They are simply exacerbating the Problem

NORML - the advocacy group for the legalization of marijuana - has just released figures that appear to be derived from a credible source, which demonstrate that minors who are exposed to the most contents stemming from the government sponsored ad campaigns that are targeted toward children - developed and deployed as a mechanism intended to decrease the use of marijuana among adolescents - actually has the polar opposite impact: Apparently, the more children are exposed to the adds; the more likely the child is to use marijuana.

Now, of course, there are multiple explanations for this, such as the adds are reaching the targeted audience - children more likely to use marijuana, with which to begin. Consequently, we should not be too quick to conclude that the adds themselves are causing the elevated rates of marijuana usage. So this is not definitive evidence that the marketing campaign is the antecedent to the elevated rates of marijuana use among its audience; however, this is an indication of how poorly our money is being spent by these government agencies who take it upon themselves - impervious to direct democratic processes - to use money allocated to it by Congress for these insanely stupid projects - i.e., curtailing marijuana use - without any sufficient foresight into whether their programs have any chance for success.

First off, I fail to see why money would be spent attempting to curtail marijuana use in the first place. If my kid - not to indicate that I actually have any - was using marijuana and only marijuana, I would be quite pleased. Therefore, why do we not implement a marketing campaign endorsing the use of marijuana as a safe alternative to harder drugs, which from my own painful experiences, I can conclude in hindsight that I would have been much better off deploying such a strategy rather than elevating my narcotic consumption to more potent and more damaging drugs. In fact, I would rather see my hypothetical children using marijuana rather than, even, alcohol. For those of us familiar with driven while smoking pot, we already know that the only immanent threat from such a combination results from driving too slowly and too cautiously, causing other drivers to take chances when passing us.

The Reason why we would not want to implement my add campaign proposal - iterated above - is because we are not knowledgeable of all of the possible unintended consequences!!!

To use an example, Evangelical who have their teenage daughters take these ridiculous chastity vows are, unwittingly, contributing to increased rates of anal sex engaged in by adolescent girls. In other words, teenage girls who take these vows have, apparently, found a loophole in the contract by circumventing vaginal sex by having anal sex instead. Of course, anal sex is far more dangerous - in respect to the communicable diseases that can be transferred - than vaginal sex, indicating that the chastity vows are placing adolescent girls at a higher risk for acquiring HIV.

This is the problem with these attempts at engineering society: There are always too many contingencies to take into consideration if one is to actually know before hand the consequences of his or her implementation of social policies undertaken for reasons of adjusting the behaviors of others to fit his or her moral sensibilities. As a result, perhaps, a moratorium is in order for all tax payer financed projects - engaged in by officials not directly accountable to tax payers - designed to modify the behaviors of the people, who - ironically - are financing their own engineering.

Russell Cole [send him email]

Tags: government, government waste, marijuana, norml, Russell Coles Blog, social policies, waste
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog
No Comments »

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

Israelis do not need to have a fifth column in Palestine. When everything is weighed in the balance, no clandestine operation conducted by fifth columnists could obtain as high a level of success as that resulting from the present internecine fighting. This success has been surrendered to Israel by way of blind self-destruction which permeates in the power struggle between Fatah and Hamas.

A unity government, or a unity in government, is simply not enough. Only a strong unity in purpose, superimposed to ideology and party politics, can and will save the day for the Palestinian National Authority. Palestinian society won’t be able to achieve its goals unless it goes forward with both a single voice and a single aim; not as a people seen at the verge of civil war. The two factions which represent the Palestinians are evidencing to the world at large that there is lack of critical wisdom at the fractionalized top.

There seems to be a consensus among long-standing international observers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that the two Palestinian factions are so self-absorbed in their own fight for preeminence in the struggle, that neither is sufficiently concerned with how the world’s public opinion may be viewing them. But that lack of concern may end up costing all Palestinians dearly, having already exacted support from many quarters.

Have the Palestinians forgotten that their struggle is apolitical? That it goes beyond loyalty to secular nationalism or the prospect of an Islamic state - or malfeasance in government, corruption or even gross incompetence? The aspirations made known to the world during six decades of struggle are far loftier than all of that.

Yet, for the last five months both Fatah and Hamas have been jointly, and wastefully, frittering away the vast fraternal capital that Palestinians have enjoyed in the hearts and minds of people most anywhere in the world; outside, perhaps, the United States. Such waste is at least evidenced by the results of a survey that a political scientist friend of mine, a professor at a major university in the EU, has been taking since 1998 (early in May) - a sampling of about 650 opinions on the popularity of the ‘Palestinian cause.’

For nine years the favorable overall opinion of the Palestinians stood in a narrow range of 82% to 87%; however, this year it descended to 57%. And the culprit wasn’t Hamas, as some might suspect, but the infighting among Palestinian factions. In fact, the prior survey in 2006, four months after Hamas had won the elections, had resulted in an 86% favorable figure, second highest in the nine years.

President Mahmoud Abbas cannot simply meet with Israel’s Olmert as representative of all Palestinians if he is de-facto representing only the policies of his party. And, for that matter, neither could PM Ismail Haniya even if the Israelis would talk to him. Unlike any Israeli representation to negotiations, assumed to be conducted under the imprimatur of the Knesset, such is not the case with the Palestinians because of a perceived lack of representative legitimacy. Belligerence between factions validates such perception.

If unity of purpose cannot be achieved, in fact not just in appearance, by leaders of Fatah and Hamas, Palestinians’ future may be better served through the efforts of an apolitical group of wise and learned Palestinians, aided perhaps by counsel from other quarters. This noble and respected body could mediate internal political disputes and, if properly empowered, could negotiate peace with Israel. It could provide the proper vehicle to put an end to shibab al-nakba and bring about the transformation of children of the catastrophe into the builders of a new and great Palestine, a nation in permanent peace with itself and its neighbors.

It’s commonly accepted that unity is strength and division is weakness. No place is that more evident than in Palestine. If the current political discord in the Palestinian National Authority can not be bridged completely and permanently, perhaps it’s about time that logic prevails and a new moral authority can be found to overview the present political realm. Success for peace, and the existence of a full fledge Palestinian state, rests on that; and how people in the world identify with the rights and needs of the Palestinians.

Political cannibalism is certainly no way for either Fatah or Hamas to achieve ‘victory.’ It’s certainly no way to bring about a better life, or human dignity, to Palestinians.

Copyright 2007 Ben Tanosborn [send him email]

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

I have indulged myself – intellectually for the last several years – with the entertainment of a postmodern ideology; one that dismissed convictions of truth for one that – as an alternative – adopted perspectivism.

In other words, I dismissed with a monolithic conception of reality, where a single truth prevailed over other versions – which, subsequently, would have assumed the qualified stature of ideologies – in favor of an epistemology of pluralism, in which perspectives stood along side other perspectives, and the trick was not to relegate others in an adoption and endorsement of a single narration of reality. It seemed to me – at still does – to be a posture of humility; a promotion of egalitarianism, which entailed tolerance and inclusion while leaving space for separation and difference.

However, under the influence of the last 6 years of consistently unsuccessful domestic and foreign policies, emanating from a regime that fancies itself as faithed-based, with a President who obviously has no concern for pending environmental turmoil, who, after all, claims that evolutionary theory has yet to acquire empirical substantiation, I am beginning to question my questioning of reality.

I am indeed to the brink of abandoning whatever pretenses I have had with respect to postmodernism; simply because what previously seemed to be emancipatory now appears indulgent, irresponsible, dangerous, and, in fact, preposterous.

In order to understand the depth of my concern, one merely needs to read the following extract from a popular blog on atheology, http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/, which contains descriptions of a new museum that is being erected in Kentucky:

According to Reuters,

The Bush Administration has exhibited the consequences of faith-based decision-making, and the prospects for this country – if we are to continue along such a trajectory in our cultural evolution – appear rather bleak. Perhaps, a sobering return to reason and reality at this juncture of our nation’s history is more than called for.

Russell Cole [send him email]

Tags: Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog
7 Comments »

Emerging discoveries in human consciousness may change many global activities

By Steve Hammons

As more discoveries are made in the fields of human consciousness and related areas of science, people around the world with diverse perspectives and points of view seem to be learning more about these emerging developments.

How does increased understanding of the human mind and the world around us affect nations, cultures, communities, organizations, groups, families and individuals?

What are the impacts on international relations, military matters, economics, the natural environment, social dynamics, human development and other areas of interest?

The answers to these questions appear to often be elusive. Many people seem to have ideas about how changes in human psychology could help create significant advances for the human race.

But do we have any hard evidence that evolving human consciousness will have the necessary influence to change “business as usual” on planet Earth?

ANOMALOUS COGNITION

It is at once new and very ancient. What is now often called “anomalous cognition” is a concept that includes many kinds of interesting human perception and understanding.

The term refers to people, and perhaps animals, perceiving information, ideas or concepts through means other than their five senses or, in the case of humans, the intellectual processes of the brain.

Rather than obtaining information strictly from the senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell or through brain computations, anomalous cognition involves obtaining understanding from deep within, and from sources both inside and outside of ourselves.

Intuition, hunches, gut instincts, dreams, visions, extrasensory perception (ESP), “remote viewing” and other kinds of internal “intelligence” all fall within the general concept of anomalous cognition.

Hallucinations, delusions and similar kinds of psychological phenomena are differentiated from anomalous cognition by the basic quality of accuracy. Hallucinations and delusions, by definition, are basically not accurate, not true.

Anomalous cognition, by contrast, is perception that has some significant measure of truth and authenticity.

Throw into the mix the idea of “imagination.” This term is often used to describe internal perception and creativity that can be authentic, purely fantasy or some mixture of both.

This unclear combination is also found in anomalous cognition and things like delusions. Are the internal perceptions truthful, somewhat inaccurate, deceptive or subject to misinterpretation? And how do we separate valid perceptions from those that should be discarded?

These are the challenging questions that people face in understanding what is going on around us and within us.

UTILIZING CONSCIOUSNESS RESOURCES

Every human being and groups of human beings are ongoing and developing experiments of sorts.

We come from and strive toward certain emotions and feelings, relationships, levels of material prosperity, ideas and beliefs.

Learning to use our bodies, brains, feelings and consciousness are part of the ongoing experience of life. And, as we go along, we often try different methods and approaches in our daily life and our longer-term planning.

Identifying, understanding and making use of intelligent resources within our consciousness is now taking on new meaning for many people and groups of people.

Apparent evidence that anomalous cognition can be very useful can be found in some accounts of premonition, prophesy, awareness of unusual coincidences, dreams and similar situations.

More solid and measurable results have also been reported in various scientific literature and in activities such as the “Project STARGATE” program, sponsored by the U.S. military and intelligence community.

Using military and intelligence professionals, Project STARGATE efforts achieved surprising success by fine-tuning an ESP process that is now referred to as remote viewing.

Anyone with a reasonably open mind who is willing to learn about the Project STARGATE operations will most likely come to the conclusion that some very interesting discoveries have been made.

In addition, these discoveries have firmly determined that anomalous cognition is real, very helpful and reflects an unusual intelligence that has important ramifications for the human race.

Will these discoveries affect real-life global challenges such as poverty, disease, hunger, injustice, warfare, terrorism, crime, environmental degradation and climate change?

Some people believe that as understanding about anomalous cognition reaches a critical mass within various human populations, we may experience very noticeable changes for the better in many aspects of human endeavor and progress.

And when might this critical mass be reached? Maybe soon, maybe tomorrow, maybe today, maybe right now.

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Editorial: Where are we headed as a Nation?

By Chuck Adkins

As I sit here this evening, I have about three things that I would really like to write about. However, because I really do not want to write three different editorials, I am hoping I can combine all three streams of thought into one well-written editorial. I figure, hell, shoot for the moon, and if I happen to hit mars too, even better. No, I am not trying to do a bad imitation of Molly Ivins. She was writing snarky articles about Republicans, when I was still pooping green. Besides, she was a much better writer that I will ever be.

I happened to watch Keith Olbermann’s special commentary last night. I am glad to see that I am not the only person that happens to think that our current President is a blithering idiot. However, I was quite surprised to see, that in the world of Blogs, what I thought was going to be a rather large atomic bomb going off, turn out to be more of a minor incoming scud missile. And perhaps rightly so, It could very well be, that not everyone is in “must end war now” mode, As a Populist, and a firm believer in the idea that we must finish what we started, I think for us to draw out of the country of Iraq, like tomorrow, would be quite foolish. I am quite aware of the fact that the Invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake, I really am. However, I also must ask the question, if we packed up and left, would not we be sending the message that we go into countries, destroy their infrastructure, and leave it for them to fix? That would be foolish!

I am, without apology a firm believer in finishing the job that we started. What I mean by that is, we must, at least try, to get that country to be able to survive on it’s own, before we pull out of the country of Iraq. Otherwise, we are going to have every Muslim in the world, hating us to the core. This would be fodder for the radical Muslims who want to see America and everyone in it dead. George W. Bush knows this; He is not entirely stupid. He may not be a good speaker, but I do not think he is as empty-headed as people give him credit for, Otherwise, he would not even be there.

So, really, all of this screaming, hollering, jumping up and down, and carrying on by the far left and some of our closer to the center type people is rather strange. I truly believe that I know what it is that the Democrats are doing. They are pulling a strategic move. They figure if they do not give Bush what he wants, our troops could suffer, so, they are giving the man what he wants. And they are watching the outcome, if it succeeds, they will take credit for assisting the President, and if it fails, they will paint his Presidency as the worst ever, and the Democrats will be painted as the ones who saved America from the nutty Neo-Conservative President. So, personally, as a progressive populist, I think the term “Betrayal”, used by Keith Olbermann was a little bit strong. Everyone I think, No matter where you sit on the fence politically, needs to step back and look at the bigger picture. Many people fail to do this, because they are locked into their political ideologies. There are many sides, to the Iraqi coin, not just the side that the far left wants to look at.

Meanwhile, while everyone and their uncle is having a full body orgasm about the Iraq war. Our rather wonderful Congress is trying to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. This is one thing, I will not understand. Why the in world should this country, give citizenship to anyone who has jumped a fence to get here? To me that would be like someone robbing a bank, at gunpoint, and the cops telling the person “Well, seeing you really needed the money, you can have amnesty”. Last time I checked, against the law was against the law. Think I am racist? I am not more of a racist than the demonstrators who I have seen carrying signs that say, “We are reclaiming our land” and “Gringo’s go back to England”. I ask you, who are the real racists. And better yet, who is the opportunists? Wanting a hand out that they have not even earned? I think if you are being very honest with yourselves, you will know the correct answer.

One can only hope that our congressman and representatives will wake and realize that our nation already has a great legal immigration policy and this foolish tampering with it, will only further more endanger our nations sovereignty, throw gasoline on a already large jobless rate bonfire, embolden criminal activity and spread infectious diseases within our society. I do truly hope that this idiotic bill dies a proper death in congress or the house.

Chuck Adkins
Editor
The Populist
http://thepopulistblog.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

As gasoline prices steadily increase and as public complaints become more boisterous, we are bombarded with the expository dribble of the punditocracy, which informs us that the price of gasoline is determined by the free-market, and the elevated prices are due to the dynamics of supply and demand. We are also - on occasion - told that there are limited refinery capacities currently operative and the malfunction of a single refinery can precipitate a spike in the pricing of gasoline.

I think the generalized description of the discourse espoused by those who serve as apologists for the petroleum industry is nearly exhaustively representative, and, consequentially, there is no need for any further rendering or analysis of the explanations provided by the henchmen of corporatism - who, within a Straussian political model, serve as the gentlemen class whose social function is to provide explanations for the way things are in terms understandable tot he vulgar masses - this aspect to Strauss’ political theorizing is, of course, an appropriation of the Nobel Lie, as it was detailed by Plato.

Nevertheless, despite the rhetoric - which almost always involves the inculcation of the free-market to justify the instancing of price hikes - the empirical reality of the matter does not conform to the explanations that the punditry endeavors so vehemently to popularize.

• There have not been built any additional refineries in the last thirty years, which has resulted in limited capacity for production of gasoline by the major United States oil companies.
• The fact that no incentive exists for a member of the petroleum oligarchy to invest in - not only additional refinery capacities - but in improved technologies for the processing of crude oil - indicates that there are dynamics at work - shaping the oil industry - that bare little resemblance to the neoliberal deity - and its attributed dispositions - referred to as the Invisible Hand of the Free-market.

The obvious truth to the matter is that the oil industry is by no means a field of competing entities whose interests are endogenous, respectively, to each of the individuated agents, antagonistically - in relation to one another - vying for an ever greater market share within the economic sector; a ceaseless struggle motivated by the preemptive concern for the maximization of profits.

Rather, the dynamic is far more complicated, and the empirical reality bares little resemblance to the idealized matrices of relations forming the presumptive free-market; an illusory conception of economic activities that we are indoctrinated into believing as if it were a natural order; an emergent set of circumstances that only requires deregulation in order to manifest.

However, the brute raw fact remains, the oil refineries are the embodiment of absurdly obsolescent technology; and, nevertheless, no member of the oligarchy seems to have incentive to invest resources allocated for the modernization of its mode of production.

A tacit settlement has encroached and has become entrenched; an unspoken - although explicitly and quite publicly denied - monopolistic culture of complacency, where each oligarch realizes that it benefits if they all benefit together in a collectivized scheme that intentionally and systematically inflates the prices of gasoline by tempering its production.

In many respects the evaluation of the carbon in petrol is no different than the artificial price of the carbon in diamonds.

The state of the oil industry in America would make an excellent case study for a Game Theorist. By refusing to compete with one another - an activity that would entail investments designed to improve their productive infrastructures - each respective member of what we should properly refer to as a Trust - certainly not a market - maximizes its profitability.

Consequentially, the normative premise underlying economic theory - people make decisions based upon a calculus that determines the option most profitable to the agent - has led to a negation of competition; a dynamic that operates contrarily to the presumptive foundations that are proffered and circulated as expositions for the fluctuations in prices suffered by the all-too-naive consumer.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
5 Comments »

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

Vietnam was never about Gen. Westmoreland, or Gen. Abrams or the genius of then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. It was always about those who commanded them: Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. In like manner, Washington’s search for a solution to its long ago discredited casus belli for the Middle East - both in Iraq and in Afghanistan - will not rest in the military skills of either Adm. Fallon or Gen. Petraeus; or in the way they report progress, or lack of it, against the two insurgencies.

Petraeus and Fallon are two thirds of the team headed by Gates that replaced the old team of Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey. To Bush and his bunkered cadre of dismally incompetent elves, is not what these two gentlemen can do that counts, or even their views; what’s important for the encircled neocons is that these individuals with four silver stars on their epaulets can be seen by the American public as a source of interim hope - ‘new team’ with new ideas replacing the ‘old team.’ To the skeptics among us, Fallon and Petraeus are but scapegoats who are asked to hold the fort until the hawks come up with a plausible reason to launch a wider, more weapons-intensive war. Yes, Iran does come to mind. Hopefully, our assessment will turn out to be wrong.

As much as I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, going over Petraeus’ accomplishments during these last four years, one might conclude that he is not only overrated, but that his conduct is typical of what is expected of a good ‘political soldier’ in the general ranks. It’s not a question of challenging his intellectual ability to be able to draft a better plan to fight the insurgency in Iraq, but what really bears scrutiny is how well he performed during his two deployments there, particularly the all-important second tour.

During his first tour, Petraeus commanded the 101^st Airborne Division in its drive to Baghdad, later receiving much acclaim for his success in Mosul, although such success might appear overstated since he operated in an area populated mostly by Kurds. But it�s the second deployment that tells us much about then Lt. Gen. Petraeus, when as commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq (MNSTC-I) he was put in charge of training the new Iraqi Army and all security forces. Here, however, he gets mixed results at best. A good motivator to Iraqis as well as Americans, within a year and a half he had ‘created’ more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions - and just as many acronyms for myriad groups to make the most demanding bureaucrat proud.

Some will be wowed with admiration, except that all those units and master units our genius general helped create had been infiltrated by insurgents, spies and members of the different Shia militia. It just looked good on paper - and that’s how it’s done in the military. It continues to be a numbers game, just like it was in Vietnam - then, the infamous daily dead count that tragicomically ended killing more Vietnamese than the entire population in Vietnam. What makes the comparison even more apropos is that the title of David Petraeus’ doctoral dissertation (1987) at Princeton is: ‘The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam.’ Comical if it weren’t so pathetic.

For Bush to search for ‘victory’ - or whatever downgraded equivalent word du jour - in some individual or scheme is either the last gasp of a madman at a loss on what to do, or simply a way to wait out his remaining months in the presidency. Now it’s genius Petraeus, just two months after receiving his fourth star, who will be de-facto reporting directly to Bush, telling America come next September just where ‘we are.’ Could anything be more out of touch with reality� in how the military is supposed to work; or in how a president is expected to lead a nation? Forget about paper-shuffling by Fallon at U.S. Central Command; or Gates, the Pentagon figure-head replacing Rumsfeld. Americans, in ecstatic idiocy, are being asked to wait for the September grading of how the escalation (surge) went� just like they waited for the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group� just like they’ll wait for Washington’s next postponement of a call to peace.

America’s predicament with the state of martial affairs in the Middle East has very little to do with military power or prowess, and everything to do with a sane foreign policy and good governance. The reality which confronts 300 million Americans today is that a former Air National Guard Lieutenant from Texas with a questionable record, and a small and thoroughly confused mind, is the man calling the shots for a Gates, a Petraeus and a Fallon. Shouldn’t someone be reminding Americans about now what happened to the powerful German Wehrmacht when a lunatic ex-corporal, Adolf Hitler, was proclaimed as its commander-in-chief?

All the current political games being played in Congress have little or nothing to do with funding the troops, but rather with the funding of an unjust, imperialistic war that should never have been waged, and under no circumstance maintained. Terrorism, that’s what is being funded, and it’s being done with astounding success. At the rate terrorists are birthed in occupied Islamic territories - and given its multiplier effect - by the time the Oval Office is swept and disinfected in 20 months, Americans traveling overseas will be hard-pressed to forge Canadian identification, and have maple leaf flags decaled all over their luggage and knapsacks.

Forget about Petraeus� surge or any military doctrine that disguises the nature of both domination and occupation. Superiority in firepower simply is not enough to achieve victory - not in the long run. Like in comic books, military commanders refer to their troops as ‘the good guys’� the enemy being ‘the bad guys.’ But when you are the invader in someone’s motherland, you have ceased to be the ‘good guys’ even if you are still wearing ‘Screaming Eagle’ patches.

America’s present predicament is not about soldiers, but those who send them to kill and conquer. US’ fate does not rest on Petraeus or Fallon, only on George W. Bush.

Copyright 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Due to the rhetoric that is being espoused by those who are against this legislation, I feel compelled to republish this letter with some additional commentary that I have amended to the letter as part of this preface.  These arguments which contend that the new hate crime legislation will restrict freedom of thought and freedom of speech are either intentionally misreporting this legislation, or they are remarkably uninformed.  The pending legislation, which Bush, of course, vetoed, that has gone back to Congress, does not outlaw anything that is not already defined as a crime by virtually every State in the Union.  It merely creates stipulations making these criminal acts - if motivated out of hate for these sexual minorities, Federal crimes.  This legislation, furthermore, does not create new government agencies and does not expand any restrictive measures upon the freedom of expression.  There are already Federal Prosecutors assigned to all areas of the country.  They would be charged with filing charges of hate related crimes committed against these marginalized sexual minorities.  There will be no new police agencies mandated through this legislation.  This legislation only makes crimes - which are already crimes - Federal crimes if they are motivated out of hate for these oppressed groups in society upon whom the crimes are committed.

Rep. Ron Paul has taking the most unfortunate stance in response to the legislation under consideration, which would extend Federal Hate Crime statutes to instances of hate motivated crimes that are perpetrated against gays and cross-gendered. Reverting to the less intellectually endowed Republican rhetoric - deviating from his more interesting and, often, more reasonable Libertarian slant - he contends that provisioning Federal authority for purposes ensuring the Constitutional Liberties of these historically persecuted groups - in fact - discriminates against those who wish
to discriminate - to extremes where crimes are committed - against these vulnerable identities in our society. Additionally, in the tradition of Liberalism, he contends that laws can only reference individuated agents in society; a monadic conception of of the composite of agents and agencies constituting humanity; a premise upon which Liberal juridical-politico discourse is built.

Link to Paul’s letter:

http://www.populistamerica.com/unconstitutional_legislation_threatens_freedoms

Nevertheless, Liberal individualism conceals the effects of hegemonies, that enforce their own cultural dispositions upon other subcultures as behaviorally demonstrable requisites for participating in the institutions embedded in the social fabric. The form of individualism promoted by Liberalism is not the natural, appropriate state of humanity; rather, it is the product of an historically situated cultural condition that has been naturalized into the ontology by the members of the preemptive discourse in American society, who, in turn, identify those who fail to conform as social deviants, who are the justified targets of the bigotry; the hatred; the exclusion; and, worse, the objects of attack that are committed persistently in order to reinforce the alienated and inferior status of these marginalized groups.

The consideration that makes this legislation so abundantly necessary stems from the failure of states and municipalities to protect these social identities, so they - the sexual minorities who are perceived as deviant - can exercise the freedoms enjoyed by all other members of society.

Nevertheless, I do not want to appear callous toward the plight of bigots who are afraid of losing their privileges to practice bigotry against the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in society. However, we must consider from historical insight the following: If not for Federal intervention, the schools in the South appeared to possess little chance of entering into a state of desegregation. The crucial matter that justifies this legislation revolves around the necessity of expanding the Federal Government’s jurisdiction, allowing for Federal law enforcement to intercede where states and municipalities turn tail. Remember, in order for Southern schools to abandon the institutional arrangements of Jim Crow South, Eisenhower was compelled to use the Air Force.

The simple fact of the matter is we are not all treated with the same dignity and expectations of negative rights, as if we were only individuals; not latent with any group identifications, such as African American or gay. Consequently, to bring closure to this rather parsimonious analysis, we are left with the task of determining what assumes greater saliency: The rights of bigots to practice their hate against the vulnerable? Or, the rights of minorities to enjoy a life free from fright, humiliation, and negations of social and personal respect?

I, for one, am partial to the latter.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
8 Comments »

An Article by:
By Steve Hammons

George Washington was in the news last September. No, he was not back to lead our country militarily, politically and morally, though we could use him now. It was the official dedication of an accurate replica of Washington’s whiskey distillery at Mount Vernon that made news. After a five-year archeological effort, and using the 1797 plans for the distillery, Washington’s whiskey-making operation was rebuilt on the exact location of the original, using the same kind of equipment and technology that the father of our country used. In addition to making whiskey and farming different crops on his Mount Vernon acreage, Washington also grew hemp (cannabis), like many people of his time. Hemp was considered an important crop and widely used as a source for paper, cloth, rope, ship sails and for many other uses. “Make the most you can of the Indian Hemp seed and sow it everywhere,” wrote Washington in 1794. His whiskey distillery and hemp acreage might remind us that Washington was a down-to-Earth human being, as well as a warrior, statesman and American patriot.

LIBERTY, WHISKEY AND HEMP

Five copper stills as well as brick ovens can now be visited on the Mount Vernon site. And the equipment can actually make whiskey. Mount Vernon officials say they may produce some for special occasions and might try to get approval to bottle and sell it. Washington began his whiskey business as another way to create income in addition to farming, which was his main source of earnings. Most farmers in his region at the time also made whiskey. As a farmer who grew different types of crops, Washington also took an interest in the hemp plant just like other farmers of his day did. He took note of its properties and productivity, and his writings contain many references to this crop.

“What was done with the seed saved from the India Hemp last summer? It ought, all of it, to have been sewn again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised, but to have disseminated the seed to others; as it is more valuable than the common Hemp,”

Washington wrote. Hemp paper was used for the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. The U.S. Constitution was reportedly written on hemp paper. And Betsy Ross created the first American flag with hemp fabric. Washington’s contemporary Thomas Jefferson, an avid amateur scientist and naturalist, also took an interest in hemp. “Hemp is of first necessity to the wealth and protection of the country,” wrote Jefferson.

SIR, WE NEED YOU NOW

We might wonder what Washington would think of the state of our nation today. He and other American patriots fought against a king’s corrupt and oppressive rule.

Liberty and freedom from control by some remote and power-hungry ruler were guiding principles that led Washington, other founding fathers and the American patriots to stand up and make changes. They did not want a king or even a president telling them what to do and how to live their lives. They wanted freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, homes and property. They wanted protection from a king’s power to imprison them without proper cause or fair trial. Washington and his fellow Americans wanted the freedom to speak and write freely. They wanted to worship as they pleased and to follow their own paths, their own hearts and minds to enjoy their God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

As we approach the elections of 2008, we might consider Washington’s America of 1776, when grassroots Americans felt a spirit of freedom and change, and they took responsibility to create something different. Yes, Washington was a down-to-Earth patriot who made whiskey and grew hemp. And he was a believer in a larger spiritual force that guides the destiny of humanity and that of the United States of America.

Categories: Commentary
2 Comments »

Rep. Ron Paul has taking the most unfortunate stance in response to the legislation under consideration, which would extend Federal Hate Crime statutes to instances of hate motivated crimes that are perpetrated against gays and cross-gendered. Reverting to the less intellectually endowed Republican rhetoric - deviating from his more interesting and, often, more reasonable Libertarian slant - he contends that provisioning Federal authority for purposes ensuring the Constitutional Liberties of these historically persecuted groups - in fact - discriminates against those who wish
to discriminate - to extremes where crimes are committed - against these vulnerable identities in our society. Additionally, in the tradition of Liberalism, he contends that laws can only reference individuated agents in society; a monadic conception of of the composite of agents and agencies constituting humanity; a premise upon which Liberal juridical-politico discourse is built.

Link to Paul’s letter:

http://www.populistamerica.com/unconstitutional_legislation_threatens_freedoms

Nevertheless, Liberal individualism conceals the effects of hegemonies, that enforce their own cultural dispositions upon other subcultures as behaviorally demonstrable requisites for participating in the institutions embedded in the social fabric. The form of individualism promoted by Liberalism is not the natural, appropriate state of humanity; rather, it is the product of an historically situated cultural condition that has been naturalized into the ontology by the members of the preemptive discourse in American society, who, in turn, identify those who fail to conform as social deviants, who are the justified targets of the bigotry; the hatred; the exclusion; and, worse, the objects of attack that are committed persistently in order to reinforce the alienated and inferior status of these marginalized groups.

The consideration that makes this legislation so abundantly necessary stems from the failure of states and municipalities to protect these social identities, so they - the sexual minorities who are perceived as deviant - can exercise the freedoms enjoyed by all other members of society.

Nevertheless, I do not want to appear callous toward the plight of bigots who are afraid of losing their privileges to practice bigotry against the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in society. However, we must consider from historical insight the following: If not for Federal intervention, the schools in the South appeared to possess little chance of entering into a state of desegregation. The crucial matter that justifies this legislation revolves around the necessity of expanding the Federal Government’s jurisdiction, allowing for Federal law enforcement to intercede where states and municipalities
turn tail. Remember, in order for Southern schools to abandon the institutional arrangements of Jim Crow South, Eisenhower was compelled to use the Air Force.

The simple fact of the matter is we are not all treated with the same dignity and expectations of negative rights, as if we were only individuals; not latent with any group identifications, such as African American or gay. Consequently, to bring closure to this rather parsimonious analysis, we are left with the task of determining what assumes greater saliency: The rights of bigots to practice their hate against the vulnerable? Or, the rights of minorities to enjoy a life free from fright, humiliation, and negations of social and personal respect?

I, for one, am partial to the latter.

Russell Cole

Tags: bill of rights, constitution, government, history, legislation, society
Categories: Society, constitution, bill of rights, government, Legislation, History
11 Comments »