For Nasir Abas the impetus for change came in 2000 with a fatwa issued by Osama Bin Laden who is quoted by reporter Bob Simon as commanding that "It should be understood that killing Americans and Jews anywhere found are the highest act of worship and the highest form of good deeds in the eyes of Allah," However, Abas had been taught that murdering innocent civilians had nothing to do with holy war and was in fact prohibited. He therefore became an asset in the struggle against terrorism for religious reasons.
Abas now believes that educational settings are the most important battlegrounds and as CBS tells us“he is at the heart of the government’s de-radicalization program, which is all about persuasion, talking to university students, combating the dogma taught in religious schools, and most important, trying to turn terrorists in the prisons.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Inconveniently for Gore a new study by the Media Research Center shows that the ex-Vice President’s charge simply is not true. They looked at 115 stories concerning global warming presented on the morning news shows of CBS, NBC, and ABC finding that only four, three percent, made any mention at all of disagreement with Gore’s extremist view of the issue.
And, it is not as though there is no credible dissent out there. An example can be found in Newsweek’s April 16th International edition which published an essay by Richard Lindzen the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This scientific expert wrote that "Recently many people have said that the Earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe." Lindzen also asserted that Roger Revelle Gore’s supposed mentor mentioned so reverently in the film An Inconvenient Truth believes that “the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.”
Cooper's thrust clearly put the blame for this way of thinking squarely on the backs of Hip Hop artists and the greedy record corporations behind them. Prominently featured was the rapper Cam'ron who went so far as to say that if he knew a serial killer lived next door he would not report that fact to the police but rather just move away.
Comments concerning Cam’ron’s words posted on such websites as The Daily Hip Hop News, Nobodysmiling.com, and VIBE.com were mixed with some defending his views but the majority expressing embarrassment over his thoughts, with a number asking why 60 Minutes had to choose someone so stupid as the spokesman for Hip Hop. More than a few people made the important point that what the rapper said had nothing to do with the true meaning of “stop snitching.”
The program also almost completely missed the point. The war on people who used certain kinds of drugs got only the briefest mention and the academic expert on the subject of “stop snitching” who believes its origin is to be found there was not allowed to speak for himself. Cooper then permitted a government official to minimize the role played by a brutal drug prohibition system, entirely dependent upon people betraying one another for convictions, without challenge.
Perhaps if the 60 Minutes producers had seen the documentary Snitch produced by Ofra Bikel they might have understood a little something about the subject they were reporting on. Maybe if they had acknowledged that drug war was the most racist institution operating in America today, with statistics from the Drug Policy Alliance which tell us that Blacks constitute 13 percent of all drug users, but 35 percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent of persons convicted, and 74 percent of people sent to prison, their story would not have been so shallow and misleading.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
The Thessaloniki Center for Public Service Professionalism has been audited by the U.N. Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and her article contains the following two paragraphs; "The center was conceived to train public servants in the Mediterranean region and former Soviet states to be more transparent, accountable and effective in running their respective government bureaucracies.
The OIOS audit paints the center as an expensive project, plagued by staffing troubles, spotty record-keeping and the inability to complete projects."
The situation has consumed an enormous amount of broadcast air time and generated tons of printed material. To my mind and in the opinion of many others the most cogent and important comment on this came from Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock who happens to be black. He wrote, “In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?
I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?
When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
She should also be taken to task for a lack of substance in her questions. The interview was almost entirely devoted to the politics of the situation, with no discussion of the disease itself and its possible treatment. There was certainly no mention of medical marijuana’s value in combating the intense nausea which accompanies chemotherapy. The piece represents another lost opportunity to examine an important and woefully neglected issue this time with a major presidential candidate who now has a unique perspective.
In contrast, another Democratic presidential candidate, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has a strong public position in favor of medical marijuana. He will shortly sign a bill legalizing that medicine in his state, saying "So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do." Not only will Richardson sign the law but he was instrumental in securing its passage.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
When in the Anna Nichole Smith spotlight Judge Korda conducted himself and his courtroom in a professional and efficient manner that elicited no negative commentary. On the other hand, Judge Larry Seidlin, also involved in the Smith case, who promoted a circus like atmosphere in his courtroom and blubbered when announcing his decision will continue on the bench because he does not smoke marijuana or at least has not been caught doing so.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
I am a historian who studies the history of drug policy. I teach an online course at American University on the subject. So a quick review of the history of mandatory minimum sentencing may be helpful. These laws were enacted in both the 1930s in various places and in the 1950s on a national level. Both times they were eventually repealed because they proved to be debacles for many of the reasons discussed below. Please do not vote to save a policy that is an unjust unpractical abject proven failure.
An interesting Washington Timesarticle on the program quotes filmmaker Martin Durkin as saying that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media." The newspaper story also relates a remark of Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, who maintains that “at the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion, and this is dangerous.”
Their latest opportunity comes in the form of Morse v Frederick a dispute to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. It involves high school student Joseph Frederick who showed up at a school sanctioned, off campus, event wearing a tee shirt reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. While this slogan was juvenile and probably offensive to some people, it clearly also had a political policy connotation and thus was protected by the 1st Amendment. Nevertheless, as Kris Kane Executive Director of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) informs us the student “sued his principal and school board after receiving a 10-day suspension. Losing the case in federal district court, Frederick won his appeal to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. When his school board appealed that ruling, the Supreme Court accepted the case.”
Brooks M. Beard, lead counsel, and Alex D. Kreit have filed a very powerful Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of SSDP supporting Frederick. This document does an excellent job of demonstrating just how vile and damaging an attack on political free speech the government’s pursuit of this case is. They make the following three important points:
1) STUDENTS HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISCUSS ISSUES RELATING TO DRUG POLICIES, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE DRUG POLICIES DIRECTLY AFFECT THEIR DAILY LIVES AND THUS RELATE TO SOME OF THEIR CORE POLITICAL CONCERNS
2) PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO RESTRICT STUDENT SPEECH RELATING TO DRUG POLICY SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT
3) PUNISHING RESPONDENT’S SPEECH WOULD STIFLE LEGITIMATE STUDENT SPEECH ABOUT DRUG POLICY
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
He also observes that “A recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm.” This is the same concentration that many experts say will exist at the end of this century if we continue to burn the remaining reserves of fossil fuels. Linder then goes on to ask a very pertinent but too often neglected question. “If it is a given that human burning of fossil fuels is what will cause an increase of CO2 levels up to 2,000 ppm in the next 93 years, don't they owe us an explanation as to who burned those fossil fuels 300 million years ago?”
Last week the MSNBC program hosted by Tucker Carlson wanted to talk about the refunding of the failed government sponsored program airing anti-marijuana radio and television ads. They scheduled as a guest Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance but at the last minute bumped him in favor of Congressman Souder. As a result viewers were treated to an amazing display of ignorance concerning marijuana. As Piper puts it, “I never thought I would say this, but I’m glad I got bumped. Souder made a total fool of himself.” Also, we must give credit to Carlson who helped with the process by refusing to accept at face value many of Souder’s blatant falsehoods.
Cross posted on the Trebach Report
The film looks at the influence of Friedman’s free market advocacy in countries such as the United States, Estonia, Chile, India, and China making a persuasive case that he is responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than anyone else in the history of mankind. Friedman’s significant arguments for school choice and against the military draft are also addressed; however, his steadfast and principled opposition to drug prohibition found no place in this piece.
This is a major omission as Friedman’s sharp and analytical mind produced some the most devastating arguments in favor of drug legalization ever written. His position on this issue was completely consistent with the same free market principles he applied to economic systems. In fact, in 1992 the Drug Policy Foundation published On Liberty and Drugs: Essays on the Free Market and Prohibition by Milton Friedman and Thomas Szasz; edited and with a preface by Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin B. Zeese. As far back as 1972 in an article for Newsweek Friedman got to the heart of the matter when he wrote,” I readily grant that the ethical issue is difficult and that men of goodwill may well disagree. Fortunately, we need not resolve the ethical issue to agree on policy. Prohibition is an attempted cure that makes matters worse-for both the addict and the rest of us. Hence, even if you regard present policy toward drugs as ethically justified, considerations of expediency make that policy most unwise.”
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
Meetings will take place in Charleston, South Carolina on January 24th, Newark, New Jersey on February 27th, Honolulu, Hawaii on March 27th, and Las Vegas, Nevada on April 24th. The DPA provides an online toolkit for those who plan to attend.
An important point to remember, made by Richard Lawrence Miller in his book Drug Warriors and Their Prey: From Police Power to Police State, about drug testing is that it highlights the fact that drug use is a status crime not a behavioral one. The only reason you would need to test people for drug use is that you cannot tell whether or not they take drugs from the way they act. This explains why the ONDCP is so interested in spreading the use of testing because without it the drug problem might not be large enough for them.
Cross Posted on The Trebach Report
While Cohen praises the author’s acumen as a student of drug prohibition he takes strong exception to Trebach’s support of Israel. Cohen writes “I happen to be one of those Jews who thinks that the creation of Israel is one of the desperate mistakes that came out of WW2. No concentration camp and no Nazi horror legitimizes that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were chased out of their homes and farms to make the existence of Israel possible.” Now, it is important to point out that the overwhelming majority of the people living in Israel today were either small children or not even born when the events of that state’s founding took place. They cannot possibly bear any moral responsibility for any wrongs committed at that time, yet, it is they who will be slaughtered if the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah achieve their most cherished goal.
Yes, the government of Israel sometimes acts in stupid, brutal, or unjust ways, but, we must remember that it is the only government in the world whose populace lives under the constant threat of extinction by it neighbors. When the leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran talk about driving the Zionists into the sea they are not speaking about regime change, they are talking about genocide. And, it is not as though there are no historical precedents for mass killings of Jews.
Though the focus of Cohen’s comment is almost exclusively on Israel, Trebach’s manuscript is much more concerned with the wider threat to the world in general. The word Israel is mentioned on only fifteen of three hundred ninety eight pages. Instead, he deals with such subjects as the 9-11 commission, assassinations in the Netherlands, bombings in London, the often violent intimidation of voices speaking out against any aspect of Islam, and the inculcation of the philosophy behind the terror.
Lastly, it is implied in both the review itself and Cohen’s comments that Trebach seeks to replace the war on drugs with a war on terror. This can not be true because the war on terror, or more correctly the terrorist’s war on us, exists independently of drug policy. People in New York City, Madrid, and London have terrible first hand experience that Islamic terrorism is indeed very real. Trebach’s point is that we need to use all of our available resources to deal with it competently. It is too important not to.
Cross posted on The Trebach Report
