A War to Cut and Run from

Turning a full ten years old in 2011, many critics of the United Sates' war in Afghanistan point to the infamous title it owns as being "the longest war in US history."  Not to diminish otherwise noble dissent, but this criticism is wrong.  Though there is some overlap between the two given Afghanistan's opioid production, the fact is the time-frame of this war pales in comparison to the almighty behemoth that is America's forty year old "war on drugs."

Richard Nixon was the first to utter the phrase, and the first to usher in comprehensive federal anti-drug legislation as well.  In 1969, Nixon was so outraged by the stream of marijuana coming from Mexico that he actually shut down the southern border, a tactic announced as Operation Intercept (Schaffer Library of Drug Policy).  He even went so far as to refer to drug abuse as "public enemy number one," a past era's Osama bin Laden requiring complete evisceration.  As a result of this rhetoric and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, governmental response to drugs turned in an entirely different direction indefinitely.  Ever since, lawmakers have ceased to consider drug abuse a social or chemical problem to be addressed through treatment; but rather a law enforcement issue to be addressed through criminal justice.  In 1973, the government created an entire federal law enforcement agency solely for the purpose of combating the drug war, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  This began a four decade deadly cat and mouse game pitting law enforcement versus cartels, growers, makers, smugglers, dealers and (tragically) users that shows little sign of abating.

Proponents of strict drug laws contend that they are effective in discouraging illicit drug use because they are used by a significantly lower percentage of the population than legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco.  They argue there must be criminal penalties in order to discourage using substances the contribute to societal decay and that also cause heath problems.  As such, backers claim that any economic gains generated by the regulating and taxing of these drugs would be more than offset by increased heath costs and lower productivity.  Because drugs can be addictive, they also point out that people can engage in sustained violent and criminal behavior due to their effects.  Most who count themselves among supporters of these laws freely admit that the war on drugs can never be completely won; but you can't catch every murderer either, and they would ask if you support legalizing that.

Speaking of murder, this brings us to a very strong argument for legalization.  As with all wars, less people will die if the war on drugs is brought to an end.  Mexican and South American drug cartels kill countless numbers every day due to the profitable black market for drugs that only exists because of their illegal nature.  The Mexican government estimates over 34,000 were killed from 2007 through 2010 in that country alone (Los Angeles Times).  As former narcotics officer Michael Levine explains, "I learned that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they counted on it to increase the market price and to weed out the smaller, inefficient drug dealers.  They found U.S. interdiction efforts laughable.  The only U.S. action they feared was an effective demand reduction program."  Up north in the United States, the 21st amendment (repealing the 18th amendment prohibiting alcohol) coincided with an immediate drop in the nation's murder rate (The Free Library).

The choice between legalizing drugs and dealing with their economic and societal consequences is a false one; for we are already dealing with their effects because of their continued prevalence despite being outlawed.  Except instead of using the government's financial resources to treat addicts and guide them to eventually be productive members of the workforce; we spend billions of dollars hunting down, prosecuting, and incarcerating them.  These things in and of themselves are costly, but they have the added negative economic aspect of being non-rehabilitative; thus continuing that aforementioned costly cycle and depriving the nation of their would-be tax revenue, consumer spending, etc.  This even ignores the direct economic stimulus that taxing the legal purchases of drugs would provide.  Regulation would also make drugs safer because the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) would likely monitor their sale, as opposed to the current dangerous practice of buyers not knowing who or where they came from.

Still, the most convincing argument is a moral one.  It is flat out reprehensible to punish people for using substances they are addicted to.  Furthermore, we should all have the right to make our own mistakes and not be told by a governing body that we don't have control over our literal body.  If someone wants to harm themselves, that is their individual right as a human being; and we should offer them a helping hand - not handcuffs on a wrist.

Being Oppressed dosn't justify Oppressing others

Some may bristle at the analogy, but its point is an important one to recognize if there is ever to be a resolution in the sixty year conflict between Israel and Palestine.  For many decades prior to the 1990's, there was already a worldwide consensus against the South African National Party and its policy of apartheid.  So why did it take so long to end?  The answer may lie in the fact the it was only a near-consensus, as Ronald Reagan made the United States the world's lone holdout.  In 1983, Reagan's state department labeled the African National Congress a terrorist organization (Chomsky).  Former ANC leader and Nobel Prize winner Nelson Mandela was on the United States' Terrorist Watch List as recently as 2008 (USA Today).  It wasn't until after Reagan's term ended that US policy finally changed, after which apartheid ended quickly.  Still, as early as 1958, South Africa's foreign minister told their US ambassador that even though rest of the world hates our government and we are an international pariah, as long as we have the United States as our one ally, we will always have legitimacy (Chomsky).  Sound familiar?

Little can happen internationally without US approval; so even if the United States is the only nation on the UN Security Council to reject potential Palestinian statehood, they alone can block it.  As with South Africa, US policy will likely need to change before a resolution can be reached.  There is something inherently silly in the United States playing the role of an "impartial mediator" between two intractable sides, when there in fact there should be a real impartial party monitoring negotiations.  Palestine should be on one side of the table, with both Israel and the US on the other (Chomsky).  Though both sides have been incredibly violent and Palestinians are hardly blameless in this saga, only one side has the armed backing of the world's preeminent militarily power.  This is actually an understatement, as Israel has received more direct military aid from the US than any other nation over the last sixty years (Congressional Research Service).  To put it in less abstract terms, nearly 1,500 Palestinian children have been killed by Israel in the last decade, almost ten times the number of Israelis (Catherine Cook).

Those supportive of Israel contend that such force is necessary because of the aforementioned isolation it has in the region.  Israel is surrounded by states that do not recognize its existence, some publicly advocating its destruction.  Thus, it must have the means to defend itself against those who wish it harm.  Playing the part of an Israeli supporter, James Carroll asks, "What would America do if rockets were being fired from Tijuana into San Diego?"  As for Israel's embargo on goods entering Gaza, they argue that weapons could be brought in for Hamas (which now governs Gaza) to use against Israelis.  Also, many view criticism of Israel as simply antisemitism.  Though supporters would not refer to it as an "occupation," they would say that the Bible promises the land to the Jews; that they are simply returning after being kicked out, chased all over Europe, and having six million of their people murdered.

While we should all be sympathetic to the Jewish plight historically, the tables have now been turned - the oppressed have become the oppressors.  If any group should be able to identify with the suffering of another, you'd think it would be the Jews.  Though it is true that for the first time in their history, the Jews have a home.  They incredibly control a place where they are no longer a forsaken people - a doomed race waiting to be killed by everyone else.  Perhaps it is difficult to ask anyone to completely let go of that very real emotional component dating back thousands of years.  As an ethnic Jew myself, I can appreciate this mindset.  Still, two wrongs still don't make a right; and being oppressed doesn't justify oppressing others.

Remember the San Diego/Tijuana example?  This time wearing the hat of a Palestinian supporter, Carroll rebuts it with another American analogy: "what if the South Bronx, say, were an open-air prison, with residents forbidden to enter or leave?"  But just in case you're still not pessimistic enough about the chances of a peaceful resolution, I'll leave you with a riveting quote proving the even Israel's first prime minister David Ben-Gurion saw the situation as hopeless:

"Why should the Arabs make peace?  If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel.  That is natural.  We have taken their country.  Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them?  Our God is not theirs.  We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?  There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?  They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country.  Why should they accept that?"

Corporations make for Lousy People

For as long as there has been a United States, there has been a constitution bearing the three words "We the People."  Not content to merely write these words, its authors even wrote them in giant letters as if to signify their importance.  The Bill of Rights soon followed; it's first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech to those people.  However, even back then there was heated debate over what constituted a "person."  Compromises were struck to resolve these disagreements such as declaring slaves three-fifths of a person; so much for "all men are created equal" - itself an already unequal statement given its gender implications.  In terms of rights though, full voting citizenship was strictly reserved to the white, the male, and the property owning.  We've come a long way since then, but have we actually gone too for in the other direction?  Do we now grant undue rights to parties that are literally not human?

Citizens United is a conservative film-making nonprofit, yet their documentaries are not the reason history professors will be referencing them one-hundred years from now.  Rather they will be remembered for their monumental Supreme Court case against the Federal Election Commission (FEC); its 2010 decision drastically altering the American political landscape for the foreseeable future.  Prior to this verdict, large organizations such as unions and corporations were limited in the amount of money they could contribute to both specific candidates and issue advertising.  But by ruling that these caps violated the first amendment by restricting their right to free speech, we not only find that money now equals speech - but that corporations now equal people.

Conservatives and supporters of the ruling take the "abridging freedom of speech" language in the first amendment and apply it to large monied entities such as corporations, which are technically run by people - specifically people with a right to free speech.  They argue that it was unconstitutional for the FEC to prevent Citizens United from releasing a documentary that was critical of Hilary Clinton at the height of her primary campaign; that veritable muzzle infringing upon their freedom of speech.  Penning for the majority, Justice Scalia contented that supposed liberal groups such as the Sierra Club are also technically not individuals, yet there is precedent for them being grated first amendment protections nonetheless (National Review).  In other words, why draw a distinction between them and a corporation?  Supporters also raise the point that it is not the governments place to meddle in campaign finance; that if we remove all regulation, a la barriers to speech, well will all be freer for it.  The electorate has the capability to, and should be allowed to, decide matters for themselves the argument goes; as opposed to some parties being relegated to having only a partial voice.

Some parties do have only a partial voice all right, but it sure isn't corporations.  The fact that the actual individuals who work for these conglomerates (including their billionaire CEOs) can buy as large a slice of the political process as they want is bad enough.  But the idea that they can now use their bottomless corporate coffers on top of that is about as unjust as is humanly imaginable.  Far from leveling the playing field by giving everyone an unencumbered voice, it rather lets those with the most money (corporations) completely drown out all other voices.  How can a non-cooperate interest compete with the financial resources of a Fortune 500 company?  It simply can't, thus it may cause future disillusionment in the political process amongst all but the most affluent; a feeling of powerlessness that is extremely dangerous given how it can give way to nationwide apathy.  This lack of engagement and tuning-out only serves to give more power to those already at the top of the food chain.

GE has a larger gross domestic product (GDP) than all of New Zealand; Chevron's is bigger than the Czech Republic; Exxon Mobil's greater than Thailand and Wal-Mart's eclipses Norway (Business Insider).  Is it any wonder that a record four-billion dollars was spent on the the 2010 midterms? (US News & World Report)

In the wake of what it sure to be a heated presidential election in 2012, the prospects for even a modest reduction in corporate campaign influence is about as likely as a Gary Johnson/Buddy Roemer GOP ticket.

Death to the Death Penalty!

Nobody has ever come up to me and said that death is quintessentially American; though if they did, I would be hard-pressed to argue.  Our militarism abroad is matched only by our support for it at home.  We boast a nation chock-full of hunters and murderers.  Thanks to the recent expiration of the assault weapons ban, I can drive up to New Hampshire and pick up an automatic assault rifle at the local gun show - legally with no background check and no questions asked.  Contrast this with other industrialized nations such as Japan, where civilians and not allowed guns period.  When Osama Bin Laden was killed several months ago, the celebration (of death, mind you) in the streets of Boston rivaled those of sports championships.  Should this national celebration of death be extrapolated to the actual death penalty?

Rick Perry certainly thinks so, and the audience seems to agree - talk about a celebration of death.  You would think religious conservatives such as Perry would be conflicted, what with that whole "thou shalt not kill" commandant.  Though he and others would likely point to the bible for justification, specifically "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Matthew 5:38).  It's true that most do not wish to die, so supporters of capital punishment argue that it acts a deterrent, figuring someone considering murder will think twice about it when faced with possibility of being murdered themselves.  They additionally proselytize that the death penalty is appropriate as a means of deterring potential murderers already serving life sentences; and that paroled inmates or escapees would have another opportunity to kill if not executed.  It is also an albeit wry solution to the very real problem of prison overcrowding, as states need not house those no longer alive.  Still, the argument most championed is simply that it provides closure for the families of murder victims.

Back in the real world though, the contention that capital punishment discourages murder is utterly laughable.  Not only have there been nearly nine-tenths of a million murders in the United States since 1960 (Federal Bureau of Investigation and Matthew White), but among states with the top twenty murder rates in 2010, sixteen had the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center).  If capital punishment does serve as a deterrent, it isn't a very effective one.  Financially speaking, it actually costs the government more to execute people.  From the lengthy appeals process to the last meal, it can sometimes take twenty years from conviction to execution, as it did in the much publicized case of Troy Davis.  Which brings us to the most important point: the indisputable truth that not all on death row are guilty.  In fact, 138 innocent death row inmates have been freed since 1973 (Death Penalty Information Center) - we can only imagine how many are now dead because they weren't freed.

But aside from everything else (the "cruel and unusual punishment" language in the Bill of Rights for example), there is still a more than convincing argument against capital punishment on strictly moral grounds.  How is it that we as a society have yet to move beyond the primitive idea of revenge killing?  With few exceptions, the rest of the industrialized world certainly has (they've also bothered to give their citizens universal heath care while they're at it).  The death penalty does not bring victims back to life and two wrongs do not make a right.  Why kill to prove killing is wrong?  That logic seems awfully contradictory.  Thank goodness conservatives are able to wrap their heads around this level of hypocrisy, because I certainly can't.

Wrangling over Warming

In the days of Walter Cronkite and the like; the American public would manually turn their channel-changing knob and receive what are colloquially referred to as "facts."  People would then take these agreed upon "facts" and formulate opinions based on them; oftentimes disagreeing with one another.  In other words, Americans auguring is nothing new; but the distinction between then and now lies in what we argue over.  Opinions are subjective and ripe for disagreement; but we now live in a country where actual facts are debated, as if the term even allowed for such a thing.  Aside from the universally-held view that Osama Bin Laden was at least somewhat of a jerk, is there nothing Americans can agree on in this hyper-polarized climate?

Speaking of climate, this is an area that provides one of the better examples of this phenomenon.  Global warming, or climate change as it is now often called; consists of something called the "greenhouse effect."  This effect is actually quite natural, though not in the levels we find it occurring today.  The burning of fossil-fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, in turn warming the planet over a period of many decades.  97% of scientists believe climate change is both real and man-made (USA Today).  This is about as close to a consensus as is humanly possible today, as one would likely find difficulty garnering that percentage of people to agree it's October.  Despite this, only 30% of self-described conservatives believe global warming is affecting the planet (Associated Press).  No doubt taking a cue from those numbers, this view is even reflected in several high-profile politicians currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

So how can a universally accepted belief among actual experts translate into skepticism of it among a substantial portion of the populous?  The answer lies in the financial and political clout of what we'll call "old energy."  Today in the United States, fossil fuels account for 84% of our total energy consumption (United States Department of Energy).  New technologies, or green energy may be less harmful to the planet, but they're very harmful to the bottom line's of those who've made a fortune in old energies like fossil fuels.  Thanks to their lobbying and hundreds of millions in campaign contributions over the last 20 years, the oil industry has succeeded in killing every attempt at meaningful climate change legislation.  Given that the United States consumes a whopping quarter of the world's energy, this is an unfortunate development for the planet's current storm, drought and flood-ravaged denizens - let alone future earth inhabitants.

Conservatives argue that alternative and renewable energies are too expensive to meet the needs of the nation.  They say regardless of its potentially devastating effects, implementing regulations on carbon emissions would be too steep a price for the country to pay economically (interesting considering "cap and trade" has always been a Republican idea).  Some conservatives do favor non-traditional energy sources, so long as they aren't too green (fracking, anyone?).  Many also favor the expansion of existing energy sources such as increased domestic exploration for off-shore oil drilling.  They contend that increased domestic production will decrease our dependance on foreign sources of oil.

Of course, the only true way to lessen our dependance on foreign oil is to lessen our dependance on oil, period.  Thus, the government should invest in renewable energies so they can compete with the established titans.  Only then will our nation's actions match the level of crisis the planet faces.  Like everything else in America, money and politics will probably get in the way; but if there's one issue that everyone has a stake in, one issue that should unite literally all 100% of us - shouldn't it be the future of our world?

It's time for a Class War

"That's class warfare!" shouted nearly every conservative politician in nearly every situation.

"Would you like paper or plastic?"

"That's class warfare, sir!"

"Honey, does this dress make me look fat?"

"Mam, that's class warfare!"

Good.  That's what I say.  Because aside from being an ingenious response to that last question; it's about time we actually had one of those infamous "class wars" we hear so much about.

"I want a war between the rich and the poor...if I'm told to kill...there'll be a class war, right here in America."  That this song from the 1970's references conscription only heightens the idea that the wealthy or ruling class can dictate the fate and indeed decide the lives of the less fortunate in our society.  For today we have what is known as a "back-door draft," or an epidemic of socioeconomic-induced military volunteerism.  The poor simply don't have many other options.

Conservatives will be happy to extol the virtues of our current state of affairs for you.  They'll tell you that we should simply be happy for the success of the top 400 richest Americans who control more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined (Politifact).  Also, they aren't the "rich," but rather the "job-creators."  They say the reason we currently have high unemployment is because these "job-creators" can't invest capital in the hiring of employees because they are overtaxed and their corporations over-regulated.  Their argument, as it has been since 1980, is that if unburdened the wealthy will produce jobs for the rest of us and that this rising tide will lift all boats.

Unfortunately for those who subscribe to this argument, "trickle-down economics" does not work.  It is nothing more than an excuse for the wealthy to further enrich themselves.  It not arguable that the 1990's were a prosperous time for the United States; with 22 million jobs being created under Bill Clinton's tenure alone (Politifact).  Clinton mainly eschewed supply-side economics and raised taxes on upper-earners.  The wealthy paid a higher tax rate and there was far less income inequality than we find today (Talking Points Memo).  Then again, since slightly more equitable wealth distribution is supposedly akin to socialism (again, gasp!), to remain as capitalistic as humanly possible perhaps we should just let them eat cake.

We are at each others throats in the country.  This is not coincidence; it is a time-tested divide and conquer strategy.  If the proletariat is consumed with rage over people who aren't harming them such as minorities, immigrants and homosexuals, these groups won't band together to fight the people who are actually screwing them.

At least metaphorically, it's time for a class war...

CHARGE!!!

A Force for Good

We sure do love our liberties here in the United States.  To be able to say, have, and do anything we want in any way we choose to do it is a pillar of American individualism.  So naturally our government should get out of the way, stop obstructing business' god-given right of exploitation, and release our precious freedoms from the stranglehold it currently has over them.  That was fun, wasn't it?  Well enough fun, because it's high-time we exit the albeit humorous realm of fantasy and re-enter the real world we actually face.

Then again, it is entirety possible this sarcasm is misplaced.  For as best one can tell, there must in fact be two Americas.  We're not talking about John Edwards' 2004 campaign for the Democratic nomination here (though given the even greater chasm that now exists between the haves and have-nots, we probably should be), no we're talking about a real alternate universe here.  One where tax rates aren't already at their lowest levels in a half-century.  But in all seriousness, when we as a people can't agree on actual facts, this is probably an indication that our discourse is far too polarized.

A conservative running for congress today is a walking, talking, self-fulfilling prophecy.  This is not meant as an insult, but rather an acknowledgement that one who runs on a platform of "government is bad" is going to look after that institution.  If government is so horrible, then why are Republican candidates so desperate to jump aboard this sinking ship?  You wouldn't know it based on its current atmosphere, but government can in fact be a force for good.

This is not to say that it can or should attempt to solve every problem, but there is no reason free-enterprise cannot coexist with a strong democratic government, as it does successfully in most European countries.  The false narrative of government as a four-letter word serves to undercut the potential good it could be doing for people who need it desperately.  The great rescission showed us what the free-market will do to these people if left to its own devices.  But aside from the common-sense safeguards we still have yet to implement three years later (The Dodd/Frank legislation being about as watered-down as a baseball left out in the midst of a monsoon), protection from the negative should also give way to germination of the positive.

Despite conservative insistence to contrary, history shows us that this can in fact be done.  Economists and historians alike both point to the 2008 economic collapse as our worst financial disaster since The Great Depression.  Does it then not make sense to seek out what remedies worked well in the 1930's and use that knowledge to help us today, as opposed to gutting successful government programs dating back eighty years?  We are of course referring to FDR's New Deal.  To state it mildly, the steady stripping away of those vital reforms over the last thirty years was certainly as big a contributor to our recent collapse as was a low-income family wanting to own a home in George W. Bush's Ownership Society.  Even in the latter case, the blame should reside with the predatory lenders themselves - not the families who were taken advantage of.

Some say the "failure" of the 2009 stimulus package disproves the idea that a New Deal-type government jolting of the economy can succeed.  This silly propaganda has seeped into the consciousness of many Americans because it is always difficult to prove a negative.  Though I have my own qualms with it to be sure, one cannot easily run on the idea that it prevented and even greater disaster, a view most economists accept.  But let's make this simpler; in fact let's remove economics from it all-together.  If our government has the ability to get an out-of-work person back into the workforce, restoring his/her life and dignity; it should simply do it.  At what point does this cease to be a financial issue and become the moral imperative it truly is?

Let's spell it out as bluntly: our fellow man is suffering; our government has the tools at its disposal to make it stop.  Simplistic?  Perhaps.  Naive?  Maybe.  Idealistic?  Probably.

The right thing to do?

Absolutely.

It Takes Two to Tango

Divided government, checks and balances, rigorous debate; it all sounds so wonderfully democratic, does it not?  Well too much of even an otherwise good thing looks as if it may spell doom for whatever remnants of actual legislating that could be salvaged out of the 112th congress.  As the 2012 elections draw ever closer and lawmakers becoming less risk-averse, it will only be that much more difficult to tackle big issues requiring tough votes.  Once again we will witness selfish politicians put political self-preservation ahead of substantive legislation, and real people will continue to be hurt as a result.

But why is it really that nobody in the GOP can stick their neck out to offer even minimal praise for an Obama proposal (let alone cast a vote in favor of it), including ideas they themselves have often championed?  We cannot say for certain, but the purity test for congressional Republicans and the weeding-out of moderates from their ranks has left only reactionary fervor; moving the ground on which compromises can be forged with Democrats further and further rightward.

This conservative stubbornness contrasts sharply with the more inclusive, common-ground seeking White House.  Throughout his presidency, Obama has continually reached across the isle with olive branches, only to witness Republicans subsequently snap them in half.  He has particularly made a habit of squandering bargaining-power for the foolish notion of somehow currying favor with the right.  Well it takes two to tango; and whether he genuinely wanted bipartisanship or was simply playing to independent voters, it doesn't change the fact that the other side his zero interest in working with him.  Take the much-maligned American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the "Stimulus;" the bill already contained hundreds of billions in tax cuts before Republicans even got the chance to demand them!  Despite this, they have spent the last two years railing against the package; though this hasn't prevented them from gladly accepting stimulus funds for their budget-challenged states and districts.

Some would argue that one should never compromise on important principals, and thus congressional Republicans are right in refusing to cooperate with a socialist (gasp!) like the President.  But for a party that recently ran on a slogan of "Country First," it seems more than a little hypocritical to flatly state that making Obama a one-term president is the GOP's number one priority, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently did.  Why pass legislation to revive the economy when an economic recovery aids Obama's reelection chances?

Let's hope the tenor of the President's "jobs speech" last week is a signal that he is through being the nice guy, but will instead have the sense of urgency to start being the more fiery and combative leader these extraordinary times demand.