Throw Those Hands Up Already

So tonight I watched a CNBC documentary on Mexico's drug wars.  Not really a lot of new information in there for me, but one thing really got my blood boiling.  A Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security from the U.S. said that legalization was not an option, because "it would be like throwing our hands up and saying nothing can be done."

First, let's assume that that is actually the only message that legalizing marijuana on the federal level could send.  Alright.  So what?  Didn't we learn from Vietnam that sometimes, there is a point at which nothing can be done?  We are throwing good money after bad, and good lives after lives already lost in the war on drugs.  It has been about 30 years since Reagan and his wife began this war, and all we have seen is a steady rotation of the "in" drugs, a shift in production, processing and transit routes.  We show images of eggs that are supposed to be our brains, and fried eggs that are supposed to be our brains on drugs; we arrest kingpins.  We burn fields of coca and marijuana.  We destroy indigenous traditions in South American countries.  And what happens?  Drugs become more expensive as they become harder to get onto America's streets, the drug trade becomes more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid, and they become more willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, leading to more lives lost.  The international drug trade and the organized crime it supports is the original multi-level marketing scheme, and it is not easily brought down.  These are like Avon or Mary Kay ladies with guns.  Is it such a bad thing to throw our hands up and say there's nothing that can be done?  If we spent that money on education about drugs, job creation, and fixing America's problems, maybe people would not be so desperate to escape their daily lives that they would do anything to get high.

Moreover, though, is the fact that the message sent by legalization would not necessarily be that we were giving up.  The message could, and should, be that after a lot of research and calculated thought, we realized that the policies pursued by our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, were wrong.  We've realized that while eradicating narcotics and their trafficking was a noble goal, it is simply too costly to do so.  Literally thousands of lives are lost each year on the streets of America, and in the streets of Latin America, because of our war on drugs.  How many lives has marijuana prohibition saved?  The argument most often used by those who acknowledge marijuana's relatively low health risks is that it is a gateway drug.  Why, though, is marijuana a gateway drug?  Probably because once people have started using marijuana, they are more inclined to go the next step.  After all, they already know dealers, and thus have access to hard drugs.  And they've already crossed the line of breaking the law.  So what's one step further into the realm of illegal drug use?  Well, legalization actually would eliminate both of these factors.  By outlawing pot, we are forcing people who are using a harmless substance (at least relative to alcohol, tobacco, and countless other legal and illegal substances) into a dark, underground world.  We are forcing them to make a choice to break the law, as well as to associate with potentially dangerous criminals.

If (or when) marijuana is legalized, potheads will be going to the corner store to get their fix, not to the corner where they will meet a dealer who also peddles crack, heroin, or meth.  They will have to make a conscious choice to cross the path of the law when progressing from marijuana to more serious, dangerous drugs.

If the government marketing/propaganda machine could convince us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, certainly they could convince us of the more accurate, and demonstrable, fact that our drug policies are costing more lives than they are saving.  Market it correctly and legalization doesn't have to be  a white flag of shameful surrender.

Either way, are our politicians and old-guard citizens allowing our pride to get in the way of smart decision making?  It's okay to admit that while we may be winning the battles, we are losing the war, and cut our losses.  It's also okay to admit that our policies were more harmful than they were helpful, and our costing our children, and the people of our "allies" lives every day.

Some people argue that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope.  Perhaps they're right.  Gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and legalization may be the beginning of a slippery slope.  But hey, if we can all live happily doped up on heroin and marrying our donkeys, but still be alive, and know that innocent children are not being gunned down in Juarez or Bogota, maybe it's a slope we should be a little more open to sliding down.

Travis Corcoran and his right to bear arms

Alright.  A 39 year old blogger named Travis Corcoran just had his gun license suspended after he posted "1 down 354 to go" on his blog, following the Giffords shooting.  This goes back to a basic theoretical question of political science, or does it?

The concept of positive liberty is that we are granted liberty by our governments, and that the only liberties we are entitled to are those specifically granted to us by our governing bodies.  Negative liberty, on the other hand, postulates that we are naturally intended to be free, and that the only rights and liberties we don't have are those specifically removed from us by our governments.

Either way, this is a transgression against liberty.  If we take the negative liberty view, Corcoran should have had the liberty to bear arms, as well as to say whatever he felt like, simply because there is no law which proscribes either behavior.

On the other hand, even if we take the positive liberty view, the U.S. Constitution, the highest "Law of the Land," granted him the right to do both.  Even our Constitution, which grants specific rights, granted Mr. Corcoran the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech.  Thus, regardless of whether we believe in positive or negative liberty, this case is a case of rights encroached upon.  Until Mr. Corcoran went out and tried to make it 2 down, 533 to go, his right to bear arms should not have been taken away, or even suspended.

He is (as far as I know) a law abiding citizen, and this attempt to take away one Constitutionally-guaranteed right (the right to bear arms) for the exercise of another (freedom of speech) is absurd.

Personal Autonomy: Beyond Negative and Positive Liberty

Giffords Shooting and Violent Political Rhetoric

What happened in Arizona last week was a tragedy.  There is no doubt.  But what has happened in the media and on the internet, at the hands of the Left, is even more tragic, and worse yet, hypocritical.

A man with a history of unstable behavior shot at a politician.  The immediate reaction of the Left was to blame the Right, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for the shooting.  This is so far off base, and so hypocritical, it is not even funny.

In a country that has one of the most liberal democracies in the world, but very low voter turnout, politicians have long sought to inspire passion about politics and political beliefs in constituents' minds.  They use rhetoric of "revolt," revolution, and yes, occasionally violence, to support this passion-building goal.  Even the term "campaign" is a military (thus inherently violent) term.

It is not right to blame a politician or a media figure for a deranged individuals' actions simply because they continue this long-standing American political tradition.

On the other hand, these same individuals, who now so easily point the finger, mostly voted our current President into office.  Let's look at some of the people our President has associated with, and evaluate their role in creating political violence.

The first, and most obvious of my three examples, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  If hateful or violent speech is a political sin, Obama's minister is long past political purgatory.

Second, William Ayers, and other members of the Weather Underground.  Many politicians use violent images in their speech to wrestle up passion in voters.  Yet, while an entire generation peacefully and non-violently protested the draft and the Vietnam War, some individuals took it upon themselves to do so violently, using terrorist violence to prove an overtly political point.  Obama is close friends and business associates with Ayers, as well, I'm surge, given his Hyde Park connections, other members of this small group.

Finally, the Black Panther Party, which practiced voter intimidation on behalf of our current President.  This is a direct form of political violence, and one which undermines the very core of our political system, our right to elect our political leadership.

I am not saying that Obama is a terrible person, or that he should be crucified for the sins of those around him (although from the cult worship he receives from many on the Left, we might wonder if they have him confused with someone else).  I am, however, saying that before we begin to critique the words of those on the Right, we should take a good look at the ACTIONS of those on the Left.  We are Constitutionally guaranteed a freedom of speech.  We are not guaranteed a right to fire bomb, or a right to intimidate voters.

Why Israel Needs to Freeze Settlements Now

An obvious sensitive subject in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the issue of ancestral vs. real homelands.  The land currently occupied by Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Assyrian Christians, the Palestinian Muslims, and Israeli Jews.  For the most part, it has been the real homeland of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.  That is, it is the territory in which they were born and raised, and have called homes their entire lives.

By continuing settlements, Israel is really only hurting the Israeli Jewish population.  While now it may seem like a good way of providing more, cheaper land and housing to Israeli Jews, it is only harmful to Israel and her people in the long run.  Israeli politicians allow the settlement because they are stacking the cards in their hand for future political battles, at the expense of Israeli people, and especially young Israelis.

Although I don't think it is necessarily still feasible, or the best solution, the international community seems to have its heart and mind stuck on a two state solution.  If and when this plan eventually materializes, there will now be thousands of Israelis who find themselves inside of Palestine's legal borders.  They will face the same issues which Palestinians have been facing since the creation of Israel, suddenly finding themselves foreigners in their homeland.  The towns which they have grown up calling "home" and thinking of as rightfully theirs, will suddenly be a part of a Palestinian state.  A Palestinian state which is almost sure to recognize the right of return for exiled Palestinians.  Which means the return of land rightfully belonging to Palestinian refugees that fall within the new Palestinian state.  This can only mean forced relocation of the settlers inhabiting that land at the time.

In other words, the Israeli state's policies on settlement are setting settlers up to go through the same crises of national identity, relocation, and refugee status to which the government is currently subjecting Palestinians.

Until a two state solution is either confirmed or finally rejected, Israel must stop the building of settlements, not only for the sake of the Palestinians, but also for the sake of the Israeli settlers themselves.''
Beyond the Green Line: Israeli Settlements West of the Jordan

My take on the WikiLeaks debate

Alright.  First of all, let me say I am not touching on Assange's current prosecution, the theories that it is probably being pushed by the U.S. government, or anything else.

I am speaking purely about the debate over the morality, and in particular, the legality, of WikiLeaks and the newspapers it has provided information to, publishing "secret" information.

I am not a lawyer.  But I once had plans to become a journalist, and as such, we studied issues related to this case.  In general, there are three freedoms recognized as relevant to the freedom of press.

First, the right to access.  This is the right of the press to access key information.

Second, the right of protecting sources.  This is the right to maintain sources' anonymity.

Third, the right to publish.

Coincidentally, these three have been listed here in reverse order of their traditional support from the U.S. courts.  Let's break down each issue as it is relevant to Assange and WikiLeaks.

The right to access.  Unquestionably, the courts have maintained that in certain cases regarding a public interest, or an individual's rights, the government has  right to limit press access to information.  For instance, some states do not allow cameras in court rooms.  The U.S. government can control "imbeded" journalists.  The federal government can classify documents (like those released by WikiLeaks) and attempt to keep them from the public eye.

Second, the right of protection.  Many states partially protect this, but many do not.  There is also no federal shield law, meaning there is no "journalistic privilege" in a Federal court.  Also, in most states, the right to shield a source is protected in a bench or jury trial, but not in a grand jury deposition.  This means the federal government could, in theory, prosecute the individuals who illegally gave Assange information and expect him, even compel him, to testify against them.

Third, the right to publish.  This is the most protected right involved in freedom of press.  In short, a media outlet has a right to publish any information that they have access to, assuming that they did not break the law in obtaining the information.  For instance, courts have ruled that a newspaper could publish both a rape victim's name and a juvenile offender's name (both protected by law) because a reporter got access to the information through a lawful viewing of court records.  A court also allowed a newspaper to publish photographs from an execution, although photographic equipment was banned from the execution viewing room.  The act of taking the pictures was illegal.  The act of publishing the pictures once they fell into possession of the newspaper, was not.

In short, the government has every right to force Julian Assange to give up his sources.  They also have every right to discipline those sources, both as government employees violating the terms of their employment, as well as possibly as traitors and/or spies.  If Assange (a former hacker) is found to have stolen the information through illegal methods, it would be a different story.  The problem with this is that because Assange is not within U.S. borders, without accusing him of having violated a serious law, he cannot be compelled to answer questions about his sources.

At the end of the day, though, Assange and the publications he worked with have published information that they obtained legally (it was given to them).   They should not be prosecuted.  The lying, treasonous government employees who leaked the files should.

Is it Too Late for Two States?

Ever since I was a child, I remember hearing about the various U.S. Presidents' "Roadmap to Peace" in the Middle East.  It was always my assumption, and that of the mainstream media and government here in the U.S. of A. that the path to peace involved separate states for Israelis and Palestinians, for Jews and for Muslims.  I remember through high school and college the idea of a unified state being laughed off as the international community declaring Israel and Palestine an "international or interfaith Disneyland."

Well, perhaps it is the time to start thinking Mickey Mouse.  The logic here goes several levels deep.  On the most basic level, let's look at the simple reality.  Jerusalem has sites that are among the most holy of all the major monotheistic faiths in existence.  The city could never be split between two countries like Berlin was, because the holy sites are spread throughout the city, as are the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures and populations.

Moreover, even if Jerusalem could be split, we now have the issue of the rest of the land.  The traditionally-Muslim portions of Israel have now been so encroached upon by Israeli settlement, which has lasted so long, that in order to provide a contiguous state to the Palestinians, Israelis would have to be forcibly relocated.  Darkness can not be met with darkness, but only with light.

Moreover, the idea of two separate states should scare Christians, especially Christians living within the disputed areas, more than anything.  By legitimizing political boundaries and political systems based on religion, we validate the idea of a Jewish and a Muslim state.  Where does this leave Christians?

In addition, the idea of two states should repulse anyone with even the most minute sense of "political corectness," "social justice," or Democracy.  Again, by allowing two states based on primarily religious distinctions, we are accepting that religion is an acceptable political boundary.  How can Americans, who oppose discrimination on religious grounds, accept this idea?

Finally, from a practical standpoint, the debate has reached a standstill.  First, the right of return question.  If a two state solution is really being sought, why does the Palestinian Authority care, or have a right to care, about Palestinians within the borders of the newly agreed upon Israel?  With two states, they would no longer represent Muslim interests within Israel, but instead, would represent the interests of Palestinian citizens within the newly defined Palestine.

Most tellingly is the conversation in the pro-Palestine blogosphere.  Palestinians, who are now the ethnic minority within Israel and Palestine, stand the most to lose on a true representative Democracy being established in Israel.  Yes, they would get equal rights, and finally be treated with some dignity.  But their voting power would never equal that of the Jewish majority.  Yet, more and more, they see this as the best path forward.  When the minority in a society pushes for Democracy, rather than independence, it is showing that the peace, dignity, and respect for human rights that come with Democracy are worth sacrificing political autonomy and true self-determination over.  We have obviously reached a new low in the Middle East conflict, and it may very well be time to start thinking outside of the box.  Or rather, start thinking inside the box, and outside of the two boxes.

Equity vs. Equality

Being a poli sci major when I was in school, one thing I hated was looking at definitions, statistics, etc. versus the bigger picture.  This particular conversation, however, is one in which the definition is key to the bigger picture and defining issues and "good" policy.

The problem with the left, and even the center, in American politics today, is that there is a sense of "social justice" which uses inequities as an excuse to push for automatic equality for all racial, gender, and socio-economic groups.  Understanding the difference between equity and equality, and the importance of maintaining equity, but also maintaining inequality, in a capitalist system is key to keeping the American dream alive and understanding the proper, limited goal of the government in our lives.

Equality, as it relates to "social justice" and politics is the idea that all people are inherently equal, and equally deserving of everything from liberty to the "finer things in life."  This is inherently false, and a dangerous idea to democracy, and, especially, capitalism and the free market.  The American dream is built on the idea that through creativity, intelligence, natural ability, and hard work, one can set themselves ahead of the masses.  Thus, we all start out somewhere on a scale of unequal conditions, and our goal, our drive to give something to our economy and our society, is to move somewhere up that scale.

Equity, on the other hand, is the idea of a fair distribution of resources, and, in particular, opportunity.  That is, if two people are born in very different situations, but have the same skills, abilities, intelligence, and drive, will both have equal access to the tools needed to fulfill their idea of the American dream.

The left will consistently point out how inequitable our society is.  They point to statistics of the poor barely making it by, sending their children to underfunded schools so hungry that they cannot focus on the lessons taught by unqualified teachers.  They point out that there are few jobs available in minority and poor neighborhoods.

This is all true, and these are issues that need to be addressed.  The left, however, then turn around and in the same breath oppose school vouchers, and support instead the redistribution of wealth that we know as social welfare programs.  They support unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and other programs which redistribute resources to the poor and to minorities.

This does not solve the underlying problems.  While making our society more equal, these programs do little to make our society more equitable.  They take away the incentive to work, while also not providing the infrastructure or education to make it possible for the people in these neighborhoods to work, and to raise themselves out of their current conditions.

Unemployment, poverty, or drug addiction should not be comfortable or pleasant.  It should not be easy.  It should not be secure.  If it were, what would be the incentive to progress in life?

If we want to truly right the wrongs of an imperfect society with an imperfect history, we should remove the funding from social "safety net" programs, and redirect it all at meaningful, effective, educational reform.  From charter schools to school vouchers, what that means is forcing educational institutions to compete for students and funding, even students from low income areas.  By continually complaining about underfunded urban schools, we encourage our officials to reward under-performing districts with increased funding.  Instead, by offering charter and magnet schools, vouchers, and, if necessary, transportation, we have the potential to force real improvement in our education system.  By basing school funding on where parents choose to send their children to school, not based on geographical boundaries, we force school administrators and teachers who wish to keep their jobs to perform.

Although it may seem cold hearted to leave a generation which did not have access to these reforms behind, the best thing we can do to truly make the American dream a reality is to make sure that the current generation is the last to suffer through this.  Make sure that every American child has access to quality education, from educators, schools, and systems which are fighting to remain one step ahead.  Run our schools like businesses.  Make them accountable for the money they spend, and make them compete with the competition.  This is the only way to make them perform.  When our schools perform for all of our students, we will be a huge step closer to an equitable society.