In case some of you have missed it, I am a professional social worker. In the 10 years that I have performed duties as a professional social worker, I've spent most of that time either working directly with or on behalf of both drug addicts as well as drug dealers. I've counseled them, referred them for services, worked with their families, taken their children from them and most importantly, I've empathized with them. Though I have never struggled with addiction myself nor have I indulged in selling drugs, I tried my hardest to help those whose lives have been affected by drugs and all that means to be involved with them.
In addition, most of graduate work dealt with the US government's policies toward drug use and drug dealing. I've been on both sides of the legalization debate writing papers on the virtues of both prohibition as well as legalization with regulation. Needless to say, coming up with a coherent, fair, humane and moral policy on drugs is difficult as this is one of our more complex issues. It's also the one that nobody likes to talk to about, thus it's signature as the "third rail of politics."
But we don't run from controversy here at 411Mania, we embrace it. In fact, sometimes we even cause a little (Right Mick Foley?). So I present to the first of what I hope will be an ongoing discussion of the dirty little policy debate that Washington doesn't want to deal with. The following statements are just the tip of the iceberg and only reflect a small portion of what is a most complex issue. More issues will be addressed the next time we tackle this issue. Lastly, the statements themselves are a bit denser than the usual FoF fair and that was done intentionally. With an issue such as drugs, I just don't want to argue about it, I want to educate as well as entertain (where applicable). Hopefully I've done that with this column and will continue to do so.
So without further ado, let's meet our debaters. Introducing first, he's a libertarian with some sympathies on the left & right and is VERY interested in the war on drugs/legalization discussion, from parts unknown, Madcap Unlimited.
And from our very own 411Mania Wrestling Zone, he is head writer/editor of THE most positive article in the IWC: Hidden Highlights and the voice of wrestling's business in The Hamilton Ave Journal, ladies and gentleman, please welcome Mr. JP Prag. By the way JP, we is In Defense Of... coming back? I loved that column.
The media world has been abuzz since Governor Palin's shocking announcement. Before the end of July, Palin will relinquish the reigns of her governorship. What does her resignation mean for the GOP? What's next for Alaska's political dynamo?
At this time, Republicans are lost. Senator Ensign had an affair with a staffer and shamed the party, effectively ending his presidential bid. Governor Sanford gave the strangest press conference in recent memory, revealing that he was involved in an adulterous relationship. Even Newt Gingrich committed a gaffe when he essentially called Judge Sotomayor a racist.
Republicans are desperate for a vocal and visible leader. Mitt Romney is keeping a low profile, but that's understandable since he's a 2012 frontrunner. Mike Huckabee is doing quite the opposite, though he might be overexposing himself as a Fox News television host. Like Romney, Tim Pawlenty is laying low while he governs Minnesota. Until now, nobody has been either willing or able to step up and rally the GOP. However, things have changed…
In a stunning development, Sarah Palin steps down as Governor of Alaska.
Will this help, or hurt her National ambitions? Only time will tell. However, the balance of Republican political strategists are scratching their heads.
Ed Rollins, Republican strategist and CNN contributor, pretty much summed it up (and is typical of what I'm hearing from knowledgeable strategists on the right).
It amazes me that words don't have more power. Tomorrow is Independence Day, when, 233 years ago, a group of men published the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
It shouldn't have been necessary to fight a war against Britain to gain our independence. Those words should have hit King George III across the face, and he should have realized that he had, not power over people, but duty to them. But he was crazy, so we'll give him a pass. Surely it should not have been necessary to spend the next eighty years debating and fighting about slavery, when those words should have caused every slaveholder to offer freedom to their slaves. But maybe they were just all really racists, and that can be an explanation if not an excuse.
But how is it that the entire world seemed to hear these words and say, "Yes, very nice sentiment, all perfectly correct, now let us get back to the status quo."
This past Sunday, amidst all the media frenzy about Michael Jackson, a different sort of American Icon passed away quietly in his sleep. His name was Billy Mays and anyone who has had a bout of insomnia, or trying desperately to metabolize an entire night of drinking at 3am has heard his voice and seen his frantic sales pitches. He exhorted viewers loudly and forcefully to buy his products and call now for a fabulous deal.
What does all this have to do with politics? Not much, other than Billy Mays, I believe, encompassed a quality that has been lost in the American marketplace: integrity. While America hasn't ever had a fully capitalist economy, and the closest we got was in the 1800s, there is without a doubt one factor that is missing in the overall national scale economy: integrity. Integrity and reputation are the hidden hands and enforcers in the capitalist system. While no one will ever stop the crook, thief, liar, trickster or fraud from making a buck, it is almost impossible to ultimately fashion a long term business model around deception. Ultimately misdeeds get published, wronged consumers tell others how crappy the person or business was, and everyone goes elsewhere with their money.
Oy. The life of a Reform Libertarian. I remember when Libertarians used to be about protecting the Constitution. Freedom from strip searching and random surveillance. Decriminalizing drugs. Legalizing prostitution. Keeping abortion legal. Getting government out of the church, and out of the bedroom. Generally speaking, I like to keep them out of my wallet and out of my hospital room too, but I like to put needs before wants. "Pragmatism" is apparently, a dirty word, and we have to adhere to our principles, even if they're demonstrably wrong because, well, they're our principles.
With the self-righteous wing of the Republican Party imploding, and taking the whole ship down with it, the fiscal conservatives have hopped over to the "libertarian" label. Not the party, necessarily. Just the label. Kind of like the Democrats when they got smeared with the "liberal" label and adopted "progressive" about a decade ago. It's as if libertarians made a deal with the devil. They adopted Michelle Bachmann as one of their heroes for the tea-bagging and "Light Bulb Free Choice Act," while ignoring her stance on religious indoctrination and abortion.
(Btw, *this* is why I could never be a Republican – too much cognitive dissonance:
Michelle Bachmann on same-sex marriage: "I was the chief author of a constitutional amendment in the Minnesota Senate defining marriage as between one man and one woman."
Michelle Bachmann on light bulbs: "[T]he government has no business telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy."
The tawdry tale of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and his Argentine paramour has reignited the usual schadenfreude-licious public discourse that inevitably follows the adulterous downfall of a sanctimonious politician. All patriotic Americans seem to agree when an elected official cheats on his wife, he's both a fool and a disgrace. In Sanford's case, there's some debate as to whether he should be given some leeway, inasmuch as he may be genuinely "in love" with his South American mistress – as opposed to the likes of Eliot Spitzer, who merely had loveless intercourse with a high-priced callgirl.
Very few Americans are assigning any blame to Sanford's wife, who is portrayed as an innocent bystander to the unraveling of her own marriage. Fair enough, but when asking ourselves "How could Sanford have been so stupid?" maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss a perfectly reasonable explanation – his wife probably wasn't putting out. As we all know, lack of sex can lead married men to recklessness. In this era of gender equality, isn't it about time women started taking some responsibility for driving their husbands to adultery?
Generally, I like to spice things up with this article, taking a recent development in the political world and poking fun at it, but this week I am going to try to be a little bit more serious and take a different kind of approach on politics. I realize that politics often means, as far as news goes, diplomacy around the world, taxes, etc. The basic things we always hear about on both a state and federal level. This week though, i'd rather talk about the military, which clearly plays a role in politics.
I do not want to go about saying that one military is better than another. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference is the orders that are given. For the purpose of this story I'm going to focus on the United States Military, specifically the Air Force, because that is where my experience happened.
I like to label myself as "Center Left". I do not claim a particular political party; I have vote both Democrat and Republican on the local level (though I would consider a third party candidate if one came up with things I would vote for), and would have had a tough time choosing my last presidential vote if Barack Obama had not won the Democratic nomination. My philosophy on politics is nuanced (as I believe any philosophy on politics should be – no one political philosophy fits all problems), but, were I to generalize it, it would be as follows – the government should provide those things needed by society and serve only as referee for those things not needed by society. It is only the fact that I deem a lot of social services as "needed" that makes me add the "Left" part in on "Center Left". This sort of philosophy becomes interesting, though, when one factors in the scenario where the people that want to be taxed the least are actually the ones using most of the services. How can one that uses governmental welfare possibly expect not to have taxes raised for their services? Apparently this not only is possible, but is happening in everyone's favorite fiscal-disaster-movie state, California.
So, my question for today is… how can one simultaneously be poor and conservative without being hypocritical?
How many more Republicans need to be caught cheating on their wives before they finally feel embarrassed for claiming to be the party of morals and values? And when is the so-called liberal media going to point out this hypocrisy? If the media was as liberal as the GOP claims, why are they bending over backwards to make the Mark Sanford story bipartisan? Why do I need to see footage of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Eliot Spitzer every time a prominent Republican is involved in a sex scandal?
Yes, members of both parties commit adultery. But only one political party thinks that it is grounds for impeachment. Only one party thinks it is the government's responsibility to protect marriage from "activist judges." In the span of two weeks, Governor Mark Sanford and Senator John Ensign have confessed to having affairs with mistresses, and both have asked for forgiveness (and supposedly they were also both prospects for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2012). But what these two clowns really have in common is that they both are gaybashing, self-righteous hypocrites who wanted Bill Clinton's head on a silver platter.
I wrote an article in early April about the "Cap and Trade" system and its possible implementation here in the United States through Senate reconciliation. Some of the details have changed since then – most specifically the elimination of reconciliation as a way to force the legislation through the Senate – but the bill is back and more pressing than ever; a House version of the legislation passed 219-212 with a mere spattering of Republican support and even , a Democratic Representative Rep. Patrick Kennedy, checking himself out of rehab to vote for the measure. The vote was very important, as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has gone on record as stating this was her "flagship issue" while Republican leader John Boehner said of the bill that it is "the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives". The vote was so important that, as of Monday, June 29th, the major news sites (CNN.com, MSNBC.com, and FoxNews.com) all had Bernie Madoff or Mark Sanford as their lead stories.
Perhaps that last bit isn't quite as supportive of how important this seems to be.
In either case, this appears to be major legislation that will have huge ripples of effect; the only question is whether or not these ripples will be positive, negative, or both. So I find myself reiterating a previous question I asked – is this bill a problem?
Now that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's mistress, Maria Belen Chapur, has come forward, the above photo has also come out. The photo is from 2001, when she worked as a journalist. The video below is also from 2001, when Chapur was in New York City covering the 9/11 attacks for Argentinean television. She met Sanford a short time after in 2001.
Never say that I don't read the comments section and take what is said to heart. I asked for some suggestions about what would be some interesting topics and one of you actually hipped me to a pretty good one. However, I am well aware that I can't make everybody happy all of time. It's inevitable that some of you won't appreciate the topics I choose for one reason or another, that's life and I'm OK with that.
In addition, to the question of a "liberal FoF" or "conservative FoF," this column is driven solely by those who offer to participate. It's not like I have a booking agent that I can task with getting the Fox News All-Star Panel when you all don't contact me. As much as it pains me to say this, I don't have Charles Krauthammer on speed dial. But, if Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader ever call me and say they want in, guess what, that's what your going to get and if it's all liberal, oh well. Lastly, there is no litmus test for being on here. I don't pay close attention to people's political persuasions on here. And if I did I don't think it would matter as most of the participants have been either libertarian or moderates. By all means though, if there are those of you out there that are hardcore lefties or rightwingers, come on in and participate, I would love to have you be a part of this.
One announcement for next week. My background as a social worker is in substance abuse counseling as well as children and family counseling. I've written tons of papers concerning both sides of drug war and now I want to take that experience and use it for a themed FoF called: Fact or Fiction: The Drug War Edition. I have one participant already by I need one more if anyone is interested in sharing their opinions on the War on Drugs. Let me know, mradulich@gmail.com.
This week we have a pair of 411 contributors that I know you are going to love. First there's Aaron Scott Jockers aka The Weesel (no political affiliation mentioned). His opponent is comments occasionally here on 411 as null2099, and has always been a political junkie. He's also a pagan blog writer on another site and enjoys religious debates; ladies and germs here he is, James "TwoSnakes" Stovall.
Late last week I had a meeting with a real estate agent and a loan officer about buying a house. These sorts of meetings almost always involve a lot of small talk to make everyone comfortable with the thought of handing over one's life savings to these people in order to purchase a house. This one was a bit more interesting, though. The real estate agent – an older man from the Midwest that exuded a "Pulled Up by My Own Bootstraps" vibe – talked about the nationalization of our banking industry. He didn't mention anything that occurred this year, however. Instead, he told a story of a meeting with the Treasury Secretary and the sort of strong arming that would make Tony Soprano go "Maybe you should start usin' some subtlety, capiche'?"
Unfortunately, my background is Computer Science, and most of my training has been in education. As such, I can provide the story and give some insights, but undoubtedly have limits to my exploration. This is where you, the reader, can chime in – did we not already nationalize our banks in 2008?
In order for an insurance company to make money, they need to take in more money than they spend on their customers; therefore, they have to rip you off. In addition, they have to spend YOUR money so that they can advertise, pay bonuses, pay workers, fight legal fees, and lobby Congress. How much of YOUR money goes back to YOU? Now of course if you get real sick, you end up ripping them off. That is assuming the insurance company will cover your sickness. The same applies to car warranties. According to Consumer Reports, more than likely it is a rip off. Car insurance? I paid $136 a month for a used Ford Escort. Allstate was in good hands with me.
Imagine if we could keep our money instead of paying insurance. To cover a family of 4, let's say insurance costs about 10,000 dollars a year. If you could keep what you pay and your employer gives you what they would have paid, you can start a nice account. Let us also assume that car insurance takes another 1,500 a year out of your wallet. So after 10 years with no interest, I would have 115,000 bucks!
Last week, Congress passed its latest cockamamie attempt to manipulate the automobile market. You might think after government interference in the housing market led to The Worst Economy Since The Great Depression™ that our elected officials would be circumspect about meddling with other sectors of the economy. Well, think again.
The so-called "Cash for Clunkers" program will provide incentives for consumers to trade in fuel-inefficient vehicles for greener cars. Not surprisingly it's also a waste of public funds that will have a miniscule impact on economic growth. With trillion-dollar deficits projected for the next few years, why do we continue to let the government invest our money so foolishly?
By now you've probably heard about Republican South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's disappearing act last week. The Governor was gone so long without telling anyone where he was that someone almost had to step in and take his place. Now it's been revealed that Mark was in Argentina, on an international booty call. As announced today, Mark will be resigning from his post as head of the Republican Governors Association and whatever 2012 Presidential aspirations he had, would be seemingly gone.
Myself, I have no real issue with the guy having an affair. While I certainly don't condone it, his personal business is just that, his personal business. However I believe he should be removed from his spot as Governor. Not because he had an affair, but because he lied about it, endangered the citizens of South Carolina by disappearing and misrepresented himself as a family man.
No B.S. None of that "B.S." stuff. We won't be having any of that B.S. for dinner. Thank you, but no thank you B.S. That, ladies and gents, sums up what the world told itself was going to happen with the Iranian Presidential Elections. Clearly, that was not the case.
Now that we have that first paragraph done, what I am trying to accomplish with this blog is two-fold. First, I'm going to get into a bit of detail on what I have taken from the Iranian Election, and second, I will lay down the law on what I have taken from the Neda Soltani slaying.
So, Iran had a presidential election, and the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad beat out Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Seems pretty simple, but it isn't. You see, Ahmadinejad obtained roughly 62.23% of the votes, which is for all intents and purposes a land slide in the world of politics. The only problem is there have been disputes about whether the election was tainted, as Mousavi couldn't even garner the majority in his home area.
These are facts...sort of. I'm going to assume that my readers know the general jist of the outcome, or at least do know with that scintillating summary that was just exposed upon you. Now for my opinion. What the hell.
This gay marriage nonsense has got to stop. This is the easiest thing in the world. It's an equal protection issue. If LGBT's want to be married, there is no way in hell it can be prevented without violating their rights.
I know that position drives the conservatives and the fundamentalist religious people absolutely bananas, and they scream loudly, and nonsensically, that that would destroy the sanctity of marriage. If religious people want to make an argument that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage, it should also include a cogent legal argument for why it's O.K. to bar LGBT citizens from equal protection under the law. No Bible passages. No sermons. Substantive legal arguments.
Still this one is real easy. Both sides in my opinion are fixated on the word ‘marriage'. So here's how we fix it. We take the word marriage out of the equation. We come up with another sort of arrangement by which LGBT folks can express their love for one another and secure all the same legal benefits. LGBT community, you get every damn benefit that comes with marriage, except it won't be called ‘marriage'.
411POLITICS BLOG
