I've Never Had a Problem with Drugs; I've Had Problems with the Police, Part I

During his presidency, Richard Nixon declared a war on drugs. Personally, I don't understood how you declare a war on something that does not fight back (the definition of war is a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations), but Ronald Reagan continued this "war"in the 1980s and in 1986 Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act.

This act made it easier for the government to seize drug offenders' assets (houses, boats, cars, money, etc.), allowed the president to increase tariffs (taxes on imports) on products from countries that do not cooperate with the U.S. efforts to stop drug imports into the United States, and created the first laws against money laundering, or moving illegally obtained money (such as drug sale proceeds) into or out of bank accounts. Most importantly, this bill reinstated mandatory drug sentences by defining the amounts of various drugs that it believed would be in the hands of drug kingpins and high-level dealers.

In order to curtail trafficking, Congress enacted mandatory ten-year sentences for possession of 1000 grams of heroin and 5000 grams of powder cocaine and mandatory five-year sentences for 100 grams of heroin and 500 grams of powder cocaine with each level doubling for prior convictions. Reagan also proposed a 20 to 1 ratio for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine, but House Democrats raised the ratio to 50 to 1 and Senate Democrats raised it 100 to 1. Therefore, possession of 50 grams of crack merits a ten-year minimum sentence and 5 grams of crack triggers a five-year minimum sentence, whereas trafficking 50 grams of powder cocaine carries no mandatory sentence.

Congress justified this sentencing disparity by stressing the serious social harms with which crack use was associated. That summer the media was in a frenzy about the crack epidemic and the poor crack babies that were being born every day. Of course, we now know that cocaine is not associated with any pattern of defects. Nor does it produce infantile withdrawal, like opiates.

The intent of this act was to target drug kingpins, but the U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that only 5.5 percent of all federal crack cocaine defendants and 11 percent of federal drug defendants are high-level drug dealers. This is because the most culpable defendants are also the defendants who are in the best position to provide prosecutors with enough information to obtain sentence reductions - the only way to reduce a mandatory sentence. Low-level offenders often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the government.

These mandatory minimums have shifted decision-making authority from judges, who now operate on the bench without accountability in these cases. These sentences have also sent a record number of women and people of color to prison, causing extreme overcrowding in our detention system - more than 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions and in 2004 the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 55% of all federal prisoners were convicted on drug crimes. Most importantly, the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have both concluded that mandatory sentencing fails to deter crime.

Yet, these laws remain on the books.

The title quote is from Keith Richards.

One Cannot Really Be a Catholic and a Grown Up

Earlier this week, President Obama was awarded an honorary degree from Notre Dame University. It is a tradition at Notre Dame to invite the president to speak at the graduation ceremonies the first May after he is elected, but this particular invitee drew the ire of of many Catholics. His stance on the abortion issue, apparently, was the reason people protested.

Mary Ann Glendon, a law professor at Harvard University and a former ambassador to the Vatican, was to receive the Laetare Medal, which Notre Dame calls the most prestigious honor awarded to American Catholics. She turned it down. Glendon wrote an open letter to Notre Dame president, Reverend John Jenkins, saying that while she did not oppose Obama speaking at the commencement, she was bothered by Notre Dame conferring an honorary degree on a president who supports abortion rights. She noted that this would be a direct violation of a 2004 statement by U.S. Catholic bishops, which declared that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

I commend the professor for her decision to not accept the Laetare Medal. She has every right to disagree with the decision of the school and to refuse to partake in the honor bestowed upon her under any circumstances or reasoning that she sees fit. However, would Glendon have been so quick to rebuke Notre Dame if the man who appointed her to ambassadorship, George W. Bush, was receiving the honorary degree and delivering the commencement speech?

Bush received his honorary degree and delivered the commencement address in May of 2001, but I do not recall a great wail of protest from the Catholics then. Bush, a staunch proponent of the death penalty (152 executions took place in Texas while Bush was governor) was welcomed with open arms in South Bend, despite the fact that the late Pope John Paul II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2267 to be exact) both condemn the death penalty vehemently.

This was not a religious quarrel, it was a political protest.

P.S.
The protests at the school were headed by conservative political activist, completely unqualified three-time presidential candidate and loser in every election he has entered, Alan Keyes. Keyes is also the man who filed a lawsuit seeking to challenge Obama's eligibility for the U.S. Presidency because he was not a natural born citizen of the United States. Oh, and much to his chagrin, his daughter Maya is a lesbian.

The title quote comes from George Orwell.

Books and Ideas Are the Most Effective Weapons Against Intolerance and Ignorance

I used to run a bookstore and one of my favorite booksellers was a former high school English teacher. After reading Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner," she told me that she had an urge to teach again because that book was so powerful and she wanted to share it with young minds. Her enthusiasm for the book inspired me to read it and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

Recently the American Library Association listed "The Kite Runner" as one of the books that drew the most complaints last year by parents and educators. It was criticized for offensive language and sexual content. Of course, the overwhelming favorite amongst those who seek to control ideas and content is the book "And Tango Makes Three" by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, with illustrations by Henry Cole. This is an award-winning picture book about two male penguins who become parents. It is cited for being anti-family, pro-gay and anti-religion and has been the most challenged book for three straight years (pun intended).

I jumped over to the Barnes & Noble website (bn.com) to read customer reviews of of the "And Tango Makes Three," and I found mostly positive reviews. However, one of the dissenters posts read (caps are the reviewers):

THIS BOOK IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING UNNATURAL, WHILE TRYING TO MAKE IT LOOK OTHERWISE WITH A STOLEN EGG (OR CHILD). IF IT WAS MEANT TO BE, IT WOULD OCCUR NATURALLY THROUGHOUT NATURE. IT IS A WARPED VIEW OF FAMILY THAT TRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK ACCEPTABLE. IT PUSHES AN AGENDA THAT CHILDREN DO NOT NEED TO BE A PART OF.

Apparently this particular reviewer failed to see that this story was inspired by actual events at the New York Central Park Zoo. While a zoo isn't a truly natural habitat, it is an extremely close replica. Roy and Silo, the penguins in question for their sexuality, have been offered female companionship at the zoo and have adamantly refused it. They also seemed so desperate for an egg to incubate, they used a rock as a substitute before they were given the abandoned egg that became Tango.

The practice of banning books (a banned book is defined as one that has been removed from the shelves of a library, bookstore, or classroom because of its controversial content) is nothing new, but it is always frustrating to me. I have read thousands of books in my lifetime, books with despicable acts and what some would consider questionable language, but I have never felt compelled to be a homosexual because I read Michael Chabon's "The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay" or a psychopath because I read Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho." I didn't start using the word nigger because of Mark Twain's "Adventures of Tom Sawyer" or become a devout Christian because I read the Bible. Books provide entertainment, enlightenment, education and escape. They do not force a reader to be the subject or partake in the subject matter.

The title quote come from Lyndon Baines Johnson

With Soap, Baptism Is a Good Thing

I recently read an article on the Denver Post with the headline: "Springs church, school clash over proselytizing." Apparently, representatives of the Cornerstone Baptist Church in Colorado Springs tried to lure a seventh grader into a van. This church has previously been charged with baptizing children without permission. Students at other nearby schools have also been approached by church members and other members have been preaching the Bible on school grounds.

After this incident, the school district sent home letters to all the parents and met with the church's leaders to complain about church members coming all school grounds, but all this did was force them onto the sidewalk. Once they are off school grounds, it is up to the parents to take legal action against them.

Part of this church's doctrinal statement is "We believe the church is a local, separated body of believers who are sent forth into the world to get people saved, baptized and added to the church." Obviously, they believe so strongly that they are willing to risk kidnapping and other felonies (it is my understanding that Baptists use the full immersion technique) to deliver the first sacrament.

I am very tolerant of and curious about religion (just ask the Mormons who had to describe their church in detail for almost two hours when they knocked at my door - I wonder why they never came back after they said they would?), but this is going way too far. They should hold a mixer or do philanthropy in the community in order to attract new members, not frighten children and dunk them unwillingly.

Religion is slowly but surely fading away in America. The latest survey by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicates that 16.1% of Americans are unaffiliated with any particular faith. Among Americans 18-29 years of age, the number is 31%. This makes for a smaller pool for churches to recruit from and a very competitive marketplace. Moreover, church doctrine is losing hold over its congregation. For example, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, slightly more Catholics favor legalized abortion in most or all cases than do not, despite the firm belief of the Catholic church that abortion is a grave evil. Pope Benedict himself said "The so-called traditional churches look like they are dying."

Eventually the religious unaffiliated will become a force in American social life and politics (if they haven't already). At 16.1%, this group represents a larger portion of the population than Latinos (14%), African-Americans (13%), and Asians (5%) and is the second largest religious group to Catholics (23%). Maybe the Cornerstone Baptist Church sees the writing on the wall and is trying to keep themselves relevant. Unfortunately for them, the Pew survey also shows that 44% reject the religion placed on them in childhood.

Title quote comes from Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Facts Are Stupid Things

I was recently driving back to Colorado from Iowa when somewhere west of North Platte, Nebraska, I exhausted my musical choices and could no longer stand to listen to the incessant hum of dialogue and action seeping from the movies my son was enjoying in the backseat. I searched in vain for an FM radio station that was not playing both kinds of music - country and western - but I was unsuccessful, so I switched to AM. And there in crystal clear signal was the grating voice of Rush Limbaugh. I needed a good laugh, so I kept listening.

He lectured his audience on history that only happens in his mind, claimed he knew where his private jet was at all times, bragged about burning as much jet fuel as possible on Earth Day and beat an inappropriate joke into the ground when a female caller made a slip while trying to say she was going to pop the cork on some champagne because Senator Arlen Specter had left the Republican party.

What he said after that truly frightened me. He said that he was glad Arlen Specter had left because the Republicans needed to get all of the liberal Republicans out of the party. He went on to say, "If this is to be the order of the day, next to go could be Senator McCain and his daughter, Meghan. Get them officially moved over and it just facilitates reality."

In his reality, the conservative ideology is infallible. Moreover, someone cannot be fiscally conservative and socially liberal because then they are betraying the ideology. Just today, there was a story written about how Jeb Bush thinks that Republican party needs to begin looking forward and stop waxing nostalgic about Reagan. Limbaugh, commenting about this story, said "[W]hen you see anybody...when somebody says you gotta leave Reagan behind, the era of Reagan is over, however it's said, it is said by Republican politicians who don't believe in conservatism, pure and simple. They don't believe in conservatism, they believe in something else. They can't explain what they believe in, but they believe in something else."

This disconnect with reality is what scares me. Reagan may have believed in conservatism, but he didn't practice it at all. He raised taxes every year he was in office (13 total take hikes) except his first and last year and he tripled our debt. Moreover, he may have prolonged the Cold War by arming our country to the teeth when it was obvious that the Soviet Union was teetering, he was responsible for selling arms to South American guerrilla fighters and supplying weapons to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War, he ignored the AIDS crisis, he stiffened laws on minor drug offenses that has overpopulated and bankrupt our prison system, and he did nothing on the energy front despite the tell-tale signs that burning fossil fuels was damaging to the environment and that our oil addiction made us vulnerable.

Despite the evidence, Reagan is celebrated by the Republicans. The celebration of his presidency relies on one solitary fact: he cut income taxes on the top earners from 70% to 28%. In Rush's reality, this is the only thing that matters. You can add on the pro-life sentiment, the right to have a gun, etc., but it's all dollars and sense - his dollars and his followers' lack of sense.

The title quote come from the

40th President of the United States of America.