The Week: Ryan Cooper: 'The Beginning of The End of The War on Drugs'

Source:The Week- illegal narcotic in America.

Source:The New Democrat

"One of the many depressing aspects of the 2004 election was the crushing defeat of pro-gay marriage forces. Republican operatives, cynically stoking turnout with outright lies, put gay marriage bans on the ballot in 11 states, every one one of which was passed overwhelmingly.

So it's jarring that gay marriage is now legal in 36 states, a mere 10 years later. Gay marriage is also currently before the Supreme Court, which seems poised to legalize it permanently throughout the country.

Something similar might be happening with the War on Drugs. Though the change has been longer in coming, and like gay rights the battle is far from over, there are some recent developments that would be absolutely incomprehensible to a time traveler from 2004. And I'm not just talking about marijuana.

No, this is news about hard drugs in conservative states. In Kentucky, the legislature passed a bipartisan bill advancing a harm-reduction approach towards heroin addiction, while in Indiana, Republican Gov. Mike Pence authorized a needle-exchange program in response to an outbreak of HIV.

The experiments with full marijuana legalization in Colorado, Washington, D.C., and Washington state are vital and long-overdue measures. But marijuana poses relatively simple political and policy challenges, since as a drug it is relatively harmless and now widely known to be so. Harder drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine, by contrast, are much more dangerous and addictive, and thus pose more difficult political and policy questions.

On the other hand, hard drugs are also behind the very worst part of the War on Drugs — the gruesome violence it foments in Latin America, where gangs massacre each other and everyone else over the ability to sell drugs to Americans. Reforming drug policy has the potential to make the world a dramatically better place." 

From The Week 

"Aired: February 5, 2014 on MSNBC. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell. Congressman Steve Cohen verbally destroys Obama Administration's Drug Czar Michael Bottecilli during congressional testimony about the failed "War on Drugs."

Source:Henry Bloggit- The Last Word With Lawrence (don't call me Larry) O'Donnell.

From Henry Bloggit 

The so-called War On Drugs really represents what's wrong with big government in America and big government at it's worst, because it treats adults like children and punishes people for what they do to themselves. And I'm talking about addicts, not dealers It's like the big government version of someone grounding their kid for skipping school or not doing their homework. A big part about being an adult is having the freedom to to make your own decisions and control what goes in your own body. 

Source:The New Democrat- I prefer to say no to the War On Drugs.

I think it’s a mistake to put same-sex marriage in the same group and discussion as the War on Drugs. Because a big reason why so much progress has been made on marriage equality has to do with the American courts ruling that these gay marriage bans are unconstitutional because they are discriminating, because they create two different classes: one for straights and the other for gays. Straights can marry because they are straight and gays can’t simply because they want to marry someone of the same gender. Which is why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional because it empowers one class of Americans over another.

I’m sure there are certain unconstitutional aspects of the War on Drugs. But the fact is under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Government gets to decide what they’ll allow to be legal and what they won’t. Unless there’s already a constitutional right to own or purchase something, like firearms, where all Americans have the constitutional right to purchase and own firearms. There is no constitutional right in America to purchase one drug or another. The Federal Government gets to decide what they’ll outlaw and legalize and what they’ll enforce and what they won’t.

American federalism is why we aren’t seeing state bans on marijuana being thrown out by U.S. courts or state courts because those laws are constitutional. And why the federal Controlled Substance Act won’t get thrown out by any court because those drugs are substances and potential commerce and the U.S. Government has the right to decide what commerce is legal and what isn’t. 

Look, I would love see the War on Drugs, a bogus war (to be kind) that is not real and not a real war, I would love to see it get thrown out as unconstitutional. And we legalize marijuana at the federal level and decriminalize heroin, cocaine and meth at least to the extent that users and dealers aren’t treated as the same. Users and addicts get rehab at their expense and dealers go to jail.

But these things aren’t going to happen through the court system for the most part. The way you defeat the War on Drugs as far as finally ending it, because it as already lost politically, is through the legislative and political process. Get the word out across the country that marijuana is not something that should be endorsed, but that is has similar side-effects as alcohol. And it is a waste of money arresting people and sending them to prison for simple possession or usage of marijuana. Go state by state and lobby Congress as well and not just young Democrats, but Representatives and Senators of both parties. As well as continue to push ballot measures.

CNN: World News Special- Pelican Bay State Prison

Source:CNN- former CNN news anchor Susan Rook, probably back in the 1990s.

Source:The New Democrat

“Liberal News Commentator interviewing David Tristan, Director of the California Department of Corrections.” 

From Bat Man 

First of all, just to speak of Susan Rook at CNN: I miss her, I wish she would come back. She’s so freakin cute and sweet and makes hard news worth listening to and watching just with her beautiful, baby-face and sweet voice. She still looks great today from the few shots I’ve seen of her online. And works as a photographer and as an agent. She’s still pretty active, just not as a news anchor.

Now as far as Pelican Bay, maybe I should be careful how I put this, but if there’s such a thing as a human zoo it would be called Pelican Bay. Or the Colorado State Maximum Security Prison. Except that animals at zoos are able to move around in their yard and are probably outside most of the day. And can eat as much as they can handle and get plenty of exercise. As well as both human and animal contact. You get almost none of that if you’re an inmate at Pelican Bay.

I’m sure most if not all the inmates at Pelican Bay are quite frankly hard-core assholes who deserve to be at a maximum security prison. But there’s a right way to do that and the wrong way. The wrong way treats these people as if they’re wild animals like grizzly bears or tigers or something. And when you treat people like that, that is how they’re going to behave. But if you punish bad behavior while at the same time giving people incentive to improve, that is what will happen in most cases. The whole carrot and stick approach.

Later With Bob Costas: Camille Paglia Trashes Gloria Steinem Wing of Feminism (1992)

Source:The New Democrat

Good thing that Camille Paglia was never a U.S. Senator. Because they would never be able to shut her up. They would never be able to go home, Congress would always be in session, because the Senate was always in session. The House would be on vacation, with the Senate always open for business. Well always open to listen to Camille Paglia, if they hear very fast. Congress would have to create a new police force of Sergeant of Arms who would simply be there to shut Camille Paglia up and get her to yield the floor. To some poor freshman senator, whose been waiting for months to finally be able to speak on the floor. Because Senator Paglia has been speaking the whole time.

But having said all of that, I probably agree with just about Camille Paglia says about radical Feminists. People who I call man-hating dykes who essentially hate straight men and male masculinity. And are always putting down straight men, especially Caucasian men and especially Anglo-Saxon Caucasian men with southern or rural backgrounds. It’s not feminism or Feminists who are the problem. What they believe in is very mainstream. Which is equal rights and treatment for women under law. That men and women should be treated equally under law and not given special treatment either way for simply being a man or women. Which all Americans believe in. Well everyone to the Left of Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum, but not has Far-Left as radical Feminists who see women as better than men.

As far as Anita Hill, I’m one of the last people who would ever be a fan of U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas. Never heard of the man before President Bush appointed him to the Supreme Court in the summer of 1991. Shouldn’t be surprising since I was only 15 at that point. But even back then it seemed somewhat surprising to me that Anita Hill would finally make public her allegations once the Thomas Senate confirmations hearings finally started in I believe October of 1991. Maybe Professor Hill thought she should’ve been the one appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991, instead of her former boss Clarence Thomas.

Reason Magazine: Ed Krayewski: Are You Ready For President Joe Biden?

Source:The New Democrat

There’s a reason that even though Joe Biden isn’t mentioned as a strong contender to Hillary Clinton in 2016 for president. Even though he’s Vice President of the United States and an influential and powerful one at that as far as influence that he has on his boss President Obama. And has probably somewhere around hundred-percent name id certainly in the Democratic Party or country as well. Vice President Biden doesn’t have a national constituency and even a Democratic one. Some public servants are simply just good at that and serving their bosses and their people. Just like some assistant head coaches are good at serving their head coach. But that alone doesn’t make you a good candidate for president or head coach.

And then throw in the fact that Joe Biden is serving a president whose very controversial. A lot of people like or love Barack Obama, including myself. A lot of people have serious disagreements with the President and wish his policies were dramatically different in some key areas. Take the War on Drugs and civil liberties to use as examples. And I’m one of them as well. And then are also a lot of people who simply hate the man. And lot that has to do with generation, culture, how Barack was educated and yes race as well as ignorance. And questioning the man’s religion and loyalty to the country and calling him a Socialist as if they were calling him a bastard.

Plus the Obama Administration has had a rocky up and down run on really every issue they’ve had to face. They’re up for maybe a few weeks or months and then something like Healthcare.GOV not rolling out properly, even though they had three years to prepare for it, happens. Or the southern border crisis of last summer happens. Biden is the Vice President second ranking officer in an administration that will look better in the future, even though it doesn’t look great now. Because they’ve been involved in things that take time and where you don’t see great results right away. Like with the economy where the economy is just starting to rebound strongly. Or health care reform where the Affordable Care Act is finally starting to pay off for them. Or with their war against ISIS in the Middle East, that may go on for decades.

None of these factors and situations that Joe Biden has been involved in as Vice President whose in on everything and has responsibility for carrying out a lot of these possibilities and selling them to the country, add up to someone saying, “look how great things are now. Lets keep them going and nominate Joe Biden for president to keep America on the same course.” Unless President Obama has a great 2015 and is very popular going into 2016 and essentially has the power to pick his successor and says to his loyal Vice President, “you know what Joe, things are finally going our way and America is moving again. And you were part of all of it and you’re the guy to keep it going.” And puts his support behind his Vice President succeeding him, I can’t see Joe Biden even running for president. Because what would be the reason other than wanting to be president.

Jeff Walsh: Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher & Camille Paglia (1995)

Source:Jeff Walsh- Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher and Camille Paglia, in 1995.

Source:The New Democrat

"Back on his old show (and this was on Comedy Central, before the show even moved to ABC), Bill Maher had a two-part episode where he abandoned his usual roundtable discussion to have a one-on-one discussion with feminist icon Camille Paglia. Great stuff here."

From Jeff Walsh

I used to see Camille Paglia as the right-wing nut who put down feminism because Feminists wanted equal treatment for women. I use to put her in the same category as Ann Coulter and saw Camille as Ann’s roommate at the nut house. But thank God for education, because without that I wouldn’t of learned more about her and learn that it is not feminism, equal rights, equal treatment that she was putting down. She was putting down militant feminism and political correctness. Bill Maher had the best line in this video that he called his show Politically Incorrect, because he wanted to give liberalism a good name. That is sort of what Camille Paglia is about as well.

Maher and Paglia are two of the most anti-politically correct people you’ll ever meet. They aren’t fans of political correctness from either the Left or Right and most of it probably does come from Left. Political correctness are about as illiberal and anti-liberal as anything can get. Because it violates the most important aspect of liberalism and personal freedom. Which is the right to speech and the ability for people to express themselves and speak openly. Because someone in the political correctness, the Far-Left really will be offended by it: “Making jokes about Caucasian men and right-wing women is okay, but everyone else is unacceptable.” For political correctness supporters.

And what Camille Paglia and perhaps Bill Maher are saying is that the problem with feminism is not feminism. But militant feminism, this idea that women shouldn’t be treated equally, but better. And their other issue has to do with political correctness. That again people should feel free to express themselves especially if they are correct, even if that means it might offend someone. Like racial or ethnic minorities, women of all ethnicities and races. Or the political correctness Left, that people should be able to be themselves and express themselves, but then they also make themselves open to criticism as well.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Camille Paglia: 'Everything's Awesome and Camille Paglia is Unhappy!'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Camille Paglia, being interviewed by Reason's Nick Gillespie.

Source:The New Democrat

"Growing up as "a gender nonconforming entity" during Eisenhower's America wasn't easy for cultural critic and best-selling author Camille Paglia. Her adolescence in small-town, upstate New York was marked by rejection, rebellion, and cross-dressing—all in reaction to the stultifying social norms of the 1950s and early '60s."

From Reason Magazine

Give Camille Paglia five minutes to talk and two days later she might still be speaking and about the same subject. She seems very pissed off and energized in this interview. But I actually agree with a lot of the points that she’s making here about feminism. That she’s a feminist in the sense that she believes in equal rights and equal opportunity. That women or men shouldn’t be denied access simply for being female or male. I believe in the same things accept that as a man and a straight one at that, (ha, ha) I’m not sure that I can qualify as a feminist. But maybe that is a subject or debate for a different time.

But perhaps Camille Paglia’s larger point or the one these stresses more is that women or men shouldn’t be judged better simply for being a woman or man. Her critique about Feminists is not about mainstream Feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity. But against people who are called militant Feminists. People, women especially who believe that women are superior to men and therefore should be treated better and should be running the world. And those are the Feminists that I break away from not as a man, but simply as a Liberal who believes in equal rights and opportunity.

Reason Magazine: 'Why Medicare Will Always Need Fixing'

Source:Reason Magazine- The U.S. Congress: also known as the graveyard when it comes to action in public policy.

Source:The New Democrat

"Over the last 14 years, Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate formula—the SGR, which was passed in 1997 as a way to keep Medicare spending growing in line with the economy—has scheduled deep cuts to physician reimbursements on 17 different occasions. On each of those occasions, Congress has avoided the cuts by passing a patch—a temporary postponement of the payment reductions called for by the SGR that is always referred to by the same name: the doc fix."

From Reason Magazine

"We Can Fix It. That is What Doctors Do - Daniel E. Hale, MD"

From UT Health

Source:UT Health- Dr. Daniel D. Hale.

This is really about adding onto the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Which I supported then and I support now, but even great legislation which the ACA even with its best supporters doesn’t qualify as, at least yet need to be improve and reformed from time to time.

But to talk about the so-called doc fix that is part of Medicare first and the I’ll get into expanding Medicare. But the doc fix is what is known as the physician payments from Medicare to doctors who take Medicare patients. It is very expensive because Medicare only takes senior citizens. Not exactly the most healthy members of our society. And as a result their health care can be very expensive. Which is one of the problems with Medicare.

The doc fix I believe is fairly simple to fix in practice, but harder to get passed into law, because it would mean that Congress wold have to take on people they aren’t comfortable taking on. The special interests that made it possible for them to be in the House of Representatives or Senate.

Instead of paying doctors based on how much health care they give their patients, we could pay them based on their outcomes. Pay for quality care instead of quantity care. Subsidize doctors based on how healthy their patients are and encourage them to take steps to prevent their patients from having to have expensive health care in the future by taking care of themselves upfront. Instead of paying doctors based on how unhealthy their patients are and how much health care they have to give as a result. Similar to education, we should pay for performance, not pay for simply showing up to work.

Now, another way to cut the costs of Medicare is to have more people on it. Young healthy people meaning and doing what we should’ve done in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act and putting in the public option. Making Medicare available to everyone and giving non-senior adults the option of taking Medicare as their health insurer for themselves and their kids. Which could be paid for simply by the people who use it.

You wouldn’t have to expand the payroll tax because the new customers would pay for their own Medicare out-of-pocket and through their employer. Which would expand health insurance coverage, but also cut the overall costs of Medicare, because we would have younger healthier Americans on it including children.

We wouldn’t have to expand the Federal Government to cover the Medicare public option. We could allow for the states to set up their own Medicare systems under basic national standards. Not designed to run the states programs for themselves, but to see that Medicare dollars are used simply for that and nothing else. That their Medicare program remains non-profit and public and that it is treated no worse or better than private non-profit health insurers.

This is something that we would’ve done 5-6 years ago. It passed in a Democratic House of Representatives and could’ve passed in a Democratic Senate under what is known as budget reconciliation. Where it only take fifty-one votes for final passage and not sixty. And something we should do now.