Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Granite State affirms “live free or die” by one vote



“I just think it’s shocking how many of these young people wind up in prison and they get turned into hard-core criminals because they had possession of a very small amount of controlled substance. . .It’s time we stop locking up people for possession of marijuana. We just can’t do it any more.”


Pat Robertson
Imagine the slow, rhythmic, grim, sarcastic clapping that greets a mediocre or half-hearted performance. That’s about the size of my applause for the New Hampshire House’s passing, by ONE vote, the decriminalization of possession of cannabis up to a half ounce.

They defeated by a resounding 228-91 a measure to legalize sale of marijuana by anyone over 21. What’s wrong with you people? What have you got against freedom? New Hampshire should be a leader in enlightened drug policy.

That puny approbation is well short of medical marijuana, and I will be writing to my state legislators about that. It is nowhere near legalization, which I doubt will happen in my lifetime. The state motto, in reality, refers mainly to firearms; all other freedoms are conventionally or, as in the case of pot, retrogressively administered. New Hampshire lags many other states. Vermont has medical marijuana. Massachusetts has decriminalized larger qualities.

What part of “live free or die” do our legislators not understand? I’ll tell you: the part where freedom begins with self-ownership. If you don’t own your body, who does? The state?

By now, nearly every un-brainwashed, literate adult knows the basic facts, which are that marijuana does not induce violent or psychotic behavior, that it is no more harmful than beer, that it has a large number of medical and practical users. BUT IT’S STILL ILLEGAL!!!

I suppose this should be no surprise, since the Abrahamic religions that dominate Western politics are abstemious. What if a drug-centered religion had gained worldwide popularity and power? If everybody smoked dope, would it be a more peaceful world? Just speculating.

I’m still a 60s hippie at heart: I’m all for women’s and minority rights, against foreign wars and the excesses of capitalism…and I was sure that if we didn’t have free love by now, at least we’d have legal weed.

But NOOOOOOOOO!

A large proportion of Boomers either never got on board with drug liberalization…or got all hypocritical and didn’t want their kids doing drugs the way they did. There are all kinds of rationales. Many more found the state-approved drugs, alcohol and nicotine, both far more toxic than pot, satisfactory for their mood control. Caffeine, the other state-approved psychoactive drug, is perfect for capitalism. Gives us lots of pep to accomplish our corporate mission.

Plus: laws and policies are made by each generation’s self-selected cohort of busybody/control freaks, otherwise known as politicians. They will absolutely lie about the relative harmlessness and many benefits of marijuana. They will take a vow of hypocrisy and keep the damned drug war going strong, because they get off on making moral rules for other people…and, as politicians, can’t admit they were wrong about something as big as this.

They’re followers, not leaders – spineless, gutless followers. Easier to keep the brainwashing in place. I didn’t know of such people in my generation until I saw them in government and law-enforcement positions, perpetuating the drug war.

But it’s not unanimous. Through LEAP and other organizations, law enforcement personnel can and do express their opposition to the drug war.

Still, I couldn’t believe my eyes. People younger than I are arresting 800,000 marijuana “offenders” every year. Even Pat Robertson disapproves of that.

In the Sentinel story (March 11, 2012), Rep. Mark Warden specifically linked pot freedom with the state motto. Yes!! But Rep. Tommy Soltani made the usual slippery-slope arguments: drug dealers will lead to more criminal activity like prostitutes.

The governor’s mouthpiece, Colin Manning, repeated the party line that we’re going to make the job of law enforcement harder by saying that “some marijuana use is acceptable.”

Well, of course, SOME is acceptable -- by ADULTS. People over 18 – we regulate cannabis the same as we enforce liquor and tobacco laws. It’ll be much easier to keep kids from pot if it’s controlled.

As for other so-called, “crimes,” look, I know I’m decades ahead here in this Puritan land of ours, but there is a way to make prostitution legal. Take a trip to Amsterdam. More important, Tommy, is that the reason WHY the drug trade brings in criminals is that pot IS ILLEGAL. Black markets lead to crime, always.

Make it legal and tax it, and crime goes away. Most of the drug war is about marijuana.  We no longer have gangs fighting over liquor distribution territory. I lived near Chicago, site of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Real movie stuff: guys murdered in cold blood in a basement on Clark Street, the violence of another failed drug war. Brutal black-market territorial politics. But I will bet you that the same number of people die each week in Chicago because of the current drug war, which the government will not abandon.

This willful blindness, this insistence that the horrors of the drug war are caused by drugs themselves…is the lie politicians have been spinning for decades, ever since the LaGuardia Commission (1947) found that “marihuana” posed no threat to society, ever since a DEA Administrative Law Judge in 1989 found that cannabis had medical benefits and could properly be used as a treatment.

I recall many years ago reading of a drug activist who maintained that pot was the wedge issue, the linchpin issue: if the government would do this ONE thing, admit it had been wrong all along, and just legalize pot…well, then he would seriously consider anything they say, because there might be some truth in it.

But they will not tell this fundamental truth. If so blatant a lie can be kept in place decade after decade, what, if anything, is the government telling us that is not a lie? But if they told truth about cannabis (in tincture form, it was used, in the 19th century, as a remedy for “wedding night jitters” – sounds good to me)…well, then I might consider what they have to say, since there may be some honesty in it.

But not now. Not when they can keep this most obscene of lies in place.

If there’s a hero to this sordid story – sealing the victory and affirming the truth by one vote – it’s Speaker William O’Brien, who refused to vote and thus allowed the measure to pass.

Well done, Bill. We’ll have to share a joint and talk politics sometime.




Posted by Picasa

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Jewish Atheist takes on Sacred Cow, Forgiveness

The latest eruption of forgiveness worship almost made my breakfast erupt from my stomach. Dear Abby (Keene NH Sentinel, 3/7/12) printed DECIDE TO FORGIVE in its entirety, and to give the enemy his due, I will do the same:

“Decide to forgive For resentment is negative Resentment diminishes and devours the self. Be the first to forgive. To smile and take the first step And you will se the happiness bloom On the face of your human brother or sister. Be always the first Do not wait for others to forgive For by forgiving You become master of fate A doer of miracles. To forgive is the highest, Most beautiful form of love. In return you will receive Untold peace and happiness.”

Bah. Humbug. Forgiveness is one of the products of New Age psychologists (i.e., often MSWs, usually women, who consider themselves psychotherapists). In this it merges with religion. It is wrought with happy, sappy, feel-good talk that is far removed from human experience.

Let’s get real. Forgiveness cannot be a warm, fuzzy blanket for all foul deeds. In real life, people do horrible things to each other. To achieve the syrupy forgiveness that the New Agers preach, one must somehow understand the offender’s circumstances (it’s society’s fault!)…and even, they advise, rewrite history to make the subject the hero/ine. This is often unachievable except by lying to oneself.

Criteria for forgiveness

Why not face reality? Some things, especially when (i) it’s a minor offense, (ii) the intent to harm you wasn’t there, (iii) the person genuinely intended to do otherwise and (iv) is genuinely repentant. This covers a wide range of behaviors – e.g., you get somewhere late because of unexpected weather or traffic – and true forgiveness is possible. Your relationship is unchanged. (BTW, forgiveness always comes from people. Having it come from the deity is a bad idea, because it allows clerical middlemen to decide when you're forgiven. Way too much power.)

Ah, but how often is the offense heinous, the evil intentional and voluntary (even allowed by the regime in power), the offender unrepentant?

Here I submit that the best we can achieve is understanding of why the offender did what he/she did and of what our role was, if any, in making things worse. This is not forgiveness.

Remembrance – and justice

I’m not referring to vengeance. Even as primitive a moral code as the Bible tells us not to bear a grudge. Just memory. To forget human evil is to allow it to be repeated.

You see, the sweet syrupy kind of forgiveness is tricky with words. It’s either forgiveness or resentment. Why not both? Or a third? You can have a little forgiveness (because of the offender’s circumstances), more than a little resentment, and a desire for JUSTICE to be done. Typically offenders (e.g., prick VPs and colonels) get away with it, and there is no justice.

Maybe that’s why we like to believe in karma.

And it does happen that offensive people offend the wrong person and get what they deserve.

The sweet syrupy kind of forgiveness says you have to forgive first, and by doing so you’re master of your fate. I would say: you’re responsible for what happens next. My guess is that your torturer, your abusing spouse, boss, or employer, will laugh his/her ass off at that.

Sadists don’t give a shit about forgiveness. If you’re in the wrong setting, a declaration of forgiveness might get you an extra shock to the genitals.

So forgiveness means understanding, to the extent possible, remembering what happened but – and this is crucial, because it’s often all the New Agers can accomplish – don’t DWELL or obsess over it unnecessarily, get on with your life, but remember…and see if justice is ever done.

Getting what they deserved Why do we love to see celebrity assholes get their comeuppance? Because it satisfies our yearning for a narrative of crime and punishment -- a narrative often missing from our own lives.

After centuries of persecution and passsivity, Jews are taking responsibility for their own defense and doing a magnificent job (not without $4B/year of American aid). They’re arguably a special case: persecuted and massacred with impunity for so long by so many nations. They had to kill back; they had to show that you cannot kill Jews with impunity. Hence the revenge killings for Munich, the hunting down of Nazis, the assassination of Muslim extremist leaders, etc.

But every group wants to close the arc, land the KO blow.

Osama hiding among our so-called friends (they knew, believe me)? I don’t think so. The US government/military was accuser, judge, jury, and executioner, and you didn’t hear a peep of protest from this nation, which was spared the spectacle of trying this man.

Sometimes justice is served quickly and quietly. (I hear the SEAL team op is going to be a great – and controversial -- movie.) Not every criminal deserves his day in court. Yeah, I know, there are probably liberals who think Osama should have been be tried in NY. Maybe, but it’s better this way. He killed 3,000 people because there were Americans on his stupid holy soil. Deserved what he got.

Yes, the most the ladies accomplish if your offense is grievous (child abuse, torture) is to get you from allowing rage and vengeance to consume your life.

Widening circles of forgiveness

The Dear Abby column also includes an ever-widening circle of daily forgiveness affirmations, but as soon as it get beyond people and off into “forgive across economic lines” and “forgive other nations,” it’s total nonsense. Nations aren’t people. They act crazy because they are collectively crazy, run by incompetents who mean me no personal harm. Nothing to forgive. Ridiculous.

I certainly don’t forgive religious fanatics – or believers of any stripe. They allowed their children’s brains to be molded at a crucial age, just as theirs were. Their pastors/rabbis/imams may be in the grip of a psychosis, but somehow, but they don’t have to close themselves off from reality, not all of them, at least. There are some secular Muslims out there – I know there are. Asif Mandvi?

Others I don’t forgive? A long list, certainly including my last wife, who refused even the most reasonable requests, and David Dirt (pseudonym), the tyrannical, employee-marrying ex-boss who’s been rewarded by retiring to photography in the Southwest. I don’t think much about him, but when I do, it’s with the hope that he gets bitten by a rattlesnake.

I was fortunate in that I never once endured bullying. Are you going to tell me that that you can forgive a bully, that the humiliations don't stay with you forever? No, you can't. Don't forgive bullies. Bullies unforgiven do not endure consequences and are simply encouraged to continue their bullying into adulthood.

Forgiveness and choice

The sweet, syrupy forgiveness is not only unrealistic (cannot realistically be applied to all offenses); it’s anti-humanistic. It completely abnegates the choice that the offender had to do what he/she did. Did Jeffrey Dahmer have a choice? Does everyone have a choice, even the schizophrenic whose voices are telling him to do it? But to blanket-forgive is to take away choice.

Was there choice? That’s for the justice system to decide. As we all know, it seldom delivers justice and can be forgiving to a small degree (i.e., mercy seasons justice, as in the famous “quality of mercy” speech in The Merchant of Venice): minor offenses are played down or pled out. There’s time off for good behavior. And a pardon from Haley Barbour because you controlled your murderous instincts long enough to be his houseboy, polite and docile (this is the setup for a murder movie).

Aside from that, there’s justice: do the crime, according to the system, and you do the time. Some of the crimes, including all drug offenses, are immoral, but the overlap between the justice system and actual justice is only occasional.

The unpunished

As for those offenders who go unpunished, we must not let them obsess us. Nor can we forget what they did. We cannot condone or excuse, much less forgive them. We can show that we disavow them. Modern Germans have made an outstanding effort at repentance, but the original offenses of the Third Reich won’t be forgiven. It’s just that today’s Germans won’t be blamed for them.

One last manipulative use of words, preceded by an implied “You are to take it as true that…”: “Only the brave know how to forgive. A coward never forgives.”

It’s NOT true! I submit that forgiveness has nothing to do with cowardice. A simple practice of realism and remembrance, coupled with the desire for justice or karma, and a general getting on with one’s life – that’s much easier than excusing the inexcusable and rewriting history.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Latinos? Hispanics? The power of a political artifact

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Martin Luther King

Here’s my suggestion for what Spanish-speaking callers should hear when they press 2 to hear the message in Spanish:

“It is obvious that by pressing 2 you do not feel it necessary to learn the language of your adopted country. This attitude is not acceptable. Please hang up and call again when you are able to do business in English. Thank you.”

I mean, really. Why Spanish? Why not have callers press any of 50 or 100 buttons to enable the conversation in any language spoken in America, from Cantonese to Urdu?

Lots and lots of them

The answer is simple: sheer numbers, Hispanics outnumber any other immigrant group, so, the reasoning goes, concessions have to be made.

Can you imagine what would have happened if my father, along with other American Jews, insisted on being able to conduct telephone business in Yiddish, the language of their immigrant forbears? What if Italians or Chinese insisted on it? There are quite a few of them, after all.

But no. Dad, along with millions of other second-generation immigrants from a hundred countries, was expected to learn the language of his new native land, and he did.

Livin’ in a Jewish paradise

To be sure, some Jews still refuse to make the full transition, but that’s because they live in an urban Jew-bubble with very little contact with the outside world. They communicate by liberally sprinkling their speech with Hebrew words and phrases – so many, in fact, that the meaning may completely elude an outsider. My wife calls it “Hebglish.” It’s an intermediary language, like Spanglish, a temporary solution until one can learn English – that is, unless one doesn‘t have to.

Ten centuries ago, some time after the Norman conquest of England, words from French and Latin (the lingua franca of science) began to creep, then to flood into the language. There were so many new and unfamiliar words that the first dictionaries listed only these, and not common words. But the grammar was and is English.

In an alternate universe, where William the Conqueror is defeated at Hastings in 1066, the French retreat across the Channel, and modern-day English sounds a lot like Dutch.

Admittedly, many Hispanics want their kids to speak English, and their desire to assimilate is commendable. They can still speak Spanish in their private lives, of course: this is all about having a single language for the public discourse and activities of the nation. Linguists call this phenomenon “code-switching.”

Division and exclusion

But companies and the government, afraid of losing sales and votes, respectively, won’t encourage that. Instead, because of their spineless political correctness, they hinder assimilation and encourage isolation by providing a Spanish alternative at every turn.

And of course, we have to brag about how color-blind we are (the truth is just the opposite, of course, by singling out the special groups. One company I worked for was so PC that in addition to Black History Month, it added Hispanic AND Asian Heritage months. The later is transparently bogus, based only on geography. Why no Women’s Achievement Month?

So for one quarter of the year, they were celebrating some ethnicity or other. A very poor way of making employees feel that they’re members of one company (which, after all, is the primary reason they’re there together – to make money as a group).

There is no better way to exclude someone – right to his/her face, in fact – than by speaking another language. All over the world, we see the problems that beset multi-lingual societies. In India, there are so many competing languages with millions of speakers that the government decided to continue using the language of the British conquerors. A good, practical move, I’d say.

So do we call them Hispanics or Latinos? A Google query generated two million hits, with answers all over the map. One questioner even asked which variant is “politically correct.” In trying to get it right for a speech, I was told that “Latino” is more common in California, while “Hispanic” predominates elsewhere.

A political artifact

There’s no authoritative answer, and it doesn’t matter. The group is a political artifact, throwing all Spanish speakers and Spanish-descended Americans into a single, artificial political group which has become so numerous (and so aware of the government benefits it can get by voting as an artificial group) that TIME magazine predicts (March 5, 2012 cover story) that they will pick the next President.

What a crock of shit.

Other than speaking Spanish, what do the people from two dozen countries have in common?

Are you going to tell me that if you put an Argentinian, a Mexican, and a Venezuelan in the same room, that they would eagerly embrace each other as Hispanic/Latino brothers? Or would national culture, pride and identity (not to mention regional and social differences in their Spanish) get in the way?

Would a Spaniard feel more affiliation to his/her country – or to his/her so-called Hispanic brethren and sistren in, say, Peru?

And how about Brazil, which is right down there with the rest of them and way too big to ignore. They don’t speak Spanish, but are they considered Hispanic on other grounds? What grounds? It’s a puzzlement!!

BTW, and as noted above, “Asian-American” is an even more ludicrous designation for people who come from even more countries and speak many different languages.

When did they start to be Hispanic?

I ought to do some research into the origin of Hispanics as a unified political group in this country. And yes, I know they were treated harshly early on. Indeed, their white bosses and masters were probably the first to lump them together as “Hispanic,” because that master/boss didn’t care about geographic differences.

But every immigrant group was treated harshly at first, including Jews from many countries. At some point, Jews started ignoring national origins and regarding their shared culture (which Hispanics do NOT have, unless you count being conquered) as primary.

In Chicago, Julius Rosenwald, the enlightened Sears CEO and philanthropist (whose foundation, BTW, helped educate large numbers of Black children in the South), encouraged the sophisticated, assimilated German Jews of the North Side to help their impoverished Jewish brethren (more recently arrived from Southern and Eastern Europe) on the city’s South Side.

Assimilating through language

But, as noted, Jews, along with every other immigrant group, did not demand linguistic equality. They did not demand bilingualism. They did not care to be educated partly in Yiddish, which would have definitely retarded their progress toward becoming full participants in American life, just as bilingual education (yet another arm of PC) does today.

Why curry favor with Hispanics? Because their high birth rates make them a political treasure – and for corporations, a potential gold mine. By some inexplicable calculus, hiring enough Hispanics in high-profile positions (and Hispanics generally) translates into market-share points – that is, if the company makes a big deal out of how many Hispanics it employs and makes sure everyone knows about it (that’s called good PR), more people will be favorably disposed to buy its products.

A hypocritical sham

Hiring Hispanics is part of the pandering diversity/affirmative action game. As I’ve pointed out in numerous posts, the whole idea of “diversity” is a hypocritical, disingenuous sham, carried out under the philosophy of “essentialism”: each Hispanic embodies some magical “Hispanic-ness” that will enable the company to better reach its Hispanic consumers.

This is anti-humanistic in the extreme, this pretense that a person’s language and ethnicity are more important that his/her individuality. I was once quoted to this effect in an interview with a PR/speechwriting publication. I asked, “What’s the point of our looking different if we all think alike?”

My boss chewed me out over that. I was proud of my stand, and I suppose this toady was just doing his job, but I will still give him a swift kick in the groin if we ever meet again. I even got a rebuke from the CEO herself, who informed me that “diversity is company policy” (translation: “your days here are numbered, white man”).

Gimme a fucking break. How exactly is some IT or finance staffer with a Spanish surname going to come up with winning product and market strategies that will score points with Hispanics? Company executives probably never heard the word “essentialism,” but that’s the doctrine they’re following.

Wasting time and money on “diversity”

Enormous amounts of time and money are wasted each year on “diversity”-related activities – not only the month-long celebrations, but recruiting and mentoring, which uses the employees as free labor in raising the company’s diversity numbers. There are Diversity councils, company-wide diversity conferences, and more.

It all distracts significantly from the resources needed to make the company competitive and successful. If you’re planning a diversity conference, that’s time and effort subtracted from the actual work of the company.

Diversity activities are a self-imposed handicap, a ball and chain that the organization drags around, despite the fact that there are no – repeat NO – empirical studies that clearly demonstrate that a diverse company performs better. Yet they keep this crap up, year after year.

You can bet that the Asian and European countries currently eating our lunch and/or owning our debt don’t give a shit about diversity. The same goes for smaller American firms that stay off the radar screen. Think of all the high-tech companies populated by Asian and Caucasian nerds. They don’t whine about proportional representation. They prefer to put their time, energy, and other resources into more practical pursuits – like winning in the marketplace.

Gotta “look like America.”

But to the diversity-mongers, there apparently is some advantage to an organization that “looks like America.”

In fact, according to the tenets of diversity policy, there must be “proportional representation:” because America is such a successful country, the logic goes (there’s room for doubt on that one – we’re surprisingly low among industrialized nations in many measurements of educational achievement and quality of life), we have to have the exact same proportion of blacks, Asians, and women as in the country at large.

Just those three. We didn’t need a Frenchman, a Zulu, or an Australian aborigine. In one company I worked for, “Diversity” was one of the managerial performance criteria, along with actual business measures like P&L; it’s one more goal the manager has to achieve.

Again, what a crock.

Do they not see that because of Hispanics’ high birthrate and immigration, they will, by mid-century, be 30% of the population (actual demographic prediction)? Are they prepared to make their company 1/3 Hispanic?

Nobody thinks about that. Instead, it’s a race for horseflesh and numbers. I’ve seen the bar graphs. They do keep count. A sharp Hispanic or Black woman (or even a seemingly sharp one) is a double-dipper and can practically write her own ticket.

Enough already!

Diversity and affirmative action will go on forever, just like farm subsidies and any other government policy that benefits a large number of voters. It’s been in effect for a generation, so can’t we say enough already? There are now Hispanic professional network and mentoring organizations (organizations of Hispanic accountants, lawyers, etc.) to help young people move up. Same for Blacks. Women are fantastic networkers. Everybody has access to an “old boys’ network.

Enough already! Why do Hispanics and others think the bar must always be lowered for them? When will we stop “race-norming” life for the no-longer-oppressed who are forever allowed to be less competent?

How many more decades of special preferences do they need before the fake debt of discrimination by people long ago is repaid by today’s while males, who suffer for crimes they didn’t commit?

Downsides of diversity

No matter. Reverse discrimination will continue to benefit this fake, made-up political artifact, far, far, into the future, even though it is not only ineffectual, diverting and wasting resources on a false goal, but also because (i) it creates resentment in the white men who are discriminated against through no fault of their own (as a Jew, I know a lot about “racial guilt”) – thus dividing the organization – and, (ii) perhaps worst of all, it allows the “protected classes” (that’s what they actually call them) to operate according to a double standard (how can they endure the humiliation?); it allows their mediocrity to pass for adequacy, thus undermining the competitiveness of the company, which needs all the brainpower it can get.

Language of the conquerors

A doctor I know is making his third attempt to learn Spanish. Again, that’s because there are so many of them infiltrating our PC society. It’s almost as if he’s learning the language of the “conquerors.”

Consider: English is the international language of aviation. It is the de facto language of scholarship, science, technology, and business. Machine-aided translation is better than ever. Given all this, if you are a native speaker of English, you are sitting on top of the world.

If you want to learn an important world language, try Mandarin Chinese. If you’re going to live and work in another country, then by all means learn the local language. Too many American businesspeople and diplomats fail to do that (e.g., there are way too few speakers of Arabic in the State Dept.), to the detriment of their organizations and our country.

But to me, absent the above conditions, learning Spanish is a retreat, a defeat for a unified America. It flies in the face of the dynamic of assimilation. I assure you this doctor does not expect to work side-by-side with Spanish-speaking physicians who know no English. No, this is a concession, such as one would make to a conqueror.

Except that here, matters are reversed: you learn Spanish if you want to speak to the hired help or the clientele – or if you’re a politician eager to kiss Hispanic ass and get Hispanic votes.

Who will dare?

What company will dare to be first to point to the Emperor’s new clothes, to note that we’ve been at this diversity thing enough, that grouping people by gender and ethnicity is odious and bogus, that it’s not worth the investment, and henceforth all hires and promotions will be made on the basis of competence and experience alone?

Do you think that someday some CEO will have the balls to do that? I‘m not holding my breath.