Montana Green Bulletin Special Edition October 11, 2018

Politics and possibility... 

How disenfranchisement destroys our freedoms and diversity.

by Paul Stephens

One of the best things about being in Montana is that we are so remote from the rest of the world, and the current madness which seems to have gripped the American psyche.   We don't have to "conform" to all the nonsense promulgated by ALEC and other corporate fascist "instruments of governance", yet that tendency seems almost to have originated in Montana - with the Copper Kings, Generals and Indian Wars, and every wave of corporate and Federal Military/Police-Prison takeovers since.  We've always been divided in our loyalties, until wars force us to conform to the Dominant Paradigm on pain of death or prison.  A lot of tragedy, as well as glory, happens here.

There was a world-wide cultural revolution in the 1960's, largely aimed at ending American military and economic hegemony over a world which wanted to be free of our "progress" and "democracy."  Now, we are nearly 40 years into the Counter-revolution, negating any positive changes from the 60's and 70's.   All the categories have been changed, except our "core values", foremost of which is American Exceptionalism.  We don't have to follow the same rules we impose upon others.  So everyone is at the mercy of whatever whims happen to strike the "guardians" of our National Sovereignty.   Do you wonder that people willingly become Anarchists to escape such tyranny?

I've been voting Green since 1996, or maybe even 1980, when I wrote in Barry Commoner, the "radical environmental" candidate.  Before that (and a couple of times since), I voted Libertarian.  Why?  Because neither Democrats nor Republicans understood the problems and potential solutions which they promised to solve through the Federal Government.  

Part of it might be that neither Libertarians nor Greens care much for the Federal Government.   Both movements reject Statism in principle.  Thus, they aren't really "parties" like the "majors" - which are themselves little more than corporate crime syndicates and arms of the police-prison-corporate-military-health care/education Complex (State).  All they really want to do is to hold on to the illegimtimate power they already wield.  Least of all do they want to talk about "reform" or "changing the system" to empower people and protect us from corporate predators and political totalitarians.  They ARE the political totalitarians.  

=================

Future Focus:  The Forgotten Green Value

Grass Roots Democracy, Feminism, Future Focus, and Non-violence

These were the original "4 Pillars" of the Greens/GPUSA, the internationally recognized Amercan Green Party.   In 2004, the present GPUS took over most of the state organizations,
and tried to become the FERC-recognized "Green Party." - In other words, one that remains within the existing federal voting laws and financing rules.  Since we don't accept PAC or other "bundled" corporate money, and have dismal media coverage as a consequence, we don't do so well.  We want to change the rules, not spend our precious resources as the Corporate Parties dictate.   

This explains a lot of the absurdities which have made the Green Party less than popular with traditional Democrats and many Leftists (especially of the Big State/Labor persuasion), and many of the Old Guard Greens/GPUSA people (and some state parties) remain largely unaffiliated and uninterested in national GPUS politics (represented by Jill Stein and David Cobb).   I was on the National Committee for several years, and outside of a few real communards and peace/environmental activists, there was little of interest happening there. 

Electoral politics has always been distasteful to some of us, and in the Green Parties, there is a perennial gap between the "Realos" (those engaging in Realpolitik infighting with other parties) and "Fundis" who are more interested in education, direct action, the "info-wars" and other non-governmental/non-authoritarian processes and solutions.  The Fundis are basically anarchists, while the Realos are some sort of state socialists and otherwise collectivist in their views, with "majority rule" democracy, but practiced on a local or bioregional basis.    

Most of the leadership of the GPUS (Realos) continues to act as though we're usurpers or some sort of "spoilers" of the two-party racket.  Ralph Nader, once perhaps the most respected "activist" and "reformer" of the late 20th Century, lost about 80% of his popularity and credibility by twice running as the Green Party Presidential Candidate - largely because of the corporate/MIC press and the Dem Machine, which destroys any candidate to the "left" of them, who might "steal their votes."   

This argument is so absurd on the face of it that we tend to simply ignore it.  Yet, 90% of those who consider themselves Democrats believe it, and continue to harrass and disenfranchise Green party activists and candidates at every opportunity - most reacently, by suing to remove the Green Party from the ballot in Montana on a "distribution of signatures" technicality which has already been ruled unconstitutional in other states.  

What particularly concerns the Greens and every advocate of free and fair elections is that a law firm active in the Hillary campaign was hired from out of state to do this.  So, this left local Democratic candidates afraid to denounce or protest this action by their party.  Needless to say, and so far as I know, none have done so, although I asked several prominent Democrats to do so.  Can anyone tell me why you are all basically complicit in one of the worse vote suppression efforts in recent history?  If 7000 Lesbians or Native Americans (many of whom would vote Green) had been disenfranchised, there would have been hell to pay... 

The GPUS has been successful in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Michigan mainly by mobililizing Black voters who have been taken for granted by the Dems forever.   The same could happen in Montana with other minorities.  In Washington, D.C., it's the Statehood Green Party, representing that large disenfranchised group.   Their local government is appointed by Congress, and they have no voting representatives in the Senate or Congress.  DC has almost as many people than Montana, and more, I think, than Wyoming, so you can understand their support for a party that stands up to the Biden-Baucus-Clinton Corporate State as well as the Dick Cheney Republicans of Wyoming.    

Jon Tester:The Man who Conned Organic Agriculture/Food Safety

The Man who Conned Organic Agriculture/Food Safety movement....

from 12-3-2012

Who is talking to Jon Tester?  Some of my FB friends do, I know.  And I  have personal, non-FB friends who are close to him, too.  I've  made this plea many times, but let me make it once more.  TALK to him!  He can't possibly believe and want to promote the things he is promoting as a United States Senator.  Isn't it just a massive cry for help?  

Here's what I'm hearing:

"These guys are eating me alive.  Everyone has gone crazy!  The  Monsanto guys, the Nuke guys, the  Bankster guys - they control everything!   That's why I had to support that ridiculous bankster bill to repeal the limitation on swipe fees!  And, of course, my local credit union in Montana, which contracts with Visa to provide its  swipe cards, went along with Visa's demands for more money. 

"Nukes?  Hey, I went to college in a Nuclear Garrison Town (Great Falls).  I know how important these missiles and the Air Force are to our local economy, so I'll always support more National Security spending.  My brother was in the National  Guard.   And I have constituents in every branch of the Service, so I'm not cutting them out, either."  

Sounds plausible, doesn't it?  And it is, because that's the way Montanans think.  They don't know how (or care) to "balance a checkbook."  That's somebody else's problem.  Let the accountants figure it out, as long as the money and pork keeps rolling in.  

Who will pay for it?  

"Dead people, workers, the poor whose too generous "entitlements" will have to be squeezed.  What we know for sure is that cutting government spending costs jobs.  Are the jobs important?  Are they doing anything useful?  It doesn't matter.  They're jobs, and that's what gets us  elected - creating jobs.  So, anyone who says anything against economic growth and job creation is wrong.  Cast them into the outer darkness.  

What about the environment?

"I'm a fourth generation farmer, on the same land.  I'm an organic farmer.  I know this is where the money is.  It's the future.  And it would be nice if Monsanto understood this.  But they don't, and they control everything relating to agriculture and, and along with the Merchants of Grain (Cargill, Columbia, Continental, Louis-Dreyfus - yes, that's Julia's family), control of trade and trade agreements to ban organics and healthy food in general.  If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right?" 

How about the environment?  "I'm an organic farmer.  Shouldn't I know best?"  (We thought so, for awhile)  

"Social Security?  Hell, I'm not going to get any.  The system is already busted.  We've got to let the free market work.  It's survival of the fittest, right?  And we've got the nukes, so we must have the upper hand, right?"

Isn't there anyone there to say, "No, Jon.  You've got it all wrong.  You're listening to ALEC and the banksters, the Nuclear Mafia and the Zionazis.  You're a corporation pretending to be a person."

Maximillion Baucus started out a lot smarter than Tester, and with that sense of Noblesse Oblige entitlement - a Stanford grad from one of Montana's oligarchic Republican families.  It was his destiny to lead.  It was only over decades of experience, and listening to the Democrat Machine hacks and assassins that  he finally managed to be the worst Senator in the history of the country - the henchman and muscle behind Clinton's colossal sellout to Wall Street, the Drug Cartels, and the MIC.  (That's Military-Industrial Complex, as in Kosovo and Iraq sanctions, and his various other dances with the CIA and Cold-War-Democrats).  Remember, Clinton was a protege of Sen. Fullbright - a fact that is better remembered, now, in Hillary, while Baucus claims to carry the mantle of the sainted Goldman-Sachs and Boeing company man, Mike Mansfield.  

So, who is Jon Tester and who might he be Testing?  For awhile, I thought it was me, or at least the Stephens family.  My late Aunt Ruth's first husband was from Big Sandy, and other relatives of mine do business in the organic agriculture field.  There are connections here, which were sufficient for me to support Tester's candidacy the first time - although I would have rather seen Paul Richards finish the primary, so we'd actually know where we stood in terms of Democratic voters.  And Morrison, as despicable as his embrace of the private insurance industry might have been, would certainly, in retrospect, have been a much better Senator.   Tester simply doesn't understand the issues, and sells out without  even getting anything substantive in return.  The typical farmer attitude of being helpless in the face of monopoly agribusiness buyers and suppliers, I suppose.  

Yet, Tester was at the forefront of those trying to buck that system.  That was why he got so much support, although he lost rural Montana by nearly 2-1, including his home county and State Senate district, where he got his start.  That's about the same ratio of those who support-oppose Monsanto and other corporate business ripoffs, and why we are a "red state." 

Much of Tester's base was the teacher's union - Jon was actually a certified music teacher, as well as Montana Organic Farmer of the Year, selected by AERO, a pioneering organic and alternative energy organization started in the 1970's by Kye Cochran, Cindy Elliot, and others who are now largely forgotten.  AERO is still important in Montana, but I can hardly imagine that they are happy with Jon Tester's "progress" in dismantling their agenda.    Apparently it's a rule: if a good peace and sustainability organization honors you, and you run for office, then the first thing to do when you get elected is to renounce everything you once believed to win that award, like the Nobel Peace Prize.  Otherwise, it would be "influence peddling," right?  A conflict of interest, surely, if an organic farmer led the opposition to Cargill and Monsanto.  Getting elected means you're now part of the problem rather than the solution, so you'd better act accordingly. 

The main corporate supporters of Tester (to the tune of millions of dollars), continues to be the so-called "environmental community" - especially the big corporate-controlled and politically connected groups like the Sierra Club, Audubon, MWA, etc.  Most of these organizations (including AERO) fell over themselves to support Tester's "Jobs and Recreation" bill, which never made any sense at all except to a couple of timber companies and those who revelled in making environmental advocates look stupid.  It was actually a recycled Conrad Burns bill from the late 1990's, then the Senate "alternative" to the Pat Williams wilderness bill which would have saved something like 4.5 of the 6 million roadless and Wilderness Study Areas under threat  by logging, mining, and livestock interests.  But Tester's bill was only a "pilot project", and would have saved only a small fraction of even what Burns had earlier been recommending (the so-called "rocks and ice" acreage which had little value either as wilderness or in terms of resources to be "developed.")

Just as Obamacare was recycled Romneycare, Tester's Senate career is recycled Conrad Burns [and now, Baucus -especially his support for new missiles from Boeing and all the Wall St money which Baucus commanded as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee].  All the support for the wars, more military spending, Homeland Security, etc. which kept Burns in office has been expropriated by Tester - "Sure wouldn't want to lose those guys, would we?"  

The same goes for wolves and gun control.  Tester is right in there with the NRA and trappers/hunters and "sportsmen."  Tester's  latest fiasco was some sort of "Sportsman's Bill of Rights" which was laughed out of the Senate for provisions such as the "right" to bring back polar bear skins and other endangered species trophies from other countries - which is presently illegal under US laws.  Another interesting part of this bill was the "right" to carry hunting bows and arrows in National Parks, which are apparently equated with firearms and thus banned, or have to be wrapped up and sealed before being taken into the Parks.  Believe it or not,  these are actually "hot-button issues" among Tester supporters!  Or else he has been fooled into thinking they are by the ALEC types, who hand us a lollypop with one hand, while picking our pockets with the other.  

The only part I don't understand is why,  after being so totally deceived and manipulated by some of the least savory elements in American society, Tester would even want to run, again.  Yes, Rehberg was sufficiently vain and credulous to think that he could beat Tester, and he could have if he hadn't had such a dismal record on the environment, foreign policy, etc.  But the whole  debate, now, is framed in terms of how stupid and outrageous one can be - and how offensive to the other party, not how much good one can do, or how one's understanding and experience relates to the offices held.  

I've said all along  that Tester simply doesn't understand who he is, or his power to do good simply by doing the right thing - what he, himself, knows to be true and useful.  Like many a weak king or president, he has been totally taken over by his staff and "advisors".  

Doesn't anyone else know or care about this?  Baucus is already raising money to run, again, in 2016.  It's all about "seniority", you know.  Look how "powerful" Baucus has become.  Surely we wouldn't want to lose him, now would we?  I wonder, sometimes, if there will be any meaningful United States of America in another 4 years.  With Obama in the White House and Tester-Baucus in the Senate, there is reason for some doubt.  The total failure of  Montana media, public and private, to expose and defeat these corporate-sponsored criminals - well, that would be our  greatest collective sin.   For those who actually call themselves Christians or otherwise ethical people - if they're doing anything at all, it is probably on the side of the oppressors and tyrants.  You can't fight City Hall, right?  

Much as I enjoy blaming people like Baucus, Tester, and their cohorts, it's really not their fault.  It's the corporate media (including "public" media which is  almost totally corporate-controlled and funded); it's our  monopoly, hierarchical "public" school system; it's the Military Industrial Complex; it's our own lack of courage and intellectual honesty, which is never taught in school or other "government programs", but  must be learned from family and personal experience.  

You say you want a revolution?  You'd better change your mind, instead.  Time is getting short.  

2002 Cascade County Commissioner - Issues

My Green Party campaign for Cascade County Commissioner 2002

Issues Summary
Here is a short summary of the issues which I have determined are most important to the voters of Cascade County.

I  invite your questions, comments, and concerns.

1.  Environment, economy and land-use policy

Sustainable economic development is the key to Montana's future. We cannot have a healthy economy without protecting the environment for future generations. A conservation ethic is essential to the management of public resources. We can halt global warming by a rapid transition to wind-generated electricity (converted to hydrogen for transportation and fuel cell use) in place of fossil fuels and nuclear power, strict fuel efficiency standards, passive solar building codes for new construction, and generous tax credits for retrofitting and conservation, creating thousands of permanent construction jobs in Montana. We can solve the endless conflicts over public lands by a moratorium on commercial exploitation (mining, drilling, logging) and the eventual  repatriation of most public lands to Native American use, habitation, and control. This will increase the value of privately-held natural resources, while preserving the rest for the benefit of future generations. "Future focus" is one of the Green Party's 10 Key Values.

I favor state legislation and county-level prohibition of coal-bed methane development and production, which Gallatin County has already implemented.  We may have a local superfund site due to improper cleanup of the Anaconda smelter area, along with thousands -- perhaps millions -- of tons of toxic waste dumped in the Missouri River over the years. I pledge to stop the coverups, and hold those responsible strictly accountable.

Agriculture vs. Corporate Monopoly Agribusiness

  Federal agriculture subsidies should be limited to family-owned farms and the people who actually work the land, not absentee landlords and corporate agribusinesses. Subsidies should only be available to farmers who employ sustainable agriculture methods, produce safe food, and pay living wages.

We must act quickly to maintain the safety and quality of our agricultural exports. Thus, I favor county-wide encouragement of organic agriculture, banning genetically modified organisms (GMO's), and the discontinuation of chemical weed and insect control by the County.  Chemical weed and mosquito abatement costs over $700,000 a year, while biological controls are known to work more cheaply and effectively.

2. Interlocal agreements and the hierarchy of authority

The issue of the Fairgrounds and other "interlocal agreements" has made us very aware of the need to maintain friendly, constructive working relationships between the City of Great Falls and Cascade County. There is more than enough blame to go around. In the last grant cycle, the City Commission rejected a valid application from the Indian Family Health Clinic to purchase office space, while approving one for a new fence for the Fairgrounds for a similar amount of money. This is the kind of "leadership" we have come to expect from our business-dominated local governments. In 2006, voters will be able to decide on whatever changes in local government are deemed appropriate.

On the state level, there is a financial crisis due to the erosion of our tax base.  We must increase taxes for all who are able to afford them.  Economic growth is dependent on excellence in education, infrastructure spending, and a reduction in poverty, substance abuse, and violent crime. In the past legislative session, the City and County hired lobbyists in Helena who supported nearly every corporate tax break and giveaway presented.  As your County Commissioner, I will work closely with our delegation in Helena to make sure that mistakes like the hospital merger and the sell-off of Montana Power assets (policies which these two lobbyists, as former public officials, emphatically supported) do not happen, again.

3. The Cascade County jail mill levy, prisons policy, and the "war on drugs."

We opposed the construction of the new Regional Detention Facility several years ago, warning that it was part of a concerted effort sponsored by the prison industry, contractors, and suppliers who were "educating" voters and legislators to substitute punishment and incarceration for mental health care, jobs, and other welfare services and programs. I  publicly opposed the Jail Mill Levy in June, and will continue to oppose  the persistent efforts of Sheriff Strandell to increase his budget relative to other county services.  By eliminating GED and drug counseling programs in the jail, he has demonstrated that his main interest is in maintaining current levels of crime, drug abuse, and incarcerations -- not in reducing them.

I will use the position of County Commissioner to support a drug policy of "harm reduction", which includes meaningful counseling, education, treatment plans, and community-based programs.  Punishment and prohibition have increased the use of harmful drugs while drastically increasing law enforcement costs and violent crime.We oppose the mandatory minimum sentencing and "three strikes you're out" policies promoted by the prison industry. We now lock up 5-10 times as many people per capita as Western European countries or Japan.

4.  Economic development and dependency on federal spending

Tax cuts and subsidies for the wealthy have not contributed to economic development. Local shopping centers, box stores, and other businesses are owned by out of state interests.  They have put hundreds of local stores, restaurants, and others out of business, siphoning tens of millions of dollars out of our local economy.

City and county governments supported energy deregulation, sell-off of local Montana Power assets, lowering property taxes on the dams, and the construction of the new gas-fired plant north of Great Falls, which triples the cost of our electricity, while the cheapest hydropower is sold out of state.  Our natural gas prices will increase dramatically when this power plant goes on line.  My opponents remain silent on this policy, when they are not actively supporting it. Our only remaining option is to support I-145 to buy back the dams and keep the cheapest electricity available for local businesses and consumers.

We need to promote local investments in renewable energy, processing and distribution for local agriculture products, exportable professional services,  and "value added" manufacturing which we own and control.  Co-ops and worker-owned businesses should be given preference in every case. 

5. Military Spending and the Malmstrom Doomsday Machine

We must begin extensive planning to "convert" Malmstrom Air Force Base to peaceful, productive purposes, and make sure our congressional delegation supports this effort.  We have no interest in the phony "war on terrorism," and nuclear weapons make us less secure and a target for terrorists who would otherwise leave us alone.  I have a number of ideas, including but not limited to the following: a Native American University, International Peace Academy (with Cold War Interpretive Center), and/or home base for an "Ecological Defense Corps" which would monitor and enforce environmental policies (a revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930's). These could bring in the same federal dollars without the negative consequences of being "a nuclear garrison town."


6.  Public radio, free public television, and the cultural infrastructure

We are the only Montana city without free, broadcast PBS and Montana Public Television.  In 1992, I organized a local effort to obtain a translator for Montana Public Television. KUSM from Bozeman promised it by 1994.  As a County Commissioner, I will begin immediately to obtain cable-free educational television for Cascade County and the surrounding area.  [One of the few "issues" listed here which has actually been accomplished. PHS-2018].

I have been a public radio fan and volunteer announcer since 1971.  I volunteered at KUFM, Missoula in 1979, and was a founding member and later Vice-president (1987-89) of the Great Falls Public Radio Association.  I encouraged (and volunteered more than 500 hours to bring about) the expansion of KGPR to become an independent local public radio station with additional signals from KUFM, KEMC, and  a Native American station on their own frequencies.  Most Montana cities have a choice between two or more public radio stations, and an independent local station would greatly facilitate economic development and educational and cultural opportunities.

I have long been an advocate for increased support for the broader cultural infrastructure of libraries, museums, Native American culture centers, community bands and symphonies, public broadcasting, lyceums, community theater, book discussion groups, and other lifelong learning opportunities.

6.   Labor and incomes policy:  living wage, minimum wage, and welfare spending

The rapid widening of the distribution of income over the past three decades has dramatically increased the  number of people -- especially families with children -- living in poverty.  The rich got richer, and the poor got the shaft. In order to be comparable to what it was in the 1960's, the minimum wage should be increased to at least $7.50 an hour.  A "living wage" for a single parent with one child in Montana is calculated to be about $9.00 an hour, along with free, comprehensive health care, day care, and other essentials which most civilized countries provide.  Local "living wage" ordinances have been enacted by nearly a hundred cities or counties nationwide.

Here in Cascade County, we must provide for our people, regardless of what other levels of government do or fail to do.  By continually promoting military and law enforcement spending instead of decent wages and social services, our local governments have been highly irresponsible in serving the needs and interests of our people.

 7.  Campaign and election reform

We must always put good government above partisan advantage. Green Party candidates do not take PAC money from corporations or special interest groups.  We advocate a reform called Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) which allows us to give first and second choices, thus ensuring that a vote, say, for Ross Perot would not have benefited Bill Clinton. We also favor "fusion" where one candidate can be nominated by more than one party, and proportional representation which gives all significant parties seats in the legislature. We support access of all qualified candidates to debates, and an equal playing field for media campaigns which are uniform and subject to veracity checks and rebuttal. We oppose commercial advertising for and against candidates in the broadcast media.  Elections determined by saturation advertising are not democratic.



Vote Yes on I-145 to Buy Back the Dams!
It is vitally important that you vote YES on I-145 to Buy Back the Dams and provide Montana residents and small businesses with the cheapest electricity available.  More than 99% of the $2 million plus advertising campaign against I-145 is provided by the two out-of-state corporations which have raised our electricity rates by $300 million over the next 5 years. They are lying to us with money they stole from us. We can reverse this abuse of corporate power. We must face the fact that the Legislature in Helena (along with the Montana Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO) are dominated by corporate lobbyists who have robbed us of our cheap electricity, our clean and healthy environment, our tax base, affordable health care, and our quality public education system.

Don't let them get away with it!  The dams have already been "taken over," and tax rates for these out of state corporations were drastically cut in the last Legislature.   I-145 will increase our local tax base from electricity generation, and restore ownership to the people of Montana.  Don't be fooled by false advertising.  Yes, they can legally lie, and there's nothing we can do about it except to vote YES on I-145.   [No good news on this front.   I spent hundreds of hours on this issue, with no positive consequences.]

On "collaboration with the Right"

Still working on that "Marxist-Libertarian-Synthesis..."

Daybook  August 14, 2017

On "Collaboration with the Right"

Apparently, it's not OK for Leftists to coordinate with anyone deemed "right-wing" or "fascist".   Those who want to limit the dialogue to "true believers", and deny all connections between "Left" and "Right" are the ones who need to be excoriated. Such views only lead to war and attempts at "revolution" which is just that - another turn around the wheel of death and destruction.   

What we need to do is de-politicize and somehow rationalize "disputes" over the nature of the Confederacy, Fascism, Racism, Nazism, Bolshevism, etc.  which are entirely artificial and contrived.  No one cares whether or not there is a statue of some political hack in front of our State or national Capitols.   Should we compare Montana's Gen. Thomas Meagher (our first - appointed- Territorial Governor - few if any would have voted for him) with Robert E. Lee, no doubt the most popular General and leader of the Confederacy, and admired by nearly every student of history from any side, as well?   I can assure you that Gen. Meagher would compare unfavorably with Gen. Lee.  

People are dissing my old friend and 2004 Green Party Presidential pick David Cobb (thanks in no small part to the MT delegation, largely a creature of Cobb's own campaigning, but based on Nader's showing in 2000).  Most Greens in Montana had already given up and dropped out in 2004, and wouldn't have supported Cobb, in any case.   I don't remember the vote total, but it was at most a few thousand, and if I remember right, Nader got about twice as many votes in 2004 running as an Independent, with Peter Camejo.  In 2000, with a national organization, Nader got more than 20,000 votes in Montana - certainly not enough to make any difference in this "Red State".  And there was a "Libertarian" to draw off twice as many votes from the Republican  GW Bush, if the Democrats want to consider that - or that Perot put Clinton in the White House in 1992.  

That was the consensus of the national Green Party as well - to simply endorse Nader in 2004 (which he was counting on) instead of running our own candidate.   Most of the MT Greens turned out to be DemoGreens like Cobb - many even supporting Max Baucus or working in his campaigns.   So, I more or less considered the MT Green Party dead, but continued doing a non-party Montana Green Bulletin for another 6 years or so as an educational and journalistic activity - a sort of shoestring "alternative press," of which none really existed in MT at the time.  The Missoula Independent with George Ochenski and others, was doing very well, but it was mostly entertainment and arts news - more "hip" than "radical."   And it was bought out by some chain, as well.  

Most of my present views and positions derive from that experience of Green Activism (which really goes back to the 1970's), and there are a number of websites (whose stuff I share here) I follow - most notably Counterpunch 
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/11/overcoming-nuclear-crises/

and Global Research.   http://www.globalresearch.ca/neocons-have-been-destroying-sovereign-nations-for-20-years/5603225

Popular Resistance (mostly active Green Party people) is another good one - a digest, but Zeese and Flowers write a lot of their own stuff, too, and do a radio show easily accessed by podcast.  https://popularresistance.org/resistance-at-tule-lake-a-hidden-history-of-japanese-american-incarceration-and-defiance/

Z-Net used to be my favorite, but it is more sectarian than I like, and I rarely read it now, nor is it easily available like those mentioned, above.  

I have long defined myself as a "Green Libertarian", so I have a lot to do with the real libertarian right (which is anti-military, anti-empire, and anti- any sort of inteference in our private lives, or our private, consensual transactions - like sex workers and a whole "underground economy" which is essential to the health of the whole system).  

Any attempts to control or contrain our attempts to resolve our issues by cooperation and mutual understanding, as Cobb and Caitlin Johnstone have now been so villified for doing, should be recognized as the real problem, not someone's moral approbrium for making that effort....  Cobb may be a political hack, using various machine techniques (which he learned as a Jesse Jackson Democrat) to control Green Party decisions.  He was Jill Stein's campaign manager last year, as well.   So, the articles against him on those grounds have substance, but merely endorsing Johnstone's views (she is Australian, BTW), and wanting to work with "the libertarian right" on issues like overreaching govt, the National Security State, military spending out of control, the Gulags/War on Drugs which lock up 5 times more prisoners than any but the most totalitarian systems - these are all areas where "Left" and "Right" can and should work together.   

I often post graphs from https://www.politicalcompass.org/ to illustrate the feasibility - indeed, necessity - of identifying our political positions on a X-Y axis which reflects both Left and Right as well as Libertarian and Authoritarian.   Study it carefully.  You may be surprised.   

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

The US Presidential Candidates 2016

Please note that the positions on the chart are based on speeches, manifestos and, where applicable, voting records. If positions markedly change during the campaign, we will revise the chart accordingly. Already the positions of Trump and Clinton differ slightly from the primaries chart.

Despite most polls indicating that Bernie Sanders would fare significantly better than Clinton against Trump, the party clearly wanted Hillary. This surely suggests that when push comes to shove, the Democratic establishment would prefer Hillary to lose the presidency than Sanders to win it. On the other hand, a large section of the GOP mainstream is probably uncomfortable enough with their blustering billionaire to swing behind Hillary — but never Sanders.

===============

This is the essay, following a number of other about Caitlin Johnstone, an Australian blogger who, along with David Cobb, a Green Party presidential candidate in 2004 and Jill Stein's campaign manager last year, was proposing "reaching out" to certain Rightist and libertarian groups and movements.....

JULY 28, 2017
Enough Nonsense! The Left Does Not Collaborate with Fascists
by ERIC DRAITSER

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/28/enough-nonsense-the-left-does-not-collaborate-with-fascists/

Whom the Gods would make mad they first make respond in print to vacuous, inane bullshit.

-Henry Wadsworth Draitser

Waterboard me! Give me the Ludovico Technique with the Atlas Shrugged Trilogy playing on an endless loop! Anything, anything at all would be better than having to write about Caitlin Johnstone and the ongoing back-and-forth about her so called “journalism.” And yet, here I am, doing precisely that because, quite frankly, some things have to be put in print, no matter how execrable the task.

What follows is not an attempt to perform a close reading of Johnstone’s couple months-old oeuvre because, to be perfectly honest, there’s not much to read other than repetitious anti-Democratic Party talking points which are perfectly fine, if a bit boring and easy. I don’t have any problem at all with endlessly bashing Democrats, I’ve been doing precisely that since before Johnstone was writing books on astrology.

Rather, the central critique, which Johnstone and her defenders studiously avoid engaging openly and honestly, is that this Australian blogger and self-proclaimed leftist openly advocates collaboration with the fascist alt-right...

KGPR- Great Falls Report to the Board-May 17, 2001

KGPR - History, forgotten and suppressed....

The following is a report I made to the KGPR Board on May 17, 2001   
I sent this copy to Joe Jewett, who was the first person to systematically present classical music programming at KGPR (actually, the Rev. Tim Christenson recorded and played back GF Symphony broadcasts before, as Joe mentions below, but he didn't do any regular DJ presentations of classical music, and he was opposed to our becoming an independent station in 2000).  

Joe also started the Youth Symphony in his first tour here as Concertmaster in the mid-1980's - a fact which Gordon Johson has repeatedly denied in order to take credit for that project.  After Joe was fired (for making a Worker's Comp claim, and protesting nukes with me at a BRAC hearing), Gordon took over the Youth Symphony because the Symhony Board (mostly music teachers) insisted on it.

Joe's reply is found at the end of this document....  - Paul Stephens, June 23, 2017

======================

May 17, 2001 Report to the Board, Programming Committee, and greater KGPR community from Paul Stephens, recently appointed Classical Music Director at KGPR. 

Some questions have arisen over my recent appointment as Classical Music Director of KGPR. I hope the following Report will re-assure anyone who has doubts or questions about my tenure in this position. Please feel free to call me or write for further discussion about these issues. 

Resume/history 
I have been preparing for this responsibility since I first went on the air at KCSB in Santa Barbara, California in 1971. As a Great Falls native, I began attending Great Falls Symphony concerts when I was still a high school student, during the 1963-64 season. At that time, you could still hear a few classical music broadcasts on commercial radio in the form of the Texaco Metropolitan Opera broadcasts, and a Sunday afternoon broadcast of the New York Philharmonic. While I was a student at UCLA, I began to build my own classical music collection, attended concerts by some of the great performers of the century, and regularly listened to KFAC, Los Angeles, one of the great big-city commercial fine arts stations. 

When I moved back to Great Falls in 1972, I talked with the station managers at all the local commercial stations, and none saw any market or public demand for classical music broadcasting. And, of course, we had no public radio here, or anywhere else in Montana at that time. In the early 1970's, KUFM was a low-power university station intended as a training base for student broadcasters, and it had a range of only a few miles. Later in the 1970's, they hired Terry Conrad from Detroit, where he had been a DJ on an all-jazz commercial station. He had also played trumpet in an Air Force band, and had a degree from a Chicago university in music education. He was hired to transform KUFM into a full-fledged NPR affiliate with the power and reach to serve a larger audience in western Montana, and his success is certainly well-known to all of our listeners here at KGPR.

Having passed the test and acquired an FCC Class 3 License with broadcast endorsement (then required for anyone doing a live show), I apprenticed under Terry in 1979 as a literal "walk on" at the then largely volunteer-staffed KUFM. I originated an overnight show called "The Late Shift" from 2-8:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. During the last fund-raising week I spent in Missoula, 1981, the goal was $40,000, which we barely exceeded by the vigorous and insistant haranguing of the listening audience -- a practice which KUFM still maintains with its present goal of $350,000. 

After the death of my father in 1981, I returned to Great Falls. My decision to remain here was contingent on the fact that a group was forming under Bruce McKenzie to establish a public radio station here, which would initially re-broadcast the KUFM signal. I wrote a letter to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting which was used to obtain the original license and grant to build a transmitter, and expressed an interest in doing local classical music programming, which Bruce assured me I would soon be able to do. 

Later in the 1980's, as a Board member and Vice President of the Great Falls Public Radio Association, I broadcast the first Great Falls Symphony and Cascade Quartet playbacks on KGPR on Saturday afternoons, taking the initiative to go the Symphony office, get the cassette tapes, and broadcast them. I was also the designated spokesperson for public radio, and addressed groups such as the Tuesday Music Club about KUFM's classical programming. I was also a member of the first Programming Committee, which consisted of those Board members who did local programming, and included John DeLair, an airman, Kerry Callahan, and John Torstveit. We did a public affairs program for several years which later became Voices and Views produced by Tim Christenson and Kerry. 

Throughout this period, there was no systematic broadcast of local classical music until the 1990's, when Joe Jewett initiated the "Classical Performance Series" to replace the KUFM request program on Thursday nights. This was part of the first expansion of local programming to the evening and late-night hours when Tim was the half-time station manager. 

The economics of local public radio 

Now, everyone who is on the air in Missoula is paid a minimum of $10/hour. Terry's final salary (he recently retired) has been reported as something over $60,000 a year, which is paid by the University, not the listeners and underwriters. We have one staff person here at KGPR, who is paid $10/hour for 40 hours, and often works another 40 hours a week for nothing. Yet, we are mocked in the Great Falls Tribune for raising only 1/3 as much money for our own station as was sent from Great Falls to Missoula! Their story should have emphasized that our percentage of local public radio pledges closely reflects our percentage of local "prime time" broadcasting hours. 

Some of you may recall that I strenuously opposed the "moratorium" on expansion of local programming, partially on the grounds that it was an obstacle to our receiving the full KUFM signal which many of you expressed yourselves in favor of having. During the last fund-raising drive, we should have maintained continuous local programming in order to take advantage of that fund-raising opportunity. Apparently, there were Board-imposed and contractual prohibitions on this course of action. 

Our financial viability absolutely depends on our having a yearly full-time pledge week, regardless of where we get our programming for the remainder of the year. You, as a Board, must decide whether we are to go forward with the expansion of public radio in Great Falls, or remain stagnant and "starved out" by the Golden Triangle group. 

Is anyone surprised that Great Falls is now Montana's 3rd city, and that Missoula has claimed second place? Three fourths of the few local community dollars we can raise for public radio are now channeled to Missoula to support their programming and bringing their signal here, and to support the hugely expensive National Public Radio programming which is corporate and federally controlled, but listener financed. 

I stopped sending or raising money for KUFM quite a few years ago, mainly because of the cost of such shows as "Car Talk" and "A Prairie Home Companion". These two shows alone cost KUFM listeners about $20,000 dollars a year. Both of these shows (along with "St Paul Sunday Morning" and some other NPR and PRI shows) are semi-privatized. This means that the money we pay for these shows is captured, in part, by their producers, who have become millionaires as a consequence of your support. 

And National Public Radio news, although better in many respects than what the corporate media provides, relies heavily on free-lance or other foreign correspondents employed by the BBC and other foreign sources. It is also carefully supervised by government authorities, so it has become politically responsive to (and dependent on) the Washington bureaucracy's approval and support. This was the very danger which conservatives warned about in the 1960's, when the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established. Now that these same conservative, corporate interests control the government, they are less concerned about government news management and censorship. 

We, in Montana, pay dearly for this news programming -- about $90 for each hour of "All Things Considered" and Morning Edition, according the latest KUFM figures announced during their recent pledge drive. Probably half or more of the $350,000 raised by KUFM was forwarded to NPR, PRI, and other national services. And the more money raised, the higher these fees become. We could get the same or better services here in Great Falls as an independent station for a small fraction of the cost which KUFM must pay for them. And there is three or four times more material on NPR and PRI than we have ever heard from KUFM. More importantly, there are thousands of locally-produced news and public affairs programs from all over the country -- and the world -- which are virtually free for the asking. 

But the point to keep in mind is that the vast majority of people in Great Falls never listen to public radio of any kind, whether it is local, national, or from Missoula. More local content is the only sure way to increase local listeners, membership, and support. KUFM has hardly changed its programming over the past 20 years. Only by frequent changes and rotation in programming can we keep up with what is happening in public radio, and give more local people the opportunity to participate. 

An apparent majority of Great Falls listeners (or at least contributors) have been persuaded to subordinate Great Falls and its interests to Missoula. Why is this so? Should we otherwise become a colony of Missoula? Should we dissolve our city government and ask Missoula to step in and govern us? Should the Great Falls Symphony disband, so that we can listen to all our symphonic music from Missoula? If anyone in Great Falls thinks so, they're not admitting it. Yet, opponents of local public radio have been allowed to set policy over our local public radio station, and prevent us from expanding our locally-produced, community-supported and -supporting programming. This is just plain wrong, and I know that many of you who have become involved as a result of the Golden Triangles attacks on local public radio are no longer associated with that group. The fact is, they cost us (and Missoula) $35,000 in lost pledges last year, and this year, they have continued to divide community support even for the radio station which they help to manage! 

Most of their support was based on their claim to support and expand classical music programming. The difference may be that I want to expand local classical music programming, while they wished to use nothing but national or Missoula classical music programming. This is pure foolishness. We have a larger and better classical music community in Great Falls than either Missoula or Bozeman, and our school music programs, which I am covering extensively in my shows, is nationally known and rated, which neither Missoula or even Billings can claim. 

With the departure of Joe Jewett, we lost the only regular KGPR classical music staff person. Joe is a personal friend of mine, and I see my role as taking over where he left off. I am also personally acquainted with most of the classical music performers and leaders in the Great Falls area, and I hope to balance and include many kinds of local live music and the people who produce it which have heretofore not been heard on KGPR. I think most of us here at KGPR see ourselves as serving and promoting the live performing arts community, rather than being in competition with it. 

Long-term planning 

My intention, as a long-time public radio volunteer and activist, has always been to bring in the full Missoula signal on its own frequency, and more recently, to expand classical programming to double or triple its present level. This can be accomplished by bringing in KEMC from Billings, which is more classical music-oriented than KUFM, and by expanding local classical programming to some appropriate prime-time hours, such as Sunday evening from about 8:30-midnight, as I have already proposed to the Programming Committee. As the station expands its listener and support base, it should be possible to pay additional staff and even the on-air personnel, as KUFM has done, now, for almost 20 years. 

By now, we are way off track for becoming an independent station. Since we have become a membership organization, our opportunities for receiving tax money and grants is somewhat diminished. I would rather see us licensed to the Great Falls Public Schools, the City, or the County (we are most like the public library in this regard, which receives both city and county mills, and always has at least one school district representative on its Board). 

This is an issue which will continue to split our membership, staff, and listeners until it is satisfactorily resolved. You, as a Board, need to make a public appeal for more local members and support. Every year I was on the Board, and for several years thereafter, I raised at least $600 in pledges and premiums for local public radio. The public should have been informed that if they want to support our local public radio station and local control of it, then they need to become members for a minimum contribution of $25/year, and vote for Board members who reflect our interests, not Missoula's. 

Any attempt to count contributions to KUFM as the basis for voting membership at KGPR should (and will) receive a legal challenge. The whole point of being a membership organization is to maintain local control over our local public radio station, and to use our local dollars for the benefit of this community and this radio station, not someone else's. KUFM already gets more than $400,000 in state taxpayer support through the University of Montana, which owns it. We, the members of the Great Falls Public Radio Association, the Directors, staff, and volunteers at KGPR own this station, and we all need to provide better leadership, stewardship and support than we have provided thus far. 

Paul Stephens 564-2201, greateco@gmail.com Classical Music Director, KGPR Host of "The Literature of Music" and "The Classical Music Scene" 


===============================

Paul H Stephens wrote: 

Hi, Joe. 

I found your e-mail address in the KGPR files, so I thought I'd send you this report on the state of classical music broadcasting in Great Falls. The same battles are still going on, as you can see, but we might still get there.  The Youth Orchestra is doing great, and I'm trying to get more time and more people involved in doing classical music on KGPR. 

Hope you are doing well, and enjoying conducting. 

paul 




Return-Path:  Subject: Re: What's new in Great Falls? 

Hey Paul, 

Good to hear from you. I'm glad to see that you are up to your standard bearing ways. Who knows what Great Falls would be like with out folks like you and Arlene etc. Now I don't want to play into any sort of messianic complex but truly the Philistines would have open field. I' sorry to see that the radio dispute drags on. It is a shame that people can't seem to pull together for the sake of community....

One correction about your report. Perhaps you were unaware that Tim actually started Classical Performance Series and trained me to take it over. I did many more shows before I quit than did he, but credit should go where it is deserved. I thank you for mentoining me so favorably. I hope that I have left a good reputation behind me in Great Falls and Montana despite the fact that I had the temerity to leave town...  

I do miss the relative peacefulness of the Montana lifestyle. There are amazing musical opportunities and challenges here in the Boston which are counterweighted by a very fast paced aometimes harried way of living. Take care, 

Joe 

Health Insurance is harmful to our health....

Why the "health insurance' debate is killing us and bankrupting the country...

INSURANCE What does it really mean?
11-30-16

For more than 20 years, I've coached, cajolled, corrected and emphatically insisted that the news media and politicians quit conflating "health insurance" or "insurance coverage" with actual Health Care delivered successfully to patients.  This is especially important for those who could not otherwise afford or locate any suitable care but it is even more important to the economy as a whole, and to our very survival as a nation and system of government.   A nation whose health care access and outcomes is below that of many 3rd-world countries has no business setting any sort of example, or attempting to control the destinies of other nations.

The total collapse and de facto expropriation (by corporations, lobbyists and the governments they control) of our once-great health care system will puzzle historians for centuries to come.  How could we have been so stupid?   Why do we let these gangsters control and profit from the most basic charitable humanitarian and necessary services - Health Care.  Physicians, Hospitals, Clinics, Public Health standards and services, etc.?

And most mystifying of all, why do we submit to monopolistic, profit-maximizing control over the quantity, variety, and quality of our vital services?   It's an Economics-free Zone.   No one here had heard of supply and demand, competitive pricing,  or the Sovereignty of the Consumer.   A real free market system means no patents or monopolies, no ability to coerce people to pay for what they don't want, or what they think is harmful to their health, etc., etc.

You can still practice (with its own certification process)  "alternative medicine" in Montana (acupuncture, homeopathic and herbal medicine, etc.), but it's not "recognized" for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements.  Some treatments, which are popular and cost-effective, like Chiropractors, are included.  And since most lower-paid workers now spend a third of their income on compulsory insurance (thanks to the Democrats), they have no resources left to obtain alternative medical services, but at least that's a convivial system where you can trade work, barter, or otherwise get by.

The Republicans didn't push for Romneycare precisely because it wouldn't work unless it forced the young and healthy to pay for the old and sick (something which Pres Obama has repeatedly used as a "justification" for this system - it is forced altruism, which we are told is good for us.).  And Mitt said, repeatedly, that it was a system for Massachussetts liberals who were in favor of such programs.  He knew it wouldn't work in most of the rest of the country, where the dominant elements are "fighting socialism" along with any other sort of benevolent government action, which they think is the road to totalitarian despotism.  Now, why would they think a thing like that?  Maybe they've been to Montana.

As for the despotism, they're certainly cool with that, and each party plays off the fears of "the other's guy's despotism" - whether it is the other major party, or foreign despots who use the terror instilled by American imperial violence to tighten their control over their own people.  (c.f., Turkey).   Maybe they can act out some of their James Bond or Matt Helm fantasies.   In any case, their main mission in the legislatures and state bueaucracies is jobs, raises, more programs, more prisoners, more people on welfare and government health care schemes, all of it corporate and local-oligarchy friendly.  If it's not a rip-off, they don't want to fund it.  (Check your local School Board, for examples).   In the end, they're all promoting failure on the side (in other words, hedging) in order to prove themselves correct (and thus blameless) in their analysis after the fact.

Republicans are more sensitive to people's "libertarian" desire to opt out of any federal program they don't like, and to find their own cost-effective solutions to whatever needs they might have.   The two leading "architects" or proponents of the ACA - Sen Max Baucus, and now, Bill Clinton whose Democrat faction was still "building on" Hillarycare, c. 1993, have described it as "a train wreck" (Baucus, omitting who was driving the train - himself) and "the craziest thing I ever heard of", verifying my
estimation that we are now paying 4 times more than we need to, and still have rotten health care with co-pays and "insurance" deductibles we simply can't afford, so we still don't get the health care we need, or if we do, we are driven into bankruptcy.

It is indicative of the state of the news media that these meaningful statements by people who (perhaps belatedly) understood that a disaster had occurred, were immediately ridiculed or forgotten.  The basic question as to whether or not we want to subsidize corporations with our health care dollars, rather than spend them on actual health care, has never been discussed, and those who tried to discuss it, like Green Senate candidate Margaret Flowers, were actually arrested at the order of our dear Sen. Max Baucus for attempting to present these facts at a hearing (at many hearings, for trying to deliver materials directly to the White House, etc., etc.)   There is no excuse whatsoever for this discussion to continue in these terms.  The "insurance model" has totally failed, and proven to cost 4 times more than it should, with some 2-3 million people employed, and somewhere north of half a $trillion wasted and thus removed from providing not only health care, but any other government service which we are now so often told "we cannot afford."

The Drug Wars and their Victims (c. 1997)

The Drug Wars and their Victims
by Paul Stephens  (c. 1997)

I mentioned this to some friends, and found a copy to post...  Among other things, I compare the human and financial costs of the War on Drugs to the Vietnam War...   And now, the post 1990 Middle East "Wars on Terror" or Oil Wars....

Part I: The Drug Wars and their Victims

The more one reads about the illicit drug trade, the more it appears to be a detailed and accurate parody of the corporate behavior of the larger "licit" drug firms. The international illicit drug trade may amount to more than a hundred billion dollars a year, but the licit one is larger and enjoys the full legal protection of governments. Its CEO's are among the highest paid; its advertising among the most lucrative. As much as the legal drug companies spend on research and development (much of it in universities with public money), they spend much more on advertising and distribution at monopoly prices. 
Enormous costs are imposed on the consumers of pharmaceuticals due to unnecessary regulation and the monopoly protection of patents on "products" - many of them native plants or other living organisms - which should be free for anyone to use. Drugs which cost pennies to make may sell for hundreds of dollars, just as a handful of marijuana or cocaine, which cost no more to grow or refine than broccoli or sugar, costs thousands of dollars from the (illegal) drug cartels.
Thus, we might well conclude that the greatest single drug threat to the health and the well-being of the American people is from the large pharmaceutical companies which mine the nation's suffering, extorting huge monopoly profits from the public by "restraining trade" in valuable, lifesaving medicines. The medical "drug culture" can be just as perverse and exploitative as the criminal one. A large part of medical costs and incomes derives from prescribing and selling drugs, and there is every incentive to over-prescribe and overcharge the consumers. 
This is an area where the War on Drugs could have been fought and won long ago, and where international free trade should have created an efficient market-serving attitude on the part of the drug companies instead of a politicized, exploitative one. It is because drugs are so expensive and addictive, or otherwise "necessary," that people are willing to kill for them, or to imprison and otherwise coerce their competitors to control a market or "territory." If they were cheap and readily available, no one would have an interest in forcing children and the poor to buy and sell them. Then, our educational, treatment, and counseling programs could be effective in the absence of coercion and huge monopoly profits. 
The "War on Drugs" goes back to the early decades of this century. The "coca" in Coca Cola was originally cocaine. Marijuana (hemp) was grown and smoked by several of the American Founding Fathers as well as many famous writers, scholars, artists, and musicians throughout our history. China traders like Delano (FDR's grandfather) and Forbes were major opium merchants, leading to the colonial impositions (led by the British) which left China suspicious and hostile towards the United States right up to the present time. 
Heroin was developed as a cure for morphine and other opium addiction. Hashish use is common in Islamic countries which prohibit alcohol absolutely. The original rationale for prohibiting cannabis, cocaine, and opiates had more to do with racism against Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, and Chinese and the subjugation of those cultures who commonly used these drugs. White drug users were stereotyped as shiftless, low-life "addicts" who needed to be locked up to protect them from their vices. In fact, most functioned normally and with little noticeable harm. A little education would have gone a long way toward preventing what little drug abuse existed early in this century.
The evil consequences of using many of these drugs (especially the "natural" ones - i.e., those which can be cultivated or directly derived from plants) are mainly the result of prohibition and the resulting criminalization of the economy and culture surrounding their use. Spending $20 billion a year directly "fighting" the use of drugs, and $100s of billions more locking up, punishing, and destroying the lives of those who use them, is a cost we cannot afford. The police, the legal system, and the Federal government itself (the CIA, DEA, ATF, and Customs, among others) are heavily implicated in a vast conspiracy to extort and control the drug cartels. Network news specials have exposed government conspiracies to actually facilitate the importation of drugs so that other agencies can make more arrests and thus demonstrate their "effectiveness." Cash, houses, vehicles, boats and airplanes are confiscated without due process of law, and the arresting agencies are now allowed to keep the profits - an abuse of constitutional government with few if any precedents. No doubt, President Clinton's recent initiative to spend billions more on network television advertising will discourage such critical stories in the future. ABC is getting more of this money than any other network, and it has been the most critical of drug policies in the past.  
It is not the use of "recreational drugs" like marijuana which provides the "gateway" to heavier drugs and a life of crime. Rather, it is being arrested for such minor use which provides a one-way ticket to the life of a convicted felon, who will probably require public assistance, be unemployable, and otherwise a burden on society for the rest of his or her life. What other options does a convicted felon have but to get back into the drug business or some other criminal enterprise? There is no general assistance, and few jobs which pay a living wage - especially for convicted felons. Since it is often the most intelligent and independent thinking young people who voluntarily "experiment" with drugs, or who ambitiously get into the drug business in order to "pursue the American dream," we are depriving ourselves of our best human resources by locking them up and turning them against society, government, and education. 
There are more anarchists, Freemen, urban gangsters, militia members, and other violent revolutionaries and terrorists now than ever before in this country, and most of them were created by the War on Drugs. According to Barbara Ehrenreich, a leading advocate for children and the poor, the Clinton Administration has the worst record for protecting civil rights and liberties in our nation's history.
We now spend more on law enforcement and prisons (most of which is now attributable to the "War on Drugs") than we do on education in many states and communities, and the predictable result is a collapse in educational standards and outcomes. This effect is worsened as the War on Drugs co-opts educators to prosecute the Drug War with local education dollars.  
To paraphrase that great defender of the Constitution, the NRA: "When drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs." That is the status quo, today, and one which will finally bring down our government and our Constitution, if we allow it to do so. 


Part II  Towards a Lasting Peace: Ending the War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is potentially the greatest single threat (next to nuclear weapons) facing us as a society. Like any war, this one has two sides, organized to impoverish, enslave, and destroy one another. It is fought in the schools, on the playgrounds, in the media, in the courts, in Congress, on the streets, and internationally by well-armed combat troops. Our government has already taken more than a million "enemy prisoners", and the cost of this war to the American taxpayers is equivalent to the Vietnam war - both in dollars and in lives and human suffering. Yet, the escalation continues. 
No peace talks are in sight. As this is being written, a new initiative to spend $2 billion in Newspeak propaganda directed towards young people has been announced. Eggs sizzling in a frying pan were not an effective image to discourage children from allowing themselves to be victimized by the drug cartels. Now, the eggs (and the rest of the kitchen) are being smashed with the frying pan. The example of DARE, which numerous studies have shown to be ineffective or counterproductive, was no deterrent to spending billions more on the same concept, while remaining oblivious to the real causes and consequences of the War on Drugs. 
The first step towards ending a war is recognizing the common humanity of one's adversaries and a common interest in peace. The next one is to establish a set of protocols for the peace discussions - the Paris peace talks, the Atlantic Charter, or Wilson's Fourteen Points. The third step is to actually carry out these protocols, instead of relapsing into cycles of punishment and blame and denying the humanity of one's adversaries.
We can end this vicious War on Drugs. It has been a vast hypocrisy from the start; a clever ruse by would-be dictators to enslave the American people. We must pacify not only of the drug producers, dealers and the international cartels, but those government officials who have created and sustained them by giving them a criminal monopoly no different from Al Capone's monopoly on booze in the 1920's. We reduced the harm of that mistaken policy by repealing prohibition. We can carry out a similar harm reduction policy, today, without legalizing or legitimizing the use of harmful drugs. All we need to do is break the criminal monopolies by de-criminalizing voluntary, personal behavior for adults. Freedom and respect for the individual is the traditional American solution, not punishment, repression, and the creation of a police state.  
Like many other issues, the "drug problem" is largely a matter of semantics, or how we think and talk about the problem. There have always been public leaders who understood this, and they have always been marginalized and denounced for their policies and views. Not surprisingly, they include both liberal and conservative thinkers and statesmen, many with impressive credentials and long experience with the problem. 
Some drug use is a medical problem. It therefore requires medical solutions. Much of it is educational or cultural. We live in a drug culture in which all sorts of drugs are promoted for every imaginable purpose, from weight loss to curing baldness and the common cold. We need to present the facts of drug use, addiction, and the sociology of the drug culture to young people in such a way that it makes sense to them. Images of busting up a kitchen with a frying pan or flooding their bedrooms will only make them laugh. 
It is now easier for teen-agers to buy marijuana or cocaine than it is to buy alcohol. It is no accident that 9/10ths of the harm done to teenagers from illegal substances is attributable to alcohol and tobacco, not the drugs which are being targeted in this War. Tobacco and alcohol are the real "gateway drugs." If we tell young people, as we do in a thousand ways, that alcohol and tobacco use are legitimate and even "good for them", but that marijuana and psychedelics are prohibited, we can hardly expect them to believe their teachers and follow these dictates with patriotic fervor. Because of this war, respect for law and order and the rights of our fellow citizens is at a low ebb. Our legal system has become corrupted to the point where few believe that it is just, and fewer still who have had any direct dealings with it. It is a "criminal justice system" in the sense that it is controlled by the criminal element - a semantic slip which becomes obvious when we are arrested by people who profit from our arrest and are paid to harm us. We probably spend another $20 billion or so to "protect" ourselves from our own government, including legal fees, court costs, and the judicial system dedicated to this purpose. 
Thus, the "drug problem" which exists, today, is ultimately a political problem - the consequence of bad public policy. Like Prohibition in the 1920's, some people's moral views have been allowed to create a problem which didn't previously exist - namely, the rule of gangsters and their violent methods to control the distribution of products which, because of criminal monopolies, have become exceedingly lucrative. We needn't "legalize" (or legitimize) drug use, with advertising and corporate organizations controlling its production and distribution as we do with tobacco or alcohol. Obviously, that was the wrong solution in those cases, too. Instead, we need to decriminalize all personal and interpersonal consensual behavior, and closely regulate multi-national corporate business in harmful substances. 
We could easily put drug use under the control of non-profit groups who supply their own people with whatever they believe is good for them. Imagine if you could only obtain drugs under medical supervision (without advertising or other promotion for profit), or in religious or cultural contexts (the Native American Church, Islam, or various psychedelic cults). It is ludicrous to make a natural plant "illegal", so anyone should be allowed to grow and use such plants in the privacy of one's own home. It is even more absurd to prohibit doctors from prescribing what they know their patients need and will benefit from. Drug testing should be encouraged for those employers who believe that the use of certain drugs could effect public safety or other job performance. The free market can address these issues without criminal sanctions or prohibition. Any commercial sale or corporate promotion of potentially harmful drugs could still be illegal, and probably should be, just as the commercial distribution of pharmaceuticals, alcohol, tobacco, and other regulated substances should be controlled or prohibited to minimize cost and harmful effects. Successful drug policies must emphasize "harm reduction" instead of punishing and waging war against those we disagree with. 
These solutions would work today with marijuana, cocaine, and the opiates, as well as psychedelic plants, which have been used shamanistically in virtually every culture and tradition. All have recognized medical and spiritual uses, and the abuse of these substances and their users would be negligible if no one could financially profit from it.