding, governmental agency support, the employment of professional advertising and public relations firms, and consultation with subject-matter experts, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign had no favorable effects on youths' behavior and that it may even have had an unintended and undesirable effect on drug cognitions and use."
Senator McCain has said he wants to take an axe to the federal budget while Senator Obama has said a scalpel is needed. Axe or scalpel, this useless and often slanderous program needs to be eliminated.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Americans Love Taxes?
Over at The Huffington Post Sally Kohn has posted perhaps the most ignorant piece of drivel, titled Why I Love Taxes – and Why Most Americans do, Too, that I have ever read. There is so much to respond to here that I will confine myself to three points.
First off, what people really want is for others to pay taxes. Almost all of those clamoring for a tax increase on families earning over $250,000 make less money than that. It would be interesting to know if Ms Kohn’s income crosses that threshold If Americans like to pay taxes so much why isn’t the system voluntary?
Secondly, a piece of advice for the author, if you are going to extol the virtues of government you might want to forgo the example of roads. As someone who often finds himself parked on the beltway that circles Washington D.C. I do not think it really helps your case.
Lastly, when Kohn is listing all of the marvelous things that government does for us with that tax money she neglects to include many things, such as all of the dead Iraqi and Afghani children the taxpayers have recently purchased or the audio tapes of U.S. soldiers having intimate conversations with their wives collected by the NSA and then shared with other government employees on the taxpayer's dime. I could go on in this vein for quite some time and I resent every penny that I am forced to pay at gunpoint for these kinds of activities. Apparently these sorts of things just do not bother Sally Kohn.
Hat tip Kenny Rodgers
Friday, October 24, 2008
Mental Health Parity Amendment
The seven hundred billion dollar bailout for Wall Street bankers also included a lucrative gift for psychiatric self-interest groups. An amendment to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 requires health insurance companies to cover the treatment of mental illness and addiction in the same way they handle cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. This is called parity.
However, Jeffrey A. Schaler and Richard E. Vatz point out in the pages of The Baltimore Sun that this backdoor change to the nation’s medical care system is both controversial and very expensive. They write that, “Quietly slipping the parity requirement into the financial bailout bill legislatively resolves a half-century of contentious debate over the definition of ‘mental illness,’ whether ‘psychiatric disorders’ are medical disorders, and the nature of addiction. What it does not resolve are the many valid objections to the whole concept of parity - objections that have never been satisfactorily answered.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Drug Violence in Mexico
In the recent presidential debates nary a word has been said about drug prohibition and the millions of people in American prisons and the next one promises more of the same. As investigative journalist Silja J.A. Talvi points out, in an authoritative and inclusive article posted on AlterNet, that would not be the case if these encounters were being held in Mexico. The widespread and incredibly brutal violence now happening there would demand attention.
After Mexican President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006 he deployed 30,000 troops in an attempt to break the country’s drug cartels and the Bush Administration has responded with offer for $400 million more American tax dollars to support the effort, a 20% increase in the Mexican anti-narcotics budget. The result has been 3500 drug related murders as opposed to the 2500 that took place last year and in a poll published on October 4th “40% of Mexicans felt less secure since Calderón's drug war offensive began. Another poll published by the Mexico City daily, Reforma, showed that more than half of Mexicans believed that the cartels, not the government, were winning the drug war.”
However, it appears that change may be coming as on, “October 2, Calderón proposed legislation that would decriminalize drug possession, ostensibly for personal use. Not just for marijuana, as one might have expected in a country where pot smoke has not been demonized to the same degree as in the U.S., but for cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin, as well.” This new direction in policy found support in the previous administration of Vicente Fox but the Bush drug war apparatus managed to stifle it. Therefore the question becomes has the level of violence risen enough to overcome the U.S. government’s support for said violence?
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Bush Drug Policy a Study in Failure
In 2002 the Bush Administration committed itself to reducing drug use in America by 25% within 5 years. On The New York Times Science Blog John Tierney declares the effort a stark failure. He draws upon a report published in The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform by Jon Gettman, a senior fellow at the George Mason University School of Public Policy, to make his case. This accounting was sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and it evaluates the same database used by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy to make an opposite claim.
Gettman comes to three main conclusions:
1. The Bush Administration has failed to reduce or control marijuana use in the United States. Marginal changes in marijuana and other drug use have been distorted to support false claims that incremental progress in reducing marijuana and other drug use has been achieved. Marijuana use is fundamentally the same as when the Bush Administration took office and illicit drug use overall has increased. Drug use data do not support Bush Administration claims that its policies have had a significant impact on illicit drug use in the United States.
2. Increases in drug treatment admissions for marijuana (often cited by officials as "proof" of marijuana's dangers) are driven by criminal justice policies rather than medical diagnosis. These policies increase public costs for providing drug treatment services and reduce funds for and availability of treatment of more serious drug problems.
3. Bush Administration documents acknowledge and document the failure of their national drug control strategy.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, October 10, 2008
Drug Czar Sees New Danger
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), John Walters, is upset because videos depicting drug use are appearing on the internet Even though a study conducted by the research firm Nielsen Online found that only 5% of the 6000 teens surveyed had seen such videos on sites like MySpace and YouTube, the Drug Czar still thinks parents should be worried enough to spy on their children.
Perhaps, Walters fears competition in the business of encouraging drug use among the nation’s youth. After all back in 2006 USA TODAY, while covering a General Accounting Office study on the program, reported that the “$1.4 billion anti-drug advertising campaign conducted by the U.S. government since 1998 does not appear to have helped reduce drug use and instead might have convinced some youths that taking illegal drugs is normal.” Also, for all the Drug Czar knows these new videos showing people high and acting stupid will actually discourage drug use.
Lastly, since a great deal of the time, effort and money spent in the government’s war on people who use certain kinds of drugs has always been directed towards demonizing and censoring those with opposing views, Walters’ statement that "Nobody's talking about censorship over the Internet here, what we're talking about is legitimate parental supervision” is likely disingenuous at best.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Thursday, October 9, 2008
McCain a Hero?
The more I learn about John McCain the less that I like him as a person let alone candidate. When in boot camp for the Navy we all were required to view a film on the catastrophic fire which occurred on board the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Forrestal in July 1967. The purpose of the film was to make clear the danger of fire at sea, however, the self sacrifice and heroism of the crew in fighting the blaze also made a strong impression.
Historian Mary Hershberger has written a fascinating article titled Investigating John McCain’s Tragedy at Sea, which reviews McCain’s role in the event. After presenting evidence that over the years McCain has been less than truthful about his actions and that he may actually have contributed to the severity of the incident, Hershberger states that, ”Whatever the circumstances of the fire’s origins, McCain did not stay on deck to help fight the blaze as the men around him did. With the firefighting crew virtually wiped out, men untrained in fighting fires had to pick up the fire hoses, rescue the wounded or frantically throw bombs and even planes over the ship’s side to prevent further tragedy. McCain left them behind and went down to the hangar-bay level, where he briefly helped crew members heave some bombs overboard. After that, he went to the pilot’s ready room and watched the fire on a television monitor hooked to a camera trained on the deck.” A little later, while fires were still burning, McCain left the vessel by helicopter for some RR in Saigon. This account of McCain’s involvement does not sound very heroic to me.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Charles Whitebread has Passed On
Sadly, Charles Whitebread, respected legal scholar and one of the foremost authorities on the history of marijuana, has passed away. He co-authored The Marihuana Conviction perhaps the most comprehensive history of marijuana prohibition in the United States, A tireless advocate of marijuana law reform Whitebread wrote, ”Law may be rooted in fiction as well as fact. Indeed, a public policy conceived in ignorance may be continuously reaffirmed, ever more vehemently, so long as its origins remain obscure or its fallacy unexposed." His wit, insight, and dedication will be sorely missed.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Monday, September 8, 2008
He is Not Worth It
Recently, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has become the darling of both Democrats, Joe Biden has called for giving him another billion dollars of the tax payers’ money, Republicans, John McCain’s top foreign policy advisor was a paid lobbyist for him, and perhaps most importantly the main stream media, most of whom accept uncritically just about everything he says. Now would be a good time to remember that at one time Saddam Hussein received the same kind of treatment, esteem, and billions, from the same parties and information sources.
The two leaders, Saakashvili and Hussein, certainly seem to share many of the same ideas about governing. Neither would tolerate a free press or peaceful demonstrations and both have used a brutal prison system, inclined towards torture, to secure power. In The Jewish Daily Forward Kathleen Peratis calls into question the keystone of the mass media’s narrative, that Georgia is a Democracy. She reports that, “in response to these events, Saakashvili called a snap election for January 2008, which the opposition alleges he stole through voter intimidation and media dominance.”
We must ask ourselves are the aims of Saakashvili, who committed the first acts of violence in this latest confrontation, really worth restarting the Cold War? Do we seriously want our children to be subject to duck and cover drills again and to live every day with the knowledge and fear that the world could be destroyed at any instant?
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Fascism is Alive and Well in Minnesota
Glenn Greenwald provides evidence that each year the state repression gets worse. This time potential protesters are being illegally confronted by the police, even before the Republican Convention begins.
We see here the real damage that the terrorists have done to American society. They have made “security” the be all and end all of our values. The most repugnant un-America acts are always justified in its name.
Hat tip to Scott Horton
Monday, July 21, 2008
Ron Paul Effect in Action
The Ron Paul saga is still far from over. I personally can not imagine this article being written, much less published by a student newspaper, before Paul ran for president.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
USA Number One
A student in a class on the history of drugs was asked the following two questions; “Do more arrests and more people in prison necessarily lead to less drug use? Also, does a policy producing fewer arrests and less people in prison necessarily lead to more drug use?” Last week the World Health Organization (WHO) answered both queries with a resounding no.
Ever since the Progressive Era the United States government has pursued a policy relying primarily on punishment to curb drug abuse, with abuse and use being considered largely synonymous. While the program has always been a mixture of state coercion and drug treatment, the bulk of the funding has gone into maintaining prohibition. As a result, this country has a racially biased overcrowded prison system on the verge of collapse. We have a law enforcement system employing often very brutal tactics which accomplish very little in way of ending drug use. Our medical system is denying people in pain the medication they need to ease their suffering. And, the nation’s economic system must come up with billions of dollars each year to pay for this activity.
We are told these sacrifices are necessary to keep drugs in check but what do we really get for our money and our pain? Well, U.S. News and World Report, writing about research done by the WHO, tells us that the United States has “the highest percentage of people who reported using marijuana or cocaine at least once in their lives.” We have achieved this distinction despite the fact that many other countries have much more liberal and humane policies than us. Writing on AlterNet Bruce Mirken argues that this study shows the punitive approach to be ineffective and that the people in charge of the policy know this. Mirken quotes the WHO researchers; "The U.S., which has been driving much of the world's drug research and drug policy agenda, stands out with higher levels of use of alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis, despite punitive illegal drug policies. ... The Netherlands, with a less criminally punitive approach to cannabis use than the US, has experienced lower levels of use, particularly among younger adults. Clearly, by itself, a punitive policy towards possession and use accounts for limited variation in nation level rates of illegal drug use."
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Monday, July 7, 2008
Astonishing Display of Ignorance
I have often thought it is a shame that there are no annual awards for the most amazing displays of stupidity by university administrators. If there were, this would be my nomination for 2008.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Ron Paul Democrat
Maybe all of those hero activists scrapping for delegates in Idaho, Montana, and Nevada are at the wrong conventions. In South Carolina a Ron Paul Democrat ,Bob Conley will be running against Republican Lindsey Graham for one of South Carolina’s Senate seats. In a superb article for Taki’s Magazine Dylan Hales’ analysis gives us plenty of reason to be optimistic about his chances. After looking at Conley’s website, I believe his election would be step forward.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Over Mourning of Tim Russert
The death of Tim Russert has become a huge media story on the level of Britney Spears leaving rehab early. Now, Russert may have been a good family man and nice to those he knew personally (although I have my doubts after the way he was one of the first to call for the head of his supposed friend Don Imus after the Rutgers joke), however, in my opinion the praise for him as a journalist is unwarranted. Take a close look at his interview (see here, here, here, and here) with Ron Paul and it becomes clear that he has no journalistic interest the importance of the revolution only trivial matters designed to tear it down. Tim Russert was not a great reporter he was a staunch defender of the status quo and that is where his success came from. If he had been Russian and born a bit earlier he would have fit in well at Brezhnev’s Pravda.
Over at LewRockwell.com Butler Schaffer has posted a very eloquent essay putting Tim Russert’s passing and the copious attention paid to it into perspective. Butler concludes by suggesting that, ”at a time when newspapers and weekly news magazines are experiencing major circulation declines, and television news is losing viewers – all to the benefit of more free, open, and responsive Internet reporting – the mainstream media is struggling for its very existence. There may be a metaphorical message in the untimely death of television news’ most visible personage. Like those who gather to celebrate the life and death of a friend, perhaps the mainstream media is using the memory of Tim Russert to celebrate its own life, which seems now to be in a terminal state.”
Hat tip to Kenny Rodgers
Monday, June 9, 2008
Ballot Access
Today in newspapers across the country the Libertarian Party is getting at least partial recognition with regards to ballot access.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Marijuana and Tolerance
No less than four out of eleven news stories in the latest edition of The Drug War Chronicle demonstrate significant progress in reforming marijuana laws. First, the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles made a ruling that the state legislature there acted unconstitutionally when it passed a law limiting the amount of marijuana any one patient could have. This finding is particularly good because the law allowing cannabis for medical purposes came about through the initiative process and the lawmakers were trying to overrule the people.
Also in California, the state assembly acted tolerantly when it passed a medical marijuana employment rights bill. The law came in response to a decision by the State Supreme Court that employers could fire an employee for failing a drug test even though he or she legally possessed marijuana and used it for health reasons. To assume that someone who uses marijuana will be a poor worker and cause problems at the job site is both unjust and unfounded.
Next, in Hawaii the Aloha State's Big Island Hawaii County Council did its constituents a huge favor by rejecting $441,000 in state and federal funds to continue “Green Harvest” a marijuana eradication program. Not only did their own budget increase by $53,000 but they ended a widely despised program which drew numerous complaints from it inception. The Drug War Chronicle citing critics points out that, “low-flying helicopters searching for pot fields disrupted rural life and invaded their privacy. Others argued that the program has done little to eradicate marijuana and even promoted the use of other, more dangerous drugs.”
Lastly, in the Sun Valley town of Hailey, Idaho the population passed initiatives legalizing medical marijuana, legalizing industrial hemp and requiring city law enforcement to make marijuana arrests the department's lowest priority. These measures had passed in November but town officials would not enforce them. The Idaho Liberty Lobby organized the campaign on the theory that it would be harder for the politicians to ignore the will of the people when expressed twice.
The Drug War Chronicle is an essential publication for understanding the war on people who us certain kinds of drugs. You can subscribe to the e-mail edition here and you can support the work of the vital organization, DRCNet, behind it here.
Cross posted at The Trebach Report
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Israeli Academics Threatened Again
In Great Britain lecturers belonging to the University and College Union have once again voted for an effective boycott of Israeli Academics. They have done this despite the fact that in 2007 that organization’s leadership determined that such action was illegal under British law.
Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) has responded by emphasizing and updating its petition which now states: "We are academics, scholars, researchers and professionals of differing religious and political perspectives. We all agree that singling out Israelis for an academic boycott is wrong. To show our solidarity with our Israeli academics in this matter, we, the undersigned, hereby declare ourselves to be Israeli academics for purposes of any academic boycott. We will regard ourselves as Israeli academics and decline to participate in any activity from which Israeli academics are excluded.” If you have not done so yet you can sign it here.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
I do not Think They are Ever Going to Find Anything Real
The latest mainstream media evidence of the totally evil nature of Ron Paul is the assertion that he has too many family members on his campaign staff. Do I really need to say it? Let us compare who works for Ron Paul with those employed by John McCain.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Drug Prohibition Kills Again
The same national news networks that devoted countless hours of coverage to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway and the killing by her husband of Laci Peterson can not seem to spare even a minute for the murder of Rachel Hoffman. Why, is it because she was a marijuana user and therefore subhuman or perhaps this is due to the fact that the Tallahassee Police Department was largely responsible for her death?
Because she tried to help mitigate the government black-market imposed high cost of marijuana for her self and her friends the Tallahassee police were able to blackmail her into participating in the very dangerous sting operation that took her life without informing either her attorneys or her parents.
Upon discovery of her body the police immediately called a press conference with the intention of blaming Hoffman for her own death. Her attorneys responded to this cruel farce by stating that, “Bringing to light the victim’s criminal charges, her alleged faults during a sting operation, and repeatedly addressing the fact, in so many different words, that the Tallahassee Police Department is not responsible for the death of Rachel Hoffman did nothing to inform the public about what truly happened the night of the drug sting. It did nothing to inform the public about what is going to happen to the individuals who killed her. It did nothing to inform the public about what policies and procedures are in place to protect a confidential informant before they engage in a police drug sting. The only purpose this information served was to both attack a woman who has been taken away from society in a ruthless, reckless, and vicious manner, and to allow her family to watch it all on television while they are still reeling from the shock of their loved ones death.”
Rachel Hoffman was more than just a marijuana user she was also an activist with organizations such as Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) trying to decriminalize marijuana and prevent the type of tragedies that took her own life. Despite the callous indifference shown by the national media and the public at large she will not be forgotten. Her mother has set up the Rachel Morningstar Foundation to continue her work.
There is no better illustration that drug prohibition is a vicious, unjust, expensive, and evil policy than Rachel Hoffman’s story.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Friday, May 23, 2008
Support this Important Film
If you live in New York City or Los Angles then perhaps the most important way you could spend you time tonight is by seeing the premier of the new anti-war movie War, Inc.. The film promises to be very controversial and may have trouble getting venues, so a good money making first showing tonight is crucial.
Scott Horton called the work hilarious during his radio interview with John Cusack today. Also, the clips they played made some devastating points.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Questionable Methodology
The headline links marijuana to an increased risk of heart disease but the article concerning work done for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) by Dr. Jean Lud Cadet describes highly questionable methodology. Reuters reports that, “the study did not look at whether the heavy marijuana users actually had heart disease.” and that, ”the marijuana users in the study averaged smoking 78 to 350 marijuana cigarettes per week, based on self-reported drug history.” Once again the government is desperately trying to justify the evils of prohibition by producing research that does not prove what it purports to and that has no relationship with the way people actually use marijuana. This study is blatant propaganda with a veneer of science.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Generating Increased Terrorism
In an article linked to at Anti-War.com former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter discusses an important resolution before the Chicago City Council opposing war with Iran. He reports on each section of the resolution, amplifying it and defending it, including one which argues that an attack against Iran will inspire more terrorism. Ritter writes that, ”the only way to truly win the war on terror is to identify the point at which an individual decides to embrace terror as a means of achieving an objective, along with the means for which such a decision was made, and then to take actions to prevent that point from ever being reached. To operate as if American policy and actions in Iraq, and the potential of similar actions and activities in Iran, do not influence this equation is simply to ignore reality and embrace ignorance."
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Futility in San Diego
One has to strongly suspect that the American public generally views the massive drug bust at San Diego State as a good thing because we all know that no one ever did drugs on that campus before those particular seventy-five students matriculated there and now no one ever will again. However, not everyone sees these arrests as a positive and some concerned parents will protest by holding a mock graduation ceremony with empty chairs representing the missing students. Fortunately, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) has an outstanding video, where ex-police officers explain the rationale and methodology behind similar operations, that leads one to understand that the protestors not the general public are correct on this issue.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
War Not School for You Transgressor
Quite naturally, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) has as a primary goal of changing the provision in the Higher Education Act which denies financial aid to students convicted of drug possession. They have noted that while those offenses preclude education they do not keep the offenders involved from serving in the military. Therefore SSDP has produced a video which explains how the growing number of conduct waivers offered by military recruiters amounts to a drug war draft.
One person who has been reached by the above presentation is Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (D-NY). In a speech given on the floor of the House of Representatives she observed that the Bush Administration is allowing “more people with criminal records, including drug convictions, to serve in the Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, conduct waivers granted for felonies and other crimes constitute the majority of all waivers, about 60 percent for the Army, and 75 percent for the Marine Corps.” Clarke then went on to argue that, “it is important to note that the vast majority of such convictions stem from juvenile offenses, but at the same time, a provision of the Higher Education Act, which Congress is currently in the process of reauthorizing, bars young people with drug convictions from receiving Federal financial aid to go to college. I find it absolutely alarming that the Bush administration seems to think that youth who are prone to youthful indiscretions and get into trouble with drug use are, on the one hand, not worthy of Federal support to obtain a college education, but on the other hand, are perfectly fit to go and to fight the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.” egregious
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Marijuana May Help Prevent Cancer
Under the title ”The Greatest Story Never Told” Fred Gardner, the editor of O'Shaughnessy's, explains what is involved in making so many people falsely believe that marijuana smoking is a cause of lung cancer. He reveals that the work of Dr. Donald Tashkin, in the past no friend of cannabis, not only failed to find causation but also discovered evidence of a protective effect. Gardner reports that, ”as to the highly promising implication of his own study -that something in marijuana stops damaged cells from becoming malignant- Tashkin noted that an anti-proliferative effect of THC has been observed in cell-culture systems and animal models of brain, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. THC has been shown to promote known apoptosis (damaged cells die instead of reproducing) and to counter angiogenesis (the process by which blood vessels are formed -a requirement of tumor growth). Other antioxidants in cannabis may also be involved in countering malignancy, said Tashkin.”
Nevertheless, the government has decided to ruin the lives of 75 students attending San Diego State University. The DEA, at great taxpayer expense, has arrested them primarily for supplying fellow classmates with marijuana, a practice that has been going on since the 1960s. While it is true that these young people went about their business in a particularly reckless and arrogant manner using cell phone text messages to fill orders, still the effects of using marijuana do not even come close to justifying the waste of their talents and destruction of their careers.
Hat tip Ian Goddard
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Sunday, May 4, 2008
When Good Magazines Go Bad
When I first became a libertarian back in the late 1980s I used to love Reason Magazine. On the day an issue appeared in my mailbox it got read cover to cover and the information presented was invaluable to a budding activist trying to convince others that freedom was the correct path. Now, I would not let my dog take a dump on it because it is just not good enough for him.
A case in point, Ron Paul has published a book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, which shot to the top 10 of the bestsellers lists virtually upon release and that has the potential to be the most influential book with the general public, in the cause of liberty, since Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose: A Personal Statement and this libelous nonsense is how Reason responds to the event. Author David Weigel should be true to himself, quit his job, and go to work for The Weekly Standard where he belongs.
Hat tip to Justin Raimondo
Sunday, April 27, 2008
War on Terror $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ian S. Lustick, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute and Professor of Political Science and Director of Graduate Studies in the Political Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania, in a very impressive essay argues that, ”al Qaeda’s most important accomplishment was not to hijack our planes, but to hijack our political system. For a multitude of politicians, interest groups, professional associations, corporations, media organizations, universities, local and state governments and federal agency officials, the War on Terror is now a major profit center, a funding bonanza, and a set of slogans and sound bites to be inserted into budget, project, grant and contract proposals. For the country as a whole, however, it has become a maelstrom of waste and worry that distracts us from more serious problems.”
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Government Worship
Anthony Gregory has an important essay titled “Why Waco Still Matters” posted on LewRockwell.com. He ends his piece this way; ”It is rather the statist mindset – the ideology of state worship, on both left and right – that has brought us a standing army of militarized police forces in every corner on this country. Those forces were tyrannical before Waco, and they have been so ever since. Waco is not necessary to indict the police state. But it really should be sufficient to do so. That it has not been for so many people reveals the problem.”
I wish to add an anecdote that illustrates Anthony Gregory’s last point. Back in the 1990s I participated in Waco protests organized by Carol Moore author of the book Davidian Massacre: Disturbing Questions About Waco Which Must Be Answered. One time someone, either a patriot or an individual with a perverse sense of humor, granted us a permit for the Ellipse right across from the White House on the same day as the traditional Easter egg roll. About ten of us showed up to display our crosses representing each person killed and an outstanding banner, created by Ian Goddard, depicting the tanks crashing into the building. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of people waiting for hours a mere 15 yards away, seeking their chance to step foot on some of government’s most hallowed ground, treated us, for the most part, with profound indifference. They reminded me of a line for communion only instead of the body of Christ they would receive paper bunny ears and a cheap plastic egg. In a just and knowledgeable world the number of protestors and the number of worshippers would have been reversed.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Iraq Situation Report
Under the title 12 Answers to Questions No One Is Asking About Iraq Tom Engelhardt offers a comprehensive and distressing look at the situation in Iraq. Three points seem very clear; there are plans in place to continue sending money and lives into this vortex of misery for an unlimited period of time, victory is not only unobtainable but also indefinable, and the U.S. occupation is aiding and abetting all of the horrendous outcomes that those who say we must stay predict will be result of our withdrawal.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Peter Franchot Needs to be Instructed on Liberty
An ongoing issue in Maryland is the legalization of slot machine gambling, unfortunately the issue is very rarely debated in terms of individual liberty, just how much needed money they will bring in or how it will help a horse racing industry in serious decline. So when Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot sent me an unsolicited e-mail asking me to join him in the fight to keep slot machines prohibited I felt a reply, replicated below, was appropriate. Although, I expect that it will fall on deaf ears, Perhaps some added voices would help. peter@franchot.com
Keeping people from playing the slots is not a proper role for government in a free society. This e-mail represents a very real destructive problem because it reinforces the pernicious idea that people are not responsible for their own behavior. And, that is the underlying philosophy of slavery, blacks were too childlike or worse to be trusted to govern their own lives, you just want to extend the principle to everyone. I strongly suspect that you do not particularly enjoy gambling on the slots, however, I also believe that you do enjoy doing something that carries as much or more potential for harm as does playing slot machines. Therefore, your ban is completely arbitrary. I think that sending your e-mail was an immoral act and I offer Lysander Spooner’s essay Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty to support this opinion.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Wafa Sultan is a Hero
The Syrian born psychologist Wafa Sultan, who lives under a death threat, participated in a debate with an Egyptian Islamist named Tal'at Rmeih about the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed. Al-Jazeera televised the event and in a perceptive column Frank J. Gaffney Jr. discusses it. He quotes Sultan as saying that, “all religions and faiths, throughout the history of humanity, have been subject to criticism and affronts. With time, this has helped in their reform and development. Any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny.” He also relates her advice to the Islamists: “If you want to change the course of events, you must reexamine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence, and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you, will consider you in a better light, and will draw you in a better light.” Later, Al-Jazeera felt it prudent to apologize for allowing Wafa Sultan airtime.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, March 29, 2008
If I Had the Power
In my last post I referenced an article by Rick Steves and so far it has sparked 93 comments, some of them very interesting. The last one appeared under the name Arcfault and my purpose here is to make my response more public.
Arcfault wrote: ”As you say, "There are too many negatives with marijuana," well, there are FAR MORE negatives with NOT supporting its legalization.
I doubt that.
I have smoked marijuana and I have felt the negative effects. The severely impaired brain function for hours, much like alcohol. The big negative I see that is blindingly clear, alcohol can be tested and verified in the field with a breathalyzer. As far as I'm aware, marijuana cannot.
I have worked around pot smokers, something which I refuse to do now. They are a danger to me in my profession; they put my life at risk just so they can have their "high".
I also who have friends that are addicted to pot, socially addicted mind you. They cannot even talk to people without being high. They are so hooked on the high that without it they can't function. Sounds remarkably like an alcoholic.
So no, you have me pinned wrong. I have been on your side and I have experienced pot first hand. Frankly I see no reason to legalize it beyond medicinal purposes.
My Response: Arcfault, you had a bad experience with pot so I suggest that you do not use it anymore. But, literally millions of people have had very good experiences with it. Why should you get to decide the true nature of marijuana for every one? You say it is a hazard on the job and if this is correct I have no problem with your employer firing anyone who works while high. However, for 99% of all work place situations the statement that being stoned while there constitutes a danger simply is not true.
You talk about socially inept friends but I know people who use marijuana who are bright, energetic, articulate, and successful. In fact there are whole websites devoted to famous achieving people who use marijuana such as Louis Armstrong.
You know something, Arcfault; I do not like your girlfriend. I think she is bad for you. You spend too much time with her. She is too good a cook and you will gain weight causing lethal medical problems down the line. She is too flirtatious which means that she will cheat on you in the future leading to substantial heartache. You will lose a great deal of sleep over this making you a hazard to your co-workers. I am ordering you to break up with her. If you do not stop seeing her by the end of this week I will send the police to your door and they will throw you in prison. It is for your own good and I do not care what you yourself think of her.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Marijuana Policy Moving Towards Change
On the most recent edition of HBO’s Bill Maher program Representative Barney Frank (D) Massachusetts states his intention to file a bill which would end federal prohibition of possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Congressman Frank is already receiving some published support. In an excellent column for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer travel writer Rick Steves compares the European approach to marijuana policy with that of the United States, He observes that, ”when it comes to marijuana, European leaders understand that a society must choose: Tolerate alternative lifestyles or build more prisons. They've made their choice. We're still building more prisons.”
Hat tip to Ian Goddard
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
2nd Amendment Conveys Individual Right
Robert A. Levy, co-counsel to litigant Dick Heller in the 2nd Amendment case currently before the Supreme Court concerning the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, discusses the stakes in The Washington Times. He concludes by saying that, ”at root, the Heller case is simple. It's about self-defense: Individuals living in a dangerous community who want to protect themselves in their own homes when necessary. The Second Amendment to the Constitution was intended to safeguard that right. Banning handguns outright is quite plainly unconstitutional.”
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Every Dog has His Day
Alright, all of you Ron Paul haters and environmentalist whackos out there thinking you are so much smarter than me, who has often been accused from afar of being drug addled, I got 10 out of eleven questions right on this intelligence test. How will you fare?
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Drug Prohibition Exposed
The Showtime cable network is now showing a powerful documentary titled American Drug War: The Last White Hope. It includes some especially insightful comments from Judge James Gray and former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson.
When asked in an interview about motivation for making the film auteur Kevin Booth replied, “when my mom was dying from liver failure, she was in an ICU unit with several others facing the same fate, all from a life of hard drinking. I was hit with this horrible smell that sickened me so deeply that I instantly lost my appetite for alcohol. After attending my third funeral in a row, I realized that the corporate culprits, Smirnoff, Dewar's, RJ Reynolds, DuPont and others, would never be punished.” You can view the entire film here.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Misleading Phrase “War on Terror”
While I do not agree with every notion expressed in this essay by Zbigniew Brzezinski he does have some interesting thoughts on the phrase “war on terror” and its misleading destructive overuse. In the beginning of the article you would think you were reading Robert Higgs on the state’s use of fear.
To me, the most suprising fact that Brzezinski relates to support his argument is that, ”a recent study reported that in 2003, Congress identified 160 sites as potentially important national targets for would-be terrorists. With lobbyists weighing in, by the end of that year the list had grown to 1,849; by the end of 2004, to 28,360; by 2005, to 77,769. The national database of possible targets now has some 300,000 items in it, including the Sears Tower in Chicago and an Illinois Apple and Pork Festival.” This has to be considered a classic example of the governmental tendency to produce useless products.
Hat tip to Kenny Rodgers
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Does the War on People Who Use Certain Kinds of Drugs Have Anything to Do with This?
The Associated Press is reporting that for the first time in history more than one out of every one hundred American adults is in prison, 2,319,258 people overall. This of course is causing enormous expense with just the states spending more than $49 billion last year. Also, there is a racial component with one in thirty white males between the ages of 20 and 34 years old being behind bars, while the numbers for black males of the same age group is one in nine.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Old Versus New Musically
Lately, Opie and Anthony have been playing and justly mocking a campaign song for Hillary Clinton set to the tune of the theme song from the old sitcom Laverne and Shirley. In my humble opinion it is spectacularly awful.
On the other hand, this new campaign song supporting Ron Paul by Aimee Allen is perhaps the best one I have ever heard and the more you listen to it the more it grows on you.
I will admit that I am completely baffled by the fact that so many people have voted for Clinton and so few for Dr. Paul. Are we Americans as a group really that clueless? Comparing the two above efforts just intensifies the mystery for me.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Medical Marijuana Endorsed
The Drug War Chronicle is reporting that American College of Physicians has endorsed the use of medical marijuana. The nation’s second largest doctor’s group, with 124,000 internal medicine specialists, wants more studies of medical use for cannabis and an end to government interference in that process.
In their position paper they state that, “additional research is needed to clarify marijuana’s therapeutic properties and determine standard and optimal doses and routes of delivery. Unfortunately, research expansion has been hindered by a complicated federal approval process, limited availability of research-grade marijuana, and the debate over legalization. Marijuana’s categorization as a Schedule I controlled substance raises significant concerns for researchers, physicians, and patients.”
One person who would have been delighted and vindicated by the above news was Dr. John Morgan, who ironically passed away on the same day that the physicians issued their statement. In a farewell to the good doctor piece posted on the Reason website Jacob Sullum tells an anecdote which illustrates just how much the drug reform movement specifically and the world in general has lost. After a conference panel in December during which Sullum had with some trepidation talked about the taboo subject of controlled use of amphetamines Dr. Morgan told him that, ” he agreed that concern about the ‘methamphetamine epidemic’ had made it difficult to talk about the drug's legitimate uses, which do not necessarily require a doctor's prescription to validate them. He said he had personally found methamphetamine tremendously useful during his education and career, calling it one of the safest drugs around when used responsibly. Coming from most people in most contexts, this would have been a startling admission. But coming from the eminently reasonable Morgan and delivered in his usual matter-of-fact tone, it cut through the hysteria and introduced a much-needed alternative perspective. Morgan made a career of doing that, and his well-informed skepticism will be sorely missed.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Medical Marijuana Violence
Playboy Magazine has a fascinating special report by Frank Owen which looks at the 2007 murder in Denver of registered caregiver and medical marijuana activist Frank Gorman and the growing association of violence with legal medical marijuana distribution. A very clear conclusion can be drawn here that these inadequate state medical cannabis laws do not end the black market in pot with its attendant mayhem.
The article quotes Jeff Schaler one of the harshest critics, from a libertarian perspective, of the medical marijuana movement: ”Being pro-marijuana is a religious crusade just as being anti-marijuana is a religious crusade. It has nothing to do with medicine. The reformers lie about marijuana just as much as the prohibitionists. To say marijuana is a cure all is just as ridiculous as saying it is evil. It’s neither.”
While we may disagree with Dr. Schaler on the medicinal worth of cannabis, after all aspirin does not cure anything either, we do agree on the solution to the problem, an end to government involvement with all aspects of the plant, medical, industrial and recreational, then people can decide for themselves if marijuana has medical value.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Monday, February 18, 2008
Dr. John Morgan R.I.P.
Another courageous pioneer in the drug reform movement, Dr. John Morgan, has passed away. He died from leukemia on February 15th.
He was a tireless advocate of scientific rationalism when it came to the study of and policy towards marijuana. This approach produced an invaluable resource, the book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts which he co-wrote with Lynne Zimmer and published in 1997. It remains the most reliable source of scientifically accurate information on marijuana yet written.
While he did not claim marijuana to be 100 percent harmless, he did argue that the evidence showed cannabis to be one of the most benign psychoactive drugs known to man. However, when he pushed for the legalization of marijuana he made it clear that it was not because the drug was largely safe but rather because there were some hazards that prohibition was ill advised. Morgan believed that a regime of regulation and control offered the best way minimize these dangers.
Dr. Morgan offered us a much needed rational, humane, courageous, authoritative voice and he will be missed.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Thuggish Health Care Plan
Star Parker has an excellent essay in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on the serious flaws that characterize Hillary Clinton’s proposed health care plan. Below is a comment I left on their website.
One thing that Star Parker forgot to add is that the government mandated plan, which takes a third of your paycheck, will probably stink. Let us face facts here, when it comes to your grandmother's hip replacement or a defense contractor's profits you know who will win that battle in a Clinton administration. After all, she has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from both parties.
Universal health care or single payer would not be nearly as popular if we called them what they were, government rationed health care. Neither Clinton nor Obama are proposing to deal with the real medical care problem, the fact that it is paid for by third parties. Because people do not feel like they pay themselves for their own health care, the insurance company or the government does, there is no incentive to hold down costs. If people are forced by the government to buy insurance there will be even more incentive to maximize use.
You can put out all of the ideological rants against the free market that you want but there is one thing you can not deny that it does every time, it reduces costs and improves quality. Both the Democratic candidates and probably McCain for that matter want to move us in the opposite direction.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Addiction is a Choice to be Discussed in London
Jeff Schaler will be presenting the Inner Circle Seminar No. 131 in London on November 12th 2008 from 10AM to 5PM. Below is the announcement:
ADDICTION IS A CHOICE
Professor Jeffrey A. Schaler is the world’s leading disbeliever in ‘addiction’. He is an existential psychotherapist and full time professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University’s School of Public Affairs in Washington, D.C. His book Addiction is a Choice (2000) argues:
1. No drug (including alcohol and tobacco) is ‘addictive’.
2. Drugs are not intrinsically safe or dangerous, good or bad.
3. Disease refers to cellular pathology, not behaviour.
4. ‘Loss of control’ is an unfalsifiable, hence unscientific, hypothesis.
5. ‘Addiction’ is ethical, not medical.
6. Focusing on the existential reasons for ‘addiction’ can help drug users address and resolve the problems in living they try to solve with drugs.
Whether you agree, disagree, or are undecided, you are welcome to discuss Professor Schaler’s argument and evidence with him in this important seminar.
Venue: Herringham Hall, Regent’s College, Inner Circle, London NW1
Subscription: Students £88, others £110, by 12 April 2008
Apply to: Anthony Stadlen, ‘Oakleigh’, 2A Alexandra Avenue, London N22 7XE
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8888 6857, E-mail: stadlen@aol.com
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Obama on Marijuana Decriminalization
Columnist Steve Chapman has a perceptive article in The Washington Times commenting on Barak Obama’s seeming inability to make up his mind on the subject of marijuana decriminalization. Chapman asserts that this, “episode reveals that as a candidate, Mr. Obama is more fond of bold rhetoric than bold policies. But it also proves the impossibility of talking sense on the subject of illicit drugs during a political campaign. That course of action would mean admitting the inadmissible: that the prohibition of cannabis has been cruel, wasteful and fraudulent.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, January 19, 2008
A Critique of Beltway Libertarians
Ilana Mercer offers an eloquent and passionate defense of Ron Paul from the attacks by some libertarians with special attention paid to Reason magazine. She correctly points out that virtually all of them have never had to live in a situation where they had no fundamental rights. Mercer ends her essay by asserting that, ”Paul's vision is as close to The Good Life as we could hope to come in the current ideological climate. Only tinny ideologues encased in worthless ideological armor – worthless because it exists in the arid arena of their minds, not on earth – would turn their noses up at the prospect of Paul.”
Monday, January 14, 2008
Why I Support Ron Paul
All you libertarians out there who are so concerned with old newsletters that Dr. Paul did not even write pay close attention to this video of a 2002 police riot that occurred in Portland Oregon because if we do not elect Ron Paul, who is perhaps our last chance, we are going to see much more of this type of thing in the future. When that starts to happen I want to know that I did what I could to prevent it
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Someone Who Has Earned His Wisdom
Here is an important voice discussing the election that is not being heard anywhere near as much as it should be.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Marijuana Cause or Cure?
From the beginning until today an association with insanity has always been a major argument in favor of marijuana prohibition. This link, however, has never withstood scrutiny very well and once again a recent study from Emory University in Atlanta shows this to be true. In fact, they discovered a negative correlation between marijuana use and symptoms of schizophrenia. The researchers found that, “alcohol use in the 6 months prior to hospitalization was associated with a higher frequency of positive psychotic symptoms among first-episode patients. Cannabis use was associated with a lower likelihood of having prominent negative symptoms. These associations remained even after controlling for relevant covariates in logistic regression models.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
A Question for the Reverend Huckabee
Some courageous people ask Mike Huckabee a very important question in a dramatic way. Does he support the peaceful Jesus of the Bible or the empire building Jesus of George Bush?
Monday, December 31, 2007
Two Economics Lessons
A book which had a profound effect on my thinking was Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. Watching this video reminded me of the experience I had reading that book. Clear explanation can be invaluable.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Ron Paul and Immigration, a Response
I agree with pretty much every argument Sheldon Richman makes in this post and others on the subject of immigration. One of my most important philosophical touchstones is Lysander Spooner’s Vices are Not Crimes and it is clear that with regard to laws against crossing the border no crime has been committed. The border fence designed to stop the act is a complete waste of money. Penn and Teller did a Showtime program on immigration where they hired six Hispanic day workers to build a fence to the government’s proposed specifications. They then divided the laborers into three teams, one to go over, one to go through, and one to go under the fence. No team took more than ten minutes to accomplish their task. In a brilliantly conceived but somewhat poorly executed film A Day Without a Mexican the consequences of removing the immigrants are shown and they amount to economic chaos.
However, I am glad that Dr. Paul takes in his mind the principled position that he does because that fact greatly enhances the prospect of him being elected. Sadly, people who look at the immigration question the way that Sheldon Richman and I do are a decided minority in this country. During my years as County Fair Coordinator for the Montgomery County Libertarian Party my booths used to prominently feature the Nolan quiz and I compiled statistics on how people answered. The question on open borders received by far the most negative responses, outstripping even the drug legalization query. In fact, this latest version has eliminated the question altogether. If I must disagree with Ron Paul on an issue I am happy it is this one because for too many people adopting my position on immigration would be a deal breaker.
Also, we need to consider the practical effect of Ron Paul’s ascent into office on the so called illegal immigrants. It would be of enormous benefit to them. Dealing with the inflation tax and a renewed respect for civil liberties would most definitely improve their lives. And, if Smith, Von Mises, and Friedman are right, a strong move in the direction of free market economics, one of Paul’s top priorities, would lead to an obvious need for more immigration not less. The irony is that Sheldon Richman and Ron Paul both want to get to the same place, open borders, Richman through repeal of law and Paul through economic necessity. Lastly, it is neither feasible nor desirable to remove the undocumented workers that are here now and a truly closed border is a fantasy. So, the most likely result on the immigration issue of electing anyone other than Ron Paul is the status quo.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Global Warming the Math Does Not Add Up
Yes, there is a substantial amount of science that supports the human induced global warming theory but this does not mean that it is good science. Someone who has been demonstrating that quality is more important then quantity when it comes to global warming studies is Canadian mathematician Douglas Keenan, who has just published The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei- Chyung Wang. The NZZ am Sonntag reports that, ”Keenan's most recent targets are two pieces of work that examine the influence of urbanization on climate change between 1954 and 1983. In order to be able to compare measurements made over different periods, it is absolutely crucial that the location of the station where the measurements are carried out not change throughout the observation period. For example, because a city generates warmth, a measuring station that is moved from the center of the city to its periphery would record lower measurements. On the other hand, the measurements would be more likely to rise if a measuring station was moved from a position upwind from the city to a position downwind. Even small changes of location, like for example from a field to the asphalt road next to it, lead to deviations. Keenan was above all doubtful about the measurements made in China. He didn't believe that during Mao's Cultural Revolution, when scientists were thought very little of, a scientific study would have been carried out with much care.”
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
You Want Some Science
For those of you that refuse to see human engendered global warming as the big government scam that it is, who are continually accusing we skeptics of ignoring the science the shoe is now on the other foot. See here.
Campaign Finance Hypocrites
An article in Wired magazine about the Ron Paul Blimp has a quote in it which demonstrates the nauseating hypocrisy of the modern good government movement now called campaign finance reform. Paul Ryan, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center says ”the blimp project may not fly with regulators.” That organization’s Mission Statement indicates that it ”represents the public interest in administrative, legislative and legal proceedings” and in my opinion that is a blatant lie.
Here we have a candidate whose whole platform is limiting the size of government and cutting out the moneyed special interests that are supposed to be the problem with a project, independent of the official campaign, funded by regular Americans contributing as little as $25 dollars, getting no corporate largess, and what is the almost universal response from the campaign finance reform crowd, it is wrong shut it down. They continually rail against the evil influence of the big money boys but their real purpose is to tell ordinary people to shut up and take it. There are thousands upon thousands of reasons to hope Ron Paul wins and one of them is for Trevor Lyman’s sake because I am very much afraid that if anyone else does they will try to put this patriot in jail for daring to speak up.
Ultimately, the campaign finance reform hypocrites want public financing of elections which will entrench the status quo even more thereby benefiting the special interests presently in charge enormously. They want the people who love Ron Paul to be forced at the point of a gun to contribute to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Ask yourself this question if we had publicly paid for contests right now would there be any Ron Paul revolution?
Monday, December 10, 2007
An Open Letter to Tim Robbins
Dear Mr. Robbins,
First let me say that I admire your work in film especially the movie Bob Roberts. I am writing to you because the moral imperative of our time is to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevent war with Iran and change the philosophy behind the bipartisan foreign policy that has led to these disasters, which are killing and maiming innocent people, diminishing our capacity for defense, crushing our civil liberties, and bankrupting this country. It is my belief that you agree with me on this point, so the question is what are we going to do about it?
I want you and everyone else reading this letter to clear their minds for a second and think about an American soldier, maybe your younger brother or a good friend’s son, who is walking down a road in Iraq during the year 2010. Suddenly, a sniper’s bullet, fired by a man whose seven year old sister was ravaged by an American bomb and died in his arms, comes out of nowhere and smashes into the GI’s face, killing him on the spot. When we ask ourselves the most important question of our time, how can we save this man’s life and really concentrate it becomes clear that we only have one viable option.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Radical Feminism and Ron Paul
In his reply to David Gordon below in Roderick Long’s post, Charles Johnson wrote ”First, I don’t think that libertarianism should be subordinated to certain cultural values such as radical feminism. I believe that libertarianism, rightly understood, is both compatible with and mutually reinforcing with the cultural values of radical feminism, rightly understood.” Back in the day at the University of South Florida I once took seminar in women’s history with fifteen students where I was the only male in the classroom. I liked the professor very much, aced the course, and published a paper out of it; however, one day towards the end she brought in some old boxes of radical feminist writing, newspapers pamphlets that sort of thing from the 1970s, to show the class. I could not help noticing the extraordinary number of depictions of men having their genitals cut off in this literature. I also recall prominent radical feminists arguing that sex between a man and a woman in marriage was a form of rape. In addition, calls for an extremely broad definition of workplace sexual harassment and assertions that government should intervene to raise the pay of occupations staffed primarily by women have been a mainstay of radical feminist ideology. This going hand in hand with demands to expand the welfare state to include such things as free daycare and employer paid maternity leave for long periods of time. I do not see how this practical record of radical feminism, which I have always viewed as a thinly veiled form of collectivist socialism, is compatible with libertarianism.
Now, Johnson uses the qualifier ”rightly understood” to reconcile the differences no doubt finding some philosophical compatibility and I think this reveals the essence of the controversy over libertarian support for Ron Paul. The question is are we going to be concerned about winning a philosophical argument or are we going to be concerned about some American soldier in Iraq being blown up by a roadside bomb in 2010?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
More on David Bernstein and Ron Paul
In his critique of Ron Paul, David Bernstein writes,”And come on, the idea that the federal government ‘most divides us’ is absurd. I don't know how to measure the precise effect of government on harmony among Americans, but I do know that historically there is a positive correlation between a small federal government and high levels of bigotry in society.” Implicit in that passage is the notion that when the federal government was small it opposed racist policies but had no power to end them. Perhaps he has forgotten that the Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law or that when the people in Missouri wanted to join the union the federal government explicitly told then that they had to allow slavery. Does he not remember William Lloyd Garrison's argument that before it was amended, after the Civil War, the Constitution, as it was popularly interpreted, provided an implicit federal acceptance of slavery. And, that the federal Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, ruled that black people had no rights that needed to be respected
The brisk growth of the federal level of government did not change its nature with regard to race. The racist color of many of the Progressive Era arguments is well documented and in her book Farewell to the Party of Lincoln historian Nancy Weiss brilliantly described how the rapid expansion of federal power called the New Deal featured a distribution of benefits characterized by high levels racial discrimination. In addition, as David Beito and Ron Paul have already pointed out, the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is the most racist institution in modern America and the federal government is the most enthusiastic participant in that endeavor. During my lifetime, a period featuring a very large national presence in everyday life, there has been a constant stream of complaints and lawsuits by black people correctly asserting racial discrimination by a wide variety of federal government departments and agencies.
It is a popular misconception that the federal government freed the slaves. If you believe in the concept of inherent individual rights then there never were any slaves, there were only people whose natural rights were being systematically violated because of the color of their skin. Chattel slavery, by far the most egregious example of racism in American history, could not have existed without the active participation of government. In some areas of the South black people out numbered whites by as much as one hundred to one, so the system would not have been maintained without the kind of organized effort available only from the state. Slaves were sold on public auction blocks and the slave patrol was paid by the county. When Lincoln debated Douglas, on the extension of slavery to the territories and the concept of self determination on the issue, he argued that the point was mute because without the countenance of local government slavery could not survive. Therefore, the Emancipation Proclamation does not represent an expansion of government power to do good but rather a limitation on government power to do bad.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Ron Paul is Not Anti-Semitic
Ron Paul’s call for ending foreign aid to all countries including Israel and the unsavory nature of some people who publicly support him have caused the charge that he is anti-Semitic to circulate. Some responsible commentators believe the charge to be true. However, the Jewish Theological Seminary’s news service JTA examines the question in depth and it finds an argument that in fact such an end to aid would benefit Israel. They quote Paul as saying that, “our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war.” He also asserts that the American control over policy, which comes with the assistance, limits Israeli options and hurts progress towards peace.
In addition, the JTA discovered that though it is not widespread there is some support for the Ron Paul candidacy within the Jewish community. It includes groups such as Jews For Ron Paul and Zionists For Ron Paul.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Saturday, November 10, 2007
A Serious Problem Within the Military
Retired Air Force Colonel David Antoon, a proud graduate of the Air Force Academy, has written a very interesting article about why his son gave up a life long dream and turned down an appointment to his father’s alma mater.
Hat tip to Kenny Rodgers
Monday, November 5, 2007
Advice For the Candidates
The Chicago Flame student newspaper for the UIC campus, ran an article on young voters and the upcoming primaries which prompted the following comment by Dan Warner:
Just a note to all presidential candidates (except Ron Paul), college students are smart and open to new ideas. How to run a campaign that targets young people :
1 - Get a clue. People are disgusted with their government. Wake up and realize this, you are part of the problem.
2 - Grow a pair. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't waffle and flip-flop, we don't respect that.
3 - Always tell the truth. If you have a problem with this read number two above. We are sick of lies and we can tell when you are lying, your mouth moves.
4 - Have some new ideas already. 'Stay the course' doesn't cut it... Didn't 2006 teach the Republicans a lesson? Oh, the Democrats are no better because they have done ZERO. Let's have some dialog and ideas shall we?
5 - Never EVER back down. Ron Paul knows this and this is why he 'has a pair' and we respect him even if we don't agree with everything he says.
Fact is, nobody out there (except for Ron Paul) has a clue, has a pair, tells the truth, and has real ideas that he NEVER backs down from. This is why we support him and this is why this election is going to be a huge surprise, especially for Ron Paul (since he will be elected).
I urge all of you students to get a clue, grow a pair, seek truth, listen to new ideas, and when you have found a candidate fight with every fiber of your being to get them elected, especially if that candidate is Ron Paul.
Here is a story which seems to indicate that the bombing of Iran is right on schedule. The Hill has an article about Ron Paul’s campaign in New Hampshire. Is it not sad that a periodical devoted to information about a body whose members all take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America describes the only member of that body who takes that oath seriously as "quirky" in the first line of a piece about him? Joel S, Hirshhorn has written an essay criticizing Ron Paul for not promoting a constitutional convention under article five, going so far as to suggest a lack of courage. I posted the following response:
The underlying premise of your piece is that an article five convention would bring about good changes to the Constitution. When I look at the intensely fearful America electorate composed of many compulsive busybodies obsessed with the likes of Paris Hilton and woefully ignorant of civic responsibility, I do not see how your premise is valid. You may argue that it would be the state legislators that would have the most influence but you should remember that most of them aspire to be eventual federal office holders, because of the power and privilege that resides there now. Hopefully, the Ron Paul campaign and presidency will be a significant catalyst for a change in the political sophistication of the citizens in the direction of the founding fathers. After some time, then, the country might be ready for such a convention. Ron Paul is right not to bring it up now. I have a shameful secret to reveal. I have always wanted to be a pundit. Here is my first attempt a radio interview I did with Scott Horton on the subject of drug prohibition.
In the comments section Tony Litwinko took issue with my assertion that the drug war is an outgrowth of Progressive Era thought, writing that it ” is a logical fallacy to insist that because prohibition arose during the progressive era it was instituted by progressives. It was not, and Mr. Halderman, as an expert on the era of marijuana use should be able, more than anyone else, to insist on the distinction.
I responded with the following: The most influential drug policy organization in the 1930s was The World Narcotic Defense Association, founded and headed by Richmond P. Hobson. He had won the Congressional Medal of Honor during the Spanish-Cuban-American War and parlayed that into an election to Congress from a district in Alabama. While there he authored the 18th Amendment which brought in Alcohol Prohibition, the center piece of the progressive reform movement. Hobson campaigned as a speaker for the Anti-Saloon League making arguments based on scientific grounds not religious ones. He put forth a brief for Prohibition entirely consistent with the basic premise of Progressive Era thought that social problems could be solved in a scientific efficient manner by government experts. The modern day schedule of drugs enacted in 1970 is a classic example of that theory put into practice. Government specialists on drugs decide which are the good ones and which are the bad, then they prohibit the bad ones making everything just fine, simple as that. When the American delegation went to the Hague Convention in 1912, where our government signed a treaty obligating it to create an anti-narcotics organization, the leader was Bishop Brent. Not a right wing figure but an Episcopal churchman. Some of the strongest supporters of draconian drug war measures have been liberal congressmen and Senators, from Hamilton Fish to Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. If drug prohibition is not a progressive policy, why has a congress controlled by Democrats, the presumed inheritors of the progressive legacy, not enacted a bill legalizing marijuana for George Bush to veto? I stand by my statement that drug prohibition is an artifact of the Progressive Era.
The Chief Constable of the North Wales Police, Richard Brunstrom, has issued a courageous report that calls for the legalization of drugs with its author saying the current strategy is ”unworkable and immoral.” The document, titled Drug Policy – a radical look ahead, also recommends that his organization work with the Tranform Drug Policy Foundation, a leading British drug policy reform group, to achieve a change in policy.
The statement is remarkably well documented with 128 footnotes and has a thorough discussion of the historical factors, including the role of the United States government, that have created the present situation. The author also makes it clear that he is in no way the only one who has reached similar conclusions. Chief Constable Brunstrom argues that, ”If policy on drugs is in the future to be pragmatic and not moralistic, driven by ethics not dogma, then the current prohibitionist stance will have to be swept away as both unworkable and immoral, to be replaced with an evidence based unified system (specifically including tobacco and alcohol) aimed at minimisation of harms to society. Such a strategy leads inevitably to the legalisation and regulation of all drugs.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
At the end of a story about Ron Paul’s victory in the Jefferson County Republican Party Straw Poll The Birmingham News quotes David Beito asking a very insightful question. He inquires about the supporters of the supposed front runners by simply saying, "Where are they? Where's the enthusiasm?"
Beito might have asked the same question about the inaugural Conservative Leadership Conference straw poll, which Paul also won. He did that with 33% of the vote even though he did not attend the event. Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter did though, giving major speeches, and they finished with 16% and 15% respectively.
One of the most interesting parts of Ron Paul’s website is the straw poll results section. It reveals that in head to head competition Ron Paul has a winning record against every other candidate. I would like to believe that the reason this success is occurring involves the realization by a significant and growing number of Republican political insiders that if they do not nominate Ron Paul, their party will lose decisively in November 2008. How about this slogan to help more of the GOP’s movers and shakers wake up to that fact; A VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY OTHER THAN RON PAUL IS A VOTE FOR HILARY CLINTON.
What could we expect in the way of drug policy from a Mitt Romney administration? This video posted by Scott Horton on his Blog is full of clues. The clip shows among other things that he is clearly against medical marijuana; however, it does not reveal the most important piece of information, why. Now, being against Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon is not a reasonable position, unless, his adherence to that religion affects public policy in an adverse way. Also, if Romney is opposed to medical marijuana because of his Mormonism then what are the implications for his stand on other vital issues? Therefore, it is important for the integrity of this election that before anyone votes Romney be made to answer the question; why are you against medical marijuana?
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
PS: This part is not on the The Trebach Report because it is too personal. The questioner in the video is a MS patient who states that he is firmly against legalizing marijuana and, frankly, I am getting sick and tired of some of these patients throwing everyone else under the bus. What about the 18 year old kid who is beaten and gang raped in prison because he sold a quarter ounce, as a favor, to a pretty female narc and then would not rat out the person who sold to him, only people in wheelchairs deserve compassion?
The prestigious and influential journal Foreign Policy has the words “Legalize It” emblazoned across the cover of its September/October 2007 issue. The occasion is a superb article pointing out the dismal failure of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. The piece is by Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). It has been recommended by John McLaughlin on his program and even FOX News felt the argument worthy of respectful discussion. Nadelmann concludes his essay by asserting that, “The global war on drugs persists in part because so many people fail to distinguish between the harms of drug abuse and the harms of prohibition. Legalization forces that distinction to the forefront. The opium problem in Afghanistan is primarily a prohibition problem, not a drug problem. The same is true of the narcoviolence and corruption that has afflicted Latin America and the Caribbean for almost three decades—and that now threatens Africa. Governments can arrest and kill drug lord after drug lord, but the ultimate solution is a structural one, not a prosecutorial one. Few people doubt any longer that the war on drugs is lost, but courage and vision are needed to transcend the ignorance, fear, and vested interests that sustain it.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
I believe at this point in time you could literally spend a couple thousand hours on YouTube watching Ron Paul related videos and still not see them all. As a way of stopping myself and getting back to work I decided to post a link to this one which I a thought to be particularly moving. To me, what is remarkable about all of this material is that it is coming from the bottom up. There is no office of video production in the Paul campaign directing this output and that it why I think that many many people are underestimating his chances. In the September 28th issue of The Drug War Chronicle there appears a very powerful editorial favoring the legalization of drugs. The piece is by David Borden, the Executive Director of The Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet).
In it he sheds some light on why it has been so difficult, given the reality of total failure to accomplish any positive results, to achieve reform in this area of public policy by relating an anecdote told to him by Arnold Trebach. Borden writes that it, "can be hard to advance this discussion in circles of power. Arnold commented that at least eight people in US officialdom told him they would be glad to meet with him, they appreciated what he was doing, but they preferred not to meet him in their offices. They wanted to meet at one restaurant or another, where they hopefully would not been seen with him and thereby get in political hot water. That was a long time ago, but it is still the situation in many ways today." He also suggests a course of action by asserting that despite the above, "we do advance -- this organization and newsletter are here, for example, and the movement is growing in diversity and experience and size. Now it's time for the leaders to get real -- drug legalization is viable and it's the right thing to do. So stop demonizing it and start talking about it. Because sometimes leadership means actually leading."
Lately, a fairly common occurrence is the discovery that marijuana may be effective in the treatment of yet another illness. Recently, scientists at National Centre for Scientific Research in Valbonne, France found that an element in marijuana could prevent the development of prion diseases, The most famous of this class of malady is bovine spongiforme enzephalopathy commonly known as mad cow disease, which when transmitted to humans is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The BBC tells us that, “French researchers reported that the non- psychoactive cannabis constituent CBD inhibited the accumulation of prion proteins in both mouse and sheep prion- infected cells, whereas other cannabinoids were either weak or not effective. Moreover, after infection with mouse scrapie, a prion disease, CBD limited accumulation of the prion protein in the brain and significantly increased the survival time of infected mice. CBD inhibited the nerve damaging effects of prions in a concentration-dependent manner.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
An important question for libertarians is how much of a force for freedom exists in the internet. Well I saw something today that makes me very optimistic about the answer to that puzzlement. It touched on my belief that it is difficult if not impossible for a totalitarian dictatorship to co-exist with the people’s ability to openly ridicule it. Therefore authors such as Jonathan Swift, journalists like H.L. Mencken, and television stars in the mold of Jon Stewart provide a necessary and effective check on extreme governmental abuse. What the internet has done is to speed up the process of ridicule as well as increase the potential for ridicule by giving opportunity to tens of millions of people to participate. They can now not only engage but also build on one another’s work.
I offer an example of what I am talking about with links to two short videos. It is important to watch them in order (link one and link two). The first film is the latest internet sensation and its creator is currently enjoying a great deal of media attention. The second clip is a brilliant piece of political satire and I found both of them to be very funny.
In an excellent article on global warming Paul Driessen, senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of "Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death", provides some interesting temperature data. He writes, "Now that NASA has corrected its U.S. temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the 10 hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 — and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend." Economist Walter Williams has written a column in which he discusses the high murder rate within the black community. He offers the statistics that although Blacks make up only 13% of the population they account for 52 % of America’s homicides and they constitute 46% of the homicide victims. Williams then waxes nostalgic when he writes that, “During the 1940s and '50s, I grew up in North Philadelphia where many of today's murders occur. It was a time when blacks were much poorer, there was far more racial discrimination, and fewer employment opportunities and other opportunities for upward socioeconomic mobility were available. There was nowhere near the level of crime and wanton destruction that exists today. Behavior accepted today wasn't accepted then by either black adults or policemen.”
In the next paragraph Williams does indirectly acknowledge that the difference between then and now is a far larger and much more lucrative mayhem inducing inner city drug trade. However, he does not take this train of thought to its logical conclusion; that the most effective step that could possibly be taken to lower the murder rate among black people would be to legalize drugs thereby ending the violence generated by this black market.
Instead, Williams suggests a possible solution from the example of the Mayfair neighborhood in Washington D.C. where Black Muslims began to patrol causing a subsequent drop in gang activity and drug dealing. There is no doubt that violence in this area of the city did decline after the Black Muslim began their activity there. There is also little doubt that drug sales increased in other District neighborhoods at about the same and that the overall level of violence in that city was probably greater than it would have been without the relocation of the illegal trade and its inevitable often deadly struggle for control of new turf.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
In the pages of The Washington Times today Arnold Trebach suggests how the government can deal with the connection between the Jihadists and Mexican Drug cartels in a meaningful way. These ideas were first put forth in his book Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror. Jacob Sullum has an interesting column in The Washington Times where he looks at some of the limits and drawbacks which accompany open government. I particularly like the way he ends it; ”Although honesty and openness are surely preferable to dishonesty and secrecy (in politics, at least), they're not an adequate solution to a government that does too much and is therefore a magnet for people seeking gifts and favors. If a pickpocket becomes a mugger, he becomes more open and honest, but that doesn't make him more admirable.” The Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse has just released the results of their most recent survey on teen drug use which provides evidence to back up the thesis of Jacob Sullum’s book, Saying Yes, In Defense of Drug Use. In that volume the author argues that the negative effects of the currently illegal drugs are highly exaggerated.
The survey reveals that the percentage of teenagers who believe that there is considerable drug use in their High School rose from 44% in 2002 to 61% now. However, it also tells us that the percentage of teenagers who list drug use as their number one concern dropped from 32% in 1995 to 24% now. Therefore this research shows us that teens have a greater exposure to illegal drug use with a corresponding decreased fear of them. If use of these prohibited drugs was the soul destroying, death inducing, horrific experience that the government says it is then you would not get the kind of survey results you see above.
The House Oversight and Government and Reform Committee chaired by Henry Waxman has discovered documents which reveal an orchestrated partisan effort by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to aid vulnerable Republican candidates in the last election. Drug Czar John Walters and his deputies appeared at 20 events in the months prior to the 2006 contest.
The evidence includes an e-mail, written by Douglas Simon, the drug policy office's White House liaison, which described a meeting where Karl Rove praised the campaign endeavor. Simon asserted that, “The Director and the Deputies deserve the most recognition because they actually had to give up time with their families for the god awful places we sent them.” Meanwhile The Washington Post reports that “The drug control office has had a history of being nonpartisan, and a 1994 law bars the agency's officials from engaging in political activities even on their own time.”
Hat tip to Bill Piper
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Tom Batiuk creator of the comic strip Funky Winkerbean has won public service awards in the past, however, at the moment he is doing his readers and the general population, especially those who have or will face cancer, a grave disservice. One of his long running themes is the story of Lisa a woman who has been coping with breast cancer. The storyline has reached a point where Lisa believes she must decide between the pro-longed life that chemo-therapy can give her and a better quality of life that she might have in the absence of treatment. Lisa has now chosen to die early. In bringing the tale to this crossroads Batiuk has presented his character with a false choice.
There has been no mention, as of yet, concerning the possibility of Lisa using marijuana to counteract the side effects of her chemo-therapy. While this strategy is still controversial that is because of political not scientific or medical reasons. Even the National Cancer Institute acknowledges the potential effectiveness of marijuana in alleviating the debilitating side effects of Lisa’s chemo-therapy saying that, “Marijuana cigarettes have been used to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and research has shown that THC is more quickly absorbed from marijuana smoke than from an oral preparation.”
If Tom Batiuk is going to accept praise and awards for tackling this subject then it is incumbent upon him to do so in a responsible manner. So far he has not done so, instead, he has put his cartoon strip in the service of the simplistic and questionable, moral and political statement that marijuana is bad. Just like the federal government in the real world, Batiuk has put politics above the life of his character, Lisa.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
The Washington Times is reporting that the Ron Paul campaign has out grown its headquarters. The story quotes Republican media consultant Tom Edmonds relating that, "My gut tells me he's a sleeper and will indeed have an impact on the Republican race." All I can say is good, I hope he is right. Republican Senator from Minnesota Norm Coleman and National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) board member Norm Kent attended Hofstra University at the same time in the late 1960s. They became friends there and also used marijuana together. Recently Kent received a form letter from his old smoking buddy stating that "I oppose the legalization of marijuana because, as noted by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana can have serious adverse health affects on individuals. The health problems that may occur from this highly addictive drug include short-term memory loss, anxiety, respiratory illness and a risk of lung cancer that far exceeds that of tobacco products. It would also make our transportation, schools and workplaces, just as examples, more dangerous."
This event prompted Kent to write an open letter to Coleman reminding him of his past position on marijuana which had included a forceful call for legalization. Kent pointed out that, “You never said then that pot was dangerous. What was scary then, and is as frightening now, is when national leaders become voices of hypocrisy, harbingers of the status quo, and protect their own position instead of the public good. Welcome to the crowd of those who have become a likeness of which they despised. “
Faithful readers of this space may well understand Norm Kent’s anger at Coleman since there is no scientific evidence that when used sensibly and in moderation marijuana causes adverse health effects. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Agency’s own Administrative Law Judge, Francis L Young found that “Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”
Nor is marijuana a highly addictive drug. None of the great objective commission reports from the 1894 British Indian Hemp Drugs Commission report to the recent study by the Canadian Senate and all those in between have ever found marijuana to be addictive.
Also, there is no causal relationship between marijuana and respiratory illness, including lung cancer. Indeed, Dr. Donald Tashkin of the UCLA School of Medicine, a staunch opponent of cannabis use, presented a large case-control study which showed an inverse correlation between marijuana smoking and lung cancer. And, attempts to link marijuana use with mental illness such as increased anxiety are false too.
In addition, there is little creditable evidence, despite widespread belief to the contrary, that marijuana use makes people more dangerous drivers. However, there is evidence that the opposite may be true. Certainly, we must take into consideration that marijuana prohibition encourages the consumption of more alcohol and that without doubt makes transportation, schools, and workplaces more dangerous.
Norm Kent ends his eloquent open letter with some good advice, for Norm Coleman and many others in the political class as well, saying, “How about you looking back at your past and saying: ‘What I did was not so wrong and not so bad and not so hurtful that generations of Americans should still, decades later, be going to jail for smoking pot -- nearly one million arrests for possession last year.’ Can't Norm Coleman come out of the closet in 2007 and say ‘These arrests are wrong -- that there is a better way, and we need to find it.’ You might find more integrity and honor in that then adopting the sad and sorry policy of our Office of National Drug Control Policy. You might find the person you were.”
Hat tip to Kenny Rodgers
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
On the radio today the subject was did you fly the flag on the Fourth of July. The show was the Bill O'Reilly program with regular Lise Wiehl and a guest host whose name is not worth remembering. They both demonstrated that their personal flying of the flag is meaningless because neither one has a clue as to what the flag stands for. This came to my attention when they expressed support for a bill making its way through the Minnesota legislature that would make it a crime to buy an American flag not made in America.
The flag is supposed stand for freedom, you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So if it makes someone happy to buy an American flag manufactured in Taiwan who are they or the government for that matter to stand in that person's way? Their discussion presents us with a snapshot of what is so wrong with much of American culture these days, the triumph of symbolism over substance.
The sponsor of this law, State Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL, those who voted for it, and those who voice support for its passage desecrate the substance that the flag symbolizes far more than anyone who burns it ever could. In fact, those who burn the American flag in protest actually are honoring that substance and it is a sign of our strength not weakness that we continue to allow that.
Learn about the drug Incarcerex here. In a very eloquent essay for The Independent Howard Jacobson discusses the legacy of the Six Day War and the boycott of Israeli academics proposed by the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU).
From Anthony Gregory
Grab the nearest book.
1. Open it to page 161.
Don't search around looking for the coolest book you can find. Do what's actually next to you.
My nearest book was Drugs in America: A Documentary History
"Within this range, alcohol concentration becomes dangerous to human life." Those patients suffering from AIDS, cancer needing chemo-therapy, MS, glaucoma and countless other maladies who find relief in the medical use of marijuana owe a great deal to Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a tireless advocate on their behalf. Sadly, the good doctor passed away from complications of cancer on May 20th. Fortunately for the world, Mikuriya left a rich legacy of valuable research into the medicinal properties of cannabis and he inspired numerous others to pursue knowledge about marijuana and health. Also, it should be noted that the courageous physician pursued this course, at some cost to himself, in the face of a government bent on denying people the medical benefits of cannabis. He will be missed.
However, Dr. Mikuriya will not be forgotten as long as work such as three recent investigations continues. A German study looked into effect of the cannabinoid dronabinol on the nighttime agitation experienced by patients with dementia. The German scientists concluded that, “the study suggests that dronabinol was able to reduce nocturnal motor activity and agitation in severely demented patients. Thus, it appears that dronabinol may be a safe new treatment option for behavioral and circadian disturbances in dementia.”
Meanwhile, in Columbia, an investigation into cannabinoids potential as neuroprotective compounds in Alzheimer's disease (AD) came up with results that, “suggest that CP55,940/( JWH-015) protection/rescue of PBL from noxious stimuli is determined by p53 inactivation. These findings may contribute to a better understanding of the role played by cannabinoids as neuroprotective agents to target and interrupt molecular signaling that induce damage in AD disorder.”
Also, researchers at The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology in La Jolla, California discovered that, “compared to currently approved drugs prescribed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease, THC is a considerably superior inhibitor of Abeta aggregation, and this study provides a previously unrecognized molecular mechanism through which cannabinoid molecules may directly impact the progression of this debilitating disease.”
Tod Mikuriya was a pioneer in a field of scientific endeavor that promises to ease the suffering of literally millions of people. With each study, such as those above, it becomes clearer and clearer that the pledge will be fulfilled. It is not too much to state that Dr. Mikuriya was a hero.
Hat tip to Ian Goddard
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Those who argue that drastic action must be taken immediately to save the planet from human induced global warming depend upon the idea that scientific inquiry is complete and beyond dispute. Douglas J. Keenan, who has published in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology provides an example showing this just is not so. Commenting on work by Chuine et al., using the harvest dates of grapes in Burgundy, France purporting to prove that 2003 was the warmest summer since 1370, Keenan asserts that, ” What is important here is not the truth or falsity of the assertion of Chuine et al. about Burgundy temperatures. Rather, what is important is that a paper on what is arguably the world's most important scientific topic (global warming) was published in the world's most prestigious scientific journal with essentially no checking of the work prior to publication.” Here is an absolutely horrible story about a tenured professor, Walter Kehowski, who has been recommended for termination merely because he sent a e-mail containing George Washington's "Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789" with a link to Pat Buchanan's website where he found it. We need to acknowledge that free speech is under attack in this country in a very serious and new way. It started with the firing of Don Imus and now continues with the suspension, by XM Satellite radio, of Opie and Anthony for something they did not even say themselves. One thing we should remember on the day that Jerry Falwell died is that when he sued the publisher of Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, for $45 million “charging that he was libeled by a liquor-ad parody that quoted him as saying he lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse” the Supreme Court ruled against him. The justices asserted that the joke, even though pornographic had a claim to 1st Amendment protection because Falwell was a public figure. The crude sexual humor about Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth II put forth by Opie and Anthony’s guest, Homeless Charlie, on the recent broadcast was absolutely constitutionally protected speech. Much of it was surely tasteless and offensive, but the constitution has always been most meaningful in protecting such utterances.
However, a new form of censorship is taking hold and it is the equivalent of small groups of people going around barricading and locking up theaters or lecture halls to keep the public out. They get away with this by threatening the livelihood of the owners of venues that allow a platform for speakers or material that they personally object to. The far greater numbers of people who want to hear this communication do not seem to count anymore. A belief in free speech is not just about the right to speak it is also about the right to listen, freedom of assembly.
How does this help the terrorists? Well, CNN’s Glenn Beck in a very articulate and informative segment pointed out that he too is a target of special interest groups whose goal is to remove him from the airways. This attention comes from his strong stand against Islamic terror leading, of course, to charges of religious bigotry. You do not have to stretch the rationale which led to the demise of Imus very far at all to justify Beck’s dismissal.
Beck believes the solution to this new type of censorship will come when society begins to focus on the personal responsibility of turning the dial in the face of material you as an individual find objectionable instead of the nebulous concept of corporate responsibility. This is especially true because the financially responsible thing for these companies, when faced with what are essentially hollow threats, to do is to keep someone who is generating ratings and revenue on the air.
One of Beck’s guests Debbie Wolf was co-founder of an organization, People Against Censorship which is attempting stem the rising tide of this new censorship. She has penned an eloquent letter to Executives of CBS and Free FM pointing out that they are “setting a bad example that other companies have begun to follow, your actions have also placed an insurmountable handicap on every person who broadcasts on every radio station in America (one that will likely extend to television as well). You have put them in a position where broadcasters cannot speak freely without a fear that they may offend some group that will result in their firing. Certainly you must be aware that it is impossible to speak, in this day and age, without offending someone. This is an untenable situation and must be corrected.”
On CNN Wolf argued that any broadcaster or musician or comic should be outraged and fearful that their ability as artists to express themselves will be lost. She might have added that anyone who enjoys discussion of controversial issues, music, or laughing should also be angry and concerned.
Beck’s other guest Michael Harrison publisher of Talkers Magazine unaware of the action taken later by XM Satellite maintained that free speech would not be lost but would rather move elsewhere. That is why the suspension of Opie and Anthony is so disturbing because satellite radio is the elsewhere he had in mind. And, once the so easily offended special interest groups have control of that medium is there any doubt that television is next, followed by the internet?
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
One of the many reasons I have for disliking President Bush is the fact that his actions leading to his unpopularity cost Maryland Republican Governor Robert Erhlich his reelection. Ehrlich was by no means a libertarian and was philosophically comfortable with paternalistic government. However, he was also a man of moderation when it came to governing and he pursued some worthwhile policies. He held the line on taxes and spending restoring the state’s finances. He supported slot machines to save Maryland’s historic racing industry against the selective moralists in the legislature. And, most important to me he signed into law a medical marijuana bill in the face of intense pressure from the federal administration not to.
Now we have Democrat Martin O’Malley in charge holding office only a few short months and he is poised to veto a bill that will reduce the harm done to the citizens of Maryland by mandatory minimum sentencing. You may recall that awhile back I posted linking to an excellent call for action letter from Naomi Long of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) in support of change and then expressed the hope that some of the legislators would actually read it. Well apparently enough of them did and the legislation passed. However, despite earlier indications that he would sign the bill O’Malley now appears ready to veto it.
The overwhelming majority of the unjust impact that mandatory minimum sentencing produces lands directly on the backs of poor Blacks and Hispanics, not just those jailed but their families including their children too. Are these not the people the Democratic Party is supposed to be looking out for? If Martin O’Malley halts this change in the law then he is not doing that and he is in fact betraying many of the very people who put him in office.
Perhaps the harshest mandatory minimum laws on the books are the Rockefeller Drug Laws operating in New York State. A very moving music video by Hip Hop artist and star Jim Jones, part of the upcoming film Lockdown, USA, really brings home the complete and utter injustice of these laws which waste enormous resources and make many people’s lives miserable for no good reason. You can contact the political leaders in New York urging them to pursue better public policy here.
In Maryland, there is still a little time to bring Governor O’Malley to his senses. He can be contacted through StoptheDrugWar.org or you can call (800) 811-8336, or fax him at (410) 974-3275. His written address is The Honorable Martin O'Malley, State House, Annapolis, Maryland 21401-1925. The bill he needs to sign in order to keep faith with those that elected him is HB 922. Any action taken must be done quickly as Thursday May 17th is the signing day.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
William Stepp and Mark Brady have brought to my attention an absolutely outstanding essay by Alexander Cockburn, titled "Who are the Merchants of Fear" which is posted on Counterpunch. In a previous piece, linked to here by Brady, Cockburn inquired about the sinfulness of Global Warming and in this new article he recaps the basic thrust of his earlier work saying that, "I refer those who rear back at the words 'imaginary crisis' to my last column on this topic, where I emphasize that there is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution."
Now, Cockburn seeks to shed light on some of the reasons why something so very tenuous is about to cause such drastic harmful changes in policy public. As I read this essay there were at least ten important well written passages that I wanted to quote here, however, I will content myself with two. The first relates to someone that I have become convinced is one of those historical figures that will do or say anything in their quest for power, no matter how many people it hurts or how much it erodes core values. Cockburn tells me something that I had not thought too much about before, concerning a certain ex-Senator from Tennessee, when he writes that, "The world's best known hysteric and self promoter on the topic of man's physical and moral responsibility for global warming is Al Gore, a shill for the nuclear industry and the coal barons from the first day he stepped into Congress entrusted with the sacred duty to protect the budgetary and regulatory interests of the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Oakridge National Lab." Of course, nuclear power and clean coal are part of the solution to the problem of human induced global warming so let us just put Three Mile Island into the memory hole.
Lastly, Cockburn's conclusion is worth noting. He states that, "As with the arms spending spiral powered by the Cold War merchants of fear, vast amounts of money will be uselessly spent on programs that won't work against an enemy that doesn't exist. Meanwhile, real and curable environmental perils are scanted or ignored. Hysteria rules the day, drowning urgently needed environmental cleanup in our backyard while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its global rewards."
One country that is having some success in combating Islamic terrorism is Indonesia. Much of this progress is due to a former terrorist, Nasir Abas, who changed sides. 60 Minutes profiled him last Sunday and his story illustrates the point that the ultimate solution to the problem of Islamic terror comes not from military action, increased security, or changes in American foreign policy but rather from the struggle between moderates and radicals to define the meaning of Islam.
For Nasir Abas the impetus for change came in 2000 with a fatwa issued by Osama Bin Laden who is quoted by reporter Bob Simon as commanding that "It should be understood that killing Americans and Jews anywhere found are the highest act of worship and the highest form of good deeds in the eyes of Allah," However, Abas had been taught that murdering innocent civilians had nothing to do with holy war and was in fact prohibited. He therefore became an asset in the struggle against terrorism for religious reasons.
Abas now believes that educational settings are the most important battlegrounds and as CBS tells us “he is at the heart of the government’s de-radicalization program, which is all about persuasion, talking to university students, combating the dogma taught in religious schools, and most important, trying to turn terrorists in the prisons.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Recently Al Gore addressed a gathering of national media ethicists at Middle Tennessee State University where he asserted that a lack of action on the global warming problem was due to media bias. He contended that "more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias."
Inconveniently for Gore a new study by the Media Research Center shows that the ex-Vice President’s charge simply is not true. They looked at 115 stories concerning global warming presented on the morning news shows of CBS, NBC, and ABC finding that only four, three percent, made any mention at all of disagreement with Gore’s extremist view of the issue.
And, it is not as though there is no credible dissent out there. An example can be found in Newsweek’s April 16th International edition which published an essay by Richard Lindzen the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This scientific expert wrote that "Recently many people have said that the Earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe." Lindzen also asserted that Roger Revelle Gore’s supposed mentor mentioned so reverently in the film An Inconvenient Truth believes that “the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.” A story, titled "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"
on the National Geographic website tells us that "in 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row." The scientist responsible for this observation is Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia and how long will it be before someone labels him a criminal for making it? On Sunday the CBS program 60 Minutes presented yet another piece of shoddy superficial journalism. The report hosted by Anderson Cooper dealt with the “stop snitching” phenomenon found in the urban black community. This is a philosophy which asserts that it is unacceptable to cooperate with the police under any circumstances.
Cooper's thrust clearly put the blame for this way of thinking squarely on the backs of Hip Hop artists and the greedy record corporations behind them. Prominently featured was the rapper Cam'ron who went so far as to say that if he knew a serial killer lived next door he would not report that fact to the police but rather just move away.
Comments concerning Cam’ron’s words posted on such websites as The Daily Hip Hop News, Nobodysmiling.com, and VIBE.com were mixed with some defending his views but the majority expressing embarrassment over his thoughts, with a number asking why 60 Minutes had to choose someone so stupid as the spokesman for Hip Hop. More than a few people made the important point that what the rapper said had nothing to do with the true meaning of “stop snitching.”
The program also almost completely missed the point. The war on people who used certain kinds of drugs got only the briefest mention and the academic expert on the subject of “stop snitching” who believes its origin is to be found there was not allowed to speak for himself. Cooper then permitted a government official to minimize the role played by a brutal drug prohibition system, entirely dependent upon people betraying one another for convictions, without challenge.
Perhaps if the 60 Minutes producers had seen the documentary Snitch produced by Ofra Bikel they might have understood a little something about the subject they were reporting on. Maybe if they had acknowledged that drug war was the most racist institution operating in America today, with statistics from the Drug Policy Alliance which tell us that Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison, their story would not have been so shallow and misleading.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Today's Washington Times has a story by reporter Betsy Pisik which concerns a United Nations program based in Greece whose mission is to train public administrators in Mediterranean countries.
The Thessaloniki Center for Public Service Professionalism has been audited by the U.N. Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and her article contains the following two paragraphs; "The center was conceived to train public servants in the Mediterranean region and former Soviet states to be more transparent, accountable and effective in running their respective government bureaucracies.
The OIOS audit paints the center as an expensive project, plagued by staffing troubles, spotty record-keeping and the inability to complete projects."
Well it happened radio host Don Imus lost his show over a highly insensitive and racially tinged remark about the Rutgers Woman’s Basketball team. His bosses are claiming the action was taken for moral reasons and the fact that sponsors American Express Co., Sprint Nextel Corp., Staples Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and General Motors Corp left the program in the face of pressure from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and friends had no impact on their decision.
The situation has consumed an enormous amount of broadcast air time and generated tons of printed material. To my mind and in the opinion of many others the most cogent and important comment on this came from Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock who happens to be black. He wrote, “In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report On last Sunday’s 60 Minutes program Katie Couric interviewed Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth who has been diagnosed with life threatening bone cancer. Couric, whose own husband died of cancer, has been criticized by some for treating the candidate and his spouse in an overly harsh and aggressive manner. (See here and here)
She should also be taken to task for a lack of substance in her questions. The interview was almost entirely devoted to the politics of the situation, with no discussion of the disease itself and its possible treatment. There was certainly no mention of medical marijuana’s value in combating the intense nausea which accompanies chemotherapy. The piece represents another lost opportunity to examine an important and woefully neglected issue this time with a major presidential candidate who now has a unique perspective.
In contrast, another Democratic presidential candidate, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has a strong public position in favor of medical marijuana. He will shortly sign a bill legalizing that medicine in his state, saying "So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do." Not only will Richardson sign the law but he was instrumental in securing its passage.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Up until yesterday the state of Florida considered Judge Lawrence Korda qualified to make important decisions about people’s personal lives such as where the paternity and custody of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby should be decided. This will probably change because he was caught smoking marijuana in a public park. You see, the state does not consider him to be competent when making personal decisions about his own life such as how he chooses to relax. If he had gotten drunk in a bar or had a prescription for an anti-depressant drug with a suicide warning on the bottle he would not now be in trouble.
When in the Anna Nichole Smith spotlight Judge Korda conducted himself and his courtroom in a professional and efficient manner that elicited no negative commentary. On the other hand, Judge Larry Seidlin, also involved in the Smith case, who promoted a circus like atmosphere in his courtroom and blubbered when announcing his decision will continue on the bench because he does not smoke marijuana or at least has not been caught doing so.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
The State Department has issued a 450 page report titled International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume II, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes proving once again that sacrifice, in this case less effective diplomacy, to further drug prohibition is standard operating procedure. In his devastating critique of the document, Richard W. Rahn, who serves as a director and board member of several economic policy organizations including the European Center for Economic Growth, points out that, “The Report, produced by the global nannies and nags at State, is filled with endless demands that other countries do a better job enforcing their laws, pass more laws, sign more international treaties and engage in some practices that would be illegal and unconstitutional in the U.S. Many of the demands would not meet a reasonable cost-benefit test, and are superfluous and banal – ‘be less corrupt.’”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Recently, Jennifer Kern, a research associate with the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) debated and decisively defeated Dr. Bertha Madras, the deputy director of Demand Reduction in the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) on the pages of Newsweek. The topic concerned the government’s efforts to expand the drug testing of students in our nation’s schools. When asked what message the tests sent to the students the bureaucrat responded with the ridiculous assertion that the kids love it, while Kern correctly pointed out that, “They are undermining the very protective factors that are shown to keep people out of trouble with drugs. For instance, [there are] concerns that the testing breaks down relationships of trust between students and adults at school, hinders open communication and contributes to a hostile school environment and it risks deterring students from extracurricular activities.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report If science is ever to triumph over the politics of self interest and distain for mankind with regards to the global warming issue, perhaps that process will begin with a documentary to be shown Thursday on Britain's Channel 4 titled The Great Global Warming Swindle. The broadcaster's website tells us that "the film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors – experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology – from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institute Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia."
An interesting Washington Times article on the program quotes filmmaker Martin Durkin as saying that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media." The newspaper story also relates a remark of Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, who maintains that “at the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion, and this is dangerous.”
Naomi Long of the Drug Policy Foundation (DPA) has sent me a call for action letter concerning repeal of a mandatory minimum sentencing law in Maryland. I have seen quite a few of these over the years and found this one to be a very well written and powerful argument. One can only hope that some of the legislators actually read it. The paragraph below is my addition to the beginning of the sent letter.
I am a historian who studies the history of drug policy. I teach an online course at American University on the subject. So a quick review of the history of mandatory minimum sentencing may be helpful. These laws were enacted in both the 1930s in various places and in the 1950s on a national level. Both times they were eventually repealed because they proved to be debacles for many of the reasons discussed below. Please do not vote to save a policy that is an unjust unpractical abject proven failure.
Those who support and benefit from drug prohibition seek to stifle debate whenever possible because they know that the only way they win the argument over drug policy is by not having the argument in the first place. Historically this tactic has been very successful.
Their latest opportunity comes in the form of Morse v Frederick a dispute to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves high school student Joseph Frederick who showed up at a school sanctioned, off campus, event wearing a tee shirt reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. While this slogan was juvenile and probably offensive to some people, it clearly also had a political policy connotation and thus was protected by the 1st Amendment. Nevertheless, as Kris Kane Executive Director of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) informs us the student “sued his principal and school board after receiving a 10-day suspension. Losing the case in federal district court, Frederick won his appeal to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. When his school board appealed that ruling, the Supreme Court accepted the case.”
Brooks M. Beard, lead counsel, and Alex D. Kreit have filed a very powerful Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of SSDP supporting Frederick. This document does an excellent job of demonstrating just how vile and damaging an attack on political free speech the government’s pursuit of this case is. They make the following three important points:
1) STUDENTS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISCUSS ISSUES RELATING TO DRUG POLICIES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE DRUG POLICIES DIRECTLY AFFECT THEIR DAILY LIVES AND THUS RELATE TO SOME OF THEIR CORE POLITICAL CONCERNS
2) PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RESTRICT STUDENT SPEECH RELATING TO DRUG POLICY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT
3) PUNISHING RESPONDENT’S SPEECH WOULD STIFLE LEGITIMATE STUDENT SPEECH ABOUT DRUG POLICY
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
An excellent article in Monday's Washington Times by John Linder a Georgia Republican who serves on the House Ways and Means Committee sees some parallels between today's widely scientifically accepted global warming theory and the widely scientifically accepted eugenics theory of the early 20th century.
He also observes that “A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm.” This is the same concentration that many experts say will exist at the end of this century if we continue to burn the remaining reserves of fossil fuels. Linder then goes on to ask a very pertinent but too often neglected question. “If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don't they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago?”
An opportunity to hear from one of the true pioneers of the drug law reform movement will occur on Thursday, February 22nd, at 1:30PM. Dr. Arnold Trebach, American University professor emeritus and founder of the Drug Policy Foundation will be discussing his new book Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror. The talk will take place at the American University, School of International Service Lounge, Nebraska Ave, NW Wash, DC 20016. The event is to be moderated by Dr. Jeffrey Schaler author of Addiction is a Choice and is sponsored by the American University chapter of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). Former Representative Mark Foley, with his lustful eye for young male pages and his co-chairmanship of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, certainly embodies the most inappropriate committee appointment in Congressional history. A close second, though, may very well be Congressman Mark Souder as ranking Republican on the House subcommittee that oversees federal drug war policies.
Last week the MSNBC program hosted by Tucker Carlson wanted to talk about the refunding of the failed government sponsored program airing anti-marijuana radio and television ads. They scheduled as a guest Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance but at the last minute bumped him in favor of Congressman Souder. As a result viewers were treated to an amazing display of ignorance concerning marijuana. As Piper puts it, “I never thought I would say this, but I’m glad I got bumped. Souder made a total fool of himself.” Also, we must give credit to Carlson who helped with the process by refusing to accept at face value many of Souder’s blatant falsehoods.
Cross posted on the Trebach Report
One reason that drug policy reform has proven to be such a difficult endeavor is that the subject is so often missing from discussions of public policy. An example of this can be found in the PBS documentary The Power of Choice: The Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman, which aired last Monday night.
The film looks at the influence of Friedman’s free market advocacy in countries such as the United States, Estonia, Chile, India, and China making a persuasive case that he is responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than anyone else in the history of mankind. Friedman’s significant arguments for school choice and against the military draft are also addressed; however, his steadfast and principled opposition to drug prohibition found no place in this piece.
This is a major omission as Friedman’s sharp and analytical mind produced some the most devastating arguments in favor of drug legalization ever written. His position on this issue was completely consistent with the same free market principles he applied to economic systems. In fact, in 1992 the Drug Policy Foundation published On Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition by Milton Friedman and Thomas Szasz; edited and with a preface by Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin B. Zeese. As far back as 1972 in an article for Newsweek Friedman got to the heart of the matter when he wrote,” I readily grant that the ethical issue is difficult and that men of goodwill may well disagree. Fortunately, we need not resolve the ethical issue to agree on policy. Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse-for both the addict and the rest of us. Hence, even if you regard present policy toward drugs as ethically justified, considerations of expediency make that policy most unwise.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
An e-mail communication from Jennifer Kern of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) informs us that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is about to begin its fourth annual tour designed to promote drug testing in schools. She is calling for a response similar to last year’s when “dedicated drug policy reformers descended on every meeting with sharp questions and literature to counter the ONDCP's deceptive presentations. Many educators expressed dissatisfaction with the one-sided information provided by the ONDCP, and were grateful to hear what we had to say: that random student drug testing is unsupported by the best available research, and can deter students from extracurricular activities--the very activities that increase students' connection to their schools and to caring adults.”
Meetings will take place in Charleston, South Carolina on January 24th, Newark, New Jersey on February 27th, Honolulu, Hawaii on March 27th, and Las Vegas, Nevada on April 24th. The DPA provides an online toolkit for those who plan to attend.
An important point to remember, made by Richard Lawrence Miller in his book Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State, about drug testing is that it highlights the fact that drug use is a status crime not a behavioral one. The only reason you would need to test people for drug use is that you cannot tell whether or not they take drugs from the way they act. This explains why the ONDCP is so interested in spreading the use of testing because without it the drug problem might not be large enough for them.
Cross Posted on The Trebach Report
To my mind, whenever one side in a debate starts to label its opponents as criminals that side’s arguments become suspect. At a 2005 climate conference in Montreal, Greenpeace named 16 “climate criminals” and Paul K. Driessen was among them. He is
senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow as well as the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power — Black Death. Driessen’s excellent column in today’s Washington Times makes clear that his offense involved asking too many uncomfortable questions.
DRCNet has published a review by Phil Smith of Arnold Trebach’s latest book Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror in the most recent issue of Drug War Chronicle. The piece has sparked a number of published comments including one by Dutch drug policy expert Peter Cohen which I wish to address here.
While Cohen praises the author’s acumen as a student of drug prohibition he takes strong exception to Trebach’s support of Israel. Cohen writes “I happen to be one of those Jews who thinks that the creation of Israel is one of the desperate mistakes that came out of WW2. No concentration camp and no Nazi horror legitimizes that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were chased out of their homes and farms to make the existence of Israel possible.” Now, it is important to point out that the overwhelming majority of the people living in Israel today were either small children or not even born when the events of that state’s founding took place. They cannot possibly bear any moral responsibility for any wrongs committed at that time, yet, it is they who will be slaughtered if the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah achieve their most cherished goal.
Yes, the government of Israel sometimes acts in stupid, brutal, or unjust ways, but, we must remember that it is the only government in the world whose populace lives under the constant threat of extinction by it neighbors. When the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran talk about driving the Zionists into the sea they are not speaking about regime change, they are talking about genocide. And, it is not as though there are no historical precedents for mass killings of Jews.
Though the focus of Cohen’s comment is almost exclusively on Israel, Trebach’s manuscript is much more concerned with the wider threat to the world in general. The word Israel is mentioned on only fifteen of three hundred ninety eight pages. Instead, he deals with such subjects as the 9-11 commission, assassinations in the Netherlands, bombings in London, the often violent intimidation of voices speaking out against any aspect of Islam, and the inculcation of the philosophy behind the terror.
Lastly, it is implied in both the review itself and Cohen’s comments that Trebach seeks to replace the war on drugs with a war on terror. This can not be true because the war on terror, or more correctly the terrorist’s war on us, exists independently of drug policy. People in New York City, Madrid, and London have terrible first hand experience that Islamic terrorism is indeed very real. Trebach’s point is that we need to use all of our available resources to deal with it competently. It is too important not to.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
One of the best reading experiences I ever had came in the form of The Greenlanders by Jane Smiley. In her novel she chronicled the plight of the Norse people living in Greenland as the medieval warm period ended during the 14th century. As it grew colder each passing year fewer ships came to trade and food became more and more scarce. Life degenerated into an absolutely brutal struggle for survival.
Smiley's book is based on historical reality and at the time of both the beginning of this warm period and its end there were no significant amounts of man made carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. Yet, climate change with profound consequences occurred and not for the first time in the earth’s history. These periodic shifts in global temperature could have had their origin in any number of phenomenon. Perhaps, small variations in our planet’s orbit, sunspot activity, or alterations in background cosmic radiation effecting cloud cover caused these changes. Moreover, one thing is certain, the climate did not turn back then because people switched from driving gas guzzling SUVs to ethanol powered or electric cars.
In order to believe in Global Warming, and Global Warming is not just about whether it is getting warmer it is about why it is getting warmer, you must believe that the factors which changed the climate in past centuries are not relevant today. This is contrary to the scientific method which requires you to prove your hypothesis by seeking the null. Those calling for action on human induced global warming have not fulfilled this responsibility. Before they start to take people’s jobs away from them, and make no mistake that is their ultimate objective, they need to prove that the present climate change is not caused by orbital variation, sunspots, or cosmic radiation. It is unscientific and immoral for them to be pursuing solutions, to something that more than likely is not causing the problem, irregardless of the consequences to others.
In a piece describing his ambivalence about the idea that climate change is a product of human activity, Sheldon Richman lists some “environmental nightmare scenarios” of dubious value such as overpopulation panic and predictions of resource exhaustion. He then argues, “But a series of bad predictions doesn't mean the latest environmental prediction is necessarily wrong. For one thing, atmospheric scientists who warn about climate change are not necessarily the same people who warned about overpopulation and resource depletion.” However, many of these same atmospheric scientists did tell us, not so long ago, that human released carbon dioxide would cause a new ice age.
At first, in the 1920s and 1930s, the idea that smoking marijuana caused people to become violent and insane supplied the rationale for the drug’s legal proscription. The 1928 book Dope: the Story of the Living Dead by William Randolph Hearst employee Winifred Black contained typical arguments concerning marijuana. On page 42 she wrote “the man under the influence of Hasheesh catches up the knife and runs through the streets hacking and killing everyone he meets.” Black went on to say “you can grow enough Marihuana in a window box to drive the whole population of the United States stark, staring, raving mad” and she was believed.
This line of argument favoring cannabis prohibition ran into serious trouble when New York City Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia decided to form a committee of experts to study the effects of marijuana use. The body issued a report in 1944 which authoritatively disavowed the notion that cannabis use caused violent behavior or insanity. The government then began to argue that though marijuana use itself might not be so bad the real problem lay in the fact that the drug caused its users to crave more powerful and dangerous drugs, such as cocaine or heroin. Thus the “stepping stone” or “gateway” theory became the primary pillar of support for the illegality of marijuana. They made this case despite the fact that Harry Anslinger, long time head of the Bureau of Narcotics and the nation’s leading authority on drug use, specifically denied the validity of the theory in 1937 during testimony before Congress.
The “stepping stone” or “gateway” theory lost much of its power in the 1960s when a dramatic rise in the number of cannabis users failed to engender a similar rise in the users of the drugs it was supposed to lead to. However, supporters of continuing the ban on marijuana quickly came up with a new reason, amotivational syndrome. They asserted that marijuana crippled its consumers by causing them to become apathetic and uninterested in anything other than getting high. Pot smokers, like the Irish, Blacks, Italians, and Mexicans had been before them, were labeled as being lazy and worthless. Yet, when the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse released their first report Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding in 1972 they maintained that "The most notable statement that can be made about the vast majority of marihuana users - experimenters and intermittent users - is that they are essentially indistinguishable from their non-marihuana using peers by any fundamental criterion other than their marihuana use."
At the present time the principle arguments for marijuana prohibition consist of the residue of the previously discredited reasons as well as a frantic search for some kind of medical justification. This quest to prove cannabis harmful to health has reached a new level of absurdity with a study highlighted on the website World Science. Referring to researchers at Tel Aviv University studying marijuana the article reports that “In hefty doses, they argue, its active ingredient may protect the brain against various types of damage, whereas in tiny doses, harmful effects would come through.” Yosef Sarne and his colleagues reached their conclusion, published in the November 6th issue of the research journal Neuroscience Letters, the World Science piece states, by injecting ”mice with THC doses that they said were some 1,000 times lower than what humans would get from smoking a joint, taking into account body weight. The treatment significantly worsened the rodents’ performance on maze tests three weeks later, compared to untreated mice, they wrote.”
This study has three major problems that are often found in research claiming to prove that marijuana consumption is harmful to human beings. First they did not test the effects of marijuana instead they studied the effects of THC and the two are not the same thing. There are hundreds of little understood active ingredients in smoked cannabis and the Israeli scientists ignored this fact and therefore failed to take into account any influence these might have had on the outcome. Secondly, they tested rodents not people and again there is no real equivalency with this method. Lastly, consumption of marijuana that is the same as a thousandth of a normal joint simply is not going to happen in real life. Even one hit would be in the neighborhood of a tenth to a twentieth of a dose.
These researchers have told us absolutely nothing about cannabis use here and they revealed their bias in a previous work featured in Medical Hypotheses (2004) 63, 187-192 when they contended that ”Cannabinoids are the most widely used drugs of abuse” thereby equating use with abuse. Studies touting the negative effects of marijuana hardly ever are about real people using real marijuana in real situations and this one is no exception.
Hat Tip Ian Goddard
Cross Posted on the Trebach Report
Here are two studies from Great Britain that are very unlikely to ever appear on the websites or in the literature of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) or Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). First, researchers at the University of Birmingham’s School of Psychology sought to determine whether or not cannabis use would enhance the negative effects on driving ability produced by alcohol consumption.
The study tested two groups, infrequent cannabis users and regular users of cannabis matched for other factors such as age, gender, alcohol use, and other drug use. They were given both alcohol and placebo then tested on a standard computerized tracking system used to evaluate various drugs effect on driving ability. The participants were required to track a moving target while a variety of distractions appeared on the screen. Both groups performed much better on the placebo as opposed to alcohol.
Conventional wisdom holds that impairment would be increased in the regular users, “but alcohol caused a significant deterioration in performance among infrequent cannabis users relative to regular users.” The investigation concluded: “For psychomotor skills relevant to driving, chronic cannabis use (in the absence of acute administration) does not potentiate the effects of alcohol. In fact, the superior tracking accuracy of regular users relative to infrequent users after alcohol, and their lower scores for dizziness, suggest that chronic cannabis use may instead confer cross-tolerance to specific effects of alcohol on behaviour.”
Secondly, there is work done at Middlesex Polytechnic also looking at the cannabis drinking combination. Both marijuana smokers and nonsmokers were matched for alcohol use and then had their peripheral vision, an essential driving skill, tested. The authors discovered that the “cannabis users were less impaired in peripheral signal detection than non-users while intoxicated by cannabis and/or alcohol” and deduced that the “findings suggest the development of tolerance and cross-tolerance in regular cannabis users and/or the ability to compensate for intoxication effects.”
Cross posted on the Trebach Report
David Beito’s post below sparked my curiosity so signed up for more information and what follows is the comment they asked for.
I am interested in learning more about Senator Hagel. What little I do know about him suggests he has potential. Now, you are saying that he is a social conservative, so the key question for me is does he know the difference between advocating legalization of drugs and advocating the use of drugs?
I believe that drug prohibition is by far and away the worst aspect of our present public policy. The evidence is overwhelming that the illegality of drugs has a plethora of both intended and unintended negative consequences with virtually nothing positive to balance them out. The policy simply does not do what it supposed to do, keep people from using certain kinds of drugs. In addition, the governmental goal of keeping individuals from using the proscribed substances is not nearly as worthy a cause as those who support and very often benefit by prohibition would have you think.
A government that respects the liberty and rights of its people and the prohibition of drugs are totally incompatible. So, if the Senator is not willing to keep an open mind on this issue and learn from people other than self-interested bureaucrats or hysterical parents groups then I can not support him.
A second corollary question concerns whether or not Senator Hagel is intelligent enough to recognize that raising the question of drug policy, making the irresistible case, both practical and moral, that is available to him, and achieving real change will not only make him President but also an American hero.
First Bob Barr joins with the ACLU to fight for civil liberties and eloquently defends free speech. Then the former Republican Congressman takes on PETA as well as the anti-obesity lobby. In addition, he threw his support to a Libertarian candidate for Congress. Now, he has a hilarious scene in a film that, in my opinion, has a legitimate claim to the title funniest movie ever made, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.
I went into the theater with extremely high anticipation having viewed television clips of Borat such this one and the fact that the film review site Rotten Tomatoes gave it an astronomical 96% favorable rating. Not only did the movie far exceed my expectations as to how humorous it would be, it had other virtues too. The music for various scenes was very well chosen enhancing the experience and the visuals were sometimes quite stunning, especially the parts in his home country. In addition, behind the laughter there is some perceptive social commentary going on. Sure, there is a character on screen spouting some of the most vile anti-Semitism ever heard but this same character also washes his face in the hotel room toilet.
Maybe you are a little depressed about the senseless deaths and maiming of our soldiers in Iraq, not to mention the public money pouring down that particular rat hole at such an alarming rate. Perhaps the fact that very few people seem to care that war on people who use certain kinds drugs continues to eat away at everything we hold of value as Americans has got you down. Certainly, the substitution of despicable and deceptive personal attack for reasoned discourse on the issues by so many candidates running in the upcoming election would discourage anyone. If you are having any such feelings going to see Borat could lighten your mood considerably, at least until you read the next morning’s paper.
Last night MSNBC broadcast one of the most powerful political editorials that I have ever seen. In it Keith Olbermann made a connection between the pre-Civil War attack on Senator Charles Sumner and the recent demands from Bush supporters that John Kerry apologize for an alleged statement disparaging U.S. troops.
Olbermann correctly points out that when you consider Kerry’s remarks in context it is very clear that the barb is aimed at the President and not the soldiers. Also, he goes well beyond this one incident in criticizing the mendacity of the current administration. I believe that George W. Bush is far and away the worst president of my lifetime. In his piece Keith Olbermann offers strong and comprehensive support for that opinion.
Steven Milloy who publishes the website junkscience.com has an excellent column in today's Washington Times which brings much needed attention to work by Danish researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. The the study’s results, which were published by the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A, provide solid experimental evidence supporting their theory concerning the relationship between global temperatures and cosmic rays.
As Milloy describes it the two scientists “hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover -- that is, the greater the cosmic radiation, the greater the cloud cover. Clouds cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about 20 percent of incoming solar radiation back into space. The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the Sun's magnetic field, which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures -- precisely what was observed during the 20th century.”
The policy implications of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen’s research are tremendous, however, as Milloy observes so far the mainstream media seems to be profoundly uninterested.
In 1998 researchers at Le Moyne University estimated (see note 14) that each
year one billion dollars was being spent to drug test twenty million American
workers. Since then the market for drug tests has greatly expanded from the
workplace to the home. A recent Fox News segment
featuring a debate between Kris Krane Executive Director of Students for a
Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and Mason
Duchatschek a representative of TESTMYTEEN.com
informed its viewers that last year parents spent six billion dollars on home
drug testing kits.
During the broadcast Krane handled himself very well giving
one of the best television performances by a drug reformer that I have ever
seen. He managed to get the last word in deftly pointing out that his opponent
had no medical or drug use expertise but rather was an MBA seeking only to make
his business more profitable. Also, on the program Duchatschek contended that if it is properly introduced “kids
should feel no more uncomfortable about taking a home drug test than parents
feel when they go to take a drug test at a job or to get a job.” For a kid who knows anything about drug testing this would,
indeed, be a very high level of discomfort. Marilyn Vos Savant, reputed to be
one of the world’s most intelligent persons, addressed the subject in
her Parade Magazine column when Charles Feinstein a Ph.D. at Santa Clara University asked “A particularly interesting and important question today
is that of testing for drugs. Suppose it is assumed that about 5% of the general
population uses drugs. You employ a test that is 95% accurate, which we’ll say
means that if individual is a user, the test will be positive 95% of the time,
and if the individual is a nonuser, the test will be negative 95% of the time.
A person is selected at random and given the test. It’s positive. What does
such a result suggest? Would you conclude that the individual is highly likely to
be a drug user?
She replied that “Given your conditions, once the person
has tested positive, you may as well flip a coin to determine whether he or she
is a drug user. The chances are only 50-50. (The assumptions, the makeup of the
test group and the true accuracy of the tests themselves are additional
considerations.) This is just the sort of common misunderstanding that should
give great pause to those who will make the decisions about testing.” And, as Ms Vos Savant suggests the 95% accuracy postulate
may be overly generous. DRUG-TESTING-solutions.net
quotes an April 1992 article which appeared in Personnel Journal as
saying "Only 85 of the estimated 1,200 laboratories in the United States currently testing urine for drugs meet federal standards for accuracy,
qualified lab personnel, and proper documentation and record-keeping
procedures. Because private companies are not required to use certified drug
testing labs, workers are being asked to put their job security in the hands of
a drug test that has insufficient quality controls." Now add in the
fact the overwhelming majority of parents will have no experience administering
home drug tests and we can see that the potential for unjustly accused teens
and their concurrent resentment, perhaps even hatred, of their parents is
enormous. In addition, consider the plight of the teen that tries a particular
drug and decides that he or she does not like it and will not use it again who,
the next day, is greeted at the door by mom and dad with their newly purchased
drug testing kit.
However, during the Fox News story the interviewer asked the
SSDP spokesperson if the threat of teen drug use was not so severe that other
considerations had to take a back seat. Krane replied that medical authorities
like the American Academy of Pediatrics basing
their judgment on studies such as one conducted by Children's
Hospital Boston would answer no and were strongly against home drug
testing.
In fact, drug testing is a stark admission that the negative
pharmacological effects of drug use are highly exaggerated by those who benefit
by keeping certain drugs illegal (see Jacob Sullum’s Saying
Yes: In Defense of Drug Use). The reason urine or hair has to be tested is
because generally you can’t tell who is or is not using by the way they act.
People who lose their jobs or run afoul of the law because of drug use have
committed status violations not behavioral ones. In his book Drug
Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State Richard Lawrence
Miller correctly asserts that “If drug use typically caused employees to
become unsatisfactory, drug testing would be unnecessary: an incompetent worker
can be disciplined or fired regardless of drug use. The purpose of workplace
drug testing is to target satisfactory employees for punishment. The purpose is
to identify ordinary people who can be victimized. Urine tests fulfill the same
function that the yellow star did for Jews in Nazi Germany, identifying them
for ostracism because nothing about their appearance or behavior differed from
that of other ordinary people.”
Marijuana prohibition carries a great deal of opportunity costs. One of these is considerably less emphasis on protecting the American people from terrorism (see Arnold Trebach’s Fatal Distraction: The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror).
A good example of this can be seen in recent reporting about problems within the Federal Air Marshal Service. An article in the Christian Science Monitor points out that the organization’s goal is to cover a mere 3% of the 25,000 – 30,000 commercial flights taking place on a daily basis. The piece then cites several sources as contending “that goal is rarely reached because there aren't enough marshals.” The author, Alexandra Marks, also tells us that prior to 9/11 only 33 active marshals were at work.
The number of working marshals had greatly increased since then but the Washington Times has reported that lately the chances of any one flight being protected are rapidly diminishing. The story informs the reader that “the size of the federal air marshal force has been cut in half by on-the-job injuries that have sidelined nearly 2,100 marshals.” These health problems are related to the marshal’s intense flying schedule and include ruptured ear drums, sinus conditions, and deep vein thrombosis. The paper quotes a memo from the Charlotte, N.C., field office stating that it was “experiencing a large amount of missed missions due to federal air marshals calling in sick and medical groundings by physicians.” The communication also asserted that “these groundings all have a commonality of being directly related to our current flight schedules." At present air marshals average four flights a day for five consecutive days.
Clearly the solution to the health problems and miniscule number of covered flights is to hire considerably more air marshals. Now, if you ask someone in government why this is not being done they will invariably mention budget constraints. However, Harvard economist Jeffery Miron has produced a report showing how a change in policy could fill the skies with healthy professional protectors. In his analysis of the costs of marijuana prohibition he concludes that the federal government could annually save 2.4 billion dollars in enforcement costs and generate up to 6.2 billion dollars in tax revenue if it legalized marijuana. How many air marshals could the service hire with 8.6 billion?
Cross posted on the Trebach Report
Ex-Congressman Bob Barr continues to transform me (see here, here, and here) from foe to fan with some excellent commentary in today's Washington Times concerning the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s (CSPI) war on our food choices. In the piece Barr points out that "CSPI does not conduct actual scientific research. Instead, it is a public policy advocacy group. The organization wants the public to assume it does research, when what it really does is troll through thousands of scientific journals to pinpoint research that supports its pre-existing political agenda."
I wonder, though, if Bob Barr realizes that the current impulse for more government control of the food supply is in fact a mere extension of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs? The arguments for restricting food choices are philosophically exactly the same as those for restricting drug choices. It is worth mentioning that after the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act one of the first things the Bureau of Chemistry head, Harvey Wiley, did was to unilaterally prohibit coca as a food additive. The result, a myriad of harmless products were denied to the people that had enjoyed them. The idea of "universal health care" or a "single payer system" would not be so popular if we called it what it is, government rationed health care.
In a column for yesterday's Washington Times titled "Stethoscope Socialism" Deroy Murdock provided some enlightening comparisons between bureaucrat controlled systems and the relatively free market structure we still have in America. He also pointed out that "Unlike America's imperfect but more market-driven health-care industry, nationalized systems usually divide patients and caregivers. In America, patients and doctors often make medical decisions and thus demand the best-available diagnostic tools, procedures and drugs. Affordability obviously plays its part, but the fact that most Americans either pay for themselves or carry various levels of insurance guarantees a market whose profits reward medical innovators. Under socialized medicine, public officials administer a single budget and usually ration care among a population whose sole choice is to take whatever therapies the state monopoly provides. Medicrats often distribute resources based on politics rather than science."
Now some argue that a government controlled system would be more fair. If you believe that then try the following thought experiment. After spending the politically agreed upon amount for world domination and graft here at home the government has only enough money left for one more operation. Both Hilary Clinton and Val who works the checkout line at the local supermarket desperately need this life saving procedure. Who do you think will get the treatment?
Reuters news agency has reported that Alaska governor Frank Murkowski finished third in the state’s Republican primary with a mere 19 percent of the vote. The article stated that “Murkowski, who is the first Alaska governor to lose in the primary election since Democrat Bill Sheffield was defeated in 1986, angered Alaskans by appointing his daughter to fill out his U.S. Senate term, buying a state jet for his personal use and other actions that were considered ham-fisted.”
I submit that one of these other actions was Murkowski’s unwarranted attack on Alaska’s marijuana smokers. In 2004 the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that state constitution’s privacy provisions protected possession of up to four ounces of marijuana by private citizens for personal use. The governor made the recriminalization of marijuana one of his primary goals. Despite the facts that polling showed 56 percent of Alaskans supported the legality of the possession of small amounts of marijuana and that the state’s House of Representatives initially rejected anti-marijuana legislation Murkowski managed to steamroll a bill into law.
On June 2nd of this year he proudly signed the measure at the Woodland Park Boys and Girls Club touting its benefits for Alaska’s youth. Some viewed Murkowski’s pride of accomplishment as yet another sign of his arrogance. The Anchorage Daily News published a letter to the editor by Jolene Brown in which she asked “Why is this act such a sterling example of the governor's arrogance? Because by railroading that law through the Legislature and ultimately signing it, he showed contempt for the Legislature, the Alaska Supreme Court and most especially his constituency.” She also pointed out that in 1972 when the privacy amendment was added to the Alaska Constitution this action had the support of 86 percent of the voters.
In the beginning of July the governor’s crusade went for naught when Juneau Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins sided with the ACLU and struck down the new marijuana provisions. Michael Macleod-Ball, Executive Director of the ACLU of Alaska asserted that “Throughout this process – both before the Legislature and now in court – the battle has been to reject high pressure political tactics and preserve an individual’s right to keep the state out of one’s home in the absence of sufficient justification. Despite the state’s unfounded claims to the contrary, the best scientists in the country say that marijuana is no more dangerous today than in 1975. The state can’t create the justification for restricting a fundamental right out of whole cloth.”
While it is difficult to determine just how much of a role Murkowski’s anti-marijuana campaign played in his astonishingly poor showing at the polls, in light of his other voter alienating actions, it is clear, however, that it did not help. One can only hope that other politicians will take note.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Cross Posted on The Trebach Report
The Washington Times ran a two thirds page advertisement, in their July 24th issue that contained, written in very small letters, on the bottom right the words “Office of National Drug Policy” because tax money paid for at least part of it. The ad gives out the website www.TheAntiDrug.com and its large type headline set off in a black box reads DRUGS, DEALERS, DANGER … JUST A CLICK AWAY. The next line says ARE YOU WATCHING YOUR TEENS ONLINE? Lastly, it ominously asks … WHO IS? In a recent post I talked about the flawed government science that turned second hand smoke into another rights destroying money gobbling fear dedicated to the further growth of government. The people who are busily eliminating the property rights of small businessmen say their particular use of state force and coercion has no negative economic impact on the objects of their legislative efforts. Now, if they are going to fudge the data on the alleged harmfulness of the smoke found in bars, then why should anyone believe their financial assessment of their smoking bans?
Someone much closer to the day-to-day reality of the restaurant business has written a letter to the editor of the Washington Examiner, which they printed in their 7/11 edition. “According to the recently released U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, ‘Evidence from peer-reviewed studies shows that smoke-free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry.’
What I want to know is: When did Dr. Richard Carmona become an expert on the economic impact of smoking bans?
As executive director of the American Beverage Licensees —the nation’s largest trade association representing nearly 20,000 bars, restaurants, taverns and liquor stores — I have firsthand experience that tells me he’s wrong, peer-reviewed studies or not.
Many of our members are small family businesses whose owners are hard-working, taxpaying Americans operating in a very competitive environment. We don’t claim to be scientists or epidemiologists, but we are experts on the business environment in the hospitality industry.
Across the country, alcohol beverage retailers have experienced revenue losses, job cuts and business closings due to smoking bans. Often these are businesses that have been passed down in the same family for generations.
The science and the controversy all boil down to two simple questions:
1. Should adults be allowed to have a cigarette in an age-restricted venue?
2. Are adults capable of making a decision on whether or not they want to frequent a place where smoking is permitted?
If Dr. Carmona or anyone else answers “No,” then secondhand smoke is the very least of America’s problems.
Harry Wiles
Executive director, American Beverage Licensees”
Well, the anti-tobacco crowd will say that Mr. Wiles is a self interested liar but if these smoking bans are not in reality hurting business why would the laws be an issue for him and his clients. They are paying him to protect their interests and if the anti-smoking legislation has no bad impact then why even bring up the subject. I see no real motivation on the part of the restaurant business to falsify on this matter.
The other side, however, has a big incentive to fudge once again. They need to portray their activates as having no costs because if the public starts to think about the consequences, both monetary and otherwise, of the anti-smoking legislation it might notice that these baseless laws protect no one and harm our entire society, if only for their precedent.
Hat Tip to Dave Varney
Government science always gives the answer that government wants and there is no more clear cut example of that than the government’s inquiry into the effects of second hand tobacco smoke. In his excellent column for today’s Washington Times, Michael Fumento reminds us that the EPA was only able to declare passive smoke a health problem by violating their own rules, changing the confidence level of their 1993 meta-study from 95% to 90%. The government quite simply fudged the data and anyone paying close attention to the news has to realize that this kind of dishonesty is routine practice for many scientists on the public payroll. In his post below David Beito quotes Franklin Roosevelt as saying "We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have to treat them in such a manner so they can't go on reproducing." This quotation has elicited two comments of defense from Craig J. Bolton. In the first he recalls “only two recorded incidents of opposition by the German people” and he ends the second one with the adage; “Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences.” I agree with this line and the notion expressed in the above Roosevelt comment was a bad idea with bad consequences for both Germans and Americans.
I am now in the process of reading The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas J. Fleming. This book is doing something I would have thought impossible, it is lowering my opinion of FDR even further.
While Craig Bolton may or may not be correct about there being only two overt incidents of opposition to the Nazis there certainly was a great deal of high level covert support for internal regime change including a very famous assassination attempt in East Prussia. According to Fleming Admiral Wilheim Canaris head of the German Military intelligence organization, the Abwehr, met secretly in Spain, during the summer of 1943, with the heads of American and British intelligence. They hammered out a peace plan which included a cease fire and the elimination of Hitler. Roosevelt rejected this offer refusing to negotiate with “these East German Junkers” and all other overtures from Germans yearning for the Nazis’ downfall.
In fact, when Roosevelt unexpectedly announced, against the opposition of Churchill and his own military commanders, that unconditional surrender was the only acceptable end to the war, he created a great obstacle for those Germans who wished Hitler gone and the carnage over. The policy proved to be a big unifier of the Hitler’s people. We can never know if some Allied encouragement and a different set of demands might have been enough for the success of Admiral Canaris and like minded Germans in their goal of ending the war sooner. However it is not unreasonable to say that FDR’s hatred and determination to punish may very well have cost tens of thousands of Americans their lives.
One of the great tragedies of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is the erosion of our constitutional liberties that it promotes. Not too long ago a Supreme Court drug war decision against the people of California’s right to have medical marijuana, Gonzales v Raich, gutted the concept of federalism and in his dissent Justice Thomas said that, “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Well, the Supreme Court, with the help of its two new Bush appointees, has done it again and this time the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure has gone further by the board in the name of fighting drugs. The Orange County Register led off its editorial on the judgment this way; “In Hudson v. Michigan, handed down Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out yet another ‘drug war exception’ to the Fourth Amendment, which was written to protect Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons and homes.” In Hudson v Michigan the court allowed evidence obtained by the police in violation of the knock and announce rule to be used to convict someone of cocaine possession.
In his majority opinion, Justice Scalia demonstrated just how out of touch with reality that he is by saying, “we now have increasing evidence that police forces across the United States take the constitutional rights of citizens seriously. There have been ‘wide ranging reforms in the education, training, and supervision’ of police officers.”
Radley Balko of the Cato Institute (and Liberty and Power) has posted a scathing reply to Scalia where, after pointing out that a lot of the recent training referred to has been largely in paramilitary tactics, he writes, “Police aren't better trained at respecting civil liberties, they're better trained at finding ways to get around them. The ratcheting up of the drug war in the early 1980s has made police abuse of civil liberties routine.”
Such abuse by the police has become so rampant that an entire reform organization, Flex Your Rights, has come into being devoted solely to this issue. They know a great deal about the day to day practical respect that police show for individual rights and their man Scott Morgan in his reply to the Justice says, “Scalia’s fantasies aside, this ruling is actually a lot worse than many well-meaning observers might realize. Civil remedies against police in this context are virtually non-existent. By refusing to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the ‘knock and announce’ rule, the Court invites police to raid homes with increasingly indiscriminant ineptitude.” Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog also see some very troubling implications in the decision including the eventual demise of the “exclusionary rule” itself.
Now, I do not know if George Bush’s ultimate plan is to turn America into a totalitarian police state, though it certainly seems that way sometimes, but if that is his aim he has indeed installed two new Supreme Court Justices who seem more than willing to assist the project.
Cross Posted on The Trebach Report
On June 9th Dr. Arnold Trebach gave a speech at the Chinese People’s Public Security University Ministry of Public Security in Beijing. The talk centered on drug policy in a country where the rapid spread of HIV due to needle sharing and whether or not to employ brain surgery as a cure for addiction are currently hot topics.
Trebach's message to the Chinese about the American experience was really quite simple; "The drug prohibition laws in my country were enacted with the sincere hope and the promise that they would reduce crime and disease. The results have been just the opposite. The drug laws have produced more crime and more disease."
A recent large epidemiological study showing that there is no link between even the heaviest marijuana smoking and lung cancer has received much publicity. The senior researcher Dr. Donald Tashkin is an unimpeachable source because up until now his work has been used to promote the idea of such a link. Apparently, there are still some honest men in science.
Over at The Trebach Report I have posted a short essay discussing the potential policy significance of this investigation.
On May 7th the hundred year anniversary of the District of Columbia Pharmacy and Poisons Act, America’s first federal drug law, occurred. To coincide with the occasion Dale Gieringer, director of California NORML and the California Drug Policy Forum, has written an outstanding article putting the enactment into historical context and discussing its ramifications.
I liked it so much I assigned it to my online class, especially the following passage because I have seen this pattern with so many other drug laws: “Unlike alcohol prohibition, narcotics prohibition was not caused by any widespread public pressure or political campaign. Rather, it was the work of government insiders, led by progressive-era professional groups and anti-opium missionaries, with crucial support from President Theodore Roosevelt.”
Wednesday's Washington Times ran a column on global warming by Cato's Patrick Michaels in which he quoted Al Gore as saying, "I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
As a public service I will now translate this politically obtuse statement into English; It is alright to lie to people in order to scare them into doing something that is against their own interest. I feel qualified to present this rendition, as I am very familiar with the concept expressed by Gore, because the main focus of my studies has been the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs.
One of the most consistent supporters of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs has been the Associated Press (AP). A good example of this can be found in the recent AP story on Mexico's federal bill to codify the legalization of drugs for personal use by Alicia A, Caldwell. She opens her article with the following paragraph; "Police and business owners from Mexico's beaches to border cities say they are worried a measure passed by Mexico's Congress that decriminalizes possession of cocaine, heroin and other drugs could attract droves of tourists solely looking to get high."
While she does quote a policeman, she does not name or quote any businessmen. If Caldwell had found some worried entrepreneurs their apprehension would be a bit tardy since Americans have been going to Mexico in droves to seek all sorts of drugs both recreational and medicinal for decades. MTV Spring Break Cancun` will not show you all those fresh faced college students smoking marijuana but I feel confident in saying that is precisely what very many of them do there. And, in fact, Caldwell does undercut her own theme by quoting shoe shine person Elipio Rodriguez to the effect that drugs are already everywhere. He says, “There by the bridge (to the U.S.) anyone can do drugs. Police always patrol there, by those who are selling, and nothing ever happens. Do you think something will change now?”
Cross Posted on The Trebach Report
Each and every one of us is at risk of experiencing severe chronic pain due to accident or illness. If that time comes respite from that pain will become the most important objective in our lives. An absolutely excellent and comprehensive article in the Spring issue of The Independent Review by Ronald T. Libby shows how our government is actively seeking to deny us the relief we will need. I have posted some highlights from the article at The Trebach Report. One of the best and most insightful books that I ever read was The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. Unfortunately, she died this morning. Her AP obituary had a paragraph which helps to explain her importance in libertarian thought; "Her priorities were for integrated, manageable communities, for diversity of people, transportation, architecture and commerce. She also believed that economies need to be self-sustaining and self-renewing, relying on local initiative instead of centralized bureaucracies." She provided concrete examples that freedom works better than planning. Rest in peace Jane Jacobs.
Among other leftist groups, I get e-mails from MoveOn.org. At first I would read those missives but now I just delete most of them. An article by Norman Solomon on their opposition to the nuclear but not the conventional bombing of Iran keeps me convinced the delete button is the right choice. MoveOn's opposition to the Iraq war is not based on morality or even practicality, it is based on pure partisanship. If it was John Kerry's war then they would be all for it, no matter how bloody.
Let us not forget that George Bush’s illegal war against Iraq had a precedent in Bill Clinton’s illegal attack on Serbia. Just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there was no genocide in Kosovo. Ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies did occur in Kosovo but that was after Clinton’s bombing made it possible. Both military excursions were justified by lies. MoveOn is an organization dedicated to perpetuating the falsehood that there is some kind of meaningful difference between the behavior of Democratic and Republican politicians.
Federal Prosecutors in Washington state have, in my opinion, sunk to a new low. They tried to use asset forfeiture procedures to secretly seize the gold tooth crowns out of the mouths of two drug suspects. The crowns are permanently bonded to the teeth and would have had to have been ripped out by a dentist. Mind you, the two men, Flenard T. Neal Jr. and Donald Jamar Lewis, have not yet been convicted of any crime.
Fortunately, their attorneys were able to have the procedure halted. One of the lawyers, Zenon Peter Olbertz, said “It's shocking that this kind of action by the federal government could be sought and accomplished in secret, without anyone being notified.” He went on to say, “it reminds me of the secret detentions" in cases related to terrorism.
There is a very good but frightening book by Richard Lawrence Miller titled Drug Warriors and Their Prey, which argues that the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is step by step transforming our justice system into one that will closely resemble the one in place in Nazi Germany. And, he is familiar with that system because his previous book Nazi Justiz dealt with that topic.
When I read a story like the one above I get the depressing thought that Miller may be one of the most prescient writers of our time.
Hat tip to Jeff Schaler
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
The Associated Press has a story about an Esquire article concerning comedian Dave Chappelle's choice to leave his highly successful television series. The move caused quite a bit of controversy and "his decision to leave the Comedy Central series last May led fans and industry executives to question his motives, and his sanity."
This is not the first time Chappelle has spoken on this topic. Two weeks ago I saw him on the program Inside the Actors Studio. During the interview he said something I thought to be very profound. Chappelle asserted that, "The worst thing you can do to someone is to call them crazy because it is so dismissive."
On page four in his biography of Louis Armstrong Laurence Bergreen makes the following statement; "He loved marijuana too. He smoked it in vast quantities from his early twenties until the end of his life; wrote songs in praise of it; and persuaded his musician friends to smoke it when they played. He planned to call an unpublished sequel to his autobiography Gage, his pet name for marijuana, but once his manager found out about the title and the subject of the work, he suppressed the manuscript, trying to protect Louis's reputation. Sections of the work that survived the censorship show that he regarded it as an essential element in his life and beneficial to his health." In an essay posted on The Trebach Report I discuss some very important implications of the above history.
The website TomDispatch.com a project of The Nation Institute has posted a very interesting interview with former naval officer and historian of American militarism Chalmers Johnson.
Now, I do not necessairly agree with everything put forth in the dialogue, I do, however, strongly support the following statement; "The Soviet Union imploded. I thought: What an incredible vindication for the United States. Now it's over, and the time has come for a real victory dividend, a genuine peace dividend. The question was: Would the U.S. behave as it had in the past when big wars came to an end? We disarmed so rapidly after World War II. Granted, in 1947 we started to rearm very rapidly, but by then our military was farcical. In 1989, what startled me almost more than the Wall coming down was this: As the entire justification for the Military-Industrial Complex, for the Pentagon apparatus, for the fleets around the world, for all our bases came to an end, the United States instantly -- pure knee-jerk reaction -- began to seek an alternative enemy. Our leaders simply could not contemplate dismantling the apparatus of the Cold War."
Hat Tip Kenny Rodgers
With last week's opening of two movies V for Vendetta and Thank You for Smoking it seems that the cultural direction may have taken a turn for the better.
Today, someone sent me further evidence in support of that thesis in the form of a clip from the television show Boston Legal. One of the program's lawyers, defending a woman who refused to pay her taxes in protest of the war in Iraq, gives a very powerful and eloquent closing argument that is well worth watching. (click on freshest video) If this is the kind of message being put out during prime time on mainstream media then I believe there is some hope of ending the fiasco in Iraq in the near future.
As well there should be, my friend also sent me the latest post by Scott Ritter who constituted a voice in the wilderness throughout the build up to our most recent invasion of Iraq. In the article Ritter, who has been right on this issue from the very beginning, devastates both the historical and present cases for war. To those who say the world is better for our invasion and occupation he replies, “Iraq has come to this: a human and social disaster of enormous scale, where unified central governmental authority is not only non-existent, but unachievable under current conditions.”
In an argument very similar to the one used by the above television attorney, Ritter closes his piece with this statement; “If, by writing a book exposing the lies about Iraqi WMD or submitting an essay to Al Jazeera (or for that matter, to AlterNet or any other outlet that publishes a dissenting view), the Bush administration construes my actions as representing a threat to the United States and as such worthy of covert monitoring, so be it, for it is their actions that are seditious to the ideals and values set forth by the Constitution, not mine. When faced with the scale of the criminal activity undertaken by the Bush administration in the name of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people or defending America, the only real sedition I could commit would be to remain silent.”
Hat Tip Kenny Rodgers
A Comcast technician's mistake while working on someone else's cable connection took the internet away from me for awhile. So I did not know I had been tagged by Mark Brady until just now. Below is my meme of four: In this space, William Marina has posted on the plight, or as I like to think of it the liberation, of Bruce Bartlett. In yesterday's Washington Times Bartlett spoke for himself on his firing from The National Center for Policy Analysis for being too critical of the Bush Administration, ably refuting the charge of opportunism. He also laid out some key points illustrating the thesis of his new book, Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. The title pretty much says it all and I agree with it. In my humble opinion, Ronald Reagan, for all his blindness concerning the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, was still the best president of my of my lifetime and the current George Bush far and away the worst.
That edition of the paper also contains a review of Bartlett’s new book in which Claude R. Marx unfairly accuses the author of having a “generally tedious writing style.” As a regular reader of Bartlett’s essays, I can testify that they are well written, interesting, and that they often contain very revealing information. The reviewer takes a more substantial shot when he writes that, “It is easy to criticize an administration (of either party) when you don't have to answer to voters or 535 members of Congress, each with his or her own agenda.” However, Mr. Marx needs to be reminded that in each and every case the programs cited by Bartlett were enthusiastically embraced by the Bush Administration not imposed upon them by the opposition. Walter Cronkite has authored a very eloquent fund raising letter that makes me wish we still got our news from him. It is on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and because there is no link to it I have posted the entire appeal in the read more section.
I have mixed feelings about the DPA, sometimes I see them in the same light as I see the people in pre-Civil War America who sought laws to soften the condition of slavery, thereby prolonging it. Also, they distain the word legalization yet they put out mountains of information supporting the conclusion that ending prohibition is the only logical course. They focus too much on incremental change and not enough on forcing those favoring and benefiting by drug prohibition to defend that indefensible position. Nevertheless, the DPA on the whole performs a considerable service by raising the issues and doing the research that it does. So, I hope Mr. Cronkite brings them in some money.
The American Historical Association (AHA) has written a letter to Secretary of State Rice on behalf of Dr. Waskar Ari. He had been hired for a tenure track position, that was to begin Fall 2005, teaching History and Ethnic Studies at the University of Nebraska. However, our government had other plans, so during the summer they declared the professor to be a person in need of "conspicuous revision" and he is now being denied a visa. He has to be cleared by all US intelligence agencies and under the Patriot Act this process can go on indefinitely.
Dr. Ari is a member of the Aymara indigenous people of Bolivia and the AHA letter writers are “deeply disturbed by the possibility that ethnicity might form the basis for excluding members of our profession from gainful employment.” The authors of the plea to Secretary Rice believe Waskar Ari’s to be a case of racial profiling. I think they are wrong about this, not about their assertion that the denial of entry has nothing to do with any terrorist threat, clearly it does not, but about the real reason behind it.
The letter itself tells us that the State Department had ordered our embassy in La Paz to cancel all existing visas. So it was not race being profiled but rather the country. Now why would the United States single out Bolivia last summer? Perhaps, the July 15, 2005 issue of The Drug War Chronicle can enlighten us. They reported that, “Peasant coca grower leader Evo Morales has announced that he is seeking the presidency, and as arguably the most popular politician in the country, he is well-positioned to win.” He did in fact win and Bolivia is no longer cooperating with our country’s suppression of coca use, a habit, by the way, practiced for hundreds if not thousands of years by the Aymara. Therefore the people of Bolivia must be punished, starting with Dr. Ari.
The war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is the reason the students at Nebraska will be deprived of the considerable specialized knowledge Professor Ari promises to bring to the table. The silence of the AHA on the role coca played in this miscarriage of justice is the one of the primary reasons this kind of injustice will continue.
Wendy McElroy’s article below on Lysander Spooner was very good but I did not think it was comprehensive. I say this because she failed to mention his most important essay, "Vices are not Crimes." It is the most important one because the greatest threat to human freedom in our era is governmental paternalism. In that work Spooner takes head on the modus operandi of such paternalism, turning vices into crimes. He strips the cloak of morality from those who would run other peoples lives.
It is no accident that someone with an abolitionist background wrote such a work because the modern paternalistic ethos, which infects all levels of government, has much in common with the ante-bellum pro-slavery ideology that Spooner so opposed.
The Trebach Report has posted an excellent article on performance enhancing drugs in sports by David Owen. In it he, among other things, discusses an essay by British and Australian-based academics titled “Why We Should Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport”.
David Beito’s post below has sparked a very interesting dialogue on free speech. Below is a response to that discussion.
Let us face the fact that the Syrian demonstrators calling for the beheading of the Danish cartoonist have achieved de facto if not de juror censorship over almost all of the Western press. On the Colbert Report he said they were taking the principled stand to not show those cartoons because they might be killed. Colbert was, of course, going for the laugh but the paper I read The Washington Times did not show the cartoons either. In any other situation, something so central to something so controversial surely would have been shared with the readers or viewers. From a purely news standpoint those drawing should have been printed in every major daily newspaper in the country as well as being shown on the ubiquitous television news programs.
Now, did The Washington Times and so many other papers choose not to run the cartoons because they felt them to be deeply offensive or did they choose not run them because they did not want their editorial boards to end up on some cleric’s list of people it was every Muslim’s duty to murder? Will we ever really know?
A leftist friend sent me an essay by Garrison Keillor about George Bush and how history will view him as a small man. While I am not a particular fan of Keillor I do like the fact that he addresses the phenomenal expansion of government during the course of this Republican administration. He observes that the executive branch has grown to employ 1.85 million people and that the $27,000 average salary for airport screeners is holding down the $80,425 average salary for those bureaucrats working in the nation’s capital, “who are adept at taking a small acorn and weaving a seven-hour day around it.”
Keillor then goes on to write: “Not a bad gig, considering. There are mature gifted musicians scuffling for less than screeners earn, and farm families scraping along despite prayer and hard labor, and genius comedians scrapping for spare change. So a young Republican lady or gent could be tickled pink to land a job as assistant secretary for compliance assurance and get an 18-by-24 office with a window looking out on the Washington Monument and spend the day in meetings after which you will write memos of ingenious persiflage and obfuscation, like a cat smoothing the litter box.”
Hat Tip Kenny Rodgers. Here is Cindy Sheehan's first person account of what happened to her at the State of the Union Speech last night. So long 1st Amendment never really wanted to say good-bye. Some time ago I made a mistake and posted the fake Stella awards in this space, however, it turned out to be a fortunate error because it led me to the true Stella awards. The 2005 awards for the most outrageous lawsuits just popped into my e-mail box and they are every bit as bizarre and maddening as the false ones. Normally I do not watch the Oprah Winfrey show, however, last week's well deserved public humiliation of author James Frey proved too interesting to pass up. Frey wrote a book, A Million Little Pieces, that was featured and promoted on the Oprah Winfrey program. The supposed factual memoir of someone engaged in long term drug abuse and recovery contains phrases such as "covered with a colorful mixture of spit, snot, urine, vomit and blood." The work features many anecdotes that some would call compelling but others sensationalistic.
All was well, with Mr. Frey on his way to fame and fortune and Oprah’s place as keeper of the literary gate secure, until The Smoking Gun pointed out that the gripping anecdotes that so inspired Ms Winfrey were products of the author’s imagination not his experience. Thus controversy began and Oprah ended up defending her author with a phone call to the Larry King show. To many she seemed to be arguing that maybe the truth was not so important on balance. Backlash generated by her position necessitated a trip to the woodshed for Frey.
Watching Oprah’s indignant questioning of the fabricating Frey brought to me a strong recollection of a scene from the movie Casablanca. In it German Major Strasser has just told the French Police Captain to close Rick’s Cafe’. When Bogart asks why, Louie replies that he is shocked shocked to find out that gambling is taking place on the premises. A few seconds later the croupier gives the Captain his winnings.
Oprah should not be surprised that Frey’s memoir of drug use played fast and loose with the truth, after all he is heir to a long literary tradition. This popular genre of sensationalistic exaggeration and outright lies began in 1822 with Thomas De Quincey’s Confessions of an English Opium-Eater. The subject shortly turned to hashish and there is a superb chapter in Lester Grinspoon’s work Marihuana Reconsidered which demonstrates that the breathtaking descriptions of 19th century cannabis use were not only essentially distortions but also destructive in that they formed the foundation for the crazed marihuana killer myth used to legislate the drug’s prohibition in the 1930s.
Also, while I do not watch her show on a regular basis, I have seen it enough times to have formed the opinion that Oprah Winfrey is not above exploiting the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs to get ratings. She once treated her audience to a tearful confession of personal cocaine experience proving that use of that drug is no real impediment to becoming multimedia billionaire.
Certainly, Winfrey is not being denied her winnings because of the book’s false character. Frey’s look of misery and desperation during his dressing-down before the cameras had to have had a large audience, they got me to tune in, and media experts are calling the episode a brilliant defense of her brand name. She is in the news and that is usually good when you are in show business.
Only a few malcontents like me are going to suggest that if Winfrey really wanted to make up for endorsing a false picture of drug use that helps to legitimize repression, her book club would soon feature a far more truthful work about drug use such as Thomas Szasz’s Ceremonial Chemistry, Jeff Schaler’s Addiction is a Choice, Arnold Trebach’s The Great Drug War, or Jacob Sullum’s Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use.
I would like to thank Kenneth R. Gregg for reminding us all that yesterday was Lysander Spooner's birthday. Spooner holds a strong place in my heart because of the subject, the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, that most interests me. When you are involved with this issue, as an activist or a scholar, your opponents insist that they hold the moral high ground. Even to bring up the subject, let alone make the kinds of arguments that I believe to be the truth, is branded an immoral act.
I will always be grateful to Lysander Spooner for his essay Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty because it so thoroughly refutes the claim that the prohibition of drugs is a moral policy. Written at a time when the temperance movement was increasingly turning to coercion by the state as a means to their ends the work speaks to all forms of prohibition and I consider it to be the most important argument for the legalization of drugs. Besides the facts that drug prohibition is expensive beyond reason, destructive of our basic liberty preserving institutions, racist in practice, and totally ineffective in achieving its stated goals, it is also a fundamentally immoral endeavor. If you do not believe the last part of the above sentence then read the essay.
Vices Are Not Crimes is also important as a policy proposal. If our government would act on Spooner’s ideas and stop treating vices, which are matters of concern only to the individual, as though they were crimes, which are matters of public concern, then we would all live in much happier, safer, and more peaceful world. This concise description of the neoconservatives really hits the mark. "They had originally come from the Left, and, having acquired the most authoritarian and elitist tendencies of the Right, the neocons retained the worst of the socialist movement's messianic pretensions, especially in the realm of foreign policy." It is from Justin Raimondo's December 19th column.
Jeff Schaler has posted a link on the Szasz Blog to an outstanding article on anti-depressant (SSRI’s) medications, such as Prozac and Zoloft, from Australia. In addition to an in depth discussion of the pros and mostly cons of these drugs, author Daniels Williams relates the case of Rebekah Beddoe who was diagnosed as having postnatal depression and put on Zoloft. He describes the results as follows: “Immediately before her encounter with psychiatry, Rebekah Beddoe was a normal girl having a rough trot. By the time of her inspired decision three years later to take herself off her medications, she'd been diagnosed with five separate mental disorders and drugged to within an inch of her life. Heavy doses of an antipsychotic have left her a diabetic and her left arm is a canvas of self-inflicted scars.”
Now, I believe that if back when Beddoe was having her “rough trot” someone had handed her a marijuana joint she would have been much better off than with the Zoloft. The basis for this assessment comes from among other places here and here. I also think that the above conviction is one of the primary reasons why marijuana is still illegal. A simple case of government regulating more effective competition out of the marketplace. It is the difference between an opinion piece and an advertisement. A person who writes ad copy for a soap product may think the merchandise is a really great value, however, the person who reads the ad knows that the author is an advocate, just like Doug Bandow was an advocate after he accepted that money, no matter how much he believed in what he was saying. I think he disrespected his readers. (for the facts of the case see this article)
Over at Cliopatria Ralph Luker has penned a very powerful open letter to Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour on behalf of Cory Maye.
I have often argued that the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is the most racist institution existing in modern day America. Does anyone seriously think that if the facts of this case (see Gene Healy's post below) were identical but Cory Maye was white that he would still be facing the possibility of execution by the state?
There is an AP story about a plan concerning Iran proposed by Vladimir Putin and favored by George Bush. A slight obstacle exists, however, to American and Russian cooperation in the form of some laws that Putin wants to see implemented in his country.
These possible statutes are of such human rights concern that, “Two former vice presidential candidates, Republican Jack Kemp and Democrat John Edwards, had urged Bush to bring up the issue with Putin. ‘If this proposal comes into force, the government will clearly have in its hands the authority to close down public organizations simply because it finds their views and activities inconvenient,‘ Kemp and Edwards wrote Bush. They are co-chairmen of a Council on Foreign Relations task force on Russia.”
Bush heeded the senators’ words as, “National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said Bush raised the matter with Putin but would not describe what he said. ‘Sometimes there are issues that can be more productively discussed out of public view,’ he said.” Perhaps Mr. Hadley feels this way because Bush might have told Putin he thought the laws were a good idea and he wished he could get away with having them in America.
I received an e-mail today from a progressive group called True Majority blasting the right wingers in Congress for planned budget cuts to social services. They said this was especially bad in the time of Katrina. As an example the message related to an assumedly horrified audience that, "Right-wing operative Grover Norquist once infamously said he wanted to see our government shrink until he could 'drown it in a bathtub.'" True Majority also provided a link to an article by John Atcheson on the subject which contained Mr. Norquist's wish.
In his generally predictable article complaining about the wealthy favoring influence of K Street Atcheson did manage to make some good points. He told who will really benefit from the Prescription Drug Plan passed in 2003; "The payoff for industry,
according to a study by Sager and Socolar of Boston University, is that as much as 61% of Medicare’s costs will be pure profit for the Drug companies, an increase of as much as $139 billion." In addition, Atcheson talked about crony-ladened FEMA and asserted, probably correctly, that recent energy legislation contains $66 billion worth of unnecessary pork.
All well and good, but the piece ultimately irritated me because of the author’s insistence that the sort of wasteful greed described is the sole province of right wing Republicans. He wrote, “The grease that lubricates this new model of government is greed; the fuel that feeds it is money. Lots of it. And overwhelmingly, the hard-line, right-wing conservative branch of the Republican Party are both its architect, and its beneficiary.”
Another article I read today shows just how foolishly biased the above statement is. By Newt Gingrich and Veronique de Rugy it appeared in The Washington Times and informed its readers that the Louisiana congressional delegation headed by Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu is trying to get $250 billion in federal reconstruction funds for their state. The authors provided a long list of items, with enormous price tags, that the money is to be used for. All of them have, at best, a very slight indirect connection with actually helping those in distress and I would be suprised that if the funds were authorized even one percent of the cash ever got to someone who really needed it. They also illustrated the hypocrisy of Senator Landrieu saying that “Louisiana will be rebuilt by Louisianans. New Orleans will be rebuilt by New Orleans" and then demanding everyone else pay for it.
Much gets written these days about the highly partisan political atmosphere with excessive rancor and vicious personal attacks. I think the explanation for this is quite simple, it is because both sides are so very much alike.
On Tuesday I posted an entry with a link to a Salon article by Maia Szalavitz which exposed the fatuousness of the Drug Czar’s current attempt to scare people into thinking that marijuana causes insanity. It provoked the following comment titled “Another fact” by one John Chapman, “Why be concerned whether marijuana causes insanity? The amount of carcinogens in one marijuana cigarette equals about one cigarette pack full of carcinogens.”
However, Mr. Chapman is not dealing in fact but rather in myth. And, if he had bothered to read Szalavitz’s article he would have discovered the following passage concerning the rationale behind the idea that smoking marijuana causes cancer, “But that reasoning was called into question in late June, when Dr. Donald Tashkin of the UCLA School of Medicine presented a large, case-control study -- of the kind that have linked tobacco use with increases in lung cancer -- at an annual scientific meeting of the International Cannabinoid Research Society in Clearwater, Fla. Tashkin is no hippie-dippy marijuana advocate: His earlier work has been cited by the drug czar's office itself, because his research showed that marijuana can cause lung damage. The new study, however, found no connection between pot smoking -- even by heavy users -- and lung cancer. In fact, among the more than 1,200 people studied, those who had smoked marijuana, but not cigarettes, appeared to have a lower risk for lung cancer than even those who had smoked neither.”
Also, this is by no means the first time that researchers have found an absent connection between cancer and cannabis. For example a study conducted by Daniel E. Ford, M.D of Johns Hopkins Medical School and released in 2000 found no association between smoking marijuana and increased risk of head, neck or lung cancers.
Over at Salon, Maia Szalavitz has an article, titled The Return of Reefer Madness which discusses the current campaign by the Drug Czar's office to convince people that marijuana use causes insanity. The effort began in May and has included ads in the New York Times and Newsweek.
Szalavitz does a very good job of exposing the extremely dubious science backing the government's tired old unverifiable claims. For example she points out that while rates of cannabis use skyrocketed in the 1960s and 1970s "schizophrenia rates remained virtually constant over those decades." The same reasoning can be applied to driving fatalities, which declined, and any number of other arguments for marijuana's status as a society destroying drug.
Also, the author tells of something encouraging that happened at the press conference initiating the operation, "While the launch was attended by a former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the current occupant of the office, Dr. Nora Volkow, did not attend or speak, nor did her deputies. This is unusual: The National Institute on Drug Abuse is the federal agency responsible for scientific research on the medical effects of drugs, so a campaign about marijuana's health effects would ordinarily feature at least one top representative discussing the science. The agency's name does not appear on the list of organizations endorsing the ad."
When we consider the above and the action taken by Susan F. Wood, assistant FDA commissioner who resigned her position over unwarranted interference in agency decision-making concerning a new contraceptive, perhaps, we are witnessing the beginning of a needed trend, researchers rebelling against the constant subordination of scientific fact to politics.
Hat tip to Richard Lake.
An old friend of mine attorney Rex Curry, who was one of the first libertarians I ever met and who helped transform much of my thinking, developed a case that may be headed to the Supreme Court. Florida v. Matheson, which he won, involves a challenge to the veracity of drug dogs searches. The state of Florida is appealing and the issue is on the high court's docket.
The September 16th issue of the online journal DrugSense Weekly has an interview with Mr. Curry in which they ask him,” Given the problems with drug dogs explored at your website (see link above), why do you think they are so popular with police departments and municipal government?” He replies “Oh that is easy. You have to remember that there is a strong incentive for law enforcement not to CARE whether the dogs are accurate. The dogs can simply be props for lies, in that the dogs are there to overcome refusals to consent to search, and the dog provides law enforcement officers (LEOs) with the ability to say that an alert occurred even if there was no alert. And here is another angle: some LEOs do not want a "drug dog," they want a "car dog," in that they want a dog that when shown a car will alert, as if to say "yes that is a car." For some LEOs the goal is to search whenever the LEO desires, period. The dog is simply a ruse to do so. That is why the dogs are so popular. Do not be confused with the idea that there are "problems with drug dogs." For some LEOs those are not problems at all. And again, that is why some LEOs have no interest in maintaining records about their dogs."
Hat tip to Richard Lake.
From the very beginning the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs has been waged in the name of youth. It started in the late 1800s with concern over white boys and girls spending time in Chinese opium dens and continued on into the 1930s in the form of "Marijuana Assassin of Youth," while today kids doing ecstasy at raves is a primary worry. Protecting young people from drugs is perhaps the most important pillar supporting drug prohibition.
However, recently, in the case of marijuana the rationale of protecting youth as an excuse for all kinds of wasteful and tyrannical behavior on the part of the state has received two devastating blows. A report released September seventh by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)reveals that, “Nine years after the passage of the nation’s first state medical marijuana law, California’s Prop. 215, a considerable body of data shows that no state with a medical marijuana law has experienced an increase in youth marijuana use since their law’s enactment. All have reported overall decreases of more than the national average decrease — exceeding 50% in some age groups — strongly suggesting that enactment of state medical marijuana laws does not increase teen marijuana use.”
Meanwhile in January of 2004 Great Britain reclassified marijuana from a scheduled Class B drug to a Class C one. This means that generally people in possession of personal use amounts of marijuana are no longer arrested. And, suprise suprise, survey data published by the United Kingdom's Department of Health shows results the exact opposite of those prohibitionists argued would occur with regard to use by young persons. The National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) looking at the latest data reports that, “The Department found that the number of young people who admitted having consumed cannabis in the past year fell from 13 percent to 11 percent in 2004 - the first reported dip in four years.”
The National Review's Rich Lowry has a column in which he defends himself against the charge of being a "chickenhawk" for his pro Iraq War views. In my opinion he does a very poor job of this making a number of absurd analogies and false arguments, but you the reader can judge for yourself.
However, there is one passage that really stands out. Lowry writes "The Iraq war was arrived at through the democratic deliberation of the American public, who — this is how it works — get to decide all sort of questions, even if they are not experts or don’t have personal experience with whatever is at issue." I must have slept late on the day of the referendum.
In yesterday's Washington Times Terry Michael, founder and director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, points to an important reason why more Americans are destined to unnecessarily die in Iraq.
In his column titled The non-debate on the war: Media shuns legitimate discourse Michael writes, “Until major newspapers and networks permit proponents of ending the war now to be taken seriously, Americans will hear no meaningful debate about whether it is in our national interest. The current non-debate is about tactics for muddling on through, rather than purposeful discourse to decide whether to stay or go. My bet is that most editors and producers will prefer to remain properly housebroken. It's less messy to propagate power than to question it." I believe that, lately, the person posting links in this space to the best articles has been Mark Brady. The essay by Brendan O’Neill on the war on terror and the article on the Australian experience with making incitement to religious hatred a crime that he linked to were both outstanding. However, his latest connection to Lionel Shriver asking "Why can't you buy heroin at Boots?" seems, probably because the subject interests me so, especially eloquent.
In the piece Shriver states that, “Were hard drugs decriminalised, it's dubious that consumption would appreciably rise.” Besides the historical fact, referred to here by me before, of legal drugs co-existing in late 19th century America with a functioning society, producing ever increasing wealth and rising standards of living, able to accommodate millions of immigrants there is also some empirical evidence to back up the author’s contention.
In 1990 a poll commissioned by Richard J. Dennis, then chair of the Drug Policy Foundation, asked people who had never used marijuana or cocaine how likely they would be to try those drugs if they were legalized. Of those who had never used marijuana only 1.1% said they were very likely to try it and a mere 3.1 % said they were somewhat likely try it under a legal regime. The numbers for cocaine were 0.5% very likely and 0.4% somewhat likely. Taking into account that trying a drug and being addicted to it are two different things, Arnold Trebach, in his book Legalize It?: Debating American Drug Policy, summed up the results of the survey by saying, “Put in other terms, after legalization, 99.54 percent of the adults in the country would not be addicted to marijuana, and 99.83 percent would not be addicted to cocaine.”
Jacksonville based writer A.G. Gancarski has a very positive review of a new book, An Analytic Assessment of U.S. Drug Policy by David Boyum and Peter Reuter, in today's Washington Times. Gancarski writes, "Using arguments rooted largely in cost-benefit analysis, the authors neatly debunk the drug war as it is currently fought. Decrying the lack of "strong empirical evidence of substantial effectiveness" of the effort, the scholars suggest that the drug war's advocates be charged with providing said evidence."
When we consider the message of this book in conjunction with the June report issued by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron on the costs of marijuana prohibition it becomes crystal clear that the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is, if nothing else, a colossal waste of money.
The problem of airport searches highlighted by Wendy McElroy directly below is unfortunately spreading to other venues. They are now doing random searches of NYC subway riders and today's Washington Times reports that local Metro officials are seriously contemplating following that disturbing example.
There are ways to resist this trend and avoid the trouble that Phyllis Dintenfass (see post directly below) now finds herself in. For those who wish demonstrate their displeasure with our ever growing security state the organization Flex Your Rights has put out The Citizen's Guide to Refusing New York Subway Searches.
At the beginning of the guide the author’s state that they take “no position on the usefulness of these searches for preventing future attacks.” However, I will, these intrusions are totally useless. We are dealing with suicide bombers and the searches create choke points with extra people around them. Someone intent on mayhem about to be randomly searched will simply set off their explosive at that time, perhaps killing more persons than if they had been on the train.
There are two excellent columns in the commentary section of today's Washington Times. In the first one Larry Elder does a good job of tying together the Kelo decision with "Operation Murambatsvina" now taking place in Zimbabwe. Estimates of the number of persons displaced by this example of Robert Mugabe style social engineering range from 300,000 to over one million.
Elder also relates the story of Joy and Carl Gamble whose home of thirty-five years has been threatened by eminent domain for private profit. He includes an excerpt from his radio program with the following question and answer. "Larry: They're offering you twice, three times, what they first offered you, Joy, and you're not taking it? Joy: It's not a question of money. It's our home ... money does not buy everything."
The second piece is by former Congressman Bob Barr. I have blogged before about my mixed feelings towards Barr, however, if he keeps on writing columns like this one I will have to start counting myself an admirer. In this essay he takes on People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals reminding us that, “PETA didn't want you to see: two PETA employees attending a court hearing Tuesday in North Carolina on charges they killed and dumped 31 cats and dogs in a shopping center's trash bins.”
He then goes on to give some examples of the animal right’s movement’s attitude towards medical researchers who use animal testing in their work. Barr concludes that, “The message here -- often repeated by the lunatic fringe of animal-rights terrorism -- is that experimenting on animals is an offense punishable by death. In other words, animal lives must be protected, even if it means sacrificing human lives.”
I agree with him because I have always believed that the animals rights movement is not about raising animals up to our level but rather bringing humans down to the level of animals. And, if you are confused about the repercussions of their agenda ponder for a moment how temporarily unwanted dogs and cats are treated by PETA in North Carolina.
Yesterday, I received an e-mail from NORML concerning the Andrews Amendment to H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act of 2005. This amendment would end the ban on financial aid to students with drug convictions. This ban on aid is rotten to the core and was enacted even though it affects only people of moderate means, drug use and an education yet another privilege for the rich. It also stinks because when sociologists looked at grade point averages in the late 1960s they found that the marijuana smokers had higher GPAs then the non-smokers. The government makes it harder for marijuana users to get an education, then how long do you think it will be before the government puts out a study saying marijuana smokers are less educated.
The communication contained a link for contacting my congressman and as faithful readers of this column know I usually include my own beginning to these pre-written e-mails, which I have posted below.
Dear Congressman Wynn
So far, you have been very good on issues concerning the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs and even though I am a Libertarian I am seriously considering voting for you in the next election. However, if you cannot see how this ugly ban on financial aid for students with drug convictions is a punishment solely reserved for people of limited means and therefore unfair and un-American then I will not be able to support you.
On the other hand, if you could recognize how this war on ourselves is costing enormous amounts of resources better used elsewhere; if you could understand the immorality of punishing vices as though they were crimes; if you could know that the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs is the most racist institution that we have in American society today; if you could realize that there are dozens of reasons, tens of thousands of stories, and a mountain of empirical data which testify to the vast harm done by drug prohibition then maybe you could stand up with me and ever growing number of people who agree with me, saying loudly this evil policy must change!
If you could do that then I would proudly pull the lever for you because you would be one of the very few congressmen doing their job, representing the people instead of the bureaucracy.
An e-mail from NORML came today asking me to contact my congressman in support of legislation by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) that would prohibit the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Department of Justice from spending tax money to prosecute medical marijuana users in compliance with state laws where it is allowed. When these communications come in if I agree with the pre-written letter it gets sent but with an opening paragraph of my own. The opening below got sent to Congressman Wynn.
“Unless you have a get out of cancer free card in your wallet, you need to vote for the legislation described below, not because the overwhelming majority of the people in your district want you to, not because it is the right, the compassionate, thing to do, but because you or someone you love may need medical cannabis in the future. When that time comes, with pain and suffering, who do want to have the power to make fundamental decisions concerning relief, the federal government or yourself?”
A few days ago in a Blog I linked to an article on Forbes.com about Milton Friedman's endorsement of Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron's study demonstrating the billions of dollars that could be saved and the billions of dollars that could be generated by legalizing marijuana.
However, money is not Dr. Friedman's most important concern. The piece quotes him as saying, "Look at the factual consequences: The harm done and the corruption created by these laws...the costs are one of the lesser evils." Yesterday, when the Supreme Court handed down it decision in Gonzales v. Raich we found out exactly what Milton Friedman was talking about, As Justice Thomas put it in his dissent, If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy Orin Kerr has a post in which he argues that the decision giving the federal government the power to imprison medical marijuana users in jurisdictions where they are protected by state law will have little real world impact. Whether he is correct or not remains to be seen, but, what about the millions of people who will lose opportunity or have their lives disrupted, sometimes severely, by an ever intrusive Federal Government greatly encouraged by this ruling?
And, if anyone does not believe that Gonzales v. Raich is part of the price we pay for our war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, then ask yourself this if the issue had been anything other than marijuana would a Supreme Court trending towards a restoration of state's rights have acted in the same manner?
Yesterday, I posted an item on a new economic study about the billions of dollars that could be saved and generated by legalizing and taxing marijuana. However, there is nothing like a real life example to drive home the point.
The Washington Times has a column called the"American Scene" with snippets of news from various states. In Thursday's edition under Oregon the following headline appeared, Lawmakers discover revenue surplus. The story read as follows: "Salem--Oregon lawmakers have discovered an unexpected source of revenue--medicinal marijuana.
When Oregon began its medical-marijuana program six years ago, officials didn't expect it to grow so fast. Now there are more than 10,400 registered patients who have produced a surplus of $1.1 million.
Trying to balance Oregon's budget, House legislators voted 49-10 to siphon $900,000 of that money to pay for other human service needs."
Forbes.com is reporting that, "Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year." The report, funded by the Marijuana Policy Project, is by Jeffrey A. Miron.
The story later quotes the White House Office of Drug Control Policy as saying "most people in prison for marijuana are violent criminals, repeat offenders, traffickers or all of the above." Notice the sneaky way the ONDCP leads with the absolutely miniscule number of violent criminals who happened to have been arrested for marijuana offenses. Remember, the drug warriors have often asserted a cause and effect relationship between marijuana use and violence but they have never demonstrated it. Reefer Madness is like any other government program, tough to get rid of.
Hat Tip to Richard Lake On Thursday, a reply I sent to one of my state delegates in response to an e-mail from her appeared in this space. The second to last line read as follows, "You and your ilk are busily creating a society where every question is decided by the coercive force of the state and people have no more control over their own lives than slaves did in the Antebellum South."
This post provoked a comment by Steve Johnson in which he suggested a libertarian corollary to Godwin's law. He wrote "As a discussion about liberty grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving antebellum slavery approaches one . And, once such a comparison is made, the discussion is over, and whoever mentioned slavery has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."
First off, I fail to see how my mentioning slavery makes the government's current war on obesity and adding another highly compensated bureaucrat to the Maryland State Department of Education’s already bloated payroll good public policy. In the definition of Godwin's law that Johnson links to we discover that "it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly” and that “there is also a widely recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.” Now, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am going to choose to believe that Mr. Johnson intended further discussion.
Two questions about the proposed corollary come to mind. First, is the argument lost because contending that the 19th century pro-slavery philosophy and the modern day collectivist mindset which supports a government run war on obesity have the same paternalistic roots inaccurate?
Some years ago I wrote a paper for a seminar which I titled “Planters and Philosophers: Southern Writing on Slavery 1832 to 1860.” The piece compared the period’s literature defending the institution of slavery with articles on plantation, specifically slave, management. These were found in such journals as The Southern Planter and The Southern Cultivator. Also, there is an excellent collection of this type of writing, Advice Among Masters: The Ideal in Slave Management in the Old South edited by James O. Breeden. The research that I did for this paper taught me a very valuable lesson, the stated reason justifying controlling someone else is not usually the real reason.
The pro-slavery philosophers were all about helping the child like slaves lead better lives on the paradise that was the plantation. In 1854 Virginian George Fitzhugh wrote Sociology for the South in which he described a southern farm as “a sort of joint stock concern or social phalanstery, in which the master furnishes the capital and skill and the slaves the labor, and divides the profits, not according to each one’s in-put, but according to each one’s wants and necessities.”
On the other hand the planters were all about getting the greatest return on their investments. The desires of the slaves played a part in the masters’ practical discussions only in so far as how their property’s wants could be used to maximize profit.
The obesity warriors are all about health but their tactics are all about money, suing MacDonalds, government jobs, or junk food taxes. When the new health related food tariffs arrive it will not matter how much you weigh or how old you are, you will still have to pay them.
No, the comparison, citing great similarity, between the way slavery was justified and how it operated with the way more and more government is justified and how it increasingly operates is valid. Just as the slaves were condemned to a life of perpetual childhood so too are we being relentlessly put into the same condition.
Secondly, concerning the corollary, is the argument lost because the point is so obvious that it detracts from any discussion? When reading the agricultural journal articles you notice an astoundingly wide range of topics dealt with. Food, clothing, shelter, recreation, travel, health, work, marriage, religion, virtually every aspect of a slave’s life was open to manipulation by the master for the master’s benefit. The pro-slavery philosophy, however, argued that all of this interference was beneficial to the slaves.
Anyone paying attention can see how each and every day government seeks to extend its control into new areas of our lives, always for our own good. Sadly, I do not think that many people are paying attention and that is why the growing similarity between the way the slaves lived and the way we now live needs to be brought up more not less often. At the end of the day if you are constantly being told what to do, what not to do, and how to think it matters not if it is a single master or a totalitarian state that is giving the orders, you will still be profoundly unhappy.
In today's e-mail I got an announcement about a bill signing from one of my state delegates, the very liberal Democrat Joan Stern. With a great deal of pride she told me that, "This bill will create a new position in the Maryland State Department of Education specifically for a full-time physical education program director. This marks a significant stride forward in the fight against obesity and will help provide our children with the tools to learn healthy habits."
I sent her the following reply: Delegate Stern,
How is another overpaid, paper shuffling, red tape creating bureaucrat going help to fight obesity? The money would be much better spent on basketballs. And, why is how much people weigh the government's business anyways? The purpose of government is to protect us from the force and fraud of others, not ourselves. You and your ilk are busily creating a society where every question is decided by the coercive force of the state and people have no more control over their own lives than slaves did in the Antebellum South. That is nothing to be proud of.
Keith Halderman
Back in February the AARP posted the results of a poll they commissioned asking questions about medical marijuana. The exercise revealed that 72% of people over the age of forty-five support the right of adults to use medical marijuana with a physician’s recommendation. The AARP also announced plans to print an article on marijuana in the March/April issue of their magazine. However, the article failed to appear. As the Drug Policy Alliance puts it “The editors had apparently pulled the article in response to malicious attacks by a "media watchdog" organization, Accuracy in Media, and a pressure campaign by fanatical anti-drug groups with a long history of engaging in malicious and dishonest attacks.”
Now, happily, sometimes efforts at censorship can backfire. Today I received an e-mail telling me that The Los Angles Times, Boston Globe, the Detroit News and Free Press and the San Francisco Chronicle, papers with a combined circulation of 2.9 million readers, have all printed the article in question by Eric Bailey.
The issue of medical cannabis is complicated one for classical liberals. It very well could, as Thomas Szasz and Jeff Schaler fear, contribute to the growth of the therapeutic state or it could, as I hope, make the demonization of marijuana users much more difficult, thereby enabling a policy changing discussion of the arbitrary nature of cannabis prohibition and the folly of treating vices as crimes.
Either way, Bailey’s piece makes two important points. First, there is real relief from pain to be had by smoking marijuana. Perhaps it is a placebo effect in some cases, but so what. If your pain is gone, it is gone, and the state has no right to interfere with whatever process works for the person suffering.
Secondly, he has a quotation from a patient, 94 year old Catherine Ballinger, which nicely illustrates one of the main reasons why government is not a positive good but rather a necessary evil and sometimes I am not really so sure about the necessary part. She says "If those guys in Washington had the pain I suffer they wouldn't put up all these legal barriers for patients to obtain medical marijuana." I ask you , how many additional examples of those in government pursuing policies that harm other people but do not affect themselves could we name?
Today an old Supertramp album, “Brother Where You Bound”, made its way on to my turntable. The title song opens with the following spoken quotation from George Orwell’s 1984: “All persons whom we bring to this place are washed clean Winston. The execution of their sentences is relatively unimportant. By the time we have finished with them there is nothing left of them but sorrow for what they have done and love for Big Brother. It is touching to see how they love Big Brother.”
Upon hearing this my thoughts immediately turned to Professor Paul Leidig, Chairman of the Ottawa County (Michigan) Republican Party, and the new leadership of the Grand Valley State University College Republicans. Anyone who wishes to know why the quote led to such a strong connection in my mind can find out by looking at previous posts in this space by myself (here and here), David Beito (here and here), and Charles Nuckolls (here).
Here is an interesting article from The Nation Blog, "The Daily Outrage" on our progress in Iraq. It concerns the price of a cab ride to the Baghdad airport, $35,000. The piece is the second one down on the link, titled “Off the Meter.”
The paragraph that seems to clearly illustrate the war’s total lack of noble purpose is as follows: Perhaps the agreement to form a cabinet and hand over power to new Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari will eventually provide an impetus for positive change. But naming Ahmad Chalabi deputy prime minister (and temporary overseer of Iraq's oil revenues) and his nephew Ali Abdel-Amir Allawi finance minister isn't likely to solve the country's problems.
Hat Tip to Kenny Rodgers (aka. Softball Kenny) A leftist friend of mine, Softball Kenny, sent me an excellent column by conservative Andrew J. Bacevich titled the “The Normalization of War.” You must scroll down a little ways on the link to read it.
After reading Robert Locke’s essay “Libertarianism: The Marxism of the Right” which is linked to in Gene Healy’s perceptive post directly below my first thought was now there is somebody who really does not know very much about the true nature of the state.
Locke puts forth an abundance of nonsense but I want to deal with one particular passage.
He writes; “Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They claim a “natural order” of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would happen.” Now, if you equate historical fact with empirical proof then his last sentence here is dead wrong.
During the latter half of the 19th century there was an almost total absence of laws prohibiting or regulating the use of drugs. Opium and its derivative morphine were widely available in many forms to anyone who cared to use them. Yet, when the New York Times index is searched for opium you see a story in its first year, 1852, that would have to be considered favorable to the drug and then that word is not seen again until 1875. For twenty-three years the use of opium did not cause enough of a problem for even one story to be written about it in the nation’s paper of record.
In “The Mythical Roots of U.S. Drug Policy: Soldiers Disease and Addiction in the Civil War“ author Jerry Mandel brilliantly demonstrates how supposed concern over and problems caused by drug use in the late 19th century are in reality artifacts of the progressives’ desire to prohibit in the early 20th century.
My favorite Thomas Szasz quote comes from 1974’s Ceremonial Chemistry. Dr. Szasz wrote, “ We seemed to have learned little or nothing from the fact that we had no problems with drugs until we quite literally talked ourselves into having one: we declared first this and then that drug ‘bad’ and ‘dangerous’; gave them nasty names like ‘dope’ and ‘narcotic’; and passed laws prohibiting their use. The result: our present ‘problems of drug abuse and drug addiction.’”
The above are an article and a book that I wish Mr. Locke and many other conservatives would read before they take up the subject of drug prohibition again.
Dear Sirs,
I read today that you are considering no longer carrying the E channel because of Howard Stern's program. This letter is to let you know that if you drop Howard then I will be dropping you. Both the cable TV and the internet connection. Also, I will do everything I can to encourage other people to make the same decision. I am sick and tired of the censorship in this country, which being driven by a very tiny minority (look at the ratings), and those who cowardly cave into them. If you do not respect my rights as an adult viewer then I will no longer do business with you.
Keith Halderman
John R. Lott Jr. and Sonya D. Jones had an excellent column in yesterday’s Washington Times about the furor over the fact that some people on terrorist “watch lists” were able to legally buy guns. They described hearings on renewing the Patriot Act during which two Democratic Senators called for action. The piece told us, “Messrs. Kennedy and Schumer's proposed solution? Simply ban the sale of guns to people law enforcement places on the watch list.”
The authors also pointed out that, “Ironically, the same Mr. Kennedy who wants to rely on "watch lists" was understandably upset last year and publicly complained to the Senate Judiciary committee when he was prevented from flying on an airplane because his name was placed on just such a "watch list." Rules did not allow him to be told at the airport why he was being denied a ticket, but fortunately for him being a U.S. senator meant the problem was eventually resolved with a few telephone calls.”
This OP-ED is raising two very important and disturbing questions. If a United States Senator can be put on a terrorist “watch list”, what then is the criteria for being put on such a list? And, what oversight is there to see that said criteria is followed? If there is a person who lives next door to someone in “law enforcement” and they have a dog who barks too much, does that mean they are going to get stuck at the airport?
I happen to agree with the late and hateful Timothy McVeigh that something profoundly wrong happened back when those people were incinerated at Waco, Texas and that certain people in government, who were not, needed to be held accountable for their conduct during the proceedings surrounding the siege. Even though I consider Bill Clinton’s presidency a fairly successful one, mainly because he really did not do very much, I will also always deem him pond scum because not only did he fail to punish those working for his administration who during the events of Waco committed truly evil acts but he later rewarded them. Does this opinion make me a terrorist?
A few years ago, I spent a lovely spring morning, near Easter, with Carol Moore setting up symbolic graves representing the people attacked and killed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, for organizational propaganda purposes, at Waco. This occurred on the White House Ellipse in front of tens of thousands of people waiting for hours in line to get a cheesy plastic egg and cheap paper bunny ears from their beloved government. There was what I believed to be an FBI agent in the crowd whose absolutely brilliant disguise consisted of a Hard Rock Café jeans jacket and sunglasses. He took about a million photographs of our small group. Because of that day do I now no longer have the right to own a gun or fly on an airplane? I really don’t know because I have not tried to do either in quite some time. If it is the case that my name is on a “watch list“ will I be able to fix it with a few quick phone calls like the senator did?
Literally millions of people have seen and been moved by the award winning film Waco: The Rules of Engagement. Lately it has been playing somewhat often on cable TV. Many of you reading this have probably viewed the movie, does that make you candidates for the administration’s lists?
Directly below you can follow the story of the Grand View State College Republican Affirmative Action Bake Sale. The Grand Rapids Press quotes the new College Republicans President Mike Westcott as saying "We should admit wrong where wrong was done." The wrong being that people were offended.
Now, my question for Mr. Westcott is; why is it offensive to charge someone an extra dollar for a cupcake because of the color of their skin but it is not offensive to deny someone a place at a university because of the color of their skin?
Back in February Randy Barnett posted the following on the Volokh Conspiracy; In hindsight, I think that the creation of the Libertarian Party has been very detrimental to the political influence of libertarians. Some voters (not many lately) and, more importantly, those libertarians who are interested in engaging in political activism (which does not include me) have been drained from both political parties, rendering both parties less libertarian at the margin. His and a considerable number of other libertarians’ solution to the above problem is to work for freedom within the Republican Party. Barnett believes the Libertarian Party should cease to exist.
What we are seeing in Michigan from the chair of the Ottawa County GOP, Professor Paul Leidig, demonstrates the bankruptcy of the above strategy. David Beito and Charles Nuckolls have posts directly below ( here, here, here ) which describe the controversy over an affirmative action bake sale held by the Grand View State College Republicans. When judicial referrals were filed against students involved with the sale, despite the administration having allowed a feminist group to have a pay equity bake sale, group advisor Leidig behaved disgracefully by engineering the ouster of the student leader who planned the event and having the College Republicans apologize.
It has been suggested and I agree with the notion that Leidig took the actions he did with an eye towards protecting his political prospects. So my question to Randy Barnett is, how are self respecting libertarians supposed to work within a party where abandoning the principle of free speech, personally betraying a student, worshipping at the altar of identity politics, and telling transparent lies are seen as means of advancement?
Today’s New York Times contains a very poor and biased article on medical marijuana by one Dan Hurley. There is considerable information on a site called Medical Marijuana ProCon.org, which backs up my above assertion. However, I do not wish to focus so much on the article but rather on a quotation from the piece.
The article describes marijuana research done at the University of Alberta on 136 epilepsy patients where over two thirds of the patients reported a decrease in the severity of seizures and more than half experienced a decrease in their number. Yet, Dr. Donald W. Gross, director of the University of Alberta's adult epilepsy program and lead author of the study seemingly tries to minimize the results of his own work by stating "There's not been a randomized, controlled trial demonstrating that marijuana or any cannabinoid is any more effective in controlled seizures than a placebo," and goes on to say "It's terribly complicated from a physician's standpoint, and somewhat frustrating, we have a product that has been legitimized without any evidence of efficacy."
I hope that author Hurley has used Dr. Gross’s words out of context for the reason that the thought of doctors who would wish to subject patients to unnecessary severe seizures just because the government does not approve of a particular medicine is disturbing. Someone might respond, but the doctor is correct, the official approved data that exists for other drugs is not there for marijuana. Nevertheless, that fact does not mean that marijuana is ineffective. What the absence of such studies demonstrates is the success of the government’s long term efforts to distort and limit information on marijuana. In the Ottawa Citizen Dan Gardner provides some recent examples of these labors.
Dr. William B. O'Shaughnessy who reintroduced Cannabis Hemp (marijuana) to western medicine in 1839 got it right when he called the drug a "powerful and valuable substance" and an anti-convulsive of greatest merit. Of one invalid he said, "I never treated a case from which I derived so much satisfaction, or used a medicine I felt so much indebted to for my patient's recovery.” Today physicians live by the credo first do no harm. Any doctor who helps the government carry out its systematic campaign to deny people the relief from pain and numerous other symtoms, of real not metaphorical diseases, to be had by the use of a medicine that even healers using the limited research means of the 1840s could recognize as important and effective, is violating their oath.
Two nights ago on the Showtime Network Penn and Teller explored the lies behind the idea that second-hand tobacco smoke is so dangerous that it requires government to step in and hurt businesses as well as curtail individual choice. In one scene an unidentified New York City bar patron said the following: When fascism comes to America it will come wearing a white coat and carrying a stethoscope.
Some time ago I embarrassed myself by posting the bogus Stella Awards list that claimed to honor the nation’s most outrageous lawsuits. Unfortunately, the stories were made up. However, it turned out to be beneficial mistake. It made me much more cautious about what I link to or post and it led me to the True Stella Awards.
If you go to their site you can sign up for periodic e-mails that discuss real lawsuits. Today I received one that contained a story, which made me realize that when the people who rule over us use fear to advance the agenda of a more powerful state they are using a tactic that individuals can employ too. In a series of articles by Denver Post staff writer Electa Draper ( here, here, here, here, here, here, ) we see someone trying to employ the idea that fear justifies behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable.
The pieces tell the tale of two teenage girls who wanted to brighten their neighbor’s days by anonymously leaving cookies on their porches. At one woman’s house they knocked on the door left the cookies and went on their way. This woman then proceeded to sue the teens for scaring her so much that she needed hospital care, even though she got an apology and an offer to pay her medical bills. She went to court because she also wanted a motion sensor for her porch, lost wages, and punitive damages. She won her suit but only got medical expenses.
Personally, I do not think she should have gotten a penny, however, the story does have a somewhat happy ending. First off, people donated so much money to the teens that it more than covered the court award. Secondly, the woman who sued has received quite an enormous amount of scorn and abuse from the general public. Now, I do not approve of the persons threatening her or using profanities, that is excessive and not necessary. Simply telling someone they are a jerk after hundreds of others have said the same thing to them is sufficient. However, after saying that I sincerely hope that no one really harms them, I must admit that such an intense and widespread reaction to the woman’s cynical attempt to exploit the current climate of fear that has permeated our culture, pleases me.
The story pleases me because it gives me hope. If people can see through her use of fear for personal gain, so readily, then, maybe just maybe, one day they will be able to see through the state’s use of fear to gain what it wants, ever more power. Hopefully, someday we the people will understand that just as the woman generated her fear for her own purposes, the government generates much of our fear for its own reasons. And, if and when we do realize how fear of terror and fear of drugs are being exaggerated and exploited in order to enslave us, then perhaps there will be enough anger to do something about it.
In my last post concerning yet another government sponsored attempt to distort the public perception of marijuana use I promised to pass along any information I received exposing the current lie. The expected information came with my weekly e-mail newsletter from NORML. I quote the relevant part below.
NORML E-Zine
Volume 8
Issue 6
February 10, 2005 Science Refutes Latest Marijuana And Cognition Claim, Washington, DC: “Research published this week in the journal Neurology speculating that marijuana's effects on the cerebrovascular system may bring about residual cognitive deficits in longtime users is not supported by the majority of available clinical evidence. Numerous prior reviews of marijuana's potential impact on neurocognitive performance include: A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society that "failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated;" A 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that determined, "Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence;" A 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry that found that long-term cannabis smokers who abstained from the drug for one week "showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests." Researchers added, "Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days;" A 1999 clinical trial published in the American Journal of Epidemiology that found "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis" over a 15-year period. More recently, a study published last fall in the journal Psychological Medicine examining the potential long-term residual effects of cannabis on cognition in monozygotic male twins reported "an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities." In addition, a scientific review published earlier this month in the journal Current Opinion in Pharmacology concluded, "There is little evidence ... that long-term cannabis uses causes permanent cognitive impairment. ... Overall, by comparison with other drugs used mainly for 'recreational' purposes, cannabis could be rated a relatively safe drug.".
What do you think the odds are that The Washington Times, CNN or the BBC ran any stories on the above mentioned studies? Extremely slim?
The BBC, CNN and The Washington Times all have had stories on a new report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse concerning marijuana. The BBC sub-headline reads, “Marijuana has a long-term effect on blood flow to the brain, potentially increasing the risk of memory damage and stroke, research finds.” However, in the body of the article we find that, “The researchers tested 54 marijuana users, who smoked between two and 350 joints a week, and 18 non-smokers.” We also learn that, “Marijuana smokers had a faster blood flow, both at the start of the study, and after they had refrained from their habit for four weeks.” This last piece of information forms the basis for the frightening headline.
The first question that leaps to mind is, who smokes 350 joints in a week, that’s 50 per day? Secondly, with such a small and obviously non-random sample what have the researchers really demonstrated? If the marijuana users in the study had faster blood flow for reasons other than marijuana use why would the blood flow slow down just because they stopped using marijuana? The news stories do not mention any controls for other factors. Just off the top of my head, what was the average weight of the pot smokers vs. the non-smokers? What about tobacco or caffine use? Lastly, if your subjects are wolfing down 50 joints a day, what does any of this have to do with the way people use marijuana in the real world?
In addition we must consider the source of this study, the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Their mission is and always has been to provide a scientific veneer for a failed policy, the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. Government science always gives the answer that government wants and especially right now the government wants reasons, no matter how contrived, to keep persecuting users of marijuana.
I am very confident that shortly I will be reading information generated by people in this field of research exposing this study as flawed beyond usefulness. When I do I will pass it on to the readers of this BLOG. I am also confident that the BBC, CNN, and The Washington Times will not do the same for their viewers and readers.
In my most recent post I discussed the idea of raising or eliminating the cap on social security payroll taxes, arguing that the tax was regressive and that if the wealthy and influential were paying the tax on all of their income they would be more likely to support privatization as a matter of self interest. This line of thought generated some criticism both in the comments section and at the Mises Economics Blog.
On the Mises discussion Jeffery Tucker quotes my claim that changing the cap might prove beneficial and then replies, “Well, that is a reversal of the usual claim that at least privatization makes the program slightly better; here we see the claim that, yes, funding privatization does make the system worse but it thereby increases the likelihood that the program will be overthrown. This type of strategizing can yield some rather perverse results, with libertarians arguing for every manner of statism in the eventual hope that it will provoke revolt.”
The main issue that I have with the above paragraph is the idea that I am strategizing. I do not want to raise or eliminate the social security tax cap, I want to abolish the entire program. The government has no right to force people to save for their retirement no matter what form that coercion takes. However, what I want to happen and what is going to happen are two vastly different things. Just because I want American troops to stop dying in support of George Bush’s unrealistic vision for a better world, the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs to end , and the next Libertarian presidential candidate to be extensively interviewed on television the week before the election does not mean those things are going to happen.
Since politics trumps morality on almost all occasions the social security program is not going away. So, the next best option is privatization and not the wimpy 2% here 3% there tweaking that Bush is proposing but something akin to what they have in Chile. This type of privatization would not just make the program slightly better it would change its fundamental character in that the money people put towards their retirement would actually be saved and not immediately spent by the government. Under such a system the issue of a cap would be largely irrelevant. But that type of privatization is not going to occur anytime soon either.
The most likely prospect is incremental discreet changes, most of them probably bad. One of these changes may be the raising or elimination of payroll cap tax and I am merely pointing out that if this were to occur it would most certainly wear away support for the system as a whole among those paying more. I did not advocate the drug czar running ads linking marijuana smoking to terrorism, the cutting off of student loans for drug violations, or the countless other examples of over the top propaganda and more brutal enforcement. Yet, each of these acts has in their own way eroded support for the current drug policies.
Also, there is an issue of fairness here. Remember, as Milton Friedman has pointed out, because none of the funds have actually been saved there is no authentic connection between the tax and the benefits programs. So, if there is to be a payroll tax whose only real purpose is to fund government in general why should someone who earns $30,000 have to pay a tax on their entire earnings while someone who makes $1,000,000 pays a tax on only a miniscule portion of those earnings?
In the comments section of the original post John T. Kennedy likens my notion that changing the social security payroll tax cap might not be all bad to Congressman Rangel’s support for a draft as a way to change the direction of our foreign policy. I replied with this question , “If we had a fair conscription and the sons and daughters of congressmen and their contributors were being sent to Iraq do you think they would be applauding Bush's foreign policy so loudly?” Kennedy then asked me, “Fair to whom? Conscripts? You're willing to enslave men and women to (you hope) rein in policy?”
The answer to these questions is no. No conscription can ever be fair to the conscripts. I am unalterably opposed to the draft. Again though, what I want does not seem to matter very much to those who our running the state and they seem to be pursuing a plan that will make conscription necessary. Therefore if there is to be a draft it would be better if it were fair. What I mean by fair is that everyone of draft age has an equal chance of being called. Someone who is studying political science at a university has no more moral claim on their life, hopes, and aspirations than someone who is working as a baker’s helper. This type of draft will not last as long as one with college deferments and other ways to buy your way out of it.
Charles Johnson’s comment pointed out that “There is no example in American history of any war that was prevented or shortened by a draft. Every single draft has prepared for or prolonged a war which could not be pursued by voluntary enlistment.” But no draft in American history has ever been fair in the sense that I mean. The saying in Civil War times was rich man’s war, poor man’s fight and that model did not change in the Vietnam era until after we were already withdrawing. Johnson also maintains that if the rich and influential are forced to serve they would be able to secure the safe positions but in a situation like Iraq there are no safe jobs.
Below Sheldon Richmond has a post concerning social security and in the comments section Richmond relates that “One idea that is on the table is raising or scrapping the income cap for the payroll tax. Great.” Jonathan Dresner replies “And how is that not raising payroll taxes? I'm not saying it's a bad idea (though the cap should be the same as the benefits cap, or something like that), but it's certainly not consistent with "the rules.”
I think that Dresner is correct that such a change would be an increase in taxes and normally I would oppose any kind of tax boost. However, in this case I think it is a good idea because of an argument I once heard Milton Friedman make on CSPAN. He made the point that because there are no actual assets in the “Trust Fund” only government bonds, which are merely promises to tax people in the future, there is no real connection between social security taxes and social security benefits. Therefore, if you look at the system as two separate programs you see its true nature.
The tax program could not be more regressive. It begins with the first dollar you earn but because there is a cap the more you earn over the cap the lower the tax is as a percentage of your total income. As for the benefits program, the more you earn during your lifetime, and therefore presumably the less you need the money, the more you are paid. All of this begs the question why are those who are supposed to favor the poor and working class fighting so hard to preserve a system that so clearly favors the rich?
If we were to eliminate or increase the cap the tax program at least would become less regressive. More importantly, if the pain of the tax program were to spread upwards to the more influential there would be a greater chance that the social security system would be privatized and ownership of the money restored to the people who earned it. That is the only moral and practical course.
There have been two recent postings on Liberty and Power, both with considerable discussion, concerning the topic of Laurence Summers remarks about the lack of women in the higher echelons of science and M.I.T. biology Professor Nancy Hopkins’ reaction to them . The question seems to be, were Summers’ comments offensive or plausible? In yesterday’s Washington Times Jacob Sullum made to my mind a convincing argument for plausible.
One person commenting extensively on one of the earlier posts, Jeanine Ring, disagrees clearly believing the remarks to be beyond the pale. She wrote, “I don't blame Hopkins for feeling the same way. Sexism may be 'plausible' to most people, but it's also a slap in the face to her entire life, one ultimately rooted not in her choices but that she made her choices as the being as which she exists.” She later goes on to say, “Hopkins was being told... "oh, sure, you may be intelligent, but you aren't typical for a woman... as a woman you're just an emotional baby-machine.” Ring also asserted that “Hopkins to my estimate did the only and proper thing you can do (except coercion) in opposition to ideas that deny her an authentic voice. If I had been in that auditorium, I would likely have left too. And I applaud Hopkins for refusing to let such bigotry be regarded as normal or plausible.”
The first notion that bothered me when reading Ring’s comments had to do with the idea that Nancy Hopkins is somehow typical. When I was an undergrad I had a roommate for a short time (he flunked out) majoring in biology and his textbook was perhaps the most complicated material I have ever looked at. Anyone, man or woman, who masters the field of scientific biology well enough to teach at M.I.T. can hardly be considered typical.
As to whether the remarks deny Hopkins an “authentic voice” I will let Mr. Sullum answer that. He argues that, “average group differences in ability do not imply a judgment about any particular individual, since there is still much overlap between the sexes. Although men predominate in the upper echelons of math and science, that doesn't mean the women who make it are any less qualified. The situation could change, of course, if the demand for balance leads universities to select faculty members based on sex.” It seems to me that the Hopkins herself, Ring and those who are also offended are denying the professor the right to an authentic individual voice. To them she can not be a scientist she must be a woman scientist. Why?
Lastly, if the evidence cited by Sullum is true then how can Summers’ remarks be considered bigotry. Is it bigoted and racist to say that generally Black people have darker skin coloring than White people? Is it bigoted and sexist to say that women have vaginas and men do not? Bigotry is not about truth it is about falsehood, all Mexicans are lazy, all Blacks steal, all women are emotional. In order to legitimately assert that Summers comments were bigoted and offensive Hopkins, Ring and their allies must first prove them to be false. Maybe I have missed it but I have yet to read anything concerning this controversy that even attempts to do so.
William R. Polk has an excellent piece in The American Conservative in which he talks a bit about the nature of the war we are fighting in Iraq. Polk writes: Guerrilla warfare is not new. In fact, it is probably the oldest form of warfare. But in recent centuries, so much attention was given to formal warfare that most soldiers forgot about informal war. Although few guerrilla leaders have given us accounts of how they organized, got their supplies, fought, retreated, regrouped, and fought again, history provides a rich lode of information. We can study experiences dating from the 20th-century conflicts in Europe, Asia, and Africa, including the Irish struggle against the British, Tito’s and the Greek ELAS’s struggles against the Germans in the Balkans, Mao Zedong’s war against the Japanese and then against the forces of Chang Kai-shek in China, the Viet Minh’s defeat of the French in Indo-China, the Algerian war of national liberation against the French, the Chechens’ centuries-long war against the Russians and, of course, our Vietnam and Russia’s Afghanistan.
For me, what jumps out from the above list is the fact that in each and every example mentioned (except the Chechens so far) the guerrillas eventually won. Given that kind of history, it no longer a matter of winning or losing because the Sunni Iraqis fighting us now will never accept a Quisling Shia dominated government. Instead, it is a question how many more lives have to be lost or shattered before we as a people come to our senses and leave.
Hat tip to my friend Kenny.
Please, let us all remember that to the extent that there is or is not a man hating element to feminism, gay or otherwise, it only becomes a true societal problem when it is expressed through coercive tactics and legislation. The real difficulty with modern feminism has always been socialism not lesbianism. As regular readers of Liberty and Power know David Beito has pointed out CBS’s Sixty Minutes broadcasted some extremely poor journalism in regards to the Emmett Till case. However, at least CBS paid for that tripe themselves. In today’s Washington Times Bruce Bartlett tells about a partially taxpayer funded program on PBS, Frontline, with even lower standards of journalistic integrity.
Although the program’s chief correspondent, Hedrick Smith, spent several hours interviewing him, Bartlett’s total on camera time ended up being about three seconds. In today’s column Bartlett relates some of the many salient facts left out of the Frontline attack piece. He wrote, “I also noted to Mr. Smith that Wal-Mart, all by itself, was responsible for a significant amount of the U.S. productivity miracle over the last decade. In a 2001 report, the McKinsey Global Institute, a respected think tank, concluded Wal-Mart's managerial innovations increased overall productivity by more than all the investments in computers and information technology of recent years. Other Frontline omissions included the fact that Wal-Mart’s lower prices primarily benefit the poor and research by University of Missouri economist Emek Basker, which concluded that when Wal-Mart comes to town local employment sees a permanent rise.
Bartlett’s column is one more piece of evidence in a long chain, which points to the conclusion that taxpayer funding of PBS distortion is an unjustified waste.
In this month’s issue of Reason Cathy Young has a column in which she quotes James Madison. He wrote, ”Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops every other.”The absolute truth of this insight, as the work of Robert Higgs and others too numerous to mention has shown, is even more remarkable when you consider that at the time Madison penned the above there was no neverending war on people who use certain kinds of drugs or perpetual war on terror.
These two wars now effect almost all aspects of our lives, from the most mundane events such as how much humiliation someone must endure in order to board an airplane to serious issues such as whether someone must live the rest of their life in constant pain because no doctor wants the DEA to come down on them for prescribing a disfavored medicine that would help. In comparison to questions of war or peace all other issues have, in my mind, considerably less significance. Therefore, I worry very little about the divide between red states and blue ones because both sets of states voted overwhelmingly in favor of war, domestic and foreign.
George Bush got us into the bloody quagmire that is Iraq but all John Kerry ever promised was to involve more people. George Bush, despite his past illicit drug use, has fought as unrelenting a jihad, against people who use drugs not profitable to pharmaceutical companies, as his father did. John Kerry chose as his chief foreign policy advisor one of the architects of Plan Columbia, which includes the spraying of toxic chemicals on dirt poor peasant coca farmers, their families, and their food crops. While in the Senate, Kerry sought a government key to everyone’s computer in the name of fighting drugs, as well as, expanded use of asset forfeiture. And, just as Madison predicted, expand this drug fighting tool has, into all sorts of areas that have nothing to do with drugs.
Awhile back, too long ago for a link to be available, I referred to my friend Jeffery Stonehill’s idea of “America’s Drug of War” when I wrote, “Some of them need it for the material gain that will come their way. Pundits, politicians, prison guards and contractors all reap benefits. However, many if not most supporters need the war narcotic for their pride, for the rush they get out of feeling superior to other human beings.” Whatever the cultural reasons for America’s addiction to war they clearly exist in all states, red and blue, because in each of these states 98 to 99 percent of the voters chose a candidate whose actions in office and campaign had been one long repudiation of peace.
Like Roderick T. Long, I too intend to vote for Michael Badnarik. His post directly below makes mention of my most important reason, the historical model of third party success. His David Friedman quote goes precisely to the point. You don’t have to take power to profoundly influence policy. Even though the Socialists are on the ballot in only eight states this year they are still the most successful third party in twentieth Century American history.
However, that is not my only reason for voting Libertarian. I am also going to do it because I will enjoy it so much. My distaste for both Bush and Kerry is quite intense. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime. However, when you take the time to really look at the Senator’s record, along with the people he has surrounded himself with, it becomes apparent that there is great potential for truly evil policies during a Kerry administration. To my mind, it is a crap shoot as to which one would do the most harm, which one would take us furthest in the direction of a totalitarian society.
Therefore, I wish to do something to both of them and the worst thing you can do to a politician is to vote for someone else. Besides, what better way to say to those two jerks; “Hey I am not buying into your lies and I know that neither one of cares one bit about me or anything else other your own grasps for power.” Even though, with the help a totally irresponsible media, they managed to fool most of the people in this country into thinking there were only two bad choices, I will know that they did not get me and that will feel good.
There is also another reason to vote for Badnarik and that is because he, his campaign, and the party have earned it. They managed to get on the ballot in 49 states, not an easy feat. They ran an articulate campaign which found its way into new places . If you do not believe me check out these quotes from Badnarik on comedian Doug Stanhope’s website about half way down the homepage. They did a number of things that should have gotten major attention from the media, including getting the nomination in the first place. It is not their fault that the term “news” is obsolete. Does anyone believe that the coverage on Monday, which will almost totally ignore the largely unknown Badnarik, is going to tell us anything new about Bush and Kerry? We will already have heard it ad nauseum. So, if you vote Badnarik you won’t just be hurting Bush and Kerry you will be sticking it to Dan Rather and Bill O’Reilly too. That is also a pleasant thought.
For reasons I do want wish to go into here, my respect for veterinarians has been declining precipitously for more than a year now. Therefore, when I found this it did not surprise me very much that person who suggested the following approach to the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs came from that profession.
An article in the New York Times headlined Would ‘Destroy’ Woman Held a Narcotic Addict from the Associated Press appeared on September 9, 1934. It is presented here in its entirety.
Montreal, Sept.8—A suggestion to “destroy” a woman registered as a narcotic addict was before the Halifax Board of Health today in a resolution moved by Alderman P.A. Gough, veterinary surgeon.
A citizen appealed to the board last night asking that they authorize the dispensary to provide drugs which were “absolutely necessary” to keep the woman alive.
Mr. Gough startled members by declaring that the city should seek legislation to take human life in cases where persons were suffering from incurable diseases.
He moved the board obtain the right to “have the woman destroyed.”
‘I would not make any motion if I had not seen her and understood her condition,” the Alderman declared. He said the circumstances were pitiful. “Suffering intense pain, when she cannot secure drugs, she screams and threatens to take her life.”
Liberty and Power’s own Sheldon Richman had a very important column in Sunday’s Washington Times on a proposed program to screen all American’s for the metaphoric disease of mental illness. It seems to me that this is the most grossly underreported story in quite some time. If we lived in a true democracy with a press that was not the handmaiden of an oppressive state the proposition in question would have had a prominent place in the recent debates. It is time to face the fact that the fundamental nature of government drug policy is changing dramatically. A question of prohibition is quickly becoming a question of mandatory use. Hat tip to Jeff Schaler. Dear Congressman Wynn,
This is an open letter to you that I intend to post on my group Blog, Liberty and Power. Here is the link.
Thank you for these e-mail updates. As you may or may not know I am a libertarian and I was not planning to vote for you until I received this latest e-mail. Now, even though I know you will do some things that I very much disagree with, I will pull the lever for you. Thank you for the actions described in the update. I very much approve of your votes against the administration's legislation prompted by the 9-11 Commission and for the small business tax cuts.
My biggest concern is the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. It is arguably the most racist institution in present day America. Its costs, both human and monetary, are astronomical with virtually no return. To my mind the most important short essay ever written on the subject is Lysander Spooner's Vices are not Crimes. He penned this in 1876 as a response to the growing calls for alcohol prohibition, however, it applies equally to today's drug war. So in return for my vote I would like a favor. The next time the drug issue comes up, please, read the essay (I am sending a link to it) and think about what he has to say before you decide how to vote.
Our current policy towards certain drugs treat vices as though they were crimes while the use of other drugs is highly encouraged, sometimes mandatory. What drugs falls into what category is pharmacologically arbitrary. These facts are the source of great harm.
Sincerely
Keith Halderman
Volunteers are needed for a pre-election test of the voting system in Florida. Hat tip to Bob Newland a dedicated libertarian from South Dakota. The last time I wrote here about Walter Williams I was pretty hard on him. Today he has redeemed himself somewhat in my eyes with an excellent column in the Washington Times on grade inflation taken to its illogical conclusion. The true obstacle to the success of the Libertarian Party is the failure of the American media to inform the voters about all of their choices. Libertarian candidates not only fail to get many votes they also fail to get name recognition. Day in and day out people read newspaper articles and watch television reports about the election, which contain no hint whatsoever that anyone other than a Democrat and a Republican will appear on the ballot.
That is the problem. It is not about money. If the media covered the Libertarian candidates the same way it does the major party candidates people would know who they were and what they stood for . The necessary money would flow from that knowledge. Also, it is not about the program. The Libertarian Party offers the core values of what it means to be an American. It presents a political philosophy based on freedom of individual actions that has historically been responsible for unparalleled success in every field of human endeavor. Once enough people are aware of the life they could have without the oppression of the state they will use the power of their vote to obtain the liberty that they need.
Awareness comes from education but you can not educate someone unless you have their attention. The Libertarian Party clearly does not have the attention of the American populace. There are two ways to get it. First you could run someone famous who already commands the stage.
When the Libertarian Party chose the distinctly unknown Michael Badnarik as their presidential candidate that option was foreclosed. The second way to obtain a national classroom is by deed.
In his post below Roderick T. Long, talking about the fact that Badnarik was arrested for civil disobedience at the last presidential debate, says “This doesn't strike me as a particularly useful tactic …” . I very much disagree with that sentiment.
Because the Democrats and Republicans already have all of the attention that they need and very much more than they deserve their fundamental task is to avoid turning people off. The job of the Libertarian Party, on the other hand, is to turn people on. I do not think that employing a tactic of Gandhi and Martin Luther King to demand a place, for someone on the ballot in 48 states, in the discussion of our future as a nation is crazy. I think it is inspiring and one of the best things I have seen a Libertarian candidate do in a long time. Michael Badnarik may not fully succeed in his effort to educate the American people but at least he is trying.
To those who say what happens with the Libertarian Party is of little consequence, I ask what is the alternative, abject slavery, bloodshed, one of the other parties will change? For the latter to happen the Libertarian Party must have some kind of achievement. If ten percent of the vote in this next election came the Libertarian’s way it would have a profoundly positive effect on the way we are governed. If you do not believe me here, ask yourself this question, which is closer to Ralph Nader’s worldview George Bush’s campaign rhetoric in 2000 or his domestic policy since taking office?
I did not intend to watch the debate because frankly I am so sick of both of their faces and the lying blather that comes out of their mouths. However, I sat down to do a little channel surfing and came across CSPAN 2’s coverage, which featured a split screen focused solely on both podiums. In essence the debate on this venue was entirely composed of reactions shots. It quickly became clear why the campaigns did not want the public to view the facial expressions and body language of the candidates while listening. Bush came across as petulant and confused while Kerry looked smug and insincere. Once again CSPAN has proved to be one of the very few places on television where you can find some truth. If you must, I highly recommend watching the next one there. William Marina’s post directly below links to a very good article of his that raises two interesting questions. He discusses the idea that Russian President Putin is using the atrocity that took place in Beslan as a device to install a much more authoritarian government. Marina then quotes Peter Reddaway of George Washington University as observing, “it remained to be seen whether the U.S. would translate rhetoric into tougher action.” I believe that we can discern the root of our so bloody foreign policy tribulations through the above statement. The fact that so many people, especially those in the field of international relations, take it as a given that the United States has the ability, the right, and even the responsibility to keep the Russian system democratic is the source of our failed policies abroad.
We have none of those three things. Short of going to war, we have no real way of preventing a Putin dictatorship. We could impose economic punishments but what would that accomplish? The people hurt would be our own businessmen, their stockholders, their employees, and their customers who wanted Russian goods. What right does this or any administration have to decrease the wealth of countless individuals for a policy doomed to failure. Look how well our sanctions have worked against Castro.
Up until the Communists took power the story of U.S/ Russian relations has always been a very positive one with many instances mutually beneficial trade and diplomacy. This all took place during a time when Russia was ruled by one of the most autocratic people in the history of mankind, the Czar. If our government chooses the course of tougher action against Putin inevitably there will be a hostile reaction from a nuclear power. Have we so quickly forgotten the all consuming stress of mutually assured destruction? Our leadership has no right to risk the very survival of the American people by antagonizing a country with a form of government that has not proven to be a threat in the past. Putin is not bringing back the messianic ideology of communism, he is trying to bring back the Czar.
Russia is a sovereign nation, if they pose no danger to us we have no more right to interfere in their internal affairs than they do to interfere in ours. It is the responsibility of the Russian people to hold on to their own freedom and democracy, not ours. Our responsibility is to hold on to the ever diminishing freedom and democracy that we have here. Both Bush and Putin see horrific tragedy as an opportunity to increase the power of the state. President Bush is just slightly more subtle about it.
I paraphrase Abraham Lincoln when I write that America is the last best hope of mankind. He did not mean that we were to spread over the globe installing our way of life by force. He meant that we were to lead by example, to create the most free, most humane, most prosperous society possible, as a beacon for the rest of the world. We can not do that and also do something tough about Putin’s collection of more power. They are two incompatible goals.
Secondly, Professor Marina presents the notion that the Russians will come to our aid by sending troops to Iraq. To believe that will happen is to believe that Vladimir Putin is as bad a decision maker as George Bush is. Maybe the Russians would get along with the Sunnis who were loyal to Hussein but what about the Shi’a? Putin may have forgotten what took place in Afghanistan during the 1980s but I do not think they have.
Near the beginning of September I posted a missive concerning Dennis Hastert’s implication that George Soros received money from drug cartels. It provoked a comment from one Tipton Cole pointing out that during the FOX television interview the Speaker did not actually use the word cartel. The Hill reported the incident this way; ”Asked if Soros had earned money from drug cartels, Hastert added, ‘Well, that’s what he’s been for a number years — George Soros has been for legalizing drugs in this country. So, I mean, he’s got a lot of ancillary interests out there. … I’m saying I don’t know where groups — could be people who support this type of thing. I’m saying we don’t know.’”
Technically, Mr. Cole is correct and I did put a word in the Hastert’s mouth. I did not see the show and misinterpreted the initial reports I read of the episode. However, in essence I am right because the interviewer used the word cartel and Dennis Hastert did not say no. The thrust of my original post asserted that either he did not know the difference between a drug reform group and a drug cartel or that he was deliberately smearing Mr. Soros. I stand by this assertion.
In retrospect I should have known that a drug warrior such as Hastert would not just come out and say something in a forthright manner. Historically, they have always lived by misdirection and implication. Here is one of the countless examples discovered during my research. In a 1928 book titled Dope the Story of the Living Dead, Hearst employee Winifred Black wrote the following on page 5, ”Just how much did Hickman, the California kidnaper and murderer know about dope? Nobody knows –yet. But the whole, cruel, outrageous, unnatural business reeks to heaven of dope.” The specifics change but the tactics remain remarkably consistent.
Walter Williams has a column in today’s Washington Times with an idea so bad I can scarcely believe it came from him. Williams writes “So here's my idea. Every American regardless of any other consideration should have one vote in any federal election. Then, every American should get one additional vote for every $10,000 he pays in federal income tax. With such a system, there would be a modicum of linkage between one's financial stake in our country and his decision making capacity.”
Williams’ notion has two major flaws. In his piece he voices concern over the number of people who no longer have any federal income tax liability. Worry over this growing phenomenon prompts the above suggestion. Perhaps, Professor Williams would sleep better a night if he took into consideration that most of the people who would fall into the only one vote category support the federal government through substantial Social Security payroll taxes. Since the money collected by the payroll tax is immediately either spent outright or turned into government bonds and then spent, this federal tax differs in no substantial way from the federal income tax.
The people in the multiple vote category have a cap on how much payroll tax they pay. Why should they have more say about that tax than those who are paying a much larger percentage of their income to satisfy it? Also, demographics will demand frightening increases in the payroll tax without a change in the system. Someone who gets fifty votes under Williams’ plan is not going to feel a fifty percent cut in benefits too much. For another person, who has only one vote yet has still been paying into the system for years, it could be catastrophic. That person should have less of a voice?
Secondly, Walter Williams’ plan seems to ignore the fact that what government does with the money is much more important than how much it takes in. Let us take two groups of people, one in the single vote category and one in the multiple vote class to illustrate this point. Representing the owners of only one vote will be a platoon of soldiers, commanded by a sergeant, stationed in Iraq. None of these people are earning enough to qualify for extra votes. The Board of Directors of the Halliburton Corporation will stand for those with multiple ballots.
In the same instant of time the single voters are traveling down a road near Fallujah thinking about the very real possibility that any second they may be blown to bits by a roadside bomb. Meanwhile, the board members, many of them with double figured numbers of votes and all of them in full support of the war, are in a meeting being served absolutely exquisite pastry by two very beautiful administrative assistants. Some of them are worried that the meeting could last too long, thus making them miss their tee time. Does anyone really believe that the board members have more of a stake in what our government decides to do than the soldiers.
Now, Williams in his column expresses a fear that the wealthy do not have enough influence over the actions of government. If he asked himself the following question it might calm him somewhat. How many times has a member of the Board of Directors of the Halliburton Corporation attended a thousand dollar a plate fundraising dinner for some politician and how many times has a member of a platoon of soldiers in Iraq been present at such an event?
Back in August I posted a Blog with a link to an article on the causes of crime by Stanton E. Samenow. In today’s Washington Times Jeff Schaler and Liberty and Power’s own Sheldon Richman respond to one problematic line in the in the Samenow piece with a letter to the editor. He wrote "Until science tells us more, we have no satisfactory explanation for evil." Schaler and Richman point out that “Science will never be able to explain evil because ‘evil’ is a value judgment, not a scientific judgment. Like good, evil refers to behavior, ethics and choice, not to biology, chemistry and physics.” I have had my differences with Ethan Nadelmann director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) in the past. Sometimes, it seems to me that he is building a kinder gentler war staffed by a drug treatment bureaucracy with a stake in its continuance. I agree with people like Thomas Szasz and Jeff Schaler that the drug reform movement’s current emphasis on medical marijuana smacks of the therapeutic state.
However, I do not believe that this concentration on marijuana as a medicine is as problematic as they do, because medical marijuana will not remain the foremost issue for very much longer. I offer this very persuasive article by Dr. Nadelmann published in the National Review along with this ad, which the DPA ran in the New York Sun during the GOP convention, to support my belief.
If the discussion moves to decriminalization and that is achieved then the medical issue is mute. If you believe tomatoes are healthy you do not need a doctor’s permission to grow and eat them. Yes, the laws will remain on the books but there will be little incentive to enforce them. They will go the way of, say, laws against adultery.
There is going to be a very interesting event, sponsored in part by the AU History Department, at American University, Ward Circle Bldg, Room 2 on Wednesday, September 8 at 8:00 pm concerning whistleblowers. The speakers will include:
Daniel Ellsberg, Former Defense and State Department official who released the Pentagon Papers to the press in 1971
Coleen Rowley, Special agent, Minneapolis FBI, Named Person of the Year in 2003 by Time Magazine
Sibel Edmonds, Former FBI Translator fired for revealing coverups of pre 9/11 warnings and of possible espionage
Katharine Gun, Former translator in GCHQ, the British equivalent of the National Security Agency, who was put on trial for releasing NSA memo seeking British assistance in bugging offices and homes of UN Security Council members prior to vote on Iraq
Scott Ritter, Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector, who challenged government claims on WMD in Iraq
Mary Ann Wright, Former Acting Ambassador in Afghanistan, who resigned from the Foreign Service as Deputy Chief of Mission in Mongolia on March 19, 2003 (the day bombing began in Iraq) to protest US foreign policy
John Brown, Former Foreign Service officer who resigned because of the Iraq war
Ray McGovern, 27-year veteran of CIA, formerly a briefer to several presidents on the President's Daily Checklist, who co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
David MacMichael, Veteran CIA analyst and VIPS co-founder who testified to World Court on U.S. covert actions in Nicaragua
Major Frank Grevill, Danish intelligence analyst who released his own classified analyses from before the war, asserting lack of foundation for the charges of WMDs in Iraq being echoed by Danish government and is currently facing trial in Denmark
Karen Kwiatkowski, Recently retired Lt. Col., who served in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans under Douglas Feith and revealed that office’s misrepresentations in building the case for invasion of Iraq
I believe all of these people in the same room will produce a very powerful statement on the true nature of government.
Last Sunday on the Fox news channel Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert implied George Soros had been receiving money from drug cartels to further his drug law reform efforts. Soros quite naturally called for an apology. In a letter Hastert replied that he was concerned about Soros funding groups advocating legalization of drugs, saying ”These were the drug groups that I referred to in my comments on the 'Fox News Sunday' program," The Speaker wrote this even though on television he used the words drug cartels.
When thinking about this we are left with two choices. Maybe Hastert does not know the difference between a group that sells drugs on the necessarily violent black market and a group such as the Soros funded Drug Policy Alliance who ran an ad this week in the New York Sun (complimentary copy to every GOP delegate’s hotel room each day of the convention) quoting such people as Milton Friedman, Grover Norquist, and William F. Buckley on the failed war against people who use certain kinds of drugs. More likely though, Hastert does know the difference between these two types of organizations and was deliberately smearing Soros figuring the rest of us were too dumb to notice and showing himself to be a second rate political hack.
Now, if the drug cartels were to contribute money to either of these two men it would most certainly be Speaker Hastert. After all, George Soros is a billionaire and can fund pretty much anything he wants without any help. But, more importantly, to the extent that he is an advocate of drug legalization he is the mortal enemy of the narcotic cartels. The reforms put forth by the polical groups Soros supports would end the corrupt violence filled black market, which provides so much money to these drug selling associations. Why would they want such changes in policy?
On the other hand, the drug cartels have no better friend than Dennis Hastert. It is people like him who assure the continuance of the black market in drugs and the enormous profits made there. If you are a big time drug dealer it is definitely in your interest to keep Hastert in office.
In his latest post, Radley Balko asks if he was being boorish by helping to point out the true meaning of the hammer and sickle emblem to a student wearing it at a seminar. Not only do I think that he acted correctly but I believe he fulfilled an obligation, which all of us who hold the classical liberal position have, to educate. When Professor Bobb brought up the 100 million dead associated with communism he may have been jeered but he also created cognitive dissidence within the audience. Exhibit A that the introduction of the above dead into the mind of that student caused a conflict with his world view, which could not be resolved without change, is the sweater later covering the emblem. We need more not less of this.
There are two books that could greatly contribute to the end of Soviet chic if they were more widely read on today’s campus. The first is The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression an exceptionally complete account of the absolutely and sometimes indescribably evil deeds and policies, which have accompanied communist rule wherever it has been attempted. The book documents those 100 million deaths mentioned before, as well as, the myriad other forms of misery imposed upon people by that malevolent scheme. The most important message of this book is that it happens every time, no matter who is running the communist system, brutal repression and poverty are the outputs.
As powerful as the above book is, there is another volume that I believe could have an even more profound effect on student's thinking, Everyday Stalinism, Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s by historian Sheila Fitzpatrick. This work is an excellent narrative of urban life under Stalin in the 1930s. It describes the ways in which people coped with the unrelentingly vicious conditions of daily life forced upon them by communism. No sane person would ever want to live in the inhuman society documented by Fitzpatrick. Yet, all through my reading of this book the constant thought that this type of policy is becoming an integral part of our way of life, kept coming into my mind. We need students to ask, is this book about the past or is it about the future?
Ron Paul has written a very profound and powerful piece concerning the 9- 11 commission. It is not long and well worth the time. An exceptional column appeared in today’s Washington Times. Author Stanton E. Samenow puts forth what is becoming an increasingly radical idea; when we look at the reason for the commission of a crime, maybe we might want to look at the person who actually committed it rather than rap music, violent TV, neglectful parents, missed summers in the Hamptons, or poor toilet training. In his response to my earlier Blog Pat Lynch makes the point that Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein are bad, nay evil, actors. Pat writes, ”And let's not kid ourselves. Chavez is a bad guy who violates basic human rights, intimidates opponents and uses state power to oppress people.” Now, if you ask me you could very easily substitute the word Bush for Chavez in the preceding statement without any loss of validity. He talks about Chavez’s use of tear gas and water cannons, as well as, the beating of innocent bystanders. Does anyone think it is outrageous of me to predict that shortly you are going to see the exact same kinds of governmental actions in NYC, during the GOP convention? See, I am with Albert Jay Nock the enemy is the state and it does not seem to matter very much anymore who is running it.
However, when it comes to discussion of the two elections in question what I think of Chavez and Hussein or what Pat Lynch thinks of them for that matter is completely irrelevant. The only important thing is what the people who voted in those elections thought. And my point is this, the Bush Administration did not like Hussein therefore they assumed that the bulk of the Iraqi people did not like him. The administration then went on to make policy, extremely bad policy, based on that false assumption. This was a bogus conjecture because most Iraqis either were apolitical or they approved of the fact that he was a strong leader. There were millions of them and only one of him, if they really hated him that much they would have gotten rid of him long ago. Stalin was one of the most evil and destructive people who ever walked the face of the earth, yet, when he died something in the order of 1500 people were trampled to death trying to get near his coffin.
The question now is will the Bush Administration make the same mistake in Venezuela that it made in Iraq? Will it project its dislike of Chavez on to the Venezuelan people? Because, if it does we will all soon be paying $5 a gallon for gasoline. Chavez may only be distributing crumbs to the poor but if all you ever got from the government before was a boot on the back of your neck then those crumbs are probably very welcome to a solid majority of Venezuelans and they will fight to keep them.
My point about Taiwan in the first post was that we live in a country, for the time being, where we can express any opinion we want without the fear of a knock on the door in the middle of the night. Yet, only a very small minority of people express opinions in a public way. Half the people do not even vote when the ballot is anonymous. How much less participation would there be if consequences of opposition here rivaled those of Iraq under Hussein or Taiwan under Chiang Kai Shek. That does not make the knock on the door right, it just makes it a fact of life that people take into account.
As far as the democratic process and public choice goes, I have had far too many they both (Bush and Kerry) really, really, really suck conversations lately to argue with Pat Lynch on this point. And one last item in this response, I am not trying to excuse the hideous behavior of Hussein while he held power. I am merely very tired of the Johnny come lately holier than thou attitude of those who supported and encouraged Saddam while he was doing most of the ghastly deeds that they are now so exercised about. Remember many of the son’s advisors/spokesmen were also advisors/spokesmen in the father’s administration and I have this to say to the first George Bush, Dr. Frankenstein he is your monster. The refusal of those in government to acknowledge their part in what took place in Iraq and what is taking place now is but one more example of the avoidance of responsibility in our society.
Now days, the television show with the strongest libertarian content is Penn and Teller’s Bullshit on Showtime. They have looked at such diverse subjects as recycling, PETA, the funeral industry, the Bible, and the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, in a very entertaining way, always using a free market and individual liberties perspective. Tomorrow night, August 19th, at 10PM (it will be repeated numerous times) they take on one of our most sacred of cows, 12 step programs. It is certain that they will remain consistent in their point of view because the show will include Jeff Schaler author of Addiction is a Choice.
My favorite Penn moment did not occur on Showtime, however, it came during Politically Incorrect. They were discussing a TV appearance by Bill Clinton related to that woman he did not have sex with. Penn said he was a little disappointed because he was hoping for an on the air suicide.
A front page headline in today’s Washington Times reads ”Chavez survives recall; observers find no fraud.” Now, why should anyone be surprised by this? As the link to Greg Palast’s article, provided by William Marina directly below, points out the rule of Hugo Chavez has provided tangible benefits to the poor Venezuelans who make up the overwhelming majority of the population. No need for fraud or intimidation on the part of Chavez existed and any distortion of the vote that occurred most likely went in the other direction.
In an earlier post Pat Lynch takes a much more hostile view of Chavez’s victory comparing it to the most recent electoral triumph of Saddam Hussein. He states that “Elections were held in the Soviet Union and we all know the results of those exercises in freedom and liberty. I suspect Chavez to be only a shade better than the Kremlin when it comes to managing vote counting and the like.” I strongly disagree with the implications of this statement and believe the Venezuelan election results to be a genuine expression of the will of the people involved. Although, I think that a comparison with the last election in Iraq is apt.
Both elections were referendums in the sense neither leader faced an opponent and in each case the leader won an overwhelming victory. As I have stated above, I credit Chavez’s victory to his popular policies but I do acknowledge that fear played a role in Hussein’s over 90% win. The question is, how big a role?
Since weapon’s of mass destruction and revenge for 9-11 have disappeared as reasons for our invasion of Iraq, there has been a great deal of ink spent on the evil’s of Saddam Hussein’s regime. All other dictators pale in contrast, even the ones in Zimbabwe and North Korea who are systematically starving their people to death. However, almost all the prose concerning Iraqi mass graves and torture chambers ignore two salient facts: the people in the mass graves got there largely because they responded to a call for an uprising by the first Bush Administration who then left them hanging and that only a tiny minority of politically active people were ever subject to arrest and torture. My wife grew up in Taiwan when it was ruled in a very dictatorial fashion by Chiang Kai-Shek She has told me that almost all people simply did not have anything to do with politics and were therefore left alone.
I remember seeing a PBS special on the career of Saddam Hussein a while back and it pointed out that when the oil money started coming in Hussein acted like Chavez is acting now, he spread it around in the form of roads, hospitals, schools and other items that the people wanted. He became very popular with the Iraqi equivalent of Joe Sixpack because up until the Gulf War life continually got better under Hussein’s rule and he saved the Iraqis from rule by the Iranian Mullahs. Any anger about the decline in conditions after the Gulf War was directed towards the U.S., not Saddam Hussein, because we imposed sanctions.
Our biggest intelligence failure before this most recent invasion was to look at that 90% plus vote for Hussein and write it all off to intimidation. We failed to see that the large majority of the Iraqi citizens still supported him and hated us. Therefore, there would be no roses strewn at the feet of liberators only the resentment, revenge, and violence reserved for conquerors. So far, over 900 hundred American soldiers have paid for that mistake with their lives.
If all of the people who wax so eloquent about what a wonderful thing regime change has been for the Iraqi people really cared about those people, they would be arguing that we give the Iraqis the only thing they have ever really wanted from us, that is to be left alone by us.
The release of the 9-11 commission report had to please the Bush administration somewhat because it blamed faulty intelligence gathering, rather than outright lying by the President and his minions, for the lack of weapons of mass destruction, which would have justified the administration’s actions. Yet, I am not inclined to let Bush off the hook because I knew all along no WMDs existed. Anyone who saw Scott Ritter on television before he was smeared and banned knew there were none. Despite the fact that he was a decorated marine with seven plus years of intimate experience with Iraqi weapons programs, he was called a liar, a coward, a traitor, and a stooge for Hussein. Low and behold it turns out that everything he said back then was correct, the weapons had already been destroyed, no real need for a war.
My questions for those who want to exonerate George Bush are these. How many times did the President have Scott Ritter into the Oval Office to brief him on Iraqi WMDs? Who could Bush have had in there that knew as much about subject as Ritter did? Did not many of the people attacking Scott Ritter with such vitriol have ties to the administration? If the White House had a television set, then Bush had access to the correct intelligence, he just chose to ignore it.
It now appears that if John Kerry is elected in November he will make the same mistake of not listening to Scott Ritter that George Bush did before the war. As Justin Raimondo so eloquently reminded us on July 26th Kerry has no intention of ending the war if elected. He writes, “Their (the Democrats) candidate is for the war: he voted for it (but not to fund it), he wants to expand it (by sending in at least 40,000 more American troops), and his only argument with the Bush administration is over which direction to escalate.” Kerry is about to pursue the same course of action that he spent so much time and energy criticizing in the 1970s, continuing to fight a war that cannot be won. Once again it is Scott Ritter who is pointing out the folly of our political leadership. Ritter writes in the International Herald Tribune that, The Iraqi resistance is no emerging "marriage of convenience," but rather a product of years of planning. Rather than being absorbed by a larger Islamist movement, Saddam's former lieutenants are calling the shots in Iraq, having co-opted the Islamic fundamentalists years ago, with or without their knowledge. He also points out that, Regardless of the number of troops the United States puts on the ground or how long they stay there, Allawi's government is doomed to fail. The more it fails, the more it will have to rely on the United States to prop it up. The more the United States props up Allawi, the more discredited he will become in the eyes of the Iraqi people - all of which creates yet more opportunities for the Iraqi resistance to exploit.
Without us Allawi has no more chance than Thieu did. When Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 he could of got the same deal that he got in 1973, a united Vietnam with a communist government, without all the intervening bloodshed. Let us hope that Kerry can somehow puzzle out the fact that he was on the right side of the argument back then but is on the wrong side of the argument now.
My problem with the upcoming election is that one of these two men, George Bush or John Kerry is going to win it. Here is an absolutely excellent and very funny piece of animation that points out the absurdity of the above fact. When you get to the website click on animation then choose This Land. Be patient it takes a small amount of time to download but it is worth it. Also, do not turn on your sound until you see the picture, sometimes part of the song plays first before the animation begins. Thank God for humor, I have a growing feeling that we are all going need it more than ever during the next four years. In certain circles hemp festivals are considered somewhat disreputable, there are people smoking marijuana, dressed outlandishly, and sometimes engaging in incoherent rants on stage. It is argued that these events are bad for the image of the drug law reform movement. My response to someone contending this is to suggest they visit the Holocaust Museum and take a look at pictures of the Jews boarding the trains for the camps. Many are very well dressed conservative looking people. If a society is determined to scapegoat you, it does not matter how much you try to fit in.
So, I pay the image conscious no mind and I try to speak at the Fourth of July Hemp Festival put on every year by John Pylka and a lot of other good people, across from the White House in Lafayette Park. Besides, where else can I get around 3,000 people to listen to what I have to say at one time? In 1996 I talked Harry Browne into speaking there and I will always be grateful to him for making me look so look good. Another year I watched the late and much missed Ron Crickenberger auction off Slick Willie’s Weed Sack. Some of the best Libertarian outreach I ever saw occurred there and I also heard many great bands. My favorite year was 1997 when I took a page from the movie Network and got the crowd to yell at the President's house "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore." In the overall scheme of things that act had very little effect but man it sure felt good. The following is part of my speech for today. Unfortunately, a downpour of rain kept me from giving it.
My friend Jeffery Stonehill does a performance where he talks about America’s drug of war. I think he is right, we are now engaged in a plethora of wars both real and metaphorical. We have a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on indecency, a war on terrorism, a war in Afghanistan, and a war in Iraq to name but a few. Now the latter two are real wars with people dying and being maimed on a daily basis, however, they are also metaphors. These terms are metaphorical because there is no such thing as Iraq or Afghanistan. There are only people living in these geographic designations and our wars are with them.
Just as it is people who die in Iraq, it is people whom all too often die in the war on drugs. War on drugs is a misleading figure of speech; in reality it is a war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. Now, the American people must have a powerful need for these wars if they know that these conflicts will result in the loss of life or liberty for many people yet they still continue countenance them. The question is are the American people naturally warlike or is their need and acquiesce created by the entity that benefits most from war? Is it the people who seek the drug of war or does the State crave it?
I do not believe that the American people have natural desire for the horrible things that are being done in their names while the government prosecutes these wars. The government, time and time again, has manipulated them into accepting atrocities both large and small. The people have been maneuvered by the State into tolerating policies of war that are directly against their own self-interest because as Robert Higgs so ably argues in Crisis and Leviathan a time of war is also a time of growth for the State.
The history of two of these wars, the war in Iraq and the war against people who use Cannabis Hemp, illustrates the above point quite well. The parallels between the ways in which these two confrontations came to be part of our daily lives, accepted by large numbers of people, are quite strong. In both cases the State used its most powerful motivator fear.
In her 1928 book, Dope the Story of the Living Dead, author Hearst writer Winifred Black wrote “And the man under the influence of hasheesh catches up his knife and runs through streets hacking and killing everyone he meets.” On the same page, forty-two, she asserted “You can grow enough marijuana in a window box to drive the whole population of the United States stark, staring, raving mad.” The people living in America during the 1920s and 1930s allowed smoking marijuana to become a criminal offense because they believed the State and its handmaiden the press who told them that using Cannabis made individuals insane, violent, and dangerous. The government lied to the people to make them afraid. The months before America’s recent invasion of Iraq featured a constant stream of government officials talking about the danger posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell told the world that Hussein sought yellowcake uranium in Africa. These assertions went largely unquestioned by the media. Once again facts that were not true caused fear and acceptance.
When the LaGuardia Commission proved conclusively that using marijuana does not cause violence or insanity and when the occupation of Iraq failed to produce any WMDs the State instantly changed the rationale for its actions. The government began to argue that marijuana must be prohibited because its use led to heroin addiction. They did this despite the fact that their own expert on narcotics, Harry Anslinger, explicitly testified before a Congressional Committee in 1937 that the “stepping stone theory” held no validity. It did not matter to the government, when it told the American people that marijuana use and heroin use had a cause and effect relationship, that it did not have any mechanistic explanation or data to back up this contention. Just as it did not matter to the Bush Administration that secularist Hussein and religious fanatic Bin Laden were mortal enemies who could never trust each other or work together when they argued for an Iraqi 9-11 connection.
This second set of justifications fared no better than the first and it became necessary for the State to come up with a third. Now the reason individuals must still be imprisoned if they use marijuana is because it will make them lazy and apathetic. This reason is the exact opposite of the first reason, although it is just as untrue. Never mind that millions of people use marijuana and lead successful energetic lives. And, now the explanation for us being in Iraq is the building of a free and democratic nation. The exact opposite of the no nation building policy George Bush promised when he was campaigning in 2000. Never mind that sovereignty for Iraq means fourteen American military bases and a large stack of American non-negotionable edicts the new government must obey.
We are told by the State neither of these two wars can end. If we legalize marijuana the country will be awash with drugs. Yet, you cannot watch television for more than ten minutes anymore without seeing an advertisement for some powerful legal pharmaceutical anti-depressant or stimulant such as Prozac, Paxil, or Ritalin. Most of these drugs are infinitely more problematic than Cannabis. We are told that we cannot just leave Iraq because if we do that land will descend into chaos. Yet everyday brings a new explosion or beheading and the mass of people there live in increasing poverty without basic services. When our helicopters shoot up an innocent wedding party do we really believe we can escape retribution for such actions?
From these two examples, it becomes clear that the always changing reasons for and horrific consequences of war are not important to the State. What is important for the State is that wars continue to exist and that it continues to grow. It is like someone who is enthralled with a drug and does not care why they started using or how they will end up if they persist. The American people must intervene, soon before it is no longer possible, and take the State, which they ultimately control, off the drug of war.
The war on tobacco, which seems to be continually ratcheting up these days, is but one aspect of the more general war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. One of the primary features of this war is unintended consequences. Some research reported in the British Medical Journal found that making the lives of lung cancer patients harder than they necessarily have to be appears to one of them. Fellow HNN blogger Allan Lichtman has a post, which discusses how the considerable attention paid this past week to Ronald Reagan’s legacy will affect the presidential campaign. He points out that Bush is the natural inheritor of this legacy but also that that fact can be a double-edged sword. Lichtman writes, ”On the one hand, he might be helped by celebration of the conservative heritage and the contributions of Ronald Reagan, which will likely be on full display at the GOP convention. On the other hand, the campaign could go too far in wrapping themselves in the mantle of Reagan and Bush could suffer from invidious comparisons with the now iconic ex-president.”
Can you imagine if this election were a three-way race among Kerry, Reagan, and Bush. George Bush would be so far behind he would probably be in single digits. Now if the Kerry campaign really wanted to take advantage of the national positive focus on Ronald Reagan and his values then they would find a substitute for Reagan. One does exist and he most likely will be on the ballot in all fifty states. Every single American who walks into the voting booth to pick our next leader will see the name Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President.
However, if recent electoral history repeats itself astoundingly few of those people will have a clue as to who Badnarik is or what he stands for. The more Kerry can change this history, the better chance he has of winning. Badnarik can play the same role for Kerry in 2004 that Nadar did for Bush in 2000. All the Libertarian lacks is fame, that is what is most important not money. In politics money is merely a means of obtaining celebrity but that can be had in other ways.
One-way for Kerry to acquaint voters with idea of Badnarik as a substitute Reagan, they could vote for, would be for the two of them to debate each other. It would be of enormous benefit for John Kerry to be onstage while Michael Badnarik calmly and precisely explains just how far away George Bush is from Ronald Reagan and the principles he stood for.
Such an event, or better yet series of events, would not cost Kerry any significant amount of votes. Those who are supporting the Democrat have but one overriding goal, to defeat George Bush and remove him from office post haste. Michael Badnarik, let us be honest, is not going to win and therefore Kerry’s people are not going to vote for Badnarik even if they like him. If the left is not going to desert Kerry for Nadar they certainly won’t for a Libertarian.
A lot of Conservatives, on the other hand, are very disenchanted with Bush and the way he has conducted himself in office. Policies such as the Patriot Act and uncontrolled spending are part of an extensive list of affronts to the legacy of Reagan committed by the present administration. Many on the right would love to punish Bush for this in the voting booth but they need someone other than a liberal Senator from Massachusetts to cast their ballot for.
Also, Michael Badnarik is ideal for Kerry’s purposes. The Libertarian Party has always had members from both the right and left side of the political spectrum and while they share core values there can be some stark differences in emphasis and style. Badnarik definitely comes from the right side of the spectrum, potentially much more appealing to Bush voters than some other possible candidates. He is a Constitutional scholar and computer programmer by trade who comes across as sober and conservative. No porn star on the arm or crown of marijuana leaves on his head.
Kerry would need but one rule for these debates, only candidates who are on the ballot in say forty states would be invited. This would keep Ralph Nadar off the platform because he does not have the Libertarian Party’s institutional access or the money and manpower to get on the necessary ballots. It therefore would be a three-way debate among Kerry, Badnarik, and most likely an empty chair.
Once Kerry and Badnarik had accepted such an invitation it would put Bush in a no win situation. He could show up giving even more legitimacy to the idea that people could vote for the Libertarian instead of him and we all know how well Bush does in live unscripted circumstances or he could not show up and give up what would be a very intense spotlight. The first such event would be unprecedented and extremely newsworthy.
And, the light would shine favorably on Kerry. One of the moments that helped to generate the great love and respect, even from most of his enemies, that we witnessed last week happened in New Hampshire when Ronald Reagan said I paid for this microphone we going to let him speak. By debating Badnarik, Kerry would be tapping into America’s innate sense of fair play while at the same time making Bush look somewhat cowardly.
I do not see how Kerry could pass up such a chance. At the very least he should write Badnarik a two thousand dollar check today and he should ask his wife to write one too.
Late night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel recently got himself in trouble by making a joke that suggested that if the Detroit Pistons won the NBA title there would be violent rioting in that city, saying it just was not worth it. This led to his show being temporarily pulled from the Detroit affiliate and an apology by him. However, like all good satire there is a strong grain of truth in what Kimmel said. Recent history is replete with examples of violence following the winning of various championships in a number of cities.
I believe that the police in Detroit and Los Angles should take note of how the Portuguese police are planning to avert possible violence in connection with a soccer match between England and France, which will take place in Lisbon. Law enforcement plans to crack down on alcohol use with officers at the stadium giving fans who seem drunken breath tests. Those who fail may be refused entry.
There also is a second element in the Portuguese plan. The British newspaper The Sun reports that fans who are seen smoking marijuana “have been assured they will not be arrested, cautioned — or even have their drugs confiscated.” Lisbon officials are implementing this strategy because ”Dutch police used a similar policy in Euro 2000 and England’s hooligan element were too stoned to fight.”
This story nicely illustrates the point that one of the prices we pay in this country for marijuana prohibition is increased violence both public and private. You cannot be anti-marijuana without being pro-alcohol.
It must be remembered that the survey published by Wall Street Journal, referenced in David Beito’s post below, did not use any objective criteria to give the President’s their rankings. All that really counted was subjective opinion.
However, in a book titled Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, edited by John V. Denson and published by the Mises Institute, someone did use a measurable basis to rate presidential performance. In the tome’s first essay, “Rating Presidential Performance”, Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway used data on federal government spending as a percent of total output along with size of government and inflation to determine the standing of each President. In their ranking based on federal spending Harding came in third and FDR came in dead last and in the one using size of government and inflation Warren Harding came in first.
Yet, it seems that to the majority of the historical profession if America was at peace and the people were prosperous then the President must have been a bad one.
Although Ronald Reagan had a very destructive blind spot when came to the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, I would still rate him as by far the best president of my lifetime. This is because he was the first president since Calvin Coolidge to understand the central tenet guiding the Founding Father’s vision of what America should be. Reagan knew that it was not about him; it was about us, the people. I do not think you can say the same of George Bush. Like Roderick Long I too watched the Libertarian Convention mainly too see old friends on television. Lately I have been much less involved with Libertarian politics than previously, so I had never seen or heard Michael Badnarik before and must say he greatly impressed me. Listening to him during the candidate’s debate and to his speech at the very end I thought an approach that uses detailed knowledge of the Constitution presented in an engaging manner could be a very effective tool for the promotion of liberty, it is too bad far too few people will ever get to see it. The media is going to treat him as if he does not even exist.
I could imagine Aaron Russo getting himself on the Tonight Show, Oprah Winfrey, or at least the Daily Show. I do not think Michael Badnarik will ever get within a hundred miles of those programs. Mind you it is not his fault. He has done an outstanding job to get this far, he will make good use of whatever opportunities he garners in the future, and he would make an infinitely better President than the one we are going to get. However, the mainstream media in the past has treated Libertarian candidates as though they were invisible and this practice will not change unless the candidate goes around it and forces the media to cover him with his own fame. Now, I am not saying that Russo has the requisite fame to compete in a meaningful way with Bush and Kerry but I do say he had a lot more potential to acquire that necessary fame than Badnarik does. I like Michael Badnarik a lot and will be very proud to vote for him; yet, I cannot help but think the Libertarian Party made a big mistake today.
I sincerely hope Badnarik proves me wrong because we really need someone to turn this country around. If anyone still does not believe that we are moving step-by-step along a path that ends with us living in a totalitarian hellhole they should read this article by Beverly Eakman (thanks to Jeff Schaler) on the growing practice of declaring mentally ill those who hold “wrong” opinions.
This Sunday once again marked an extremely bad day for those who support the war in Iraq. Yet another 60 Minutes interview, this time with retired General Anthony Zinni, highlighted the total incompetence with which the Bush Administration has pursued Woodrow Wilson’s dream of a world made safe for democracy. The last time we did this the world got Hitler and Stalin, what will it get this time?
Also, a videotape of the wedding the US Army has said never took place turned up along with the inconveniently dead body of a famous Iraqi wedding singer. A military spokesman said “There was no evidence of a wedding: no decorations, no musical instruments found, no large quantities of food or leftover servings (the attack took place at 3AM maybe someone cleaned up before they went to bed) one would expect from a wedding celebration," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said Saturday. "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have celebrations, too." So, I guess those little children on slabs in the morgue and beds in the hospital must have been bad people.
I do not know about the rest of you but I for one am getting sick and tired of my government continually lying to me. And, it depresses me no end that the people who rule over me, with an increasingly iron fist, are so stupid that they actually think they will get away with a lie like this.
And if the above was not enough, a story in the British media indicates that the American policy of shoot first ask questions later has made British military officers very reluctant to serve under American command. The story quotes a British Army source: “Seeking to adopt normal low-profile British tactics in the wake of American aggressiveness would be difficult enough," said the military source, "but to have to go in under US operational command would be a disaster." Now if we could only get our own soldiers out from being under US operational command.
Apparently, one of the casualties of the war in Iraq has been the intellect of Thomas Sowell. On Thursday the Washington Times published a column by Sowell which argued that the messenger deserved the blame for the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. He wrote, “What the media did, irresponsibly, was send inflammatory photographs around the world.”
Sowell goes on to suggest that it would have been better to wait until after those responsible had been punished before making the pictures freely available. He asks the question, ”If a colonel is conducting a court martial and the generals over him are publicly denouncing those on trial, will that be considered a fair trial whose verdicts will stand up on appeal?”
In the first place, it is extremely doubtful that anyone would have had a court marital without the release of the photos. There may have been some low level non-judicial punishment done quietly but those responsible, those who gave the orders, would have had nothing to fear. Because these photographs have garnered so much attention it will be much more difficult to summarily penalize the enlisted personnel and stop there. After all, the media is talking about over 1800 photographs and that is not the work of a few rogue guards that is the work of a system. Also, while we are worrying about fair trials for the guards let us take a moment to remember that none of the Iraqi participants in the naked pyramids had any kind of trial, impartial or otherwise.
Sowell asserts, ”it is not too much to ask of the rest of us back home to act like adults and put things in perspective.” Well, what about the perspective of the nude Iraqi prisoner attached to a leash in the hands of a female guard? And, I would venture to say that a large percentage of the people being held at Abu Ghraib prison are there for one of four reasons: they were a government employee, they had the wrong associate, they angered an American soldier at a checkpoint, or they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Consider the possibility that the reason the military had to go to such lengths to get information out of these detainees is because many of them do not really know anything.
It saddens me to read such partisan drivel coming from the pen of Thomas Sowell. As a corrective, I am going to recommend that he go back and reread one of his own works, the brilliant and very insightful The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. On page 8 of the hardback edition Sowell talks about patterns of failure and he maintains that, ”A very distinct pattern has emerged repeatedly when policies favored by the anointed turn out to fail.” He lists four stages the crisis, the solution, the results, and the response.
In the case before us, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction provided the crisis. Sowell argues that ”a situation is routinely characterized as a ‘crisis’ even though all human situations have negative aspects, and even though evidence is seldom asked or given to show how the situation at hand is either uniquely bad or threatening to get worse” During the entire build up to the war I never heard one reporter or public official ask the anointed George Bush why would Saddam Hussein, a man obsessed with his own personal survival, attack the most powerful nation on earth? In addition, when we consider the weapons Hussein had at his disposal in 1990 and the absence of WMDs found during the current occupation we must conclude that the situation, called a crisis, was actually improving.
As far as the solution and results stages go, the anointed promised us happy grateful Iraqis peacefully working with us on their new democratic paradise. Instead, we got 700 plus and counting dead American soldiers, a beheaded American civilian and no end to the violence in sight.
In the response stage the critics of the policies have their arguments dismissed out of hand, they retain the burden of proof. However, as Sowell points out, ”No burden of proof whatever is put on those who had so confidently predicted improvement.” The anointed imperialists who argued that the country’s safety hung in the balance, have never had to prove that their invasion has somehow made America safer. It is a good thing for them too, because they could not do that.
Before anyone condemns Michael Moore as a charlatan read the second comment on David Beito’s post directly below. When I read my e-mail today two items, both very profound in their own way, came to my attention. The first one, I believe, can be seen as a comment on the characteristic of government that is rapidly developing into its most oppressive aspect, its paternalism. It is a short (1:46) film titled Bitch in the Kitchen. I cannot help it, this little movie makes me think of Senator Clinton and federalized airport security.
The second piece, a short article, sent to me by Jeff Schaler and written by a British doctor goes a long way to explaining where this paternalism comes from and what could be done about it. It is one of the most eloquently written essays that I have read in quite some time.
You would think that if someone made the same mistake twice, with disastrous results both times, they would be hesitant to do it a third time, but not our President. He keeps attempting to silence those who criticize him, however, in each case he only amplifies and energizes their attacks.
First, he uses intimidation by the FCC and his cronies at Clear Channel Inc. to partially remove Howard Stern from the airwaves. Yet now, each and every weekday Stern spends a considerable amount of his five hours of airtime broadcasting his opinion, that Bush is a rightwing jerk unfit to be our leader, to his still more than eight million listeners. Also, he is doing this in a exceptionally engaging and intelligent way. And, there is growing evidence that Stern’s voice might even be a significant factor in tipping the election to Kerry.
Next, Bush closes the newspaper of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and now we are fighting his Shiite followers as well as the Sunni Moslems who had supported Hussein. Hardly anyone had ever heard of this guy before the Bush Administration tried to silence him.
Now, the Bush camp is trying to limit the distribution of Michael Moore’s new film Fahrenheit 911. The Disney Corporation is refusing to allow its subsidiary Mirimax to release the movie because it is afraid that Florida Governor Jeb Bush will take away important tax breaks if they do. Now, why would Disney think that unless they had already been warned?
This latest bit of censorship has worked just as well as this first two, in at least one instance. Before I read the story about Disney and Moore I had no intention of going to see the film, now I would not miss it. I am very curious to know what George Bush doesn’t want me to see.
My friend Jeff Schaler sent me an article from the New York Times on the current demonizing of fat. It gives a historical perspective to the issue and makes some good points.
However, the piece does show the Times characteristic bias in favor of government because it does not mention, even once, the enormous potential for tax revenue that is involved. Unless they are going to weigh people at the Giant Supermarket checkout counter everyone, including the emaciated, will pay the Twinkie Taxes. Also, think of the bad science, graft and corruption that will go into deciding which foods are bad and taxable versus which foods are good and non-taxable.
The anti-fat movement is just one more nail in the coffin of personal responsibility.
A recent ruling by the General Accounting Office (GAO) will allow the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to spend taxpayer funds to influence the outcome of state ballot initiatives that seek to reform drug policy. Any attempt to lesson the burden brought upon the citizens of this country by the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs will be opposed with those same citizens own money.
However, as journalist Dan Forbes points out in a very enlightening article there is an inherent incongruity, which is being ignored by the decision. He writes that, “Congress needs to square the contradiction between ONDCP's statutory responsibility to advocate a partisan political view – that is, to oppose state drug reform initiatives – versus the prohibition on federal officials using public resources to influence the outcome of an election.”
The use of ONDCP money to oppose state reform measures is, however, entirely consistent with the way that funds designated to control drugs have been spent historically. Harry Anslinger the head of the Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962 devoted almost all of his time and a great deal of currency to convincing people of drug prohibition’s necessity and woe unto anyone who suggested differently.
It is the same today. The House of Representatives has passed legislation reauthorizing the ONDCP until 2008, which includes $195 million per year for ads for the next two years and $210 million per year for the three years after that. They have done this despite the fact that the ads have not been shown effective in decreasing drug use. Forbes reports that a University of Pennsylvania study “has consistently found little evidence that the ads do anything to keep kids off drugs – and may actually increase marijuana initiation among some subgroups of teens.”
If these ads do not reduce drug use then what we have here is a situation where a government agency is spending enormous amounts of money for the sole purpose of convincing the public to allow it to continue to spend enormous amounts of money.
One aspect of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs that is consistently ignored by its proponents is the opportunity cost involved. However, it seems that 9/11 Commission is not going to make the same mistake. They are acknowledging that one opportunity cost of drug prohibition may very well have been preventing the destruction of the World Trade Center.
In a 1996 speech Arnold Trebach founder of the Drug Policy Foundation said ”all of us would be infinitely safer if the courageous efforts of anti-drug agent’s in the U.S. ... and other countries were focused on terrorists aimed at blowing up airliners and skyscrapers (rather than) drug traffickers seeking to sell the passengers and office dwellers cocaine and marijuana." Those in power gave lip service to his advice but studiously ignored it in practice.
At May 9, 2001 hearing Attorney General Ascroft testified that stopping international terrorism had the highest priority within the Justice Department. Yet, the next day a document pertaining to where fiscal resources would go in 2003 made curbing drug trafficking and reducing gun violence the foremost goals. The FBI did not shift over 400 agents from drug investigations to counter-terrorism until after the September 11th attacks.
Also, as Congressman Ron Paul points out in his excellent piece, on the lessons the 9/11 Commission most likely will miss, the proponents of gun control played their part in making the tragedy happen as well.
When I read Arthur Silber’s post below, the first sentence of his quote from the National Review, sparked a thought. The magazine wrote; “Since the conclusion of the war, the Bush administration has shown a dismaying capacity to believe its own public relations.”
After reading this it occurred to me that the entire case against pulling our troops out of Iraq tomorrow is based on a delusion. It is the idea that somehow we are in control of things there and if we leave, the country will descend into chaos. But, how can we believe that we are in control when an American, even a heavily armed American, cannot walk the streets with even a bare minimum of safety? Who are we kidding?
And, I believe that if our soldiers come home and the Iraqi people begin to kill one another then that is on their heads. It is their responsibility to find away to live in peace with one another, not ours. It is our responsibility to stop killing people ourselves.
Sunday’s Washington Times featured a piece by Alan Reynolds on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that simply astounded me. He reported that, “Since November 2001, the U.S. government has been adding about 160,000 barrels a day to the 651 billion barrels already stockpiled in the SPR. During that time, oil prices rose from less than $20 a barrel to as much as $37. The Energy Department can't resist a bad bargain and plans to buy another 202,000 barrels a day in April.”
So let’s get this straight, when gas prices are at an extremely high level not only is the Bush administration refusing to release some of the reserve to ease this burden on the American people but also they are going to create an additional 42,000-barrel a day demand.
Now I just got done looking at the income tax return prepared by my accountant and because I have a one-day a week delivery job for which I am paid a set amount I have to pay a self-employment tax because the government says my part time job is a business. Yet the income is also added to the family’s gross income. I am taxed twice then the Bush regime uses that money to artificially raise the price of the gasoline that I need.
And people sometimes ask me, why are you a libertarian? Why do you despise the government so very much?
Maybe the reason Tammy Bruce and Bill O’Reilly want to “raze” Fallujah (see David Beito’s post directly below) is because they are having difficulty dealing with their own responsibility for the deaths of those four Americans. Since there are no weapons of mass destruction and no credible proof that Hussein had anything to do with 9-11, there is no real reason that those four should have been there in the first place. Nevertheless they were there, why? I say they died in large part because of the mindless jingoism espoused by the likes of Bruce and O’Reilly. People in this country are constantly advocating that the government take some kind of action, but they never want to take any responsibility for the results of the actions that they advocate. The following is the opening paragraph from a story that describes events that occurred two hours ago. “FALLUJAH, Iraq - In a scene reminiscent of Somalia, frenzied crowds dragged the burned, mutilated bodies of four American contractors through the streets of a town west of Baghdad on Wednesday and strung two of them up from a bridge after rebels ambushed their SUVs.” (my emphasis)
The key word in this description is crowds. Now the Bush administration has responded to the event this way: “The White House blamed terrorists and remnants of Saddam Hussein's former regime for the "horrific attacks" on the American contractors.” They completely ignore the word crowds. They cannot accept the fact that they are in command of a hated occupying army. They commission phony-baloney opinion polls proving that the Iraqi people think our being there is just peachy-keen. However, the reality about how the Iraqis view Americans is contained in the above article.
Almost all speech can be put into one of three categories; political speech, commercial speech, or artistic speech. Of the three I believe that freedom of political speech is the most important legacy that we can hand to our children. If either commercial or artistic free speech are lost but freedom of political speech is preserved then that can be used to recover the other two. However, if political free speech does not exist then the other two will quickly follow it into the void.
That it why importance of what is happening to Howard Stern needs to be better and more widely understood. Clear Channel communications canceled Stern’s radio show in six markets, including Pittsburgh, Orlando, San Diego, and Rochester, New York. The public reason given, that this occurred because Howard Stern’s show is obscene, strikes me as being a lie. Clear Channel’s executives have contributed heavily to the Bush’s campaigns and the GOP. I can speak from first hand knowledge that Stern had changed from supporting George Bush to opposing him before he got into trouble. Howard had in fact become increasingly critical of the President on a daily basis (something I thoroughly enjoyed listening to) before they silenced his voice in those six cities. And, is it not convenient for Bush’s reelection bid that there will be less criticism of him in such battleground, electoral vote rich, states as Pennsylvania, Florida, California, and New York? When Clear Channel took this action they committed an act of censorship for political reasons.
Now, I believe that Clear Channel, as a private company, had every right to do that, although, they do need to pay him the money they owe him. Also, Stern, depending upon what kind of contract he had and if Clear Channel is honoring it, should be able to go back on the air in those markets with other stations.
However, Clear Channel is not the only entity taking action. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is is busy handing out fines and seeking new powers, which will be used to eliminate Howard Stern and his criticism of Bush from the airwaves. The hammerheads in Congress, who, with the exception of Ron Paul seem to care nothing for the First Amendment, have passed legislation that allows the FCC, headed by the son of George Bush’s Secretary of State, to silence anyone they please by alleging an action that is not really defined. Not only that but it is an FCC with a well-documented history of treating different people in different ways. For example, they had no quarrel with this discussion (the link is on Stern’s website, don’t listen to it with your children) heard on the Oprah Winfrey show.
This is not just a problem for Howard Stern; it is a problem for all of us. If anyone thinks that this kind of political speech suppression will be confined to broadcast radio they are in for a rude surprise. Censorship of cable TV and satellite radio are already in the works. Today, I learned that all government computers are blocking Howard Stern’s website. There is nothing obscene on this site it is overtly political, check for yourself with the above link.
As of now the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has unanimously passed S. 2056, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, the companion law to the one passed by the House. All of us need to realize the very real danger that is upon us and act accordingly. What would Thomas Paine do?
If George Bush and his minions at the FCC are allowed to silence Howard Stern then this country will have taken a gigantic step down the road to serfdom.
William Marina makes a good point in his post below referencing my missive on Martha Stewart. He writes, “I hope that, as suggested by Keith Halderman, political progress in America does not depend upon a decline among the poor envying the rich.” He then explains that it is the people near the top, but not quite there, who are the most envious. As we look at who is playing the class warfare card the hardest these days, it is not poor people but rather wealthy individuals such as Hilary Clinton, Howard Dean, and John Kerry.
So the problem is not so much to make the poor stop envying the rich, it is to make them put aside their envy. Progress towards a more free society would be greatly enhanced if those like my leftist friend Kenny could be made to realize that the problems which concern them so much spring not from Martha Stewart’s wealth but from her prosecutor’s ambition and his willingness to use force to advance that ambition. However, Kenny’s envy and the envy of those who think like him cloud their analysis of the situation. William Marina is right, people will always envy the rich but that does not mean that they must continue to remain blind to where the real threat to their happiness and well-being comes from, the state.
I have an internet friend, Kenny Rodgers, who has very a left leaning political viewpoint and when I received an email from Ilana Mercer with a exceptionally good article about Martha Stewart I forwarded it to him with the following note.
Kenny
What happened to Martha Stewart was totally wrong, and we are never going to get anywhere politically in this country until people stop envying the rich. Do you know how many people were able to put bread on their tables because of her? They canceled her TV show; all those people are out of work. Her stock tanked, all those pension funds lost money. If you read the article below you will see that she really did not do anything wrong, nothing that you or I would not have done under the same circumstances. When injustice happens to someone, whether they are rich or poor, it happens to all of us. All of this harm just to serve the ambition of a government lawyer. That is why I believe that while government may be necessary, it is also by its very nature evil.
Keith
As Mark Brady has pointed out President Vladimir Putin’s resume includes a stint with the KGB, however, he clearly never worked for the Soviet or Russian version of the DEA. A law Putin signed in December just went into effect that essentially decriminalizes possession of small amounts of drugs. A person having up to ten times the “average single dose” will be committing an administrative infraction and be subject only to a small fine. Ten to fifty times the “average single dose” will entail a larger fine and community service but no jail time. It is estimated that the expense of housing up to 150,000 prisoners can be saved by the end of next year. If an ex-KGB man like Putin can apply a little common sense towards the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs, what is George Bush’s problem? So, Martha Stewart will have to spend time in prison for lying to the government. Why doesn’t anyone in government ever have to go to jail for lying to her and me? The Rocky Mountain Progressive Network has challenged each Colorado lawmaker, both state and federal, who publicly supports the Federal Marriage Amendment to sign a Fidelity Pledge. It consists of a promise to uphold the institution of marriage by being faithful to their spouse. So far no one has signed the pledge. Government science will always give the answer that government wants and the answer that government wants always leads to more power for government. This principle is clearly demonstrated in the way a federally sponsored researcher has handled questions about the drug Ecstasy up until now. However, Dr. George A. Ricaurte retracted his 2002 article, which supplied the crucial support for the drug’s prohibition. I ask you though; does anyone think that the government will stop arresting people for using Ecstasy just because the dangers of its use turn out to be non-existent? I would suggest to Chamblers Johnson that in addition to James Fallows and Seymour Hersh he name David Halberstam to his commission investigating government intelligence failures preceding the invasion of Iraq. After all, Halberstam has written an entire book, Best and the Brightest, on the subject of the difficulty of translating intelligence into policy during the 1960s. The same kind of “cherry picking of information” that got us into Vietnam has now landed us into another no win situation. The only question now is how many body bags will it take to get us out of it? I hope it is not more than 50,000 like the last time. On Saturday Chris Matthew Sciabarra posted a blog titled ”On Grave an Gathering Threats”. In it he described how historian Victor Davis Hanson continues his support for the invasion of Iraq, even in light of the Kay report citing a lack of weapons of mass destruction. He quoted Hanson and these words reminded me of another quotation, one of my favorites. It comes from an excellent book by John Barry, titled Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How it Changed America
In 1927 the Mississippi River flooded it banks covering an area equivalent in size to the states of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut combined. Some points 100 miles from the riverbank were covered in 100 feet of water. Thousands died and close to a million people were forced from their homes.
In the decades preceding the flood two basic approaches to controlling the river competed with one another. The first called for the use of outlets, natural and artificial, to disperse the flow of the river. The second way, the “levees only theory”, featured an attempt to confine the river. The backers of this method believed that levees all along the river would increase the current force thereby scouring and deepening the riverbed. That would allow the river to carry more water.
The second approach proved to be the more politically popular because it left far more land open for development. Officers in the Army Corps of Engineers who, as Barry points out, “had neither special background nor training in the problems of the Mississippi River” (page 157) also favored it and they made all important decisions concerning flood control.
In 1912 the Mississippi flooded reaching new high water marks, although, the river carried a smaller total volume of water than previous instances. This provided pretty conclusive evidence that the “levees only theory” was incorrect. Nevertheless, the policy preferring levees continued.
After 1912 some civilian engineers, among them James F. Kemper, tried to reopen the debate concerning the two methods of containing flooding. They proposed that the Corps build a hydraulics laboratory to study the problem. Chief of Engineers, General Lansing Beach rejected the idea stating that the “laboratory proposed would have no value whatever in solving flood control.”(page 160)
Later, Kemper remarked, ”It is so much easier to believe than it is to think; it is astounding how much more believing is done than thinking. It is more astounding that an honest study was not made of conditions resulting from [the levees-only policy]. Not only was essential data not available but it appeared as though the failure to acquire it was deliberate. The determination to carry out this impossible theory was so great that, with many, it appeared to be an obsession.”(page 160)
The facts that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and that he bore no responsibility for the events of 9-11 can never compete with Victor Davis Hanson’s belief in a “world made safe for democracy” by George W. Bush.
One of my friends sent me an e-mail, which contained some quotations. He did not provide any sources so unfortunately I cannot provide a link. However, the one below was so good I feel the need to pass it on anyways. If I had Mark Shields’ e-mail address I would certainly forward it to him.
”When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 million developing a pen that writes in zero gravity, upside down, on almost any surface including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300C.
The Russians used a pencil.
Enjoy paying your taxes."
In his post just below Radley Balko quotes pundit Mark Shield as saying, "It's an insult to Americans when a politician stands up and says that Americans know better how to spend their own money than the government does. I'm tired of it."
Have we considered the possibility that maybe the government really does know how to spend Mark Shields money better than Mark Shields does? I have been watching Shields on TV, off and on, for years and I have never heard him say anything remotely intelligent.
On Comedy Central’s The Daily Show tonight they did a story on the Iowa Caucus and Stephen Colbert said that Howard Dean’s numbers had “dropped like a duck on Demerol.”
I agree with Chris Matthew Sciabarra when he said in his post yesterday, referring to the Democratic Party nominating process after the Iowa results, that, “This might actually be fun to watch.” Though, I hope it is not too much fun because that could mean a brokered convention and President Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I do not want to live in her village.
Yesterday brought me two reminders of what very well may turn out to be the worst aspect of the Bush Administration’s ill advised endeavor of nation building in Iraq. The first came in the form of a link to an extremely moving remembrance of the events that happened on 9-11 in words, pictures, and audio. The second occurred when I read Chris Matthew Sciabarra's post “Hussein, Bin Laden, and Gramsci.”
My cousin was employed by the N.Y.F.D. and he died when one of the towers collapsed on him. Therefore on a personal level, I wholeheartedly supported the war in Afghanistan as necessary and just but I do not believe that Saddam Hussein had anything to with my cousin’s death. We must remember that most people in the country do not share my opinion on this. In the build up to the invasion of Iraq the Bush people very cleverly tied 9-11 and Hussein together and this highly unlikely connection remains strong in the minds of most Americans. Now I do not know whether Bush did it for oil profits, his place in history, to uphold his own family’s honor, or because he really believes the nonsense being put forth by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz but I do know that when he invaded Iraq the grief of and justice for my family and all the other families affected by the destruction of the World Trade Center took a back seat in our national policy.
The war in Iraq has cost us global good will, lives, resources, and the focus necessary to combat our real enemies. I urge you to watch and listen to the above link and then ask yourself how can George Bush’s war on terror be considered anything other than a failure as long as Osama Bin Laden and his ilk remain free?
While it is certainly amusing seeing George Bush being portrayed as an alternately detached or conniving incompetent by his ex-Treasury Department head Paul O’Neill, according to two good columns in today’s Washington Times, one by Stephen Moore and the other by Bruce Bartlett, it seems O’Neill was no great shakes as Treasury Secretary himself. Two recent events have brought Rush Limbaugh into my thoughts. The first was yesterday’s NFL playoff win by the Philadelphia Eagles against the Green Bay Packers. Near the beginning of the season Limbaugh lost his job as a football commentator for ESPN because he expressed the opinion that Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb received favorable treatment from the press because the media wanted a black quarterback to succeed. Many interpreted Limbaugh’s remarks as racist and ESPN quickly had him out of the booth.
I never understood just exactly how these comments directed exclusively at the mostly white media qualified as racist. Nevertheless, I felt that Limbaugh should go because he clearly knows so little about football. You might have been able to make the above case twenty years ago but a black person playing quarterback these days is pretty routine. Also. I am from Syracuse where McNabb played his college ball and I watched him closely for four years. Anyone who cannot see what a special athlete McNabb is has no business being a football commentator. Of all current NFL quarterbacks he has the highest winning percentage. Yesterday’s game provided ample proof that the media can’t possibly treat McNabb too favorably. As a long time Syracuse and Donovan McNabb fan I say in your face Rush Limbaugh.
The second event, which brought Limbaugh to mind, was the results of an online poll conducted by Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). The vote on whether or not Limbaugh should see jail time for his illegal drug use came out with 66% of the over 9500 participants saying yes. Most of those who voted in this poll would consider themselves, as I do, part of for want of a better term the drug reform community. As a member of this community I find the results of this very distressing and in fact shameful.
If say Barney Frank found himself in a similar situation as Limbaugh and the DPA conducted a poll with the same question no more than 2 or 3% (if that many) would say that Frank should be jailed. Therefore, some 6000 people have said that Limbaugh should be punished just because he holds a particular political point of view. The principles of self-ownership and the right to alter one’s consciousness as one sees fit are completely thrown out merely because of whom Limbaugh is.
If the people in the drug reform movement want the Bush and future administrations to show compassion for those who run into difficulties with drugs should they not be setting a good example themselves?
Back on December 2nd I had to apologize for previously posting the bogus Stella Awards, including the urban legend of Merv Grazinski, in this space and I still consider myself to have let the Blog down. But, after reading Thursday’s Washington Times I do not feel quite so bad anymore. It seems one of my hero’s Walter Williams made the same mistake and he too had to admit a lack of due diligence. In his column he points out that 40 or 50 years ago no one in their right mind would have found such things believable.
Williams goes on to give some examples of true stories concerning unjust lawsuits that seem to my mind to be almost as fantastic as the made up ones. He then writes, ”What is common to all of them is the absolution or the attempt at absolution from personal responsibility. Are people to be held responsible for their actions? In the case of tobacco use, it's not the smoker who is responsible for his illness, it's tobacco companies. In the case of obesity, it's not the individual, but fast-food companies and food manufacturers who are responsible. It's the same with criminal violence — the gun manufacturer is partly to blame. What does all this say for the future of our nation?”
However, the notion that individuals are not responsible for their own actions goes back quite a bit further in our history then 40 or 50 years. The idea that black people are either childlike or brutish and therefore cannot control themselves was along with the need to convert them to Christianity one of the two pillars of the ante-bellum pro-slavery argument. Also, much of the Progressive Era reforms had as their central tenet an absolution of personal responsibility. People were not responsible for their own economic well being, therefore various means of income redistribution had to be attempted. People were not responsible for their own behavior when they used alcohol or took certain kinds of drugs, therefore the disease model of drug use and prohibition came to the forefront.
When Williams talks about drive to blame tobacco companies and fast food franchises for the problems of those who use their products he is in reality speaking about a modern day extention of the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. Though the seedy looking dope dealer lurking around the schoolyard has been replaced by Ronald McDonald, the underlying philosophy is the same.
That Walter Williams would leave the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs off of his above list of the ways in which personal responsibility is being avoided did not surprise me. I have long noticed a pronounced tendency by black conservative intellectuals such as Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Alan Keyes to avoid the subject of illegal drugs. I have never read anything by Williams on the topic and only thing I have seen by Sowell, that comes close, was a recent column in support of mandatory minimum sentencing. In this piece he argued that those who steal or do violence to others should be sent anyway for a long time. Although, he failed to mention that those kinds of inmates are almost always not the ones subject to mandatory minimum prison terms. In fact the felons Sowell is concerned with are sometimes let out early to make room for the kinds of prisoners serving mandatory sentences, drug law violators who have harmed no one else’s person or property. When pressed on the point Alan Keyes will respond by saying that the illegal drugs enslave their users and that he cannot support slavery, completely oblivious to the fact that he is suggesting that we free these so called slaves by putting them in prison.
If I had it in my power to command the above three conservatives to read two books they would be Jacob Sullum’s Saying Yes, In Defense of Drug Use and Jeffery Schaler's Addiction Is a Choice, then maybe they would lend their powerful voices to ending the war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. Because, if we want to return America to a nation and a culture where the individual is held responsible for his or her own actions ending that war is a necessary first step.
In Monday’s Washington Times there are two excellent columns concerning the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. In the first one Nat Hentoff, quite possibly America’s staunchest defender of the First Amendment, highlights some of the arguments made by the dissenting judges. Their points are so valid that they leave one with a sense of wonderment as to how the other justices could have voted to sustain a law so clearly injurious to our right to free speech.
Hentoff also reminds us that the law in effect curtails the ability of individuals of modest means to speak politically during the crucial period before an election by denying them the right to pool their resources, while it leaves the First Amendment rights of billionaires such as George Soros and Bill Gates intact. At the end of his piece he quotes a letter writer to the New York Times, Edward Wronk, who says, “The powerful have only gotten more powerful.”
In the second column John R. Lott Jr., perhaps America’s staunchest Defender of the Second Amendment, discusses a recent announcement by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that it is considering buying a television or radio station. Just as Hentoff shows that the law fosters inequality among individuals Lott demonstrates that the law creates inequality among institutions. He asks, As Chris Matthew Sciabarra points out in the post directly below personal survival held great importance for Saddam Hussein. I would go even further saying it was by far his number one, most likely his lone, priority. Not only did he have a plethora of tunnels he also had many doubles. He could not follow his natural instinct and flee Iraq because after what we did to the Taliban for giving Bin Laden sanctuary no other country would have taken him. We did not find him out leading an insurgency to recapture his country, we found him hiding in a hole in the ground.
If we accept the above point then the justification for the invasion is even further diminished. Whether or not Hussein had weapons of mass destruction has always been an irrelevant point. Even if he did still have them, to use them against America would have been an act of suicide by the least suicidal man on the planet. We could have easily traced any use of such weapons back to him because we provided him with such capabilities that he had back in the 1980s when he was one of our best friends fighting one of our worst enemies Iran.
Some of the neocon commentators suggest that we are in a new world war with fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. If this true, what are we doing wasting enormous resources and precious lives in a country that was never a threat to us in the first place? I have no doubt that the fall and capture of Saddam Hussein is a good thing for the Iraqi people. However, the job of our government is not to make the Iraqi people happy, the job of our government is to make the American people safer and when George Bush invaded Iraq he was not doing his job. Whenever ex-Congressman Bob Barr’s name is mentioned at a drug reform movement event people will invariably start to hiss. He earned his well-deserved infamy in these circles with one of the most blatant attacks on the democratic process in my lifetime. He attached an amendment to the federal bill funding the District of Columbia prohibiting that local government from spending the miniscule amount of money necessary to count the votes already cast in a medical marijuana referendum. Estimates that a 70% favorable vote would be the result, later turned out to be largely true. What was especially egregious about Barr’s legislation was that it only blocked counting the vote concerning proposals to lessen marijuana penalties not those that would increase them.
When Barr experienced a surprisingly sound defeat in a primary election that featured ads sponsored by the Libertarian Party, which highlighted his stance on the medical marijuana issue, I will admit to being pleased.
However, there are most definitely two sides to Bob Barr. While still in Congress he along with Henry Hyde sponsored some worthwhile reform of asset forfeiture laws. When he left the House he worked with the ACLU to combat some of the more pernicious effects of the Patriot Act.
And, in Saturday’s Washington Times the good Bob Barr out did himself. He wrote an absolutely excellent column on the Supreme Court’s recent decision to eviscerate the First Amendment in the name of campaign finance reform. It is well worth reading. In it he relates how many Republican Congressmen voted for a law they knew to be unconstitutional because of their strong belief that the Supreme Court would never let it stand. Surprise! This terrific essay almost makes me wish Mr. Barr were back in the House of Representatives, but not quite.
Today’s Washington Times tells of a Human Rights Watch report, titled "Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq," which looked at the use of cluster bombs by American forces. The paper reports that “In 50 acknowledged decapitation strikes, not one targeted Iraqi leader was killed. But in four strikes detailed by in the report, at least 100 Iraqi civilians were killed.” So much for winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, it is past time to leave.
I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, often referred to as the People’s Republic of Montgomery County. It contains the suburbs to the northwest of Washington D.C. while Prince Georges County, Maryland has those to the northeast and Fairfax County, Virginia has those to the south. Traffic congestion in the entire area is absolutely horrendous. I have not been to Los Angeles since I was twelve but I find it hard to imagine anyplace worse then here.
Now, whenever someone is extolling the virtues of government they invariably mention roads. However, it seems the Montgomery County Council does not see the snail’s pace traffic in the area as its responsibility. They have passed an ordinance which will fine all county businesses with 50 or more employees $75 a day if they fail to come up with “traffic mitigation plans” by January first (those with less than 50 have until next January).
A friend of mine has a much better plan to ease the congestion. He suggests the legislative and executive offices of Montgomery County be moved to Fairfax County, while those in Fairfax County be relocated in Prince Georges County and those in that county be shifted to Montgomery County. Once the legislators and bureaucrats have to deal with the results of their negligence on a daily basis, improvements will swiftly follow. I must apologize because the tales that I posted three Blogs below are
apparently false.
There are real Stella Awards and the above link provides a way to sign up
for free case updates. I want to thank Arthur Silber for helping me learn
a valuable lesson about being too quick to pass on things that have not
been checked out.
In the back of my mind I knew those stories were too good to be true,
however, with such things as the war on the Iraqi people, the war on
people who use certain kinds of drugs, and the recently passed Medicare
“reform” my capacity to believe in acts of gross stupidity has become
enormous.
A friend of mine, Bob Skyler, sent this to me in an e-mail and it
speaks for itself.
It's time once again to review the winners of the annual "Stella
Awards". The Stella's are named after 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who
spilled coffee on herself and successfully sued McDonalds. That case
inspired the Stella awards for the most frivolous successful lawsuits in
the United States. Unfortunately the most recent lawsuit implicating
McDonalds, the teen's who allege that eating at McDonalds have made them
fat, was filed after the 2002 award voting was closed. This suit will top
the 2003 list without question.
The following are this year's winners: 5th Place (tie): Kathleen
Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers
after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a
furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at
the verdict, considering the misbehaving little toddler was Ms.Robertson's
son.
5th Place (tie): A 19-year-old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000
and medical expenses when his neighbor ran over his hand with a Honda
Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel
of the car when he was trying to steal his neighbor's hubcaps.
5th Place (tie): Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was leaving
a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able
to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was
malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting
the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on
vacation, and Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight
days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog
food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him
undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the sum of $500,000.
4th Place: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500
and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door
neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced yard.
The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have
been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting
it repeatedly with a pellet gun.
3rd Place: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and
broke her coccyx (tailbone). The beverage was on the floor because Ms.
Carson had thrown it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an
argument.
2nd Place: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the
owner of a night club in a neighboring city when she fell from the
bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This
occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the
ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded
$12,000 and dental expenses.
1st Place: This year's run away winner was Mr. Merv Grazinski of
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Mr.Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot
Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, (from an OU football game),
having driven onto the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and
calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of
coffee. Not surprisingly, the R.V. left the freeway, crashed and
overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the
owner's manual that he couldn't actually do this. The jury awarded him
$1,750,000 plus a new motor home. The company actually changed their
manuals on the basis of this suit, just in case there were any other
complete morons buying their recreation vehicles.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Bombing Iran
Friday, October 26, 2007
How Odd He Honors His Oath
Not Ready for Article Five
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
My Radio Interview
Monday, October 15, 2007
A Law Enforcement Officer Speaks
Sunday, October 14, 2007
A Perceptive Question
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Mitt Romney a Compassionate Guy
Friday, October 5, 2007
Foreign Policy Cover: "Legalize It"
Monday, October 1, 2007
Great Ron Paul Video
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Time to Start Talking About Legalization
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Medical Marijuana Yet Another Use
Friday, September 14, 2007
No Dictatorship as Long as This Can Occur
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Data From the Climate Criminals at NASA
Saturday, August 25, 2007
The Murder Rate Among Blacks Can be Reduced
Monday, August 20, 2007
Dealing With a Border Problem
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Open Government as a Mixed Blessing
Unexpected Survey Results
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
A Partisan Office of National Drug Control Policy
Monday, July 16, 2007
Lisa's False Choice
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Ron Paul Will Not Go Quietly Into the Night
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Norm Coleman Betrays His Past
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Triumph of Symbolism Over Substance
Friday, June 15, 2007
A Powerful Drug
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
The Six Day War and An Academic Boycott
5th Sentence Meme II
2. Find the fifth full sentence.
3. Post the text of the sentence along with these instructions.
edited by David F. Musto, M.D.
"Alcohol Explored" Howard W. Haggard and E.M. Jellnick, the sentence is:Thursday, May 31, 2007
Medical Marijuana Pioneer Rest in Peace
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Science is Disputed
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Professor Kehowski and Opie and Anthony in the Same Boat
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Opie and Anthony Suspended. Do The Terrorists Win?
Monday, May 14, 2007
An Unwise, An Unjust Veto
Sunday, May 13, 2007
A Global Warming Winner
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Answer Comes From Within Islam
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Global Warming Media Bias
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Global Warming on Mars
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Distortion of “Stop Snitching’s” Meaning
Monday, April 16, 2007
Predictable Irony
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Another Blow to Free Speech
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Medical Marijuana: Katie Couric's Lost Opportunity
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Judge Only Qualified To Decide About Other People's Lives
Monday, March 19, 2007
Misguided State Department Report
Friday, March 16, 2007
Drug Testing Debate
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Global Warming Documentary: Not The One You Think
Repeal Maryland Mandatory Minimums
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Endangering the Free Speech of Those Most Concerned
Monday, February 19, 2007
Global Warming the New Eugenics?
SSDP Event
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Congressional Ignorance
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Milton Friedman and Drug Policy
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Drug Testing Tour
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
A Climate Criminal Speaks
Friday, December 15, 2006
Response to Peter Cohen
Saturday, December 9, 2006
Global Warming and the Scientific Method
Monday, December 4, 2006
The Changing Rationale of Marijuana Prohibition
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Marijuana, Alcohol and Driving
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Questions for Senator Hagel
Sunday, November 5, 2006
Borat and Bob Barr
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Compelling Editorial
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Alternative Theory
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Drug Testing
Friday, September 29, 2006
Air Marshals
Monday, September 18, 2006
War on Food Choice
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Government Rationed Health Care
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Murkowski's Folly
Monday, July 31, 2006
This is a Dangerous Website
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Who Do You Believe?
Monday, July 3, 2006
Flawed Science
Consequences of Hate
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Hudson v Michigan
Monday, June 12, 2006
Message for China
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Honest Scientist
Monday, May 29, 2006
Unhappy Anniversary
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Lying is Acceptable for Some
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
Drug Tourism and the A.P.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
U.S. Government to American People: Suffer
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Jane Jacobs Will be Missed
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Support for Bombing Iran Through Silence
Friday, April 14, 2006
Secret Gold Tooth Seizure Sought
Thursday, April 13, 2006
A Dismissive Word
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Louis Armstrong
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Enemy Needed
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Cultural Direction
Saturday, March 11, 2006
My Meme
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Bruce Bartlett Free at Last
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Walter Cronkite Still Has It
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Bolivian Casualty
Sunday, February 12, 2006
An Important Omission
Sports and Drugs
Saturday, February 11, 2006
De Facto Censorship
Friday, February 10, 2006
Good Jobs for Republicans
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Free Speech Not on My Watch
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
2005 Stella Awards
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Oprah Shocked Shocked
Friday, January 20, 2006
The Moral High Ground
Monday, December 19, 2005
Apt Description
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Which is the Dangerous Drug?
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Doug Bandow Scandal
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Cory Maye Prohibition Victim
Friday, November 18, 2005
Envy
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Twin Sons of Different Mothers
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Marijuana Does Not Cause Cancer
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Marijuana Does Not Cause Insanity
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Free the Drug Dogs!
Friday, September 9, 2005
Marijuana and Youth
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Iraq War Vote?
Friday, August 26, 2005
No Real Debate on Iraq
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Legalization Not a Threat
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Economics of Prohibition
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Subway Searches
Saturday, July 23, 2005
A Good Day for The Washington Times
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Support the Andrews Amendment
Thursday, June 9, 2005
Needed Law
Tuesday, June 7, 2005
Gonzales v. Raich
Friday, June 3, 2005
Real Life Example
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Milton Friedman Endorses Marijuana Report
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Invalid Corollary
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Yet Another Useless Bureaucrat
Monday, May 9, 2005
Censorship Backfires
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
The GOP Loves Big Brother
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
The Fox Is Guarding the Oil
Friday, April 29, 2005
War as a Way of Life
Thursday, April 14, 2005
The Natural Order of Drug Use
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
An Open LetterTo Comcast Cable Network
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Come Fly With Me, But Not If You Are On The List
Saturday, April 9, 2005
Which is Actually Offensive?
Friday, April 8, 2005
Randy Barnett Meet Paul Leidig
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Medical Marijuana Research
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Tavern Wisdom
Thursday, March 17, 2005
On Fear
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Studies that Do Not Make the News
Tuesday, February 8, 2005
More Junk Science?
Sunday, February 6, 2005
Social Security and the Draft
Thursday, February 3, 2005
Social Security: Two Separate Programs
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Summers and Hopkins
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The Guerrillas Always Win
Friday, January 14, 2005
McElroy vs Long
Monday, November 22, 2004
End Taxpayer Support of PBS Propaganda
Tuesday, November 9, 2004
Red and Blue Addicts
Monday, November 1, 2004
Vote For Badnarik!
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
A Modest Proposal?
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Everybody Must Get Stoned
Saturday, October 16, 2004
An Open Letter to My Congressman Albert Wynn
Friday, October 15, 2004
Florida Ballot Test
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Grade Inflation
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Bravo Badnarik
Saturday, October 2, 2004
One Long Reaction Shot
Monday, September 27, 2004
No Ability, No Right, No Responsibility
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Hastert's Implication
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A Horrible Idea From Walter Williams
Friday, September 10, 2004
Evil is not Scientific
Thursday, September 9, 2004
Marijuana an Evolving Issue
Saturday, September 4, 2004
Whistleblowers Gather
Drug Cartels for Hastert
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
End Soviet Chic
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Ron Paul on the 9-11 Commission
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Crime and Causation
Thursday, August 19, 2004
False Assumptions About the Chavez Win
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Something Worth Watching
A Popular Vote For Chavez
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Scott Ritter Right Again
Sunday, July 18, 2004
This Land is Your Land
Sunday, July 4, 2004
Fourth of July Hemp Festival
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Unintended Consequence
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Get a Reagan Into the Race
Saturday, June 12, 2004
How to Reduce Sports Associated Violence
Ranking the Presidents
Monday, June 7, 2004
Reagan and the People
Monday, May 31, 2004
Libertarian Convention
Monday, May 24, 2004
What is a Wedding Singer Doing at a Safe House?
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Thomas Sowell Now One of the Anointed
Saturday, May 8, 2004
Michael Moore and Disney III
Thursday, May 6, 2004
Oppressive Paternalism
Michael Moore and Disney
Sunday, May 2, 2004
Anti- Fat Movement
Friday, April 30, 2004
White House Interference in State Elections
Monday, April 26, 2004
9/11 Commission, Drugs, and Guns
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Deluding Ourselves
Tuesday, April 6, 2004
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Friday, April 2, 2004
Who is Responsible for Those Four Deaths?
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
How the Iraqis Really Feel
Friday, March 26, 2004
Howard Stern: Politcal Free Speech in Danger
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Put Aside Envy
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
No Justice for Martha
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Putin and Drugs
Monday, March 8, 2004
Martha Stewart Going Down a One Way Street
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Lead by Example
Ecstasy and Government Science
Friday, February 6, 2004
ANOTHER COMMISSION MEMBER
Monday, February 2, 2004
MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND IRAQ
Monday, January 26, 2004
ZERO GRAVITY
Sunday, January 25, 2004
MARK SHIELDS
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
IOWA CAUCUS
Friday, January 16, 2004
BIN LADEN OR HUSSEIN
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
What About O'Neill's Performance
Monday, January 12, 2004
RUSH LIMBAUGH, FOOTBALL, AND JAIL TIME
Saturday, January 10, 2004
I AM IN GOOD COMPANY
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM DOUBLE STANDARDS
“But what really distinguishes General Electric’s versus General Motors’ ability to influence elections? Is it really simply ownership of television networks? Can unions buy radio stations? Can anyone possibly rationalize such distinctions?"
Apparently McCain, Feingold, and Sandra Day O’Connor can but I can’t.Monday, December 15, 2003
SADDAM AND PERSONAL SURVIVAL
Sunday, December 14, 2003
BOB BARR SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO LOVE HIM
Friday, December 12, 2003
WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS
Monday, December 8, 2003
PLAN TO EASE TRAFFIC CONGESTION
Tuesday, December 2, 2003
APOLOGIES
Monday, December 1, 2003
2002 STELLA AWARDS
Recent Entries
- Launching a Left/Right Coalition Against Empire
- Excellent EconTalk Podcast
- Dr. Pangloss: Patron Saint of the United States
- Icelanders against the State
- Excellent Short Discussion of the Crisis
- Quotation of the Week (On Treason)
- Is the Current Recovery a Piñata with No Candy Inside?
- Left Goes Postal on Rand
- My Review Of "Complicit"
- Stemming the Tide of History
News
Roundup
HNN Blogs
- Cliopatria
- Liberty & Power
- Judith Apter Klinghoffer
- How Stupid?
- Mark A. LeVine
- Allan Lichtman
- Tim Furnish
- Gil Troy
Wikipedia
Contributing Editors
- Common Sense
- Stephen Cox
- Stephen Davies
- Grinder and Hagel
- Gus DiZerega
- Gene Healy
- Karen U. Kwiatkowski
- William Marina
- James Otteson
- Jim Powell
In Memoriam
Freedom and Standards on Campus
- Grade Inflation
- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
- National Association of Scholars
- Acton Institute
- Atlas Economic Research Foundation
- Cato Institute
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Independent Institute
- Institute for Humane Studies
- International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
- Liberty Fund
- OnPower.org
- Pope Center
- Trebach Institute
Blogs & Columns
- The Adam Smith Institute
- Agoraphilia
- Alan Bock
- Alina Stefanescu
- A Tiny Revolution
- Antiwar.com Blog
- Austrian Economists
- Beacon
- Booker Rising
- Cafe Hayek
- Chris Sciabarra
- Colby Cosh
- Cold Spring Shops
- Colossus of Rhodey
- Crooked Timber
- David N. Mayer
- Diana Mertz Hsieh
- Discriminations
- Distributed Republic
- Division of Labor
- Econlog
- Education Wonks
- Gene Healy
- Gus diZerega
- Hit and Run
- James Bovard
- Jacob Levy
- Jesse Walker
- Jim Henley
- John Cole
- Journal of Ayn Rand Studies
- Juan Cole
- JustinLogan.com
- Karen De Coster
- Kevin Carson
- Knowledge Problem
- Lester Hunt
- LRC Blog
- Liberty and Culture
- Liberty Guys
- Liberty Magazine
- Liberty Papers
- Margaret Soltan
- Mises Economics Blog
- Peter Gordon
- Positive Liberty
- Progressive Historians
- Radley Balko
- Robert A. George
- Roderick Long
- SCSUScholars
- Sheldon Richman
- Stress
- Third Party Watch
- Tom G. Palmer
- Torch
- United Liberty
- Volokh Conspiracy
- War Historian
- Wendy McElroy
- Will Wilkinson
Old Archives
Recent Comments
- William J. Stepp on Excellent EconTalk Podcast
- William J. Stepp on Excellent EconTalk Podcast
- Bill Courtney on Left Goes Postal on Rand
- William J. Stepp on Quotation of the Week (On Treason)
- Sheldon Richman on Anatomy of the Current Recession
- Ayla Armbruster on OJ Simpson and Climate Change
- Jane S. Shaw on OJ Simpson and Climate Change
- Jane S. Shaw on OJ Simpson and Climate Change
- David T. Beito on OJ Simpson and Climate Change
- Allan Walstad on OJ Simpson and Climate Change
Archives
March 2010February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
