Fuckin' Boom. Photo by Mogmismo.

In the last few days, there has been a rash of reports commenting on the Republican Party’s apparent embrace of violent terminology. You can read about it lots of places, but in case you somehow missed it, here’s an example.

So there appears to be a trend, not necessarily amongst all Republicans (I still like to dream that there are a few fiscal conservatives cowering beneath the onslaught of Moral Imperatives Activists and Obama Is A Fascist lunatics), but certainly amongst some of their most prominent and loud-mouthed representatives. And the contingent of the blogosphere which likes to think of itself as Sensibly Liberal has made the predictable response: they’ve gone into mama-next-door mode and begun worrying about the future of the neighborhood. They’re concerned, and perhaps rightfully so, that one of these days some teabagger out there somewhere is going to stop throwing bricks through windows and pick up a gun.

That could happen. Certainly, there are enough fanatical lunatics out of our 308,956,488 or so people that one or more of them are statistically likely to tumble over the edge any minute. But what I find curious is that no one seems to be asking the obvious question: what does the GOP stand to gain by not condemning language which seems formulated to encourage violent responses?

Let’s assume that most high-level Republicans actually do not want to see President Obama or any Democratic political representative killed. This assumption has nothing to do with their moral character, their moral character is irrelevant. What is relevant is the likelihood that assassinating a high-level Democratic leader would backfire. The Democrats would, of course, be justifiably outraged. The Independents are likely to suddenly decide that maybe one party actually is more apeshit than the other. And don’t forget that quiet little segment of the Republicans, the one that’s wondering how the hell their party got hijacked by these fundamentalists and is just trying to hang in there until the Universe rights itself. They might just decide to get the hell out and start a party that actually represents their interests.

So if the GOP doesn’t actually want people killed, what are they doing?

They’re playing on basic psychology. For years, they have painted the Democrats as pussies. Little, bleeding heart liberals that want to give milk and cookies to the terrorists. Mama’s boys who want to take away their guns because they’re scared they might get hurt. The Republicans, on the other hand, are stalwart pioneers, holding fast to the values that made this country great, and not taking shit off anyone. Basically, they’re engaging primitive tribal impulses by saying “Stick with us, kid. We’re strong, we’re survivors. That other tribe is going to fall into cannibalism any day now, just you watch.”

Democrats have never been good at playing this game. They take umbrage and try to argue that they never said any such thing, that they just want to make the world a better place, blah blah blah. They don’t address the gut fears that the Republicans like to play upon, they just try to make reasonable arguments about why the fears are counterproductive. They apologize when they are insulted. It’s weird, but beyond that it plays right into the GOP’s tactics. Because nobody wants to be on the losing side.

Having lost in the last national election, the Republicans had to do something to shore up confidence in their tribe or risk losing members. So they brought out the tea party notion, completely misappropriated and bastardized, but it didn’t matter…the tribe had something to believe in. Note well…they didn’t have to think about it, they just had to believe. And that got them through that tricky first year after losing control of the government. But then, after a long, seemingly losing battle, the Democrats pulled out a so-called “victory” with health care “reform”. Whatever you may think of the bill, the Republicans had drawn a line in the sand and this was just not supposed to happen. So what to do? Ratchet up the rhetoric. Remind the constituents that they are the strong ones, they are the ones not afraid to “go out and fight”. Whatever may have happened, it’s still our strong tribe against those pussy Democrats, and you know we can always take them if we want to. Hell, those sons of bitches don’t even own guns, do they?

It’s a pity the Democrats were scared to say “you know, there’s really no reason you need to bring a gun to a political rally.” It’s too bad they couldn’t bring themselves to set up a “Fun With Waterboarding Day” on the White House lawn, so that anyone who wanted to could try it, and then indicate whether or not they thought the U.S. Government should be using it as a form of interrogation. It’s rather sad they couldn’t bring themselves to say “Seriously? You’re listening to that fucking idiot?” after Sarah Palin “informed” the nation that health care reform would mean “Death Panels” which would kill their grandparents. I suppose they’re not likely to respond to the current rash of death threats with “Only scaredy cats go around waving their gun in the air. Don’t you have a tea party to get to?” But it sure would be nice, just for a change of pace.

On the other hand, maybe the Dems are out-strategizing the GOP. If the Republicans don’t reign in their dogs soon, one of them really is likely to take a shot. When that happens, the Democrats can finally rest assured of another six years in office.

Dear MoveOn,

A year and a half ago, you asked me to choose which Presidential candidate MoveOn, as an organization representative of my beliefs, should support and promote. I chose Barack Obama, as did many other MoveOn members. So many, in fact, that he received your endorsement for the Presidency; support which undoubtedly had a significant influence on the election results of 2008. Barack Obama is now President, thanks to our hard work.

And the country has yet to see the Change and Hope upon which he based his platform.

This is all the more disturbing considering the Democratic majority in Congress. Now that they have a so-called “super majority“, one would think that meaningful reform would be ushered immediately and gracefully onto the floor. But this has not happened, and according to any intelligent reading of the reports from Congress, it’s not about to happen. Despite their ability to enact real change which would have a significant impact on the American people…Congress is not inclined. It’s easy to say compromise is important, but when you have offered extensive compromise and your opponent says “Not good enough!”, it is time to walk away and carve a path on your own. Democrats do not need to compromise to enact health care reform, alternative energy research, net neutrality, or any other goal they strive to achieve…all they have to do is vote for it. Their reluctance to do so speaks volumes about their loyalties and their fears.

It is understandable, given the results of the last Democratic attempt to implement health care reform(1), that they would be cautious now. Recent polls(2), however, make it clear that the majority of American people want universal health care. It is traditional to try to ease in change, rather than rush it forward before a majority of the people understand the necessity. Immediate and goal-oriented action, however, is required if the United States is not only to survive, but to prosper, during the coming energy crisis. A belief in the efficacy of “trickle down” economics(3) has driven most Americans into debt and dishonor(4), and the very idea that Internet providers have a right to choose the future of ideas based on ability to pay is a demonstration of where such backward thinking has brought us. Congress can change the future, any time they wish. They just choose not to.

I am writing to you, then, MoveOn, to ask you to do what you do best: tell people their hopes and dreams are on the line, and it is up to them to make sure their elected representatives actually represent. If we want universal health care, we are going to have to demand it, louder than all the corporate interests and “Socialism Sucks!” naysayers who are making them wonder about the longevity of their appointment. If they supported the bill which makes the difference between life and death for the children of hard working, low income American families…they will be reelected, with or without the help of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. If we want clean energy and energy independence, we are going to have to write them, call them, show up at their offices with statements, arguments, and petitions until they realize that voting for funding which leads to less pollution, more financial security, and higher employment rates will get them reelected even without the support of fossil fuel dependent corporations which are desperately trying to cling to the pipe dreams of their youth. We can insist upon Net Neutrality, so that the Internet remains a place where every idea has a chance of being heard. For that matter, we can go further and ensure equal rights for homosexuals, abolish no-victim crimes, and end a few unnecessary military engagements. We can release some innocent men from Guantanamo, ditch the Patriot Act, and make sure that no President can ever, ever again take such unwarranted liberties with our Constitution as the last one did(5). Just this once, we don’t have to compromise. We can make change happen.

And we must, because time is disappearing beneath us. If the current administration, the current Congress, continue to do nothing for the next year, we will lose the power to enact the changes we so desperately need. The Democratic majority will be lost in the next mid-term election, the Presidency two years after that. While action may risk failure, inaction guarantees it.

So please, use your influence, your ability to pull people together, to remind us all that our work is not even half done. We have one good chance, right now, to change our lives for the better. Please don’t let it slip away.

Thank You,

Celestina Adams

Notes:
(1) Yes, I just referenced Wikipedia. Because it’s often accurate. And when it’s not, it is at least more amusing than Fox News.

(2) Just gotta mention this part While seventy three percent of Democrats favor a tax increase to fund coverage, only twenty-nine percent of Republicans back such a move. Seriously, guys, this makes you look like a bunch of assholes. I know you probably have your reasons…but you probably need someone saner than Glen Beck to try to vouch for you at this point.

(3) One of the weirdest things that has happened in my lifetime is the idolization of Reagan. I know this is likely to get me crucified, but seriously people…he was a pathetic actor, and his Presidential highlights were largely based around watching Nancy throw her voice to cover his increasingly slurred/sugar-high gibberings. He was never, ever a “great” President. Get over it.

(4) New Appalachian farewell blessing: “May the wind be always at your back, and the repo man always under your heel…”

(5) Want to argue that point? Be my guest…

Now read that again, carefully: charged with

Looking over the website, the morbidly curious public (as well as potential employers, landlords, and lovers) can see the faces and names of those among us who may have committed a crime. There is no clear notation made upon the page that these people have not yet had their day in court, besides the fact that in small print it is stated that these are “Prostitution and Solicitation Arrests”. There is no system wherein this list is updated, should an individual be found innocent at their trial. They will be presumed guilty, and suitably dealt with by their peers.

Asheville is not the first city to take such action. Chicago, Wichita, Denver, San Diego, Arlington and Dallas, Corpus Christi, Saint Paul, and others are all on the same bandwagon, although some display only convicted individuals, and others at least note that those featured are innocent until proven guilty.

Many police departments have argued that these “shaming” programs are no different than the “Police Blotter” segments of local newspapers wherein recent arrests are listed. Such arguments are fallacious on their surface, considering that if there were no difference the new programs could not be expected to be particularly effective. The significant difference between the police blotter and the websites and televised targeting (and even, in some communities, billboards beside the highways) is that while the blotter is primarily used to inform, the prositution-targeted efforts are there to shame.

Privatizing Criminal Sanctions

Many police departments have found prostitution an extremely difficult crime to confront, as frequently convictions result only in a fine and the convicted repeating the behaviour (whether on the buying or selling side of the transaction). Sporadic raids and undercover sting operations are not sufficient deterrents to eliminate it. The latest trend, then, is to rely on the social deterrent of shame to do what fines and minor jail time cannot. Effectively, the system has decided to let the people provide the punishment.

The assumption being made is that public shaming of individuals who have broken the law (or may have broken the law) is an effective deterrent in stopping crime because no one wants to live with the consequences of public censure. And while it is undoubtedly true that no one would prefer to have their employment opportunities or living arrangements compromised, this assumption does not factor in the consideration that many who engage in prostitution (particularly street prostitution) already live on the fringe of society. Those choosing to work as prostitutes may already have encountered difficulty in finding adequate employment, and those who patronize them may already have difficulty in establishing “normal” social relations. In using shaming as a penalty for these individuals, we are simply compounding the circumstances which led them to act as they did in the first place. If, for example, a woman has resorted to prostitution because she cannot find employment sufficient to cover her expenses (whether those expenses are a dying mother or a crack habit), what effect will public shaming have on her future prospects?

Another flaw in the theory of shaming as punishment (which is discussed thoroughly in The Economics of Shame by Alon Harel and Alon Klement) is that there is an inverse relationship between the rate of its usage and its effect as a crime deterrent. Very simply, the more people who have been shamed, the less of a stigma it becomes. Furthermore, society itself incurs a cost in shunning individuals, in the sense that it limits the pool of individuals participating (i.e. A realtor whose face has appeared on one of these websites as “arrested for solicitation of crimes against nature” may well be shunned to the extent that he loses his business. The cost to society is one less realtor in the pool from which it can choose), and eventually the cost can become too high. The inevitable result of overuse of shaming punishments is that society will no longer shun those who have been exposed in this way, and the punishment loses whatever effectiveness it may have.

Finally, we must consider the risk, in communities where shaming techniques are employed prior to actual conviction, of innocent people having their lives ruined by these programs. Although the Asheville Police Department site does state that these are prostitution “arrests”, this is hardly an assurance that the community will withold their judgment until those featured have been convicted, particularly as there appear to be no plans to post the results of their trials once concluded. Furthermore, such a policy poses a risk to the local government, as the possibility of harming an innocent citizen opens the door to expensive lawsuits.

A Delicate Balance

Given the obvious flaws and risks inherent in these programs, consideration must be given to whether the problem actually necessitates such dubious measures to solve. The Asheville Citizen-Times reported on February 6 that local police have arrested more than 100 prostitutes in the last three years, with the current working pool being around 20-25 prostitutes. Hardly an epidemic in a town of 70,000. What, then, prompted local police to launch the shaming program?

Police Chief William Hogan, in response to my questions, stated that “The public is up in arms in the neighborhoods where prostitution is prevalent,” and that “The public is quick to blame the police for all of society’s failures and when the courts fail to deal with the problem that does not stop citizens from demanding that the police do something about the problem.” Unfortunately, at the time of publishing Chief Hogan had not responded to further questions regarding the level of complaint from Asheville citizens he had received or whether there has been an increase in prostitution in this area. What seems apparent from his original answer, however, is that local police perceive a great deal of pressure to eliminate prostitution but that the judicial system “has no impact since they receive a fine and are right back on the street carrying on with their business as usual”.

Is shaming so effective, then, that the risks and flaws are worth it? Chicago introduced its “shaming” program in 2005. Prostitution arrests did, in fact, go down by 16.2% in 2006. But then, so did almost every other category of crime, including many which did not have targeted shaming programs. Prositution arrests were already going down in 2005, when the plan was implemented. A 1982 survey did not find shaming programs to be particularly effective in deterring crime, and though modern psychological understanding would seem to support its potential effectiveness, statistics in communities where it has been implemented do not seem to indicate that it is working.

Are, then, the risks to the community engendered by prostitution so great that any effort to quell it is worth an attempt? It is often associated with other criminal activity, such as drug use and violence, but does prostitution create other crimes, or does it tend to exist in seedier areas where these other crimes are also, independantly, prevalent? While the notion that prostitution increases related violent crime is prevalent and generally accepted at face value, there have been no credible studies undertaken which can point to such a connection. With prostitution remaining an illegal activity in most of the United States, it naturally occurs most often in areas where one finds other illegal activity.

Looking For Solutions

While the legal status of prostitution is an extensive topic in itself, as long as we continue to rank it as an illegal activity we must compare the risks to the community of prostitution taking place in our midst to the risks to the community of any form of enforcement. Many dislike the sight of prostitutes working the streets, and the possibility of sexual acts taking place in public may be offensive. Prostitution may bring down the values of property in neighborhoods where it is obvious, due to its association with other criminal activities. As a result of the unregulated nature of illegal prostitution, it may contribute to the spread of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy. These are not insignificant costs for the community to bear.

On the other side of the argument, we have implemented a program which seeks to publicly humiliate both prostitues and johns. The risk to society of this form of punishment includes the possibility of innocent people being harmed by public misjudgment, as well as the possibility of local government having to contend with expensive law suits, should any innocent person so maligned decide to seek legal redress. Furthermore, such a policy may well reinforce the social conditions which led individuals to work as prostitutes or employ them, in the first place.

At the closing of his correspondence with me, police Chief William Hogan stated:

If you have some realistic and effective solution to this problem I am all ears. I wish life was so simple that we could ask people to obey the law and they would graciously comply with our request.

As a local community, and as a culture, it is upon us to respond to this request. We cannot demand that our police solve all problems while refusing to give them the tools to do so. The question for each of us, then, is what really do we want them to do about it?

Just look at that crowd… — Photo by roxannejomitchell’s photos, Creative Commons.

There are no false hopes. We need all the hope we can get. We have been living in a cultural dark ages, and it’s time we crawled out of it.

Seeing the terribly serious look on my son’s face as he said this sent shivers up my spine and reminded me what all the politics is really for. We are fighting these battles not for ourselves, to see our own ideas writ large across the face of this country, but for our children and our neighbors and all the people with whom we don’t agree. We all want to feel safe in our homes, we all want to believe that justice can once again be a word whose meaning we all understand. We all want our children to be fed and cared for, and we all want our elders to be able to retire with dignity. We all want clean air and clean water, and we all want each person to have an equal opportunity to make their mark on the world. We all need a release from the fear and the cynicism and the paralyzing sensation of helplessness which has become an inherent and accepted tradition among American citizens. We are all fighting so hard because we care so much, and in the end we care about the same things. We need to believe once more that perhaps there is something valuable our nation has to offer. That we can overcome our surface differences, our disparate religions and political parties and notions of what solutions will provide the best way forward to recognize that we are all, in the end, looking for the same thing: America.

It’s not a false hope to say that perhaps we can find a way forward. It’s not a false hope to say we can talk to each other and take the best parts from every system of belief and meld them into a new whole which may be greater than its various parts. We would be fools to let the cynics dictate our future. If all you ever have are small dreams, then the best you can ever achieve is a small vision, not much greater than where you started. But with big dreams, the dreams that have lain dormant in the hearts and minds of every person in this nation as we felt our country spinning farther and farther away from its original promise, every step we take forward is one piece in a much greater whole. We are at a juncture where only big dreams and the courage to hope will spark real change.

The quality that Barack Obama has which Hillary Clinton will never share is the ability to inspire. The President of the United States does not make the laws. He cannot enforce justice or ensure that our babies are born safely or promise care for our elderly. But what he can do, must do, is be the inspiration to others to try harder, work together, to make change happen. He must be a force which people want to follow, who gives us a reason to believe. Listening to people talk about Obama, reading the editorials, the bloggers, and even those who have come forward to endorse him, it is clear that not only do they want him for President: they believe in him. In Obama they see not a single man, they see a movement in which we are all a part, a slowly swelling tidal wave which can sweep over this nation and perhaps create something greater than any individual could ever accomplish.

Think, for just a moment, of the potential in that belief, of the power of a nation which could once again see past the divisive politics of the last seven years. And then please, when you close that little curtain and cast your vote, have the courage to hope.

Reminds me of “The Hanged Man”…*sigh* - Photo by Austen Squarepants. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

Your Vote Kinda Counts

In the Democratic Presidential primaries, some votes count more than others. Which is to say that your vote counts just as much as everyone else who shows up at your polling station, but we all know that the Democratic candidate is not chosen by the people. He or she is chosen by the Democratic delegates. Which, you may say, is essentially the same thing, since the delegates vote for whomever received the most votes in their district. Not so fast. You are aware, aren’t you, that there are in fact two classes of Democratic delegates? There’s the regular 3,253 delegates, which depending on where you live, will be elected or appointed in mysterious ways at some point or other over the next five or so months. These delegates must vote for whomever their district chooses. And then there are the “super-delegates”, who are appointed by the Democratic National Committee. All 796 of them. That is, in case you were wondering, right about 20% of the Democratic primary vote. So working it out, (using 2004 Democratic primary turnout statistics), each delegate’s vote in the DNC is worth approximately 3,989 of our votes, but a fifth of those voting will not be bound in any way to vote according to the will of the people. They’re old-school political hacks, such as Bill and Hillary Clinton (guess who they’re voting for?), appointed by the party to make sure that the will of the people doesn’t conflict with the tried-and-true methodology of party wisdom. Just bear that in mind, when you go into the little booth and pull the curtain to choose your Democratic party Presidential candidate. Assuming you actually get a vote. Which brings us to…

How Independents Get Screwed

Perhaps you look at the two major political parties in the United States, and they both strike you as corrupt, mismanaged, and generally not anything to which you ever want your name attached. So you sign up as an “Independent”. It seems like a simple decision, until you get to primary season, where, depending on your location, it can become quite a big problem. In some states, as an Independent you get the joy of voting in either the Democratic or Republican primary. Seeing as there are no “Independent Primaries”, this makes sense and you are probably rather pleased that you can choose between all the candidates in an attempt to pick the least offensive one. In other states, however, you get no vote whatsoever. Like North Carolina, the location from which I am writing this little rant. Now mind you, I wouldn’t really be annoyed about not getting to vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries if there were any viable third-party candidates and I could go choose one of them. But there aren’t, that our system is designed to keep it that way. Consider for example public funding of the Presidential elections, wherein a third-party candidate can receive some portion of the funding the Democratic and Republican candidates get, based on how well that party’s candidate did in last year’s election compared to the two “real” candidates. You folks who check “yes” on the voluntary checkoff box on our tax forms which is the source for public funding (though I sure wish you could chuck it at scientific grants or public education or something more useful), doesn’t it bother you just a little that you are fueling a process which limits the playing field without significantly reducing corruption? Ah well, probably not as much as it irritates Independents in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia, none of whom get a vote in the primaries, even if they pay their $3.

And the Machines Still Suck

Look, I have harped on this so long I am sick of hearing myself go on about it. So to just sum up: the voting machines are still screwed, and we are going to hear accusations of fraud every single time they are used, from now through next November. You would think people would demand their replacement, if for no other reason than to get the conspiracy theorists to shut up.
Until and unless that happens, you have absolutely no assurance whatsoever that your vote was counted.

Expecting Change, Are You?

I am the last one to tell people to give up and sit quietly. As a nation, however, we cannot even begin to fix the problems we have institutionalized until we recognize them and call them by name. Obviously, these are just a few of the issues with our election system, the few that happen to be highest on the list if you happen to be an Independant voter who really wishes they could vote for a particular Democratic candidate in a back-assward state. But no matter who you are or where your beliefs fall in the political spectrum, if you truly want a democratic system, with the will of the people fully expressed, it is in your benefit to demand change. Not just for yourself, but for every single other person in this country.

It’s about power, not about God. Photo by MJ Mac. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

“My books are about killing God.”

One thing we are lacking in western culture is a good, modern mythology. As I have argued elsewhere, the only mythology we have to guide our thoughts these days are comic books, and while I am the very last person to denigrate their value, I feel that they are a poor substitute for the sweeping epics of our past. Comics are effectively a stop-gap measure, the best of which get us through but leave us without that sense of psychological fulfillment which comes at the end of a truly great myth. They’re road signs as we travel, when what we really need is, well, a compass.

In lieu of a comprehensive modern mythos, many people try to work with an older, pretested one. Tolkien addicts fall into this category, of course, but the vast majority choose an established religion and take their sustenance from that faith’s stories. Here in the United States three-fourths of our citizens are Christian (if H.R. 847, Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith is to be believed). The Bible is a wonderful mythology, full of intricate stories establishing whole systems of thought and providing a great deal of comfort and direction in its stories. Unfortunately, the Bible is not able to fully function as living mythology in current times, simply because it was written three thousand years ago. We interact with a completely different world than that of its authors, many of its recommendations are irrelevant or impractical in our modern lives. Which is not to say that it is completely invalid, not to say that the Christian God does not exist, but simply that the method of belief and adherence outlined in the Bible is no longer coherent with any reasonable means of application.

It is theoretically possible that the Bible could be reinvented to be practical as mythology again, in the hands of a creative and intuitive mythologist. From a purely psychological and anthropological perspective, one might suppose that this would be the role of the Pope, to renew the mythos for each succeeding generation. Unfortunately, however, this has not been encouraged by the Christian institution. The Bible is sacrosanct, not to be touched or changed. The doctrine is not to be questioned or doubted. The hierarchy of the church has set up comforting, solid walls of thought and behaviour, which substitute for personal discovery and guidance found in a living mythology. It is not God which is dead, it is the mythos, and it was the church that killed it.

“I’m trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief”

The danger to Christians in the movie version of The Golden Compass (and, I hear, even more so in the books on which it is based) is not that Pullman has created a mythology so powerful that it may replace Christianity’s hold on our lives and imaginations. Nor is it (as some claim) that the theme of the story will confuse kids about good and evil. The threat that the story presents is that it is compelling enough and subtle enough to get its message in past the conscious thought processes, back into the place where really good stories go in our minds to be referenced and revisited over time. It is an effective mythology, in that sense, but not one with a grand enough scope to supplant more extensive ones. The myth of this story aims to convey one, precise message, and the message is that institutionalized authority wants to cut you off from your soul. The Golden Compass does not seek to replace Christian notions of good and evil, it simply lays the groundwork for individuals to realize the need to make that call for themselves.

The most blatant moment in the movie is near the end, when the witch queen, Serafina Pekkala, tells the aviator-cowboy Lee Scoresby that a war is coming. Scoresby asks her what will be fought over, and the witch replies “Free will”. Throughout the course of the movie, we are reminded again and again of the central role of self-determination. Both lead female characters repeatedly mention that no one will tell them what to do, though Marisa Coulter gives a chilling little speech at one point about how some people need to be told what to do, for their own safety. The great and noble bear, Iorek, is rescued from a life of misery and servitude by the rediscovery of his stolen armor, which he describes as being like the daemon, or soul, of the human characters. The struggle in the movie is not against spirituality or even against God. It is against the institution that would cut you off from your own soul, and by doing so cut off your connection to something greater and more mysterious. The movie is about power, not God. It’s focus is on the inherent right of the individual to listen to their own conscience, rather than be overruled by an institution which claims to know better. And it conveys this message very effectively. Those who have found their calling in telling others what God wants them to do are right to be quaking in their pulpits.

“Argue with anything else, but don’t argue with your own nature.”

Though many people prefer the seeming safety of having others tell them the direction they are to take, the age of rapid mass communication has started to undermine the faith of many. Not in the myths and gods of their choosing, but in the directors and interpreters of those beliefs, who are all too often revealed to be incapable of living according to their own strictures. Whether we look at the institution of the church, or that of the government, the idea that these human bureaucracies could act in our best interest is becoming ever more transparently a farcical notion. It is upon this tipping point that The Golden Compass comes to rest, and with the full potential to effect the balance.

Time will tell how deep this message can run, how large its field of effect can be. This one story will not be the thing that sweeps up the entire world in a revolution of self-determination and self-knowledge. But it may be the first of many, it could be a significant chip in the structures that have kept us from exploring further the possibilities of what it is to be human. And for that, Mr. Pullman, I thank you.

Bumper stickers as the modern version of political activism… Photo by cesar bojorquez. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

First, some background

Here’s a round up of some of the relevant documents and actions of the last seven years or so, all in one place:

• The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) Act of 2001: Sweeping legislation, which simply hands over to the President the power to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. President Bush has used AUMF to justify everything from warrantless wiretapping to indefinite detainment and “special” interrogation techniques used on “enemy combatants”. And well he might. As written, it’s entirely up to him to decide what might be needed to pursue and take down the terrorists, whoever and wherever they are.
• The Patriot Act: One of the most controversial pieces of legislation to be passed in our time, debated back and forth all over the Internet, academic circles, and occasionally even by politicians. I went into a fairly extensive analysis of the worrisome aspects of this bill way back when, but for those who want the Cliff’s Notes version the problems with the damned thing are that it extended surveillance powers of the government in a way which was in direct conflict with civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, and it enabled the relabeling of a vast number of activities as potentially criminal and specifically “terrorist activities”, effectively pulling those so accused out of the normal legal system (and, apparently, outside the Geneva Conventions as well). While the principle matters a great deal, the practical application to anyone this one man deems a “terrorist” means that there are no assurances that those being surveilled and detained have actually done anything wrong. That should be of immediate concern to everyone.
• Warrantless Wiretapping: Justified by President Bush under the AUMF act and discussed in the previous link, as well as here and here. Where are we with that situation now? Well, in August, Congress went ahead and said they didn’t see a problem with President Bush’s policy, and in fact tried to make things a little more comfortable for him, though with the caveat that the provision would expire in six months. They’re now looking at new legislation which will address wiretapping more permanently. The bill proposed by President Bush’s administration would continue the broad powers of surveillance, while also granting immunity to all telecommunications companies which have previously handed over information on their clients to the government. If this legislation is passed, we will probably never know the breadth and depth of the warrantless surveillance which has been carried out, but that’s OK, since it’s all legal now, anyway.
• The Homeland Security Act of 2002: This bill created the Department of Homeland Security (which has since absorbed the Immigration and Natural Services agency, among many others), the Homeland Security Advisory system (adjustment of which has been questioned even by it’s former director), and contained the peculiar “Eli Lilly Rider” which sent suits against the vaccine manufacturer off into a “special court”.
• The Military Commissions Act of 2006: This bill confirmed that those declared “enemy combatants” under the powers granted by AUMF and The Patriot Act could be held indefinitely, allows “coerced” evidence to be submitted if and when they are tried, and establishes a “special court” (military commission) which operates under different rules than other criminal courts. Thus far, only about fifteen of the original 700+ have seen a trial.
• E.O.: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq: Executive orders are so fun. They don’t have the hassle of having to be approved by Congress, and they often just pass under the radar. What this one does is say that the United States can freeze the assets of any person which is determined (by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense) to be or possibly be doing anything or helping anyone who might be doing anything to undermine stability in Iraq. It also makes the point that folks being penalized under this E.O. shall not be notified before having their assets frozen.
• E.O.: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions: This one is a lot like the one above, except that this one specifically extends its powers to cover the family and associates of anyone already taken down by the order.
• E.O.: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma: Um, yeah. Just like above, but Burma this time.
• The National Counterterrorism Center: Established by E.O. 13354, the center is designed to amalgamate all terrorism-related data in one place and make recommendations to the administration on how to address it. Among other activities, the NCC has accumulated a list of over 300,000 names which it considers terrorists or potential terrorists, and provides this list to the Transportation Security Administration for “no-fly” lists and and other agencies.
• Free Speech Zones: The places you get to protest now. Such segregation of protesters has been used in the past, but never to the extent it has today, and the justifications given for its use are often ludicrous.
• Pending Stuff: Other items of note coming down the line include: The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (which, among other things requires the President to determine whether the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization); Halliburton presumably continuing to build massive detention centers for someone or other out in the midwest; H.R. 1995, currently still sitting in a Senate committee, which is at least capable of setting up McCarthy-esque hearings to ferret out “homegrown terrorists” in our midst; The National Applications Office, a program which enables the use of spy satellite information about American citizens to track us within our own borders, ostensibly still held up by Congressional concerns (though, as it was not instituted by Congress in the first place, there appears to be no guarantee of that).
• There may well be more, but this is at least what is lying on the surface.

So Why Are We Not All In Detention Centers?

Given all the legislation just listed, plus certain policies** put in place (and never revoked) by Presidents Kennedy through Reagan, one would think dissenters would already be rounded up and carted off to federal detention centers where “terrorists” could be properly dealt with. And yet I am still here, rambling on about what I disapprove of in this administration, and so are you. How can this be?

There are only two reasonable possibilities. Either: A) Our government has no interest in asserting increasing levels of power over its constituents, or B) Our government realizes that, for all the “legal” protections put in place, it cannot pull off a massive power grab in one fell swoop. The former would be unprecedented, historically, and also contradictory to the experiences of those who have been associated with recent administrations (which does not make it impossible). If it’s the latter, however…

How Will They Create A More Imperfect Union?

The single most common response I hear when I begin listing all the unconstitutional and threatening new policies implemented in the last six years is “Name one way in which this has affected you“. Yes, though these laws are hanging over our heads we are all still here to gripe about it if we so choose. What must be considered, however, is that with many of our government’s new powers you wouldn’t know if you were being affected because it is written into all new surveillance policies that they don’t have to tell you. Which is not a problem if you are doing nothing wrong, right? Perhaps, but it also sets in place a system wherein you may well never have any evidence that any of this directly affected you until there is nothing at all you can do about it. What is core to this issue is not whether it is going to happen, but rather the very fact that it legally could.

If this administration wanted to bypass the whole democracy thing and be able to herd the cats more effectively (even for “good” reasons like a looming economic crisis requiring drastic measures to avert, or because they had intelligence about a genuine internal terrorist threat), how would they do it? We are the strongest democracy in the world. This is what we are taught from the time we are children, right along with how we need to cheer at pep rallies just because it’s “our” school. We’re a democracry, all right, after a fashion, and we have done all right, more or less, over the years. But that does not make us invulnerable to corruption from within, as the Founding Fathers well knew when they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights and Article 2, Section 4 in the Constitution. It couldn’t happen here. Well, there’s no particular reason it couldn’t. These lines of thought are the greatest allies of any administration wishing to seize power in the United States. All that is required from here is to slowly assert more control in the name of freedom and democracy. At first, you have some rounding up of illegal (or possibly legal) immigrants to be interred in those Haliburton centers. Then you have the people helping them. Next, you can include some “cyber-terrorists” who have been seizing government information or inciting anti-American sentiments, folks who have donated to blacklisted Islamic charities, and “violent radicals” who keep calling the acts of this administration “unconstitutional“…if you work in small batches, giving seemingly legitimate reasons for the arrests and touting them as triumphs in the War on Terror, most folks will not put two and two together to tally up how many people are going down. As long as you keep the pace slow and steady, you can avoid the tripwires that set off the folks with rifles stashed in their closets.

Still, it’s an unassailable fact that there are more citizens than government employees, and they simply do not have the means to arrest everyone. To actually engage a complete lockdown on the freedoms we take for granted, a crisis is required. It would have to be a devestating one, given how many people have predicted it over the last few years. Something that would bypass all logic and cut right to our emotional centers. Plus which, it needs to efficiently demonstrate that anyone within our own borders could be a terrorist. Unfortunately, such a thing becomes more likely as the government asserts more control, due to a slowly building unease and agitation as more people find the government pushing past their limits of what is “reasonable”. If, eventually, an agitated group within our borders decides violent action is required in order to “wake up” the rest of America, the government would have the blessings of most citizens in instituting martial law. Imagine the worst, something like the targeting of a school or multiple schools. We would all gratefully submit to curfews, street patrols, and just about anything else to make it stop. From there, everyone is a suspect. From there, even massive sacrifices of our freedoms seem like small change in the effort to keep our children safe. Anyone dissenting will be seen as willing to simply hand over our children to the terrorists, and the terrorists will be everyone you see.

The Buck Stops Here

Clearly, the above scenario is a nightmarish “what if”, and it would require some significant events for us to get there. But even lesser, milder scenarios are unacceptable, and unfortunately we are seeing some of them happen right now. In the current climate of fear we are ignoring the rights of our citizens. Legal immigrants are dying in jail, and their cases are not being investigated. We are willing to be watched and recorded in case someone is doing something bad, and long ago dismissed with silly notions such as “innocent until proven guilty”. Our first priority should be getting the legislation which makes it possible reversed, but that is simply not going to happen if all we are willing to do as citizens is sit around and bitch.

This bill, for example, seeks to challenge the direction this administration has taken. While it does not address all of the items in the list above, it does tackle the Military Commissions Act and warrantless wiretapping, so it’s a damned good start. Take a moment and write to your House Representative and encourage them to support H.R. 3835. Write open letters to both your House and Senate representatives, telling them that you expect action immediately to roll back the legislation which has undermined the checks and balances of our government. Remind them that we the people instituted a massive turnover in the last election because we expected change, and that if we don’t see it, we can and will vote them right back out again. Protests do not seem to capture the attention of the government, anymore, but they are still worth attending for the purpose of attracting the attention of more citizens, who may not realize the legal position we are now in. We must keep getting the information out there until enough people are writing and calling and showing up that our representatives cannot ignore us.

And most importantly, we must not allow ourselves to be afraid. We cannot afford to look at our neighbors and fellow travelers and wonder if they are planning to kill us. We must not be afraid to speak our beliefs and our ideas our in public, on the internet, or in company where we are not sure of the response. We cannot despair and say to ourselves that there is nothing we can do. We must all do exactly what we believe would bring about positive change if everyone else did it too, in the hopes that they will. This is our country, and the government is made up of our employees, and if we do not step up and take responsibility for change, no one will.

**Please note: this site is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an unbiased site, and I find their analysis rather alarmist. However, it works as a short reference list to various Executive Orders, which can then easily be plugged into Google to search for the original documents. I looked for a non-biased site which listed the Executive Orders in question (those which handed organizational power in times of emergency over to FEMA), but was unable to find one. Please contact me if you know of a reasonable replacement.

Photo by kaerast. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

Starting with Sec. 899A

“Definitions”, we are struck by the following:

2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs.

OK, violence is not the answer, kids, and at least most of us know that and are not inclined to turn our frustration into Molotov cocktails. What is disturbing here, as with much of the more controversial legislation passed under our current administration, is the vagary employed in what is supposed to be a “definition”. Giving our representatives the benefit of the doubt, they may well have believed that limiting the scope of their proposed exploration to “planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence” was a very straightforward thing. Unfortunately, due to the public’s knowledge that even the Quakers are threatening to this administration, the “planned use” bit gets a little bit sketchy. What, precisely, counts as “planning”? If I sit around in a coffee shop, spouting my frustration and fury with the government, and then state that all the bastards need to be up against the wall…am I engaging in violent radicalization? What if I do it on open mic night? Yes, it’s paranoid, but it’s also a reasonable question to ask when confronted with a steadily growing set of laws in my country which discourage opposition and leave sizable gaps in what we once thought were our civil liberties.

Sec. 899B

“Findings”, has something a little more inarguable, however:

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

This is lumped in with a lot of generalities, such as (2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security. Out of the whole list of nine “Findings”, this appears to be the only specific direction, almost as if the House is saying “The Internet’s the real problem…all those scary ideas going all over the place with no controls whatsoever!”. Maybe they’re thinking China has the right idea, no matter how that is currently working out for China. Let’s be honest, here. There are a lot of crazy-ass ideas on the Internet. But is exposure to ideas really the problem? Or is it more of a problem that we have a society where people are so unhappy that the possibility of exposure to a radical idea is enough to make our lawmakers afraid that we will start randomly blowing up government buildings?

Also under findings, we have this:

6) Preventing the potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily accomplished solely through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and can benefit from the incorporation of State and local efforts.

Which leads to the unassailable conclusion that clearly some new and interesting efforts are being considered in order to quell the dangerous spread of ideas.

Sec. 899C

goes on to establish a commission to:

Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.

So, OK, they want to examine how we can have people in our own borders who want to hurt others in order to bring folks around to their point of view. Sure, you may as well. It’s not like they haven’t always been there, but I am all for getting down to the reasons why some people blow up schools while others just think about it. This section also states the need to bring together research from various locations in order to have it looked at as a whole. Again, that seems sensible. What is really freaky, though, is

Sec. 899C (i)

“Powers of the Commission”, which lists:

(A) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE- The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this section, hold hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the Commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.

Um…hearings? As in McCarthy-era hearings? Or are we just talking about the head of some psychology department at a prestigious university? Testimony, evidence, and oaths sort of makes it sound like the former. And whatever the House was thinking when they wrote it, there is a world of leeway left here. It’s pretty much “do what you need to do to get the information”, and that is simply not acceptable. Everything else in this section supports that general directive. The commission may hold public hearings, whenever they feel it is appropriate. The information garnered will be protected in accordance with law, or Executive Order. During this process, and at the end, the committee is to submit reports of their findings, a version of which will be submitted to the public.

In short, they can, under this bill, haul anyone up before the commission to be interrogated on whatever suits their fancy, and we will probably never know what it was.

So, should we be freaking out?

This bill by itself does not outlaw anything, and does not provide any agency with new punitive powers. It does, however, lay out the foundation stones for a heightened paranoia and potentially a 21st century version of the Salem Witch Trials. H.R. 1955 still has to get through the Senate, and even if it does get passed into law that does not mean that we will be asked to show up and report on our radical ideas…but the very fact that it creates the possibility is disturbing. It’s a little early to freak out, but it is definitely time to call your Senator, just so they know that we are watching them, too.

Why are we so scared of ideas? Even if a statement made to us directly contradicts our experience to the extent that we find it preposterous, that is not justification for flying off the handle. Quite the opposite in fact; everyone benefits more if we stay calm and offer up our contradicting information. In contemplating what ideas might be so repressed as to be nearly impossible to utter in public, I came up with the following…but before I list them I would like to make clear that just because I can say them does not necessarily mean I believe them. If you try to argue the validity of them with me in my column, I will laugh at you:

• Suicide is not a bad thing. If more people killed themselves, it would be a good way to get rid of a lot of people who are taking up space and resources the rest of us could really use. Even non-direct means of suicide (such as smoking or living in Los Angeles) should be publicly supported.
• Not all child molesters are bad people. Some of them are immediately sorry for what they have done and should not be punished harshly.
• Of course I don’t support the troops…why would I support people going off and killing people they have never even met?
• Israel is not any better than the Palestinians.
• Parents should have the option of killing disabled infants at birth
• I really enjoy anal sex, or I don’t see anything wrong with necrophilia, or I once slept with my brother, but we used protection. Actually, pretty much anything about sex, aside from “yeah, I like it.”
• Some people are just born smarter than others, and they will always be smarter than others.
• Terrorists are just fighting for their freedom the only way they know how.

So, did you squirm at all? I squirmed writing some of them. Could you hear the rejoinders starting up in your head, before you even finished reading the sentence? And that’s the thing, that’s where our taboos against ideas get us in trouble, because it is possible (however unlikely you may believe it to be) that someone out there has a perfectly valid reason for believing any of these things. It is possible that they are right. Of course, if we start shouting them down before they ever lay out their reasoning, we will never know. What’s even more frightening is to wonder what ideas are so unthinkable that we can’t even conceive of them. We have blocked them out so completely, we can’t even imagine what they are.

The examples above are taken from my experience as a resident of the United States. I am wondering what else there is, both here and in the rest of the world, where standards are sometimes quite different. So, as a collective experiment, I invite you all to try to come up with and post ideas that you know are “unspeakable”. And I ask everyone reading this column to not attack anyone for any idea they may post; it is understood that the posters do not necessarily believe the statements they are posting. I would love to see how far we can come in listing the ideas that we are not supposed to consider. If nothing else, sometimes letting ourselves look at frightening or repulsive things allows us to open our minds up to that which is beautiful, but previously hidden.

It came up when I searched for “high”. Photo by Coulsey. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

Let’s Talk About Pot

So…you can have a gun, because we trust you to handle that responsibly, but you can’t have a joint because…you might hurt yourself? I mean, think about it: you might be stupid with a gun and shoot yourself, but you might also be stupid with a gun and kill another human being. You might smoke too much marijuana, in which case I suppose you could fall asleep in the bathtub or forget to go to work, but that’s about the extent of it. If we are basing our drug laws on interactions between citizens, there is clearly no reason for marijuana to be illegal. If we are basing them on the possibility that someone might poke their eye out, guns are clearly a bigger risk.

We could get all into the theories about why marijuana was actually made illegal, about the racist motivations for its prohibition and the lumber industry and its lobbying efforts to keep hemp illegal for its own profits. But really, why bother? It doesn’t matter here and now. What matters is the idiotic justifications for keeping it illegal, and whether we are going to continue to stomach them.

Perhaps we should clear up a few things right now, just for the sake of not having to argue them later. The detrimental effects of marijuana listed by the White House web site include the following:

• problems with memory and learning
• distorted perception
• difficulty in thinking and problem solving
• loss of coordination
• increased heart rate
• anxiety
• the potential to promote cancer of the lungs

Basically, all the stuff on the government website is about how you might hurt yourself. A lot of it is debatable, such as the assertion that marijuana use impairs long term memory and learning (argued here), and the claims that smoking marijuana increases the risk of cancer (addressed here). But even if you believe the official government claims about the risks, the fact remains that smoking pot is not going to hurt anyone but the user, and we are on very dubious ground if we start appointing ourselves all our brothers’ keepers.

Tracking The Bogeymen

If we want to go that route, we have to start looking out for a whole raft of other things. We might begin with making sugar illegal. Sugar causes tooth decay, may increase the chances of becoming diabetic or developing cancer, and has been claimed to be an extremely addictive substance.

After that, we should probably go ahead and outlaw hydrogenated oils, alcohol, tobacco, aspartame, morphine and other potentially addictive substances (talking here about their current legal status for medical use. of course), and…oh, hell. Let’s just outlaw all non-organic, processed foods. And mandate that everyone must consume seven servings of fruits and vegetables a day. Anything less is a burden on the tax payers and the aesthetic sensibilities of the rest of the populace.

Next, we must outlaw television, video games, books, and anything else that may result in people sitting in one place for large parts of their day. Everyone knows we need exercise to stay physically healthy, and there are psychological benefits, as well. While we’re at it, let’s outlaw long, boring religious ceremonies. The Pentecostals are OK — their religious ceremonies involve much physical activity, with lots of jumping up and down and clapping of hands. The Catholics and Episcopalians, though (along with the Presbyterian church I got hauled to as a kid), have to go. No more sitting.

So then we need to outlaw cars, planes, and buses. Not only do they encourage a lack of physical exercise, but they also pollute the environment which makes them even worse than marijuana. They actually effect other people.

Now, one could argue, if one were feeling especially argumentative, that marijuana does in fact effect people other than the original user. Think about the children. If kids grow up seeing their parents or older siblings use marijuana, they might use it, too. Direct temptation by demonstration. So, to be fair, we are going to need to get rid of a bunch of other stuff that could lead to temptation to do dangerous things.

We must make illegal all fireworks, gambling accoutrements, flammable substances, electricity, knives, razors, fire…even if kids see adults using these in a responsible way, they may not understand the distinction and may therefore do something dangerous with them. We just can’t risk it.

We need to get rid of sexy lingerie, provocative clothing, all porn (including the pics you have taken with your wife), Victoria’s Secret catalogues, Abercrombie and Fitch advertising campaigns (and about 75% of all other advertising), condoms, lubricants (yes, including Crisco), sex toys, toe rings, high heels, anklets, and handcuffs (even the ones carried by cops…they will have to make do with rope duct tape velcro Super Glue). Just seeing this stuff may encourage kids to engage in risky sex acts which could lead directly to them contracting a sexually transmitted disease or otherwise hurting themselves. For safety’s sake, all women should wear burkhas, so as not to lead anyone into temptation with their loveliness. Men should probably wear them, too.

Don’t You Have Something Better To Do?

OK…we’re not near done yet, but take a moment to consider what we have created. In trying to save people from themselves, we have to either regulate everything or draw an arbitrary line in the sand dictating what kinds of potentially dangerous behaviour we may engage in, and what we may not. Usually the line has nothing whatsoever to do with how dangerous an item or substance may be, but rather with what percentage of the population loves it too much to give up.

In 2002, a Time/CNN poll found that 47% of Americans had smoked pot at some point. That’s about half of us, and you know that some of the respondents lied (paranoia being one possible side effect of being high…but you knew that, didn’t you?). That’s a pretty common thing to be illegal. Somehow, in spite of the rampant drug epidemic, we are still managing to get to our jobs, raise our kids, and buy stuff. The only real result of people smoking dope is that we are filling up our jails with people who never did a damned thing to hurt someone else.

The United States currently incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other nation in the world. By 2010, we are expected to be holding 3.4 percent of all adults in prison. And yet, violent crime rates have been dropping in recent years. So…why are so many people locked up? In 2005, drug arrests in the U.S. accounted for 1,846,351 of the total 14,094,186 arrests. That’s over 13 percent, the highest rate for any category of crime.

It’s time we stopped arresting people for no-victim crimes, and started allowing a little more of that freedom we are always going on about. If we are ever to stop looking like the backwoods cousins to the rest of the world, we would benefit from acting like we could think our way through a straight hallway. Stoners don’t hurt anybody…though the laws used to prosecute them and the cops arresting them sure as hell do. As Lao-tzu says in the Tao Te Ching:

The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be.

Let’s stop making criminals out of innocents, and start turning our attention to where the real problems lie.