The next unit is Personal Relations. Those who are assigned a presentation for this unit should have an article to me in two weeks time and will be presenting in three weeks. As for the first class of this unit in two weeks time, please have this article read and be prepared to discuss it in class:
Plural relationships have
gotten a bad name, thanks to lascivious cult leaders like Warren Jeffs.
But there's a whole other type of multi-partner love gaining popularity:
polyandry, in which a woman settles down with two or more men. And it's
more common than you might think.
On an unseasonably cool August Sunday
morning in Topanga Canyon, just north of Malibu, a family of four
arrives at the Inn of the Seventh Ray, an all-cage-free,
everything-local restaurant that's typical of the neighborhood. This
brunch is a welcome respite from the errands and worries that
increasingly fill their days. Jaiya Ma, the center of the clan, is a
34-year-old with dark, wavy hair and caramel skin. Her life is wide
open; she falls in love easily, suffers willingly. Next to her is Ian
Ferguson, a thin 44-year-old with a shaved head and a goatee, feeding
bits of eggs Benedict to their energetic 2-year-old son, Eamon. Ian and
Jaiya have been lovers for four years. Sitting across from Jaiya is Jon
Hanauer, an extremely fit 48-year-old wearing wire-rimmed glasses, who
serves as Eamon's primary caretaker. He and Jaiya have been in a
committed relationship for almost a decade.
They all live together
just a few minutes up the hill, in an airy modern house with
floor-to-ceiling windows and a view of downtown Los Angeles. It's the
kind of place where you'd expect a designer to live, and indeed one does
live there: Ian owns Dig It Furniture, which has been featured in Elle
Decor. The walls are covered with paintings and collages he and Jaiya
have made, and toys are scattered everywhere. The only thing out of the
ordinary is the sleeping arrangements: Jon and Jaiya have their own
rooms on the ground floor, while Ian rotates between his office in the
garage, Jaiya's room, and Eamon's room, where, until recently, one of
the adults would sleep every night.
Neither Jon nor Ian is legally married to Jaiya. Both are allowed to
see other women. But the three of them live a lifestyle that—much of the
time—isn't that different from a conventional marriage. They're one of
an estimated 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States.
Polyamory, which literally means "many loves," usually isn't about
having sex with whomever you want, whenever you want, as
nonpractitioners often assume. It can also describe
relationship configurations like Jon, Jaiya, and Ian's—governed by
rules, responsibilities, and expectations—which add up to a kind of de
facto polygamy. The more specific term for their arrangement is
polyandry, in which multiple men are with the same woman, a far less
common arrangement (both today and throughout human history) than
polygyny, in which multiple women are with the same man. Jaiya, who
founded a successful sex-education company, is typical of the women in
polyandrous triads: intelligent, self-possessed, professionally
accomplished. The men, on the other hand, have typically suffered a
relationship catastrophe that prompted them to seek radical change. Jon
could be speaking for any of them when he recalls, "I knew in my heart
that I had to find a different way to love."
It's not an easy lifestyle. "Think about all the challenges of any live-in relationship, squared, and you'll see the problem," says Janet Hardy, coauthor of The Ethical Slut
(widely considered the bible of polyamory). By chance, the previous
night at a bar in Venice, I met Holly (not her real name), a beautiful
figure skater turned model Ian dated while Jaiya was pregnant with
Eamon. Holly has a new guy, a handsome rocker named Danny. When I reveal
this at brunch, Ian looks bummed; he still has feelings for Holly. But
Holly's not a member of his and Jaiya and Jon's "species"—she's
monogamous—and dating "out of species" is a problem for Jaiya. "It's one
of the primary rules of polyamory," Ian explains, because a monogamous
woman will almost always force a man to choose between her and his
polyamorous life.
For his part, Jon has seen Jaiya get hurt too many times. "She jumps
into things and I'm always cleaning up her messes," he says. "She
understands that's one of the ways I express my love for her." Jon
hasn't taken nearly as many lovers as Ian—all the dating and the play
parties . . . that's not his bag. "You've got to manage yourself or
you're going to hurt other people," he says.
Jon takes Eamon in his arms and walks to the restaurant gift shop,
where they sit in a corner reading children's books. Jaiya and Ian sit
in silence as the sun comes out and warms the patio. After we settle the
check, they'll all head home. Ian will retreat to his office and work
on design proposals, Jaiya will go to her study to work on the book on
oral sex she's writing for Random House, and Jon will spend the day
playing ball with Eamon.
•••
Plural love is having a moment right now. That's thanks in no small
part to the increasing acceptance of gay marriage: If two men or two
women can get married, why can't two men get married to one woman? In
Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal for six years, a case
that's expected to go to the Supreme Court could make our neighbor to
the north the first Western country that doesn't outlaw polygamy. Here
in the U.S., Republican leaders like Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann
have made ominous suggestions that legalizing gay marriage will lead to
group marriage. And the Mormon Church, not wanting to draw any undue
attention to its past embrace of plural marriage, fought Proposition 8
three years ago, perhaps out of fear that practicing polygamists would
demand that marriage equality be extended to them as well.
But it's hard to see the harm in egalitarian, secular arrangements
like Jon, Jaiya, and Ian's. In 2001, the Law Commission of Canada issued
a report questioning the illegality of consensual polygamy, and last
year the Canadian Polyamory Advocacy Association asked the courts for a
repeal of the ban on polygamy. In the U.S., too, legal scholars have
challenged the merits of limiting marriages to two partners. Elizabeth
F. Emens of the University of Chicago Law School questions why
eliminating the "numerosity requirement" (one man and one woman) is
considered undesirable when so many people are practicing non-monogamy,
either secretly (through cheating) or serially (divorce, remarriage).
And we certainly have polygamy on the collective brain—witness the
popularity of TV shows like HBO's Big Love and TLC's Sister Wives.
But if plural marriage is ever to gain broad acceptance, it won't be
because of Mormon fundamentalists. It will be because of people like
Ian, Jon, and Jaiya—affluent, educated city dwellers in mutually
respectful relationships. And, indeed, some in plural relationships are
adopting an activist mind-set. "We're going through right now what
homosexuals went through 30 or 40 years ago," says Matt Bullen, a
42-year-old writer and married dad in Seattle who is part of a
polyamorist cluster that encompasses five people and two legal
marriages. "We need to start putting photos on the desk of ourselves and
our partners together. When I'm out in public with my wife and my
girlfriend, I need to say, 'These are my partners.'"
Matt's girlfriend, a 43-year-old filmmaker and actress named Terisa
Greenan, goes further, expressing the virtues of her lifestyle in stark
terms. "Polyamorous people are just smarter," she says. She dates Matt
but has lived with Scott Campbell, a 54-year-old classical-music dealer,
for 14 years, and Larry Golding, a 54-year-old Microsoft software
developer (to whom she's married for insurance and accounting purposes),
for 12 years. (Matt's wife, Vee, also dates Larry.) "You've got to have
a certain type of brain that's really analytical," Terisa explains.
"There are more people, so you have to be able to look at each problem
from many more points of view and communicate for that many hours
longer."
Whatever you think of Terisa's theory, it's obvious that those in
plural relationships are comfortable flouting convention. Many explained
to me that humans aren't hardwired to have just one partner. Mary, a
26-year-old Ph.D. candidate in economics at Boston University (who asked
that her real name not be used), says she's known since she was 14 that
monogamy was anathema to her. "That's when I realized that maybe it
didn't make sense for me to suppress these feelings just because of a
societal norm," she says. Hardly an insatiable minx, Mary claims she's
"not a sexual person at all" and still lives—in a polyandrous triad—with
her first boyfriend.
Ian went plural four years ago, after his six-year marriage fell
apart, when he adopted a doctrine of "total authenticity. Anybody I was
interested in, I told them right off, 'This is what I'm about.' Within
four weeks, I was dating four women at the same time." He met Jaiya at
an improvisational-dance class near his house, and they immediately fell
for each other. Jaiya got pregnant and Ian moved in. "It was the first
time I ever truly surrendered to a man," she recalls. It wasn't until
after Eamon was born that Ian made the transition from a
playing-the-field version of polyamory to something more like common-law
polygamy. Ian would like to be dating more, but fatherhood and the
demands of being the household's primary breadwinner have shown him that
while "love is infinite, time is not."
Six years before she fell for Ian, Jaiya, who was engaged at the
time, met Jon at a tantra class in Cincinnati. A couple of months
later—two weeks before her wedding day—they reconnected and hit it off.
Jaiya canceled the wedding when her fiancé couldn't handle the
competition for her attentions, and she's embraced polyamory ever since.
She now uses Jon as a sexual guinea pig in her Red Hot Touch instructional video series. "I tell people I'm an international penis model," he says ruefully.
Most who take part in plural relationships claim not to feel sexual
jealousy. Dean, a 26-year-old software engineer in Boston, recalls being
disturbed at the start of his relationship with Mary and her long-term
boyfriend, Max (all three names have been changed), a 28-year-old
intellectual-property lawyer, when he overheard them having sex in the
next room. In time, he decided this was a selfish reaction. "Just
realizing that there are times when she wants to have sex with one of us
specifically makes things a lot easier," he explains. "Knowing that it
balances out over time makes it easier too."
The trick, Matt Bullen explains, is being able to ask yourself, "'Why
am I happy when my partner is satisfied in any other aspect of life,
but then suddenly when it comes to sex it's got to be awful feelings of
mistrust?' Can you isolate it so much that it becomes like a little
trapped rodent in a cage where you can say, 'See, it wasn't that scary
at all'?" He claims it doesn't upset him when his wife uses their
marital bed to fuck her boyfriend (and Terisa's husband) Larry. "It's
just a bed," he says. Some claim to derive pleasure from seeing their
lovers getting screwed at play parties.
But however much they thumb their noses at jealousy, polyamorists can
still fall prey to it. Scott recalls feeling stung the first time he
heard Larry call Terisa "sweetie." Vee Bullen remembers being distraught
when she heard Matt call Terisa "darling." The key, according to author
Janet Hardy, is not giving in to your partner's jealousy. "You have to
hear your partner be unhappy without feeling like it's your job to fix
it," she explains. "Otherwise you're robbing your partner of the
opportunity of learning how to survive jealousy."
A potentially bigger problem for long-term polyamorous relationships
is a declining libido. On nights when Ian ventures out for affairs with
other women, Jaiya and Jon live an almost monastic existence. The three
of them have little interaction with the Los Angeles polyamorous
community, because, they say, meetings are dominated by old hippies with
grown children and newcomers with questions about coping with jealousy.
And Jaiya and Jon's relationship has turned effectively platonic since
she gave birth to Eamon; where once, Jaiya claims, they had 20-hour
marathon sessions, now they have sex only for her instructional videos
and classes. Jaiya and Ian have tried to overcome the libido-killing
effects of financial worries and child care with weekly date nights,
out-of-town trips to hotels, and scheduled sex (Friday afternoons, after
she tapes a show for VoiceAmerica radio). They are, Ian admits, like
old married people.
That's hardly unusual. According to Thad, 31, and James, 43, both IT
professionals and members of a long-term polyandrous triad in
Bloomington, Indiana, with a writer named Mandy, 42, none of the three
of them (whose names have been changed) date much outside of their
relationship. "We've played with some other people," James says. "But
nothing serious. All activity outside of the family has to be mutually
approved. We have ground rules. No fluid exchange can take place." They
also attend monthly family-counseling sessions.
Family counseling? Isn't plural love supposed to be the magic bullet
to relieve the doldrums of monogamy? But Terisa reports a similar
situation. "Our lives are so boring," she says. "I cook dinner. The guys
clean up. We go upstairs and watch The Soup, and then we go to
bed. Or the three of us go out to the movies. Or all five of us"—meaning
the Bullens, too—"sit down to watch TV together. We do things as a
family.
"The great thing is that the guys can go have sex with other people."
•••
Most men in polyandrous relationships get into them for one reason:
They fall in love with the woman at the center of the triad. Few are
looking for male companionship. Fewer still seek intimacy with their
"metamour"—their lover's other lover. This isn't Big Love, and male polyandrists aren't sister husbands.
Although they've lived together for more than a decade, Scott
describes his relationship with Larry as one of benign neglect. "We
wouldn't be close friends in different circumstances," he says. "We're
so different. We're perfectly cordial, but it's not common for the two
of us to hang out and talk together if Terisa isn't there." Matt,
Terisa's boyfriend, agrees. "I don't think I've ever been out for a
drink by myself with Larry or Scott," he says. The relative distance
among them, he adds, is why the arrangement works.
Max, the young lawyer, describes his relationship with Dean as being
like that of stepbrothers. "We're family but not related," he says. Ian
and Jon are like that too. They interact almost entirely through Jaiya
and Eamon—"I get to love Ian through him," Jon says, pointing at the
boy.
Nowhere was this truer than at Eamon's birth. The two men aided Jaiya
in a natural, "orgasmic" labor in an outdoor hot tub that lasted 20
hours—with Jon sitting behind her at one point, massaging her anus and
feeding her, and Ian in front massaging her nipples and clitoris, until
at last Eamon passed into this world through one long climax while the
Santa Anas blew and a pack of stallions whinnied nearby. Jon and Ian are
two men who have shared one of the most intimate moments imaginable.
They see each other every day. But at brunch, they speak in turn to
Jaiya—never to each other. They rarely make eye contact.
•••
One Friday afternoon, Jon takes Eamon to Topanga State Park. He's
scooping sand into a mound for the boy to run up and down on. "This is
his athletic training," Jon says proudly. "I'd like for him to play
baseball." Jon deserves much of the credit for Eamon's sunny
disposition—the 2-year-old sings constantly and loves being read to. Ian
matter-of-factly describes Jon as the "manny" and pays him a modest
salary to look after Eamon. Jaiya says that Eamon occasionally calls Jon
his "dada."
One of the great debates about plural love in America is about how it affects the children. In a September 2010 polemic in The American Spectator,
William C. Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, argued that
these kids might be at a higher risk of suffering abuse, behavioral
problems, and household instability. But Dr. Elisabeth Sheff, a
sociology professor at Georgia State University who has spent more than a
decade studying kids from polyamorous homes, disagrees. "Many of the
children in poly families are doing great," she says. "All the attention
they get and the access to shared resources helps them blossom.
Research on single parents shows us that it's too much work for one
person. Polyamory comes at it from the complete other direction—that two
people aren't enough." And polyandry gives a kid more father
figures—perhaps not the worst family structure in a country where
there's an epidemic of fatherlessness.
Matt Bullen is cautious about exposing his 9-year-old to the family's
lifestyle. "It gives me nightmares that our family is from some awful
seventies adult movie where my son comes down a swirling staircase and
sees all kinds of shenanigans going on," he says. He and his wife, Vee,
have sought to be "age-appropriately honest" with their son. When the
boy saw his father kissing Terisa and asked about it, Matt explained to
him, "There are ways of loving that you just can't understand yet." Some
of the teachers at his school know about his parents' lifestyle, and he
is reportedly happy, well adjusted, and obsessed with soccer. Having
more adults in his life, Matt claims, has helped his son's development.
But Jon's demeanor sometimes seems to betray a current of bitterness.
When Jaiya caught baby fever soon after turning 30, she begged Jon for a
child. He refused, saying he wasn't ready for fatherhood, so she turned
to Wyatt (not his real name), her brash young lover at the time. Jaiya
miscarried; Wyatt walked out. Later, she and Jon discussed pregnancy
again, and again he demurred. "I pushed her into having other
relationships," he admits. But seeing Jaiya twice pregnant by other men
has stung, and Jon's time with Eamon has made him realize that he
desperately wants a child of his own. But after her miscarriage and her
difficult pregnancy with Eamon, Jaiya doesn't want any more kids.
Jon has one option left—to go out and find someone else. It's not
easy.
He's had only two other lovers over the past six years. He doesn't do
nightlife. He has no interest in play parties. "Those people are like
teenagers who sleep around—they're just replaying teenage scenarios," he
says. Jaiya encourages him to get out there. But if he did meet a
woman? Is he prepared to pack up and leave? "I wouldn't want to go," Jon
says. "I'd want to move that new person in with us. I'd want to expand
our family, enhance what we already have at home."
He picks up Eamon, holds him tight, and walks toward the surf.
Together, they enter the water, and Eamon cackles as they take on the
breakers.
Hey guys. I can't remember if I promised just one or both classes a link to an article about prison life in America, but here it is for you. Not required reading of course, just a little counterbalance to the propaganda showered on us everyday about the ease of prison life in the west written by someone who experienced it in Iran:
Bonus entertainment for you, here's a bit from The Jon Stewart Show (a very liberal show ie. Democrat). He's making fun of how closely Romney's policies seem to Obama's and it's somehow...funny? Ok, whatever:
Hi everyone. This week there's a presentation in the 1MA/3 class. Therefore this article is mostly directed to them; however, I'd also like the 1MA/4 class to read it so you have more material to make questions. Speaking of which, that is your main task for this week, to come with questions from the material presented that could be used in the final exam. Please bring a few ideas and we'll discuss them in class and try to come up with a list of 6 to 10 to use. See you all Thursday.
Gunman turns 'Batman' screening into real-life 'horror film'
By Michael Pearson, CNN
July 21, 2012 -- Updated 0159 GMT (0959 HKT)
The public gets its first glimpse
of James Holmes, 24, the suspect in the Colorado theater shooting during
his initial court appearance Monday, July 23. With his hair dyed
reddish-orange, Holmes, here with public defender Tamara Brady, showed
little emotion. He is accused of opening fire in a movie theater Friday,
July 20, in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others.
More photos: Mourning the victims of the Colorado theater massacre
HIDE CAPTION
Colorado movie theater shooting
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: 30 people remain hospitalized; 11 in critical condition
NEW: Authorities postpone action on the suspect's booby-trapped apartment until Saturday
Source: The gunman told police he was "the Joker"
Police say 12 people were killed and 58 injured in movie theater shooting
(CNN) -- The suspect in the mass shooting at an
Aurora, Colorado, movie theater screening of the new Batman film early
Friday had colored his hair red and told police he was "the Joker,"
according to a federal law enforcement source with detailed knowledge of
the investigation.
At least 12 people were
killed in the rampage and 58 were injured, one fewer than earlier
reported. Of those injured "nearly everyone was shot," Aurora Police
Chief Dan Oates said Friday night, adding that a handful of people were
hurt in the resulting chaos.
Ten of the victims were
killed inside the theater while two others died at hospitals. As of
Friday evening, the 10 bodies had been removed from the complex and
authorities were preparing to begin "the agonizing process" of notifying
families, Oates said.
A mug shot of suspect James E. Holmes
has not been released. Witnesses to the shooting described him as
wearing a gas mask that concealed much of his face and head. But the
federal law enforcement source's information about the suspect's
appearance fits with a statement from New York Police Commissioner Ray
Kelly, who was briefed by Colorado authorities Friday.
Oates declined to comment
on Holmes' appearance other than to describe what he was wearing, and
said he would not release his booking photo "for investigative reasons."
The Joker has long been a
fixture in Batman comics and was famously brought to life by the late
Heath Ledger in 2008's "The Dark Knight," the predecessor to Friday's
release of "The Dark Knight Rises." Ledger won a posthumous Academy
Award for his sinister portrayal of the iconic villain who encourages
anarchists to take over Gotham City.
Meanwhile, authorities
were faced with the difficult task of entering Holmes' Aurora apartment,
which was left rigged with traps.
"It's booby-trapped with
various incendiary and chemical devices and trip wires," Oates said,
adding that it could take days to work through the apartment safely.
Five buildings around the
apartment building were evacuated, Oates said. Residents were allowed
back home briefly Friday night to retrieve such emergency items as
medicine.
Authorities have
postponed until Saturday any attempts to enter the apartment and are
bringing in resources from the federal government to help with the
situation, Oates said.
Police say Holmes, 24,
dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear, set off two devices of
some kind before spraying the Century 16 theater with bullets from an
AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber
handguns police recovered at the scene.
Oates said the guns were
purchased legally by Holmes at stores in the Denver area in the past
two months. More than 6,000 rounds of ammunition were also purchased
online, according to Oates.
A receipt obtained by CNN shows Holmes bought some of the tactical gear, including a vest and magazine pouch, online on July 2.
Oates said investigators are "confident" that Holmes acted alone.
The shooting unfolded inside a darkened theater packed with Batman fans, some in costume for the premiere of the movie.
Aurora police said how the suspect entered the theater is still under investigation.
A law enforcement source
working the investigation told CNN that the gunman walked into the
movie theater after purchasing a ticket.
After the movie was
under way, he went out a rear exit door, propping it open, and gathered
weapons before re-entering through the door, the source said.
As he re-entered, he
tossed in a canister before starting to shoot, according to a second law
enforcement source involved in the investigation and several witnesses.
Screaming, panicked
moviegoers scrambled to escape from the black-clad gunman, who shot at
random as he walked up the theater's steps, witnesses said.
It was a scene "straight out of a horror film," said Chris Ramos, who was inside the theater.
"He was just literally shooting everyone, like hunting season," Ramos said.
A federal law
enforcement official told CNN the man used tear gas, but Oates said
Friday afternoon that it was not clear what the substance was.
Holmes surrendered
without resistance within seven minutes of the first calls from panicked
moviegoers reporting the shooting, Oates said.
Victims flooded
overwhelmed hospitals. One of the injured is just 4 months old, the
child's mother said. The infant was treated and released from the
hospital.
"I don't know how else
to explain it. It's horrific," said Tracy Lauzon, director of EMS and
trauma services at Aurora Medical Center.
Oates said the man was
wearing a ballistic helmet and protective gear for his legs, throat and
groin, black gloves and a gas mask.
Jennifer Seeger, who
survived the attack, said she had seen the man and thought his get-up
was part of the entertainment for the film's debut.
She said the man first shot toward the ceiling, then began shooting at people. He reloaded during his attack, she said.
"He was just literally just massacring anybody that got up that was trying to run away," Seeger said.
As of Friday afternoon,
30 people remained hospitalized, 11 of them in critical condition,
according to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.
Holmes is scheduled to
appear in an Arapahoe County, Colorado, courtroom Monday morning, Rob
McCallum, spokesman for the Colorado Judicial Department, said Friday.
The court file was sealed, according to a court order. He is being held
in the Arapahoe County jail, Oates said.
A statement from Holmes' family in San Diego asked for "privacy during this difficult time."
"Our hearts go out to
those who were involved in this tragedy and to the families and friends
of those involved," the statement said, adding, "We are still trying to
process this information."
The FBI is assisting in the investigation, officials said, though it did not appear that the incident was related to terrorism.
Prior to Friday's shooting, Holmes' criminal record in Aurora consisted only of a traffic summons.
President Barack Obama
canceled campaign events Friday, telling supporters at what had been
scheduled as a rally in Fort Myers, Florida, that "there will be other
days for politics."
"This will be a day for prayer and reflection," he said, calling for the country to unite as one and support the victims.
Flags at the White House were lowered to half-staff Friday afternoon in honor of the victims.
A law enforcement source
said two of the guns used in the attack were purchased at a Bass Pro
Shop in Denver, while the two others were bought at separate Gander
Mountain Guns outlets in the area. Investigators also found a drum
magazine, capable of carrying 100 rounds of ammunition, which was
attached to the AR-15 rifle, two law enforcement officials said.
A statement from Bass Pro Shops said its Denver store followed appropriate protocol on the sale of the two weapons.
Authorities also
searched the suspect's car in the parking lot of the movie theater and
found more magazines and ammunition, a federal law enforcement official
said.
"It was everywhere," the official said.
Christopher Nolan, director of "The Dark Knight Rises," condemned the shooting as "savage" and "appalling."
"The movie theatre is my
home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful
place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me," Nolan
said in a statement on behalf of the cast and crew of the film. "Nothing
any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the
innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them
and their families."
Four Aurora theaters
showing "The Dark Knight Rises" will have extra security for the
foreseeable future "out of an abundance of caution," Oates said.
Warner Bros., the studio
behind the film, canceled the movie's Paris premiere, while New York
police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said his officers would watch over
screenings of "The Dark Knight" in the city to prevent copycat
shootings. AMC Theatres, meanwhile, said it would not permit guests in
costumes that make others uncomfortable, nor will it allow face-covering
masks or fake weapons.
Aurora, a Denver suburb, is about 13 miles from Littleton, Colorado -- site of the April 1999 Columbine High School massacre.
In that incident, two
teenage students, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, armed themselves with
guns and bombs and shot people inside the high school. They killed 13
and wounded 23 before killing themselves.
Hey everyone. Sorry for the tardiness of the post. I was thinking I might have separate classes for both of my 1MAs this week, but it'll be the same for both classes. We're going to focus on what alternatives there are to voting as a means of social change on Thursday so please read these two articles:
There's obviously tons more you can read on a myriad of movements from the Arab Spring to the Maple Spring and all points in between such as the indignados and Occupy Wall Street along with its various offshoots. There's quite a bit on the subject on my blog if you fancy looking it over (the link is on the right). You'll also notice a new link below that to something called RabbitFire.org. This is a project being put together by a few other teachers and myself in which we're meeting to discuss various issues from our speaking classes. I'll copy and paste the two articles below. See you Thursday.
Inequality isn’t only plaguing America—the Arab Spring flowered because international capitalism is broken. In From Cairo to Wall Street: Voices from the Global Spring, edited by Anya Schiffrin and Eamon Kircher-Allen,Nobel
laureate Joseph Stiglitz says the world is finally rising up and
demanding a democracy where people, not dollars, matter—the best
government that money can buy just isn’t good enough.
Darrell Willis wears a "99%" button and an American flag at the
corner of LaSalle and Jackson during an Occupy Chicago protest Monday,
Oct. 3, 2011, in Chicago. "Occupy Chicago" protests started Monday near
the Federal Reserve Bank and Chicago Board of Trade, as demonstrators
speak out against corporate greed and social inequality. (Charles Rex
Arbogast / AP Photo)
There are times in history when people all over the world seem to rise up,
to say that something is wrong and to ask for change. This was true of
the tumultuous years of 1848 and 1968. It was certainly true in 2011. In
many countries there was anger and unhappiness about joblessness,
income distribution, and inequality and a feeling that the system is
unfair and even broken.
Both
1848 and 1968 came to signify the start of a new era. The year 2011 may
also. The modern era of globalization also played a role. It helped the
ferment and spread of ideas across borders. The youth uprising that
began in Tunisia, a little country on the coast of North Africa, spread to nearby Egypt, then to other countries of the Middle East, to Spain and Greece, to the United Kingdom and to Wall Street,
and to cities around the world. In some cases, the spark of protest
seemed, at least temporarily, quenched. In others, though, small
protests precipitated societal upheavals, taking down Egypt’s Hosni
Mubarak, Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, and other governments and government
officials.
Something Is Wrong
That
the young people would rise up in the dictatorships of Tunisia and
Egypt was understandable. They had no opportunities to call for change
through democratic processes. But electoral politics had also failed in
Western democracies. There was increasing disillusionment with the
political process. Youth participation in the 2010 U.S. election was
telling: an unacceptably low voter turnout of 20 percent that was
commensurate with the unacceptably high unemployment rate. President
Barack Obama had promised “change we can believe in,” but he had
delivered economic policies that seemed like more of the same—designed
and implemented by some of the same individuals who were the architects
of the economic calamity. In countries like Tunisia and Egypt, the youth
were tired of aging, sclerotic leaders who protected their own
interests at the expense of the rest of society.
And yet, there were, in these youthful protesters of the Occupy Movement—joined
by their parents, grandparents, and teachers—signs of hope. The
protesters were not revolutionaries or anarchists. They were not trying
to overthrow the system. They still had the belief that the electoral process might work,
if only there was a strong enough voice from the street. The protesters
took to the street in order to push the system to change, to remind
governments that they are accountable to the people.
The name chosen by the young Spanish protesters—los indignados,
the indignant or outraged—encapsulated the feelings across the world.
They had much to be indignant about. In the United States, the slogan
became “the 99 percent.” The protesters who took this slogan echoed the
title of an article I wrote for the magazine Vanity Fair in early
2011 that was titled “Of the 1%, for the 1%, and by the 1%.” The
article cited studies that described the enormous increase in inequality
in the United States—to the point where 1 percent of the population
controls some 40 percent of the wealth and garner for themselves some 20
percent of all the income. In other countries, the lack of
opportunities and jobs and the feeling that ordinary people were
excluded from the economic and political system caused the feeling of
outrage. In his essay, Egyptian activist Jawad Nabulsi discusses how the
system was fixed in favor of the upper classes, and he uses the word fairness repeatedly to describe what was lacking in Egypt under Mubarak.
Something
else helped give force to the protests: a sense of unfairness. In
Tunisia and Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, it wasn’t just
that jobs were hard to come by, but those jobs that were available went
to the politically connected. In the United States, things seemed more
fair, but only superficially so. People who graduated from the best
schools with the best grades had a better chance at the good jobs. But
the system was stacked because wealthy parents sent their children to
the best kindergartens, grade schools, and high schools, and those
students had a far better chance of getting into the elite universities.
In many of these top schools, the majority of the student body is from
the top quartile, while the third and fourth quartiles are very poorly
represented. To get good jobs, one needed experience; to get experience,
one needed an internship; and to get a good internship, one needed both
connections and the financial wherewithal to be able to get along
without a source of income.
Around
the world, the financial crisis unleashed a new sense of unfairness, or
more accurately, a new realization that our economic system was unfair,
a feeling that had been vaguely felt in the past but now could no
longer be ignored. The system of rewards—who received high incomes and
who received low—had always been questioned, and apologists for the
inequality had provided arguments for why such inequality was
inevitable, even perhaps desirable. The inequities had been growing
slowly over time. It is sometimes said that watching changes in income
inequality was like watching grass grow. Day by day, one couldn’t see
any change. But as those who live near abandoned subprime houses know
all too well, within a few months, scrub and weeds can quickly replace
the best of manicured lawns. Over time, the change is unmistakable, and
so too, over time, the inequality has increased to the point where it
cannot be ignored. And that’s what’s been happening in the United States
and many other countries around the world.
Even
in the United States, a country not given to class warfare, there is
today a broad consensus that the top should be taxed at a higher rate or
at least not taxed at a lower rate. While some at the top may believe
that they earned what they received through hard work, and it is their
right to keep it, the reality (which many of the richest do realize) is
that no one succeeds on his own. The poor often work far harder than the
richest. In developing countries, the poor lack the chance of education
and have no access to funds, and their economies are dysfunctional, but
they work long hours carrying water, looking for fuel, and toiling at
manual labor. Even in developed countries, life chances are affected by
where one is born and the education and income of one’s parents. Often
it comes down to luck, being in the right place at the right time.
It
was not just the worsening inequality that outraged the protesters of
2011. It was a sense that at least some of those incomes were not
honestly earned. Injustice motivated the Occupy Wall Streeters just as
it motivated the young Tunisians of the Arab Spring. If someone earns
huge incomes as a result of a brilliant contribution that leads to huge
increases in incomes of the rest of society, it might seem fair that he
receive a fraction, perhaps a substantial fraction, of what he has
contributed. Indeed, the dominant paradigm in economics attempted to
justify societal inequalities by saying (I should say, assuming)
that they were related to differences in “marginal” productivities:
those who, at the margin, contributed more to society got more.
Now,
in the aftermath of the crisis, it seemed grossly unfair that the
bankers walked off with outsized bonuses while those who suffered from
the crisis brought on by those bankers’ reckless and predatory lending
went without a job. It seemed grossly unfair that government bailed out
the banks but seemed reluctant to even extend unemployment insurance for
those who through no fault of their own could not get employment or to
provide anything but token help to the millions who were losing their
homes. What happened undermined the prevailing justification for
inequality, that those who made greater contributions to society receive
(and should receive) larger rewards. Bankers reaped large rewards even
though their contribution to society—and even to their firms—had been negative. In
other sectors, CEOs who ran their firms into the ground, causing losses
for shareholders and workers alike, were rewarded with gargantuan
bonuses.
If
no one is accountable, the problem must lie in the economic system.
This is the inevitable conclusion and the reason that the protesters are
right to be indignant. Every barrel has its rotten apples, but the
problem, as MIT Professor Susan Silbey has written, comes when the whole
barrel is rotten.
Much of what has gone on can only be described by the words moral deprivation. Something wrong had
happened to the moral compass of so many of the people working in the
financial sector. When the norms of a society change in a way that so
many have lost their moral compass—and the few whistle-blowers go
unheeded—that says something significant about the society. The problem
is not just the individuals who have lost their moral compass but
society itself.
What
the protests tell us is that there was outrage and that outrage gives
hope. Americans have always had an idealistic streak, reflected both in
the instruction in schools and in political rhetoric. Kids read the
Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal,” and they read
the words literally, all men, white and black, and they believe
them. They recite the Pledge of Allegiance, which promises “justice for
all,” and they believe it.
Market Failures
The
list of grievances against corporations was long, and longstanding. For
instance, cigarette companies stealthily made their dangerous products
more addictive, and even as they tried to persuade Americans that there
was no scientific evidence of the dangers of their products, their files
were filled with evidence to the contrary. Exxon had similarly used its
money to try to persuade Americans that the evidence on global warming
was weak, even though the National Academy of Sciences had joined with
every other scientific body in saying that the evidence was strong.
Chemical companies had poisoned the water, and when their plants blew
up, they refused to take responsibility for the death and destruction
that followed. Drug companies used their monopoly power to charge prices
that were a multiple of their costs of production, condemning to death
those who could not afford to pay.
The
financial crisis itself had brought out more abuses. While the poor
suffered from predatory lending practices, almost every American
suffered from deceptive credit card practices. And while the economy was
still reeling from the misdeeds of the financial sector, the BP oil
spill showed another aspect of the recklessness: lack of care in
drilling had endangered the environment and threatened jobs of thousands
of people depending on fishing and tourism.
But even before the crisis, the evidence was that the market economy was not deliveringfor most Americans. GDP
was going up but most citizens were worse off. Not even the laws of
economics long championed by the political right seemed to hold.
Earlier, we explained how the theory that is supposed to relate rewards
to social contributions had been falsified by the Great Recession. The
theory holds that competition is supposed to be so strong in a
perfectly efficient market that “excess” profits (returns in excess of
the normal return on capital) approach zero. Yet each year we saw the
banks walking off with mega-profits so large that it is inconceivable
that markets are really competitive. Standard courses in economics talk
about the law of demand and supply, where prices are determined to
equate the two. In the theoretical model, there is no such thing as
unemployment, no such thing as credit rationing. But in fact, we have a
world in which there are both huge unmet needs (e.g., investments to
bring the poor out of poverty, to bring development to Africa and the
other less developed countries in other continents around the world, to
retrofit the global economy to face the challenges of global warming)
and vast underutilized resources (e.g., workers and machines that are
idle or not producing up to their potential). As of December 2011, some
25 million Americans who would like a full time job can’t get one, and
the numbers in Europe are similar.
Innovation
and globalization provide the most recent—and the most
important—contexts to observe the failings of the market. Both were
supposed to make our economy more prosperous, and yet both seem to have
resulted in an economy in which most citizens are becoming worse off.
In
recent research, Bruce Greenwald and I have traced the roots of the
Great Depression to an increase in agricultural productivity so rapid
that fewer and fewer people were needed to grow the world’s food. In the
United States in 1900, a large portion of the labor force worked on
farms; today less than 2 percent of the population grows more food than
even an obese population can consume—and there are large amounts left
over for exports. Over time, most people working in agriculture who were
no longer needed looked for alternative employment. But at times, the
movement away from agriculture was far from smooth. Between 1929 and
1932, agricultural prices plummeted, and incomes fell by an amount
variously estimated at one-third or two-thirds. Such precipitous
declines in income resulted in corresponding declines in demand for
manufactured goods. Rural real estate prices plummeted and credit became
unavailable, and so, despite their already low income, farmers were
trapped in the declining sector. Just when migration out of the rural
sector should have been increased, it came to a halt. If people had been
able to relocate, if new jobs had been created, the increases in
productivity would have been welfare-increasing, but as it was, given
the market failures, those in both the city and the rural sector
suffered.
It
seems strange, in the midst of the Great Recession, when one out of six
Americans who would like to get a full-time job is unable to get one,
to see stores replacing low-wage cashier clerks with machines. The
innovation may be impressive, profits may even be increased, but the
broader economic and social consequences cannot be ignored: higher
unemployment, lower wages for unskilled labor as the balance of demand
and supply tilts more against workers, and greater inequality.
Political Failures
The
political system seems to be failing as much as the economic system,
and in some ways, the two failures are intertwined. The system failed to
prevent the crisis, it failed to remedy the crisis, it failed to check
the growing inequality, it failed to protect those at the bottom, and it
failed to prevent the corporate abuses. And while it was failing, the
growing deficits suggested that these failures were likely to continue
into the future.
Americans,
Europeans, and people in other democracies around the world take great
pride in their democratic institutions. But the protesters have called
into question whether there is a real democracy. Real democracy
is more than the right to vote once every two or four years. The choices
have to be meaningful. The politicians have to listen to the voices of
the citizens. However, increasingly, and especially in the United
States, it seems that the political system is more akin to “one dollar
one vote” than to “one person one vote.” Rather the correcting the
market’s failures, the political system is reinforcing them.
Tax systems in which a billionaire like Warren Buffettpays less taxes
(as a percentage of his income) than those who work for him, or in
which speculators who helped bring down the global economy are taxed at
lower rates than are those who work for their income reinforce the view
that politics is unfair, and contribute to the growing inequality.
The
failures in politics and economics are related—and they reinforce each
other. A political system that amplifies the voice of the wealthy also
provides opportunity for laws and regulations—and the administration of
laws and regulations—to be designed in ways that not only fail to
protect the ordinary citizens against the wealthy but enrich the wealthy
at the expense of the rest of society.
Globalization and Markets
My
criticism of globalization lies not with globalization itself, but with
the way it has been managed: it is a two-edged sword, and if it is not
managed well, the consequences can be disastrous. When managed well—and a
few countries have succeeded in managing it well, at least so far—it
can bring enormous benefits.
The
same is true for the market economy: the power of markets, for good and
for evil, is enormous. The increase in productivity and standards of
living in the past two hundred years have far exceeded those of the
previous two millennia, and markets have played a central role—though so
too has government, a fact that free marketers typically fail to
acknowledge. But markets have to be tamed and tempered, and that has to
be done repeatedly to make sure that they work to the benefit of most
citizens. That market control happened in the United States in the
progressive era, when competition laws were passed for the first time.
It happened during the New Deal, when social security, employment, and
minimum wage laws were passed. The message of the Occupy Wall Streeters,
and other protesters around the world, was that markets once again
needed to be tamed and tempered. Even in parts of the Middle East, where
they brought increases in growth, the benefits did not trickle down.
From Cairo to Wall Street
In
more than forty years of travel to developing countries, I have seen
these problems at close hand. And throughout 2011, I gladly accepted
invitations to Egypt, Spain, and Tunisia, and I met with protesters in
Madrid’s Retiro Park, at Zuccotti Park in New York, and in Cairo where I
spoke with the young men and women who had played a central role at
Tahrir Square. As we talked, it was clear to me that they understood how
in many ways the system has failed. The protesters have been criticized
for not having an agenda, but such criticism misses the point of
protest movements. They are an expression of frustration with the
electoral process. They are an alarm.
At
one level, these protesters are asking for so little: for a chance to
use their skills, for the right to decent work at decent pay, for a
fairer economy and society. Their requests are not revolutionary but
evolutionary. But at another level, they are asking for a great deal:
for a democracy where people, not dollars, matter; and for a market
economy that delivers on what it is supposed to do. The two
demands are related: unfettered markets do not work well, as we have
seen. For markets to work the way markets are supposed to work, there
has to be appropriate government regulation. But for that to occur, we
have to have a democracy that reflects the general interests, not the
special interests. We may have the best government that money can buy,
but that won’t be good enough.
In
some ways, the protesters have already accomplished a great deal: think
tanks, government agencies, and the media have confirmed their
allegations, of the high and unjustifiable level of inequality,
the failures of the market system. The expression “we are the 99
percent” has entered into popular consciousness. No one can be sure
where the Arab Spring or the Occupy Wall Street movements will lead. But
of this we can be sure: these young protesters have already altered
public discourse and the consciousness of both ordinary citizens and
politicians.
Quebec's students provide a lesson in protest politics
Sustained action over tuition fees helped defeat Quebec's Liberal government by appealing to a wide movement for change
So this is how it's done. Students in Quebec, in rebellion
against their government over tuition fees, have scored an amazing
victory in the province's general elections.
The Liberal
government led by Jean Charest, which ran on a law-and-order platform
against the students, has been defeated. Its plans to implement an 82%
tuition fee increase are shredded for now, and the harsh emergency legislation it passed to quell the upsurge is history. Charest is resigning from politics. Two members of the leftist group, Québec Solidaire, have been elected, and the party gained more than 6% of the popular vote.
For
those used to student movements that erupt suddenly only to deflate
within a few weeks or months, this defies belief. How, then, was such an
effective action actually sustained, in defiance of police crackdowns
and emergency legislation?
Students in Quebec inhabit militant traditions
inherited from the "quiet revolution" of the 1960s, when the province's
francophone majority pushed for full access to higher education as part
of a series of sweeping reforms. This inaugurated a student movement,
whose signature was the mass student strike. Each time a government
attempted to drive up tuition fees, the students walked out – and most
of the time, they won. As a result, there is a thriving democratic
culture among Quebec's students. While the NUS is converting itself into
a tame lobbying organisation, Quebec students have a tradition of
grassroots organising, and four relatively democratic federal
organisations that rank-and-file student bodies can affiliate with.
The
radical spearhead of the movement is the Coalition Large de
l'Association pour une Solidarité Syndicale Étudiante, or Classe.
Emerging from a decade of leftwing student unionism, Classe was
explicitly formed in December 2011 to build a students' strike to stop
the fees rise. Going further than most student bodies, it demanded the
cancellation of all tuition fees, to be paid for by a tax on banks. This
stance was very popular, and the group eventually incorporated 65 local
affiliates and 100,000 members comprising the most politicised and
activist core of the province's 400,000 strong student body.
General
assemblies of students were held across Quebec, to discuss and
implement a strike. This meant boycotting and picketing classes, and at
their height the strikes achieved the support of 300,000 students. The
structures of direct democracy built on campuses sustained the momentum
behind the strikes, enabling students to meet, discuss and make
decisions on a regular basis. Each month, the movement called a mass
mobilisation, with tens of thousands of students gathering in the Place
du Canada in Montreal. But there was also a heated debate over the
strategy and goals of the movement. It wasn't enough to keep the
momentum going. In addition to the strikes, radical students sought to
disrupt the smooth functioning of the economy and the government,
carrying out blockades and occupations of banks and government
buildings.
But students also reached out to the labour movement. Theirs was a class issue,
they insisted, and Classe called for a "social strike" of both students
and workers. They consciously sought alliances with Rio Tinto workers
locked out of their jobs, public sector workers facing cuts, campaigns
against increased fees for healthcare, and local resistance to the
government's attempts to turn over northern resources to the mining
industry. Neighbourhood protests became a regular occurrence. A number
of union federations passed motions for strike action, though as yet the
resistance from union leaders is too strong, and the labour militants
too weak, to make it happen.
Importantly, the student leadership
refused to be divided. When the government excluded Classe from
negotiations, in the hope of engaging the more moderate student
federations in a compromise, the latter walked out.
The government's biggest mistake was passing Bill 78,
imposing severe restrictions on the right of students to protest.
Though supported by the Quebec Council of Employers, the bill was
otherwise reviled. Rather than breaking the students, the repression
produced a much wider movement.
Up to half a million people marched in clear defiance of the law. Those
returning home from law-breaking protests were greeted by families banging pots and pans
in their support, from their windows and in the streets. Some of the
country's largest trade unions joined in the protest. To get a sense of
how improbable this is, compare it with our student protests beginning
in November 2010, where the NUS and UCU leaderships organised timid
demonstrations separate from the main protests.
The Liberals'
defeat can be traced to that defiance. But the Parti Québécois, which
has just won, is not an ally of the movement. The new government will
probably seek to negotiate a smaller fees increase with the agreement of
the less militant student bodies. At any rate, the movement has long
been about more than fees. Classe intends to keep the pressure on, with
new assemblies and protests, aiming to build the widest possible
movement to challenge neoliberalism. British students should take the
hint.
Hi everyone. As you know, there's an election coming up in the US in November so I figured we should take a closer look at a couple of issues. For next week, we'll focus on these two articles:
Some other topics you might want to familiarize yourselves with that are touched upon here are the electoral college, Citizens United, the NDAA, drones and Iran/Israel. I've copied and pasted the two articles below. See you all Thursday.
The US presidential debates' illusion of political choice
The issue is not what separates Romney and Obama, but how much they agree. This hidden consensus has to be exposed
Wednesday night's debate
between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney underscored a core truth about
America's presidential election season: the vast majority of the most
consequential policy questions are completely excluded from the process.
This fact is squarely at odds with a primary claim made about the two
parties – that they represent radically different political philosophies
– and illustrates how narrow the range of acceptable mainstream
political debate is in the country.
In part this is because
presidential elections are now conducted almost entirely like a tawdry
TV reality show. Personality quirks and trivialities about the
candidates dominate coverage, and voter choices, leaving little room for
substantive debates.
But in larger part, this exclusion is due to
the fact that, despite frequent complaints that America is plagued by a
lack of bipartisanship, the two major party candidates are in
full-scale agreement on many of the nation's most pressing political
issues. As a result these are virtually ignored, drowned out by a
handful of disputes that the parties relentlessly exploit to galvanise
their support base and heighten fear of the other side.
Most of
what matters in American political life is nowhere to be found in its
national election debates. Penal policies vividly illustrate this point.
America imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation on earth
by far, including countries with far greater populations. As the New
York Times reported in April 2008: "The United States has less than 5%
of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners."
Even
worse, these policies are applied, and arguably designed, with mass
racial disparities. One in every four African-American men is likely to
be imprisoned. Black and Latino drug users are arrested, prosecuted and
imprisoned at far higher rates than whites, even though usage among all
groups is relatively equal.
The human cost of this sprawling penal
state is obviously horrific: families are broken up, communities are
decimated, and those jailed are rendered all but unemployable upon
release. But the financial costs are just as devastating. California now
spends more on its prison system than it does on higher education, a
warped trend repeated around the country.
Yet none of these issues
will even be mentioned, let alone debated, by Mitt Romney and Barack
Obama. That is because they have no discernible differences when it
comes to any of the underlying policies, including America's relentless
fixation on treating drug usage as a criminal, rather than health,
problem. The oppressive system that now imprisons 1.8 million Americans,
and that will imprison millions more over their lifetime, is therefore
completely ignored during the only process when most Americans are
politically engaged.
This same dynamic repeats itself in other crucial realms. President Obama's dramatically escalated drone attacks
in numerous countries have generated massive anger in the Muslim world,
continuously kill civilians, and are of dubious legality at best. His
claimed right to target even American citizens for extrajudicial
assassinations, without a whiff of transparency or oversight, is as
radical a power as any seized by George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Yet
Americans whose political perceptions are shaped by attentiveness to the
presidential campaign would hardly know that such radical and
consequential policies even exist. That is because here too there is
absolute consensus between the two parties.
A long list of highly
debatable and profoundly significant policies will be similarly excluded
due to bipartisan agreement. The list includes a rapidly growing
domestic surveillance state that now monitors and records even the most
innocuous activities of all Americans; job-killing free trade
agreements; climate change policies; and the Obama justice department's
refusal to prosecute the Wall Street criminals who precipitated the 2008
financial crisis.
On still other vital issues, such as America's
steadfastly loyal support for Israel and its belligerence towards Iran,
the two candidates will do little other than compete over who is most
aggressively embracing the same absolutist position. And this is all
independent of the fact that even on the issues that are the subject of
debate attention, such as healthcare policy and entitlement "reform",
all but the most centrist positions are off limits.
The harm from
this process is not merely the loss of what could be a valuable
opportunity to engage in a real national debate. Worse, it is
propagandistic: by emphasising the few issues on which there is real
disagreement between the parties, the election process ends up
sustaining the appearance that there is far more difference between the
two parties, and far more choice for citizens, than is really offered by
America's political system.
One way to solve this problem would
be to allow credible third-party candidates into the presidential
debates and to give them more media coverage. Doing so would highlight
just how similar Democrats and Republicans have become, and what little
choice American voters actually have on many of the most consequential
policies. That is exactly why the two major parties work so feverishly
to ensure the exclusion of those candidates: it is precisely the
deceitful perception of real choice that they are most eager to
maintain.
Will Pot Become Legal?
Weed would remain illegal under federal law, but good luck to the feds trying to enforce that ban if a state abandons it.
Judging from recent history, any young person who aspires to be
president should be aware that certain attributes seem to be
critical. You have to be male. You have to have an Ivy League
degree. You have to have been a governor or senator. And, don't
forget, you have to have smoked marijuana.
Barack Obama said, "When I was a kid, I inhaled. That was the
point." Presumably, Mitt Romney never did, and who knows? Maybe
he'd be ahead in the polls if he had -- though, he might note, it's
never too late.
Logicians will quarrel with my reasoning, arguing that drug use
did not propel these men to high office. That's true. But it
obviously didn't hinder them.
For decades, champions of the drug war have trumpeted the dire
risks of marijuana. But millions of Americans have used and even
enjoyed it -- nearly 100 million, in fact. Most of them have gone
on to lead responsible, well-adjusted lives.
If anything related to pot would have kept them from being
elected to office, it would be the laws against it. An arrest or a
conviction could derail a political career before it even got
started. Yet these presidents went on putting people in jail for
something they got away with.
Their fellow citizens, however, are increasingly skeptical about
the drug war. Last year, Gallup found that 50 percent of Americans
now favor legalizing cannabis, with only 46 percent opposed.
The sentiment may lead to action. On Nov. 6, residents of
Colorado, Oregon and Washington will vote on ballot measures to
allow the regulated production, sale, and use of pot.
In Colorado, which already has a large network of medical
marijuana dispensaries, familiarity has bred acceptance. One of the
most noteworthy headlines of 2011 came on a news release from
Public Policy Polling: "Colorado favors gay marriage, marijuana
use, loves Tebow." Affection for the Denver quarterback may have
ebbed since he went to the New York Jets, but the Regulate
Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012 is leading in the polls.
Weed would remain illegal under federal law, but good luck to
the feds trying to enforce that ban if a state abandons it. As the
Drug Policy Alliance notes, medical marijuana has gotten
established over the objections of Washington.
Critics raise the usual alarms. Obama's Office of National Drug
Control Policy charges that "political campaigns to legalize all
marijuana use perpetuate the false notion that marijuana is
harmless. This significantly diminishes efforts to keep our young
people drug free and hampers the struggle of those recovering from
addiction."
But very few people portray marijuana as harmless. The claim,
grounded in fact and experience, is that it is far less harmful
than the effort to stamp it out.
Marijuana prohibition means the arrest of some 750,000 people
every year for simple possession -- double the number 20 years ago.
It means spending an estimated $7.7 billion on enforcement. It
means the enrichment of urban gangs and Mexican drug cartels that
depend on the illegal trade. And the whole effort has been a
complete failure.
Nor does a permissive approach necessarily undermine efforts to
protect kids. For high school kids, dope is just slightly harder to
get than Skittles. In the Netherlands, which permits regulated
sales through "coffee shops," adolescents are far less likely to
try pot than here.
Marijuana use, it's true, can be damaging. A recent study found
that people who begin using it heavily as teens and continue as
adults can reduce their IQ. It can cause dependency. Like any
mind-altering substance, it may foster dangerous behavior.
But the same things are true of alcohol, a drug that inflicts
far more damage to users and the rest of us than marijuana could
ever do. We accept those risks as the price of personal freedom --
while focusing law enforcement on combating abuse, not use. A
similar respect for individual prerogative ought to govern in the
realm of cannabis.
Young people should realize that, despite the example of Obama
and his predecessors, smoking pot doesn't mean you'll grow up to be
president. But be warned: It is one of the risks you take.
Hey guys and gals, welcome to the new blog for the new 2012/13 school year! Seeing as I still haven't mastered moodle and the whole email thing has proven to be more of a hassle than expected for delivering articles, I've decided to give this method of sharing a shot. The plan formulating as I type is to simply post the articles due to be read for the upcoming class in this space, either in full or perhaps simply the link(s). In addition to the convenience of just posting in one spot it also has the benefit of a comment section for you to quickly leave your thoughts for me or your fellow classmates. Hopefully I'll come up with a few more ideas on how to use this space, for example putting useful links on the side to my blog for when you want to read about what I really think and any other helpful resources. Anyways, that's all I've got to say for now, check in every week (or more), looking forward to meeting you all in class tomorrow.
The public gets its first glimpse
of James Holmes, 24, the suspect in the Colorado theater shooting during
his initial court appearance Monday, July 23. With his hair dyed
reddish-orange, Holmes, here with public defender Tamara Brady, showed
little emotion. He is accused of opening fire in a movie theater Friday,
July 20, in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others.
