Update from the Heartland
No.402
24.8.09 – 30.8.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.402
24.8.09 – 30.8.09
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The Departmental Ethics Office of the Justice Department has moved to investigate allegations by battlefield combatant detainees that they were “abused” in Allied captivity from Iraq and Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay, perpetuating a fairly effective means to neutralizing American military power [citations . . . just too many]. The jihadistanis have learned well the vulnerability of our liberal self-loathing and guilt. This process will continue as long as, if not longer than, the War on Islamic Fascism. C’est la guerre!
President Obama decided to form a new unit reporting directly to the White House – the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). The National Security Council will supervise the group which will be based and housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The HIG will use and be guided by U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM 2-22.3), which replaced the Field Manual on Interrogation (FM 34-52). I must admit that I never imagined any administration would take such an extreme action. I suppose we can view this initiative as a sign of frustration with this unclean issue of battlefield intelligence interrogation, on the part of the Obama administration. At face value, this move strikes me as an extraordinarily foolish, short-sighted, narrow, knee-jerk reaction. Lawyers took a giant step onto the battlefield with this action. If mistakes or transgressions were made, this is not how they should have been dealt with. This is NOT a move that will improve our national security.
Attorney General Eric Holder appointed John Durham, an experienced federal prosecutor, as a special prosecutor (rather than an independent prosecutor) to investigation alleged violations of Federal and international law regarding intelligence interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). So, off we go on another little witch hunt to make us feel better about ourselves. The popular notion of so many in our society, clinging relentlessly to the labels and references of national intelligence collection activities with the potential for or use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) as “torture,” is quite akin to war-protesters four decades ago, calling me a “baby killer” simply because I proudly wore the uniform of a Marine officer. Such mindless epithets serve little purpose beyond alienating the object and inflaming other citizens so inclined to believe such nonsense. The practice has become so pervasive that the word “torture” is virtually the next word after “CIA” and “interrogation of captives / detainees.” To use the word “torture” in such gross generality virtually ensures diminishment of our national intelligence capability, as Congress, the Press, and far too many of our citizens succumb to the big lie told often enough. I suppose branding CIA operations this way makes more than a few folks feel really good about themselves and their ideals – not materially different from the moral projectionists who are so comfortable violating every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice to satisfy their sense of propriety. As appears to be the case, the popular Press is placing citizens like me in some extreme, right-wing, fanatical category of rabid law violators. So be it!
The administration released several CIA interrogation reports as well as many, additional, related, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda. I have the “image” version of the documents. Being either lazy or overwhelmed, I am still trying to find a “search-able” version of each of those reports, so my assessment will have to wait. If anyone happens to know where I can obtain “search-able” versions, please let me know.
With all the CIA activity this week, it took me a while but I eventually made my way to a Wichita Eagle Letters to the Editor:
“Church-state wall not in Constitution”
by Steve West of Colwich
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Monday, 3.August.2009
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/letters/story/915423.html
My opinion to the Wichita Eagle:
The public debate regarding the intersection of church and state may well never be reconciled, if history is reflective of the future. This Grand Republic was founded upon numerous principles, some of which were captured and immortalized in the Constitution. Other elements were fundamental . . . beyond the need to codify. As a consequence, we inherited this perpetual intellectual struggle to define those fundamental rights – those unalienable rights – Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
The observation that the Constitution makes no reference – direct, implied or otherwise – to a separation of church and state is quite accurate. Any search on the text of the Constitution yields not one word of such exclusion. The popular articulation of the principle quoted in essays and indeed legal interpretations by the Supreme Court comes directly from President Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802). The Founders / Framers knew all too well what happens when religion and politics mix – one side or the other claims divine province, and equality vanishes.
When secular government embraces religion – any religion – we risk the inevitable constraint on not only our constitutional and codified rights, privileges and benefits, but also upon our most fundamental rights.
Religion has a vital place in each of our lives and indeed in our society. Among our most basic rights rests our freedom to choose . . . to choose or even change the religion that offers us comfort and focus – a very personal, private, intimate choice. Our religious affiliation is and should remain a private matter. Religion must never be a metric for political action, and yet should always be a guide in our personal lives. Let us return to our Founding principles, including our embrace of all religions and no religion, and to recognize and acknowledge every citizen’s most basic right to practice what is privately meaningful to each of them. The “wall of separation between Church & State,” as Jefferson so succinctly wrote two centuries ago, remains a vital principle of governance for each and every one of us. Let us not forget!
My diminished throughput capacity for the past month caused me to push out a number of interesting stories. Now that my inbox of “to be read” Court decisions is empty until the Fall, I am trying to catch up on holding topics. I have been pushing these stories for a month now, and it is time to belly up to the bar and toss back a stiff one. So, here we go.
-- First up, a contributor forwarded this article:
“Taiwan legalizes world's oldest profession”
by Judy Berman
Salon.com
Published: Wednesday, June 24, 2009; 13:25 PDT
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/06/24/taiwan_sex_work/index.html
-- Second, a different view half a world away:
“Poor Hygiene Standards – Germany Closes Two Flat-Rate Brothels”
Der Spiegel
Published: 27.July.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,638594,00.html#ref=nlint
-- Third:
“Provocative Protests – Students Fight Prostitution in Ukraine”
by Andreas Ehrmann in Kiev
Der Spiegel
Published: 30.July.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,639246,00.html#ref=nlint
-- Last in this set is from the New York Times Book Review:
“Meet, Pay, Love”
by Toni Bentley
New York Times
Published: August 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/books/review/Bentley-t.html?_r=1&8bu&emc=bua1
The subject book:
Sterry, David Henry, and R. J. Martin Jr. (eds.). “Hos, Hookers, Call Girls, and Rent Boys -- Professionals Writing on Life, Love, Money, and Sex.” New York: Soft Skull Press (2009).
The titles alone identify the subject whether anyone chooses to read the content. Your choice entirely! The multiple views of the sex trade offer us the opportunity to continue the debate. Like most (perhaps even all) of the “morality crimes” we have made illegal and criminalized, the sex trade presents similar challenges. At one level, we hold compassion for those “forced” or “coerced” into doing anything. We dramatically complicate the sex trade debate by our Puritanical, Victorian, societal image of sex itself. Collectively, and as represented in our body of laws, we see sex in very narrow, finite terms as an adult, heterosexual, bilateral, married, monogamous, procreation-only activity. Anything beyond that “norm” becomes progressively more offensive to our body of laws. As long as we persist in the notion of a societal definition of “normal” and in our willingness to impose our values on what is predominately private behavior, we shall retain our endless chase to achieve complete prohibition of private activities we find offensive. I am NOT in favor of laissez-faire legalization – another form of anarchy in my mind, and an invitation for a different form of criminal conduct. When we legalize prostitution, gambling, drug-use, et cetera, as ultimately I believe we will, we must offer substantive, meaningful and effective regulation to ensure public safety and as well protect employees from compromise by criminal elements. As I have written on numerous topics, my primary, ultimate motivation and objective is our return to the Founding Principles of this Grand Republic – our unalienable rights – Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. We must withdraw government and the law from the private domain and re-focus government on public conduct, behavior, interaction and activities. Neither government nor my neighbors have any right to enter my home and judge my choices regarding how I wish to live my private life. Yet, like so many “private” activities involving commerce, employees, customers, employers, indeed all citizens at least indirectly, they need established, regulated conditions to ensure public safety. Simple legalization is rarely the answer. Only regulation for public good can achieve the freedom of choice that is our birthright while ensuring the protection of all citizens’ rights.
As a poignant punctuation on the previous topic, I belatedly note this exposé:
“Sex and power inside ‘the C Street House’”
by Jeff Sharlet
Salon.com
Published: 21.July.2009
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/
This is what power does to far too many flawed and frail men, seduced by the reflection in the mirror and their sense of importance, who forget the slave’s whispered admonition to the ear of the triumphant Caesar, “Heed not the call of the crowds, for all glory is fleeting.” Such elitist affiliation and conduct are and shall ever remain an anathema to the sense of humility that belongs in the hearts of free citizens and especially those of this Grand Republic. Hypocrisy is not an admirable trait, even if it is a common character flaw of nearly every politician, almost by nature – a prerequisite for the breed.
A follow-up (clarification) to the Portugal national drug policy item in an earlier Update [394] – inserted here for reasons that will be apparent:
“Portugal’s drug policy – Treating, not punishing”
The Economist
Published: August 27th 2009
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14309861&source=hptextfeature
The article refers to a White Paper on the subject:
“Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies”
by Glenn Greenwald
CATO Institute
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
While Portugal appears to be having some success with de-criminalization, I remain convinced such half-steps, while they may be more humane to users, are not sufficient to deal with the criminal sub-culture that has evolved as the supplier of those substances. Yet, Portugal does serve as a milestone of the journey toward a more rational and reasonable policy regarding all aspects of popular psychotropic substance usage.
A question arose from a regular Update contributor in several other connected threads, to which I answered:
You asked, “When you mention legalization without proper regulation, what kind of regulation and to what extent?” I shall endeavor to answer your question completely, succinctly, but initially only superficially. We can drill down as you may wish.
First, there are four basic principles that govern my opinion.
-- 1.) This Grand Republic was born in the crucible of violent revolution in a time of emerging thought centered upon individual freedom and equality. The Founders also knew that liberty must be balanced with collective security, public safety, and the protection of the rights of other citizens.
-- 2.) In a free society, the power of addiction challenges our principles of freedom; yet, ultimately, my experience with addicts tells me an absolute axiom of human behavior – only the individual addict can decide he has had enough, and thus control his substance abuse. We can incarcerate him, punish him, treat him as a pariah, criminalize his substances, ostracize him, divorce him, bankrupt him, ad infinitum; but, as long as the addict wants the intoxication of psychotropic substances, he will do whatever it takes to satisfy that urge, up to and including his induced death.
-- 3.) Prohibition in a free society invariably creates a criminal sub-culture to feed and maintain the demand for whatever substance (or activity) is the object of that prohibition. The tragedy of the [alcohol] Prohibition era stands as historic testament. We bear witness today to the massive social destruction associated with feeding addiction; and what is even worse, we use that destruction to justify and rationalize ever more destruction, e.g., Mexico. Lastly . . .
-- 4.) Substance abuse is self-destruction, at its most basic level. Anything taken to excess, including water or oxygen, will kill us. Societally, we are offended by suicide and the associated devaluation of life, as it affects all of us; and yet, life and eventually death must remain our choices as free citizens.
With these principles (which are in themselves open for debate), I shall offer my opinion as an answer to your query.
The demand for any substance is controlled entirely by the individual addict. As most folks who have dealt with addiction know, an addict’s turn away from drugs will only occur when he has reached his personal bottom and decided to change his life. Some folks pass a point-of-no-return, when their intoxication eliminates any sense of control or reason. The use of psychotropic substances, as an individual activity, is largely a private matter, performed “behind the front door,” and the most intimate of affairs, i.e., inside the addict’s body. I acknowledge and recognize every citizen’s most fundamental right to live their lives as they choose, as they wish; and, that recognition extends to their destruction. I have little interest in telling another citizen how he should live his life. My focus remains on elimination, or at least minimization, of collateral damage concomitant with individual intoxication, including all elements of the criminal sub-culture that supplies the demand. We must also recognize that there are degrees of substance use. I enjoy a glass of wine before and with a meal, but that does not make me an abuser or an addict. More than a few citizens enjoy a toke (THC), a snort (cocaine), or a rush (amyl nitrite) without becoming addicted or abusive to the point of incapacitation or public diminishment. In Europe, many attractive medical substances are sold over-the-counter. Today, those who seek “controlled” substances turn to the blackmarket and criminal suppliers, who are driven / motivated to increase demand and thus their profit. Those who function properly in public should be allowed their indulgence. The key for the rest of us and the law should be public conduct. We must not intrude upon another citizen’s private life, except where injury of another person is or may be involved. The dimension of children with an abuser parent(s) is perhaps the most delicate of challenges in the legalization / regulation solution, and deserves its dedicated discussion.
For those users who function, their use should remain private, like alcohol. For those who do not function properly or endanger others like children, we must have a progressive, layered structure of societal protection from those who abuse or use intoxicants to excess. The first level I envision is what I call “isolation camps,” where individuals can go to indulge their addiction as they wish without endangering other citizens. At these camps, the addict can access whatever substance he chooses, as often and in whatever quantity he wishes, without worrying about how to obtain his substance(s) of choice. The only condition: he must remain in the camp while he is using. Basic services would be provided, including detoxification when the addict seeks recovery. Those who cannot abide by the “contract” would enter the prosecutorial / judicial process and prison. Habitual violators would eventually be declared un-rehabilitate-able, never to know freedom again in what would be the terminus prison I call the “black hole” for obvious reasons.
Clearly, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513; 21 U.S.C. § 801] must be repealed and a new law created to institute the necessary regulation. I say repeal because of the pervasive abuse of the CSA by the Executive Branch and the resultant bastardization of the CSA by the Supreme Court via the Commerce Clause of the Constitution can only be overcome by rescission of the foundation law. The tentacles reach too far and too deep to effectively alter the impact of the CSA on this Grand Republic. The new regulation law must acknowledge individual rights and privacy, public safety, and the associated supervision of production and distribution. I have mixed feelings regarding the fate of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which was created by the CSA. I can see a need for some specialized enforcement agency; I am just not sure the DEA would be capable of the transformation.
The regulation would involve the licensing, periodic and random inspections of production and distribution facilities, quality standards and control, and taxation at the source. Production must be visible and transparent. Distribution would be controlled in similar fashion as current distribution of alcohol and tobacco products. I believe, once drug use has been de-criminalized, then any substance can be sold at drug or even liquor stores in controlled, defined, precise dosages, sold at a modest, affordable price. The same age restrictions and constraints would be appropriate. Since we are setting up legalization and regulation, I think it appropriate to expect suppliers to pay for appropriate advertisements about use & abuse to ensure an informed public / consumer.
The essential and keystone element of legalization / regulation will be public education – the process, the rules, the law, the expectations, the consequences, in essence the contract between citizen and government.
The salient vulnerability of my hypothesis is cost-neutral. I believe substantial, direct, cost savings (diversion) can be attained by the elimination of the “war on drugs,” reduction in prison populations of non-violent, drug offenders (users), reduction in the size or elimination of the DEA, re-assignment of state and local law enforcement, and drug-sales tax revenue. The indirect cost of the “war on drugs” is far more difficult to quantify and thus re-allocate; however, I remain convinced there are enormous costs associated with the collateral damage from our current “war on drugs,” law enforcement policies and practices, e.g., family disruption, lost productivity, ancillary crime, and such. Even if a new regulated psychotropic substance consumption regulatory law(s) was not cost-neutral, I believe my notional system is far more humane to the users, less damaging to others, and less corrosive to our freedom and rights.
There is much more to this story; however, this should suffice to offer a picture of what I think drug legalization / regulation might look like and how it might operate. I’m sure you have plenty of questions and arguments, so fire away. Thank you for asking and listening.
News from the economic front:
-- President Obama nominated Ben Shalom Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
-- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated the 10-year deficit growing by US$2T to US$9.05T, based on a revised forecast of the economy contracting by 2.8% this year, steeper than its previous forecast of a 1.2% decline, and the recovery expected to begin later this year and be less forceful than previously hoped. The OMB also projects the national unemployment rate to peak later this year at around 10% before declining next year.
-- Single-family, new-home sales in July rose to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 433,000 (up 9.6%, higher than anticipated, the 4th straight month, and the highest number sold since September 2008). Sales in June and May were revised higher as well.
-- The Commerce Department reported that durable goods orders increased in July to a seasonally adjusted US$168.43B (up 4.9%) –the largest increase since July 2007 (5.4%). Orders for June were revised upward as well. The positive signs continue to mount.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that disgruntled Tribune bondholders have petitioned a U.S. bankruptcy judge to allow them to investigate Sam Zell's 2007 buyout of the media chain, in an effort to derail a plan that would hand the company over to its banks.
-- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) holds US$10.4B in reserves at the end of June (the lowest level since the 1980’s savings and loan crisis) to protect more than US$4.5T in covered U.S. bank deposits, as the banking industry continues to struggle with souring loans and regulators trying to clean up the mess. The agency reported that it had 416 banks on its “problem” list at the end of the 2nd Quarter, up from 305 at the end of the 1st Quarter. This situation virtually guarantees that the government will have to hit the banking industry with another special fee to recapitalize its reserves, which of course means that cost will be passed along to all banking customers. All of this to pay for a decade of Wall Street gambling, and foolish real estate mortgages.
-- The Wall Street Journal interviewed new American International Group (AIG) CEO Robert H. Benmosche, who indicated he will be taking a far more patient approach than his predecessor toward selling assets to repay the government’s US$173B “investment” of taxpayer resources.
-- International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) Chairman and CEO Steven Ferencz Udvar-Házy is reportedly in early discussions to purchase a portion of ILFC’s aircraft portfolio and start a new leasing company. ILFC is an influential aircraft leasing company owned by AIG, which has been on the block for a nearly a year. The company is staggering under the weight of US$30.7B in debt, of which US$2B comes due in October.
Comments and contributions from Update no.401:
From the blog:
“I’ll limit my comment on this one to agreeing that cap-and-trade setups will not function well. They do not motivate the industry changes that they supposedly are intended to drive, and they involve amounts of money that will certainly lead to corruption.”
My reply to the blog:
We share a common opinion. The familiar odor of yet another money trough scheme wafts over the countryside.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
The follow-up news items:
-- The Departmental Ethics Office of the Justice Department has moved to investigate allegations by battlefield combatant detainees that they were “abused” in Allied captivity from Iraq and Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay, perpetuating a fairly effective means to neutralizing American military power [citations . . . just too many]. The jihadistanis have learned well the vulnerability of our liberal self-loathing and guilt. This process will continue as long as, if not longer than, the War on Islamic Fascism. C’est la guerre!
President Obama decided to form a new unit reporting directly to the White House – the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). The National Security Council will supervise the group which will be based and housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The HIG will use and be guided by U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations (FM 2-22.3), which replaced the Field Manual on Interrogation (FM 34-52). I must admit that I never imagined any administration would take such an extreme action. I suppose we can view this initiative as a sign of frustration with this unclean issue of battlefield intelligence interrogation, on the part of the Obama administration. At face value, this move strikes me as an extraordinarily foolish, short-sighted, narrow, knee-jerk reaction. Lawyers took a giant step onto the battlefield with this action. If mistakes or transgressions were made, this is not how they should have been dealt with. This is NOT a move that will improve our national security.
Attorney General Eric Holder appointed John Durham, an experienced federal prosecutor, as a special prosecutor (rather than an independent prosecutor) to investigation alleged violations of Federal and international law regarding intelligence interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). So, off we go on another little witch hunt to make us feel better about ourselves. The popular notion of so many in our society, clinging relentlessly to the labels and references of national intelligence collection activities with the potential for or use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) as “torture,” is quite akin to war-protesters four decades ago, calling me a “baby killer” simply because I proudly wore the uniform of a Marine officer. Such mindless epithets serve little purpose beyond alienating the object and inflaming other citizens so inclined to believe such nonsense. The practice has become so pervasive that the word “torture” is virtually the next word after “CIA” and “interrogation of captives / detainees.” To use the word “torture” in such gross generality virtually ensures diminishment of our national intelligence capability, as Congress, the Press, and far too many of our citizens succumb to the big lie told often enough. I suppose branding CIA operations this way makes more than a few folks feel really good about themselves and their ideals – not materially different from the moral projectionists who are so comfortable violating every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice to satisfy their sense of propriety. As appears to be the case, the popular Press is placing citizens like me in some extreme, right-wing, fanatical category of rabid law violators. So be it!
The administration released several CIA interrogation reports as well as many, additional, related, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memoranda. I have the “image” version of the documents. Being either lazy or overwhelmed, I am still trying to find a “search-able” version of each of those reports, so my assessment will have to wait. If anyone happens to know where I can obtain “search-able” versions, please let me know.
With all the CIA activity this week, it took me a while but I eventually made my way to a Wichita Eagle Letters to the Editor:
“Church-state wall not in Constitution”
by Steve West of Colwich
Wichita Eagle
Posted on Monday, 3.August.2009
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/letters/story/915423.html
My opinion to the Wichita Eagle:
The public debate regarding the intersection of church and state may well never be reconciled, if history is reflective of the future. This Grand Republic was founded upon numerous principles, some of which were captured and immortalized in the Constitution. Other elements were fundamental . . . beyond the need to codify. As a consequence, we inherited this perpetual intellectual struggle to define those fundamental rights – those unalienable rights – Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.
The observation that the Constitution makes no reference – direct, implied or otherwise – to a separation of church and state is quite accurate. Any search on the text of the Constitution yields not one word of such exclusion. The popular articulation of the principle quoted in essays and indeed legal interpretations by the Supreme Court comes directly from President Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (1802). The Founders / Framers knew all too well what happens when religion and politics mix – one side or the other claims divine province, and equality vanishes.
When secular government embraces religion – any religion – we risk the inevitable constraint on not only our constitutional and codified rights, privileges and benefits, but also upon our most fundamental rights.
Religion has a vital place in each of our lives and indeed in our society. Among our most basic rights rests our freedom to choose . . . to choose or even change the religion that offers us comfort and focus – a very personal, private, intimate choice. Our religious affiliation is and should remain a private matter. Religion must never be a metric for political action, and yet should always be a guide in our personal lives. Let us return to our Founding principles, including our embrace of all religions and no religion, and to recognize and acknowledge every citizen’s most basic right to practice what is privately meaningful to each of them. The “wall of separation between Church & State,” as Jefferson so succinctly wrote two centuries ago, remains a vital principle of governance for each and every one of us. Let us not forget!
My diminished throughput capacity for the past month caused me to push out a number of interesting stories. Now that my inbox of “to be read” Court decisions is empty until the Fall, I am trying to catch up on holding topics. I have been pushing these stories for a month now, and it is time to belly up to the bar and toss back a stiff one. So, here we go.
-- First up, a contributor forwarded this article:
“Taiwan legalizes world's oldest profession”
by Judy Berman
Salon.com
Published: Wednesday, June 24, 2009; 13:25 PDT
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/06/24/taiwan_sex_work/index.html
-- Second, a different view half a world away:
“Poor Hygiene Standards – Germany Closes Two Flat-Rate Brothels”
Der Spiegel
Published: 27.July.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,638594,00.html#ref=nlint
-- Third:
“Provocative Protests – Students Fight Prostitution in Ukraine”
by Andreas Ehrmann in Kiev
Der Spiegel
Published: 30.July.2009
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,639246,00.html#ref=nlint
-- Last in this set is from the New York Times Book Review:
“Meet, Pay, Love”
by Toni Bentley
New York Times
Published: August 20, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/books/review/Bentley-t.html?_r=1&8bu&emc=bua1
The subject book:
Sterry, David Henry, and R. J. Martin Jr. (eds.). “Hos, Hookers, Call Girls, and Rent Boys -- Professionals Writing on Life, Love, Money, and Sex.” New York: Soft Skull Press (2009).
The titles alone identify the subject whether anyone chooses to read the content. Your choice entirely! The multiple views of the sex trade offer us the opportunity to continue the debate. Like most (perhaps even all) of the “morality crimes” we have made illegal and criminalized, the sex trade presents similar challenges. At one level, we hold compassion for those “forced” or “coerced” into doing anything. We dramatically complicate the sex trade debate by our Puritanical, Victorian, societal image of sex itself. Collectively, and as represented in our body of laws, we see sex in very narrow, finite terms as an adult, heterosexual, bilateral, married, monogamous, procreation-only activity. Anything beyond that “norm” becomes progressively more offensive to our body of laws. As long as we persist in the notion of a societal definition of “normal” and in our willingness to impose our values on what is predominately private behavior, we shall retain our endless chase to achieve complete prohibition of private activities we find offensive. I am NOT in favor of laissez-faire legalization – another form of anarchy in my mind, and an invitation for a different form of criminal conduct. When we legalize prostitution, gambling, drug-use, et cetera, as ultimately I believe we will, we must offer substantive, meaningful and effective regulation to ensure public safety and as well protect employees from compromise by criminal elements. As I have written on numerous topics, my primary, ultimate motivation and objective is our return to the Founding Principles of this Grand Republic – our unalienable rights – Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. We must withdraw government and the law from the private domain and re-focus government on public conduct, behavior, interaction and activities. Neither government nor my neighbors have any right to enter my home and judge my choices regarding how I wish to live my private life. Yet, like so many “private” activities involving commerce, employees, customers, employers, indeed all citizens at least indirectly, they need established, regulated conditions to ensure public safety. Simple legalization is rarely the answer. Only regulation for public good can achieve the freedom of choice that is our birthright while ensuring the protection of all citizens’ rights.
As a poignant punctuation on the previous topic, I belatedly note this exposé:
“Sex and power inside ‘the C Street House’”
by Jeff Sharlet
Salon.com
Published: 21.July.2009
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/
This is what power does to far too many flawed and frail men, seduced by the reflection in the mirror and their sense of importance, who forget the slave’s whispered admonition to the ear of the triumphant Caesar, “Heed not the call of the crowds, for all glory is fleeting.” Such elitist affiliation and conduct are and shall ever remain an anathema to the sense of humility that belongs in the hearts of free citizens and especially those of this Grand Republic. Hypocrisy is not an admirable trait, even if it is a common character flaw of nearly every politician, almost by nature – a prerequisite for the breed.
A follow-up (clarification) to the Portugal national drug policy item in an earlier Update [394] – inserted here for reasons that will be apparent:
“Portugal’s drug policy – Treating, not punishing”
The Economist
Published: August 27th 2009
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14309861&source=hptextfeature
The article refers to a White Paper on the subject:
“Drug Decriminalisation in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies”
by Glenn Greenwald
CATO Institute
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
While Portugal appears to be having some success with de-criminalization, I remain convinced such half-steps, while they may be more humane to users, are not sufficient to deal with the criminal sub-culture that has evolved as the supplier of those substances. Yet, Portugal does serve as a milestone of the journey toward a more rational and reasonable policy regarding all aspects of popular psychotropic substance usage.
A question arose from a regular Update contributor in several other connected threads, to which I answered:
You asked, “When you mention legalization without proper regulation, what kind of regulation and to what extent?” I shall endeavor to answer your question completely, succinctly, but initially only superficially. We can drill down as you may wish.
First, there are four basic principles that govern my opinion.
-- 1.) This Grand Republic was born in the crucible of violent revolution in a time of emerging thought centered upon individual freedom and equality. The Founders also knew that liberty must be balanced with collective security, public safety, and the protection of the rights of other citizens.
-- 2.) In a free society, the power of addiction challenges our principles of freedom; yet, ultimately, my experience with addicts tells me an absolute axiom of human behavior – only the individual addict can decide he has had enough, and thus control his substance abuse. We can incarcerate him, punish him, treat him as a pariah, criminalize his substances, ostracize him, divorce him, bankrupt him, ad infinitum; but, as long as the addict wants the intoxication of psychotropic substances, he will do whatever it takes to satisfy that urge, up to and including his induced death.
-- 3.) Prohibition in a free society invariably creates a criminal sub-culture to feed and maintain the demand for whatever substance (or activity) is the object of that prohibition. The tragedy of the [alcohol] Prohibition era stands as historic testament. We bear witness today to the massive social destruction associated with feeding addiction; and what is even worse, we use that destruction to justify and rationalize ever more destruction, e.g., Mexico. Lastly . . .
-- 4.) Substance abuse is self-destruction, at its most basic level. Anything taken to excess, including water or oxygen, will kill us. Societally, we are offended by suicide and the associated devaluation of life, as it affects all of us; and yet, life and eventually death must remain our choices as free citizens.
With these principles (which are in themselves open for debate), I shall offer my opinion as an answer to your query.
The demand for any substance is controlled entirely by the individual addict. As most folks who have dealt with addiction know, an addict’s turn away from drugs will only occur when he has reached his personal bottom and decided to change his life. Some folks pass a point-of-no-return, when their intoxication eliminates any sense of control or reason. The use of psychotropic substances, as an individual activity, is largely a private matter, performed “behind the front door,” and the most intimate of affairs, i.e., inside the addict’s body. I acknowledge and recognize every citizen’s most fundamental right to live their lives as they choose, as they wish; and, that recognition extends to their destruction. I have little interest in telling another citizen how he should live his life. My focus remains on elimination, or at least minimization, of collateral damage concomitant with individual intoxication, including all elements of the criminal sub-culture that supplies the demand. We must also recognize that there are degrees of substance use. I enjoy a glass of wine before and with a meal, but that does not make me an abuser or an addict. More than a few citizens enjoy a toke (THC), a snort (cocaine), or a rush (amyl nitrite) without becoming addicted or abusive to the point of incapacitation or public diminishment. In Europe, many attractive medical substances are sold over-the-counter. Today, those who seek “controlled” substances turn to the blackmarket and criminal suppliers, who are driven / motivated to increase demand and thus their profit. Those who function properly in public should be allowed their indulgence. The key for the rest of us and the law should be public conduct. We must not intrude upon another citizen’s private life, except where injury of another person is or may be involved. The dimension of children with an abuser parent(s) is perhaps the most delicate of challenges in the legalization / regulation solution, and deserves its dedicated discussion.
For those users who function, their use should remain private, like alcohol. For those who do not function properly or endanger others like children, we must have a progressive, layered structure of societal protection from those who abuse or use intoxicants to excess. The first level I envision is what I call “isolation camps,” where individuals can go to indulge their addiction as they wish without endangering other citizens. At these camps, the addict can access whatever substance he chooses, as often and in whatever quantity he wishes, without worrying about how to obtain his substance(s) of choice. The only condition: he must remain in the camp while he is using. Basic services would be provided, including detoxification when the addict seeks recovery. Those who cannot abide by the “contract” would enter the prosecutorial / judicial process and prison. Habitual violators would eventually be declared un-rehabilitate-able, never to know freedom again in what would be the terminus prison I call the “black hole” for obvious reasons.
Clearly, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 [PL 91-513; 21 U.S.C. § 801] must be repealed and a new law created to institute the necessary regulation. I say repeal because of the pervasive abuse of the CSA by the Executive Branch and the resultant bastardization of the CSA by the Supreme Court via the Commerce Clause of the Constitution can only be overcome by rescission of the foundation law. The tentacles reach too far and too deep to effectively alter the impact of the CSA on this Grand Republic. The new regulation law must acknowledge individual rights and privacy, public safety, and the associated supervision of production and distribution. I have mixed feelings regarding the fate of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which was created by the CSA. I can see a need for some specialized enforcement agency; I am just not sure the DEA would be capable of the transformation.
The regulation would involve the licensing, periodic and random inspections of production and distribution facilities, quality standards and control, and taxation at the source. Production must be visible and transparent. Distribution would be controlled in similar fashion as current distribution of alcohol and tobacco products. I believe, once drug use has been de-criminalized, then any substance can be sold at drug or even liquor stores in controlled, defined, precise dosages, sold at a modest, affordable price. The same age restrictions and constraints would be appropriate. Since we are setting up legalization and regulation, I think it appropriate to expect suppliers to pay for appropriate advertisements about use & abuse to ensure an informed public / consumer.
The essential and keystone element of legalization / regulation will be public education – the process, the rules, the law, the expectations, the consequences, in essence the contract between citizen and government.
The salient vulnerability of my hypothesis is cost-neutral. I believe substantial, direct, cost savings (diversion) can be attained by the elimination of the “war on drugs,” reduction in prison populations of non-violent, drug offenders (users), reduction in the size or elimination of the DEA, re-assignment of state and local law enforcement, and drug-sales tax revenue. The indirect cost of the “war on drugs” is far more difficult to quantify and thus re-allocate; however, I remain convinced there are enormous costs associated with the collateral damage from our current “war on drugs,” law enforcement policies and practices, e.g., family disruption, lost productivity, ancillary crime, and such. Even if a new regulated psychotropic substance consumption regulatory law(s) was not cost-neutral, I believe my notional system is far more humane to the users, less damaging to others, and less corrosive to our freedom and rights.
There is much more to this story; however, this should suffice to offer a picture of what I think drug legalization / regulation might look like and how it might operate. I’m sure you have plenty of questions and arguments, so fire away. Thank you for asking and listening.
News from the economic front:
-- President Obama nominated Ben Shalom Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
-- The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated the 10-year deficit growing by US$2T to US$9.05T, based on a revised forecast of the economy contracting by 2.8% this year, steeper than its previous forecast of a 1.2% decline, and the recovery expected to begin later this year and be less forceful than previously hoped. The OMB also projects the national unemployment rate to peak later this year at around 10% before declining next year.
-- Single-family, new-home sales in July rose to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 433,000 (up 9.6%, higher than anticipated, the 4th straight month, and the highest number sold since September 2008). Sales in June and May were revised higher as well.
-- The Commerce Department reported that durable goods orders increased in July to a seasonally adjusted US$168.43B (up 4.9%) –the largest increase since July 2007 (5.4%). Orders for June were revised upward as well. The positive signs continue to mount.
-- The Wall Street Journal reported that disgruntled Tribune bondholders have petitioned a U.S. bankruptcy judge to allow them to investigate Sam Zell's 2007 buyout of the media chain, in an effort to derail a plan that would hand the company over to its banks.
-- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) holds US$10.4B in reserves at the end of June (the lowest level since the 1980’s savings and loan crisis) to protect more than US$4.5T in covered U.S. bank deposits, as the banking industry continues to struggle with souring loans and regulators trying to clean up the mess. The agency reported that it had 416 banks on its “problem” list at the end of the 2nd Quarter, up from 305 at the end of the 1st Quarter. This situation virtually guarantees that the government will have to hit the banking industry with another special fee to recapitalize its reserves, which of course means that cost will be passed along to all banking customers. All of this to pay for a decade of Wall Street gambling, and foolish real estate mortgages.
-- The Wall Street Journal interviewed new American International Group (AIG) CEO Robert H. Benmosche, who indicated he will be taking a far more patient approach than his predecessor toward selling assets to repay the government’s US$173B “investment” of taxpayer resources.
-- International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) Chairman and CEO Steven Ferencz Udvar-Házy is reportedly in early discussions to purchase a portion of ILFC’s aircraft portfolio and start a new leasing company. ILFC is an influential aircraft leasing company owned by AIG, which has been on the block for a nearly a year. The company is staggering under the weight of US$30.7B in debt, of which US$2B comes due in October.
Comments and contributions from Update no.401:
From the blog:
“I’ll limit my comment on this one to agreeing that cap-and-trade setups will not function well. They do not motivate the industry changes that they supposedly are intended to drive, and they involve amounts of money that will certainly lead to corruption.”
My reply to the blog:
We share a common opinion. The familiar odor of yet another money trough scheme wafts over the countryside.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I read the article on the C Street house, and I find that chilling. I find this much more scary than the TV preachers or assorted bigots in the streets. These people connect exactly the sort of insane ideas that you and I oppose so vehemently to the people in power that we so distrust. The hypocrisy about the sexual affairs is the least of this. The article states that they call themselves the "Christian Mafia." I suspect that they resemble the Mafia far more than they do the Christians.
MrMacnCheese,
Everything I have learned about the C Street House leaves me nauseated, angry, and incited to action. Even more regrettably, one Kansas senator (Brownback) and my representative (Tiahrt) are reported to be members of this disgusting group. Any person or group of persons who place themselves above others, no matter what the reason or rationale, will attract my ire and disdain. I also think your opinion is spot on the money; they far more closely resemble the Mafia than they do Christians . . . and now that I think of it . . . that is giving Mafiosi a bad name. At least the Mafiosi are not hypocrites.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment