Abortion and Politics

by Jackson Dave

At a luncheon meeting last week with our editorial staff, a charming lady of past acquaintance, a recent GOP dropout, expressed doubts over supporting the Democratic Party because of its pro-abortion position. In response to this sentiment, Robbinsense will step forward to tackle just another difficult cultural issue.

As we perceive it, the Democratic Party does not promote or even endorse abortion. The Democratic Party endorses “choice”. In contrast, the Republican Party, which wails over government intrusion into our lives, tells us that for this matter, government knows best (as long as they run the government) and should step into our lives by removing our right to determine our family.

GOP nostrums over “morality” are specious at best. Abortion is not a moral issue---it’s a spiritual issue. Slogans about “murdering babies” are just inflammatory rhetoric. A zealot’s passion does not bestow truth or legitimacy on any matter. “Murder” is “unlawful killing”; abortion is legal. A fetus is NOT a baby…one need look in a dictionary to confirm these definitions.

But defining terms, or "framing the issue" seems to be the field where Republicans have found mastery; and "death" stirs. We have "death tax" for estate tax, "death panel" for a frank discussion with ones doctor about end-of-life consideration, and "killing babies" for the voluntary termination of pregnancy. This works!

But beyond the rhetoric, does the party really oppose abortion? From 1990 through 2000, the number of legal, induced abortions in this country gradually declined. Considering that abortion only became legal in 1974, these are significant statistics, at least implying that the policies of the Clinton Administration, following 12 years of Republican rule, led to a decrease in the abortion rate. Statistics for subsequent years are difficult to assess considering the intensity of forces opposing abortion. Aside from political “noise”, there is a stream of legislation requiring parental notification among other things, direct intimidation at clinics, outright killing of doctors and the closure of clinics all over the country, making it ever more difficult to find these services.

For political perspective, over the years since American soldiers liberated the Northern Marianas, tens of thousands of people, primarily Chinese and mostly women, have been lured to the main island, Saipan, told they were coming to a job in America. All the flights arrived in the middle of the night. It's scary for the workers; they had no understanding of where they were going to end up. Most of them, in the late ‘90s, were paying huge recruitment fees.

They soon discovered they were essentially indentured servants, thousands of dollars in debt to the company men who had recruited them and often forced to sign secret "shadow contracts." They agreed they wouldn't date, they wouldn't go to churches. If they got pregnant, they'd have an abortion.

The factories, many owned by the Chinese Communist government, manufactured clothing for some of the biggest retailers in America - from the Gap to Jones New York - and legally labeled them "Made in the USA." But workers were paid a pittance. It was a very sweet deal made possible because Congress had exempted the territory from U.S. minimum wage and immigration laws. It was just understood that if a worker filed a complaint against her employer, she would be deported.

The owners had a tremendous amount of control over these workers. They lived behind barbed wire in squalid shacks; the Interior Department called them "labor camps." Forced to work twelve hours a day, often seven days a week, their pay was barely half the U.S. minimum wage. Many were paid with checks that could not be cashed. There was no opportunity to just "walk out", essentially no escape.

Republican Senator Frank Murkowski, then Chairman of the Committee with Oversight of U.S. Territories, traveled to Saipan with Allen Stayman to investigate. But when pressure began to mount to challenge conditions in the islands, the owners hired Jack Abramoff to correct their image. Abramoff set out to paint a different picture, promoting the Marianas to conservatives as a free-market Eden for maximizing profits. He began running all-expense paid tropical junkets for lawmakers, their staff, and conservative activists and journalists.

Abramoff's marquee guest was Tom DeLay. When DeLay, his wife, and daughter and Ed Buckham arrived in 1998, DeLay praised Abramoff as "one of my closest and dearest friends." DeLay later told a Texas newspaper that contrary to reports that workers were being sexually exploited, he had interviewed them one-on-one and found no such evidence. "It's a beautiful island with beautiful people who are happy," he said.

Their first night, Abramoff and DeLay were hosted at a party thrown by Willie Tan, a Chinese textile tycoon who had already paid the largest labor fine in U.S. history - $9 million for sweatshop conditions in his factories. Delay told Tan, “You represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America - and in leading the world in the free market system...” After attending a cockfight with him, he called the Marianas a "petri dish of capitalism" and denounced efforts to enforce U.S. laws.

Turning the Marianas into a conservative cause was crucial if Abramoff was to block the growing bipartisan consensus in Congress that U.S. minimum wage and immigration laws should be enforced in the islands. Were these “conservatives” worried about the forced abortions?

In the rare inside look at big time lobbying, Abramoff bragged he would work his Congressional connections "to impeach Allen Stayman" and "either defund or severely restrict" Stayman's activities at the Interior Department. According to Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, “Mr. Stayman has been subjected to a massive campaign of intimidation, much of which is being orchestrated by the paid lobbyists for the government of the Northern Marianas.”

Sen. Frank Murkowski's reform bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. But that's as far as it went. The bill died in the House. “We passed it again, and still nothing was done.”

Nothing was done because Jack Abramoff - and the Marianas' garment industry - had Tom DeLay in their pockets. When Willie Tan met with a human rights activist posing as a clothing buyer from New York, a hidden camera recorded their conversation. Tan was confident he had nothing to worry about.

Tan: “…because Tom DeLay will never let it go.

You're sure?

Tan: Sure. You know what Tom told me? He said, "Willie, if they elect me the majority whip, I'll make the schedule of the Congress. And I'm not going to put it on the schedule." So Tom told me, "Forget it, Willie. No chance."

Willie Tan would contribute $650,000 to DeLay's "favorite non-profit," the U.S. Family Network, with its stated mission of restoring America's “moral fitness”. Furthermore, the Abramoff team persuaded the Bush White House in 2001 to intervene and fire Allen Stayman, who had advocated reforms in the Northern Mariana Islands that Mr. Abramoff opposed.

"We pulled the plug on him," announced one White House email. They got rid of Allen Stayman, and those workers in the Marianas remained at the mercy of Willie Tan and his ilk. No high-level Republicans raised the issue of forced abortions imposed on these exploited women.

There are those who would argue that DeLay, among the many high Republican mucky-mucks who traveled to this island, was ignorant of the conditions of the indentured women, who were being sexually exploited by their “jailers”. But really, who in that position of power could be so naïve as to not suspect that this situation was enforced? And with anti-abortion as the lynchpin of the Republican Party agenda, why was this not pursued?

The real Republican hierarchy has no more inclination than Tom DeLay to oppose abortion. The GOP uses anti-abortion as a “wedge issue” to motivate passionate foot soldiers to their cause. Anybody who believes that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich or Ralph Reed, for that matter, cares about abortion probably also believes in fairies---or that Sarah Palin sits at home at night, stewing over unwed, teenage mothers. While preaching “pro-life” and churning up as much anger and demagoguery as possible, they know that overturning Roe-vs-Wade would destroy the Party.

For those who would impose “morality” into the issue (their morality, always), consider that Christians don’t bother to claim that abortion violates the teachings of Jesus. Somehow they seem to “just know that it’s wrong.” From a moral consideration how could any person or group impose forced carriage to term of a baby born to a poor, teen-aged mother from the ghetto, likely to bear a “crack baby”, requiring enormous, perhaps life-long public services? The only “moral” position a non-hypocrite who denied abortion to this woman would take is to assume personal, perhaps lifetime financial responsibility for the child. Instead, these crusaders deny poor women birth control and family planning options (“just say no”), then insist that public services in the form of long-term welfare be denied to these needy people. Good Christians? That’s a bad joke.

Hence, to our concerned friend, we say that actually both parties appear to be concerned over reducing unwanted pregnancies. The Democrats’ plan focuses on women’s issues: equal rights, health services, education, birth control and family planning. The Republicans use deprivation of services, along with sanctimony, intimidation and fear…oh yes, “Just say ‘No’”.

Ironically, GOP focus on the religious aspect of the issue harkens back to the earlier roots of Christianity when people were motivated by guilt and fear, fear of God and fear of judgment. Now we are to fear bands of aroused Republicans.

Jackson Dave is a staff writer for Robbinsense

Healthcare Revisited

by Jackson Dave

Approximately 44 million people in this country have no health insurance while another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

Significantly, this group is under the age of 65. Seniors, who have Medicare, are the largest group opposing reform, and the largest group that opposed the election of President Obama. These people aren’t “philosophically” opposed (if they have their wits about them) to “socialized medicine”---rather, they are afraid that the extension of their benefits to other groups will result in dilution of their own benefits.

So what’s the fuss? Wendell Potter, former head of corporate communications for SIGNA, the largest healthcare insurer, left the industry after a chance exposure to our actual health care mess, to advocate on behalf of people’s health. He says:

… "we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. …there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie”…(Michael Moore’s Sicko).

…also “opponents of reform say we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. Yet it's likely that your employer and your insurer will switch you from a plan that you like to one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined.

… “we have a memo written by Frank Luntz, the Republican strategist who wrote the script for opponents of healthcare reform. "First, you have to pretend to support it. Then use phrases like, "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine"".”


While opponents of reform “cherry-pick” the disgruntled from those systems to spotlight their case, the Holy Grail of healthcare is “the public option”, which now exists in Britain, Canada and Japan, available free to all. Republicans oppose this concept because it threatens the vested interests generating enormous profits under our system, which produces the worst healthcare statistics of the leading 29 industrialized nations, at twice the cost! Like seniors, the relatively small number of Americans who have excellent health insurance and benefits fear the prospect of being lumped into the larger pool, with perhaps degraded services. Generally they don’t really care about the health of the less fortunate who would benefit greatly from the public option.

To counter the force of this extremely attractive prospect the GOP has launched a massive propaganda campaign, spending $1.5 million per day, to frighten us into believing that this is “socialism”, that our health care benefits will suffer, that we will be driven to bankruptcy (as if we’re not already there), and that our civilization will collapse. The program of spin, distortion and lies---slinging out a stream of canards, watching to see what gains traction, and scaring the hell out of us, is standard GOP procedure for all political objectives. This machinery was used in the election last year, and has been perpetuated to sabotage the president’s legislative agenda, regardless of merit, and to dismantle any prospect for healthcare reform.


So what’s really happening? In 1993, when President Clinton attempted to push through healthcare reform, the industry made $2.5 Billion profit on health insurance and devoted approximately 95% of revenue to payment of healthcare expenses. In 2007, devoting only 80% to payout, the industry generated $12.5 Billion profit.

The reason for this trend is clear. Health insurance is in the hands of private enterprise, that much-hallowed, sacred cow. The boards of directors of the major insurance carriers have no responsibility to their customers except that which is enforced by the courts or government. An un-happy customer is not in the market for more insurance---he’s sick and trying to cash in on his policy. This is a client they want to dump. There's no incentive to pay for this customer’s health needs.

The boards of directors’ fiduciary obligation is to their stock holders. Stock holders don’t care a whit about sick people. Insurance companies are in business to make profit! Their stock prices jump or fall with each report of falling or rising medical payout ratio.

The primary social contract that lies between government of a democratic republic and its citizens is the government’s obligation to protect its citizens from external threats and from the rapacious drives of commercial enterprise. In what area is that obligation greater than basic health care? This is not just about how people feel; it’s about their financial stability and the viability of their family. Sick people who cannot afford care end up losing jobs, homes, families---all ultimately requiring public assistance. Healthcare should be a basic, public utility---not an industry manipulated by big-business mucky-mucks interested only in making money.


So why can’t we manage to arrive at sensible legislation? The short answer is political smoke. The Republican Party is masterful at motivating their constituency to make noise, and lots of it. There are many factors contributing to the success of their tactics, but perhaps the most salient is that this group makes life very uncomfortable for those who oppose it. Sarah Palin can accuse the President of advocating “death panels” for the elderly, and her devotees take to the streets. They’re easily motivated by anger over any number of things---probably angry because they think she should be president and they hate Democrats, or they hate black people---it doesn’t matter. Angry people can be motivated to action to oppose any agent that they can be manipulated to believe is victimizing them.

Right-wing mobilization surfaced during the Reagan years, as modern “conservatism”. Activism surfaced in opposition to President Clinton, but became demoralized and dormant under George W. Bush. Now with a “liberal” president and Democratic control of Congress, it has resurfaced with a ferocity unfamiliar since McCarthyism of the 50's. Calling these people "conservatives" is a stretch; they are radicals in every sense.

In the face of lies and smear campaigns, the left fights an up-hill battle to present its actual policy. The (“liberal”) media is complicit with the right by presenting their lies as “news”. Gone is Walter Cronkite, a real journalist, who would look into what’s happening and tell us that all of this chatter is a pack of lies! Rather, the press, with its milquetoast “reporters” report---over and over---what’s being said (not what’s really going on), giving veracity to the lies. This rabble, along with hysterical claims is grist for 24-hour cable news, which hungers for sensational anything. The more noise and the bigger the controversy, the greater the coverage. This creates a situation in which not only is the truth subordinated to lies, but one in which shameless lies are actually privileged over reasoned debate. The American public is aware enough of this bullshit factor that Jon Stewart (of Comedy Central) has replaced Uncle Walter as the most trusted source of news in the country.

The same lack of real journalism, by the way, is what led us to permit our government to wage war in Iraq and led us to the economic cliff. The sad truth is that most of our reporters are not prepared to distinguish government lies from truth. Actual journalism requires footwork, research, time and support from editors.

Now we see wackos carrying assault rifles to healthcare rallies. These right-wing proponents of “individual rights” appear for the express purpose of denying others the right of free expression that they demand for themselves. While they openly advocate murder of major political figures (including the president!), what intelligent normal citizen will stand up to them?

We Americans are so naïve, so politically unsophisticated that only a small number see the Republican strategy for what it is; and once again, these tactics have gained enough traction to throw the campaign for healthcare reform into disarray and possibly failure.

But while the forces of opposition are mobilized and unrelenting, there is some hope that reason will prevail. There are differences between what occurred in 1994 and today. Though the Obama base is contracting, today it is more diverse and more deep seated. The healthcare fight has brought doctors and even some drug manufacturers to support reform. Democrats with wavering support today see that success of the right-wing attack will embolden endless confrontational gridlock. They may be driven to the realization that the only politically feasible response is a counter-offensive.

Aside from their belligerent opposition, and in spite of claims to support Medicare, Republicans are actually (and quietly) proposing its dismantlement. They want to phase out Medicare for all who are now below the age of 55. Instead, those citizens would be offered a yearly allowance to “shop” for private insurers, essentially throwing seniors into the same dysfunctional pool with the rest of us. This would, of course, generate ever-greater profits for the insurance industry. A review of this agenda will bring most observers to discount their movement.



In 1934, William A. Wirt, a “Rush Limbaugh” of the age, accused the Roosevelt administration of a plot to launch a Bolshevik takeover in the United States. Wirt’s assertion was transparently absurd, but right-leaning institutions, including the New York Times and Los Angeles Times (with Harry Chandler at the helm) were quick to jump on board and air his claims freely. Those who were opposed to the New Deal were offered a concrete foundation for fear and alarm. Unlike President Obama, Roosevelt met these challenges head-on. Wirt was hauled before Congress to testify. His story was revealed to be fabrication and he became a laughing stock (as well as those institutions that advanced his claims). The Republican Party scrambled to disavow their previous endorsement.

The rebellion of baby boomers in the 60’s and 70’s from the twin shocks of the Vietnam War and Watergate signaled the beginning of our “modern (intellectual) age”. We would no longer be “hoodwinked” by slick politicians. The "information" age of television and the internet has brought sophistication to our children that most boomers will never know.

Yet even now stories of “foreign birth” and “death panels”, pronouncements from supposed “experts” dispensing silly nonsense about matters over which they know little, fill the airways. Town hall meetings are broken up by supposed “grass-roots” groups that are organized by prominent Republicans and get deferential treatment from the press. Claims that the president intends to establish a “socialist state” embolden red-necks to carry assault rifles into public meetings, advocating assassination of public figures.

We may look back condescendingly at Wirt, yet if he came on the scene today he would eagerly be given public forum of talk shows and major political rallies by those who oppose the president’s agenda. An educated man (Wirt was superintendant of schools in Gary, Indiana), he would be lionized even beyond “Joe the Plumber” as a purveyor of truth. Are we really no more sophisticated than those of three generations ago who would latch onto the elixir of any snake-oil salesman who preys on our naiveté by saying what we want to hear? It appears that we’re not.

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer

Belief, the Choice

United States Tennis Center, N.Y.
September 6, 1993

(Mary) Carillo: Michael, Let’s get you first. Tremendous match! At 5-all in the fifth, it looked like you had this match, and the tournament wrapped up. What happened?

Chang: You know, Mary, I thought I had it…but well, I kind of collapsed. Actually, my Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ, let me down.

Carillo (in unfamiliar territory, the muscles in her face form into a gaze of utter stupefaction): …a muffled “huh?”

Chang: Jesus is always there for me, Mar; he completely left me today.

Carillo: Mike, are you ok?

Chang: God’s a big tennis fan, you know?

Carillo: Well I am a Catholic ….

Chang: Aaw, you Catholics don’t KNOW God!.....Seven consecutive matches Agassi has whipped me!...and he’s a fucking Arab, not even a Christian! I’m through----

Carillo: dumbfounded-----


You may have missed this interview; actually, so did we. He lost the match; but the interview took another course. Chang, ever the gracious loser, was always on script after a victory: “First, I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus, Christ---without his help I could never have accomplished this.” You’ve heard many athletes credit victory to God, but never blame God for a loss. Do they actually believe this? Largely, Yes! How can that be?


In April we began a series on religion and God. The April article explored “Intelligent Design” (Creation Science) and what is the nature of man?

In July we explored God: what is the nature of God, and why do we believe in it? This month, as promised, we look at the individual. What is it in an individual that leads him to religion? Why do two people with similar backgrounds, similar education, similar intelligence and similar social status come to different conclusions on religion? Why would those same two people disagree on political perspective?

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching while standing on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary." St. Augustine said that scripture teaches nothing but charity. All else is ambiguous.

Given the simplicity of our religious tradition, how does the Republican Party, the party of guns, war, capital punishment and torture become the party of our good, God-fearing Christians?

This comes down to ambiguity. The religious mind does not deal in ambiguity. If it’s good, credit God; if it’s bad, God’s taken the day off. To deal with the ambiguity that God’s hand is at work in failure is a breach of faith. There’s no conscious evasion of reality here. Some people’s brains work this way.

Essentially, they see the world in black and white---good/evil, right/wrong. And it goes far beyond religion. The good Republican ascribes all good works in the public sphere to the Republican Party. Anything that goes wrong is the fault of Democrats. Somehow their man, be it Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Palin---even Nixon, is beyond scrutiny. And don’t bother discussing it! Most of those who couldn’t stand behind these men, in case you haven’t noticed, have left the party.

Researchers have shown that even in humdrum, nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently. Their brains work differently. Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work. Read the linked article for specifics of the study.

Conservatives (generally “right-wingers”) crave solid answers, while the left-winger accepts uncertainty. Your Robbinsense editor, for example, relishes ambiguity, and frequently drives right-wingers up a wall with simple expressions of doubt. How often do you hear people ask, “Are you sure?” How, I beg you, can we be sure of anything, when we find countless examples of “certainty” collapsing into falsehood. But the right-winger readily jumps into commitment.

In the religious sphere, man’s craving for explanation leads to the acceptance of “spiritual” answers to the every-day mysteries of life…religion. Witness the paroxisms that the Episcopal Church is going through as it attempts to accommodate the diversity (and ambiguity) of modern society. The rigid, “Christian” wing of that church is threatening to branch off. Notice that “good, church-goers” tend to be conservatives---Republicans. The Republican Party caters to this mind-set by manipulating their base with social "wedge issues". They seem happily oblivious to the disconnect between their religious heritage and the political positions of the party.

The “right-wing brain” compartmentalizes issues, which yields simple solutions to difficult questions, such as creation. These people live in an “ideal” world that conforms to their perception. They welcome and cling to voices that re-enforce their beliefs; the shrill voice of a Rush Limbaugh is welcome, as he reflects the distress involved in challenging doctrine. Diversionary tactics, such as the use of euphemisms are effective tools for validation. If their man calls it “enhanced interrogation”, that's good enough. He's not a criminal, a recognized felon, practicing torture. End of discussion.

Beyond this, scientists have now shown that their brains are actually built differently.

“Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear,” said the study on Thursday in Current Biology. "We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala," the study said.

The study was based on 90 "healthy young adults" who reported their political views on a scale of one to five from very liberal to very conservative, then agreed to have their brains scanned. People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.

This leads to a significant dichotomy in human nature: Some people, when they’re wrong about something, want to know it---really want to know it. They are willing to put their ego on the line and expose themselves as “wrong”. In order to take such a stance, one must first accept the notion that they may be incorrect. This is acceptance of ambiguity. Others (perhaps most) who do not entertain the notion that they may be incorrect (about anything), do not want to discover that they’re wrong. They certainly don’t want you to revealed it! A chink in the armor of their perception leads straight to identity crisis. One way or other, these people will excuse themselves from a conversation moving in that direction. Mingling of these two groups has the potential to produce sparks when the conversation strays from health, sports and the weather.

Those on the left, or even center, are mystified by the unconditional allegiance that their right-wing friends afford their “favorite sons”. The “left-wing brain”, which recognizes that beliefs are opinions, not fact, holds his favored politicos up to scrutiny, realizing that they may fall from grace. Witness Rachael Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the left lead their sessions with items of contention that they find with President Obama, while conservative media, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, never stray from support of Republicans---never express doubt or recognize hypocrisy. Their audience doesn’t tolerate it, because they have no desire to question their own logic, to examine their own beliefs. They live in an unambiguous world where their beliefs stand up to all scrutiny.

This produces the political divide that we currently face in this country, where the two sides are polarized. The base of “mindless Republicans”, is actually well-considered; it’s just that their minds are made up. To them, Democrats seem wishy-washy, un-focused, unpredictable and un-trustworthy.

Where do you fit? You probably have friends that you can place into both groups.

What Ails our Healthcare Industry?

Amid the current national discussion over health care and healthcare reform, Robbinsense will endeavor to unravel some of the actual issues in play.

The two primary issues at stake are 1) the health of our population, and 2) the cost of providing healthcare. The primary obstacle to real “health care” is a system conducted within the realm of “private enterprise”….that is, it’s driven by profit motive. There’s very little profit in health. Profit comes from illness. Hence, to maximize profit the system ultimately must be designed to promote illness. Unfortunately, our political system is perfectly aligned with that objective, as we will see.

Pundits and talking heads on the right tirelessly decry the “socialization of medicine” and use the catch-phrase: “Do you want a government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor?” to rally their passionate troops. Their unspoken answer is: “No, we want an insurance company bureaucrat to do this instead.” Let's take a look, and you decide which you would prefer:

Our healthcare system is a dance between the healthcare industry and the insurance industry. The HCI, which includes the pharmaceutical industry, is profit driven; it makes money off of illness, not wellness. The insurance industry maximizes profit by excluding ill people from its roles, regardless of whether they have been paying premiums. Only government stands between that industry and this objective. Hence, ultimately, we find the government bureaucrat---plus an attorney---standing between us and our doctor whenever the insurance bureaucrat is also there. If we want to cut bureaucracy, the logical figure to cut is the insurance guy. But try to tell that to a right-winger.

The greatest obstacle to real health care is our political system. Republicans are predictable as mosquitoes in the spring: they back industrial interests. They have masters’ degrees in smoke, lies and distortion, PhD’s in the use of fear and semantics---at convincing the middle class that they have their interests at heart. They use catch-terms (“socialization”---I don’t know why this is bad, but they make it sound bad) and compelling advertising: Harry and Louise.

Democrats, as usual, are confused and disorganized because they know they are “supposed to” represent our interests, but actually they are in the pockets of industry also. The healthcare industry, the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry are all enormous contributors to our political system. These three industries want no change because they’re making huge profits. And they don’t care about our health.

Only two countries in the world allow “direct-to-consumer advertising” of pharmaceuticals. The drug companies claim high prices are necessary to fund research; yet, they spend twice as much on disgusting ads that foul our TV screens as they do on research. The “sick” part of it is that doctors are “on the take” in prescribing these drugs, while they know that the placebo effect has the best chance to cure their patient regardless of what they do. So while the drug companies bamboozle us with their ads, we request the advertised drugs, doctors comply with prescriptions, the patient is “cured” by placebo effect, and everybody’s happy. But this leads to skyrocketing healthcare costs, and it results in people taking more and more drugs, which ultimately makes them sicker, not well! This re-stokes the cycle.

So what about solutions? The first real answer is for doctors to stop prescribing pills and start making their customers responsible for their health. A typical, ill American is suffering from a bad life-style---poor diet and lack of exercise. If his doctor prescribes life-style alteration, the patient will go to another doctor. A typical doctor dealing with a middle-aged, over-weight, perhaps pre-diabetic patient with high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis will prescribe a drug regimen that is essentially a pharmaceutical cocktail. This targets the patient’s symptoms, but will not cure him. The drugs lead to lethargy, perhaps depression, muscle depletion, and a host of additional problems.

This, my friends, is where good government steps in. But our system is not only designed to keep us sick, it’s designed to make us sick. A typical middle-class or lower-class family consumes multiple meals per week at fast-food restaurants. Why? Because the kids want this food, and because it may be the only thing the parents can afford. The prices at these eateries are so low that people cannot prepare decent meals for their family at comparable cost. But the low check-out price conceals the actual cost. The food, as Morgan Spurlock showed us in his 2004 movie, Super Size Me, has little or no nutritional value. In fact, it makes people sick. The “social” cost of this diet is ill health. A staggering percentage of our population is overweight and headed toward diabetes, if not already there. The expense of that will continue to spiral upwards.

The low prices of the fast food industry are by government prerogative. Our government subsidizes beef; it subsidizes potatoes, and significantly, it subsidizes corn. Most of what we buy at a fast food restaurant comes from corn, including the beef, soda, even the packaging! Ranchers feed corn to their cattle because it makes the herd sick!! (This is sick!) Cattle are grass-feeders. They can’t digest corn, hence it makes them ill. Their body chemistry changes; they eat more, exercise less (if that’s possible), put on fat, increase weight. The farmer fattens up his herd; making the cow sick makes it worth more at market. He uses antibiotics to contain the illness, introducing these dangerous chemicals to the food-chain. Ultimately we consume the antibiotics by eating the meat, leading to more serious illness from drug-resistant bacteria. A single beef patty at McDonald’s will contain meat from a thousand animals! If any one of those cows has a serious pathogen, guess what! This is all carried out under government aegis. The government is getting paid off through contributions from the ranchers, farmers and fast food industry--- as well as the insurance, healthcare industry and drug manufacturers.

Again, the answer is not “less government”, but good government. First, government should stop subsidizing the cycle that has such profound ill-effects for our health and budget. Next it should reverse the process by taxing these products and subsidizing the foodstuffs that promote health. The cost of delivering quality food to our markets is somewhat fixed, while the cost of manufacturing junk, that’s “fun to eat”, is extremely small. Even with low prices, these manufacturers make huge profits. But these profits are essentially extracted from the public weal in the social cost of poor health. Considering this social cost, responsible government should do whatever it takes to make nutritional food less expensive than junk food, and that includes candy, chips, soda and Twinkies in the supermarket as well as fast food restaurants. That would promote better health and save billions. The drive to accomplish this in the face of huge political forces can only come from us, through pressure on our representatives and/or through direct pressure on market forces.

Today a “healthy”, 60 year-old “independent contractor” pays upward of $1000 per month for health insurance, with $1000 deductible. If he actually gets sick, the insurer will do all it can to deny coverage, frequently leading to the additional expense and stress of legal redress. If the person tries to “shop for coverage”, changing carriers will open the door to intense scrutiny of medical records to uncover “pre-existing conditions” that will further deny coverage. This system is obscene. We need to get the right wing to stand down, and stand up---for us!

The plans now being advanced take a piece-meal approach to solving our problems. The government is advocating a “modified” plan for health insurance, where it will offer insurance to compete with the private system already in place. This would be a system comparable to Medicare, but available to those not covered by that system. Presumably, the government plan will put downward pressure on insurance costs and people will be drawn to it.

As usual, this approach picks away at the symptoms without addressing the real problem. We need a single-payer system like in Britain or Japan, and to focus on the real healthcare problems that we’ve spoken about here. Healthcare should be a public utility instead of “for profit” enterprise. But even aside from the Republicans, enormous political forces are amassed to resist these changes, and at best we will move slowly with a piecemeal compromise. If the government plan is well-received, we may be able to move toward real reform.

Good luck. Try to get involved.

The Politics of Drugs: International Aspects

by Jackson Dave

The fleeing killers, identified by authorities as members of the Mexican gang known as the Zetas, left behind a cargo truck packed with 700 pounds of cocaine. More stunning was the cache found in a brick warehouse: 11 M-60 machine guns, eight Claymore mines, a Chinese-made antitank rocket, more than 500 grenades, commando uniforms, bulletproof vests and thousands of rounds of ammunition."They were preparing for war," said the adjunct director of the National Civilian Police, Rember Larios.

Mexico’s drug wars are pushing gangs into Guatemala, where law enforcement is weak and corruption is even more hospitable. More than 6000 people were killed in Guatemala alone in 2008, most of whom were linked to the drug trade. Guatemalan police forces openly admit their 20,000 man force cannot stand up to the gangs, armed with 40 mm. grenades and .50 caliber, armor-piercing rifles. Ultimately, the success of Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s war on the drug cartels only moves them on to weaker neighbors. Many analysts say drug gangs, unchecked, could turn Guatemala into a full-fledged narco-state.

Despite efforts to clean up police forces, the criminal-justice system in Guatemala is rife with corruption and deeply mistrusted. Banking oversight is lax; and persistent poverty means a ready supply of potential helpers for the cash-rich drug gangs. While they wait for assistance, Guatemalan officials brace for more violence from Mexican traffickers.

Tension is obvious at the Guatemala City prison where Perez and the other suspected Zeta gunmen are held. Helmeted soldiers and Special Forces police in black berets guard the crumbling road leading to the main gate. Troops hide in the bushes on the steep hillside above it. Armored military vehicles, with .50-caliber machine guns front and back, make constant passes. A mobile anti-aircraft gun is stationed outside the entrance in the event of Mexican gangsters arriving by air.


And just what is this all about? These people are supplying our demand for drugs! We drive this madness, mayhem, killing. We are responsible for this!

And in Mexico itself? 10,000 people have been killed in the effort to rein in the drug cartels. In May twenty-seven elected officials were arrested in the state of Michoacan, under investigation for ties to trafficking. A drug cartel known as La Familia, controls virtually all politics. La Familia has undermined the electoral system and day-to-day governance, pushing an agenda that goes beyond the usual money-only interests of drug cartels.

Cartels, whether by intimidation, purchase or order, can dictate who the candidates are, as well as political agenda. Dozens of local and state-wide politicians have been abducted or tortured and killed in the last couple of years. No political party has been spared the determination and wrath of this organization.

In the meantime, this cartel is extending its roots beyond Michoacan to neighboring Mexican states. Beyond its reach in Mexico, La Familia has set up drug-running operations in U.S. cities, including Los Angeles. Many fear that Mexico could be sliding into widespread civil strife with incalculable consequences for the U.S., particularly the Southwest. It's an old story in other parts of Latin America, and for that reason, three of the region's former heads of state -- including onetime Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo -- recently issued a report urging the U.S. to consider legalizing at least marijuana.

In response to political pressure from gun activists, the U. S. cannot even muster the political courage to stem the annual flow of 60,000 guns to Mexico, including assault rifles, semiautomatic pistols and .50-caliber rifles, illegal in Mexico, which go to drug traffickers from an estimated 6,000 American gun dealers in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. We legalize AK47s, but outlaw pot! Is this madness? We cry over Mexican people crossing into our country---people whom eager employers are ready to hire, while in return for the drugs that we demand, we send back weapons and $23 Billion per year, fueling corruption, mayhem, civil war.

The principle agencies that should be dealing with this flow of weapons are the ATF and “Homeland Security’s” Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. But auditors have said those agencies had not effectively coordinated their efforts, in part because they "lack clear roles and responsibilities and had been operating under an outdated inter-agency agreement". Politics! Rubbish. This shows the level of concern by our government and by us toward this tragedy. It also reflects the level of influence that the National Rifle Association has over our government.

For a country as proud of its cultural autonomy as Mexico has been, one of the bitter ironies is the way in which the pseudo-romantic culture of drug trafficking has captured so much of the nation's popular imagination. In the cities of Mexico's northern and western states, traffickers and wannabe narcos mimic the dress and tattoos of Los Angeles' street gangs. One of Mexico's most ubiquitous popular music genres is the narco-corrido, ballads built on traditional norteño dance music but with lyrics that romanticize the drug trade.


This story---this scenario could well have been presented from the perspective of a number of countries in South America. It may have been presented from the opium-dominated economy of Afghanistan, or any country in the “Golden Triangle” of Southeast Asia. All over the world we see violence, strife and civil war, destroyed economies and mayhem in the countries that fill our demand for drugs. We demand their drugs; then our government tells them (and us) that they are responsible for our drug problems. We pressure them to wage war on their own people to stop supplying our demand. At the same time we send in arms and billions of $ to fuel the armies that we're supposedly trying to stop. You and I are completely deluded if we think this problem can be solved at the source. It can only be solved here! Our government is not going to change its policy (in the absence of bold and enlightened leadership) because politically it's too risky.

And as always, our government’s hypocrisy is epic. The substance causing the most wide-spread health problems in the world, by far, is tobacco. But this is our largest agricultural export. In the 1980s China began a government-sponsored program (similar to our government-mandated program) to discourage smoking. They began by restricting the tobacco companies’ advertising. The Reagan state department brought enough diplomatic pressure to coerce them to drop the campaign. Welcome, again, to “American Exceptionalism”. It’s perfectly OK for us to export dangerous narcotics, but we give our government permission to destroy other countries to stop them from exporting drugs in return. You and I stand back, or we claim apathetic ignorance.

But what goes around comes around. According to a Justice Department report, Mexican drug-trafficking organizations have established a presence in 230 U. S. cities, from Anchorage to Phoenix to Sheboyga, Wis. Killings are beginning to escalate. In the last 14 months we’ve seen more than 500 drug-related kidnappings in Phoenix alone. Roving Mexican gangsters called bajadores (take-down crews) are responsible for most of these crimes. They are notorious for cruelty, often smashing fingers and pistol-whipping victims, sometimes to death, to send the message to others. It’s common now that the victims are as deeply involved in the trade as the bajadores; but it’s only a small step before bank presidents begin to need body guards.


This mess can be cleaned up in one swoop: legalize drugs. Drugs are plentiful and cheap. If we import drugs as we import televisions or peaches, the supply routes go above ground, prices and profits tumble, drug gangs and cartels crumble. Or do we continue to wallow in “American Exceptionalism”, believing that our domestic policies trump the welfare of the rest of the world?

You might say that "your son's grip on sanity is so fragile that the small act of legalizing drugs might increase the chances by 21% of him going over the top". This may be true. But whose fault is that? Is it the fault of Mexico or Guatemala? Or is it the fault of our own culture's sickness? How many lives, other mothers' sons in far-away lands, do we have the moral authority to destroy with our raging demand for drugs and insane policies?

End the madness. Please write to your representatives.

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer

GOD: abridged

In April we began a discussion on religion. Going on,

God has been with man since he was able to conceive the concept. Early man used God to explain a bewildering world. The development of science opened the door for man to accept the notion that there may be no god. This has led to the controversy over whether God invented man or man invented God.

Opinions over the nature of God are extremely varied, but people tend to congregate around certain bodies of belief, forming “religion”. There’s great contagion in “group-think” and many have used it through history to control large groups of people.

Ironically, though we focus on inter-faith conflict, the prominence and violence associated with intra-faith conflict is greater. Generally, a religion must have cohesion within itself before it can gain the momentum necessary to wage war on other faiths. In the case of Christianity, the 325 (CE) conference at Nicaea is credited with resolving the abstract notion that Jesus was a god, while the bible of the time dictated worship of only one god. This conference was also successful at abating much of the bloodshed between Christian sects over such matters.

Early religions were polytheistic in nature. Judaism became the first (of the major religions) to accept the concept of one universal God. Christianity, then Islam followed in the mono-theistic tradition. We consider, perhaps naively, that the polytheistic religions are “primitive”.

Many are repulsed by the notion that humans evolved from apes. The noble creature, man, could only have been created in a stroke by the hand of God. The Christian contention that “man is created in God’s own image” is a display of considerable arrogance. The idea that God wishes to be "worshiped", or even acknowledged (we call this "faith"), ascribes human frailty to the nature of God. The notion that man might “know” God, or understand his (its) “thoughts” is fantastic.

One salient reason for this is language. The study of primitive cultures or any culture that is very different from our own is hindered by a language gap. People’s thinking is a function of their language, and broad cultural distinctions lead to words and concepts that cannot be translated. This leads to communication impasse. A primary axiom of anthropology is that language precedes intelligence. We're unable to think thoughts that we cannot verbalize. (To pursue this subject see a discussion by Raphael Gamaroff. Russian developmental psychologist, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, describes language as “thought’s crowning glory.” “Intelligence” would necessarily follow.) Animals without language operate on instinct. “Notions” that may come to us are sensed as feelings or emotions; only wild speculation turns feelings into a body of "knowledge".

In that vein, when considering that communication gaps exist even between members of our own species, it’s difficult to fathom that we might be able to “understand” God---whatever that is. Our language doesn’t contain the words to describe God, much less what [he] thinks. I suggest that the gap in cognitive function between man and God is probably greater than that between man and insect.

As for “Intelligent Design”, discussed in Robbinsense April, it’s noteworthy that [perhaps all] proponents of this belief seem to be Christians. We don’t hear of Buddhists or atheists subscribing to this “science”. The contention that we must accept either evolution or religious belief is naïve. Aside from the possibility that God chose evolution to create [his] beings, there are many other possibilities that we haven’t, or cannot consider.

Those who say that the Bible is the source of their belief, and certainty, are hiding behind a smoke screen. Beyond being self-contradictory, the Bible is largely written in abstraction and parables, leaving virtually anything to be interpreted from its contents. It was not until modern times that some began interpreting the Bible literally. Evangelistic Christians claim that the obvious metaphors, such as a man surviving ingestion by a whale, are allegorical, then contend that the rest is factual history. (Even if Jonah weren’t crushed by jaws or gullet, he would quickly asphyxiate in stomach gasses.) An observer without predilection toward Christianity, would conclude that the book is advertising material for the religion---a sort of “infomercial”. We might see the Bible as similar to the advocacy of a Bush administration program, presented fully-spun to lead the reader to accept the author’s premise.

As a side-note, maybe some helpful reader could inform us all how the family tree of man extended beyond Adam and Eve. They didn’t seem to have any daughters.

Some believe that God talks to them---personally. Others believe it’s an impersonal force. Some believe that it’s an absurdity. Some believe it’s what makes us strive toward our best selves.

As for my assessment: God may be a patronly, bearded dude, on a celestial throne, with a fair-skined, blue-eyed Palestinian sitting next to him, over-looking minions and judging all (I’ll give it 0.1%) The heavenly bodies (stars and planets) throughout the universe may be gods (0.5%). God may be a vast, ethereal soup, the “cosmic deity” (25%). This “spiritual force” might even be somewhat within the grasp of a person with highly sophisticated spiritual gifts (such as Jesus). Other prominent religions may contain the reality of God (1%). Or it’s possible that we all “create” our own destiny (as we create our own living reality), and that our personal belief establishes our reality in death through eternity (This is my own theory, 2%). (In the movie After Life, by Hirokazu Kore-eda, the dead arrive at a way-station where counselors instruct them to choose their favorite memory from life, which they will then re-live in an eternal loop.) It's possible that the universe as we know it (including us) is God---that the "big bang" was the emergence of God into physical form (3%). It’s possible that there’s no god (30%). This leaves 38.4% for “other”.

I hope you will share your “probability profiles” in comments.

Considering that the nature of God is beyond our comprehension, does it really matter what exactly that nature is? We're left with our own beliefs. Beyond a drive to manipulate others, who would be so naïve, or arrogant, as to dictate what others should believe? It's indefensible that in free society government might dictate religious sanctions.


Obviously for some the existence and nature of God is relevant, while for others, it is not. We will look into that next month:

Why do people of similar education and intellect come to significantly different conclusions about issues like religion and politics?
--and--
Why do intelligent people resist the obvious gifts and the joy that Jesus Christ can bring to their lives? --or-- Why do some intelligent people gorge themselves on fantasy and superstition?

100-Day Assessment and the Myth of American Exceptionalism

Gentle readers, allow me first to apologize for the length of this article. The consideration of a president’s performance is a complicated matter. We must consider not only what he has accomplished/attempted, but the reality of what can really be expected of him---with the cooperation, or not, of Congress and the reality of what WE expect and will tolerate. I have lumped together these two subjects because “American Exceptionalism” is intertwined in constraint of what can be done.

It’s easy to direct anger and frustration at our previous government when so much of its machinations were so repugnant to many of us. I’m afraid this is misdirected anger. For starters, we were not blind-sided by the Bush administration. Regardless of his campaign promises in the 2000 election and regardless of the dubious election that put him in office, by 2004 we had ample information and ample familiarity, including the evidence of Abu-Ghraib atrocities in April of that year, to have swept this man into the gutter. How many among us actually believed that the government was not behind this? The contention that the 2004 election was tainted is irrelevant; Bush should have been repudiated by a 90% margin! The reality that half of us voted for him in the face of all that we had seen is the issue that needs to be considered.

We are responsible for the misdeeds of our government. We have learned over and over that we cannot trust our government---we know they lie to us. We cannot trust our government to act on behalf of our own country, much less with integrity toward other countries. Any citizen who is not aware of this after Vietnam, alone, is clearly not engaged.

Mr. Bush was an under-achieving, under-educated man who rose to political heights, not because of his intelligence or ability to do anything well, but because of his name and his election machinery. He made no claim to be well-read or well-informed. He openly promoted religious dogma and advanced the notion of “American Exceptionalism.” He flaunted his lack of sophistication by speaking in “good-ol'-boy” vernacular, and represented the Republican Party’s repudiation of intellect. This approach to politics is totally laughable, except it works! It got him elected. Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and Rush Limbaugh represent the intellectual wing of the Republican Party!

This has become our national character. Mr. Bush is US! His government was a perfect reflection of who we are: under-educated, under-achieving, apathetic slackers, who are more interested in the NFL than the welfare of their country. Our recent prosperity has come from the naive benefaction of foreign lenders. We worry more about taxes than educating our children. We blame hard-working immigrants for our problems; we care more about Paris Hilton than Paris, France. We don’t pay our own bills; why should we care if the government doesn’t pay its bills. We vote for a man based on whether we “like” him, rather than what kind of a president he promises to be.

It’s in the shadow of OUR perfidy to our country that we must consider the performance of Mr. Obama. In 2006 we swept Republicans from office in outrage over Bush’s policies. What did the Democrats do to undermine his programs? NOTHING! If Bush were a Democrat, he would have been impeached---successfully---by the Republicans. But the Democratic Congress is implicated in all that transpired in the last eight years. All but a few supported the wars.

The resolution to support Mr. Bush’s war plans was based on three conditions: 1) proof of weapons of mass destruction, 2) proof of collaboration with al Qaeda and 3) proof of the connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. None of these conditions was met; the government issued flimsy lies on behalf of all three and repeated them over and over, based on the accurate assumption that we would be stupid enough to believe them. The government’s claim of connection between al Qaeda and Iraq consisted of a confession, subsequently retracted, by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, induced under torture after rendition and finally murder in Libya. For MWDs, we had “yellow cake”, aluminum tubes, Valerie Plame and “Curveball”; there was no evidence to connect 9/11, only claims. We were caught up in the drums of war because of 9/11, swept by passion into a reckless, irresponsible catastrophe. Aside from a few lonely voices, Congress, with no more sense than we, failed to rein in the president because it recognized that we were on board with the contagion of war fever. We swallowed the president's lies and backed his policies largely because we're cursed by the greatest military force the world has ever seen. Our reckless presidents use this might with our blessing because we think we can get away with it.

The so-called liberal press promoted the president’s plans by daily trumpeting his false claims, glorifying our presumed danger and determination to allay the peril. "From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration's case for war," says Howard Kurtz, the Post's media critic. "But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions." A “balanced” press would have pointed out in each story advancing government proposals that there was no conclusive evidence to support the claims. If the press were actually "liberal", front page articles would have appeared daily pointing out that the government had no case for war. The powerful scions who own the media have a stake in war. It's good for commerce.

Congress was briefed about “enhanced interrogation” as early as 2002; this was seemingly endorsed by press and journalists from both sides of the aisle. All of these people were also afraid to oppose this hideous policy. (See Jacob Weisberg's article from NEWSWEEK.) There is some contention now that our congressmen were not informed, but it largely comes down to “he said, she said”. There was ample information that our government was not behaving properly or legally. Beyond doing nothing, in 2006, in full view of the American public, congress passed the Military Commissions Act. Rejecting core American values, this act effectively undermines the Constitution, giving the president powers to be judge and jury over any individual whom he cares to claim is a “threat to the state." This was utter congressional capitulation, absolving government officials (including implicated members of congress themselves) of responsibility and prosecution from violation of the War Crimes Act. The president signed this abomination, which might have been titled: The George W. Bush Absolution Act, into law.

Unfortunately, we can't expect Congress to act on behalf of our laws in face of public opprobrium, much less a feckless president. Congress has no interest in assuming its constitutional duties as a one-third partner in running our government. Their sole interest lies in getting re-elected. In the early seventies, it was public outrage---outright rebellion and Congressional plug-pulling that impelled Mr. Nixon to evacuate his armies from Vietnam. Where are these young people, these people who care, now?

There was a time when we expected our government to have integrity and be responsible. Well within the memory of many, our leaders worried about at least appearing to do the right thing. This changed in the eighties. In 1979 President Carter pointed out the impending danger of oil imports and the strain of imbalanced trade accounts. In response to the clarion call of a looming threat to our nation, among the three presidential candidates in 1980, Carter promised to tackle this problem directly, John Anderson (a Republican running against the Reagan ticket) promised a “starter” fifty cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. Ronald Reagan promised “Morning in America:” no problems, no sacrifice, no tax, no trade problem, infinite oil---just elect him. That’s the message we wanted to hear; and the Republican Party has been running on that platform ever since.

We talk about patriotism and wear a flag on our lapel, but the vast majority of our citizens have no more interest in the welfare or integrity of their country than of their own household budgets. The integrity of our political system requires that the government follows its own laws. It is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable to this standard. Instead, we accept, and we allow our government to operate from the dangerous premise of American Exceptionalism.

The roots of the term are attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who noted in the 19th Century, that the United States held a special place among nations, because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. The term itself did not emerge until after World War II when it was embraced by neoconservative pundits in what was described in the International Herald Tribune as "an ugly twist of late". Since that war we have been congratulating ourselves for “saving the world” and proceeding with the notion that “the world owes us.” We hear this from our government, we hear this from our parents; we hear it from the media. We are so accustomed to the notion that somehow our nation doesn’t have to operate by the same rules as other countries, that we're inured to it.

A couple of examples:

In the 1996 presidential campaign, President Clinton received contributions from sources connected with the Chinese government. This incident was made into a scandal because it’s in violation of our laws proscribing foreign powers from meddling in our politics. Clinton said, “Obviously it would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds to one of our parties for any reason whatever.”

Fueled by the Republican campaign committee, Americans were outraged over this matter. Yet our government has made an art-form of meddling in the affairs of foreign countries and their political process for over eighty years. The list of specifics is epic. We manipulate the economies of foreign countries. We engage in all forms of shenanigans to disrupt their political process. We prop up dictators, foment political unrest, directly overthrow popular governments and occasionally execute heads of state, all under the rationale that it is in our national interest. WE, the people, accept the notion that this is OK for our government---because our national interest somehow trumps that of the rest of the world.(!)

And the (so-called liberal) press backs this fully. In recent years the press has trumpeted the government’s outrage over Iranian backed insurgency in Iraq…as though Iran has no right to impact the political course of their next door neighbor, thwarting our efforts. We did the same in regard to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. (How would we respond if Turkey invaded Mexico to overthrow their government?) Yet we obviously have every right to invade a country on the other side of the world, one that posed no threat to us? Our citizenry, you and I, are passive to this outrageous hypocrisy because we have bought into “American Exceptionalism!”

So in regard to the pursuance by the Justice Department of retribution from Bush administration officials over torture, the tangled web of responsibility that surrounds that administration would ultimately never be penetrated. Who, after all, is responsible?

For those who think, "The United States of America does not commit torture", it's time to face reality. Our government has a long relationship with torture. Aside from clear torture conducted during the Civil War, more recently we need only look to the Vietnam War. The United States sponsored, trained, and funded Operation Phoenix, which approved torture by our allies, the South Vietnamese government. By the CIA's own account, over 20,000 suspected insurgents were killed or tortured to death with our approval. We're now re-visiting how we trained torturers and allowed death squads to operate in Central America. During World War II we rounded up 120,000 Japanese Americans and put them in concentration camps. And now we think that there's torture going on by our allies in Iraq. Presumably, it's a matter of proximity to the evil. If you're doing it directly, is it different than if you're encouraging somebody else to do it (extraordinary rendition)?

So what is different now? The difference is that this has been made legal...this was officially sanctioned. This was ordered by the President. The Department of Justice made memos saying you can do this. The principals, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Adviser, sat in meetings and talked about interrogations that were plainly illegal, according to our laws, and according to treaties we have signed. All of it is now laid out before the public. If you look at Fox News or a discussion of this on the conservative side you find a strong assertion that: "Not only should this stuff have been done, but we should keep doing it."

So when administration lawyers were giving the go-ahead, when congress had knowledge of these measures and gave at least tacit approval, when the American public knew what was going on and allowed it to resume for years, who is responsible?

I personally am responsible. I learned of this, as did we all, in 2004. I was outraged, but did not fire off letters to my representatives over one more particular, disgusting episode in our government’s behavior. It was so obviously unacceptable that a letter was unnecessary. I failed to organize or participate in expressions of public dissent. We are all responsible for the actions of the Bush government. It's likely that culpability by top members of the Bush administration could never be proved in a court of law. I believe Mr. Obama is wise to stay clear of this matter.

And to what extent do we allow our government to prosecute anyone that the president chooses to call “enemy of the state”? How long before our president includes political enemies in such a broad category? And who, after all, are the terrorists anyway? If someone planted a bomb in the Pacific View Shopping Mall, killing 359 shoppers and clerks, we would call that person a “terrorist”. What if a bomb destroys a shopping mall in Baghdad, or a suburban housing tract in Kabul---a bomb that happened to be lodged in the warhead of a Cruise missile, fired from a U. S. Navy ship, and ordered by our president? Do we have the right to decide this is OK---because our lying government claims it’s in support of our national security? Only if one accepts the notion of “American Exceptionalism” can this not also be recognized as "state-sponsored terrorism".

And who is to say that such bombing makes you and me safer, even if there may have been two "terrorists" among the 320 dead? How many of the thousands of survivors of this massacre, will be compelled to take up arms and vengeance against us in any form of army that presents itself. Terrorists, no. These are freedom fighters. Any real "war on terrorism" must begin at home.

I’m sorry, friends; bombing foreign countries is not OK. Yet 90% of our ovine population supports this outrage. The “Republican Noise Machine”, led by Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh, is on a propaganda blitz to convince us that any effort to undermine the policies leading to the mess they have put us in will be responsible for future and inevitable attacks. What's behind the unprecedented maneuvering of our former administration? This is much more than "legacy".

If Cheney and the noisy, right-wing rabble can coerce the new administration to continue the policies of the previous administration for even a month, it validates the Bush government and puts prosecution out of reach. On the other hand, if Mr. Obama is successful in defusing or even reducing the threat of international terrorism, this represents the greatest threat to these craven demagogues.

Additionally, engaging this rabble (Rush, Fox News, Hannity, etc) in fear-mongering over terrorism lends credence to the notion that policies of the new administration will have been responsible for future incidents of terrorism. In fact, the likelihood of such incidents is very high. The only likely solutions to this problem are either to perpetuate the Bush “Homeland Security” program, leading to a fortified police state, or stop doing the things that cause people to want to kill us. Cheney's solution is obviously the former; but we would have elected John McCain if that was where we wanted to go. Cheney is still trying to win the last election---after defeat. (Hey, Republicans did that in California in 2003 after losing the election to Grey Davis.)

To proceed with the second alternative, the American people must abandon the concept of “American Exceptionalism” and demand that our government conduct foreign affairs with integrity. We must come to realize how oppressive our foreign policy is. Please read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins for a primer on the subject. It's relatively short and quite engaging. We need to make the connection between these policies and terror! We need to care enough about our country and our world to do this.

As for what Mr. Obama should do, he has already stated that government officials complicit in torture will not be prosecuted. This ambiguous move side-steps the criminality of the policy, lending to it tacit approval. We believe Mr. Obama should pardon complicit government officials, as Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. This would make open acknowledgement of the criminality involved. Acceptance of a pardon is acknowledgement of having committed the crime. Next, the government should make (quiet) diplomatic overtures to the world court, opening the door for prosecution of war criminals.

Meanwhile, it’s cathartic that our nation should pay penance for the mess that our arrogance has created. We need this agony, obviously having forgotten the Vietnam War in a short generation. Mr. Bush had every intention of marching through Iraq, Iran and on, as Alexander, spreading his "vision of democracy,” Had he really found "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, would we have actually permitted this? With the right-wing rabble pushing it, I suspect so.

Real change must come from us. We must first realize that “American Exceptionalism” is a myth. We must come to realize that the impact of meddling in internal affairs of other nations---our foreign policy---is pejorative, not only to the world, but to us. We are not advocating detachment, rather a foreign policy that leads to a world that is better for the nations to which we give real aid, not the kind of aid that leads to enrichment of American companies and economic as well as military dominion. Likewise, we must come to realize that our immense military budget and strength is a liability, every bit as much as it’s an asset. We have seen up close what this power can do in the hands of a man like President Bush. Only the wisest among us is capable of using it responsibly.

We have shown enough wisdom to elect a person who appears to be capable of changing our direction. This is a good, first step. But the bottom line here is that unfortunately, President Bush was a reflection of us. If we want significant change to our institutions, then WE have to change. It’s unreasonable to think that by electing a different kind of president, we can change our institutions, in  four short years, much less a few months. This process may take a generation. Just last week Mr. Obama signaled to the Israelis that we will no longer endorse the illegal establishment of settlements in occupied lands. On so many fronts Mr. Obama is on track that Robbinsense endorses his efforts; we give him a B+ for his 100-day grade.

Star Trek Movie Review

After weeks of rave reviews for the latest Trek movie (even an endorsement from the president!), with moderate skepticism we ventured out last night to find precisely what we expected: the standard, trite formula: action, violence and special effects. Oh sure, they re-invented (used) our beloved characters as a vehicle to pull in a large gate; but aside from these wafer-thin imposters, there was no Star Trek in the production.

Instead, we got a pop-culture caricature of an arrogant, self-serving, authority-defying youth with zero leadership potential who brings the staid, adult leadership of Star Fleet Command to its knees in adulation over imaginary heroism.

We got another message to our youth that arrogance, disrespect for others, and wanton violence have no consequences. Oh, so we don’t need to fear a beating that would probably require months of reconstructive surgery, plastic surgery, dental reconstruction, leading perhaps to permanent mental disability, since our hero walked away from a bar fight that he initiated with a few bruises and felt fine a couple of days later.

J. J. Abrams has hijacked and sullied the Star Trek franchise by twisting Gene Roddenberry’s vision of exploring the best that we have to offer and delivering the worst. I was duped into visiting this travesty. Can the legacy of my beloved Star Trek survive this assault?

Television is filled with “reality” programs that are as contrived as any of these action thrillers that attack our senses. It must be another comment on our culture that in order to find a movie depicting real life we must go to Pixar and watch a cartoon.

Oh yes, Checkov was not in the original crew of the Enterprise.

The Politics of Drugs

by Jackson Dave

In April, Robbinsense addressed the state budget, focusing primarily on amending the state constitution. Though there is now some discussion on that possibility, this would take years, if we had the political will to undertake it. We touched, then, on legalizing drugs as a solution.

Legalization of opiates, cocaine and marijuana, which comprise the vast majority of illegal drugs, would remove the “trafficking” element from the economy that supports gangs, removing the money which drives the industry. Many (including Kevin A. Sabet) believe that legalization, even of marijuana, should be avoided simply because it provides additional avenues for the social ills of drug use, with attendant health care costs and workplace problems. But at what cost, I beg you, do we infringe upon our own freedom when the price of admittedly ineffective restrictions appears to exceed the value we place on liberty?

The actual extent to which drug use would increase is, after all, moot, and there are many elements to the discussion that should be addressed. In the first place, we are not advocating legalizing drugs for teenagers or amphetamines under any circumstances. We advocate that opiates, cannabis and cocaine be available legally, essentially as alternatives to alcohol and tobacco. Availability of cocaine at an affordable price would likely displace much of the market for amphetamines, which are probably the most dangerous of all the "recreational" drugs.

All of these drugs are readily available, legal or not. In The United States, the “social” cost of loss of productivity in the workplace from alcohol is estimated at $148 billion annually. This doesn’t include the cost of medical problems, traffic injuries, psycho-trauma to children of alcoholics or domestic violence that arise from alcohol abuse. While the social costs of alcohol and tobacco dwarf those of the other drugs, we’ve seen that the social cost of prohibition is far greater. Consider the general lawlessness and expansion of organized crime networks produced by the Volstead Act (Prohibition).

Regarding marijuana, in 1988, The Drug Enforcement Administration's own Judge Francis L. Young, after two years of hearings, deemed marijuana “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. In strict medical terms, it is far safer than many foods we commonly consume.” Young went on, “…nor is it physically addictive, unlike your daily burst at Starbucks, as anyone who has suffered from a caffeine withdrawal headache can attest.” Beyond that, there are many therapeutic cases made for this drug.

Much of the allure of drugs, especially to young people, comes from their illegality. For an analogy we can look at the diamond market. Diamonds are perhaps the most plentiful of the precious stones. Their great supply should make them inexpensive; but DeBeers controls world supply---by coercion or force---and limits that supply to keep prices up. Illegality of narcotics restricts that trade as well, leading to high prices generated by underground distribution networks. While the allure of diamonds is enhanced by their presumed scarcity, the same applies to illegal drugs. Economists recognize "negative elasticity of demand" for certain products---that is, as the price of a commodity increases, the demand increases. This is in direct opposition to a normal demand profile; it applies to diamonds, as well as, perhaps, drugs.

Legalization would remove the “criminal” aspect of the distribution networks, leaving us with only the social problems. It’s a stretch to speculate that this would be greater than the total cost that we face now, especially considering the law enforcement aspects. Legalization would result in normal suppliers with low prices and the prospect of substantial tax revenue, as with alcohol and tobacco.

Why do we handle these different classes of drugs differently? The sad answer is politics and special interests. We have been conditioned to accept this policy, much as for decades we were conditioned to believe that Communism was a mortal threat to our society. We’ll look more closely at the “logic” behind this policy later.

We have a lengthy and confusing legal history with Cannabis as well as opiates. A brief history will ensue---in italics for those wishing to skip it.

In Jamestown Colony, Virginia, 1619, all farms were required to grow Indian Hempseed. Farmers who failed to comply were jailed. We've been led to believe that George Washington was a tobacco farmer, but hemp was the primary crop at Mt. Vernon, and secondary crop at the Jefferson’s estate.

In 1909 opium smoking was outlawed, while the 1914 Harrison Act regulated opiates.

In 1919, Congress overrode President Wilson’s veto (one of the few intelligent things he did) to pass the Volstead Act, outlawing alcohol .

The 1933 repeal of Prohibition did little to end the madness that it created. Organized crime had a small impact on this nation prior to prohibition. Prohibition gave mobs the foothold from which to establish a vast industry supplying alcohol. Repeal of the Volstead Act simply transferred this industry to the supply of anything else that might be prohibited, including drugs.

States began as early as 1910 to outlaw cannabis. Utah’s prohibition of marijuana was said to have resulted from wide-spread use by Mexican inhabitants. But the truth is that its use was becoming common among Mormons, who were bringing it back from travels. The church's reaction to this contributed to the state's marijuana law.

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to target the Mexican-American population. When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff, he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

Again, racism was part of the charge against marijuana, as newspapers in 1934 editorialized: "Marijuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."

In 1930, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was added to the Treasury Department and Harry J. Anslinger was named director. This marked the beginning of the all-out war against marijuana. Anslinger was an ambitious man, and recognized the Bureau as a career opportunity---a new government agency giving him the opportunity to both define a problem and deliver the solution. He realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn't generate enough “business” to fit his ambition, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.

Anslinger used themes of racism and violence to draw national attention to the problem he wanted to create. He also promoted and frequently read from the "Gore Files" wild reefer-madness-style exploitation tales of ax murderers on marijuana and sex and... Negroes.

There was wide-spread contention and discussion over Anslinger’s claims by the AMA as well as others. But he became essentially the first Drug Czar, though the term didn't exist until William Bennett's position as director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy. There are parallels between Anslinger and many of our current administrators. He had carte blanche to demonize drugs and drug users. He had resources and a large public podium to promote his personal agenda, with attendant ears of law makers. He was a racist. He lied constantly, often when unnecessary, and realized the extent to which he could persuade with lies, particularly if he could pressure the media into squelching or downplaying any opposition views. Anslinger had 37 years to solidify his propaganda and stifle opposition.

With the repeal of prohibition, the huge bureaucracy of law enforcement agencies were left without a mission. So in 1937, Marijuana was taxed and demonized, leading to criminalization on a national scale to give the large apparatus a mission.


In 1938, Mayor LaGuardia of New York appointed a committee to study marijuana's affects. The committee found that it did not act as a "gateway drug". It also found no scientific reason for its criminalization. In 1972 the Shafer Commission, appointed by President Nixon, similarly concluded that cannabis should be re-leaglized. '72 was an election year; Nixon, under the political cloud of continuing war and the break-in at the Watergate office complex not only failed to act upon the recommendations, he didn't even read the report.


Moving forward forty years, President Obama has cracked the door of legalization, stating that he favors “decriminalization” of marijuana, and “rethinking” the whole war on drugs. Savings to the US by replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University. Jon Gettman's report on the consequences of outlawing marijuana show similar statistics: interdiction costs at $10.7 Billion, lost revenue at $31 Billion.

These reports have been endorsed by more than 530 distinguished economists, who signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition," adding, "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods." Chief among the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University.

Revenue from taxation of marijuana sales would range from $2.4 billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6.2 billion if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.” This is only the beginning of the benefits from legalization. Beyond that, decriminalizing drugs would relieve enormous law enforcement capacity for the persecution and prosecution of serious criminals, both blue and white collar. We could empty out our prisons, as only a small percentage the prison population is now considered violent. The courts would be freed up from the never-ending stream of drug-related infractions. Justice statistics for 2007 showed that nearly 60% of the state prisoners serving time for a drug offense had no history of violence and 80% of arrests were for possession, not sales.

Brian O'Dea, author of High: Confessions of an International Drug Smuggler, with an acute perspective from both sides of the controversy says, "A cascade of bad outcomes follows a policy of prohibition. The worst may be the dangerous, bloody criminal activity it promotes." "...now guns are a large part of the picture. The illegal drug trade is the currency that funds and inspires a vast, violent and well-armed gangster class." "Take away the currency of illegal drugs and you take away the guns, the violence and corruption."

Lastly with revenues from increased taxes and scale-backs in law enforcement, we could balance budgets, offer free drug treatment programs, better schools and health programs for children, if not all of us.

Let’s look more closely at the roots of our drug policy:

As we moved through the industrial age and into the 20th Century, America was the manufacturing powerhouse of the world. By the end of WWII, the United States had close to half of the manufacturing base of the entire world. We financed the Marshal Plan, extending aid and resources to many of the countries destroyed by the war.

With the emergence of the “global market”, our manufacturing base has withered away, leaving large pockets of unemployment. Through labor cost disparity, a great network of international transportation and government indifference to budget and trade imbalance, the third world has stripped our economy of manufacturing jobs.

We now see economic chaos as well as wide-spread unemployment. Where a generation ago, we might see an unemployment rate of 3 to 5 percent, now 7 to 8 percent is considered normal, and that only counts those “looking for work”. As one might expect, the lower classes have borne the brunt of these job losses. We currently have a population of approximately 15 million people who face chronic unemployment; they have been effectively phased out of our economy. With poor education in their neighborhoods, only the most gifted and motivated are able to escape.

The stark truth that America doesn’t want to face is that there is no profit in bringing the marginal classes on line; they have effectively been declared “surplus”, casualties of the modern age. In the absence of a normal economy of goods, services and jobs in these ghettos, we offer the drug economy. A child growing up on the streets discovers that this underground economy provides his only chance for a decent life. The street culture of drugs is fueled by the “war on drugs”, with which we distract ourselves and perpetuate the lie that we care. The drug war represents “bread and circuses” offered up by the modern age to distract the masses from their misery.

If we ended the “war on drugs” the inner city economy would have to be replaced by something. The “establishment” resists this change with enormous financial and political energy. Much of the enormous savings presented by putting a stop to the interdiction, prosecution and imprisonment of these people would have to be invested in services for this population: rehabilitation, education, job training. Law enforcement agencies, as well as the “corrections” industry vigorously opposes this policy, not because it’s bad policy, but because it would put so many of them out of work. (See an interview with David Simon for more material on this aspect of the “war of drugs”.) “The drug war is a war on the underclass. That's all it is. It has no other meaning.”

Any politician attempting to change this dynamic faces tremendous political risk. Undermining “the war on drugs” will produce a chorus of outrage claiming that drug-use will increase. This concern is not directed toward inner city culture, of course, rather at drug use in the suburbs.

According to Brian O'Dea, "It is time we stopped treating drug addiciton, a medical condition, with law enforcement. It's time to repatriate the vast quantities of money that are being hidden, removed from the country and going untaxed, and it's time we keep those same vast sums from funding violent crime. It's time to end modern prohibition. It didn't work for alcohol; it isn't working for drugs."

If this argument for ending our war on drugs is not compelling enough, it pales next to the international aspects of the madness. Next month we’ll look at that.

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer