Long-time conservative columnist George Will wrote about airline competition in The Washington Post today, April 15, 2012. It is an important and serious subject. But along the way he said, "Intellectuals are often the last to learn things," to attack a 1958 claim by John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist who taught at Harvard University.
Why smear people who try to think seriously about important matters? Aren't columnists who write about airline competition pretty close to being "intellectual" if they are not actual "intellectuals?"
Will writes, "Undiscouraged by evidence, in 1967 Galbraith, full of the progressive's enthusiasm for the administrative state, asserted in 'The New Industrial State' that the U.S. economy would soon be dominated by large corporations essentially immune from competition and hence from market turbulence."
If this is what Galbraith wrote, it seems that he was wrong about immunity from competition but was he wrong that the economy would be dominated by large corporations?
Why be so snarky -- especially about 50 and 60 year old arguments? It doesn't seem to be the case that Galbraith was writing specifically about airline regulation or competition. And considering that the sixth anniversary of Galbraith's death is in two weeks, it seems downright rude to be so gratuitously insulting to someone who is dead.
This kind of writing does not contribute to a more civil or more thoughtful society -- just a more nasty one.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
Voting in the Maryland primary election today
Today, April 3, is the primary election in Maryland, where I am registered to vote. We vote on a computer touch screen. I checked in and up came Barack Obama. I touched the blank box, and it turned red with a black X in it. And then I thought about the DEA/IRS/U.S. Marshals raid in Oakland yesterday at Oaksterdam University and the temporary detention of Richard Lee, the man who financed most of Proposition 19, the 2010 vote in California to legalize marijuana there.
I unchecked my vote for Obama! I voted for uncommitted. And I did not vote for any delegates to the Democratic convention who were committed to him, with the exception of a personal friend.
How could I vote for an administration that has demonstrated hostility to so many people I know the day after they raided Oaksterdam University to use law enforcement to retaliate against a political dissident?
I've known Richard Lee for almost twenty years. I worked with him to try to pass Proposition 19, which received 46.5 percent of the vote.
Why did the U.S. government raid Oaksterdam University yesterday? Was it because Oaksterdam posed some emerging critical threat to the health and welfare of the people of Oakland or the the people of California or the United States? No.
I think the raid was conducted to protect President Obama from potential embarrassment at the April 14-15 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. This raid was staged now so that President Obama can reject discussion of marijuana legalization, and deny the assertion that in California, "marijuana is legal."
How could I vote for an Administration that used the awesome power of federal law enforcement for political advantage? The day after that cynical misuse of power? No!
What alternative better explains the timing of this raid?
In recent weeks, the Presidents of Guatemala, Colombia and Mexico, which for years have been facing the incomprehensible violence of warring illegal drug gangs and and their corrupting power due to their profits from drug prohibition, have encouraged discussion of "market alternatives" to prohibition, that is, discussion of legalization or regulation of the commerce in drugs.
The United States government remains steadfastly opposed to any serious discussion of this approach to drug control. Last month, it sent Vice President Joe Biden on a mission to Central America to attempt to squelch any such discussion.
Many American voters are in families that emigrated to the United States from Latin America. They are likely to be attentive to the news from the Summit of the Americas. President Obama, facing the voters in 7 months, dreads any news that will rival his message of adeptly managing relations with the rest of the hemisphere, especially over economic issues.
Certainly since I went to Latin America in 1983, helping to staff a Congressional Delegation that was meeting the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers of Interior and Justice, etc. of Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Jamaica, leaders of those nations have expressed their frustration that large number of Americans pay billions of dollars to consume large volumes of drugs produced in their countries. This large demand for drugs continues, year after year, decade after decade, seemingly with impunity, yet the greatest costs seem to be paid in the blood of Latin Americans. This argument is continuing to be made by current presidents, such as President Felipe Calderon of Mexico.
The raid against Richard Lee, probably America's most prominent, hands-on marijuana legalization activist and recent reform financier, is the latest crass, calculated move of the Obama Administration to rebut those charges.
I unchecked my vote for Obama! I voted for uncommitted. And I did not vote for any delegates to the Democratic convention who were committed to him, with the exception of a personal friend.
How could I vote for an administration that has demonstrated hostility to so many people I know the day after they raided Oaksterdam University to use law enforcement to retaliate against a political dissident?
I've known Richard Lee for almost twenty years. I worked with him to try to pass Proposition 19, which received 46.5 percent of the vote.
Why did the U.S. government raid Oaksterdam University yesterday? Was it because Oaksterdam posed some emerging critical threat to the health and welfare of the people of Oakland or the the people of California or the United States? No.
I think the raid was conducted to protect President Obama from potential embarrassment at the April 14-15 Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. This raid was staged now so that President Obama can reject discussion of marijuana legalization, and deny the assertion that in California, "marijuana is legal."
How could I vote for an Administration that used the awesome power of federal law enforcement for political advantage? The day after that cynical misuse of power? No!
What alternative better explains the timing of this raid?
In recent weeks, the Presidents of Guatemala, Colombia and Mexico, which for years have been facing the incomprehensible violence of warring illegal drug gangs and and their corrupting power due to their profits from drug prohibition, have encouraged discussion of "market alternatives" to prohibition, that is, discussion of legalization or regulation of the commerce in drugs.
The United States government remains steadfastly opposed to any serious discussion of this approach to drug control. Last month, it sent Vice President Joe Biden on a mission to Central America to attempt to squelch any such discussion.
Many American voters are in families that emigrated to the United States from Latin America. They are likely to be attentive to the news from the Summit of the Americas. President Obama, facing the voters in 7 months, dreads any news that will rival his message of adeptly managing relations with the rest of the hemisphere, especially over economic issues.
Certainly since I went to Latin America in 1983, helping to staff a Congressional Delegation that was meeting the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Ministers of Interior and Justice, etc. of Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Jamaica, leaders of those nations have expressed their frustration that large number of Americans pay billions of dollars to consume large volumes of drugs produced in their countries. This large demand for drugs continues, year after year, decade after decade, seemingly with impunity, yet the greatest costs seem to be paid in the blood of Latin Americans. This argument is continuing to be made by current presidents, such as President Felipe Calderon of Mexico.
The raid against Richard Lee, probably America's most prominent, hands-on marijuana legalization activist and recent reform financier, is the latest crass, calculated move of the Obama Administration to rebut those charges.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Liberals fail to "prune" outmoded programs: David Brooks, New York Times
David Brooks wonders where the liberals have gone. Just as farmers weed the fields and sailors maintain their ships, Democrats who create government programs have an obligation to prune. He is right, of course.
The "war on drugs," a program that huge majorities recognize is not working, would be an excellent area for pruning. By the way, the Obama Administration cancelled the "Safe and Drug-Free Schools" program because it was not working, not because it was indifferent to teenage drug use.
The "war on drugs," a program that huge majorities recognize is not working, would be an excellent area for pruning. By the way, the Obama Administration cancelled the "Safe and Drug-Free Schools" program because it was not working, not because it was indifferent to teenage drug use.
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Santorum tells N.H. he would ignore the Constitutional powers of the States to enforce his moral views
On Thurs., Jan. 5, 2012, I was in New Hampshire and heard Rick Santorum, candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, at a town hall event.* The last questioner, obviously believing the Santorum was a conservative, prefaced her question by noting that it is a core conservative principle that state and local governments have the power to govern themselves without federal interference, and asked, "if you were president would you protect gay marriage and medical marijuana laws and allow them to operate without federal interference?"
After the long digressions he is famous for, and being prodded by the audience for an answer at 3:21 in that video, Santorum said,
I have to wonder how many of the conservatives who voted for Santorum, or are planning to vote for him because of his religious and social views, are comfortable with such an expansive and cavalier view of the President's power to disregard the Constitution based on his "moral" judgement. For a candidate who cites wide ranges of sources in his speeches, he cited no authority other than his own ability to discern harms to people and to make a "moral" decision.
Would any strict constructionist or partisan of the "original intent" school of constitutional interpretation find Santorum's analysis a tolerable conception of the President's power?
*The town hall meeting was at the Grappone Conference Center in Concord, NH at the College Convention 2012 organized by New England College and sponsored by Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the AARP.
After the long digressions he is famous for, and being prodded by the audience for an answer at 3:21 in that video, Santorum said,
"states under the Constitution probably have the right to do medical marijuana laws but -- legally, but I don't think they morally have the right to do things that are harmful to the people in their community and therefore I think the federal government should step in."Whoa Nellie! Notwithstanding his understanding that the Constitution legally permits states to "do medical marijuana laws," if he were President, he would direct the federal government to step in to stop them.
I have to wonder how many of the conservatives who voted for Santorum, or are planning to vote for him because of his religious and social views, are comfortable with such an expansive and cavalier view of the President's power to disregard the Constitution based on his "moral" judgement. For a candidate who cites wide ranges of sources in his speeches, he cited no authority other than his own ability to discern harms to people and to make a "moral" decision.
Would any strict constructionist or partisan of the "original intent" school of constitutional interpretation find Santorum's analysis a tolerable conception of the President's power?
*The town hall meeting was at the Grappone Conference Center in Concord, NH at the College Convention 2012 organized by New England College and sponsored by Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the AARP.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Heckling Santorum with college students in New Hampshire
GOP Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was taking questions from students at the College Convention 2012 in Concord, NH, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy was one of the official sponsoring organizations. I helped arrange the sponsorship by SSDP.
At the very end of the session, SSDP student, Carly (Gladyce) Thomasett from the slashroot collective in New Paltz, NY asked Santorum if he supported the conservative principle that state laws, like New Hampshire's that permit gay marriage, and those of the 15 medical marijuana state's that protect patients, should not be subject to federal preemption. Santorum compared it to state laws that authorized sterilization of people against their will. Then, refuting conservative principles said that as President, he would use federal power to over rule such state laws! He cut off the questioning and exited to a chorus of boos
The Santorum exchange has made global news coverage: U.K. Telegraph USA TODAY CBSNEWS
In one of the first questions of the afternoon, he was asked why he personally opposed gay marriage. Not answering the question, he turned the question into an attempt at a Socratic dialogue and lecture. Santorum said the burden of proof was on the student questioner as why the laws prohibit the marriage of gay and lesbian couples should be changed. Without a reason to do so, it should not be done he said, as students hollered out "All Men are created equal" and "Equal Rights" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Santorum then said, well what did the student think about whether three men should marry. "Irrelevant," I hollered. He insisted on suggesting that was something that could or would follow -- but no one is calling for legislation allowing three or more men or three lesbians to marry. But challenging Santorum's absurd logic, many shouted out, "Go for it," and "It's okay with me." Again he insisted that the student had to explain why allowing plural marriage was a bad idea. "Are you stupid?" I muttered so loudly folks in several rows around could hear me.
He insisted that no one had provided any reason why gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed. I can't believe he is so obtuse.
At the very end of the session, SSDP student, Carly (Gladyce) Thomasett from the slashroot collective in New Paltz, NY asked Santorum if he supported the conservative principle that state laws, like New Hampshire's that permit gay marriage, and those of the 15 medical marijuana state's that protect patients, should not be subject to federal preemption. Santorum compared it to state laws that authorized sterilization of people against their will. Then, refuting conservative principles said that as President, he would use federal power to over rule such state laws! He cut off the questioning and exited to a chorus of boos
The Santorum exchange has made global news coverage: U.K. Telegraph USA TODAY CBSNEWS
In one of the first questions of the afternoon, he was asked why he personally opposed gay marriage. Not answering the question, he turned the question into an attempt at a Socratic dialogue and lecture. Santorum said the burden of proof was on the student questioner as why the laws prohibit the marriage of gay and lesbian couples should be changed. Without a reason to do so, it should not be done he said, as students hollered out "All Men are created equal" and "Equal Rights" and "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Santorum then said, well what did the student think about whether three men should marry. "Irrelevant," I hollered. He insisted on suggesting that was something that could or would follow -- but no one is calling for legislation allowing three or more men or three lesbians to marry. But challenging Santorum's absurd logic, many shouted out, "Go for it," and "It's okay with me." Again he insisted that the student had to explain why allowing plural marriage was a bad idea. "Are you stupid?" I muttered so loudly folks in several rows around could hear me.
He insisted that no one had provided any reason why gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed. I can't believe he is so obtuse.
Santorum says Federal government does not send non-violent drug offenders to prison
Santorum says Federal government does not send non-violent drug offenders to prison.
Marriage is a celebration of love
I was called out Thursday afternoon, Jan.5, 2012, by a lovely Christian woman for heckling former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum in Concord, New Hampshire this afternoon during his many comments attacking state laws that permit gay marriage. She politely shamed me for being disrespectful and setting a bad example for her three well behaved children. Gay marriage was very hard on her family, she said. Another lovely woman of hers also said gay marriage was hard on her family. I believe them -- but it wasn't appropriate for me then to press them on exactly why or how it is hard.
Later, I was trying to figure out what Santorum thought gay marriage is. I have attended two weddings for same sex couples. Gay and lesbian marriages are celebrations of love.
We need more celebrations of love in America. How does Rick Santorum, the Congress or the U.S. Government get to decide who you can celebrate love with?
The fundamental premise of Santorum's insistence that among various loving couples, the love of gay couple or a lesbian couple is inferior and second class love. His premise says to gay and lesbian couples your partnership with your partner is second class and your marriage to your spouse ought to remain second class. How can he not see this is cruel?
This is a despicable presumption on the part of Santorum's.
Later, I was trying to figure out what Santorum thought gay marriage is. I have attended two weddings for same sex couples. Gay and lesbian marriages are celebrations of love.
We need more celebrations of love in America. How does Rick Santorum, the Congress or the U.S. Government get to decide who you can celebrate love with?
The fundamental premise of Santorum's insistence that among various loving couples, the love of gay couple or a lesbian couple is inferior and second class love. His premise says to gay and lesbian couples your partnership with your partner is second class and your marriage to your spouse ought to remain second class. How can he not see this is cruel?
This is a despicable presumption on the part of Santorum's.
Dr. Gingrich blows hemp history orals; flunks Washington and Jefferson 101
The Internet is buzzing about the Newt Gingrich comment in Concord, NH, Jan. 4,
This was a bigtime inaccurate answer to a question from a student about Washington and Jefferson growing marijuana at Mount Vernon and Monticello, and why it is illegal today. The student used the government approved term for the hemp plant to avoid confusing Dr. Gingrich. There is no record of Washington or Jefferson growing any psycho-active varieties of the hemp plant (i.e. marijuana) or using it to get high. The student's point had nothing to do with getting high. The student, Patrick Fitzgerald, a member of the New Paltz, NY slashroot collective, was participating with Students for Sensible Drug Policy at the College Convention 2012 at the convention center in Concord.
Here's an excellent 90 second video of official guides at Mount Vernon providing a tour explaining hemp production under George Washington's expert and profitable management. It made me wonder if Newt Gingrich ever did "the tourist thing" and visited Mount Vernon while he served in Congress.
Sam Stein at Huffington Post provided a more detailed report of the whole exchange.
Should Gingrich have known that Washington and Jefferson cultivated hemp and would never threaten cultivators?
Federal law has forbade "hemp" cultivation, even the non-psychoative kind grown by the founding fathers (since it "looks" like marijuana) since 1937. With no hemp industry in the last 84 years (except for World War II, see "Hemp for Victory") we could expect that many Americans and Members of Congress would be ignorant of the fact that marijuana, then called hemp, was widely cultivated in 18th and 19th century America.
Newt's Ph.D. from Tulane University was in Modern European History, so if his study of history ignored early U.S. history to favor his academic specialty, his ignorance of Jefferson and Washington would be perfectly excusable.
But in his campaign stump speeches he purports to be an expert on the founding fathers: what they believed, how virtuous and industrious they were, how they knew the value of a profit and how to make one, etc. I may be used to an unusually high standard in History professors since I took courses with Roger Lane at Haverford College.
But I think it would be unlikely that a well educated historian concerned about the lessons of Revolutionary times would be ignorant that hemp was a widespread major crop in America, one of the "Naval Stores" (cordage, tar, pitch and timber) that were important to build wooden 18th century sailing ships for trade and war.
In 2010 Newt Gingrich wrote two novels about George Washington and the Revolutionary War. Perhaps he is not a particularly curious researcher.
Or perhaps he was just trying to B.S. his clever way around a question that he want to sneer at.
As it happened, seven hours later on Wednesday evening, another SSDP student, Brian Broom-Peltz, caught Governor Romney leaving his rally in Peterborough, NH to ask him about "industrial hemp." Governor Romney said he didn't know what that was. Oh well, maybe if Brian had said industrial marijuana or cannabis hemp or something else, the governor would have made the connection.
"I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques of dealing with it would have been more violent."I was there! I heard the answer, and I was shocked at the blunder!
This was a bigtime inaccurate answer to a question from a student about Washington and Jefferson growing marijuana at Mount Vernon and Monticello, and why it is illegal today. The student used the government approved term for the hemp plant to avoid confusing Dr. Gingrich. There is no record of Washington or Jefferson growing any psycho-active varieties of the hemp plant (i.e. marijuana) or using it to get high. The student's point had nothing to do with getting high. The student, Patrick Fitzgerald, a member of the New Paltz, NY slashroot collective, was participating with Students for Sensible Drug Policy at the College Convention 2012 at the convention center in Concord.
Here's an excellent 90 second video of official guides at Mount Vernon providing a tour explaining hemp production under George Washington's expert and profitable management. It made me wonder if Newt Gingrich ever did "the tourist thing" and visited Mount Vernon while he served in Congress.
Sam Stein at Huffington Post provided a more detailed report of the whole exchange.
Should Gingrich have known that Washington and Jefferson cultivated hemp and would never threaten cultivators?
Federal law has forbade "hemp" cultivation, even the non-psychoative kind grown by the founding fathers (since it "looks" like marijuana) since 1937. With no hemp industry in the last 84 years (except for World War II, see "Hemp for Victory") we could expect that many Americans and Members of Congress would be ignorant of the fact that marijuana, then called hemp, was widely cultivated in 18th and 19th century America.
Newt's Ph.D. from Tulane University was in Modern European History, so if his study of history ignored early U.S. history to favor his academic specialty, his ignorance of Jefferson and Washington would be perfectly excusable.
But in his campaign stump speeches he purports to be an expert on the founding fathers: what they believed, how virtuous and industrious they were, how they knew the value of a profit and how to make one, etc. I may be used to an unusually high standard in History professors since I took courses with Roger Lane at Haverford College.
But I think it would be unlikely that a well educated historian concerned about the lessons of Revolutionary times would be ignorant that hemp was a widespread major crop in America, one of the "Naval Stores" (cordage, tar, pitch and timber) that were important to build wooden 18th century sailing ships for trade and war.
In 2010 Newt Gingrich wrote two novels about George Washington and the Revolutionary War. Perhaps he is not a particularly curious researcher.
Or perhaps he was just trying to B.S. his clever way around a question that he want to sneer at.
As it happened, seven hours later on Wednesday evening, another SSDP student, Brian Broom-Peltz, caught Governor Romney leaving his rally in Peterborough, NH to ask him about "industrial hemp." Governor Romney said he didn't know what that was. Oh well, maybe if Brian had said industrial marijuana or cannabis hemp or something else, the governor would have made the connection.
Historian Gingrich on our God-given right to bear arms
At the Concord, NH Holiday Inn Wednesday morning at about 10:45, I was leaning through a doorway into the absolutely jam-packed Newt Gingrich event struggling to hear.
Newt was in full blown professorial form elucidating our liberties from our founding texts.
At one point, after noting Jefferson's soaring ode to liberty "that [all Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," Newt said God gave us the right to bear arms.
Really? Was this in the time of Adam, or of Moses, or the Prophets?
Was this left out of the New Testament?
Perhaps, God only gave us the right after the first firearms were invented -- anticipating the American revolution.
Did God give the right to bear arms to all other persons in all other countries?
Do the God-given rights mentioned in our Bill of Rights apply to all persons in other countries too?
Or did God only give these rights to the American people?
How did the Members of Congress and the Senators at the First U.S. Congress get the message?
Newt was in full blown professorial form elucidating our liberties from our founding texts.
At one point, after noting Jefferson's soaring ode to liberty "that [all Men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," Newt said God gave us the right to bear arms.
Really? Was this in the time of Adam, or of Moses, or the Prophets?
Was this left out of the New Testament?
Perhaps, God only gave us the right after the first firearms were invented -- anticipating the American revolution.
Did God give the right to bear arms to all other persons in all other countries?
Do the God-given rights mentioned in our Bill of Rights apply to all persons in other countries too?
Or did God only give these rights to the American people?
How did the Members of Congress and the Senators at the First U.S. Congress get the message?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
A quick guide for writing well
This article on the American Bar Association website is an outstanding guide for any writer! Every student should take five minutes to read this!
Friday, October 07, 2011
Heart broken citizen
Is it intrinsic to being a citizen to have your heart broken?
I put a big burden on citizens. To my mind, to merit the honorific of "citizen" with regard to elections, one is required not merely to cast a ballot (which sounds so passive), but to become educated about the candidates and their issues, to care about the outcome, and if finding an important contest and a worthy candidate, to commit to the the victory of the best candidate.
Like I said, I put a big burden on those whom I honor as "citizens."
But that may be an excessively high standard for the title of citizen. Because, it seems to me today, that the price of such commitment is to have one's heart broken.
In 1960, in the 6th grade, I gave a speech to the elementary school 4th, 5th and 6th graders on behalf of John F. Kennedy. Of course, like most citizens my heart was broken by Lee Harvey Oswald.
In 1964, in the 10th grade, I had put "LBJ for the USA" bumper stickers on the family cars, and went to the "LBJ for the USA" election eve rally in Madison Square Garden, head lined by Gregory Peck. By 1967, Lyndon had broken my heart and I campaigned in 1968 for Gene McCarthy in the Pennsylvania primary. That summer I was Putnam County youth coordinator for McCarthy until the convention. I did nothing for Hubert Humphrey.
Later I supported Jimmy Carter, and still later, Bill Clinton, but both were heart breakers in their own ways.
And now, Barack Obama, yet another heart-breaker.
In March 2009, two months in office when he held his "virtual" town hall meeting, the most widely endorsed questions were about marijuana legalization. He was asked about the potential benefits to the economy of legalizing the multi-billion marijuana industry. I was shocked at his unnecessary smirking and contemptuous response ("I don't know what this says about the online audience, but ...") which, of course, failed to indicate that he had even thought about the number of jobs, the tax revenue, or the savings in government expenditures. No sense that he was even curious to actually look at the numbers.
In August 2011, he was asked at a town hall meeting in Minnesota about medical marijuana. His stumbling response as reported by Raw Story:
And now, in October 2011, Obama is unleashing the U.S. Justice Department on the medical marijuana dispensaries of California. His U.S. Attorneys held a press conference announcing they are going after the dispensaries.
Were the federal prosecutors accompanied by mayors from around the state insisting their police have been hapless in controlling their towns' doctors and medical marijuana patients? No.
Has the California Governor or Attorney General called for salvation from Washington to stem some kind of medical marijuana dispensary crisis? No.
This is a blatant act of federal intervention in state and local law?
What is behind this? Does the Obama Administration think this threatened "crackdown" will improve our relations with the Mexican government? Do they think they are "signalling" that the U.S. is doing something constructive to reduce U.S. demand for marijuana from Mexico? If so, that's absurd.
I think that the DEA, and cops who hate losing elections, and hate giving up the easy overtime pay that accompanies easy marijuana arrests, have pressured the prosecutors to act. The Attorney General, politically weak from the start, and never highly regarded for his brains (think about how he got rolled approving Clinton's last minute pardon of fugitive Marc Rich), and now deep in a political foxhole regarding the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal, is simply not in control of his department. The Justice Department is not being driven by its ostensible leader, but by the career prosecutors, politically ambitious and hungrdy for headlines (think Rudy Giuliani, former federal prosecutor in Manhattan in New York, eyeing the mayor's office and the White House).
Obama seems to hold so many people in contempt, and now it is clear this includes his own supporters. Perhaps he has looked at the Republican field and concluded that the citizens who supported him in 2008 won't abandon him in November 2012.
Just how out of touch with reality is he, or is his staff? In November 1996 in California, Proposition 215 for medical marijuana was on the ballot, along with Bill Clinton, running for re-election, and Bob Dole. Medical marijuana received ONE MILLION more votes than Bill Clinton did, as he carried California. Since then voters and legislators have passed such laws in 15 states!
But I fear that, at his electoral peril, he sadly underestimates the disgust that millions of his former supporters now have for him.
We probably won't vote for Perry or Romney, but millions of won't vote for Obama! We'll go to the polls, and we'll vote for Senators, Representatives, and other "down ballot" positions. For president, perhaps, we'll write in our own name, or perhaps, Gary Johnson, or Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet of TV's West Wing.
Yes, this will probably elect the Republican. But how can we vote for Obama and maintain our self-respect?
I put a big burden on citizens. To my mind, to merit the honorific of "citizen" with regard to elections, one is required not merely to cast a ballot (which sounds so passive), but to become educated about the candidates and their issues, to care about the outcome, and if finding an important contest and a worthy candidate, to commit to the the victory of the best candidate.
Like I said, I put a big burden on those whom I honor as "citizens."
But that may be an excessively high standard for the title of citizen. Because, it seems to me today, that the price of such commitment is to have one's heart broken.
In 1960, in the 6th grade, I gave a speech to the elementary school 4th, 5th and 6th graders on behalf of John F. Kennedy. Of course, like most citizens my heart was broken by Lee Harvey Oswald.
In 1964, in the 10th grade, I had put "LBJ for the USA" bumper stickers on the family cars, and went to the "LBJ for the USA" election eve rally in Madison Square Garden, head lined by Gregory Peck. By 1967, Lyndon had broken my heart and I campaigned in 1968 for Gene McCarthy in the Pennsylvania primary. That summer I was Putnam County youth coordinator for McCarthy until the convention. I did nothing for Hubert Humphrey.
Later I supported Jimmy Carter, and still later, Bill Clinton, but both were heart breakers in their own ways.
And now, Barack Obama, yet another heart-breaker.
In March 2009, two months in office when he held his "virtual" town hall meeting, the most widely endorsed questions were about marijuana legalization. He was asked about the potential benefits to the economy of legalizing the multi-billion marijuana industry. I was shocked at his unnecessary smirking and contemptuous response ("I don't know what this says about the online audience, but ...") which, of course, failed to indicate that he had even thought about the number of jobs, the tax revenue, or the savings in government expenditures. No sense that he was even curious to actually look at the numbers.
In August 2011, he was asked at a town hall meeting in Minnesota about medical marijuana. His stumbling response as reported by Raw Story:
What the hell? What is "that"? Could it be that he is fundamentally ignorant of how any of the medical marijuana programs operate? Is he, the former professor of constitutional law, unwilling to discuss with the people his view of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article V or the extent of Congress's power under the commerce clause in Article I?“If you can’t legalize marijuana, why can’t you just legalize medical marijuana?” a woman asked the president.
“A lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana,” Obama explained. “As a controlled substance, the issue is then that is it being prescribed by a doctor as opposed to… you know, well, I’ll leave it at that.”
And now, in October 2011, Obama is unleashing the U.S. Justice Department on the medical marijuana dispensaries of California. His U.S. Attorneys held a press conference announcing they are going after the dispensaries.
Were the federal prosecutors accompanied by mayors from around the state insisting their police have been hapless in controlling their towns' doctors and medical marijuana patients? No.
Has the California Governor or Attorney General called for salvation from Washington to stem some kind of medical marijuana dispensary crisis? No.
This is a blatant act of federal intervention in state and local law?
What is behind this? Does the Obama Administration think this threatened "crackdown" will improve our relations with the Mexican government? Do they think they are "signalling" that the U.S. is doing something constructive to reduce U.S. demand for marijuana from Mexico? If so, that's absurd.
I think that the DEA, and cops who hate losing elections, and hate giving up the easy overtime pay that accompanies easy marijuana arrests, have pressured the prosecutors to act. The Attorney General, politically weak from the start, and never highly regarded for his brains (think about how he got rolled approving Clinton's last minute pardon of fugitive Marc Rich), and now deep in a political foxhole regarding the "Fast and Furious" gun scandal, is simply not in control of his department. The Justice Department is not being driven by its ostensible leader, but by the career prosecutors, politically ambitious and hungrdy for headlines (think Rudy Giuliani, former federal prosecutor in Manhattan in New York, eyeing the mayor's office and the White House).
Obama seems to hold so many people in contempt, and now it is clear this includes his own supporters. Perhaps he has looked at the Republican field and concluded that the citizens who supported him in 2008 won't abandon him in November 2012.
Just how out of touch with reality is he, or is his staff? In November 1996 in California, Proposition 215 for medical marijuana was on the ballot, along with Bill Clinton, running for re-election, and Bob Dole. Medical marijuana received ONE MILLION more votes than Bill Clinton did, as he carried California. Since then voters and legislators have passed such laws in 15 states!
But I fear that, at his electoral peril, he sadly underestimates the disgust that millions of his former supporters now have for him.
We probably won't vote for Perry or Romney, but millions of won't vote for Obama! We'll go to the polls, and we'll vote for Senators, Representatives, and other "down ballot" positions. For president, perhaps, we'll write in our own name, or perhaps, Gary Johnson, or Josiah 'Jed' Bartlet of TV's West Wing.
Yes, this will probably elect the Republican. But how can we vote for Obama and maintain our self-respect?
Friday, July 29, 2011
July 29, 2011 - clock ticking on the fate of the economy
The United States is in a political bind. The political impasse in Washington is pointing toward a default by the United States on some of its debt obligations next week.
The Republican Party, the party of Capitalism, seems like it can't organize its elected representatives to protect the American dollar, and the capitalist structure that depends upon the dollar's credibility and strength. The leadership of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill not only lacks the ability to educate its legislative rank and file about the nature of governance and the role of the government in the economy, it has failed to mobilize its civil society allies to discipline and direct its rank and file.
I am reminded of the political conditions 150 years ago. American democracy, after decades of struggle, could not resolve politically its conflict over slavery, and the nation went into civil war. Commitment to "absolute" principles of state's rights (the conservative position then) led state after state to secede from the Union. Weren't the folks who created the Civil War -- the secessionists -- the spiritual parents of the anti-spending absolutists of today? Will President Obama rank in history with President Buchanan as supremely ineffectual in failing to mobilize the sentiment of the nation to compel a resolution to this "crisis?"
A default -- which seems imminent-- will raise interest rates. It will cost tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars that would not be spent if the default is avoided. As to the broader impact on investor confidence in the strength of the American economy in the face of such political failure, no one really knows whether we will have another stock market crash. In the absence of a stock market crash, those who have been playing chicken in driving the government and the economy toward a cliff will think they "won." Oh, dear, what stupidity!
The news media have also failed their audience. Deciding what should be broadcast on television news, the news directors can't shake their obsession with how hot it is. So a quarter of their coverage is devoted to stating the most obvious, least news-worthy condition of the day. Two words: "It's hot!" And now for some real journalism. . . What could a "deal" on the debt crisis realistically look like.
The "coverage" of the effort to find a "deal" has been remarkable for the lack of articulation about what a deal could be. No real effort to explain the reality. Numbers like $1.2 trillion dollars tell us nothing about what money is available to run the National Parks, to pay soldiers, to pay some actual number of medicare recipients some actual number of medical procedures, to incarcerate so many hundred thousand federal prisoners, to conduct so many search and rescue missions of missing boaters, etc.
The media could make this clearer by making concrete the utter abstractions in which this discussion is being carried out.
Why haven't the parties to this "negotiation" or "crisis" (or analysts hired by the news media) posted sets of giant pie charts -- one pair for each year of a proposed approach -- that reveal in some detail exactly what is proposed to be spent that year on the various government expenditures and programs, and what are the proposed sources of revenue, both by type, and by who is paying.
Then, at least, we could visualize the changes over time from the current course. We could visualize the differences between proposals. We the people would be somewhat informed about what the actual stakes of this argument are about in terms of the actual programs we care or don't care about.
As I think about the expenditures, I wonder, what do soldiers think about how the military budget should look next year, five years from now or ten. Do they want hundreds of billions spent on high tech hardware, such as hundred million dollar missiles, hundred plus million dollar aircraft, billion dollar vessels? How much war would they like us to be budgeting for? How many prosthetic legs should we planning to build and provide in order to assure that we have "boots" on the ground in Asia and Africa?
Does this "debate" seems as lopsided, incoherent, and inane as a drunken argument between the various fans of some athletic team about the blown call by a referee or some bungled play? And those who can cast votes? . . . Well maybe their insistence on voting "no" reflects their profound sense that Speaker Boehner and his team have said little that is persuasively concrete other than "I want your vote."
The Republican Party, the party of Capitalism, seems like it can't organize its elected representatives to protect the American dollar, and the capitalist structure that depends upon the dollar's credibility and strength. The leadership of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill not only lacks the ability to educate its legislative rank and file about the nature of governance and the role of the government in the economy, it has failed to mobilize its civil society allies to discipline and direct its rank and file.
I am reminded of the political conditions 150 years ago. American democracy, after decades of struggle, could not resolve politically its conflict over slavery, and the nation went into civil war. Commitment to "absolute" principles of state's rights (the conservative position then) led state after state to secede from the Union. Weren't the folks who created the Civil War -- the secessionists -- the spiritual parents of the anti-spending absolutists of today? Will President Obama rank in history with President Buchanan as supremely ineffectual in failing to mobilize the sentiment of the nation to compel a resolution to this "crisis?"
A default -- which seems imminent-- will raise interest rates. It will cost tax payers hundreds of billions of dollars that would not be spent if the default is avoided. As to the broader impact on investor confidence in the strength of the American economy in the face of such political failure, no one really knows whether we will have another stock market crash. In the absence of a stock market crash, those who have been playing chicken in driving the government and the economy toward a cliff will think they "won." Oh, dear, what stupidity!
The news media have also failed their audience. Deciding what should be broadcast on television news, the news directors can't shake their obsession with how hot it is. So a quarter of their coverage is devoted to stating the most obvious, least news-worthy condition of the day. Two words: "It's hot!" And now for some real journalism. . . What could a "deal" on the debt crisis realistically look like.
The "coverage" of the effort to find a "deal" has been remarkable for the lack of articulation about what a deal could be. No real effort to explain the reality. Numbers like $1.2 trillion dollars tell us nothing about what money is available to run the National Parks, to pay soldiers, to pay some actual number of medicare recipients some actual number of medical procedures, to incarcerate so many hundred thousand federal prisoners, to conduct so many search and rescue missions of missing boaters, etc.
The media could make this clearer by making concrete the utter abstractions in which this discussion is being carried out.
Why haven't the parties to this "negotiation" or "crisis" (or analysts hired by the news media) posted sets of giant pie charts -- one pair for each year of a proposed approach -- that reveal in some detail exactly what is proposed to be spent that year on the various government expenditures and programs, and what are the proposed sources of revenue, both by type, and by who is paying.
Then, at least, we could visualize the changes over time from the current course. We could visualize the differences between proposals. We the people would be somewhat informed about what the actual stakes of this argument are about in terms of the actual programs we care or don't care about.
As I think about the expenditures, I wonder, what do soldiers think about how the military budget should look next year, five years from now or ten. Do they want hundreds of billions spent on high tech hardware, such as hundred million dollar missiles, hundred plus million dollar aircraft, billion dollar vessels? How much war would they like us to be budgeting for? How many prosthetic legs should we planning to build and provide in order to assure that we have "boots" on the ground in Asia and Africa?
Does this "debate" seems as lopsided, incoherent, and inane as a drunken argument between the various fans of some athletic team about the blown call by a referee or some bungled play? And those who can cast votes? . . . Well maybe their insistence on voting "no" reflects their profound sense that Speaker Boehner and his team have said little that is persuasively concrete other than "I want your vote."
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Obama's Illegal War on Lbya
Read Louis Fisher's excellent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 28, 2011. Fisher was the senior analyst on separation of powers for the Congressional Reference Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress for forty years and is now Scholar in Residence at The Constitution Project.
"It is legally and constitutionally impermissible to transfer the powers of Congress to an international (U.N.) or regional (NATO) body." (p.3) But that is what Obama claims in saying the war against Libya is authorized by the U.N. Security Council or by NATO. "Nothing in these...communications from the administration can identify a source of authorization from NATO for military operations." (p.4)
The idea that this is not a war because there are not a lot of U.S. casualties is absurd. "If another nation bombed the U.S. without suffering significant casualties, would we call it war? Obviously we would. When Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, the United States immediately knew it was at war regardless of the extent of military losses by Japan." (p.4)
"It is legally and constitutionally impermissible to transfer the powers of Congress to an international (U.N.) or regional (NATO) body." (p.3) But that is what Obama claims in saying the war against Libya is authorized by the U.N. Security Council or by NATO. "Nothing in these...communications from the administration can identify a source of authorization from NATO for military operations." (p.4)
The idea that this is not a war because there are not a lot of U.S. casualties is absurd. "If another nation bombed the U.S. without suffering significant casualties, would we call it war? Obviously we would. When Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, the United States immediately knew it was at war regardless of the extent of military losses by Japan." (p.4)
Thursday, June 02, 2011
US Rep. Lamar Smith's Statements attacking the news media
U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-21st TX) is the chair of the House Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdiction over the criminal and civil justice systems (all the federal courts, prosecutors, the nation's largest prison system of more than 215,000 prisoners, the rules of procedure and evidence), and critically important areas of substantive law: criminal law, copyright, trademark, antitrust, bankruptcy, administrative law.
This is the link to his floor and committee statements on his congressional webpage. In the last year, almost all of these statements are attacks on a few leading news organizations for alleged bias. What a curious set of priorities.
Whenever I think of Members of Congress attacking the news media, I reflect that the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press (limited by the libel and slander laws) do not go as far as the explicit constitutional power for Members of Congress to tell lies set forth in Article I, Article 6: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
This is the link to his floor and committee statements on his congressional webpage. In the last year, almost all of these statements are attacks on a few leading news organizations for alleged bias. What a curious set of priorities.
Whenever I think of Members of Congress attacking the news media, I reflect that the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press (limited by the libel and slander laws) do not go as far as the explicit constitutional power for Members of Congress to tell lies set forth in Article I, Article 6: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Monday, June 28, 2010
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia dies
Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has died at age 92. The New York Times has published a nice summary of his career.
Byrd grow up in poverty in a coal mining camp in West Virginia. My mother also grew up poor, the daughter of a coal miner. She is four years younger than Byrd. As a child, we regularly drove to my grandparents' home on the hillside around the bend from the mine where my grandfather survived an explosion when my mother was a child.
Byrd was his high school valedictorian but never went to college. My mother was high school valedictorian at University High School in Morgantown, WV, in 1939, but because she was a coal miner's daughter, no one at the school suggested that she even consider going to the inexpensive West Virginia University with which the high school was affiliated. (Another clerk at the five and ten cents store where my mother was a sales clerk after high school asked her if she would accompany her to register at WVU. The other clerk's goal was to marry a football player! My mother went to the School of Journalism and became the editor-in-chief of the Daily Athenaeum, the university newspaper, from 1942-43. During World War II, my father was sent by the U.S. Army to West Virginia University, where my parents met.)
After Byrd entered Congress -- I was three years old when he did -- he enrolled in law school and earned a law degree from American University. He wrote four books. He served in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress longer than anyone else ever has.
In the last half of the Twentieth Century, Congress steadily tolerated, if not encouraged, the expansion of Presidential power in the American political system. As a former Congressional staffer, I believe that the Congress makes a mistake when it gives up power. This concern was probably the concern of Senator Byrd's that was most important to me.
Should Byrd have retired long ago? No doubt his frailty limited his ability to participate in the high energy activity of the Senate. But on the other hand, he contributed a wisdom of age, and to someone of my years, he has been a great and inspiring model of the many years of productive activity people like me still have.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Maryland's First All-Vegan Political Fundraiser for Sen. Jamie Raskin
Silver Spring and Takoma Park Musicians
Rock the Senate!
Maryland's outstanding State Senator Jamie Raskin (look at these accomplishments!!)
On THURSDAY, JUNE 10, from 6:00 to 8:30 pm at Pyramid Atlantic Art Center on Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, the Raskin Re-election campaign will be having some extraordinary local music talent perform at Maryland's first all-vegetarian fundraiser, catered by local gourmet restaurants. Special guests include Wayne Pacelle. We will be releasing more details on the performers over the next few weeks, but you can reserve tickets now by RSVP-ing here.
Rock the Senate!
Maryland's outstanding State Senator Jamie Raskin (look at these accomplishments!!)
On THURSDAY, JUNE 10, from 6:00 to 8:30 pm at Pyramid Atlantic Art Center on Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, the Raskin Re-election campaign will be having some extraordinary local music talent perform at Maryland's first all-vegetarian fundraiser, catered by local gourmet restaurants. Special guests include Wayne Pacelle. We will be releasing more details on the performers over the next few weeks, but you can reserve tickets now by RSVP-ing here.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
What might cause the U.S. economy to collapse?
Niall Ferguson writes about empires that have collapsed in the March/April 2010 issue of Foreign Affairs.
The established historical view of the collapse of empires -- Rome, Britain, German, Hapsburg, Ottoman, Russian, Soviet, etc. -- is that the collapses are the result of a long series of events that are intrinsic to a cyclic nature of empire creation and collapse.
Ferguson argues that this approach reflects the prejudice of the historical method of searching for a long chain of causation, and is really absurd.
Empires, he explains, are complex systems, and that all complex systems are unstable. His succinct descriptions of the collapses of these empires -- contrasting the convoluted "historical" explanations with the actual facts -- is fascinating.
More importantly for this post, "most imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises."
"Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly indeed, as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2009 of more than $1.4 trillion--about 11.2 percent of GDP, the biggest deficit in 60 years--and another for 2010 that will not be much smaller."
The key danger is that these numbers "can work to weaken a long-assumed faith in the United States' ability to weather any crisis. . . .But one day, a seemingly random piece of bad news--perhaps a negative report by a ratings agency--will make the headlines during an otherwise quiet news cycle. Suddenly, it will be not just a few policy wonks who worry about the sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy but also the public at large, not to mention investors abroad. It is this shift that is crucial: a complex adaptive system is in big trouble when is component parts lose faith in its viability."
One important factor that could reverse this deficit is the abandonment of drug prohibition in favor of a system of taxation and regulation of drug use and distribution. The U.S. is spending at least $50 billion annually -- federal, state and local -- in enforcement-related costs to combat drugs. The public recognizes that this effort is a waste of money. The public pays about $60 billion annually to buy drugs, but this industry remains untaxed, in effect receiving a government subsidy of $20 billion annually.
As Mark Kleiman stresses in his new book, When Brute Force Fails, punishment is a cost. The millions of persons who have acquired criminal records for using or selling drugs are driven out of the productive economy. Without the ability to work in most industries or occupations, their ability to participate in the consumption side of the economy is lost.
Since the 1970s, the number of persons in prison has grown from 250,000 to 2.5 million. That means that the pool of potential car buyers has shrunk by about two million men. These men with drug convictions were more likely -- for class and cultural reasons -- to have purchased Ford, GM or Chrysler cars than Volvos, Mercedes, or other imports. Unwittingly we have adopted criminal justice policies with profound adverse economic impacts.
On top of these costs, drug prohibition creates street crime. Conflicts in the drug business cannot be resolved by the courts, as other business conflicts are. Violence is a feature of the illegal drug trade because it is illegal, not because it is a trade in drugs. Prohibition is designed to make the drugs hard to afford. Drug users are driven out of legitimate employment, and those who are so defined as outlaws, are forced into an outlaw lifestyle. Crime ceases to be something to be avoided.
These crimes raise the costs of doing business across the country. Every retail establishment has to spend more to protect itself from employee theft, shop lifting and robbery. Security costs are greater. And insurance premiums are much higher.
Of course the neighborhoods in which drugs are openly sold are "blighted." The properties are worthless. The homeowners cannot realize the gains in value that other homeowners can. The major engine of wealth creation for American families is unavailable in those communities. On a day to day basis, there is little reinvestment in these communities. Even a real estate agent who handles the sale of one of these properties earns a smaller commission.
Since real estate taxes are a major component of local government revenue, the undervalued properties depress the total tax base, putting pressure on the financing of schools and other vital public services.
All of this is a consequence of the criminalization of a massive industry.
If we want to pass on the American dream to a grandchildren and great grandchildren, one feature of the world we need to leave them is one without drug prohibition.
The established historical view of the collapse of empires -- Rome, Britain, German, Hapsburg, Ottoman, Russian, Soviet, etc. -- is that the collapses are the result of a long series of events that are intrinsic to a cyclic nature of empire creation and collapse.
Ferguson argues that this approach reflects the prejudice of the historical method of searching for a long chain of causation, and is really absurd.
Empires, he explains, are complex systems, and that all complex systems are unstable. His succinct descriptions of the collapses of these empires -- contrasting the convoluted "historical" explanations with the actual facts -- is fascinating.
More importantly for this post, "most imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises."
"Alarm bells should therefore be ringing very loudly indeed, as the United States contemplates a deficit for 2009 of more than $1.4 trillion--about 11.2 percent of GDP, the biggest deficit in 60 years--and another for 2010 that will not be much smaller."
The key danger is that these numbers "can work to weaken a long-assumed faith in the United States' ability to weather any crisis. . . .But one day, a seemingly random piece of bad news--perhaps a negative report by a ratings agency--will make the headlines during an otherwise quiet news cycle. Suddenly, it will be not just a few policy wonks who worry about the sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy but also the public at large, not to mention investors abroad. It is this shift that is crucial: a complex adaptive system is in big trouble when is component parts lose faith in its viability."
One important factor that could reverse this deficit is the abandonment of drug prohibition in favor of a system of taxation and regulation of drug use and distribution. The U.S. is spending at least $50 billion annually -- federal, state and local -- in enforcement-related costs to combat drugs. The public recognizes that this effort is a waste of money. The public pays about $60 billion annually to buy drugs, but this industry remains untaxed, in effect receiving a government subsidy of $20 billion annually.
As Mark Kleiman stresses in his new book, When Brute Force Fails, punishment is a cost. The millions of persons who have acquired criminal records for using or selling drugs are driven out of the productive economy. Without the ability to work in most industries or occupations, their ability to participate in the consumption side of the economy is lost.
Since the 1970s, the number of persons in prison has grown from 250,000 to 2.5 million. That means that the pool of potential car buyers has shrunk by about two million men. These men with drug convictions were more likely -- for class and cultural reasons -- to have purchased Ford, GM or Chrysler cars than Volvos, Mercedes, or other imports. Unwittingly we have adopted criminal justice policies with profound adverse economic impacts.
On top of these costs, drug prohibition creates street crime. Conflicts in the drug business cannot be resolved by the courts, as other business conflicts are. Violence is a feature of the illegal drug trade because it is illegal, not because it is a trade in drugs. Prohibition is designed to make the drugs hard to afford. Drug users are driven out of legitimate employment, and those who are so defined as outlaws, are forced into an outlaw lifestyle. Crime ceases to be something to be avoided.
These crimes raise the costs of doing business across the country. Every retail establishment has to spend more to protect itself from employee theft, shop lifting and robbery. Security costs are greater. And insurance premiums are much higher.
Of course the neighborhoods in which drugs are openly sold are "blighted." The properties are worthless. The homeowners cannot realize the gains in value that other homeowners can. The major engine of wealth creation for American families is unavailable in those communities. On a day to day basis, there is little reinvestment in these communities. Even a real estate agent who handles the sale of one of these properties earns a smaller commission.
Since real estate taxes are a major component of local government revenue, the undervalued properties depress the total tax base, putting pressure on the financing of schools and other vital public services.
All of this is a consequence of the criminalization of a massive industry.
If we want to pass on the American dream to a grandchildren and great grandchildren, one feature of the world we need to leave them is one without drug prohibition.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Baby Boomer Initiative Council
I was intrigued to discover today that the Maryland General Assembly in 2007 directed the Governor to appoint a Baby Boomer Initiative Council whose duties are:
§ 24-1504. Chair; functions.
(a) Chair.- The Governor shall designate the chair of the Council.
(b) Functions.- The Council shall:
(1) Develop a model with recommendations for addressing the needs of the baby boomer population;
(2) Make recommendations regarding public policy initiatives for utilizing the baby boomer population as a source of social capital and as a way to address community needs;
(3) Make recommendations to the Department of Aging for:
(i) A marketing outreach effort to businesses; and
(ii) Outreach to nonprofit organizations, the State Department of Education, and other State agencies;
(4) Make recommendations for eligible civic engagement and multigenerational activities such as early childhood education and after-school programs, respite services for older adults and caregivers, and transitions for the baby boomer population to engage in purposeful work following their exit from career-track work; and
(5) Study and document health and social benefits derived from:
(i) The active engagement of the baby boomer population; and
(ii) Intergenerational activity, life-long learning, and civic engagement for the general community.
(c) Study.- The representatives on the Council from the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins Institutions jointly shall initiate a study to better understand and document:
(1) The economic impact of older workers' roles in the economy; and
(2) The social impact of older workers' roles in the community.
(d) Staff.- The University of Maryland's College of Health and Human Performance, in cooperation with Johns Hopkins Institutions, shall provide staff for the Council.
§ 24-1504. Chair; functions.
(a) Chair.- The Governor shall designate the chair of the Council.
(b) Functions.- The Council shall:
(1) Develop a model with recommendations for addressing the needs of the baby boomer population;
(2) Make recommendations regarding public policy initiatives for utilizing the baby boomer population as a source of social capital and as a way to address community needs;
(3) Make recommendations to the Department of Aging for:
(i) A marketing outreach effort to businesses; and
(ii) Outreach to nonprofit organizations, the State Department of Education, and other State agencies;
(4) Make recommendations for eligible civic engagement and multigenerational activities such as early childhood education and after-school programs, respite services for older adults and caregivers, and transitions for the baby boomer population to engage in purposeful work following their exit from career-track work; and
(5) Study and document health and social benefits derived from:
(i) The active engagement of the baby boomer population; and
(ii) Intergenerational activity, life-long learning, and civic engagement for the general community.
(c) Study.- The representatives on the Council from the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins Institutions jointly shall initiate a study to better understand and document:
(1) The economic impact of older workers' roles in the economy; and
(2) The social impact of older workers' roles in the community.
(d) Staff.- The University of Maryland's College of Health and Human Performance, in cooperation with Johns Hopkins Institutions, shall provide staff for the Council.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Obama and Nobel Peace Prize
President Obama does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
If I were him, I would decline to accept it. I would have acknowledged the award as a great vote of confidence, but confess that it is not appropriately awarded.
Giving this award to President Obama at this time trivializes the award. The President would do more for World Peace right now by restoring the award to its proper stature by declining it.
If I were him I would say, "Humbly, I invite the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to consider me for this honor only after I leave office. Only then can weigh my accomplishments in achieving peace against the challenges I undertook, and in comparison to those great men and women who have been awarded the prize previously."
If I were him, I would decline to accept it. I would have acknowledged the award as a great vote of confidence, but confess that it is not appropriately awarded.
Giving this award to President Obama at this time trivializes the award. The President would do more for World Peace right now by restoring the award to its proper stature by declining it.
If I were him I would say, "Humbly, I invite the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to consider me for this honor only after I leave office. Only then can weigh my accomplishments in achieving peace against the challenges I undertook, and in comparison to those great men and women who have been awarded the prize previously."
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Danger, Danger -- Should we ban it?
How many times have you heard a public official say, "If this measure saves just one life, it is worth it!"
The New York Times reports on the danger of high school football. Of course, high school football is defensible on First Amendment grounds: it is a religion in many communities.
Ban high school football to protect kids from life threatening injuries? Definitely, pardon the phrase, overkill.
The New York Times reports on the danger of high school football. Of course, high school football is defensible on First Amendment grounds: it is a religion in many communities.
Ban high school football to protect kids from life threatening injuries? Definitely, pardon the phrase, overkill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)