Viva Cuba!

After spending the past week in Cuba, it's hard for me to get used to being back in the States. I find myself saying "Tiene una basura?" and "Donde esta el bano?" instead of the equivalent English phrases. But I am getting used to seeing homeless people again, as well as those without healthcare and jobs. Based on all of the American propaganda about Cuba, I was expecting to see some kind of fascist state with heavily armed "morality police" everywhere to ensure that we were not being subversive to the Castro ideal. In reality, I saw a society that may be even more functional than our own. When you consider the main reason for Cuban poverty (an inability to engage in tourism and trade with the richest nation in the world that happens to be only 90 miles away), the benefits of the Socialist system seem to outweigh the costs. In Cuba, everyone has a job, a house and food no matter what their status is. The result of this is that people are occupied for 8 hours a day and that in turn keeps the streets clean and safe. There is basically no crime in Cuba, nobody I spoke to mentioned anything even remotely related to crime (other than smuggling and prostitution, but I'll get to that later). Even at 2am, there are no streets to avoid because of the danger of being mugged or attacked and people are much more friendly and trusting as a result.


Cuba is more than just that Communist island of Castro, it's also the Pearl of the Caribbean with spectacular sunsets (check my photos for those), beautiful people, awesome cars (also in my photo section) and the friendliest people I've encountered in the 40 or so countries I've been to. Case-in-point: After playing a baseball game against the Cuban players, a child comes up to me with a wooden statue (of a Cuban baseball player) for trade (everyone in Cuba wants either baseballs or a baseball hat), but when I told him I had nothing left to trade he just handed me the statue and told me it was a gift and he turned away. The same thing happened in Havana when in the square: a woman handed me a coin with the image of Che Guevara on it and asked for a CUC (equivalent to about $1.10 in American currency) in exchange. But since I had no change and told her that in Spanish, she just let me keep the coin as a gift...she sold one to one of my teammates instead. Unlike Tijuana or Greece, when I would tell the Cubans I wasn't interested, they would stop bothering me and sometimes just give me some kind of gift just for speaking in Spanish to them. I lost count of how many Cubans I met who told me "I love Baseball, I love America!", and in 1 week, I only saw one conflict amongst Cubans and not one fight outside of a bar.


Cuba is also a very tolerant place. People of all colors seem to get along in harmony (though Tourists seem to be higher on the totem pole than locals) as do gays and straight people. That was the most amazing thing to me, that in the local discoteque in Cienfuegos there were both gay and straight couples going at it...you would NEVER see that in the US. The bar scene brings up an interesting aspect of the Cuban economy: prostitution. Every girl in the discoteque is a working girl, they pretty much have to be just to get in. If a woman works at a clothing store anywhere in Cuba, she makes only 4.50CUC a month, and it costs at least 3.00CUC to get into the disco. That means that if she goes out one night in a month, she can afford one beer and will have enough for only a half-bottle of water for the rest of the month. So for her to have fun, she has to make money with the guys she meets. As 4.50CUC a month isn't enough to get any kind of luxury or entertainment, most girls are relegated to selling their body for extra cash. That was probably the worst aspect of the Socialist system in Cuba, but it would be vastly improved if the embargo opened up and the government had more money to go around.


So what about the baseball? I have NEVER seen a country so obsessed with a sport, even Soccer in Europe; everywhere you go in Cuba, baseball is there. There are sandlot games, stickball games in the street and professional games in 35,000 seat stadiums. Any time someone saw me in my baseball uniform, I had pictures taken with them, signed autographs and was asked about 1,000 times if I had a baseball to give them (or their 10 year old son). The teams we played were those of retired stars from the professional league and the national team. Some of the pitchers we faced had dominated Americans in international competition for a decade or more. And the hitters were some of the best I'd ever faced. I had about 5 guys 0-2 (or 2 and 0 cause in Cuba strikes come first) and threw them nasty sinkers or changeups and every one was put into play. Americans would have definitely struck out on those. I pitched really well though, made it into the 6th inning (5 1/3 was my final inning count) before my arm gave out and I only had 3 hits and 3 walks against me with 2 unearned runs. I left the game with our only lead against the Cubans in 4 games. But it wasn't about winning, it was about interacting with some of the nicest people to ever play the sport of baseball. The men from the Cienfuegos team were so kind and so in love with baseball that it made me feel like a child again to be on that field. When I gave my first baseman's glove to Vives (the backup 1b on the national team behind the Cuban Babe Ruth: Antonio Munoz, the man who greeted us at our hotel) he gave me his old one...the only glove he had used for the past 41 years of his life!!! Every time he caught a ball in the glove I gave him, he would kiss his fingers, touch them to the glove, kiss them again and then touch them to his heart. A man who played 41 years of baseball at the highest level still felt that kind of love for a new glove, a pure love for the game of baseball that can only be found in Cuba.


After a week in Cuba I wasn't desperate to get back to the US of A; I would have loved more time in Cuba to enjoy the spectacular natural scenery and weather, the fun-loving culture, the music, the baseball, the people, the architecture and the cars. The only thing I missed about the US was the food and my girlfriend. See, in Cuba the food is also socialist. Everywhere you go, the meal is basically the same. A salad of mostly carrots, tomatoes (very good there), cabbage and usually no dressing; then is the meal course with two scoops of black beans and rice without flavor, buttery potatoes, some greens and a piece of fish (or by request: pork, chicken or beef); next comes the dessert, consisting of some Cuban ice cream and a little cake. The food had no spice like one would expect. While I understand why some people choose to leave Cuba for the opportunistic United States, Cuba is certainly not the oppressed toltalitarian regime we've all been taught about. It's going to be amazing to see how much Cuba will blossom once the embargo is lifted, as it is only a matter of time before the government finally wisens up and realizes the stupidity of their mistakes. And the day that happens, you will see me invest in everything related to Cuban tourism and baseball, as those are two things that Cuba does better than anyone else in the Caribbean!



VIVA CUBA!

What's next for the US?

With the next election guaranteed to provide us with an entirely new president, vice-president and cabinet, it's starting to get to that point where predictions are being made. For the past couple of years, the heirs to the partisan thrones were H. Clinton, McCain, George Allen, John Boehner and Mitt Romney to name a few, but a few of those have already fallen off of the '08 map and some new faces are emerging. At this point, it seems as though the Democratic candidate will determine the race. If someone like Clinton runs, the nation will be polarized and will likely splinter enough to allow the Republicans a victory in '08. But I am not sure if it is really that simple. At this point in our history we have only seen White, Christian, middle-aged or older men as president or vice-president. Is this the election where we finally break the trend and elect someone with a non-WASP background? I hope so, but am not convinced that this country is progressive enough to elect something different from the status quo.



Would it really make that much of a difference to Americans if a woman or minority came to hold the title of President? The people don't seem to be affected too much by having a minority in congress or a female senator. In fact, the most populous state in the union (California) is represented by two women in the Senate and they've done a great job during their tenure. Unfortunately, we still live in a world filled with prejudice and backwards views, and a lot of people vote with their eyes and not their brains. While Hillary Clinton may be a viable candidate for president (she certainly has experience in the white house as well as the senate), many people still see her as the ballbusting wife of Bill, and that can only hurt her in a national election. As a liberal, I am not a huge fan of hers either. She has the typical wishy-washy Democrat personality, she's bold only when it helps her cause, but not when it's controversial. She has an almost Republican stance on illegal immigration, has always been overly protective (sees Grand Theft Auto the video game as a threat), and she has very maternalistic (paternalistic) views. So if she ran, I'd vote Libertarian and basically (but not literally) throw my vote in the trash.



What about the people electing their first non-white president (or vice-president)? Barack Obama is a brilliant man with very intellectual views, but he's black and that automatically puts him in a hole in about 25-30 US states. If he ran, I would actually vote Democratic even though his views are more conservative than my own. I just know that I'd be much happier in a nation with a president that I can respect intellectually and morally, and Obama is one of the few potential candidates with those qualities. But what kind of support would Obama get in a state like Arkansas or Kentucky? People don't realize how backwards this country still is, and I'm almost afraid to see Obama be the first black man with an honest chance to win because I do not want to see him fail. Obama could win the primary only to get blown away in the general election. His only hope would be if a conservative third candidate emerged like Ross Perot or (the conservative version of) Ralph Nader to split up the votes of the Republican candidate.



The real question is not who SHOULD win, but who WILL win. Other politicians like Ron Paul R-TX (don't let the R fool you, he's a Libertarian pro-weed congressman from Texas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul ) or Bernie Sanders I-VT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders ) or even the incredibly liberal Barbara Boxer D-CA would be fantastic candidates, but aren't even considered "dark horses". I'd love to see an Obama-Boxer ticket or Obama-Sanders, or even Sanders-Paul or Obama-Paul or something like that, but there's NO WAY I'd ever see any of my favorites run for president and actually have a shot. The real candidate in '08 has to be very centrist, to the point where his party lines are quite blurred. I think that the most unifying combination would be a McCain-Lieberman ticket and that seems like it actually has an outside chance. In the end, it will be the centrist governor of a southern state who will emerge some time in 2007 and they will end up taking the White House in the same way that Bush and Clinton did.



Any prediction made on "Meet The Press" or any other news program right now about the '08 elections are about as useful as a helicopter ejection seat. Politics are pretty short-sighted and we do not even know what the issues will be in October/November of 2008. For all we know the main issue will be the intermating of different breeds of cat, and we don't know what the consensus view on that topic will be until the day it becomes an issue. After all, abortion and health care should be the issues right now, but instead it's homosexuals and the war. As I look forward, I hope that we put our focus on the truly important matters: providing the necessary services (healthcare, education, protection) for all Americans (Americans being those who live within our borders, regardless of citizenship and nationality), logical economic policy (taxing and regulating drugs, ending the Cuban embargo, raising the minimum wage, setting caps on tax breaks for wealthy people), and providing a helping hand to those countries that need us like the Sudan, Somalia and Nigeria. But in the end, it will just be another election about boys kissing in the Castro district.

Big Changes Ahead

As this week comes to an end, it's time to take a look back and think about the changes we're facing as Americans and citizens of the international community as a whole. First and foremost, according to CNN and the other news channels, the most important change that happened was the end to the talentless Britney Spears' marriage to some other talentless loser. Also, apparently she hired a personal trainer, so that's big news too...but seriously, these elections were a great sign that the American people only took about 5 years to figure out that they'd elected a stupid and dangerous regime. Out are people like Katharine Harris, George Allen and Rick Santorum in favor of liberal candidates. Also gone is Donald Rumsfeld, who was inexplicably supported by the White House up until after they lost control of Congress. But what will these changes really affect in the next two years? Is it two years too late?



With the Democrats taking over the house there are many changes looming. First and foremost is the replacement of a conservative speaker with Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, which should change the whole tone of the lower house. Not only that, but Senate is now blue as well. With both houses being liberal (well, centrist liberal) George Bush will have to placate to his opposition instead of intimidating them. The Democrats were incredibly weak as the minority, will they be able to step up to the plate now? I think there is some good leadership in their ranks, but there are probably not enough strong-willed liberals in there to make much of a difference. People like Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and Barbara Boxer will be much more powerful now with their majority backing, but I cannot see the Democrats being capable of the kind of manipulation that the Republican party was known for. It's still too early to tell.



So what else is new? Many powerful Republican congressmen lost a whole lot of influence simply because the majority party is not their own anymore. People like Duncan Hunter lose their chairmanships over powerful committees (thank god) in favor of Democrats. That is where the changes will be felt most, within those committees. Congress will no longer be controlled by right-wingers, it will be controlled by left-wingers. The centrists will do what they always do and fade into the background in favor of their more outspoken colleagues. I hope that they do what they promise and go after securing health-care and social security for all Americans, protecting our civil liberties and bringing the war in Iraq to a close, but they will likely not accomplish all that much.



As for the other changes, the end of Rumsfeld's career does a lot for our foreign relations. Rumsfeld was the architect of the war and it was nothing but a house of cards. When it came crashing down on us all, he should have been fired like Mike Brown...instead he was given constant votes of confidence from the president and congress never did anything to oust him from power. The timing was strange though. Why would they wait until after the election to get rid of an unpopular person? Wouldn't it have helped the Republican party if Gates had been named as a successor before Tuesday? I am also not mourning the loss of bigoted Rick Santorum from the Senate. His entire term was spent bashing those who were not closed-minded Christian right-wingers. He promoted a connection of church and state, criminalizing homosexuality and did nothing to improve life in this country. I say good riddance!



The results of this election will be apparent very soon. The nation has shifted to the left thanks to the failed policies of the right. But it's only a matter of time before it shifts back, so it's up to us liberals to push for as much change as we can while we have the chance. Santa Cruz decriminalized marijuana, will San Francisco follow suit now that one of their own has real power in Washington? Could we finally see an end to the war on weed? Probably not...but it could be a start. We've spent too many years living in fear of an opponent who has attacked us on our soil just once in 5 years...maybe now we'll learn to fear those who have been attacking our civil liberties through the use of irrational fear of terrorism. I see big changes for the US ahead, but it's up to US as the voters to make sure we continue moving in the right direction.



One anti-media note...below are the headlines after the announcement of Rumsfeld's resignation

On CNN "Rumsfeld Resigns"

On Fox News "Bush: Stay the course means get the job Done"

Science versus Religion...again

As the elections are coming up in a week, we're being bombarded by all kinds of partisan advertisments. In Missouri there is a major battle over stem-cell research with two celebrities getting involved in the scuffle. On the side of pro-science is former Back to the Future and Spin City star, Michael J. Fox, who uses his celebrity status to gain research support for the disease he suffers from: Parkinson's. On the side of religion (or anti-science) is former Super Bowl MVP Kurt Warner who is famous for his rise to fame from obscurity and his love for everything Jesus. The problem with this debate is the fact that it's an argument between those who believe in progress and those who think that we're the pinnacle of progress. If you already believe that "god" made this world in his "perfect" image, then why would you ever support any kind of research? Obviously religion is, and always will be, at odds with rational thought and science. But the most frightening thing about the fight between science and religion is that so many of our "leaders", people who should be more rational and informed than all of the voting public, are on the side of religion. That is why the debate is being led by a man who suffers from a disease that has much potential to be cured with stem-cell research and has been studying the prospects for years versus a man who was working as a bag-boy before he became a born-again Christian NFL star. It's the fight of someone who is informed versus someone who has no idea what he is talking about.



Warner is obviously not an authority on anything other than football, but having him speak out against stem-cell research is simply the work of politicians who care not for truth and justice, but for victory at any cost. Using a local sports hero to speak out against progress has to be considered anti-American and bordering on treason (isn't mis-informing your own people for your political gain enough to be considered treason?), but Warner's argument is simply too stupid for people to take seriously, right? Probably not. On the Warner commercial, he speaks about why he is against stem-cell research, and it's not for the typical religious reasons that are usually stated, but for the TIME IT WOULD TAKE! He says that because the cures may not come for another 15 years, that it's a waste to try. Hmm, isn't Bush saying that only history will tell us how effective the Iraq war has been? Wouldn't someone who supports Warner's reasoning for voting against stem-cell research also be anti-Bush because of his idea that the war may take decades for the result to become visible?



So what if it does take 15 years for some research to show its results? Didn't it take that long for airplanes and cars to be developed? What about the cures to Polio, Rubella, Smallpox and all the others? If something doesn't take a long time to research, it's not really that major of a problem. If we could cure parkinsons and alzheimer's by 2021, wouldn't that help Warner (who would likely be facing some kind of effects from one of those due to his concussion history and career as a football player) have a more enjoyable twilight of life? Lets go back in time 15 years ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991 ) and see how much that was going on back then is still facing us today. Now look at the various advances in medicine and technology since then and tell me that 15 years down the line isn't too much time to wait for an advance to be made. We've seen DVD, MP3 and DVR players become the standard of their various media, replacing VHS, CD and VCR. We've seen new advances in medicine that include the ability to get hard at age 75 (another thing Warner should be supportive of...), so how can anyone say that we shouldn't fund scientific research simply because we're only speculating about the possible advances that may come 15 years down the line?



If history has taught us nothing else (though it definitely has, history teaches us A LOT) it is that most medical advances come by accident. While researching cures for Parkinson's disease through stem-cell research, there is a possiblity that the scientists discover a cure for cancer or even aging. We wont know until we try. It's not like stem-cell research is the same as biological weapon research, there isn't a clear danger from the study of stem-cells. They can't be stolen and sold to terrorists, unless the terrorists want to help cure diseases...um, they wouldn't be terrorists if they did that. Viagra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagra#History ) was not being researched as a penis hardening pill, it was being developed for hypertension and angina. If that much of a divergence in usage can come from a very specific compound, how many unique (and previously not considered) uses will stem-cells uncover? The answer we do not know, but those cures will never come if we do not try.



The fact that uninformed people are speaking out against scientists should be enough of a sign that those people are irrational and shouldn't be listened to at any cost. But Americans are gullible and basically a large flock of sheep who will listen to anything an authority tells them. Case in point: the anti-marijuana ads the US Government has produced over the past 7 decades. First marijuana made people crazy, then it made them communists, then it made them lazy, then it made them terrorists, now it's just going to keep people from doing things...basically, it's one lie after another that the majority of people still believe because they believe anything they're told. Just like the denial of global warming, the anti-stem-cell movement is fighting against progress and doing it at the cost of our children and our future health. Do we really need to listen to Kurt Warner or Michael J Fox? As long as there are no possible weapons or highly addictive drugs being developed, research can't ever be the wrong option because that is where progress comes from. So the people have a choice, they can side with Kurt Warner and vote against progress, or they can side with Michael J Fox and help contribute to this nation continuing to maintain its place on top of the world.

Video games and violence, a connection?

With another surge in school violence recently, there has been more of that talk about how playing games like Grand Theft Auto ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_(series) ) can lead to violent behavior. Because this is simply a way to assign blame, it ends up being a way to erase guilt in causing these tragic shootings. First and foremost, blame has to rest on the parents of the shooters, but it doesn't stop there. Blame also lies with the victims of the shootings because their actions had helped to cause the brain malfunction that would lead someone to go on a shooting spree. Sure, chemical imbalance may be a part of it; but many people have chemical imbalances and only a small percentage of them open fire on their peers. The root cause cannot be singled out because there are many root causes. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Klebold ) were social outcasts who spent most of their free time playing violent video games together and being generally outside the main society of Columbine High School.


There will always be social outcasts; even in Brave New World where everyone is genetically engineered to fit into their role in society ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_new_world ), the main character is an outcast because he desires monogamy in a polygynistic society. Because of his unique views he is mocked and eventually leaves society altogether to live with the "savages". He does not act out violently against his antagonists, but many people would. Hell, I've done it a number of times. I got in trouble in elementary, middle and high school numerous times for fighting or getting back at people that had upset me, and I was definitely not a social outcast. Now imagine what it would be like for someone who feels out of place in society, who is never accepted and who faces daily trauma to their self-esteem. If you faced daily torment would you crawl into a hole and withdraw from society, or would you fight back?


The simple fact that anyone would actually open fire on innocent people (many of the victims of school shootings are not the people the shooter originally intended to kill) is a sign that they are not fit for society. Violence is the only real crime in my mind, the others are just crimes of law...violence is a crime of man. Rape, murder, assault, they are all the same in my book, just at different levels of atrocity. I even feel that robbery has roots in the inequality of man and can generally be justified (except in cases where the rich is robbing the poor, but that is not as common as some people would believe). But violence against others is something that should be prevented through good parenting and proper attention paid to chemical imbalances. None of the school shooting cases had a popular jock as the shooter, it is always someone who is somewhat outcast from the mainstream.


Now conformity is not anything I would ever advocate, everyone should be their own individual self (why else would someone want to live unless they were themselves? What's the point of life if you're living as someone else?"), but the parents should be able to sense something wrong with their child when he's withdrawn and obsessed with violent video games. Obviously there is a sign that the kid is suffering from some social problems if he's always alone (or with the same single person all the time) and spends his spare time listening to angry music and designing levels for Doom and other violent games as Harris and Klebold did. I'd never let my own child go down a path like that, even if it meant that I had to be more involved in his life. The problem lies in the lack of responsibility that most parents take for their children's actions. Everything starts at childhood, and if the child is a loner as a teenager, mistakes were made whilst he was growing up.


The fundamental problem with these shootings is not just about the shooters. The people who exclude others from their group are directly responsible for causing animosity towards the "popular crowd" and can take some of the blame for the shootings. At the Santana High School shooting ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Andrew_Williams ), the shooter was tormented by jockish bullies...I actually know a guy who admits to having bullied this kid...and retaliated against his tormentors. Not only should the school take responsiblity for the abuse this kid suffered while on campus, but the parents of the bullies too. Until people learn that exclusion only leads to trouble, there will be at least one major shooting each year somewhere in the US (well, at a white school, we don't hear about the ones that happen in the Ghettos of NYC, LA, Chicago, New Orleans, etc.). Unfortunately it isn't a quick fix, and arming teachers (an actual proposal in the state of Wisconsin) certainly isn't the way to go. Starting at young ages and moving through puberty, all kids should be given psychological evaluations and be properly taught how to accept people for who they are and never to exclude others. But that is a wishy-washy dream that is likely to remain out of the reality of this disjointed world.

On Voter Qualification

With the upcoming election we are facing the important questions about our future as a nation. But beyond those questions lies a deeper one, should voting be a privilege or a right? As much as we proclaim the wonders of democracy, what is democracy really? Is it the freedom to vote? Or is it something more than that? To me, the fundamental characteristic of democracy is not the ability to vote as a majority, but the freedom to oppose popular opinion. Democracy really doesn't protect people from each other, it only protects them from tyranny, and even that is a fine line. After all, one of the most tyrannical regimes in the history of mankind was elected democratically by the people of Germany in the early 1930s. So is the right to vote the key to freedom? No! Because as Kent Brockman says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Brockman) "Democracy doesn't work!"


Would I eliminate the right to vote? Hell no! Democracy simply needs retooling to be effective. The people elect candidates for very dumb reasons, from their name or race to their leisure activities. Many people vote Republican simply because the party is (generally) supportive of hunting, gay-bashing and religious zealotry as well as war and proctectionist laws. People vote Democrat because of their support for liberal causes (abortion, gay rights, healthcare) and general preference towards diplomacy and peace. People generally vote for a third party when they disagree with the majority opinion (well, the two majority opinions) or when they are a college political-science professor (they overwhelmingly vote libertarian). Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though the people who should be making our decisions are not the uneducated laborer, but the person who dedicates their life to studying and teaching the intricacies of government.


So my proposal to strengthen democracy would be to limit it. Why should everyone be allowed to vote on issues they know nothing about? Many very good laws have died with the voters simply because they were just not aware of anything but the propaganda forced upon them. After all, why would 2/3 of Nevada be against legalized marijuana when they have legal prostitution, gambling and the 2 of the most alcoholic cities in the world? Voters simply do not know the candidates or the facts behind measures enough to make a rational decision, yet we allow them to run the nation. But it isn't just about what people vote for, but for whom. Why would a rural area in Alabama vote Republican when they are basically voting to cut their own social services, increase their chances to be sent off to war and helping to spread the gap between them and the wealthy? If we only allowed those who showed some servicable knowledge of government and the issues facing us, we'd be much better off as a nation. It's not like Americans really cherish their right to vote, only about half of registered voters actually vote.


In order to create a nation that really does reflect what the people need out of society, people should not only be required to display knowledge of our government and constitution, but of the issues at hand as well. How can somebody who has never met a gay man vote against gay marriage? Ditto for criminalizing a drug that one has not studied or experienced. Even those who are illiterate are allowed to vote...which leads to a question: how can someone vote when they cannot even read? The way our democracy is set up, our votes mean very little, even in a large state like California because the average voter is unimformed and only votes in self-interest. Poor people vote against tax raises for more social services thinking that it'll hurt them financially, when in reality it is designed to help the poor and will have little impact on their finances. The more poor and middle class people vote to cut taxes, the more they are hurt. Their tax burden is minimal compared to the upper classes, and yet poor people will vote to cut taxes on the rich, further contributing to their poverty. Basically, most voters vote against their own best interests despite their own selfishness simply because they just don't fully understand how our government works.


Would my idea of a "National Voter's Qualification Exam" ever fly? Definitely not. First of all, it would be considered unconstitutional, as people would be denied the right to vote for their lack of education. But would it help strengthen our democracy? Certainly! People might actually vote for the better candidate if they were informed about them all. Not only that, but it might help pull us away from the highly polarizing bipartisanship that this nation has become embroiled in. The more educated and intellectual the voting public, the more likely they will be able to come to a consensus. Just look at it this way, you're a college graduate with a degree in Political Science, would you really want your decisions to be made by people who flunked civics in high school and have spent the past 10 years drinking beer and watching football? Well, that's how it is in this country, and that's why we're facing all kinds of new challenges to our freedom...the public simply doesn't know any better. After all, most people think that the USA PATRIOT ACT is an act in patriotism...it's an ACRONYM!!! (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) If the PATRIOT ACT can be passed with such consensus (357-66), imagine how many more acts will be passed to erode our civil rights. It's only a matter of time, so why not fight back and make our democracy actually fair and functional?

Will Nevada be the American Netherlands?

In Nevada this election year there is a very important measure (Question 7) about the legalization of marijuana for possession, use and sale. Even the Nevada churches are backing Question 7, which asks state voters to allow adults age 21 or older to possess, use and transfer up to one ounce of marijuana; the measure also calls for the state to set up a system for regulating growth and sales of the drug and raises penalties for driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. Maybe the Nevadan voters will finally realize the futility and utter stupidity of marijuana prohibition and pass this measure, but I don't really see it happening. The last legalization measure in Nevada failed with a 37 percent (to legalize) to 63 percent (to NOT legalize) vote and the electorate hasn't changed much since then. So if religious leaders are supporting it, and the liberal left is supporting it, how can it fail?


First of all, the law enforcement agencies are still so misinformed that they will come out against it no matter what. Never mind the fact that legalizing marijuana will free up a lot of time, resources and money for the police to combat actual crime. They just care about maintaining the status quo of marijuana laws...which of course was set up by the US government in the 1930s to keep Mexicans from crossing the border in Texas. From the people who are against the measure ( http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20061015/OPINION/110150109 ), they claim that marijuana use would increase if legalized, but if they looked at facts they would understand that it is not true. The Netherlands has only seen minimal increases in the use of marijuana, and the flip side would be a decrease in the use of Alcohol. I know a whole lot of people who stopped drinking alcohol once they discovered the much safer and less damaging effects of marijuana. They also claim that pot is addictive...judging from the 3 former dealers I know from San Diego who were studying for the Bar exam, quitting marijuana is easier than quitting a job. Any user can stop for days, weeks or months and not suffer any withdrawal or physical cravings. The only addiction one can have to marijuana is psychological, which is about the same as my addiction to sugar, and they ain't making that illegal anytime soon.


What makes these people so blindly against legalization? Are they just too dumb to understand that legalizing something that is already easier to get than many legal treats (try to find me some authentic Belgian chocolate or a decent Falafel place, or even a Tamale cart in downtown San Diego) would only serve to get it off of the streets? If they made cigarettes illegal, they'd be easier for kids to buy because they'd be on the black market, sold by people who are thumbing their nose at the law. Well, the same goes for pot, if they made it legal it would end up behind the counter at 7-11 where only legal adults could buy it. Even with age restrictions, it's very easy to get alcohol as a teenager, but at least they have to work for it. Wouldn't putting pot in the hands of large corporations be beneficial to everyone? They'd pay taxes, they'd obey US law and would (likely) be required to have public service announcements to disclose the harms of marijuana.


Think about it from a fiscal point of view. Say that in Vegas they legalize the sale and use of weed, and say that it is taxed at a rate of 10% of the sale price (way lower than I'd put it, I'd have it more near 25%), meaning that for every $350 ounce the state would take in $35. Now imagine that of the 40,000,000 people who are likely to visit Vegas next year 5% of them purchase an ounce. That means that the state would take in $70,000,000, a VERY conservative number. That's not to include the 50,000 residents (again, very conservative estimate) who would purchase an ounce a month for about $1,750,000 of monthly tax revenue. Now I cannot imagine that the costs outweigh the benefits of legalization. But then again, rationality obviously does not rule, or else we wouldn't have legalized alcohol and illegal pot.


What will happen if it does actually pass? Will this finally bring about that change to US drug laws to separate marijuana from the much more dangerous Heroin, Cocaine, Crack and Meth? Or will the US government continue to fight the people and deny them the right to choose their own laws? We've already seen the choice of California voters attacked by overly-conservative legislators, even shutting down all medical marijuana clinics in San Diego and suing the state to repeal the law that the voters overwhelmingly passed. Considering all of the debauchery that already goes on in Nevada, wouldn't allowing a drug that calms people down be a good thing? Honestly walk around the Temple Bar district of Dublin or Bourbon Street in New Orleans if you want to see the effects of alcohol and all the fighting, sexual assault and disgusting acts (bodily functions mostly) that take place. Then take a trip to Amsterdam and see how many fights you come across...surprise surprise, none will happen outside of a coffeeshop. Potheads are too mellow to fight. So if this law passes, I can assure you that Vegas will remain the same party destination...except for the fact that it may replace Amsterdam as a pot tourist destination, and that can only help the economy. And in the end, isn't that what most voters care about?