The Passion of the Howler

Title unrelated, but I figured it worth mentioning that Mark’s Song 97 of 366, “Karl Pilkington Has A Head Like a Fucking Orange,” has found its way into the lap of Ricky Gervais by way of Pilkipedia, the only Wiki dedicated to all things Karl Pilkington, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant.

Pretty cool, innit?

—Bryan Klausmeyer 1 Comment

Proposal: Urban Gardening

For this proposal, gather a watering can and fill it with water. Go to your closest center of urban commerce and find objects that need water. Begin with a telephone pole, then try a post box. Once you have emptied the watering can your task is complete. It is suggested that you do not attempt this on a rainy day as overwatering may spoil your good intentions.

Let me know if you try this.

—Mark Elliot Cullen

A Letter To Drug War Supporters: What Are You Smoking?

Here’s a letter I just wrote to the Michigan Daily concerning U.S. Drug Policy. I don’t know if it will or should be published, but either that’s why I’m putting it here. By the way, Hash Bash at Michigan is sort of a joke now-a-days, it really deters from anything resembling a social or political movement—it is nothing but a peanut gallery display for undergraduates to “experience” while they wait for their six-figure jobs. Anyway…

Regardless of whether Hash Bash is held this year on the Diag, the discourse over the continuation of America’s failed drug policy, exemplified by the War on Drugs, should be critically evaluated by every U.S. citizen. Both Michigan and the United States as a whole are facing economic and fiscal problems with no clear solutions in sight, and yet we continue to spend vast amounts of tax dollars to pursue policies that are proven failures. The War on Drugs is nothing but a financial blackhole. Billions are spent annually domestically and abroad to reduce the production and distribution of controlled substances with little success to show for it. In fact, the Drug War under the reign of George W. Bush has actually led to a two-fold increase in cocaine production worldwide.

The benefits of ending the War on Drugs and fully decriminalizing marijuana far outweigh the supposed consequences of their existence—this view point does not call for the decriminalization of more severe drugs such as cocaine, crack-cocaine, heroin, and METH. According to an estimate taken in 2000, prior to an increase in spending under the current administration, the federal government alone spent roughly 19 billion dollars annually on the War on Drugs—this number increases drastically when you factor in spending on drug enforcement across the country by local and state governments. Just consider the many ways that our governments could be using this money instead. For example, a city/state restoration fund could be established to finance renovations in struggling areas across the country (think Detroit or New Orleans…or Michigan in general for that matter). The money could also be re-routed to assist overburdened government programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security; it could be spent on public education, humanitarian work in third-world countries, investing in alternative energy sources, increasing student loans or Pell-grants, and renovating our crumbling infrastructure. Oh, and don’t forget our never-ending adventure in Iraq.

The damage caused to this country by the Drug War is not limited solely to the fiscal realm, it affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens every year. According to the New York Times, about 800,000 people are arrested annually for possession of marijuana, with an outrageous majority receiving criminal charges for possessing meager amounts of marijuana. Having such charges on peoples’ records can prevent them from receiving higher-paying jobs (this hurts employment rates and consumer spending) and can even result in the revoking of one’s right to vote in certain states. The right to vote is the essence of our governmental system and should not be revoked under any circumstances, otherwise how will those who are wronged by the system have the opportunity to amend it?

Given Michigan’s dismal economy and budget problems, I’m surprised at the astonishing lack of practicality displayed by Michigan’s state representatives. It is going to take innovative solutions to bring Michigan back to national prominence, so here is one to consider: Full legalization of hemp and marijuana within the state of Michigan. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world to make hemp production illegal. Growing hemp would provide Michigan farmers with a versatile product that can be used in a wide variety of products. I’m not implying that legalizing hemp would be the “cure-all” for Michigan’s problems, in fact it would have only a tiny impact on Michigan’s overall economic situation, however, to be blunt, any step forward would be a good step right now. Legalizing marijuana would have a much more positive impact on the state of Michigan and our nation as a whole. Legalization holds a two-fold benefit: 1) the state saves money by redirecting law enforcement efforts towards more grievous crimes, which in turn saves money by reducing processing costs within the legal system that arise from mandatory sentencing and 2) the state can earn money by selling growing licenses to individuals and by placing a tax on the selling of marijuana by companies—if you do not think pharmaceutical companies would like to sell “dank” strands of marijuana to high-end consumers, you just might be taking a hard drug like METH.

Enough is enough. Both Michigan and the United States are going to have to wake up to the economic and fiscal realities they are facing. We have too many problems that need to be addressed and properly funded to be wasting billions of dollars annually on policies that give no return on investment except to certain weapons contractors. And please, don’t cling to the “moral” argument that marijuana is illegal because it is bad for you. There are roughly 16,000 alcohol related deaths and even more cases of tobacco related deaths due to lung cancer, and yet these substances are legal when there has never been a single recorded death due to marijuana. America became great because of its innovation, I hope it does not continue its fall from grace because it desperately clings to out-dated and irrational polices beautifully clad in the cloth of “moral superiority”.

Jeff May is a sophomore and thoroughly enjoys getting stoned off his ass.

—Jeff May 2 Comments

Signing Statements

I strongly suggest you listen to this week’s This American Life which is about the dogged pursuit of power by the executive branch. One of the most challenging parts of the episode involved an interview with Charlie Savage about executive power and in particular, signing statements.

While McCain promised he would not use signing statements while in office, both democratic contenders did not exclude the possibility of using signing statements. Here’s a quote from Obama:

“The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation,” Obama answered. But, he added: “No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives.”

Of course the Bush administration argues that it uses signing statements to protect its prerogatives, so Obama doesn’t really have a problem with the overuse of signing statements, just the interpretation.

And from Clinton:

“I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution,” she wrote. “My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.”

And once again, no promise to not use signing statements.

While there is no explicit constitutional limit on signing statements, Wikipedia notes that the Constitution only “empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it.” Beginning with the Reagan administration, the proclivity of a president to issue a signing statement has increased, as has their power.

Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have produced 347 signing statements among the three of them. By the end of 2004, George W. Bush had issued over 108 signing statements containing more than 505 constitutional challenges. As of January 30, 2008, he had signed 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law.

This is an important issue, as I’ve mentioned before I worry about the power of Obama’s canidacy, and probably more so about Clinton’s, who I tend to disagree with more often.

The misuse and increase of unchecked executive power is one of the biggest follies of the current administration. Unchecked power leads to a tyranny of ideas, and possible solutions. If Obama and Clinton are serious about their goal of bringing together Washington they cannot continue to support signing statements. It’s disingenuous and troublesome.

—Mark Elliot Cullen