McCain's Agenda Consistent with GOP Record

Beginning with Reagan’s first term in 1980, Republicans have occupied the White House for twenty of the past 28 years. In two terms Reagan drove the country to the ropes; in one term George H.W. Bush put it against the ropes; Democrat Bill Clinton kept it against the ropes for two terms; and, nearing the end of his second term, George W. Bush persists in trying to bring the country to its knees. My greatest fear is that another term of Republican mismanagement could put our nation down for the count.

Front-running GOP Presidential candidate John McCain does nothing to inspire confidence that Republicans are even remotely interested in getting the country back on track and headed in the right direction.

A couple of weeks ago, McCain proclaimed that he’d have no problem with the US staying in Iraq for the next 100 years, if that’s what it took to win. This is the same John McCain that hopes to be elected President of the US, a nation in desperate need of moral leadership.

Last week, The League of Conservation Voters gave Senator John McCain a score of zero on its 2007 National Environmental Scorecard. McCain, who has a lifetime LCV score of 24, missed 15 of 15 important environmental votes in 2007. This is the same John McCain that hopes to be elected President of the US, a nation in desperate need of environmental leadership.

This week, McCain found himself embroiled in controversy over his relationship with a certain corporate lobbyist and what he may or may not have done to grease the wheels for said lobbyist’s client. This is the same John McCain that hopes to be elected President of the US, a nation in desperate need of ethical leadership.

By now it should be apparent to everyone that McCain’s agenda serves the interests of the corporate establishment and the power elite, not those of the American middle class. Assuming that he wins the Republican nomination, voters would be wise to send him home in November—and I don’t mean home to the White House.

Not Just Reefer Madness, but Reefer Stupidity, too!

Despite the best efforts of the pro-legalization movement, nearly two-thirds of the American public still believes the government’s negative propaganda regarding marijuana. But please, let’s not call it marijuana. That’s a Mexican slang term, made popular in the 1920’s by yellow journalism’s founding father, William Randolph Hearst, that characterizes a relatively small part of one of the most amazing and useful plants ever to grow upon planet Gaia—cannabis hemp.

Marijuana, pot, reefer, ganja, weed, hay, and many lesser-known terms all refer to the flower tops (buds) of cannabis sativa and/or cannabis indica, both of which are known to possess numerous medicinal properties. A close cousin, cannabis ruderalis, is too low in THC content to be useful for smoking purposes, but it excels as a renewable industrial resource for users of fiber (rope, cordage, textiles, paper), cellulose (building materials, biofuels, bio-degradable plastics), and seeds (food, oil). At the time it was banned in 1937, there were known to be some 25,000 different uses for cannabis hemp. How many more might be discovered, today, using modern technologies and processes?

Why, then, does the government persist in maligning such a valuable plant, in disseminating false information about it, in criminalizing its use, when all credible scientific evidence suggests that the world would be a saner, safer, healthier place were it legalized and put into widespread use? As it turns out, there are a multitude of answers to that question, none of which agree with the government’s publicly stated reasons for banning cannabis hemp.

Government agencies responsible for fostering the current climate of anti-cannabis ignorance and hysteria include the ONDCP, the FDA, and the DEA, all of which regurgitate a litany of false premises in order to defend and promote a cannabis prohibition agenda. These agencies have long argued that marijuana (their term, not mine) contains no known medicinal properties, that it’s a gateway drug, that it’s an addictive drug, that it’s a dangerous drug, that it’s a health hazard, yada, yada, yada, despite thousands of university studies conducted over a ten-year period between the mid-sixties and the mid-seventies that reached opposite conclusions on every point. Add to that anecdotal evidence based on the personal experiences of millions of cannabis users and the government’s case for cannabis prohibition falls apart. Still, the government persists.

The feds claim that marijuana lacks enough research to determine its relative safety and medical efficacy. Of course, the feds have, for nearly 30 years, used every means available to block legitimate cannabis research by denying legitimate researchers the necessary permits and access to cannabis they need in order to do the research. The government’s lack of credibility on this issue further erodes its case for cannabis prohibition.

Nor do cannabis foes gain any traction for their cause in the way they demonize their nemesis. A recent anti-marijuana ad, which played on one of the cable channels a few weeks ago, was no better conceived than any of its predecessors; stupidity is stupidity, no matter how you package and present it.

In one segment of the ad, a supposedly stoned teenager (or he could simply be a disgruntled environmental activist who’s incensed over global climate change) sets fire to a car in a driveway. None of the stoners I have known—and I’ve known many—would behave in this way, so this specious bit of nonsense flunks the straight face test.

A second segment depicts another teenager, also supposedly stoned, piling his broken-to-pieces guitar onto a barbeque. Give me a break! While a stoner might strum his guitar until it’s a-smokin’, no music-loving stoner I’ve ever known would mistake a guitar for a hamburger, not even in a worst-case scenario of the munchies. Once again, government-inspired lunacy gets a failing grade.

Archaic laws, and the draconian criminal penalties meted out for breaking them, also undermine the government’s case for cannabis prohibition. The public is growing weary of invasions of privacy, of no-knock raids gone awry, of wrongful deaths, of low-level non-violent marijuana offender emerging from lengthy prison sentences as hardened criminals. Eventually, even the politicians who could hasten real change are bound to get a clue.

If the government agencies responsible for waging a war against (some) drugs told the truth about cannabis, that truth would look something like this:

• If marijuana were legalized, millions of Americans would turn to low-cost, high-efficacy marijuana-based remedies, thus depriving the pharmaceutical industry of billions of dollars in annual profits. Doctors and hospitals would also lose billions.

• If marijuana were legalized, it would go a long way toward ending America’s dependence on foreign oil, thus costing Big Oil billions of dollars in annual profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, the rationale for waging war in the Middle East would collapse, and the Pentagon would lose billions of dollars in annual funding.

• If marijuana were legalized, law enforcement and the private prison industry would lose billions of dollars in annual funding and profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, the annual timber harvest decline would cost timber companies billions of dollars in profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, family farms might find it possible to stay in business, thus threatening the ongoing expansion and industry dominance enjoyed by Big Ag factory farms.

• If marijuana were legalized, certain petrochemical companies would suffer huge losses (potentially billions of dollars) when their poisonous products suddenly become irrelevant.

• If marijuana were legalized, it would cost the tobacco and alcohol beverage industries billions of dollars in lost profits.

• If marijuana were legalized, it would upset entrenched economic interests and rearrange the status quo by opening new windows of opportunity for the millions of workers and would-be entrepreneurs who now cling to the economic ladder’s lowest rungs.

Faux patriots and hardcore capitalists will be comforted to know that the federal government values corporate profits over the global environment, civil liberties, public health, and human life. The federal government’s anti-cannabis bias has never been about protecting the public’s health and safety; it couldn’t care less about these things. From its inception, cannabis prohibition has been all about protecting corporate profits, the public be damned. The demon drug marijuana has always been the excuse for—but never the reason behind—cannabis prohibition.

Gradually, the public’s perception of cannabis is changing as true knowledge and understanding of this remarkable plant’s potential to revolutionize and revitalize the nation’s economy infuse themselves into the national consciousness. Although much remains to be done, there are now some clearly defined blueprints to aid in bringing about the necessary changes.

Time, logic, and necessity favor cannabis legalization; the public mindset is shifting from ignorance, fear, denial and skepticism to fearless acceptance and informed optimism. When human needs and environmental degradation reach critical tipping points, cannabis legalization will be a done deal.

An Abundance of Apathy, a Dearth of Optimism

It’s hard to feel optimistic about America’s future, or the future of mankind, for that matter. At a time when most things need to be going right, almost everything seems to be going wrong. The environment, the economy, pending global and national energy shortages, food and water security, health care, public education, public infrastructure, an overextended military, and a flagging national reputation all suffer the ill effects of corruption, incompetence and neglect.

Recent changes in American domestic and foreign policy clearly show that America is a nation in decline. Although the decline began some years ago, the past seven years of the Bush Administration hastened the nation’s journey along the road leading to its ultimate demise. The death of America will forever be a part of the Bush legacy.

Today’s America is not the country I was born into; it no longer resembles the country I once knew. Neocon nitwits write, speak and teach revisionist history, to the detriment of all but those in the top few percent of the social hierarchy. As a consequence, an entire generation of young people is rendered oblivious to the loss if its Constitutional heritage.

When the federal government extended to corporations the same rights of citizenship it granted to ordinary citizens, it sealed the nation’s fate. Corporate interests, powered by big money and represented by lobbyists, eventually seized control of the government, thus ensuring the gradual disenfranchisement of the people. And the people, whose attention is easily diverted by celebrity and media sensationalism, didn’t see it coming.

Nothing the Bush Administration has done in seven years inspires trust or confidence in the government’s ability to address the nation’s problems. Good ideas go unrecognized while the power brokers—bankers, investors, corporate titans, various movers and shakers and others of the privileged class—clamor for business as usual. What few people understand is that business as usual is the primary cause (but not the only cause) of the problems.

Unless the corporatocracy that now controls the world is planning a mass human extermination event for the near future, it would do well to set aside its policy of business as usual and implement policies that lead to sustainability. Remaining on the present course—short of mass extermination—means that the Vampire Elite will also feel the stings of environmental and economic backlash.

But I have no great hope that the powers-that-be will do the right thing. As always, they’ll do the expedient thing. They’ll do it because greed always trumps good sense.

Variable Reality

Back in May of 2006 I wrote a short piece defining the present and how it relates to past and future. Now, I’d like to expand on that subject by delving into one that’s closely related: Reality.

How real is reality? The answer to that question depends entirely on your perception of unfolding events. Bear in mind that your perception of a particular event is colored by the unique perspective from which you experience that event. No one will ever experience an event in exactly the same way you do; no other person has the use of your five senses, nor can anyone access your memory, draw on your imagination, be influenced by your emotions, or witness events from your unique vantage point. In short, reality is only as real as you think it is.

Reality, such as it is, is the synthesis of memory and imagination; it exists in a dimensionless place constrained by the inadequacies of memory on one side and the limitations of imagination on the other, subject only to individual interpretation.

Consensus reality is the reality that everyone agrees on, the reality of common experience. But personal reality goes to a deeper level, and this is where differences of opinion (and many other differences) arise. The reality of the rich is not the same as the reality of the poor. The reality of the dead is quite different than the reality of the living. From states of mind to states of being, both internal and external forces exert influences to shape individual realities, one no more or less relevant than another.

Anti-drug warriors claim that drug users use drugs to escape reality, but that’s a false dichotomy. One can never escape reality; it’s simply not possible. However, it is possible to change reality, and everyone does it. Only the methods vary.

Race and Gender Issues

A few days ago I dropped by Rachel’s Tavern, and while I was there I read an article titled Let’s Get Back to the Real Issues, a short discourse on race and gender issues. When I finished reading I posted the following comment in the “comments” section:

“I don’t mean to play down the issues you listed, but until we solve the bigger problems of population numbers, global warming, energy alternatives, and a sustainable economy, tackling relatively minor problems is unlikely to make a whit of difference to the quality of anyone’s life.”

A reader who uses the handle Lyonside posted this response to my comment:

“OK Phil…

“So, how do we get that sustainable economy, alternative energy technology, etc. when a greate than expected part of the minority population is affected by drug abuse, high crime rates, poverty, poor education, lack of job opportunities, etc. in part caused and abetted by a racist society, which leads not only to high incarceration rates, but to a drain of intellectual and economic potential. How many people who with the right education and support could SOLVE those big problems are affected by crime and drugs and poverty, get discouraged by a school system that is underfunded and understaffed, and never get to explore their own potential?

“The personal is the local is the national is the global.”

While I was preparing a measured response to Lyonside’s questions, Lyonside followed up with this comment:

“BTW: I’m pretty sure Phil Hanson’s post qualifies as one of the “Ways to Derail A Racism Discussion” list that gets bandied about: ‘Why do you care about X issue when there are so many OTHER issues in the world?’

“Like we can’t expect both?”

This was my response to Lyonside’s first comment:

“Lyonside:

“Legalizing cannabis hemp would be a good place to start, as hemp has the potential to solve many of society’s most pressing problems.

“Hemp is a voracious user of carbon dioxide throughout its growth cycle, making it the ideal plant for carbon sequestration. Due to its high cellulose content, hemp would also make an excellent feedstock for cellulosic ethanol production (thus far enabling the plant to fight global warming in two ways).

“Biofuels made from hemp will also play a role in achieving energy independence by reducing our need for foreign oil. It will also minimize our use of coal, a notorious greenhouse gas emitter.

“A sustainable economy can be based on legalized hemp. At the time hemp was banned, in 1937, an estimated 25,000 different products could be manufactured from various parts of the plant. In addition to these, how many more products could be made using modern technologies and processes? A hemp-based economy presents new opportunities for financial gain and promises to create millions of high-tech, mid-tech, and low-tech jobs that currently don’t exist.

“When hemp is legalized and society doesn’t fall apart, people will be more likely to support drug legalization across the board, thereby causing the collapse of illicit drug trade and removing the establishment’s primary excuse for incarcerating black men.

“New opportunities for financial advancement bring about solutions to many of the problems Rachel cited. As I hinted at in my previous post, when you take care of the big problems, the little problems simply go away.”

Lyonside then responds:

“Um, no, society is not overprosecuting/overincarcerating black men because of MARAJUANA [sic] or any other substance.

“Our society overprosecutes black men because of systemic racism. Statistically more whites use and deal drugs than blacks or other ethnic minorities, and if dealing are usually situated at a higher level in the chain. But black and brown people are disproportionately investigated, arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated. In some instances the sentencing, bail limits, and availability of substance abuse treatments, also shows racial bias.

“Other systemic problems that feul [sic] the drug trade are poverty and lack of education. Those problems stay even if drugs were legalized. And there’s no guarantee that legalization would make anyone less racist.

“Little” problems, hunh? You must not be black or brown.”

In the first place, it was not my intention to derail any discussion of racism, only to derail the notion that small problems outweigh big problems in terms of importance and priority. In completely missing the points I made in both of my comments, Lyonside prompts me to ask: Are people of color impervious to global climate change?

Lyonside makes the classic mistake of focusing so intently on small problems that the larger problems go unnoticed—as if all things aren’t connected. It’s exactly the same mindset that allows a few trees to block one’s view of the forest.

What good does it do to address an issue that’s harmful to some people while ignoring an issue that does even more harm to everyone?

Granted, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and a lot of other isms and phobias are reprehensible and disgusting behaviors, but I fail to see how taking people out of the frying pan that such behavior has placed them in and casting them into the fires of global environmental collapse and global economic meltdown in any way betters their situation.

Of Lies and Liars

So, federal investigators are going to make an example of Olympic track star Marion Jones by sending her to prison for six months for lying to them about her use of steroids. What’s up with that, anyway? If they want to punish liars and make examples out of them, why don’t they punish people who lie about things that actually matter? You know, like George DUHbya Bush for lying the nation into a war over non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

What were the consequences of Marion Jones’ lie? For that egregious offense, Ms. Jones was stripped of her Olympic title and medals; she’s going away for six months; and she left a few pissed off federal officials (and probably a few Olympic officials) in the wake of her lie.

True, Ms. Jones won races that she might not otherwise have won without the benefit of steroid use, but her lying about steroid use had no influence on the outcome of her competitive events (other than to disqualify her and nullify her wins). Her lie to federal prosecutors was told after the fact of the race and had no bearing on the event’s initial outcome. Had she readily admitted her steroid use, the results would have been exactly the same—except for the prison time.

Compare that to the consequences of Bush’s lie: 3923 US military dead and thousands more wounded; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and wounded; 4 million Iraqis displaced; a nation in turmoil, its citizens living in a climate of fear and deprivation; another nation in the early stages of economic meltdown, its citizens living in fear.

Bush’s lie was told before the fact, before the action that was precipitated by the lie. In essence, it lent an aura of legitimacy to a dubious enterprise that sane people would have found illegal had the lie not been told.

Which lie had the more serious consequences? George Bush’s did; his lie killed many and destroyed much. Which liar received the harshest punishment? Marion Jones did; her lie destroyed only her Olympic record and her own reputation and credibility. Her lie killed no one (well, maybe a few federal prosecutors; we all know how much it just kills them when someone below the rank of, say, Congressperson lies to them).

If federal prosecutors want to make examples of liars, wouldn’t it be more effective for them to mete out punishment according to the severity of the lie? If the objective is to keep prisons full, they could start at the top of the political food chain and work their way down. When they reach the bottom they could start over again, and in this way keep the prisons full forever.

Think of it! Such a policy could spell the end of the War on (some) Drugs. Innocent 92-year old women need never again fear being gunned down in their living rooms by overzealous SWAT teams. Babies might never again have their fingers shot off as trigger-happy thugs shoot their mothers to death. It might even mark the return of sanity to a nation that’s desperately in need of some.

None of this is meant to imply there’s no justice in this country. There’s an abundance of justice providing you’re white enough to deserve it and rich enough to buy it.

Revisionists Ignore the Facts

Those fundamentalist neo-Con retards from the religious right are so busy rewriting history they have little time for learning anything useful about the precarious state of democracy in America, about the creeping (and creepy) fascism that threatens to undermine the freedoms that our founding fathers enshrined in the Constitution—you know, the document that couldn’t get ratified until it contained the Bill of Rights.

To the Fundamentalist Christian Taliban’s twisted way of thinking, it makes more sense to change the facts to fit their theory than it does to develop a theory that fits the facts. No wonder the country’s riding an express train on the fast track to hell.

Saying that the United States was founded on Christianity and Christian principles is a gross distortion of the facts. Such beliefs suggest that “true believers” spend far too much time engaged with religious hucksters and not nearly enough time immersed in US history. A couple of facts that Fundamentalist Christians too quickly overlook, or conveniently ignore, are that the founding fathers clearly intended there be separation between church and state, and that several of the founding fathers—George Washington and Thomas Jefferson among them—were Deists, not Christians. But why let facts get in the way of a good story.

It’s only by coincidence or a fluke of happenstance that Christianity came to be the dominant religion in America; religious dominance could have just as easily been attained by any other religion, or by no religion at all (atheism). It all depended on which group had the best story that appealed to the most people at a critical time, not because one religion is inherently superior to another.

But the very height of religion-induced ignorance—the absolute pinnacle of lame-brained nonsense—holds that God created Earth and the surrounding universe some 6,000 years ago, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the universe is more than 2,000,000 times older, and that Earth is about 750,000 times older, than a mere 6,000 years.

In what has to be the most asinine but oft repeated non-factoid uttered since the invention of language, whenever neo-Con creationists argue against the scientific evidence of a much older Earth (which is supported by geological records and archeological artifacts) they glibly state that God created all that evidence to fool mankind into believing that the world is older than 6,000 years. To what purpose I can’t begin to imagine.

My responses to these idiotic statements always go something like this: “Why? Is God an imbecile? Or are you, for thinking I’m gullible enough to believe that load of crap?”

That’s what I say when I’m in a good mood. You don’t want to know what I say when I’m in a bad mood.