Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, may it stay dead

     The Justice Department has announced that it will no longer pursue mandatory minimum sentencing for certain drug offenses.  This is good news for a variety of reasons. 

Since its introduction in the 1980s, MMS has contributed to exploding prison populations, budgets, and decreasing conditions.  The shortage of prison space and funds has led to the rise of a for profit prison industry, which lobbies hard for the maintenance and expansion of mandatory minimums while housing prisoners who are the responsibility of the state in substandard conditions, reaping profit for incarceration.  Call it my knee-jerk Socialist reaction to privatization, but that’s not the sort of thing we should be incentivizing!

     Mandatory minimums were officially conceived as deterrent to growing drug use.  Clearly this has not worked; since the mid 1980s prison populations have nonupled, spurred by unequal enforcement of the laws and unequal application of even mandated sentences.  Prison has not proven effective at curbing drug problem- it is time to experiment with limited legalization, and begin treating this as a public health matter.  Salt Lake City for one, (hardly a bastion of bleeding heart liberals or whatever the kids are calling us nowadays), has done a lot towards implementing this.  There will always be a problem with encouraging people to seek treatment for a problem that is punishable by law.  Legalization is the best way to cut off funding for criminals, making the streets safer, and maybe even the people healthier. 

     It is also important to remain cognizant of the limits of this action.  Firstly, it will apply only to certain federal cases, leaving the majority of case procedure unchanged, including all at the state level.  Secondly this does not seem likely to have any bearing on those already incarcerated on insignificant drug charges.  Thirdly, barring a change in the law, Mandatory Minimums can be restored at any point, and presumably will be under the next Republican administration.  Still, in short term, there will be fewer incarcerations- how few I don’t know, but it’s an improvement, or at least a mitigation of a serious problem.  Now we need to follow this up with state action along similar lines, and the establishment of decent treatment options.

     And yes, I’ve got to say, my fury at the president’s conservatism is why I started this blog in the first place, and that fury still remains powerful, and I dare say justified.  For the most part, however, law enforcement has been one area where we have seen noteworthy improvement, and however atrocious the president and attorney general’s record on Civil Liberties, I must say

                “Whatever the reasons behind it, nice one, Barack.”  (Can we please have a public works program now?  Or at least nationalize something?)

Solidatität, meine Genossen und Genossinnen

Genosse Graham 

the Murder of Trayvon Martin, and America's Gun Culture

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen

I've been wondering for a while how to write about this- or even if I should.  I'm very conscious of Alcoff's caution against speaking for others- even a well meaning outsider speaking on behalf of an oppressed group, even in the best case scenario, diminishes the attention paid to the legitimate spokespeople of that group.  Nothing I say here changes the fact that I'm white (and of Prussian descent at that)- part of the oppressor class at least as far as race relations go, and that the issues of profiling, lynching, police brutality, and a disparate legal system disproportionately affect African Americans, and are indeed holdovers from Slavery and Jim Crow.  On some level, I am less qualified than a black person to speak about this.  Despite that, I think I ought to say something- a question arises of whether I will do the most harm openly speaking about the suffering of an oppressed group to which I do not belong, or by remaining silent at an important time.  I can't pretend to offer a convincing explanation for this exercise in cultural Imperialism, but I want to talk all the same.

The facts are- an armed man assumed an unarmed black youth was a criminal, and stalked him after police specifically told him not to do so.  A conflict resulted- and the unarmed boy was shot dead.  The killer was exonerated on the grounds that an unarmed teenager posed a threat to his life in the fight that he himself had started.

Several things are fundamentally wrong here- for one it's nigh impossible to see a similar outcomes had the ethnicities of the attacker and victim been reversed, making this another visible symptom of our unequal legal system which harasses, prosecutes, convicts and executes black citizens far more often per capita than whites.  I had the opportunity to speak with a St. Louis Park Ranger about the matter, to which he responded that there's "no such thing as an innocent black man", revealing with horrific clarity the depth of the system's bias against African Americans.  But putting that aside for a moment, as it is conceivable that Zimmerman acted within the bounds of Florida self-defence (yes I prefer British spellings)  law (itself another abomination), we must still focus on the horror of armed vigilantes picking fights with unpopular minorities.  This case seems familiar- the angry, white, madman railing against the scary black criminals who always get away because the police go easy on them...  What planet is he living on?  But because this is America, operating under an outmoded law designed to support the rebellion of the landed aristocracy against civil order which has since been appropriated to expedite the repression and murder of convenient targets, the power of angry racists is serious, no matter how wild their delusions.  (While canvassing for Nixon's gubernatorial bid in 2008-don't ask, I'm already ashamed- I met a fellow who insisted the greatest threat to public order was black families registering their dogs to vote in a mass bid to gain extra leverage over innocent white folks.  No joke- though I grant he did make a pretty good argument for the franchise being restricted, albeit in his case not that of the 15% of the population he labelled as canine co-conspirators).

The fact remains that many relish the thought of using violence against those they hate, and that this attitude is romanticized in many aspects of our culture.  The entire gun control debate is framed around the (!)glorious(!) image of a powerful, armed man shooting those who would do him or "his" women harm.  The last time I mentioned this issue my interlocutor offered this defence of totally unregulated gun ownership- it's better to kill your woman than to let her fall into the hands of a criminal.  Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things, but I think the cult of the weapon is much broader- a cult of "simpler times", when a man would need to have the power to kill those with whom he disagrees, and to maintain a hold over a dutifully adoring wife, who was as much his property as the slaves he'd keep toiling under the lash for personal profit.  Most of those I've met who champion unrestricted weapon ownership are desperately eager for a chance to use weapons to defend themselves against the perceived criminals of their choice.  It's pretty clear Zimmerman was one of these- he kept hanging around the police station, trying again and again to join, then joining some self-important neighborhood watch around a gated community, apparently for an excuse to intimidate and harass black people.  In the weeks following the shooting, policemen began selling portraits of Martin as targets for shooting practice, while unrelated incidents of brutality-like an unarmed couple in Cleveland being shot 137 times, an unarmed vandal being repeatedly tasered to death amid cheers and laughter,- and violence continue pouring in.  The Chief of Police of Gilberton Pennsylvania has summoned a supporting force of Tea Party Militia after the Mayor had the audacity to question his use of his badge in political videos in which he shoots mockups of Minority Leader Pelosi and calls for the murder of all Democrats in the city, (to say nothing of Socialists like yours truly).  We idolize violence, and as a racist country, we encourage race-based violence.

We've got a serious problem with racial discrimination as it is (The Supreme Court's myopia notwithstanding), and gun nuts eager for their chance to fight and kill, living some irresponsible fantasy of suppressing a slave riot on the old plantation are among the ugliest symptoms.  America may not have invented race-based oppression, but we're damned good at it, and at pretending it doesn't exist.  As long as someone's out there yelling for "States Rahts", or "Self Defence", it will always be that much more permissible to kill black people in cold blood.  We always obfuscate the issue, but the underlying pattern is that racist movements enrich militia movements, while militia movements provide insular homes for the honing of racist practice.  What happened in Florida is the necessary outcome of a society that values the freedom to lynch.

In Dejected Solidarität, Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham

Alternatives to "Sparpolitik" Austerity

Hello, Genossen und Genossinnen.  It's Sunday and I'm writing- aren't I newly consistenyly productive?:)

An important part of any theory of economic stimulus in a market economy is how to move the most capital through the most transactions, reflecting increased demand, triggering increased consumption and profit for business overlords.  (honestly, doesn't sound so good, does it?).  But this goal of capitalists can be used to illustrate the folly of budget cuts, particularly cuts to welfare and food assistance programs. 

Put simply, the less money someone has, the greater the share of it they will need to spend on necessities.  This means that providing for the poor, oppressed and unemployed, aside from questions of morality, is actually the best way, dollar for dollar to fuel the capitalist machine.  (I'd like to fix that by removing profit motive form vital sectors of the economy, but let's shelve those plans for this discussion).  I support three courses of action (Actually many but I'm going to talk about these three) to maximize economic action and help the needy.

Firstly and most importantly, as this will fund all other undertakings, fix the payroll tax.  It's structured in a horribly regressive manner, having its greatest impact on the poor, while leaving income over a million dollars immune to taxation!  Aside from questions of morality (remember-think like an economist here), this is terribly inefficient!  Rich people spend proportionally less of their money on economic activities that immediately benefit the community- no matter how much money you have, at some point you will no longer need to spend more on foodstuffs, utilities and so on.  Money sent into savings accounts or overseas investments is simply not being used to further the interests of the community- neither by the Socialist standard of providing for the public good, nor by the Capitalist standard of increasing demand.  We need a tax system that reflects this, because moderate progressive redistribution is actually good for business, and redistribution is a way to remedy systemic abuses.  Tax the Workers less, and tax the Capitalists more- it will increase demand, and may actually alleviate some suffering!

Second- Raise the minimum wage.  If the original minimum wage standard had been maintained, it would now be at some 12 dollars per hour.  7.25 minus a regressive payroll tax isn't enough to support a family, while megastores with underpaid workers end up costing the government billions in assistance to the exploited and destitute.  More money in the pockets of the Worker means less suffering, and more immediate demand for goods- (the promotion of consumption is unwise, but try explaining that to businessmen!  Ultimately, we do want to help people, so I'm letting it slide here.)

Thirdly- Public Works, Public Works, Public Works!- I'm pretty sure my native St. Louis has enough potholes to employ the whole jobless population for at least a year.  Furthermore- if we're not doing anything else to fight climate Change, why not some quality reforestation while we're at it?  Put people directly on the government payroll, hire professionals in construction and agriculture to train, oversee, and manage with the goal of employing people to the public benefit.  Train our wasted human capital to build proper infrastructure!  We need a new power grid, better rail systems, electric car charging stations, and environmentally sustainable dams.  (I'm also in favor of more tall, menacing towers and moats filled with homeless alligators and confused bull sharks, but this is my compromise proposal:).

Nothing remotely original, but it needs constant saying.  If the myth of Austerity=>prosperity is being trumpeted, we need to make social justice worth the while of business elites.  (I admit, I feel dirty advising anything on business-friendly grounds, but oh well).

Solidarität, Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham

P.S.- I'm considering reposting some old works in German- any advice on where to start?

Landeswahlen, Volksbegehr, und Sparpolitik

Brief Update on German Politics

Hello, all.  I’ve got lots of thoughts on current German politics that are burning a hole in my brain, (wait, what?), and thought I could make a shorter post summarizing what I’ve been following from my distant seat back here in Missouri.  Some of it is actually quite encouraging, while some is disheartening or even sickening.

State elections- the federal elections for the Bundestag are approaching, set for September 2013, but many state legislatures held their elections last winter, offering some idications of the national mood.  The news was very mixed- my favorite party, die Linke/the Left lost some overall representation, but so did the Frei Demokratische Partei/liberals, the reprehensible and unprincipled business party who make it a priority to cut social services at every opportunity and to try to use Germany’s economic power to coerce privatizations in other countries.  The change was mostly in favor of the Greens, my second favorite party, and Neues Deutschland speculates that Merkel will probably have to change coalition partners- perhaps working either with the Greens or a sold-out SPD, as it seems unlikely that the liberals will have the numbers to give her Christian party a majority.  Two other footnotes in the returns- the Piraten Partei won their first state legislature seats in Berlin, while the neo-nazi National Democrats picked up a lot of strength, especially in the south.  the Social Dems are talking about banning the National Democrats, and I think they ought to: insofar as Germany constitutionally commits to banning fascist organizations from political power, the NPD certainly qualifies, and it ought to give the Verfassungschutzamt something to do other than harass union leaders, although they have been working to observe and infiltrate the Nazi Underground movement, an investigation lauded by the ND.

Energy- Berlin citizens have apparently succeeded in petitioning for an initiative (Volksbegehr) to establish a collective green power company for the city and surrounding regions of Brandenburg.  the only question remaining (as of my last reading of the ND) is when the election will be held, with the measure’s backers trying to get it on the September ballot.  (Initiatives are always handicapped by low turnout, so when possible they should be scheduled to coincide with bigger, sexier elections to take advantage of their higher turnout.).  Sadly, Merkel seems to be reconsidering her newfound opposition to nuclear power, and the ND ran a rather amusing editorial comparing her to the Simpsons‘ Mr. Burns.  Regulatory power is also under threat as Merkel, apparently as a favor to her weakening coalition partners, is allowing great numbers of Free Democrats to be installed in appointive office.  That can’t end well.

Sparpolitik und Privatisierung- the government is still pushing for mass privatizations and abolition of social services in countries with struggling economies- the most egregious ones look to be Spain’s airports and water systems.  The ND points out correctly that the status of East German Volkseigenerbetrieb after reunification offers a pretty strong case against wanton privatization- the record time and again is of increased price to pad some investor’s wallet while lowering the availability of vital service for citizens, but after all, if a government cares about its people, it’s promptly called Socialist.  (I happen to be a Socialist, but that’s beside the pointJ) 

It’s still my firmly held belief that the vital sectors of the economy- food production and distribution, energy, education, media, healthcare and transportation cannot be trusted to exclusively private hands.  Most of the western world (and nearly all the developing world) has operated with this viewpoint to one extent or another since the end of the Second World War, with generally positive results.  Now, insofar as Austerity „Sparpolitik“ seeks to revert Social Contracts to their pre-war, laissez faire state of indifference to human suffering and the evils of capital, the fruits of collective responsibility are threatened. 

Wenn ich ein Bürger Deutschlands war, wählt ich Links- were I a German citizen, I’d vote Left

Just a brief update, Danke sehr, mein Genossen und Genossinnen

Genosse Graham

Scotland, Salmond, and Secession

Hello, all.

It's still quite distant, but the day in September 2014 when Scotland will decide whether or not to claim independence and effectively secede from the United Kingdom is approaching.  This is an interesting possibility from a historical standpoint- the conquest of Scotland by England, and the resulting United Kingdom of Great Britain (to which, in the words of W.S. Gilbert, some add, but others do not, Ireland) dates to the beginning of the 18th century, and has been unquestionable until the mid-twentieth.  At present I cautiously support independence, but I'm keeping an open mind about the Union.

The present impetus for a referendum on Independence came out of the "Devolution" program begun, also by Referendum, in 1997, establishing a Scottish Parliament with significant but not total control of internal Scottish affairs.  This accompanied the rise of the Scottish National Party at the expense of Labour, which had traditionally been strongest in the Highlands.
     The Nationalists managed to win control of Parliament a few years ago, and since then their longtime leader Alex Salmond has ruled as First Minister of Scotland, chosen by the Scottish Parliament in its bizarre capital at Holyrood.  I'm a little concerned at the level of devotion he seem to inspire from his party, which, when coupled with nationalist messages really gives a rather fascist impression, but from the past years I cannot deny that he knows how to run a government, and use it to care for the most vulnerable.  While the trend across Britain from Blair to Brown to Cameron has been privatizations of vital sectors such as water and transit, Scottish governments in general and Salmond's in particular have pushed back, not only retaining the public infrastructure but extending further aid to Workers, particularly in the form of additional childcare.  Scotland's economy is strengthening, helped I believe by the strong state role, and much of the credit for improving public services must go to Salmond, and capable deputies like Nicola Sturgeon.  Youth unemployment is down 40 percent since he took office, and the SNP has remained firmly anti-war.  Indeed, one of their top priorities is the removal of Britain's nuclear arsenal from Scottish soil.  Back to the topic of youth in society, the government is just now pushing a bill which seems sure to pass, lowering the voting age to 16!  This is pretty cool.  Salmond and Sturgeon, (fishy as it sounds) know what they're doing.

The unfortunate part of all this is that Independence is not necessary to achieve the goals of the Scottish government.  The most desired power which Scotland lacks is that to set its own tax rates- all the aid programs in the world won't last without the capital to fund them properly.  This was to be originally offered as a third option in the referendum, but a combined effort of the Conservative and Labour parties got it booted.  I regret to say that Labour leader and leftwing dreamboat Ed Miliband was a willing part of this effort.  Parliament has gambled, probably correctly, that full-blown independence will prove less popular than a federal Scottish Parliament with the power to tax.  The matter is further complicated by Scotland's desire to remain on the Pound Sterling rather than the Euro.  That said, the benefits of a Scotland truly free to pursue a path of Social Democracy far outweigh these impediments, as we've seen, with boons to public health, working women, youth, and the anti-war movement already flowing from mere Devolution, an Independent Scotland could achieve so much more!

Scotland has shown it can manage its own affairs, and that its goals are significantly different than those of the Westminster government.  honestly, I think a new Scotland, one more closely aligned with Northern Europe, could be a very positive force in global politics, and a check on an increasingly conservative and to some extent, militaristic England.  Let's give Scotland its chance!

Solidarität mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham

Snowden, Morales, and rude awakenings

Hello, all.  I'm finally writing again.

I'm sure you've all heard- some Defense contractor, Edward Snowden, has released documents detailing the National Security Agency's massive wiretapping program.  We all knew something of this sort was happening, and that it is probably unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier that any effort to put an injunction on this program depended on having proof that it was operating to begin with- proof whose exposure was illegal.  Snowden apparently sought the job looking to expose as much of our government's espionage program as he could.  Whatever his motivations, I'm glad he did.

For many like me, the Bush administration's massive wiretaps program was one of the main reasons to rally behind an early anti-war candidate in 2008.  To a large extent, I supported Obama then because of his willingness to challenge the country's foreign policy consensus of long wars of occupation, torture, airstrikes on civilian targets, and stifling dissent, all while ignoring the bill of rights.  Now we find that, as with the bombing campaigns, torture, and military occupations Obama has not only allowed wiretapping to continue but has apparently expanded it.  This was all enabled by the FISA bill, passed early in his first term, setting up a quasilegal framework for constant surveillance.  This was one of the first signs I noticed that I'd been had.  (I'm sure there were earlier signs, but this was one of the first I noticed).  Essentially, every phone call's source, destination, and duration are being recorded, while google, facebook and yahoo do the same with web patterns.  Journalists' phones, in particular, are constantly tapped in the Justice Department's ongoing effort to end the practice of public disclosure of misdeeds, and it's not hard to see the massive data stockpile being used to selectively enforce laws against social elements labelled "undesirable", or simply to further enrich the security state, or haul more people off to for-profit prisons.  Whatever the goal of the program, it offers an abundance of personal information that has never previously been the domain of the state to our government.  Moreover, the Democrats who took office claiming rightly that the Republican programs had shredded our political liberties have now become ardent defenders of those same programs.  I blame most of the party, but the onus of blame falls especially hard on those who led us to believe something else- namely the president and Attorney General Holder, as well as hardline Democratic hawks like Diane Feinstein, who has quickly become a caricature of herself in this affair.

Whether you support or oppose a surveillance state, I hope you agree with me that we need to discuss the emergence of one openly, with public knowledge of our government's decisions.  this alone makes Snowden a hero.

The really depressing side of this, though, is the extent the Western World has gone to to apprehend Snowden.  Stranded in Moscow's airport, most of Western Europe forbade Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane from returning home until they had searched it, on the pretense that he was smuggling Snowden to safety.  Putting aside the laughable notion that a president as hawkish as Obama would not simply send in a (Reagan in Grenada style or Bush in Panama style) military raid on any country brave enough to harbor an American political refugee, this is a gross violation of international sovereignty.  How would we react if our president was arbitrarily stopped in a foreign country and all his effects searched by jackbooted thugs?  For the record, Morales is pretty awesome- imagine a Native American Hugo Chavez, albeit without the benefits or corruption of oil.  The mere suspicion of Morales supporting Snowden was sufficient to suspend the rights of the president of a sovereign nation.  The disappointing side of this, of course, is the extent to which the agenda of European states I like to believe are at least somewhat enlightened, states like France, Spain, Italy and Austria, coincided with that of our own government.  The other service Snowden has performed in his flight is to show once more the arrogance of the American government, which has always sought to project its will globally, whether it be tearing down governments that support economic sufficiency for their populations, monopolizing the oil and arms trade, or repealing environmental treaties, now for the moment frustrated in its effort to apprehend the man who revealed its latest misdeed.  With the spectre of Chelsea Manning's permanent suicide watch- namely, constant restraints in prison from which she will never be permitted to emerge alive, Snowden's flight is the only sensible path for a whistleblower who has not yet given up the fight. My heart goes out to him and any state willing to shelter him (well, maybe not Putin's Russia).  Whatever the case, the public still has the right to know.

Solidarität, mein Genossen und Genossinnen
Genosse Graham