Just Say No...one big Charlie Foxtrot

The United States faces a difficult challenge when it comes to drug usage among Americans. The U.S. spends roughly the same amount of money fighting the “War on Drugs” as it citizenry does buying drugs. Something has to change.

I believe that drug use can be reduced in American. I also believe that a continuation of America’s current “War on Drugs” will not do it. Instead, the current policies have only helped increase drug usage and foster violence across the country. In California, teenage tobacco use was cut in half with a straightforward ad campaign that was financed by a tax on cigarettes. Not a shot was fired, but the battle was won.

One of the few smart programs in the “drug war,” after school programs, is about to be shot apart by the Bush White House and conservative congressman. After school programs are the only proven mean of reducing youth drug abuse, youth pregnancy, and juvenile criminal behavior. President Bush is moving to cut funding for these programs by nearly half. "Compassionate Conservatism" indeed.

The supporters of the “War on Drugs,” both conservative and liberal, have only one solution to this debacle, more money for law enforcement, more people, more power, more prisons, with no end in sight. They promised us “a drug-free America by 1995,” and instead we see new and more exotic and dangerous drugs constantly being added to the mix.

I know that proponents of the “Drug War” will say that I am pro-drugs or that I’m soft on crime. I am not. I understand the damage done by drug addiction, including alcohol. I know the wasted resources and collateral damage of the past two decades has not promoted a safe society. It is unconscionable that only one bed exists for every ten people who apply for drug treatment and rehabilitation. America’s priorities and America’s resources are being put in the wrong place. The primary job of law enforcement should be protecting our nation and its citizens, not protecting people from themselves.

The destruction of our right to privacy and property promoted by the “Drug War” is inconsistent with the free society we claim to cherish. Making private or self-destructive behavior illegal is not acceptable in a free nation.

Like I’ve said in previous blog, the racism evident in the “Drug War” and the clearly preferential treatment for offenders with political, social and economic connections, undermine our concept of a just society. Draconian (I hope that term is not to “book learned”) prison sentences that are higher than those for violent crimes, like murder and rape, destroy respect for our laws. The corruption in our criminal justice system spawned by the $400 billion-a-year drug black market could be ended with the stroke of a pen.

Also would be the massive devastation we have brought to other countries. In Colombia alone we send billions of dollars of military aid and spray hundreds of thousands of acres of populated land with dangerous herbicides. Columbia is a country with nearly a million displaced people, people displaced by American policy. Each military campaign or spraying operation is like a squeezing a balloon, production of drugs there merely shifts to another site or goes into a temporary hiatus.

Addiction to drugs is a medical and moral problem that should be treated by professionals, not dumped on the criminal justice system. American should develop an intelligent drug policy based on the experience of drug experts from around the world. Allowing doctors to treat drug addiction humanely and intelligently, would allow the United States to quickly eliminate most of the black market and much of the damage to a safe, free, and just America.

It is time for an honest dialogue on the issue of drugs and drug addiction. It is time to stop the documented lies, half-truths, and propaganda that got us into this mess in the first place. It is time to face the facts.

Let the wind blow...let your love flow...

Appologies go out to one an all, no post today. It's a little crazy for some reason. I'll be back tomorrow. Later.

"shrill, pointless, useless garbage..."

To Dr. Watson over at My Non Cents, thank you for appreciating my goal in regards to the many photos I've used the last week. The first day I used the photos, in my "gloriously patriotic compilation" of our nation's leaders, I said I did not want to use the photos to validate any position of mine, but to waste server memory instead.

At the point My Non Cents called my use of photos "shrill, pointless, useless garbage" I proclaim success! I did not mean to change anyone's mind on President Bush, Christian Soldier Ashcroft or Ted Nugent. I meant to have a few laughs and waste memory on Blogspot. Since I put little effort into the photos, I agree with you Dr. Watson that I can and should do better.

P.S. To My Non Cents, the difference between Senator Kennedy and President Bush, is that one of those men is the President of the United States, and has the ability to send troops to war and end all life through a nuclear attack. The difference is that the conservatives run as the party of character, morals and trustworthiness. I can understand and respect the conservative push for morals and character in our leaders, but I won't tolerate hypocrites.

Now, to waste a little more memory, how about a little more shrill, pointless, useless garbage:


Have a good one.

The Content of our Character

Affirmative action is one of the more polarizing issues for conservatives and liberals. As a liberal, I believe affirmative action takes the right steps toward reversing centuries of discrimination against ethnic minorities and it must be preserved. I supported the judicial decision allowing colleges and universities to use race and ethnicity as a factor of admission. Until she United States is completely a level playing field, affirmative action will be imperative to achieving our goal of an equal society.

Recently, the first time since Brown v. Board of Education which opened up educational opportunities for millions of Americans, our public schools have grown increasingly segregated by race. In our cities, indices of black-white segregation suggest extreme separation of minorities far beyond the levels reported in other multi-racial societies such as Brazil, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. In fact, the only other nation where minority segregation indices routinely exceed those reported in the United States was the Union of South Africa under apartheid.

Our diversity as Americans is not a weakness, but a strength, and it is absolutely essential that we nurture programs that enhance opportunities for those who have been historically left behind. To do nothing, to end affirmative action, is to fall back into the de facto segregation of the past, which made a joke of democracy, equality, liberty and justice - the very values on which the United States was founded.

President Johnson framed the underlying concept of affirmative action in a speech at Howard University in 1965, "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

One of the largest misunderstandings about affirmative action is that it is a “quota” system. I don’t know how that perception began, but it is entirely inaccurate. Preferences and background are included in affirmative action, because ethnic minorities do not, on average, have the same educational advantages, or career opportunities. It is necessary, therefore, to correct those inequalities.

Another myth is that “the only way to create a color-blind society is to adopt color-blind policies.” Although this statement sounds reasonable, the reality is that color-blind policies often put racial minorities at a disadvantage. For example, all else being equal, color-blind seniority systems tend to protect white workers against job layoffs, because senior employees are usually white. Likewise, color-blind college admissions favor white students because of their earlier educational advantages. Unless preexisting inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account, color-blind policies do not correct racial injustice -- they reinforce it.

Affirmative action is necessary because a truly level playing field for all Americans is still an elusive goal, not a reality. We must all stand united in support of affirmative action. Our nation is at a decisive junction; we must not send our nation back into the darkest moments in our history, but instead lead our nation to a fair and just future.

Everybody needs a little "Dick" now and then...

I don't have enough time today for a policy post. So, enjoy your Sunday and this illustrious and flattering photo of Vice President Richard Cheney...


Peace.

It's all about Character...

The next time a conservative tries to tell you to vote for the candidate with the most character, remind them of this:

Oh no, does this mean I'm using an image to validate an argument of mine? To ensure that's not the case, enjoy this photo as well:

Nothing quite like the bare-breasted reason of Justice, right? It's too bad the statues, which were commissioned in the 1950's, were deemed "inappropriate" by Christian Solider Ashcroft...to use a cliché, "There's no Justice!"







Because it's Mom's Weekend here at UI, no long post for today. Later.

Heil to the Chief

Because it's Mom's Weekend up here in Hog Heaven (a.k.a. Moscow), I don't have quite enough time for a good post. I just found this photo and thought you would all get a kick (or extension of your right arm) our of it...not to mention this will take up more server memory.







I don't know what is worse...the Sieg Heil President, or the Top Gun President...

I guess Top Gun wouldn't be so bad if we didn't have to see the First Family "Jewels." There is no English word to describe that sight...

Respect the office even if you don't respect the person...

I'm not in the mood for serious policy post today...so I'd thought I'd go off the deep end a little. Here's a gloriously patriotic compilation of the nations leaders...enjoy!

THE BUSH II ADMINISTRATION

Da Figure Head: George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States


Da Boss: Richard Cheney, "Vice" President


Mom: Barbara Bush, Mom


Dad: George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the United States


Old Lady: Laura Bush, First Lady


Christian Soldier: John Ashcroft, Attorney General


Dr. Strangelove: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense


Token "Urban" Influence: Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor


Peace Maker: Colin Powell, Secretary of State


Water Boy: Andrew Card, White House Chief of Staff


Minster of Truth: Karl Rove, Senior Political Advisor


Tha Nuge: Ted Nugent, Director of Wildlife Protection


I understand I've been reluctant to include photos in my blog...I've decided I won't drop to the level of conservatives who try to use photos to validate their argument...I'm going to use photos to waste server memory (the way it should be). Catch ya all tomorrow

"People all over the world, join hands...start a Love Train, Love Train!"

Besides the ACLU, the most hated organization of conservatives seems to be the United Nations. I will be the first to admit that the U.N. has some problems and has made some mistakes...try to find an organization that hasn't. Nevertheless, opposing U.S. participation in the United Nations, and advocating the U.S. withdraw from the United Nations is entirely short sided and fairly blatantly xenophobic, isolationist and ethnocentric.

The United Nations was created with the primary goal of preventing World War III. At that goal, it has performed brilliantly. Has there been World War III? No, there hasn't. The predominate reason for the lack of World War III was the formation and inclusion of an international community and international dialogue. Major wars are avoided when nation states meet and talk constantly with the support or pressure of other nation states.

I love the anti-U.N argument that "the United States participation in the United Nations is a violation of the U.S. Constitution." That sounds like a reasonable argument, except that it's based on nothing. Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution say treaties are the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Senate ratified the treaty establishing the United Nations. It's the law...it's provided for in the Constitution...how can it be unconstitutional? Just because you say it so doesn't make it so...

U.S. participation in the United Nations does not remove American sovereignty. Show me an example of where the U.S. was "dooped" into doing something with the U.N. that the U.S. didn't want to participate it...you can't. The U.S. has participated in actions with the United Nations because it has been the right thing to do.

The United States spends about $200 million a year on United Nation dues. The United States spends $400 billion a year the Department of Defense. Our U.N. budget is five one-hundredths of one percent of our DOD budget. How is that overspending? The total U.N. budget in 2001 was $2.53 billion (with an additional $2 billion for peacekeeping missions paid by involved member states)...next to $400 billion spent on weapons (just by the United States of America).

Let's not forget the United Nations family of organizations. Check out the complete list and their responsibilities here.

To quote President Bush, "We live in an global world." Dialogue and cooperation between nations is paramount and critical to a peaceful and progressive world. Cutting the United States off from the community of nations will do nothing but harm the American people.

How do we fight terror, protect human rights, fight AIDS, feed the poor, education children, develop trade and foster goodwill if we take an isolationist approach? Do the conservatives honestly believe that if we ignore the world, the problems of the world will go away?

Exact Change Tendered:

To the author of My Non Cents:

I will grant you that a larger percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats. I will also grant that there was a large contingent of southern Democrats who opposed that act.

Let's not forget, however, that it was President Kennedy who originally pushed for the Civil Rights Act. The act would not have passed if President Johnson didn't pressure Senator Dirksen to get Republicans on board. And the southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act were Democrats in name only (Dr. Watson, you are right…the Republican party was almost institutionally disbanded after the Civil War. You don't honestly think the segregationist whites in the south adopted the true Democratic platform?). I remember from my high school government days that it was Senator Thurmond (R) who was the most outspoken opponent of civil rights.

When I said Republicans are the party of "compassionate bigotry," I'm referring to their current platform and mindset. Somewhere along the way, the Republican party stopped being the party of decentralized government, fiscal responsibility and individual rights and adopted the platform of individual rights except if you are Muslim, gay, female or poor, moral superiority and personal responsibility instead of problem solving and "Onward Christian Soldiers." A five minute conversation with the author of My 2 Cents will exemplify that platform.

That's a great quote from Senator Dirksen, "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind." If only the conservatives would apply it to sexual orientation, religion, gender or socio-economic status.

Pardon me if I find the "if it's not like me it's immoral" belief of conservatives a little bigoted.

Conservative Republicans: Proudly taking the low road since 1854

I was planning on addressing the necessity and goodness of the United Nations today, but I feel it is important to combat the thoroughly disgusting post made in my "sister" blog My 2 Cents yesterday. I'll have the U.N. for you tomorrow.

Are they Animals?

So let me get this straight...the author of My 2 Cents, as a compassionate conservative, supports President Bush when Bush said he believes the brown-skinned Iraqis animals can govern themselves, but then believes the U.S. shouldn't treat the Iraqis with compassion?

Let’s see if the My 2 Cents author can answer these questions and defend his position…

Please explain how you can support "personal responsibility" and "individual freedom" and then support the indiscriminate killing of Iraqis by leveling certain cities where attacks are made on Americans.

How can you and other conservatives tell us that the majority of Iraqis support the occupation one minute and then encourage the leveling of troublesome Iraqi cities (killing thousands of innocent civilians) the next? Which is it? Huh?

And leave it to a conservative to use the image of an American body to score some political points. What a class act.

So the conservative solution to the acts of violence and brutality against Americans in Iraq is to go one further?

I guess, as a "fancy-pants elitist," I just don't grasp the brilliance of the conservative position. Check back tomorrow for the United Nations.

just drowning in compassion...or bigotry…

Compassion and bigotry seem to be one and the same if you have a “R” behind your name…why do you suppose that is? It’s even more confusing if you believe conservatives when they say the Democratic Party was the party that opposed civil rights in the 60’s…wow.

No policy post today...I'm too busy reading over the leaflet the U.S. will drop on the women and children living in Fallujah and Najaf before we carpet-bomb or nuke the "animals" living there. Does this mean “brown-skinned” people can’t government themselves? Say it isn’t so President Bush!

My time is also pretty tied up today underlining the passages in the Bible that say God hates. I guess what I learned in Sunday school that “God loves” was one big lie...

What can I say, when I'm fighting to spread the Almighty's gift of freedom, I don't have time to protect human rights. I'll be back tomorrow.

I love the smell of smog in the morning...if only it didn't sting when I inhale...

The AAA is reporting this weekend that the average price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline is at a record high of $1.80, and the summer peak is still six weeks away. That price is still below the inflation-adjusted price of gas in 1981 of $3 or the average price of gas in Europe, but it is evidence of an energy policy that doesn't work and an Administration which owes it soul to big oil.

President Bush's solution for higher oil prices, besides "looking into it," was to invade Iraq and take advantage of all that unused oil, and to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Those "solid at the core" positions keep on coming, don't they.

In Spring 2003, "Veep" Cheney and several other Bush hawks spouted on and on about how after we freed Iraq, we would open up their massive crude oil and natural gas fields and that would pay for the occupation/reconstruction, and it would lower American fossil fuel prices. And they said it would be up and running within nine months. It's 13 months later and less than 500,000 barrels of oil have been sold by Iraq. To put that in perspective, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) voted to reduce oil production by 1,000,000 barrels a day two weeks ago. Obviously, we can include the Iraqi oil promise with the other Bush Administration "exaggerations" or "miscalculations."

I agree with Conservatives that the United States needs to reduce or eliminate its dependence on foreign fossil fuels. However, conservatives are way off base thinking that drilling in protected wilderness areas is the way to do it. The amount of oil in the ANWR is enough to supply the United State's need for just over 18 months. For the amount it would cost to drill the oil out of ANWR, and the damage it would cause to the wilderness, 18 months worth of oil isn't worth it. We can't just sacrifice natural preserves because it's remote and contains one and-a-half years' worth of oil.

The United State's energy solution must be innovation, not drilling. We need to dramatically increase the amount of electricity that is produced through renewable resources like:

▪Biomass: you burn unused corn and other agricultural products which would help struggling farmers.
▪Solar: both photovoltaic cells (what you think of when you think solar panel) and direct solar radiation (which uses mirrors to reflect sunlight and boil water). Either form of solar energy could be used on every home to provide electricity, hot water and climate control.
▪Wind: although wind energy has been inefficient and under utilized in the past, new technology and turbines produce huge amounts of energy. Less than 3% of the nation's wind potential has been utilized.
▪Waste-to-Energy: you burn garbage in an incinerator. It removes the need for environmentally destructive landfills and produces no air pollution with proper filters and controls.

These are just four of many possible renewable alternatives to fossil fuels in the aspect of energy production. Now, for automobiles, the solution is still innovation, not drilling:

▪Fuel Efficiency: the U.S. must substantially increase the fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles. The technology already exists through hybrid engines and 'smart' fuel injection systems to allow all vehicles, even SUV's and trucks to achieve 80 or more miles-per-gallon full efficiency.
▪Emission Testing: vehicle emission testing should be required for all vehicles. Clean running vehicles produce less pollution and burn less fuel.
▪Fuel Cell technology: The U.S. should mandate all vehicles run off hydrogen fuel cells by 2015. The technology has already been developed, and it would not require a large amount of effort to make it economically prudent. There would be a cost involved with creating the national infrastructure or adaptation of current vehicles, but it would be far less than the cost of buying foreign oil for another 11 years.

Developing and implementing these renewable and clean technologies does have a cost involved, but it is greatly outweighed by the long-term benefit to the United States and the world. Millions of jobs could be created by renewable and clean technologies, and the protection of the environment is critical if we wish to continue living on Earth.

The time has come for the conservatives to face reality and plan for the future of the nation...and as I've said before, the future is innovation, not drilling.

Oil Men Drill it Deeper

Not enough time for a post today...I apologize. Guess what, the cost of gasoline has risen to another all-time high. At least President Bush is "looking into it." I feel better already...more on the price of gas and the need for renewable energy tomorrow.

just oozing compassion

President Bush and Veep Cheney are surprising everyone this weekend by showing what being a compassionate conservatives is all about. Given the choice of attending an NRA rally in Pittsburg, or a Log Cabin Republican (gay GOPs) convention in Palm Springs, guess where Cheney is heading.

I'm sure he was sitting in his office thinking, "why protect the rights of minorities when I can protect everyone's right to wield an assault weapon?" Besides, who wouldn't want to travel to Pittsburg if given a reason?

Is there any chance the NRA would not support President Bush? Their most recent newsletter has a picture of Senator Kerry with three fellow senate gun-control advocates Kennedy, Schumer and Feinstein. In fact, the NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said, "You talk about the four horsemen of apocalypse." I'm just surprised the NRA would hire someone with a "French" sounding name...

If President Bush and his minions were truly compassionate, they would reach out to those groups who's voices have been ignored by their administration. That's the difference between those conservatives who claim to be compassionate, and liberals who truly are.

I'll be back this weekend with issue-driven posts. I know most of you have enjoyed the sarcasm this week, and I have enjoyed getting it out of my system, but it is time to bring the issues back to the conservatives.

a Core as solid as a Cadbury Cream Egg...

My sister blog, A Penny Saved, posted an entry yesterday supporting President Bush and claiming that his Press Conference on Tuesday, while ineloquent, was founded on solid ground. As I've repeatedly said this week, "What the F***."

What exactly about his comments were solid at the core? When asked about the timeline for getting American troops out of Iraq, the President answered, "In terms of how long we’ll be there, as long as necessary, and not one day more." That’s some solid exit strategy.

When asked who we will transfer sovereignty over to, President Bush said, "We’ll find that out soon. That’s what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He’s figuring out the nature of the entity we’ll be handing sovereignty over." So the Iraqis aren’t figuring our their government, a bureaucrat is? The turnover is only 76 days away, and we have yet to figure out the nature of the entity we will be giving control of Iraq to? Some solid forward thinking.

Some other solid forward thinking was put forth by the Bush Administration in the months before 9/11, when they stated ICBMs, not terrorism, was American's biggest threat. Yet the conservative supporters of President Bush say it's unfair to call President Bush on his position? How does that work?

Furthermore, the conservatives say I can argue that North Korea with it's nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles is more of a world threat than Iraq, but can't point out that Saddam posed no threat to the United States and it was wrong to preemptively invade Iraq?

How the conservatives can talk about double standards is beyond me...

the "What the F***" Quotes from last night's Presidential Press Conference

When President Kerry is inaugurated in January, at least I know President Bush has a future in dinner theater. I couldn't stop laughing last night while listening to President Bush's third prime-time press conference of his administration. Here are some or my favorite excerpts from last night:

“Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld and a number of NATO defense and foreign minister are exploring a more formal role for NATO, such as turning the Polish-led division into a NATO operation and giving NATO specific responsibilities for border control.” - Boy, I'm sure glad we have two Secretaries of State...my only question is, which one takes over in the constitutional order of succession?

“I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country’s gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.” - We need to get t-shirts made...United States: Arm of the Lord. To quote the West Wing, "You can conquer the world, like Charlemagne."

“I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it. John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could’ve done it better this way or that way. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet.” ... “I hope — I don’t want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.” - Thanks to My 2 Cents, I will now proclaim that President Bush has no public speaking skills. I guess that's really not important...it's not like he's the leader of the free world...oh, wait.

“Look, nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens. I don’t.” - So that's why "CSI" is the most popular television show and "Kill Bill" is the highest grossing video rental this week...it makes so much sense.

“By the way, they found, I think, 50 tons of mustard gas, I believe it was, in a turkey farm [in Libya], only because he was willing to disclose where the mustard gas was. But that made the world safer.” ... “They [WMD] could still be there [in Iraq]. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.” - So we needed to invade Iraq, loose nearly 700 American lives, destabilize the entire region, alienate our allies and make America the most hated country in the world over mustard gas in a turkey farm in Libya? Sounds right to me!

“And so what I’m telling you is…” - Because after 5 minutes of answering the question, none of us really knew what the hell he was telling us.

“After 9/11, the world changed for me, and I think changed for the country. It changed for me because, like many, we assumed oceans would protect us from harm. And that’s not the case. It’s not the reality of the 21st century. Oceans don’t protect us. They don’t protect us from killers.” - I don't know about anyone else, but President Bush nailed my assumption. I knew other countries had intercontinental ballistic missiles, satellites and intercontinental bombers, but I also knew that none of those things can cross oceans...

I've saved the worst for last: “Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.” - I'm glad George W. Bush, as the nation's leading civil rights activist, finally set us all straight that brown-skinned people can actually govern themselves.

What the F***!

the "What the F***" Moment of April 2004

Good afternoon...I have no policy post today. I'm giving my counterpart at "A Penny Saved" time to respond to Mandatory Minimums and Capital Punishment. I don't know about you, but the anticipation is killing me. On a similar note, yet another blog has jumped on the bandwagon. This time, it's someone on the "outside" who seems determined to make fun of everything any of us write in our little blog-quartet thing we've got going. You can check it out here: My Non Cents.

The title of this post is referring to President Bush's live prime-time press conference tonight. He's going to be telling the American people how the Iraqi's actually love us and that the killing of 70 Americans this month is a figment of our "unpatriotic" imagination. I'm hoping President Bush won't drop to the level a conservative ideologue did with me yesterday. He said that I was to blame for the deaths of American servicemen and women in Iraq because I was "supporting terrorists and making the Iraqi insurgents think they’re wining." Wow.

If only Gilbert Godfrey could attend this press conference...one can dream.

You may feel a slight stinging or shocking sensation...

I arrived at my position on the death penalty through a process that involved the application of morality and moral principles, personal reflection and a rational examination of facts and statistics. How many conservatives can claim that I wonder? In the end, all of these considerations led me to strongly oppose capital punishment.

Morally, I do not believe that we as human beings have the right to "play God" and take a human life - especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong. Indeed, since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 700 men and women on death row have been executed, three-quarters of those executions taking place since 1992.

Since 1976, more than 100 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence. That translates into one death row inmate being found innocent for every seven executed. Given this track record, how can anyone support the death penalty? We know that it will, inescapably, be wrongly applied and innocent people will be put to death.

All the evidence suggests that the death penalty is no deterrent to crime. In those states that kill convicts, the average murder rate per 100,000 people is 8, while in states that have abolished the death penalty, the murder rate is just 4.4. In other words, states that do not have capital punishment have lower murder rates than states that do. Rather than decreasing murder, capital punishment has a brutalizing effect on society, contributing to an increase in murder.

Evidence shows that the application of the death penalty is both racially and economically biased. Black defendants are far more likely to receive death sentences than others who committed similar crimes. 42% of inmates on death row today are black, even though they comprise only 13% of the U.S. population; 180 blacks have been executed in cases involving white victims, while only 12 whites have been executed in cases with black victims. Of all the people on death row today, 75% of them are non-white. Moreover, a full 98% of all defendants sentenced to death have been people who could not afford their own attorneys. A society should not support a policy that is so unfairly and unevenly applied.

America is one of the last nations in the world to still practice the death penalty. For each year since 1976, two additional countries have abolished capital punishment and the overwhelming majority of nations around the world have now put an end to it in law or practice. In the United States, opposition to the death penalty has doubled since 1994. Recent polls say that 64% of Americans support a moratorium on all executions.

Also, for the “fiscally responsible” of you out there, the execution of prisoners is as much as 10 times as expensive for government as life imprisonment without parole. The conservative ideologues propose ending or limiting appeals to cut the cost on the state. With the number of innocent people currently being executed in the nation, how can a moral and just society cut short appeals of those sentenced to death? The only prudent way to cut the costs incurred by execution is by banning execution of criminals outright.

Capital Punishment must be abolished from our criminal justice system. Now I’m just waiting for the same ideologues I mentioned earlier to scream that I’m “soft on crime.” I believe that criminals who take innocent life or commit other horrific crimes should pay a severe penalty, and that we have a duty to protect our society from danger. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is an acceptable and moral alternative for the worst and most violent offenders in our society.

When we have an alternative to killing fellow Americans, how can we not move in that direction? Abolishing the death penalty is our social and moral obligation to the future of the United States.

BTW: I’m also fairly convinced capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Prosecuting Attorney: Judge, Jury & Executioner all in one cheap suit...what a job!

Happy Easter to everyone today...and how about Phil Mickelson at the Masters? Anyway, as I promised yesterday, the 3rd cent is back with the progressive truth about issues and the reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, pro-war, anti-peace, isolationist, pro-religion in schools, anti-anything else in schools, pro-tobacco, pro-oil, good 'ol boy conservative Republican position on those issues. Enjoy!

MANDITORY MINIMUM SENTENCES

Mandatory minimums came from pandering conservative politicians who falsely frighten their constituents and then offer biased "solutions" that destroy far too many lives and fragment far too many families. These federal minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offences seriously call in to question whether America is truly the "home of the free."

What's the point of an independent judicial branch if judges have no room to make judgments? The advent of mandatory minimums, and Attorney General John Ashcroft’s recent call for federal prosecutors to push for maximum charges and sentences, are mind boggling in their insensitivity and ignorance. Justice without mercy is just cruelty. One-size fits all justice is the trademark of fascist government.

Having prosecutors hold all the power in non-violent drug offences is completely improper and unfair. What sort of society would allow a prosecutor, or a politician, to decide on charges and the mandatory punishment for that charge? Unfortunately for due process and judicial discretion, it’s the sort of society advocated by narrow-minded and discriminatory conservatives.

Currently prosecutors, not judges, have the discretion to decide whether to reduce a charge, whether to accept or deny a plea bargain, whether to reward or deny a defendant's "substantial assistance" or cooperation in the prosecution of someone else, and ultimately, to determine what the final sentence will be. Due largely to mandatory minimum laws, the criminal justice system has been distorted: the enhanced power of the prosecutor in sentencing has diminished the traditional role of the judge. The result has been even less fairness, and a huge rise in the prison population.

Mandatory minimum sentences are also inherently racist (like much of the “war on drugs”). Minimum sentences for drugs used predominantly by blacks are higher than drugs used predominantly by whites. Often, the minimum sentence for a non-violent drug possession charge is higher than the sentence for a violent crime like assault or rape. In California, if you are convicted of a felony, even if is non-violent, and you’ve been convicted of two other felonies (which may or may not be violent), you are automatically sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. How is equal protection of the laws?

Mandatory minimum sentences must be abolished, and judicial discretion must be returned to judges. Computers, politicians, prosecutors should not be determining sentences; bright, intelligent and caring judges should.

Now here’s something the conservative ideologues out there will really support: the repeal of mandatory minimums must be coupled with programs that focus on rehabilitation, treatment and support, not criminalization, of those addicted to drugs. Also, the underground economy will continue to flourish if there is no access to a decent and livable wage in our society. Therefore, we must increase access to higher wages and a strong healthcare system that includes drug rehabilitation.

You can’t solve the problem by locking people up…you solve the problem by engaging it at its source. The first step is the abolishment of all mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug related crimes. For more information on mandatory minimums, visit Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - Winston Churchill

There will be no intellectual liberal post today, and for that I apologize. I've recently taken over the upcoming ASUI elections, and I'm fairly swamped. I will be back tomorrow with a post on mandatory minimums. Now with that teaser, I bid you a good Saturday, and a great weekend.

"Uniting & Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" ...what that f***?

Sixteen days after my 20th birthday, on October 26, 2001, President Bush forced the "USA PATRIOT Act" through congress...there was virtually no debate. The PATRIOT Act easily constitutes the largest and most unprecedented threat to American freedom and civil liberties since Jim Crow laws were common place.

Thanks to President Bush, and under the supervision of fanatic evangelical Attorney General John Ashcroft, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies can; search your highly private medical, financial, mental health and student records, access your library records, search your home while you are away and even confiscate your property, place political organizations under surveillance, wiretapping, harassment and take criminal action for political advocacy and investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probably cause if they say it's for "intelligence purposes."

In addition, the PATRIOT Act allows non-citizens to be jailed based on exercising free speech. Their jail terms may be indefinite in six month increments without judicial review. Since this blog has recently made bullets a tradition, here are the amendments to the U.S. Constitution the PATRIOT Act blatantly violates:

▪First Amendment - Freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press
▪Fourth Amendment - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures
▪Fifth Amendment - No person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process
▪Sixth Amendment - Right to speedy public trial by an impartial jury, right to be informed of the facts of the accusation, right to confront witnesses and have the assistance of counsel
▪Eighth Amendment - No excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment
▪Fourteenth Amendment - All persons (citizens and non-citizens...that includes the "animals" referred to in the "My 2 Cents" blog) within the U.S. are entitled to due process and the equal protection of the law

Since the PATRIOT Act was enacted 8,000 Arab and South Asian immigrants have been interrogated because of their religion or ethnic background and not because of actual wrongdoing. Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin, have been held in secretive federal custody sometimes without any charges filed against them.

Also, the government is allowed to monitor communications between federal detainees and their lawyers, destroying the attorney client privilege and threatening the right to counsel. On top of that, new Attorney General guidelines allow federal spying on religious and political organizations and individuals without having evidence of wrongdoing. And American citizens suspected of terrorism are being held indefinitely in military custody without being charged and without access to lawyers.

More than 300 states and municipalities have voiced opposition to the PATRIOT Act and just under 100 local police and sheriff departments have refused to aid the federal government in the execution of PATRIOT Act-permitted actions.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

In eroding our civil liberties through the "USA PATRIOT Act," President Bush has taken our freedom while making us no safer and no better protected against terrorism. We can't allow President Bush's and General Ashcroft's fear and scare-mongering to strip us of our most important principals.

The United States of America was founded on freedom, liberty and civil rights. We have struggled for over two centuries ensuring those rights for all Americans and all humans. We have a long way to go yet and as a society, and Americans, we can't allow the short sided, ethnocentric and discriminatory PATRIOT Act to impede our progress.

Now lets wait for the conservatives out there to badmouth Benjamin Franklin.

Why be the only superpower if you can't boss everyone around?

The United States has to rejoin the community of nations immediately. I don't quite understand what the xenophobic, isolationist Republicans want the U.S. to do. They support free trade, but oppose alliances. They support a "coalition of the willing" but appose the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization of American States and the United Nations. They support an international military force in Iraq, but only if it's under American command. They support sending troops to Iraq, but oppose our troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. And some of them have the gall to criticize Senator John Kerry. At least Kerry doesn't support both sides of the issue at the same time.

Anyway, I forgot to mention something when writing the National Missile Defense entry on Tuesday. In order to go ahead with NMD, President Bush pulled the U.S. out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty we signed with the Soviet Union (Russia). One of the ABM treaty points prohibited the nations from deploying territories-wide missile defense, as this may lead to another arms race. When President Bush pulled America out of this important agreement with Russia in 2002, he said, "the U.S. must protect its homeland, its forces, and its friends and allies against the threats of missile attacks from rogue nations and terrorist groups."

I will not reargue the missile defense issue today. I mentioned it because it is one example of the Bush administration turning it's back on our allies, the international community, and the United Nations. The ABM treaty wasn't the only treaty signed by the United States that President Bush has pulled out of or urged the Senate not to ratify. Here is a partial list:

▪The Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change
▪The Biodiversity Treaty
▪The Forest Protection Treaty
▪The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
▪The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
▪The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
▪The Landmine Ban Treaty
▪The Biological Weapons Convention
▪The Chemical Weapons Convention
▪The International Criminal Court

President Bush needs to get off his high "Texan" horse and lead the United States back to the rest of the world. The issues we face as a nation cannot be fixed by us alone. We need the help of Russia, China, Canada, Germany, Japan, Great Brittan and yes, even France. Remember what a great philosopher said in the 1970’s, “I’d like to buy the world a Coke, and sing in harmony.”

On a personal note:
The 3rd Cent is one week old today. I hope it will continue spark passionate arguments and critical examinations of the beliefs we all hold. Go Vandals!

I'm a joker...I'm a smoker...I'm a midnight toker...

Leave it to the United States of America to not learn from its mistakes. In 1919, the United States ratified the 18th amendment to the Constitution, outlawing alcoholic beverages. For the next 13 years, the government tried to enforce prohibition.

The result of the 18th amendment was not the "moral and social hygiene" that was intended, but an increase in alcohol consumption and crime. Local governments became corrupted by organized crime and an entire generation grew up as bootleggers and lawbreakers. Finally, in 1933, the U.S. repealed the 18th amendment with the 21st. After 1933, government implemented the much more successful policy of focusing law enforcement efforts on irresponsible alcohol users who endanger the rights of others.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're back at the prohibition game again. This time it's not alcohol, but marijuana. We have forgotten the lessons prohibition taught us. The law regards all pot users as abusers, and the result has been the creation of an unnecessary class of lawbreakers. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, more than 734,000 individuals were arrested on marijuana charges in 2000; more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

88% of those arrested were charged with possession only. Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare, food stamps and may be removed from public housing. In many cases, those convicted are stripped of their driving privileges even if the offense is not driving related. In several states, marijuana offenders may receive maximum sentences of life in prison. The cost to the taxpayer of enforcing marijuana prohibition is staggering; over $10 billion annually.

On top of all that, the enforcement of marijuana laws are incredibly racist. National studies show that the difference in the number of white and black drug users is statistically insignificant. Those same studies find that blacks are arrested for marijuana offenses at higher rates than whites in 90% of 700 U.S. counties investigated. In 64% of these counties, the black arrest rate for marijuana violations was more than twice the arrest rate for whites. I'm glad to see we still value "equal protection" and justice for all Americans.

We must work to change the drug policy to remove responsible recreational users and medical users of marijuana from the criminal justice system. If we do that, we can redirect law enforcement resources toward the following goals:

▪Enforce penalties for those who provide marijuana to minors
▪Enforce penalties for those who endanger the rights of others through irresponsible use such as driving under the influence
▪Develop drug treatment programs focused on rehabilitation rather than incarceration
▪Support the efforts of state governments in developing innovative approaches to drug policy
▪Improve drug education by emphasizing science over scare tactics and moral superiority
▪Require the Justice department to review the records of, and consider for sentence reduction or release, inmates convicted for nonviolent marijuana offenses

It's "high" time we look to our nations’ past mistakes. Remember what George Santayana said, "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Star Wars: Attack of the Rogue Nations

President Bush’s administration plans to implement the first phase of a system to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles later this year. National Missile Defense (NMD) was an issue Bush ran on in 2000, and one he’s still absurdly pursuing today.

For those of you who don’t know, National Missile Defense is the new incarnation of President Regan’s “Star Wars” program of the mid 80’s. Basically, if an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was launched by another country at the United States or Canada, early warning radar stations would pick up that ICBM. In response, we would launch our own missile to intercept the incoming IBCM. Our missile would not have a warhead on it, but an “interceptor” designed to home in on the incoming IBCM and destroy it.

National Missile Defense was initially developed during the late Clinton administration. The testing cost roughly $67.7 billion and we have nothing to show for it. The NMD interceptors worked less than 50% of the time. President Clinton was unprepared to spend the estimated $273 billion it would cost to initially implement, particularly on a program that was miserably unreliable.

Despite the cost and fallibility, national missile defense was on the top of his foreign relations/national security agenda when President Bush took office in 2001. In his first State of the Union, he didn’t really mention terrorism, except to say, "Our nation also needs a clear strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century, threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten with bombs to tyrants and rogue nations intent on developing weapons of mass destruction. To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses."

In fact, on September 11, 2001, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was going to outline the administrations national security priorities for the future. The address did not include anything about al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups. The main focus of the speech was missile defense. It’s nice to know Dr. Rice and the administration knew what the real threat was.

If the Bush administration truly wants to battle weapons of mass destruction and make the world safer for American, it needs to focus on stopping the proliferation of those weapons. The $273 billion earmarked for NMD would be much better spent purchasing old nuclear, chemical and biological weapons for former Soviet nations and on anti-proliferation efforts. If the United States was to be attacked by these unconventional weapons, they would be in the form of a “suitcase nuke” or chemical weapon in the back of a rental van, not an incoming ballistic missile.

The Republican leadership in the country must wake up to the brave new world we find ourselves in. The future of national defense will not be shooting ICBMs out of space. The future we face will be proliferated weapons hidden in duffle bags and trucks.

"It's just a little prick." - Dr. Evil

Arguably one of the most controversial issues in the United States is that of needle exchange for injection drug users. Those who oppose those programs, (like those who oppose condom distribution) base their position off of their moral beliefs and not science or reality.

This is not a moral or value issue, it is a public health issue. Transmission of HIV/AIDS and other diseases through injection drug use is second only to unprotected sexual activity. And unlike safe sex programs and condom usage, there is very little being done by society to address the transmission of deadly diseases through dirty needles and syringes.

Studies by the University of California, Berkley and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have shown that governmental and private programs that exchange dirty needles for new, sterile needles substantially decrease the transmission rates of HIV/AIDS and other diseases such as Hepatitis among drug users in those communities. The average cost per disease prevention for needle exchange programs in $9,000. That cost is significantly lower than the $150,000 typically needed to treat HIV over a lifetime.

The same studies by UC Berkley and the CDC show that the needle exchange programs do not increase the number of injection and non-injection drug users or the amount those users take drugs. This is another similarity between needle exchange HIV/AIDS prevention and condom distribution HIV/AIDS prevention.

The other argument naysayers of needle exchange programs make is the concept of "personal responsibility." In a vacuum, that argument may have some merit. In the real world, that concept is easily debunked. "How has personal responsibility worked so far?" I ask those who oppose needle exchange. The only truthful answer is, "it hasn't and wont."

Conservatives need to get out of the "Leave it to Beaver" back to the fifties mindset. Pretending like there is no problem or believing that if you tell someone that you think what they are doing is wrong will change anything is naive and idiocy. We have the opportunity to address the catastrophic problem of HIV/AIDS/STD transmission, and the ability to significantly reduce its deadliness and transmission. How can we do otherwise in the name of "moral cleanliness?"

Making the Pie Higher

Over nine million jobs were created during President Bill Clinton's historic economic boom. In the first two years of President Bush's administration, he lost three million jobs. Now he, and his economic team are gloating over the 308,000 new jobs created last month. Well, this does come from the President who said, "we ought to make the pie higher."

I agree, the increase in jobs is a good thing for the United States...it's about time average Americans, as opposed to millionaire CEO's, get some help from the Bush White House.

However, don't let yourself get fooled thinking President Bush has a great record with jobs. The average salary of a job created during the Clinton Administration was $43,000 a year. So far, the average salary of a job created during the Bush Administration has been $34,000.

So, my heartfelt congratulations go out to President Bush and his economic advisors. You have successfully lowered the standard of living for millions of Americans, while improving the standard of living for millionaire Americans. No wonder the Bush/Cheney ticket has a campaign war chest of $150 million. After those massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, they can afford to give you a little negative ad money.

Now, if President Bush could only spend some money on economic stimulus instead of a National Missile Defense or low-yield tactical nuclear weapons (NMD and those nukes will have to be another couple blog entries).

an▪i▪mal: n : a lower animal as distinguished from human beings

The author of the 3rd cent's sister blog has repeatedly described Muslims, Iraqis and terrorists as animals. When we respond to his bigoted statements by affirming equal protection and due process for all people, his response is “Bulls--t.” What an educated and civil discourse.

The predominant guiding principal of the United States is freedom of speech and assembly everywhere, equal protection under the law for everyone and due process for any charge. No one has the authority to selectively enforce these principals or apply them to certain individuals.

Liberals do not support terrorists in any way, shape or form. We do, however, believe they are entitled to every right all other human beings are protected by. Human rights do not only apply to those who share your value or faith system. Prohibiting certain rights to accused or convicted terrorists makes the United States no better than the nations or organizations that harbor those terrorists.

Conservatives who oppose due process and believe terrorists are exempt from human rights protection do think that rapists, murderers or drug users have rights. Those individuals’ victims do not have a say in their endangerment. Treating terrorists differently is socially endorsed racism. We have progressed from treating black men more harshly than white men to treating Muslims and Arabs more harshly.

Those of you who adamantly support the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance should pay attention to the rest of the pledge; the original pledge; the pledge that’s been around longer than the 1950’s. The last phrase is “with Liberty and Justice for all.” It’s not a cliché; it’s the fundamental position of the United States. To support the denial of rights to terrorists is as un-American as taking up arms against America.

Rock the Casbah

I hate to break it to the conservatives out there, but people did not begin having sex with the advent of the TV and condoms. It drives me crazy to hear people advocate the "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle, if such a thing ever existed. To those of you who believe this was reality, I don't think you'll find many happy families with two twin beds in the master bedroom. People have been having sex since the dawn of our species, and differences in cultures, religions and beliefs have not changed that trend.

I strongly support the distribution of condoms in middle and high schools. Evidence shows that giving condoms to teenagers does not cause teens to have sex earlier or increase the amount of sex they have. It does increase the amount of protected sex they have. Teaching abstinence only in schools, on the other hand, does not decrease the amount of sex students have, or their likelihood to begin having sex. Its only side effect is making it less likely that the teens engage in sex safely.

"Abstinence only" education has been the largest public health circumvention since AIDS was called a "gay cancer." Teaching abstinence only in schools is not based off any medical safety grounds but by conservative "moral" grounds.

The same people who oppose condom distribution or safe-sex education in schools oppose needle exchange (as if giving drug users clean needle, thereby lowering their changes of giving or receiving AIDS and other diseases, increases their drug usage) and claim masturbation causes hair to grow on your palms. How can critically thinking individuals support that position? I’m fairly smart, and it alludes me.

The worst part about their belief is the hypocritical nature of their argument. They want to apply a different set of moral and societal standards on others than on themselves. I’m willing to bet all my money (it’s not much) that the people who push for abstinence only education did not practice what they preach when they were youth. I’m willing to give someone all my money if they can explain how protected sex is “immoral.”

The Beatles were right, all you need is love…as long as you’re married, you don’t use protection, you do it on a bed under the covers, in a locked room with the lights off.

It’s so simple!

"Oh no. The dead have risen and they're voting Republican" - Lisa Simpson

The people of Idaho (especially those in higher education) have long been at the mercy of the right-wing fringe of the Republican party. Their decisions and actions speak for themselves:

● Constitutionally banning the already illegal act of gay marriage

● Placing a 10 Commandments monument in the capitol building using state money (according to State Senator Gary Sweet R-Meridian, it’s not a religious issue, but the responsibility of elected representatives to uphold the laws of Almighty God)

● Cutting funding for higher education while passing tax cuts for the wealthy then passing a regressive sales tax increase that effects the poorest among us the most…then wanting to stay in office just to sunset the sales tax increase (hurting higher education even more)

● Explaining that is was “Communist” to make kindergarten compulsory for Idaho children

● Demonstrating your commitment to “No Un-funded Mandates” by passing an un-funded faculty/staff salary increase on to Idaho colleges and universities

● Asking “Why should we spend more tax dollars for higher education?” “Students will make up the difference as always”

These are just recent examples. Stay tuned to this blog as it will continue to publish the truth about the only post-industrial nation in the world to treat its citizens as disposable income.

–From the “pinko commie” center of Idaho, Moscow (a.k.a. Hog Heaven).