Working Class Republicans

Until a few weeks ago, I had never cared much for Current TV. More or less, Keith Olbermann was the main draw to the channel, and because I never cared for him all that much, I never cared about the television channel. That changed when they began airing The Young Turks, hosted by Cenk Uygur. I like Uygur’s combination of common-sense politics with his brand of humor. While tuning in a few minutes before his show began one day, I was introduced to Vanguard, an award-winning documentary series on Current TV. I was hooked. The very broad and diverse sociopolitical subjects that Vanguard has analyzed over the course of the series’ five seasons is part of what makes me enjoy the series so much. For every episode about broad topics, like the economy, there are episodes about super-specific issues, such as the depletion of lobsters in Nicaragua.

I recently watched an episode entitled “The Two Americas”, episode 12 in the series’ fifth season. The episode was about the large disparity between the lives of the wealthy and the less well to do in America, featuring a family that is very well off (large house, lavish parties, no monetary problems) and a family that is considerably less so (receiving public assistance, overdue bills, uncertain of future monetary prospects). The episode was what you would expect, but one part stood out to me. While watching television regarding the GOP presidential nominees, Paul says the following:

“What I believe is obvious, ok…It’s obvious that government should be limited. If the government wasn’t helping us with the food stamps, or unemployment, somebody out there would be. Government don’t need to be helping. They don’t need to be helping us. They don’t.”

He was asked this, because, during the GOP debate that he was watching, he was agreeing with Ron Paul, who was saying that Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and other social safety net programs should be ended. The interviewer brought up the seeming self-interest disconnect that exists between what Paul says and/or believes, and the reality of the situation that he finds himself in. This immediately made me think of a memorable line written by Stanley Crouch in a New York Daily News editorial column. On July 18^th, Mr. Crouch wrote, “The biggest hustle in this country was the one run in the Confederate South when the plantation owners convinced the majority of Southern Whites the defense of slavery was actually an issue central to their own interests. This is akin to what Murdoch and the infamous Koch brothers have been doing for decades.”

Paul, who was gracious enough to allow the Vanguard crew to document his life, and that of his family during lean times, is adamant that the government should not be providing him with unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs that are allowing him to but food on his table and clothes on his kids during his time of joblessness and economic need. I have met other middle/working class Republicans, and/or Conservatives- some gainfully employed, and others relying on the same programs that Paul was- who have echoed the same sentiments. Mr. Crouch’s statement seems spot on. Southern slaveholders- according to the 1860 United States Census, 6% of the population of what would become Confederate states- convinced the majority of Southerners that defending the institution of slavery was an issue central to their own interests, to the point that those Southern states ceded from the United States, and the Civil War was fought. Only 316,632 individuals owned slaves, out of a total ‘free’ population of 5,582,222, yet those 316,632 slave owners successfully convinced those remaining 5,265,590 non-slave owners that defending the institution of slavery was integral to their own interests, despite them having no “hat in the race”. Likewise, Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, and rich Republican politicians, among others, have convinced the general rank-and-file of the Republican Party- men and women similar to Paul- that things that are not in their best interests are indeed in their best interests. Ending Social Security insurance- despite already or possibly needing it in the future- is something they support. Ending Unemployment insurance (despite already or possibly needing it in the future) is something they support. Restricting food stamp programs (despite already or possibly needing it in the future) is something they support. Ensuring that the rich pay less taxes (which would put more of a burden to pay the country’s bills on the less wealthy) is something they support. People are constantly bombarded with the message, come to believe them, and start supporting them, despite the obvious negative impacts they would have (or could have) on their own personal lives. Case in point, Mississippi. Mississippi is the poorest state in the United States per capita. Its residents are more likely to need to apply for unemployment insurance when jobs disappear. Its residents are more likely to need to apply for food stamps, when food needs to be put on the table, but there is not enough to pay for it. Its residents are more likely to need to rely on Medicare, or Medicaid, because they don’t have medical insurance. Mississippi is one of the reddest states in the country, and overwhelming votes Republican- the party that seeks to end, hamper, or limit all of these social welfare programs.

I’ve been told that Republicans/Conservatives who find themselves in this kind of predicament often overwhelmingly vote Republican because of other issues. Some vote Republican, rather than Democrat, because they view Democrats as weak on foreign policy. Or, they agree with social issues (read, same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.) that Republicans also agree with, that Democrats oppose. Or, they view the current administration as fundamentally un-American, trying to transform the country into something that it is not (whatever that means). To me, anyway, relying on a copout like that to justify those beliefs is even more illogical. You’d rather be completely without a safety net like unemployment insurance because you think the government should be more supportive of Israel? You’d rather have your kids go hungry at night because you don’t want gays to marry? You’d rather have your own personal bank account dry up than see the government run up an ever increasing national debt, a debt that is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to our everyday lives? You’d rather stave off a flu with cough drops and chicken soup, and pray it doesn’t develop into something worse because you don’t have medical insurance so that millionaires can pay less proportionate taxes than you do?

This is one of the main reasons I overwhelmingly support Democrats. Are they any less corrupt than their Republican counterparts? Of course not. Democrats are just as in bed with interests that are counter to our- as in we 99%- own as Republicans are. Democrats are simply more willing to throw us a bone. As the anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko put it, “The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed”.  Convince people that things that are not in their interests are, and they’ll support anything.

On This Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Let Us Talk Of Baseball

Today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Dr. King is the only American non-president to have his birthday marked as a federal holiday. Even more interesting, I think, is the fact that Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is celebrated in other countries, to varying degrees. Dr. King is, after all, synonymous with the peaceful message of basic equality, tolerance, and the respect of human dignity, regardless of race, religion, creed, and so on.

In the wider world, Dr. King is often seen as the symbol of human equality, and the plight for obtaining it. In the sphere of baseball, Jackie Robinson occupies that role. Robinson and King knew each other quite well, in fact, with their respective plights, tactics, and goals mirroring each other. Robinson was a supporter of King’s goals and methods, as was King of Robinson. In fact, King once said, “Jackie Robinson made it possible for me in the first place. Without him, I would never have been able to do what I did.”

More so than steroids, amphetamines, gambling scandals, spitballs, and the variety of things that players have done that generally embarrassed the sport of baseball (looking at things from a “holier-than-thou” attitude that many in the media, and those influenced by the media, take), the color barrier that prevented Black and certain Latin players from playing on MLB teams is the biggest embarrassment that Major League Baseball has to deal with in it’s long history.

It is true that baseball was not alone in the segregation of Blacks and Whites- almost all of American society, to varying degrees, engaged in passive or active segregation of some form. In 1867, the National Association of Base Ball Players decreed that “any club including one or more colored persons” would be banned. When the NABBP metamorphasized into various other leagues, among them the International League, American League, National Leagues, these rules laxed, and occasionally, teams fielded colored players, but both official declarations and gentlemen’s agreements reinstituted the color barrier, especially after influential players, such as Cap Anson publicly went on record as refusing to take the field playing with or against African-Americans and/or dark-skinned Hispanics. In later years, baseball commissioner Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis would go out of his way to ensure that the “separate but equal” doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson was in effect in Major League Baseball, and that Blacks and Whites did not play on the same teams, with or against each other.

Being unofficially banned from playing organized baseball in the MLB did not stop colored athletes of the era from playing on amateur and semi-pro teams that would have them, as well as forming their own leagues and teams. From the turn of the 1900s to the 1950s, various teams in various leagues- collectively known as the Negro Leagues- organized games, tournaments, and made thousands and thousands of dollars (as was the case with the MLB, more often than not, organizers and team owners saw the majority of these proceeds, with players only receiving relative chump change). Among the many Negro League teams, many stand out- the Kansas City Monarchs, the Baltimore Elite Giants, the Newark Eagles, the New York Black Yankees, the Homestead Grays, and the Pittsburgh Crawfords, among others. These teams engaged in barnstorming tours with teams represented by and composed of numerous Major League players- Dizzy Dean and Bob Feller are among the most famous and celebrated MLB barnstormers- and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that colored ballplayers were in no means inferior to White ballplayers. Talent and ability were universal mores that were not limited by skin color.

Among the heyday of the Negro Leagues, numerous teams played, and various stars separated themselves as the cream of the blackball crop. In national newspapers, sadly, the Negro League teams and players rarely got much press coverage. At the same time, Black newspapers, often because of budget or space constraints, were unable to cover every game as well. This meant that, to this day, so much of what actually happened in so many games has been lost to the sands of time, and only survive in the minds of those who were there- an age group that is rapidly dwindling before our eyes. This lack of concrete information has caused so many Negro League greats to be forgotten. Be honest- how familiar are you with Oscar Charleston, a sensational defensive center fielder who was a true five-tool player, who was ranked by Bill James many years after his death as the fourth-best baseball player of all time? Or Judy Johnson, a third baseman with the defensive prowess of Brooks Robinson and the offensive prowess of George Brett? Or “Double Duty “Radcliffe, the oldest man to throw a pitch at a baseball game (he was 103 when he threw out the ceremonial first pitch for the White Sox in 2005), who both pitched and caught- and he excelled at both, as well as hitting? How about “Turkey” Stearnes, the sensational center fielder whose lifetime batting average (.350) was almost double his average playing weight (165 lbs.)? The list goes on and on. Three of those four, Johnson, Charleston, and Stearnes are Hall of Famers, to boot, inducted in 1975, 1976, and 2000, respectively.

As a sort of silver lining, in my own mind, this gives so much of Negro League baseball a mythic feel to it. Cool Papa Bell, for example, was said to have been so fast that “you can turn off the light and be under the covers before the room gets dark!” With this is no doubt an exaggeration on the part of Satchel Paige (another legendary and mythic persona in his own right) on behalf of Bell, it gives Bell’s speed a sort of mythic, Herculean quality, one that might not exist had Bell’s speed been better documented and measured. We all know that Jose Reyes is fast, can time the total time it takes for him to round the bases, but do flowery, anecdotal stories exist that paint his blazing speed in such light? Josh Gibson is said to have hit almost 800 home runs in his career, though only about 200 are actually documented. In one story, he is said to have hit a ball so far and high during a twilight game that it disappeared from view. The next day, when the same teams played around the same time, a ball supposedly fell from the sky somewhere, and was caught by an outfielder, prompting the umpire to call Gibson “out- in Pittsburgh, yesterday!” Some of his prolific power might have been fabricated, but those fabrications further perpetuate and fuel the myth of Josh Gibson, which, in turn, further perpetuates and fuels Major League Baseball, an often-times mythic entity in its own right.

The Negro Leagues began folding shortly after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in the National League, and Larry Doby broke the color barrier in the American League, casting aside the baseball social mores that prohibited teams from signing colored players, something most began doing en masse (with the famous exceptions being the Yankees and the Red Sox). By the end of the 1950s, the institution was dead- the sole exception were the Indianapolis Clowns, but by that point, they all but stopped fielding competitive teams in lieu of comic acts and entertainment- a baseball version of the Harlem Globetrotters. The end of the Negro Leagues was bittersweet, however. Their purpose was to give Black and Hispanic ballplayers who were unfairly barred from the Major Leagues an outlet to exhibit their talents. With the color barrier eliminated, and these men free to play in the MLB, there simply was no more reason for the Negro Leagues. The year 1971 would see a Major League ballclub, the Pittsburgh Pirates, field an all-Black/Hispanic starting lineup, on September 1st. Rennie Stennett, Gene Clines, Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, Manny Sanguillen, Dave Cash, Al Oliver, and Jackie Hernandez, compromised the starting lineup, while Dock Ellis.

Looking at my own baseball team, the Mets, they were formed and began operating long after the color barrier was broken, and by then, black ballplayers were no longer uncommon. Sadly, the Mets are not without unfortunate, seeming racial incidents of their own. The most famous- and most consequential- took place in 1966, when the New York Mets, in their first selection in the 1966 Amateur Draft, the second selection overall, selected catcher Steve Chilcott. The Kansas Athletics, who drafted next, selected outfielder Reggie Jackson. As we all know, Jackson would go on to become a Hall of Famer, while Chilcott never made it to the MLB, because of various injuries. According to Jackson, the Mets passed over Reggie because of the fact that they were concerned over character issues he had- mainly, the fact that he had a white girlfriend, as was known to prefer white women over black women. Joe McDonald, Director of Minor League Operations and Scouting at the time, stated that the Mets bypassed Jackson because they were drafting according to need, and at the time, they needed a catcher. Steve Chilcott, though his career never panned out, was highly regarded- he wouldn’t have been such a high draft pick if he wasn’t. At the same time, however, George Weiss, the Mets GM at the time, was known as a racist and bigot. Part of the reason that the Yankees (he was their Minor League coordinator in the late ‘50s) went into a steep decline after their dominance in the 1950s was because Weiss specifically did not want to draft and/or sign Black and/or Latin players (many of whom were stars in the Negro Leagues). It is more than likely that Weiss’ bigoted attitudes influenced the Mets’ decision to pass over Jackson. Had the Mets drafted Jackson, who knows what might have happened?

Various Black and Latin players donned the Mets uniform over the years. The first to do so were Charlie Neal and Felix Mantilla, who did so in 1962. The Amazin’ Miracle Mets had a trio of Black players who were instrumental in the team winning its first World Series victory. Cleon Jones was the first to appear in a Mets uniform, debuting in 1963, but finally sticking as a starter in 1966. An All-Star in 1969, Jones is best remembered for being benched by Gil Hodges after not hustling after a ball (though, according to Jones, in reality, he had actually hurt his ankle, but let the team think that Gil had pulled him for that reason, to re-instill a sense of ‘duty’ in all players on the team), as well as the shoe-polish ball. In 1991, Cleon Jones was inducted into the Mets Hall of Fame. Tommie Agee joined the club in 1968, and is best remembered for making a pair of amazing catches during Game 3 of the World Series (as well as hitting a home run off of Orioles Hall of Famer Jim Palmer), as well as being the only Met player to ever hit a home run into Shea Stadium’s left field upper deck (specifically, Section 48, about halfway up). Donn Clendenon joined the Mets a year later, and became the eventual 1969 World Series MVP with his tremendous .357/.438/1.071 slash line. Tommy Agee was inducted into the Mets Hall of Fame in 2002.

The Mets of the 1980s featured a trio of Black players, who were instrumental to the team winning the World Series in 1986. Mookie Wilson was the first to debut, making brief appearances in 1980 and 1981 before becoming a full-time starter in 1982. Mookie set team records for stolen bases and triples, that would stand for years, but he’s best remembered for the Bill Buckner play in Game 6 of the World Series- an at-bat where he deftly jumped out of the way of a wild pitch to allow the tying run to score, and then outran the most famous “little roller up along first” in Mets history as the Mets came back to win the game- and eventually, the series. In 1993, Mookie Wilson was inducted into the Mets Hall of Fame. Darryl Strawberry came next, debuting in a 1983 season that would earn him Rookie of the Year honors. The eventual six-time All Star would spend eight years with the Mets, and during that span, Darryl hit .263/.359/.520, while flashing excellent speed and a plus glove- qualities that should have netted him an MVP Award in 1988. In 2010, Darryl Strawberry was elected into the Mets Hall of Fame. Last, but certainly not least, was Doc Gooden, who debuted in 1984 with a record-setting Rookie of the Year campaign. As amazingly good as he was in 1984, Gooden outdid himself, pitching one of the most statistically dominating seasons in baseball history, good for the 1985 Cy Young Award. Twenty-four wins, sixteen complete games, eight shutouts, 276.2 innings pitched, 8.72 strikeouts per nine innings, a 2.13 FIP, a 1.53 ERA, and a 9.0 WAR. What more needs to be said?

Jose Reyes, current Mets superstar, likely would never have been afforded the ability to play professional baseball had the color line not been crossed. Carlos Beltran would likely have been in the same boat. Met legend Keith Hernandez probably would have made it to the MLB, though. The barrier preventing Hispanic players was a lot more amorphous, but as a general rule of thumb, the darker your skin was, and the heavier your accent was, the less likely it was for you to get a job on a Major League ball club- especially if you came from the Caribbean.

The game of baseball has truly become an international game, a game in which skill, not race, is most important. In 1995, Hideo Nomo came to the United States and trail blazed the path for other Japanese pitchers to come to the U.S. and play in the MLB (note- he wasn’t the first Japanese pitcher to play in the MLB. That honor goes to Masanori Murakami, who played two seasons with the San Francisco Giants in 1964 and 1965 as a baseball “exchange student”). In 2006, the first World Baseball Classic was held- and, since the inaugural WBC, more countries have vied to join in the mix. In 2008, the Pittsburgh Pirates signed Rinku Singh and Dinesh Patel, making them the first two Indians to sign a contract with a MLB club. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would approve of, baseball has become colorblind.

As an afterwards, it is important to remember the legacy of Buck O’Neil, the first baseman and manager of the Kansas City Monarchs. As a player, he played for twelve full seasons, losing 1945 and 1946 to military service. His stats were decent, but were far from mind-blowing. Likewise, his Negro Leagues managerial career could be summed up similarly. O’Neil was the driving force behind the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, and the renewed light shined on the Negro Leagues. Going into the ‘90s, many Negro League stars had been enshrined in the Hall of Fame already. Many older or borderline players had been forgotten, however, and it was through Buck’s intrepid perseverance that, asides for a renewed interest in the Negro Leagues, 17 deserving Negro League players, managers, and executives were elected into the Hall in 2006. Buck himself was not elected by the special committee, and many found that something of a travesty. As for Buck himself, he had this to say, “God’s been good to me. They didn’t think Buck was good enough to be in the Hall of Fame. That’s the way they thought about it and that’s the way it is, so we’re going to live with that. Now, if I’m a Hall of Famer for you, that’s all right with me. Just keep loving old Buck. Don’t weep for Buck. No, man, be happy, be thankful”. Buck O’Neil was an outstanding man with an infectious smile (seriously, take a listen at his speech made in Cooperstown in 2006), a profound knowledge of baseball, whose dedication to baseball off-the-field, especially in his later years, had an large impact on the game, and how we perceive and remember it. Buck O’Neil is a Hall of Famer in my book. If Walter O’Malley can be enshrined for becoming majority owner an already successful franchise, moving out west, and continuing being a successful franchise, and if George Steinbrenner can, as will likely happen, be enshrined for buying a failing franchise and pumping so much money into it that it could not possibly fail, I think there’s room somewhere in Cooperstown for Buck O’Neil.

Further Recommended Reading:

Gay, Timothy- Satch, Dizzy, and Rapid Robert: The Wild Saga of Interracial Baseball Before Jackie Robinson (2010)

Lanctot, Neil- Negro League Baseball: The Rise and Ruin of a Black Institution (2008)

O’Neil, Buck- I Was Right On Time (1997)

Peterson, Robert- Only the Ball Was White: A History of Legendary Black Players and All-Black Professional Teams (1992)

Posnanski, Joe- The Soul of Baseball: A Road Trip Through Buck O’Neil’s America (2007)

Rogosin, Donn- Invisible Men: Life in Baseball’s Negro Leagues (2007)

Tygiel, Jules: Shades of Glory: The Negro Leagues and the Story of African-American Baseball (2006)

Fear Tigers, Not Paper Tigers: Islamism and Christian Reconstructionism

According to a 2000 poll, there were approximately 6,000 self-identifying Muslims living Oklahoma. As of 2011, there were approximately 30,000 self-identifying Muslims living in the state. A large boom, to be sure, but the total population of Muslims is still relatively small, as compared to the percentage of non-Muslims in the state’s 3,791,508 population. Despite the massive numbers advantage, Oklahoma voters felt threatened enough to approve a “Save out State” amendment to their state Constitution. Coauthored by state senators Anthony Sykes and Rex Duncan, the initiative forbid courts from “considering or using international law or Sharia law”. According to Mr. Sykes, “Sharia law coming to the U.S. is a scary concept”. Mr. Duncan concurred, saying, “”SQ 755 will constitute a pre-emptive strike against Sharia law coming to Oklahoma.” The amendment was passed 70.08% to 29.92%. It has since been overturned and ruled unconstitutional by the 10^th Circuit Appeals Court, on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Many wills, contracts, and other legally binding documents used by Muslims invoke Islamic religious traditions, and would legally be declared invalid in Oklahoma, were the ban on courts considering Sharia law be put in place. More comically, the contracts of various international companies that operate in Oklahoma would have been deemed null and void, if aspects of various international trade laws were written into them.

The point of this post isn’t to discuss the reversal of Oklahoma’s xenophobic and unconstitutional law. It is to give context to it. The state’s approximate 3,761,508 majority of non-Muslims felt “threatened” enough to seek to vote for legislation that banned Sharia law. Now, in Oklahoma, this doesn’t surprise me, since Oklahoma is one of the most religiously conservative areas of an already religiously conservative Bible Belt. Oklahoma isn’t the only state to have proposes similar legislation. In the past two or three years, more than a dozen states have drafted and/or passed similar legislation. I’ll go ahead and say it: the fear of Islamic Sharia law encroaching into and fundamentally altering U.S. jurisprudence and/or society is a right wing canard of a threat. Politicians will invoke the possibility, will invoke the populist fear, but can’t actually produce examples of their paper tiger, to any degree. Where are the Muslim groups forcefully trying to have their Islamic morals and notions imposed on Americans from coast to coast?

More sinister is the religious encroachment that is going on right under our collective noses.

Christian Reconstructionism is a movement that calls for Christians to put their mores and values in action in all walks of life. What differentiates it from any ordinary Christian who lives in accordance with the values and morals prescribed by their religion is the emphasis on theonomy, the belief that God’s laws (‘theo’, being Greek for ‘God’ and ‘nomos’ being Greek for ‘law’) should be the basis for civil laws. In other words, the laws that the state passes should be in accordance with Biblical law, and should not contradict or otherwise overshadow the authority of Biblical law.

At its face, it sounds a lot like the fear of Sharia law taking primacy in the United States. It also is the basic notion of believers of a religion believing it to be correct, and wanting everybody to live within the confines of that religion. But, how is it different? Most notably, it is unfolding in the United States as we speak. I don’t recall ever hearing about federal judges saying, regarding Islam, “[It] transcends the political order and cannot be subordinated to the political order” like Justice James Leon Holmes said regarding Christianity. I don’t recall Congress ever voting on bills and measures that would affirm the primacy of Islam, like bills and measures affirming the primacy of Christianity have been brought up.

As columnist Robert Boston wrote in Church and State Magazine in October 2001, “Although Reconstructionism may seem so far out as to be easily dismissed, the philosophy has in fact provided the intellectual basis for much of the Religious Right’s thinking and political activism”. Indeed, Gary North, the son-in-law of R.J. Rushdoony, the extreme right wing father of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, has said, “Rushdoony’s writings are the source of many of the core ideas of the new Christian Right’s political activism”. Supporters of Christian Reconstructionism are in favor of recriminalizing abortion and homosexuality, among other things. Is it a coincidence that Speaker of the House John Boehner called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”, a proposed bill that would strip federal funding to groups that directly or indirectly funded abortions (regardless of the reasons the abortions were done) “one of [the Republican Party that he presides over as Speaker] highest legislative priorities”? At a time when the economy is in shambles, a large percentage of Americans are long-term unemployed, and the country was still embroiled in two wars, defunding federal funding to groups directly or indirectly administering abortions was his highest priority? As of 2010, the Texas Republican party says as one of its official positions, “We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such…We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual ‘couples’. We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. We oppose the legalization of sodomy.” Where was the same moral outrage and enthusiasm in calling for the reversal the highly unconstitutional USA Patriot Act, which they only touch on in a single sentence? Which issue is more topical and relevant to everyday life?

Joan Bokaer of Theocracy Watch, a project under the auspices of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University, explains in The Rise of Dominionism that the Christian Reconstructionist movement seeks to have the power of the federal government minimized, so that churches would assume responsibility for welfare and education, and as a result, Biblical law would be given an increasing important role, until the U.S. Constitution and other laws conformed to it. The federal government being minimized would be accomplished by allowing unrestricted, unregulated free markets, cutting social programs and entitlements, and tax cuts. Does this platform sound eerily familiar to anyone? Does this mean that Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul want to transform the United States into a Christian theocratic state? No, I don’t think so (Rick Santorum and Rick Perry might though, actually). It does demonstrate the pervasive influence that the shadowy hand of Christian Reconstructionism has had in mainstream influencing policy.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I am not in favor of any sort of theocracy in these United States. This country is a secular republic, founded on the principle that religion and the state not become entangled as to allow free, unrestrained exercise for individuals of all religious persuasions. A theocratic America with Islam at the helm would be just as abhorrent as a theocratic America with Christianity at the helm, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or any other religion. Unlike Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, there is not a very pervasive and influential lobby to fundamentally transform the core values and principles of America like there is regarding Christianity. How powerful that lobby is, is up to the reader, the individual. Where I might see a concentrated effort, others might see a group of coincidences. Regardless, that is not the intent- when you’re in the middle of a heart attack, you shouldn’t be fearing the specter of cancer.

Obama Is A [Bong]

Internet message boards, especially mainstream ones, like Yahoo!, are breeding grounds for trolls. This is not anything particularly groundbreaking or newsworthy. Click on an article about the discovery of a new star, and there will be comments about how atheists are all going to hell. Click on an article about a child being kidnapped, and there will be comments about how Blacks are lazy. Click on an article about U.S. foreign policy, and there will be comments about how Muslims are all bent on killing Americans.

One common troll activity is to attack the president- and sometimes, the attacks are topical to what the article is actually about! That’s not to say that criticizing the President of the United States is something that should not be allowed. In a healthy system, any and all people and groups should be fair game to be criticized. There is a pretty large difference between saying that the president is wrong about a certain policy because of X, Y, and Z, and saying that the president is a secret Kenyan Muslim who isn’t legally qualified to occupy the position he was elected into, who is also the Anti-Christ and doing his best to ruin the United States. Criticizing the U.S. President for his policies, such criticisms have merit and substance to them. Criticizing the U.S. President for inane nonsense doesn’t have much merit to it.

One criticism of the president that I see/hear a lot is that Obama is a socialist, and/or that he is turning the United States into a socialist state. It’s not just the internet trolls on random and often unrelated articles who claim this. ‘President Obama is a socialist’ is a talking point that has been encouraged by the National Republican committee and their state subsidiaries, that has been parroted by FOX News, other conservative news sources, such as radio and blogs, and by the those who listen with any regularity to any of those aforementioned sources. The manufactured epithet has stuck, to some degree. This drives me crazy because, generally, the people who say it believe it to a degree. To believe that the policies President Obama has pursued this far in his presidency demonstrate his socialist tendencies demonstrates a lack of understanding of what socialism actually is. To be honest, in today’s age of sensationalized media and talking points, I don’t begrudge anyone who does, though I find it annoying. It has been hammered into people that “socialism = government” for so long that I can understand why people might find it true.

Generally speaking, socialism is an economic/political system in which workers control the means of production, and that goods and commodities are produced on an “as needed” basis. The United States lacks this most basic foundation for socialism. Capitalism is firmly entrenched as the economic system of choice in the country, and good and commodities are generally produced only on a “for profit” basis. The only kind of socialism that exists in the United States is corporate socialism, and corporate socialism is an informal term, far from the actual principles that socialism actually entails. As Senator Bernie Sanders frequently makes note of, the United States is only a socialist in the idea that there is “socialism for the rich” while “free enterprise for the poor”- in other words, governmental policies ensure that resources flow to the rich, and that their losses are minimized, as opposed to the poor, who are more-or-less on their own save some token gestures.

Ah, you say. Rich, poor, there you go sewing discord and conflict between the two. That’s class warfare, a hallmark of socialism, a notion that Bernie Sanders (a self-avowed socialist, the only one in the Senate) and President Obama both support. Does not this claim apply for politicians or media personalities who would not ordinarily be thought of as ‘socialists’, because of their political affiliations and positions? Michele Bachmann supports eliminating the federal minimum wage, a proposition that surely benefits producers rather than workers. Is this not class warfare? Bill O’Reilly is frequently critical of federal welfare programs, and has lent his voice to supporting ending various ones. Is this not class warfare? Why is it only class warfare when the downtrodden seek empowerment, and not the other way around?

What about proposed or actual legislation that has nationalized different industries, to varying degrees? The nationalization of private assets into the public sector is a strategy advocated by political scientists and philosophers to transition a capitalist state into a socialist state, but is not the hallmark of a capitalist state. Was George Bush a socialist, or seeking to turn the U.S. into a socialist state when he signed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act into law, that federalized airport security, which had previously been provided by private contractors?

So, all in all, yeah- saying that President Obama is a socialist, or that his policies are socialist are a little annoying, because such claims are not particularly true. Even more annoying for me, as I’ve written about in the past, is because ‘socialist’ is used as a condemnation, with negative connotations.

Steroids, Cheating, And Media Hypocrisy

January begins the new year, and among various other things, it marks the 2012 Baseball Hall of Fame class. The potential Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2012 has some degree of star power, not so much from first-time candidates- of whom, the most notable players are former Yankee centerfielder Bernie Williams, Angels right fielder Tim Salmon, and journeyman right fielder Jeremy Burnitz- but from holdover candidates from previous years. Among them are Mariners DH Edgar Martinez, Astros first baseman Jeff Bagwell, Athletics/Cardinals first baseman Mark McGwire, Blue Jay/Brave first baseman Fred McGriff, Rangers/Orioles first baseman Rafael Palmiero, Reds shortstop Barry Larkin, Montreal left fielder Tim Raines, Rockies right fielder Larry Walker and Tigers pitcher Jack Morris. Between the group of them, there are multiple MVP awards, Silver Slugger awards, Gold Glove awards, and All-Star nods. With certain names, there’s been quite a bit of trepidation, in terms of justifying their inclusion in Cooperstown, outside of the general ‘their stats don’t justify it’, most notably, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmiero, Jeff Bagwell, and Edgar Martinez. Getting him out of the way quickly, with Martinez, many people believe that a full-time DH should not be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame (despite the DH begin a legal position since 1973, and ignoring the fact that Martinez is a six-time All-Star with multiple MVP votes, who is a career .312/.418/.515 hitter, whatever one thinks about the position). With Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmiero, and Jeff Bagwell, voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America are hesitant, or are seen as being hesitant, to vote for players who have engaged in steroid/HGH use- substances I will simply refer to as PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) from here on in. In the case of Bagwell, this is very unfortunate, and is more or less defamation and libel, because despite everything that has been said about him and PEDs, he’s never failed any tests, or even been linked to anything suspect in any way, outside of media individuals and fans broadly implicating anybody who played during baseball’s ‘Steroid Era’, and put up halfway decent numbers.

Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero are different cases. Mark McGwire, after years of speculation based on his career numbers, choosing to not talk about his use of PEDs during Congressional testimony, and claims made by the “Godfather of Steroids”, Jose Canseco in his book, Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant ‘Roids, Smash Hits & How Baseball Got Big, admitted to using PEDs in a press conference in 2011, shortly after the St. Louis Cardinals hired him as hitting coach. Rafael Palmiero, shortly after standing in front of a Congressional hearing and saying “Let me start by telling you this: I have never used steroids, period. I don’t know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never”, tested positive for having a potent PED, Stanozolol. Though he claimed innocence, and there certainly is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he never knowingly took the PED that caused him to fail the test, he was also named in Jose Canseco’s book, and in the affidavit of Jason Grimsley, the Arizona Diamondback pitcher who was implicated in taking and distributing PEDs to players across the MLB.

Cheating isn’t anything new to society, and it certainly isn’t new to baseball. In fact, baseball has a rich history of cheating. Shortly after the rules for base ball were codified in the mid 1800s, players began devising new and inventive ways to break them. When men were on base, infielders dropped infield fly balls on purpose, to be able to make the double play. As a player, Hall of Famer manager John McGraw was known to hook his finger in the belt of baserunners at third base, in an attempt to make it harder for them to get a good jump to tag up on a flyball. During the 1900 season, in an amazingly complicated scheme, the Philadelphia Phillies stole signs via telescope from the center field clubhouse and relayed them to the third base coach via electrical impulses that the coach felt in his metal cleats from a buried wire that went from the centerfield clubhouse to the third base coaches box. Since those early days, as baseball became more organized and more of a business, more formal rules banning certain behaviors came into existence, but even still, they were regularly broken. After the 1920 season, with the exception of a small group of pitchers, spitballs were banned and no foreign substances could be legally put on the ball. That didn’t stop Lew Burdette, Preacher Roe, Gaylord Perry, and countless others from throwing spitballs- in fact, Preacher Roe credited a lot of his success not to the spitball directly, but to the batter being psyched out and thinking he was going to give them a constant stream of wet ones. After the 1940 season, the rules were amended to state that a bat must be fashioned out of one singular piece of wood. That didn’t stop Norm Cash, Albert Belle, and Sammy Sosa from regularly engaging in the practice.

Generally speaking, drugs and injected/imbibed substances have carried more weight, when it comes to cheating in baseball. Greenie use- psychostimulants nicknamed thusly because of the color of the pills- is said to have begun in the 1940s. These small doses of amphetamines sped up the heart rate, increasing alertness and reaction time, and fought fatigue, letting the athlete perform at higher levels for longer. More potent forms of psychostimulants- cocaine, for example, were also regularly used by ballplayers. From the 1940s on, until even today, it is estimated that between 50 and 80 percent of ballplayers have used greenies of varying intensities to one degree or another, be it trying it once, or being a career user. Hall of Famers Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Willie Mays are known to have downed greenies from time to time, notable players Keith Hernandez, Tim Raines, Dave Parker, and Vida Blue all used cocaine to varying degrees. As anyone who follows baseball today knows, the ‘Steroid Era’ began in the late 1980s, when PED use around the MLB exploded. As a result, I don’t need to go into much detail about it, other than

Plenty of moralizing has been made regarding steroids. Most of it comes from TV or radio hosts and newspaper/blog columnists, who need sensationalized topics to garner viewers, listeners, subscribers and pageviews. Unfortunately, a great deal of those who are doing this in an official capacity (as in, paid) are voting members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, and it’s sad that the BBWAA operates in this manner. In 2000, when slugger Albert Belle retired, New York Daily News writer Bill Madden opined, “Sorry, there’ll be no words of sympathy here for Albert Belle. He was a surly jerk before he got hurt and now he’s a hurt surly jerk….He was no credit to the game. Belle’s boorish behavior should be remembered by every member of the Baseball Writers’ Association when it comes time to consider him for the Hall of Fame”. Ignored by Madden is the fact that, in his 12 year career, Belle hit .295/.369/.564, was a five-time All-Star, won five Silver Slugger Awards, and received numerous MVP votes, a borderline Hall of Famer. New York Times writer Robert Lipsyte promptly pointed out the idiocy Madden was calling for, writing, “Madden is basically saying, ‘He was not nice to me, so let’s screw him”.

In effect, Bill Madden was saying to his readers, and other Hall of Fame voters, that a player’s character should outweigh his career statistics. It doesn’t matter how Albert Belle the baseball player was- he was an asshole! This argument is primarily being used now as a means to keep players who used PEDs out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Did Mark McGwire accrue 70.6 WAR (Wins Above Replacement-level) over the course of his career? Doesn’t matter, he used steroids. Is Barry Bonds not Barry Bonds one of the greatest players to ever don a baseball uniform? Doesn’t matter, he used steroids. Is Larry Walker a career .313/.400/.565 hitter over the course of seventeen seasons? Doesn’t matter, he is alleged to have used steroids even though evidence even insinuating this doesn’t even exist! Now, keep in mind, the official guidelines for Baseball Hall of Fame voting do indeed say, “Voting shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.” Breaking laws (baseball or U.S. government), not breaking laws but certainly running contrary to the spirit of the law (baseball or U.S. government), do qualify as integrity, sportsmanship, and character issues. This aspect of voting is a relic of the past, I personally think, and problematic for the obvious reasons we’re seeing now, but it is still there nonetheless. The voting process has the woolly-headed moralizing directly built into it. At the same time, should character deficiencies overshadow stats and contributions to baseball? Cap Ansen was a horrible bigot who was instrumental in keeping Blacks out of baseball. That certainly qualifies as an integrity issue. Ty Cobb was a violent and overall nasty person. That certainly qualifies as a sportsmanship issue. Babe Ruth was known to be a womanizer who cheated on his wife, to the point the two were divorced. That certainly qualifies as an integrity issue. Should those personal, off-the-field issues overshadow their careers, to the point that their baseball stats are ignored? Or, would that be the pinnacle of stupidity, to bar three of the greatest players to ever play baseball from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of those issues that had nothing to do with their ability to play baseball?

Now, before anyone starts yelling, I’m not saying that I have no problem with players using PEDs. I don’t know very much about the negative physical impact taking PEDs can have on a person, but they certainly can’t be good for you over the long haul. I’m agnostic on the issue of whether or not they should be illegal, whether or not the MLB should consider them banned substances. All that matters to me is that they’re considered illegal substances, and have been banned in most forms since 2005. Even before that, they were dubious at best, and would have been against the spirit of the game, at the very least. Indeed, the MLB had no real PED policy until more recently. In 1971, Baseball Commissioner Bowie Kuhn issued the MLB’s first drug policy, which stated that all baseball personnel were to “comply with federal and state drug laws”. Vague language, coupled with no testing mechanisms resulting in the MLB’s drug policy being more or less a phantom, when it came to PEDs, many of which were technically legal to purchase with or without a doctor’s prescription. By the early 1990s, when PEDs were becoming more prevalent, Baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent released a memo that expanded the MLB’s drug policy to prohibit “the possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel…This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs … including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription.” This policy still allowed for the loophole that came with performance enhancing that did not need a doctor’s prescription. It also lacked any kind of teeth, as still no testing mechanism existed, and the powerful Major League Baseball Players Association maintained the right to challenge any disciplinary action, resulting in many clubs and the MLB to not even bother bringing up players for disciplinary actions. And, realistically, why would they? Why would a team want to lose a key player for any length of time, or the MLB tarnish an image that had taken a huge hit during the strike-shortened 1994 season? It wasn’t until 2003 that a mechanism for testing players was established, and until 2005 that the current policy of 50, 100, and lifetime suspensions were agreed upon and enacted.

Since then, we’ve seen players get penalized for failures on drug tests related to PEDs. Ryan Braun, the reigning National League MVP tested positive for synthetic steroids, and was issued a 50 game suspension that he is appealing. Edinson Volquez tested positive for PEDs in 2010, and was suspended for 50 games as a result. Manny Ramirez tested positive for PEDs in 2009, and was suspended for 50 games as a result. J.C. Romero tested positive for PEDs during the 2008-2009 off-season, and was suspended for 50 games as a result. Since 2004, 66 players have been suspended for using PEDs. Is that not enough of a punishment? Doc Gooden, who was suspended a bunch of times in the late ‘80s and ‘early ‘90s, weren’t his punishments enough? Rules are rules, and punishments are punishments. The rules call for a violation of policies to be punished with suspensions. When these suspensions have been served, the player should no longer be penalized for his infraction.

By the time he retired, his career had fizzled out to the point that the Hall of Fame was not in his future, but did anybody see fit to seek to actively bar Gooden from the possibility to being enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his cocaine suspensions? Gaylord Perry made no qualms with the fact that he threw a spitball, a pitch that has been deemed illegal by Major League Baseball for almost 100 years now. Has anyone saw fit to campaign to have him barred or removed from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of this? Mike Schmidt admitted to using amphetamines a bunch of times in his career. Has anyone saw fit to campaign to have him barred or removed from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of this? Willy Mays kept a red liquid that was some form of amphetamine in his locker, that he used as a pick-me-up. Has anyone saw fit to campaign to have him barred or removed from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of this? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Players who violate the rules should be punished, and that’s that. Nobody held, or is holding Gaylord Perry’s spitball use over his head. Nobody held, or is holding Mike Schmidt’s greenie use over his head. Nobody held, or is holding Willie Mays’ greenie use over his head.

What makes PED use any different from any other form of cheating that has been used in the MLB over it’s long history? I’ve heard that, because PED use was so much more prevalent than other forms of cheating, it should be viewed differently. Amphetamine use was as prevalent, if not more prevalent, in their heyday, from the 1940s until roughly the 1980s (when testing became more commonplace, and the Steroid Era began). Based on a few different player testaments, roughly 50%-60% of the MLB regularly used greenies. Where is the clamor that Tim Raines’ numbers are tainted because of his amphetamine use, and as such, his place on the ballot should be removed? I’ve heard that PED altered the entire game- stats, how we view them, the baseball establishment itself, in a way that other forms of cheating didn’t, so it should be viewed differently. At the end of the day, individual stats were still influenced, and individual stats have also been influenced by other forms of cheating. Would Gaylord Perry have been a Hall of Famer without his spitball? Would Tim Raines have accumulated the numbers he did without the energy pick-me-up that greenies provided him?

At the end of the day, people need to remember that PEDs are one form of cheating, out of many forms of cheating. They are, or were, currently en vogue, but when something new comes along, their appeal will diminish. When their appeal diminishes, they will be viewed through the lens of history, not through contemporary moral outrage. Though no one denies that spitballs, or amphetamine use are just as much forms of cheating, who moralizes about those anymore? In the 1920s, Commissioner Mountain Landis railed against the spitball as baseball’s second greatest threat, behind gambling. In the 1980s, the Pittsburgh Drug Trials scandalized baseball and drug use became a massive taboo. Now, when players get punished for doctoring the ball, we shrug, and when players get suspended for illegal drug use, we hope they kick the habit and get better. No moralizing or over-the-top hysteria. PEDs are just another form of cheating. Players who use them get punished, and that’s that. No need for the hysteria we are currently faced with- especially when it is applied so hypocritically. Cheating is cheating, and that is that.

Why Is It Okay To Suspend Rationality When It Comes To Religion?

A while ago, while I was waiting on line at Au Bon Pain at the Staten Island Ferry terminal, a gentleman approached me, and asked for the time. I looked at my cellphone, and told him it was “2:53”. He then began mumbling something about John F. Kennedy, started babbling about the line-up of the 1973 Mets, and it wasn’t long before I realized that the guy wasn’t all there in the head. I politely nodded until I realized that he was obviously mentally ill in some way, and then ignored him- luckily, I was next on line, so I could give the girl behind the counter my sandwich order and not pay the guy any attention, despite the fact he was still talking “at” me.

There are millions and millions of people of there in the world that would be qualified as being “disturbed in the head”, people who see things that really aren’t there, hear things that aren’t really there, and suffer from other forms of mental illnesses. In most cases, when a person who is obviously not all there in the head begins babbling things that otherwise defy believability, we ignore them and write them off. Does anyone really even acknowledge the generic crazy man on the corner who claims some kind of special insight into the true nature of reality that go against conventional thinking? In other words, when the generic crazy man on the corner starts yelling that the end of the world is near, does anyone actually listen? Does anyone actually hear what he says, as opposed to his rambling being unconsciously filtered out, and for the people who hear and comprehend what he’s actually saying, does anyone give his predictions anything more than three seconds of thought before being ignored and quickly forgotten?

Why, then, do people buy into such claims when they are religiously infused? That is to say, people write off the crazy people automatically, but when someone wearing a frock, or a yarmulke, prayer beads, or any other symbol of religious authority makes similar claims, people take them to heart, often regardless of the lack of conventional evidence, and in some cases, even in opposition of conventional evidence. People ignore the generic crazy man on the street who is claiming to know the date of the end of the world, but sell all of their worldly possessions because Harold Camping, the Christian radio broadcaster, says that the end of the world will come on a specific date? It doesn’t even have to be something that extreme. Take, for example, the existence of the soul. By definition, the soul is something that cannot be verified- it exists on a higher plane of existence, whereas we exist only on the physical plane of existence; transition between the two is impossible. The existence of the soul is a key tenet in Baha’i, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, and various forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, among other religions and theologies. These people generally take the existence of the soul for granted, even though it’s existence cannot be verified, because someone who is in some position of religious authority told them it exists. If stranger off the street told you that invisible alien parasites lived inside of us, feasting on our emotions, growing and developing based on our physical actions, who’d believe that? There is, after all, no proof that invisible entities from another world that are fed by our actions and emotions inhabit our bodies. But yet, the concept of a soul- in effect, an invisible alien living inside of us, feasting on our emotions and physical actions- is something that is seen as having clout by otherwise rational people. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend this. Roughly eight in every ten American adults believe in angels, a recent poll says. Compare that to a 2009 poll that says that roughly every five in ten American adults believe in extraterrestrial aliens. Angels make more sense than aliens (when, realistically, the opposite is true, and the existence of aliens on another planet is far more logical than the existence of angels on another plane of existence).

In response by some, I’ve been told it has to do with faith. It’s a logical fallacy to claim that faith in something makes it real. Under the influence of LSD, people have been known to climb to rooftops fully convinced in their ability to fly. Suffice to say, people don’t have the ability to fly unaided, regardless of the situation. For hundreds of years, people believed the world was flat. As we all know, the world is not actually flat. And, realistically, the faith card is irrelevant in situations such as these. The heart of the matter doesn’t have to do with having faith that angels exist and believing in them, or having faith that aliens exist and believing in them, or having faith in whatever, and believing it. What makes a priest/minister/rabbi/imam/whatever more qualified to talk about things that cannot be confirmed in any meaningful way than anyone else?

Am I saying that priest/minister/rabbi/imam/whatever are crazy? To some people they might consider them crazy, sure, for believing in what they believe in. To maintain respectability, I won’t go that far. In what way do the things they say differ from what the crazy guy on the corner says? It baffles me, and in months and months of asking people, I still have no answers. Maybe someone can illuminate to me here why the magical claims of a priest/minister/rabbi/imam/whatever make more sense than the magical claims of the mentally ill.

Accountability: Why I Don’t Mind Government Regulation

A while ago, I was having a very good debate with my father, centered around the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, a piece of legislation that is currently being debated in Congress. One of the main things the bill does is increase the power the U.S. Food and Drug Administration wields, by giving the agency the ability to impose mandatory food recalls on food producers/distributors, if goods produced/sold by those entities are found to be tainted in some way. As the system works currently, the FDA lacks this ability, and all food recalls are merely voluntary, done by producers/distributors at the request of the FDA.

He was uninformed about a few aspects of the bill, and once we sat down and did research together regarding specific clauses and the actual text within the bill itself- as opposed to random, unsubstantiated claims made by various personages in the media and internet- he warmed up to most of what was contained in the bill. One of his sticking points for disliking it, however, was that it further empowered the FDA over businesses, and gave the federal government more regulatory power over our daily lives.

Personally, I would much rather have the government regulating certain things than allow unregulated, rampant industrial, corporate capitalism. Why? With governmental regulation comes governmental accountability. In theory, the government is accountable to we, the taxpayers. Corporate conglomerates, on the other hand, are not, and are beholden only to the bottom line, which comes all too often at the cost of the general public.

Lets rewind a few months ago to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Asides for costing BP a large sum of money (it’s a good thing for the past decade, they’ve been raking in record profits, right?), in what way was BP made accountable for the environmental devastation that they caused, and the hundreds of thousands of lives that they impacted in a negative way, in both the long-term and the short-term? Sure, looking at the NYSE stock index, BP stock went from $60.57 a share to $29.20 a share between April 2010 and June 2010, but as I write this, they’ve made a substantial recovery. Still a net loss, but shares are almost back at the level that they were at beforehand, meaning that, asides for the payouts made, the company is in just as good financial shape as it was.

There have been various lawsuits filed against BP, regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (and with good reason). While the results of these cases seems likely to rule in favor of those who were affected by the oil spill, in theory, a judge might rule in favor of BP. Should such a scenario unfold, temporarily ignoring the massive appeals that would likely be made, BP would not be held accountable for whatever aspect of the oil spill they were being sued for.

This is, to me, the problem with the “rah rah” free-market capitalism that the Tea Partiers and sympathetic political groups/philosophies espouse. That’s not to say I despise capitalism, but businesses big and small are not looking out for my interests (obviously). They are looking out for their own, and are looking to make as much capital as possible, through whatever means they can employ (both legal and sometimes illegal).

The government, on the other hand, is inherently beholden to me, to some degree, in theory. With all of the corruption, special interests and corporate welfare that exists in the country today, I am not as important as I should be, but I still have some say-so. If I do not like how a politician is handling something, I can vote against him. If I do not like a specific piece of legislation, I can call my Senator/Congressman and implore him/her to vote against it. As a result, government regulation over certain things creates situations where those in charge of whatever the area is has to answer, ultimately, to the American public, in some way shape or form.

Let’s create two scenarios: In scenario A, a private corporation is in charge of a market, and in scenario B, the government is in charge of a market. In both scenarios, something goes horribly wrong due the management of that market. In scenario A, there is very little that you, a private citizen, can do. The upper echelons of the private corporation (and, to a lesser extent, low-key stockholders) decide upon the course of action the corporation takes to right things. People might lose jobs, and people might not. In scenario B, being the large, often adversarial bureaucracy that the government is, blame will be investigated and assigned, someone or some group will be held directly accountable, and changes will be made, to preserve public opinion. Given the influence that public opinion can and does have over political situations such as these, John Doe has a voice, in theory.

Which situation would you prefer?

Why I #OccupyWallStreet

I don’t consider myself a political activist. Until maybe the lead-up to the war in Iraq in 2002, I was largely apolitical. I distinctly remember writing on an assignment in elementary school- 2^nd or 3^rd grade?- that the news was my least favorite type of television show (presumably, cartoons were my favorite. Still are, more or less). A male teenager at a time when the word ‘draft’ was starting to be whispered in some circles, FOX News (They said they were ‘fair and balanced’; How was I supposed to know?) was turned on for hours at a time, either being watched, or just in the background. Leading into the presidential elections in 2004 and beyond, I became acutely interested in politics. It was always a passive interest, though. I’d watch the news, discuss and debate issues with friends and family, but that was largely it. There were plenty of issues that I had a direct and vested interest in that I watched on the news, but politics was always a field that was more academic than anything else, existing on the mental plane and not in any tangible form.

That is until recently. On November 17^th, I went down to Union Square, where thousands of students from various colleges in New York City were gathering to protest budget cuts. As the afternoon morphed into the evening, and the sun began setting over Manhattan, the large group mobilized, and began marching downtown, to Foley Square. Already going on there was a related group led by teachers, and other unionized workers. The two groups met in the park across from the Supreme Court building, and then went on to march across the Brooklyn Bridge. According to police scanners, an estimated 30,000 took part in the march to Brooklyn. I was not one of them, as prior appointments for the evening and my irrational fear of bridges (stemming from my irrational fear of heights, I assume) pulled me from the rally and back into the normal world. The day’s events marked the first time I actively took part in any kind of major political protest. Protests have taken place that I’ve been aware of, that I agreed with, sympathized with, or vaguely supported, but I’ve never participated in any.

What makes this march, and the overall Occupy Wall Street movement different? Plenty of anti-war protests have taken place in New York, and though I am generally in favor of bringing the troops home from Iraq (Afghanistan, I genuinely do believe positive progress can be made there, still), I never had even the slightest urge to participate in those events. Plenty of pro-gay rights activist groups have had meetings in various places in New York, and though I am in favor of ending the various discriminations that gay people are subject to, I never had even the slightest urge to participate in those events. It doesn’t make much sense, then, that I would actively participate in events that are railing against an almost insurmountable hurdle- government corruption; not just individuals being corrupt, but the system itself being corrupt.

Clinical psychologist Bruce E. Levine says that the Occupy Wall Street has “tapped into the energy supply that many oppressed and exploited people ultimately discover.” He goes on to say that “we discover it when we come out of denial that we are a subjugated people. We discover just how energizing it can be to delegitimize oppressive institutions and authorities. And when these oppressive authorities react violently to peaceful resistance, their violence validates their illegitimacy- and provides us with even more energy.” In my case, this almost explains why I became involved to a T. Back in September, when the movement started and people began camping out at Zuccotti Park, I saw a few mentions of it on my Facebook news feed, and I vaguely knew of it, but didn’t particularly care. It wasn’t until the end of September and beginning of October that I became interested. Seeing videos of police administrators arbitrarily spraying peaceful protesters with mace, use more force than necessary on individual protesters officers, and just completely ignore the chain of force that they are supposed to follow when interacting with the public, something in me snapped. Events that have taken place since haven’t particularly helped- the Oakland Police Department firing tear gas canisters directly at people (a breach of proper police protocol), the Oakland Police Department firing flash-bangs directly into groups of people (a breach of proper police protocol), the NYPD restricting the media from being able to cover the generally non-violent dismantling of the tents at Zuccotti Park in the middle of the night, the general disregard for the right of the media to exercise the special privileges granted to them by the NYPD for having press credentials, the NYPD arresting activists who all closed their bank accounts (According to one bank, you can’t be a protester and a customer at the same time), the Seattle Police Department spraying an 84-year-old lady with mace, and various other misdeeds. These are the sorts of things that we hear about happening in Syria, not the United States. And, then it hit me- just because I live in the United States, just because I am a citizen of the United States doesn’t make the United States somehow arbitrarily exempt from all of the bad things that happen across the world, beamed into our living rooms on the news. The increasing brutality and aggression used upon the people in Zuccotti Park, or the Occupy Oakland group, or the Occupy Los Angeles group, or any other group, is the same as what we see in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Bahrain, and elsewhere across the world. Just like most encourage those people to stand up to what they see as injustice in the face of aggression, so too are Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Now, just what are the Occupy Wall Street activists railing against? Many things. I’ve heard that since no two protesters are necessarily protesting against the same two things, the overall movement is disorganized, and doesn’t have a coherent message. This is laughable. Would newspaper pundits and talking heads say the same thing about the Tea Party movement in 2009 or 2010, when it was at the peak of its power? People calling for more lax gun control policies were standing next to people who held signs that said “Impeach Osama Obama AKA Hussein”. Individuals who want an amendment to the U.S. Constitution calling for a balanced budget to be presented each and every fiscal year protested along with people who supported teaching “intelligent design” in classrooms. So many different messages, so surely this means they lack an overall cohesive message. That said, I, personally, am protesting the shortsighted corporate greed that is destroying the country. It affects me in both intangible and tangible ways.

In 2009, Thomas M. Ryan, the CEO of CVS, took home $30.4 million dollars in salary, on top of stock, other bonuses and benefits, and whatever else a high-ranking executive might receive. That same year, CVS laid off a few thousand workers nationwide. In 2009, William Weldon, the CEO of Johnson & Johnson, made $25.6 million, plus all those bonuses, stock, and benefits and everything else- he got a raise from 2008! Between 2008 and 2009, 9,000 Johnson & Johnson employees were laid off. In 2009, Randall Stephenson, the CEO of AT&T, took home $20.2 million dollars, and laid off 12,300 workers. The list goes on and on and on. Now, I don’t begrudge that they make a lot of money- I am sure most have all kinds of degrees, certifications, and experience, and for all that, they should be rightly rewarded. In the financial climate we’ve been living in since 2008 or so, when the economy really tanked, we’re all heard stories of workers taking fewer hours, so that fellow employees wouldn’t have to be laid off. We’ve all heard stories of small business owners cutting into their bottom line to do what they can to ensure they don’t have to dump otherwise loyal and effective employees. My gripe is this: If fellow employees or employers can willingly cut their hours or profits by some margin to help out others and prevent them from having to wait on the unemployment line, why can’t the big time executives, who make amounts of money large enough to actually make a difference in regards to overall U.S. economy? If Mr. Ryan from CVS willingly had his salary cut from $30.4 million dollars to $15.2 million, a 50% cut, the company could have saved 700 entry-level jobs. Would he have missed that $15.2 million dollars? Given that $15.2 million dollars is a large income in and of itself, on top of whatever savings and investments he already has, I doubt that he realistically would. When you consider how comfortably a person can live with a single million dollars, let alone that sum fifteen, or thirty times, the amount provides plenty of disposable income. The worst part about this, I think, is that if executives across the country began doing this, the economy would be a lot better. A few hundred employees off the unemployment line and back to work here, a few hundred there, and there’s suddenly thousands of people back to work. In such a scenario, everyone benefits, including the executives who slashed their salaries- in a healthy economy, a business is going to make larger profits than in a weaker economy.

Closer to home, I am a student at a CUNY college, New York’s public college system. It was completely free, once upon a time, but that was long before I was born. When I started, it cost $2,000 a semester/$4,000 a year. Not a completely unrealistic cost, all things considered- and when you factor in the fact that those who might have trouble affording that tuition have tuition assistance programs available to them to offset most (if not all) of that, the CUNY tuition isn’t particularly pricing people out. When you consider that, at the end of the day, the degree I will get is the same degree as someone from St. John’s University gets, minus tens of thousands of dollars, $16,000 for a college degree is quite the bargain. My tuition recently went up, and very likely will be going up again shortly. As far as I understand, it isn’t going to increase all that much- I think, if the latest rounds of tuition hikes are approved, the tuition will be raised to $2,750 a semester, or something similar. Again, all things considered, that is still a very reasonable price for a college education. My bone of contention is not the fact that tuition has gone up, and likely will go up in the near future again, but that fact that my tuition is going up so that the state can cover costs that they are incurring by giving the privileged elite discounts on their taxes, subsidies on their businesses, and whatever else the case may be.

Since September 11^th, 2001, various groups have sprung up within New York with the stated goal of helping to revitalize the state and city’s economy. In the wake of 9/11 and the economic problems that followed, there was a lot of uncertainty about how the state and the city would cope. Organizations such as the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), the Empire State Development Corporation, and Lower Manhattan Development Corporation came into being, empowered by New York State and/or New York City to handle various important duties, such as investing in infrastructure, attracting businesses/preventing businesses from leaving, and disbursing emergency funds granted to the state and city by the federal and state governments. On the whole, duties and an overall goal that sounds reasonable, that I would be able to approve of. Upon closer look, however, it quickly becomes apparent that these groups are massive rackets. On the board of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation is John Zuccotti. Mr. Zuccotti also happens to be chairman of U.S. operations of Brookfield Office Properties Inc., a corporation that has received substantial funds and/or tax breaks from the above organizations. Or, how about Mario Palumbo Jr., who sits on the board of the NYCEDC and hands out tax breaks and subsidies to businesses while, at the same time, is a partner of Millennium Partners, a $2 billion dollar real estate conglomerate that has received breaks and subsidies. And, of course, we can’t forget Bill Rudin, board member of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation who also is the chief executive of Rudin Management, which owns various buildings across the city, including One Battery Park Plaza, which just happened to receive plenty of New York City developmental money. And the list goes on and on.

In any other industry, this would be illegal, an outrageous disregard of conflict of interest. Sports writers would be quick to call out how out-of-wack the arbitration system that awarded baseball players raises would be if the arbiters themselves were all former players, or former team executives. When a jury announces a verdict, many are quick to point out literal or alleged connections jury members might have to the prosecution or defense. Teachers are not technically allowed to have family members in their classes, for the fear that they allow their loved one to pass without holding them accountable to the same rules other students are held to. And yet, businessmen with intimate connections to large businesses being appointed to councils that hand out subsidies, tax breaks, and other stimulants to help the economy, not much outrage. If this situation unfolded in any other situation asides for politics, it wouldn’t be allowed. But, because this is where politics and business meets, it’s business as usual. Since 2008, corporations and large businesses with connections to members of the boards of these various organizations have received nearly $2 billion dollars worth of kickbacks.

To get back to my point, however, billions have been spent by local, state, and the federal government to ensure that large businesses stay in the city/state, hire more local workers, invest more in the city/state, and so on. These funds come from my city/state taxes, or more indirectly, the federal government allocating my federal taxes to programs designed to help out ailing businesses, such as the TARP bailouts. So, billions of dollars have been spent on our tax dollars to dangle carrots in front of large corporations to stay in the state/city. In return, these groups- Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Newscorp, JP Morgan-Chase, Wells Fargo, among others- not only put up record profits, but lay off workers, “convince” politicians to allow them to pay less on their taxes, and establish tax shelters in the Caribbean to avoid having to pay the already discounted tax rate that the government prescribes. Since the city/state is losing money, they need to make it up elsewhere- so, take away some of the funding that CUNY/SUNY colleges get, or decrease the amount of state tuition aid that gets doled out to students. The costs that schools incur by running are still there, so tuition goes up to make as much of those costs back.

I don’t mind paying for my college education- very little in this world is free. I don’t mind paying a bit more for my college education- that’s inflation, and the economy, and whatnot. I do take exception to having to pay more so that my state government can give a millionaire/corporation “a break” using my taxpayer dollars, which promptly get funneled into the hundreds of tax shelters in the Caribbean that these groups have. This is why I Occupy Wall Street.

There’s The Truth, And Then There’s The Glenn Beck Truth

On Thursday, June 31^st, 2001, Glenn Beck hosted his self-titled Fox News television show for the final time. After years of ratings drops and advertiser boycotts, and Beck’s further marginalization of himself within mainstream Republican and Conservative circles, Fox News did not renew his contract, and the two parties went their separate ways. It certainly was a tumultuous time, with his seeing conspiracies everywhere, in everything- I’m still trying to figure out whether or not it’s George Soros or the Caliphate that we should be worried about. Supporters of Mr. Beck posit that the majority of what he said on his show was the truth, that he backed up his claims using sound bites, direct quotation, and so on. While this may be the case, it spawned a phenomenon that I like to call “The Glenn Beck Truth”.

“The Glenn Beck Truth” is a very simple phenomenon. Quite simply, it’s a half-truth. If Mr. X stole Mr. Y’s wallet, but subsequently got discovered and punched by Mr. Y, the actual owner of the wallet, would Mr. X be lying if I said simply that Mr. Y punched him? No. Mr. Y did indeed punch Mr. X. Mr. X is leaving out important details, however, that he tried to steal Mr. Y’s wallet, and was punched as a result of his actions. Glenn Beck, on his TV show, as well as his radio show (and likely, his political books, none of which I have ever read) regularly does this. A statement by whomever, taken out of context perhaps, or shaved to leave out other relevant information in the statement, can be manipulated to look like whatever he wants it to look like. His viewer base (and, most people in general), are too apathetic or convinced in his claims hat he uses the ‘whole truth’ to look up the ‘whole story’, and take his claims at face value. Is he lying? In plenty cases, no, since he might have a soundbite, or a direct quote by the individual he is discussing. Are his claims accurate, though? In plenty, if not most cases, no. A few examples of “The Glenn Beck Truth”, as opposed to the actual truth:

A few months ago, I read an article about a group of Rabbis who apparently wrote a letter in protest against something that Mr. Beck said on-air about (you guessed it!) George Soros, and the Holocaust. Said Beck, “[he] used to go around with this anti-Semite (an employee of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture, who was giving the adolescent Soros shelter, by having him pose as his godson) and deliver papers to the Jews and confiscate their property and then ship them off… It was frightening. Here’s a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps.” According to Soros himself in an interview with reporter Michael Lewis from 1994 in the New Republic, and in an interview with author Michael Kaoufman, when he still lived with his parents in a Jewish Ghetto in Nazi-controlled Hungary, he worked for the Jewish Council (as all Jews in their respective ghettos were supposed to do, being as these councils were, in effect, the governing bodies in the ghettos, made up of Jewish community leaders) and delivered letters to residents informing them when the Nazis were planning to deport them to concentration camps. This was when he was 13. A year later, when he was 14, he was living with the mentioned government employee, posing as his godson- I guess his parents lucked into finding a sympathetic figure in this man, and sent the now 14-year-old away in order for him to live, or maybe they themselves were already deported, but regardless, he was living with this family. Every so often when that governmental employee was surveying and inventorying the contents of an estate that belonged to Jewish families that fled the country- some, certainly had legitimately fled Hungary, while many were probably rounded up by the SS to be sent to concentration camps- the man brought George with him, instead of leaving him behind, where his cover might have possibly been blown.

The only account of what happened is from Soros, obviously. He might be lying through his teeth, but we have to take his word for what happened- and, realistically, if he was lying through his teeth (which is doubtful), it doesn’t really even matter in regards to the crux of the problem here. All of that information, which is freely available on the internet for anyone to reference, is the only information that exists, and is pretty clear in spelling out the chronology, and the facts. You’d have to specifically try to use that information, and that chronology, incorrectly on purpose to come up with “George Soros was an self-hating Jew who worked for the Nazis to evict Jews from their homes, and send them to concentration camps.” This is precisely how the “Glenn Beck Truth” works. It is a fact that a young George Soros worked for his local Jewish Council delivering letters to residents, including informing them of decisions the council came to, and what the Nazi government was planning on doing with them. It is also a fact that afterwards, a young George Soros was posing as the godson of a low-level Hungarian governmental worker, who sometimes accompanied his “godfather” surveying and inventorying the estates of Jews who no longer were living in their homes, for whatever reasons. Chronologically, being a member of the Jewish Council came first, and then posing as the godson of the governmental worked came next. At no point did they occur concurrently. Glenn Beck’s claims, that he went around with an anti-Semite (the governmental employee, who comes off very anti-Semitic, by sheltering a young Jewish boy and risking his own safety) delivering papers to Jews and confiscating their property and shipping them off does not pan out, chronologically. Are segments of what he is saying correct? Yes. He did indeed work for the Jewish Council, and then sometimes accompany his “godfather”. Is the narrative that Glenn Beck is giving correct? No. The “Glenn Beck Truth”.

On May 20^th, 2010, I was watching CNN. President Obama was giving a graduation commencement speech at the University of Michigan. The crux of his speech was that even though politics is a cutthroat business, there should exist a basic civility regarding opposing viewpoints. The following excerpt, I find, gets to the heart of what his speech was about:

“Today’s twenty-four seven echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before. It has also, however, given us unprecedented choice. Whereas most of America used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.

This development can be both good and bad for democracy. For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways. And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country. But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

This of course requires that we all agree on a certain set of facts to debate from, and that is why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Still, if you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website. It may make your blood boil; your mind may not often be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.”

On the whole, that’s a message that I don’t think anybody should oppose. Exposing yourself to as much information on a matter as possible is not a bad thing, and opening yourself up to the perceptions and viewpoints of others is not a bad thing, either. What did Glenn Beck present the commencement speech?: Barack Obama doesn’t want people to watch Fox News, Big Brother is going to start monitoring the sources individuals get their news from, and dictating to them what is acceptable for them to listen to!

There are plenty of other examples that I am not even aware of, I am sure. Now, I don’t have the wool pulled over my eyes far enough to not think that other journalists and media personalities don’t do this. They do. What separates Glenn Beck from, say, Keith Olbermann, is the fact that Mr. Beck and his supporters like to claim the theoretical moral high ground. He shows the clips that others don’t. He plays the sound bites that others won’t. That he is different, a media personality who says what he says, and that pan out if checked. At the end of the day, according to the independent, bipartisan PolitiFact.com, out of 23 claims that were analyzed, only two were “true” and one “mostly true”. Five were “half true”, four were “mostly false”, six were “false” and five were “pants on fire”. Telling for someone who urges viewers to check the facts for themselves, to show them they verify his many claims.

Welfare Drug Testing and the Fourth Amendment

A few weeks ago, back in late September, I saw a few Facebook statuses that had to do with drug testing state welfare recipients in Florida. The three or four statuses I saw- I think it might have been one of those chain status things that people copy and paste from each other- praised Florida, Kentucky and Missouri for implementing changes to their welfare systems that would force all recipients to undergo mandatory drug tests. Presumably, if you failed your drug test, you would not be eligible for welfare benefits. Florida was the only state that actually went ahead with the plan and made it law, and lo and behold (as I said it would be), it was temporarily blocked by Judge Mary Scriven, a federal appeals judge, on the basis that it violated the U.S. Constitution. While the judge looks at the facts before making her final ruling as to whether or not the law is unconstitutional, it is important to note that in 1999, Michigan implemented a similar random drug testing program for welfare recipients. It was appealed and found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

The people who I’ve debated the issue with who supported the measure, by and large, felt that it was no big deal because an innocent person taking the drug test would have nothing to hide, and thus, nothing to lose by taking it. While true, this is a dangerous legal precedent to promote. An innocent, upstanding citizen has nothing to hide, so they have nothing to lose by police agencies being empowered to arbitrarily search their homes on a whim for any evidence of any kind of crime. An innocent, upstanding citizen has nothing to hide, so they have nothing to lose by constantly being eavesdropped on by the government, to ensure that they don’t say or do anything illegal. That, my friends, is a police state.

 

I think there would be a lot more outrage and condemnation of such a move if, say, in order to apply for and receive a driver’s license, a drug screening was necessary- the “dregs of society”, those who are poor and/or down-on-their-luck never receive the ‘legal sympathy’ that those who are of higher social status are afforded, and a re easy targets. “Why should I, an outstanding citizen, be subjected to take a drug test in order to qualify for a driver’s license? What right does the government have to check what I put into my own body? Get the government out of issuing governmental licenses!” would be the Tea Party response, I bet. In what was is welfare, another government service, any different?

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said in his dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States that innocent people have the “right to be left alone”. In other words, if there’s no evidence of a citizen doing any kind of wrongdoing, he/she has the right to be left alone and not hassled by the police. The government does not have the ability to arbitrarily search the homes of citizens on a whim, for any evidence of any kind of crime. The government does not have the ability to arbitrarily eavesdrop on a citizen, to ensure that they don’t say or do anything illegal.

 

Supporters have mentioned that various jobs require drug tests before employment is given, so it makes sense that welfare recipients be required to take drug tests before receiving payments from the state. It’s very true that plenty of employers require their employees to take drug tests before they hire them. Most job applications list as a condition of employment that the prospective employee consent to a drug test (whether or not that drug test is actually administered is another thing. I’ve had four jobs, and only one required that I actually go ahead and take a drug test). Given that, in most cases, these are private employers hiring people, they can dictate whatever terms of employment they want, provided they don’t violate any laws. If a private employer dictates to potential employees that they have to wear business attire during working hours, that’s their prerogative. If a private employer dictates to potential employees that they have to wear business-casual attire during working hours, that’s their prerogative. If a private employer dictates to potential employees that they have to wear shorts, sandals, and rainbow-colored flannel shirts during working hours, that’s their prerogative. A private employer sets the standards of the type of employee they hire. If they don’t want to hire someone who has done some kind of drug in the past three months, they have the ability to check before employing an individual. If they want to hire only people who have done drugs in the past three months, they have the ability to check before employing an individual.

 

The government, it’s little trickier. The government also administers random drug tests, and various local/state/federal employee unions have challenged drug tests, and won, to varying degrees. I worked for the Department of the Interior for a few years as a National Park Service park ranger, and was not forced to undergo any drug tests as a condition for employment, or random screenings to ensure that I was drug free while on the job. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, in 1989 (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association) that random drug tests were permissible, but only for employees in safety sensitive positions- police officers, firemen, and workers who have duties that, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, “even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences based on the interest of the general public”. Employees who do not fall into that category do not have to be tested. And, this makes sense. A firefighter who is under the influence of drugs puts his own life at risk if he is responding to a fire, puts his fellow firefighters lives at risk, and puts the people they are rescuing at risk. A low level bureaucrat at the county clerk, if they are under the influence of drugs, they are putting nobody at risk for death or any kind of bodily harm. That is not to say that if their behavior at work is unsatisfactory and unacceptable, as a result of their being under the influence of drugs, they shouldn’t be disciplined. If their conduct is acceptable while on the job under the influence of whatever substance, the government does not have any legal right to interfere.

 

Supporters have also told me that, as a matter of public policy, they find no problem with these drug tests. In other words, welfare money should be going towards legitimate things that one needs to live, and not illegal drugs, so drug tests provide further incentive to clean up their acts and sober up, if individuals are indeed using welfare benefits to purchase illegal drugs. While, in theory, this sounds nice, it’s not under the purview of governmental obligations/duties- and is expressly prohibited to do so without first having an inkling of probable cause. In other words, the job of the state welfare office is not to screen for drug addicts. An innocent person being subjected to drug screening for the greater good is still having his individual civil liberties violated. Without probable cause- inkling that something is amiss- the government has no right to subject a person to a search of their person. In the words of Voltaire, “It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.”