Oh No! He talking about that again!

Shocked aren't you? I have commented on legalizing drugs several times and even once posted my idea on how to go about doing it.  But for the life of me I can’t remember which blog it was in and boy could I go for a bag of Doritos. (followed by rim shot).  Thank you very much here every tuesday night please tip your waitress,,,,, but to the point as to why I am writing about it again.

I just read Fareed Zakaria’s latest Time Magazine column (April 2^nd issue) “Incarceration Nation”.  Fareed is one of my favorite journalist/authors. In his latest piece Fareed presents statistics on how the war on drugs has resulted in the incarceration of millions of Americans.  The current numbers are staggering and even more so when compared to other nations rates and to our recent past.

 As Fareed says; “here are the facts”. The U.S currently has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.  The U.S may have lost its position as number one in the world on many issues but we have a stranglehold on the number of times Jack Lord says“Book ‘em Danno”.

Our numbers are 7 to 10 times higher than the rest of the world.  How you high you say? Well here are the rest of the world’s rates per 100,000 – Japan 63, Germany 90, France 96, South Korea 97 and Britain 153 (And remember the Brits invented the Tower of London for God's sake. If anyone should be locking people up at a higher rate than us it should be the them).  Let’s go back in case you forgot the U.S rate because you're bogarting that joint my friend – The U.S rate is 760.  For Christ sake – Mexico where everyone should be locked up came in at a lightweight 208.  Even Pat Robertson who is secretly praying for Peyton Manning to get his comeuppance as a payback for causing the trade of baby Jesus said "I just think it's shocking how many of these young people wind up in prison and they get turned into hardcore criminals because they have a small amount of a controlled substance,".  So now even the 700 Club wants to end the 760 Club. 

So 30 years ago before the war on drugs started the U.S. sleep number was a 150 inmates per 100,000 citizens.  Drug convictions went from 15 inmates per 100,000 to 148 by 1996.  More than half of today’s prison population are there on drug convictions.  You know what part of Fareed's article really troubles me?  As we privatize prison systems we incentivize the perpetuation and growth of that system.  Private prisons are hiring lobbyists and claiming they can create jobs in economically depressed places  They are also creating a cash stream for the government so Uncle Sam can become addicted to that cash flow and will be motivated to maintain current laws to feed its habit.

According to Fareed “Over the past four decades the U.S. has spent more than 1 trillion dollars fighting the war on drugs. The result?  In 2011 a global commission on drug policy issued a report signed by George Shultz, Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan…” “Its main recommendation is to “encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens.”  Seriously they don’t come anymore Republican than George. 

As Fareed points out “We are creating a vast prisoner underclass in this country at huge expense, increasingly unable to function in normal society all in the name of a war we have already lost."

“Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.“  William F. Buckley Jr.

“Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use… Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana.”
Jimmy Carter, U.S. President

”I say legalize drugs because I want to see less drug abuse, not more. And I say legalize drugs because I want to see the criminals put out of business.”
Edward Ellison, former Head of Scotland Yard’s Antidrug Squad

P.S. CoD here -  I don't use drugs and I am pretty sure George Schultz doesn't either.

Is it 2012 or 1912????

If I was a woman i would have to wonder what *&^%$ year it is. Did Michael J. Fox (I must have a fixation with him - jump in his flux capacitor driven DeLorean and transport every single American woman back to 1912?  

Women have always had to fight for many of the basic rights men take for granted.  Remember it has only been 93 years since they have had the right to vote or perhaps another way of looking at it is, it has been a gazillion years since men have had that right.

I’ll be brief – women are under attack.  Check out the rash of legislation being introduced.around the country.  A Tennessee State Rep. Matthew Hill (R) sponsored bill  “The Life Defense Act of 2012” which would require the state to publish the names of each doctor who performs an abortion and detailed statistics about the woman. How's that going to shake out?

Abortion is a terribly complicated emotional issue which is a matter of personal choice. Pay close attention to who is weighing in on these matters and you will find it a sausage fest. A bunch of old *&&^^ geezers.

There is a movement to cut funding to Planned Parenthood –which sex do you think most relies on their services (and don’t give me that abortion bullshit – it only comprises 3% of their services) or legislation like where Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), proposed that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) sponsored abortion bill in the House with language that would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life. The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the “Protect Life Act,” would amend the 2010 health care reform law allowing hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortions to turn away women in need of emergency pregnancy termination to save their lives.

And in an even more despicable attack on women’s rights a bill sponsored by South Dakota State Rep. Phil Jensen alters the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one. A move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions.

Rick Santorum - “ A woman impregnated through rape should accept that horrible creative gift, the gift of human life.  Accept what God has given you and make the best of a bad situation.”

Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris (R-Fort Wayne)  called the Girl Scouts a “radicalized organization” that “sexualizes” young girls and promotes homosexuality. In addition to pledging to pull his young daughters out of the Girl Scouts, he is refusing to support a resolution that would herald the organization’s 100th anniversary.

We had made great progress over the last 93 years but still have miles to go.  Look into any of the major religions.

And btw - with all of the stink about birth control and medical coverage, isn't Viagra covered under most insurance plans?  We support erections but not birth control - but of course.

I have a daughter and helped raise two step-daughters – I raised them to be strong independent women who would make up their own minds.  They will determine their own path - Not be told what to do by a bunch of old male politicians.  If Rush Limbaugh had said what he said about one of my girls he would have been on the end of one serious ass kicking.  Count on it.

We the corporation in order to form

Willard Mitt Romney, better known as Mitt Romney, gave rise to the famous line “Corporations are people my friend” as he was speaking to a crowd explaining a way to fund entitlement programs was to “raise taxes on people,”.  A protester interrupted him and  urged Romney to raise taxes on corporations. Romney replied  “Corporations are people my friend”.   Now in fairness to Mitt he was referring to the issue of taxing corporations but since then the line has come to stand for the issue of corporate personhood and their ability to do things like spend unlimited funds on political races.

Currently, the fourteenth amendment is what many Republicans and Libertarians quote as one of the original sources of empowerment for corporations.  It was one of the supporting arguments granting individual rights to corporations.

O. Mitt

But the concept of corporate personhood dates back much further.  In a story lost in the sands of time, forgotten by history, more than a long, long, long time ago- Mitt Romney’s great- great-great grandfather Obadiah Mitt Romney was the first to come up with the idea that a corporation is a person.  The Civil War had accelerated the growth of manufacturing and the power of the men who owned the large corporations.   Businessman J. P. Morgan, steel makers Charles M. Schwab and Andrew Carnegie, and railroad owners Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould created corporations that influenced legislation at the local, state, and federal levels.  Obadiah Milton known as O. Mitt stood in front of his corporation owning friends and said “Corporations are people, my friend,” with a wink and nod.  He continued “I’ll argue that the Fourteen Amendment grants us that right.”

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

O. Mitt was good to his word.   In 1886 he got it on record with a Supreme Court ruling, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

Boo-yah, Slam dunk baby – O. Mitt had it on record with the U.S. Supreme court that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to corporations.  Game changer!  Hello Super Pacs!  It has since served as one of the supporting arguments for Corporate Personhood.

T. Ruth

Now O. Mitt had a half sister Tonya Ruth Romney who was the black sheep in the family due to her progressive and liberal views.  So foreign was she to the Romney family views, that the patriarchal half brother O. Mitt even tried exorcism to cure her.   Tonya was known as T. Ruth to her friends. 

T. Ruth knew her half-brother, O. Mitt was prone to leaving facts out.  She first informed him that the 14th amendment was written in support of the 13th amendment banned slavery.
She made a point to inform him that  he had conveniently forgot to mention that the reference in the 1886 Supreme Court  ruling was in the summarizing headnotes and not in the actual ruling.  The headnote was written by the court reporter in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886).  It was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with taxation of railroad properties .  The court reporter just happened to be the former president of Newburgh and New York Railway Company, John C. Bancroft. Bancroft indicated in the headnotes that corporations were "persons" while the actual court decision itself purposefully avoided specific statements regarding the equal protection clause as applied to corporations.  T. Ruth then pointed out to O. Mitt that headnotes are not defined as work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter. In 1906,the Surpreme Court ruled that headnotes have no legal standing and therefore do not set precedent.

T. Ruth continued that the primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves.   Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state.  It was written in response to the Black Codes that southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Black Codes restricted former slave’s rights.

One of the original authors of the 14th Judge Samuel F. Miller considered the purpose of the Amendment in 1872, only six years after the Amendment had become law, when the court was "called upon for the first time to give construction to these articles

“The most cursory glance at these articles discloses a unity of purpose, when taken in connection with the history of the times, which cannot fail to have an important bearing on any question of doubt concerning their true meaning. Nor can such doubts, when any reasonably exist, be safely and rationally solved without a reference to that history, for in it is found the occasion and the necessity for recurring again to the great source of power in this country, the people of the States, for additional guarantees of human rights, additional powers to the Federal government; additional restraints upon those of the States. Fortunately, that history is fresh within the memory of us all, and its leading features, as they bear upon the matter before us, free from doubt. We repeat, then, in the light of this recapitulation of events, almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all, and on the most casual examination of the language of these amendments, no one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in them all, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

T. Ruth took another tact. She pointed that as the 19th century as the Industrial Revolution evolved. The favored form for large businesses became the corporation because it provided a means to raise investment capital.  Corporations didn’t climb from a primordial soup granted unalienable rights from their creator, T. Ruth said.  Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole business person, such as entering into a contract or owning property. So corporations have always had a 'legal personality' for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual stockholders from personal liability.  A corporation is a fictional entity developed to facilitate business and protect individuals. Because they same some basic rights they are no more a person than a hamster. You can put a carrot in blender but you can't do the same to a hamster or a person.  We grant certain rights to things. We don't let hamsters vote.

In conclusion T. Ruth then quoted from Justice Black and Justice Douglas dissent in the Supreme Court's 1957 decision in United States v. United Auto Workers.

“We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers' leagues, farmers' unions, religious groups, and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government. Under our Constitution, it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important -- vitally important -- that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.”

Will T. Ruth triumphant over the her O. Mitt and his omissions?  Stay tuned for the next CakeorDemocracy blog entry as O. and T. Ruth debate the right of corporations to spend unlimited funds for political races. 

What Pennsylvania had the good sense to do that the rest of you haven't figured out

Would you vote for someone running for president if he said some of the following things? For now let’s call him Mister X. 

Mister X referred to schools as “factories,” and argued that they are a tragic blip on the historical radar. After the Industrial Revolution, Mister X said  “people came off the farms where they did homeschool or had a little neighborhood school, and into these big factories … called public schools.” He added: “The idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic.”

Mister X said “We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth’s benefit,”  Mister X then went on to call climate change “an absolute travesty of scientific research that was motivated by those who, in my opinion, saw this as an opportunity to create a panic and a crisis for government to be able to step in and even more greatly control your life.”

 Mister X continued on the subject of global warming “When you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth; by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, the politicization of the whole global warming debate — this is all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government,”

Mister X said regarding birth control "It's not okay, because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be," "They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

In his book It Takes a Family, Mr. X called "mass education" an "aberration," writing, "It's amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools."

Mister X said “There are no Palestinians, All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis.  There are no Palestinians.  This is Israeli land,".

Mister X said "President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob ... Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.”

Mister X on the Crusades "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."

Mister X on same sex marriage  "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?" "What about three men?" "If you think it's OK for two, you have to differentiate for me why you're not OK with three. Any two people, or any three, or four."  "That's not to pick on homosexuality," Mister X said in another interview. "It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," he said.

Mister X said “Mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts.”

Mister X said that this year’s election was like the time between 1940 and 1941 when Americans didn’t act against Adolf Hitler because they thought he was “a nice guy” and not “near as bad as what we think.” “It’s going to be harder for this generation to figure this out. There’s no cataclysmic event,” he explained, but similar urgency. “Is anybody reminding us who we are, what made us great, and what these assaults are all about?”

I am sure you have figured out by now that Mr. X is none other than Rick Santorum. Maybe you hadn’t seen all of the above quotes.

 Now I get that Republicans are frustrated and I get the lack of love for Mitt Romney.  With all his money and the extensive political machine that has been in place for years he can’t shake Rick loose. I get that Republicans love Jesus more than Democrats. And no one loves Jesus more than Rick. Heck I love Jesus too (see my previous blog) but I haven’t lost my mind.  The good people of Pennsylvania had the sense to vote Santorum out of office.  In the November 7, 2006 Senate election, Santorum lost by over 700,000 votes, the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent senator since 1980. Come on people, draft Jeb or Christy or dig up the Gipper you can’t seriously elect someone who believes that God will replenish the earth after we ruin it or government shouldn’t be running schools or that birth control is wrong.  Do we need to have the good people of Pennsylvania to slap some sense into us? 

Jesus is alright with me (it’s just you he’s not sure about)

Actually that’s not really true; I have no idea what Jesus thinks about you. How would I or anyone else for that matter. I was raised Catholic and am currently an atheist. But recently, and no thanks to the words and actions of certain Christians, I have been considering my own spiritual beliefs. I’ll get to that later but for now I want to talk about that group of Christians.

Dammit Jim I'm a blogger not a Theologian

I know I am on thin ice here talking about Jesus but I know a lot of people (my son included) who believe in Jesus as their savior and follow his teachings. I see their commitment to Jesus’ value system and instructions regarding the treatment of the poor.

“Overall, Jesus talks about mercy to those weaker and needier than oneself 24 times, tells people not to judge others 34 times, tells people to love and forgive even their enemies 53 times, tells people to love their neighbors as themselves and treat others like you would want to be treated 19 times, and tells people to help the poor and/or spurn riches and the wealthy 128 times.” 

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/what-bible-is-santorum-treading_b_1288094.html).

It’s also hard not to notice a group of Christians who through their actions and words either do not appear to focus on the above aspects of Jesus’ teachings or somehow they have a different understanding. It seems that in defense of “conservative principles” they often quote from the Old Testament to support their beliefs. The Old and New Testaments seem very different to me. I will quote Mike Lux again to help me with my point.

“Conservative Christians' primary argument regarding Jesus and politics is that all he cared about was spiritual matters and an individual's relationship with God. As a result, they say, all those references from Jesus about helping the poor relate only to private charity, not to society as a whole. Their belief is that Jesus, and the New Testament in general, is focused on one thing and one thing only: how do people get into heaven.

The Jesus of the New Testament was of course extremely concerned with spiritual matters: there is no doubt whatsoever about his role or interest in the issues of the day, that the spiritual well-being of his followers was a major interest of his. How much he was involved with or interested in the political situation of the day is a matter of much debate and interpretation. Some say it was a lot and others that it was pretty limited or, as conservatives would say, not at all. However, much of a priority or focus it was, though, if you actually read the Gospels, it is clear that Jesus' main concern in terms of the people whose fates he cared about was for the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast. Comment after comment and story after story in the Gospels about Jesus relates to the treatment of the poor, generosity to those in need, mercy to the outcast, and scorn for the wealthy and powerful. And his philosophy is embedded with the central importance of taking care of others, loving others, treating others as you would want to be treated. There is no virtue of selfishness here, there is no "greed is good," there is no invisible hand of the market or looking out for Number One first. There is nothing about poor people being lazy, nothing about the undeserving poor being leeches on society, nothing about how I pulled myself up by my own bootstraps so everyone else should, too. There is nothing about how in nature, "the lions eat the weak," and therefore we shouldn't help the poor because it weakens them. There is nothing about charity or welfare corrupting a person's spirit. Old Testament – animal sacrifice, masturbation, trashing gay people, and hanging out with women who are menstruating. New Testament But mercy, kindness, and concern for the poor and the weak and the outcast seems to matter a lot more, with literally several hundred verses referencing those agenda items. If you are a progressive, that is a pretty good ratio.”

I have seen it written that Jesus never condemned homosexuality or abortion for that matter.  Obviously there were issues of his time – perhaps his message of forgiveness or not judging covered those topics? Just saying? He certainly wasn’t taking up the cause for the job creators was he?

I am pretty unsure about Jesus’ DNA but I can’t see the harm in following his teachings or Gandhi or Buddha for that matter.

Ray Wylie Hubbard - awesome Texas songwriter

"Buddha was not a Christian, but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist." –from the song “Conversation with the Devil” by Ray Wylie Hubbard

That we, as the collective us – we are the government, do we really want to pass the buck on who feeds the poor or provide help to the less fortunate? How does that fit in with the words of the great teachers? Tell that to the next homeless person you see, or the father who lost his job and can't feed his children. "Sorry man, you shouldn't get help from the big bad government. You should get it from the people individually.

Back to my own spirituality issue – lately I have been wondering about the existence of some “omni” like being. Not for the need for any organized religion but just whether there is a God. I’m sure Jesus lived I just sure not sure about his DNA. A dear friend of mine (BFBF) suggested considering Pascal’s wager as a good place to start.

Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that since the existence of God cannot be proved (or disproved) through reason, but since in his view there was much to be gained from wagering that God exists (and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn't exist), a rational person should simply wager that God exists (and live accordingly).

I appreciated BFBF’s support and I am not sure where my spiritual journey will take me but I will turn to Mike Lux again for ending this post.

“I decided about four decades ago that since there was no way for sure about the nature of God or the soul or all that metaphysical stuff, I wasn't going to spend much time thinking, caring, or worrying about it. If that sends one to hell, at least I'll be there with a lot of my favorite people”.