Springtime for the Taliban: Afghanistan Needs a New Model

Perhaps the biggest disappointment to come out of eight years of American intervention in Afghanistan is the apparent inability of the Afghans themselves to decide what they want to be when they grow up.  Sure, that sounds like an average dose of lip service in this climate unless you consider the UN definition of “a failed state.” Afghanistan currently ranks seventh on the Failed State Index (FSI), a sort of Unfortunate 500 for dysfunctional nations. Somalia and its happy band of pirates is number one. For the purpose of perspective – out of a total of 177 UN recognized countries.

Previous US administrations somehow came upon the idea that the American model of a democratically elected government in a highly secular and tribal chunk of real estate was just the thing “to bring peace and stability to the region.”  Where have we heard this wistful speech before?  Probably somewhere between “winning the hearts and minds,” and if all else fails we’ll carpet bomb the daylights out of them until they come to their senses.  How does a country with a little more than 250 years of civility conclude that one system fits all, that it is the right system, or if it is even that useful of a system?  More importantly, is it exportable?

The US has spent more time in Afghanistan than was invested in all of World War II and Korea combined. To date, the Afghan government has made little progress toward establishing anything close to a stable government.  The country continues along the same path of sectional violence, the US led coalition now morphed into the role of neighborhood cop.  A great unifying tactic if it wasn’t for the body count.  The State Department meanwhile pushes the importance of elections and parliamentary process, which totally ignores the traditional power structures of Afghan society; those that encompass family ties, community obligation, and whichever interpretation of Islam that gets practiced in the neighborhood.   All eyes are told to look to the West.  Perhaps a better answer lies much closer to home:

Today the Turkish nation is called to defend its capacity for civilization, its right to life and independence – its entire future.

–Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, 1920.

Kemal (Ataturk was added later – something like ‘Father of the Turks’) had just made a pretty remarkable set of announcements.  They included:

• The end of the Ottoman Empire.  Well, it was almost dead before World War I anyway.
• The abolishment of the Caliphate.  (Political authority under Islam.)
• The formation of the secular Republic of Turkey.
• The unacceptable state surrounding British occupation.

And the need for the Armenians in the east and the Greeks in the west to relocate elsewhere. There was no place for Orthodox Christianity in the new Republic.

About the Man

Mustafa Kemal was born in Salonika (now part of Greece) in 1881.  Most of his early history has been revised so often that most versions lack credibility. Raised in the Muslim faith, a product of military schools, he later served with great distinction as a Lt. Colonel and division commander at the battle of Gallipoli, orchestrating one of the greater defeats the allied forces suffered in the First World War.  A great fan of the West and particularly The Enlightenment (having been assigned to Paris and the Balkans at varying points), he also fully embraced the potential power of the media, using newspapers (often his own creations) extensively in his nationalist pursuits.  Above all, he believed that the only way to save Turkey from complete partition by the allied powers was to establish a modern, secular republic.  In his words, “Islam and civilization are a contradiction in terms.”

The Background

Things were going badly on the western front for the British and French in World War I.  Russia was taken out by both the Nationalist and Bolshevik revolutions.  Britain’s attack at Gallipoli, (Australian and New Zealand forces, ANZAC) was aimed at knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war.  Instead it turned into a rout.  Britain then tried to turn the Arabs (with T.E. Lawrence’s deft assistance) against the Turks, promising them an Arab state for their trouble.  Naturally that was a lie, the one apparent constant in British colonial policy.  The Allies won the war, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned by the Treaty of Sevres creating what today are known as Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and of course, Iraq.  The Sultan was left in Istanbul as a British puppet and Kemal fled to Ankara with plans to turn Anatolia into his new republic. He was able to deceive the British and the Arab world just long enough to consolidate his forces in Anatolia, a process pushed along by his creation of opposing media outlets.  The Arab world believed he was fighting to preserve the Sultan and the Caliphate, the British assumed that his services were already on the colonial payroll.  By the time the British realized his intentions, they were already outgunned, out-manned and out maneuvered. In 1923, they signed the Treaty of Lausanne ending hostilities.  The Republic of Turkey was born.

Much of the internal struggle dividing Islam and adding fuel to sectarian violence seems to surround the Caliphate, which is best described as both a person and a thing. One of the chief splits in Islam, the chasm separating Sunni and Shi’a communities is based on the interpretation of Muhammad’s successor as sole authority on Islamic law. Each side accuses the other of being usurpers in a centuries long dispute over who has the right to read the mind of a dead prophet.  Many political and social issues in Islam today fail to achieve any real clarity while the two camps continue to hold on to conflicting interpretations of religious doctrine.  This is further complicated (or exasperated) by the very notion of Islamic Law, a shadowy domain where the words of the prophet Mohammad somehow hold credence with something as innocuous as the local traffic code. By all accounts it is an archaic system, one reminiscent of The Inquisition, but accepted in many quarters of the Muslim world.  Judging its validity is not the point, accepting its existence is, for the idea of belief is not validated by the structural framework of a society, though it is that very framework that accelerates the rift.  Kemal argued that Islamic Law was part of the “nomadic Bedouin custom,” totally unsuitable in the development of a complex, modern society.  That is difficult to argue against given the global interaction of nations today.  Countries like Egypt and Israel have both found it necessary to operate parallel courts to accommodate issues of marriage and personal conduct, but not civil law.  Religious law as the fundamental tenet of a nation is little more than locking the door and keeping the key.  All social, educational, and political exchange stops. No common ground is allowed to exist on this dogmatic, unilateral dead-end street.  America was founded on the premise of religious persecution elsewhere, that in turn, sanctioned by the state.  The road to modernity through democratic ideals couldn’t traverse the murky ground of theological interpretation. Noted historians, Will and Ariel Durant once stated that “the Bible is a great book, a great tale, but if you had to live by it, you’d go crazy.” Then again, modernity may be our point, not the point.

Constantinople (Istanbul) had been the official seat of the Caliphate since about 1514.  The last recognized Caliph was Abd al Majid II who with his family was exiled to Paris following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey.  Kemal found this action necessary in order to create an Islamic republic based on civil law, not theology.  This was naturally viewed as an extreme form of heresy, particularly in the Sunni Arab world, complicated further by the establishment of language laws that reverted Arabic to second class status in both government and religious proceedings, though some laws were moderated later. In itself, this was an offshoot of his policies on nationalization, but it also played into his desire to create a literate, inclusive society.  Again, in opposition to fundamentalism which he saw as “a way of promoting intellectual stagnation” by authorizing religion to define social progress, including the very function of government itself.  Oddly, the Caliphate seemed to end there.  Saudi Arabia did not attempt to re-establish it at Mecca, undoubtedly since it would threaten their position as an absolute monarchy, and it was only briefly claimed by the Taliban following the Soviet departure from Afghanistan.

Kemal was brilliant in many ways, but he was no saint.  His orchestration of the Armenian exodus was as brutal as any forced deportation.  He stacked the military with believers in his own cause and seemed more than willing to arbitrate disputes at the gallows.  Within Turkey he was seen as both savior and despot; in the fundamentalist world, a Doenmeh (a closet Jew), an alcoholic, a homosexual, a womanizer and a heretic – personal attacks that continue long after his death.  The real truth is as clouded as the newspapers Kemal himself used to create.  Yet today, Turkey remains a somewhat stable republic in the middle of one of the most volatile regions on earth.  Not perfect, but functional.

Lessons for Afghanistan

The opportunity for a more progressive society in Afghanistan was probably lost shortly after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. In the vacuum that followed, the same Mujahedeen we once funded became the Taliban we now hunt.  Instead of rebuilding schools and infrastructure, promoting education and a sense of inclusion, we simply walked away, leaving the task largely to under-funded NGO’s and a lot of wishful thinking. The Taliban, falsely claiming the right to the Caliphate sought to force an Islamic state on the people of Afghanistan as an alternative to both communist autocracy and western indifference – two models of what they saw as a similar dysfunction.  The United States supplied much of the fodder for the Taliban position by reinforcing beliefs that Islam alone would see to the needs of the Afghan people, faith having been the sole unifying factor over ten years of Soviet occupation.  Education should have been the tool of choice to defeat a return to fundamentalism, not merely the establishment of a western leaning central government, manufactured primarily as a base for US influence in the region. No one seemed interested in the greater investment in literacy, the real slayer of despotism, secular or political, and the one indispensable ingredient in democracy. Afghanistan claims a 28% literacy rate among men, women an even more dismal 12%; Turkey, 87% overall.  The Taliban know this and they fear a literate populous far more than anything our armories can ever produce.  But we can’t export a system if nobody can understand the instructions.

Turkey’s example may be a harsh one by American standards, but it allowed the time necessary to go from a shooting war to the process of nation building in a realistic time frame. That element of time is probably what has always hampered American foreign policy, the impatience inherent in the very system we seek to sell.  Any parent will tell you that it takes twenty years or so to educate and develop a child into an adult.  Americans tire of foreign intrigue as quickly as they tire of presidents.  This lack of continuity is not only a result of the fickle nature of American politics in general, but the bad decisions orchestrated by a system in constant flux.  We don’t even bother to apologize since the person that set the policy is never around to finish it anyway.  When Kemal died in 1938 from chronic liver disease, he left behind a far more literate society than he inherited.  Right or wrong in his methodology, he did bequeath them the tools necessary for choice, the one thing the fundamentalist camp can never accept.

The question for Americans is whether we can endure a long-haul assignment, one that begins with security and ends with an informed society, one that just might decide that our model isn’t their model.  That’s the risk of intervention.  If US policy is confined to simply destroying the Taliban, then we’ve already lost this one.  If something else is on the table, this would be a pretty good time for a new President and a revamped State Department to explain just what that might be.

Slumdog Millionaire and What to Do About Global Poverty

I walked out of Seattle’s old Harvard Exit Theater on a cold Friday night in December. I had just seen the film Slumdog Millionaire and overheard two people talking. One was telling the other how she had seen Bollywood movies before and that all they contained were dance scenes and Jane Austen-like plots. She hesitated, “Actually, maybe what I’ve seen were spoofs of Bollywood movies and this was, like, a real Bollywood movie.” I smiled.

At the time, Slumdog Millionaire hadn’t yet won Best Picture at the Golden Globes. It hadn’t been nominated for the Best Picture Oscar (nor was it running as the heavy favorite to win Best Picture and Best Director), and director Danny Boyle and the movie’s two young lead actors – Dev Patel and Freida Pinto – hadn’t yet been hosted and gushed over by Oprah and Ellen. It was playing at a single, mostly empty theater in Seattle. Contrary to what many American viewers believe, Slumdog Millionaire is no Bollywood movie, but it is certainly a film with plenty of genuine Indian elements. It is based on the novel Q & A by Indian diplomat Vikas Swarup. Most of its music is by Bollywood super-composer AR Rahman, and it even contains a (relatively mediocre) song and dance routine. Lead roles are played by famous Indian actors Irrfan Khan and Anil Kapoor. It was filmed entirely in India and the child actors were all Indian – some of them slum dwellers themselves. There is plenty of melodrama and a love story. While Slumdog Millionaire clearly draws inspiration from Bollywood, it is directed by an Englishman and is mostly in English, leading many Indians to treat it as just another Hollywood movie.

By now you’ve probably heard of Slumdog Millionaire. It is the story of three street kids growing up in Mumbai. It is part rags-to-riches fairytale, part love story, and part horrifying look into the difficulties of street life. It has been scooping up awards and critical acclaim in the US and the UK while being dogged by more controversy than other Oscar-nominated films. Most of the debate centers around the poverty shown in the film, and whether a white British male (Boyle) has the right to present Indian society in such a way in a commercially successful feel-good (kind of) film. To tell an Indian story through the lives of impoverished street children embarrasses and enrages much of India’s upper-class who see the film as a stereotypically Western view of India as poor, chaotic, violent and dirty. They see Slumdog Millionaire as a “white man’s imagined India.” Some Hindu organizations accuse the film of denigrating Hindu gods. Some human rights groups in India have condemned the film for its use of the term ‘slumdog’ (a term not commonly used that recalls the days of British colonizers calling Indians ‘dogs’). Others see Boyle’s slick, colorful production of such impoverished settings as “poverty porn” – rendering Indian poverty visually appealing and exciting for a mostly white, Western audience. Finally, the compensation given to the film’s young actors is, with Slumdog Millionaire’s success, seen to be inadequate and a way of exploiting real life slum children. No matter how Slumdog Millionaire does at the Oscars, these controversies are unlikely to die down, even if they fall off the pages of US newspapers.

I do not intend to debate each of these controversies here, though I find some of the accusations frivolous while others have some validity. What is most interesting to me is the way in which Slumdog Millionaire has brought the issue of global poverty into the limelight (literally) and has exposed our collective squeamishness with having images of it thrown in our face by a film. If we middle-class Americans must see poverty, we like to see it portrayed in a particular way – most likely in a low-budget documentary that condemns it and that offers a way out. A movie like Born into Brothels does this very well. But Slumdog Millionaire treats poverty and those who live in poverty differently, not as faceless objects of pity, but as individuals – as a story must – with agency and the capacity to be happy and full of dreams in the midst of often horrifying surroundings. In this way Slumdog Millionaire resembles Rohinton Mistry’s impressive novel A Fine Balance – also set in India, that does not shy away from the poverty that is a given in many people’s lives, but something that need not rob people of their humanity, that need not reduce them to objects to be pitied by the world’s wealthy. With this perspective poverty need not limit the range of human experience and emotions. Those who are poor have a story like everyone else, and in fact, those who are poor make up a huge amount of the world’s population. Confronting middle-class Westerners (and Indians for that matter) with the horrors of poverty and the injustice of their own affluence, while avoiding defining the poor by this label alone is something few films do. Slumdog Millionaire does it well. And if it does well at the box office, all the better.

When discussing global poverty and the political and social attempts to alleviate it, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the numbers and to be numbed to the experiences of individuals who must live in such dire conditions. It is easy to feel guilty that you are not the one living in extreme poverty or to feel that those who are poor deserve it, that they just need to try harder. It is also easy to feel hopeless in the face of such a widespread and complex problem. How exactly should the global community address the problem of poverty? Should we place an emphasis on greater individual incomes and saving and buying power? Or should the emphasis be in developing societal infrastructure to improve quality of life by ensuring better health care, education, access to employment, etc.? Some put their faith in the free market to lift all boats, but then the free market seems to demand that many people remain poor, and it doesn’t provide any plan for improving societal shortcomings that contribute to poverty. Some believe government programs are the answer, but improving education, health care, job training programs and the like can be costly and complicated, and simple welfare schemes may perpetuate poverty. A host of non-governmental organizations and foundations play a growing part in addressing poverty, but can arbitrarily bestow charity that perpetuates cycles of economic dependence. The work of groups like the UN’s Development Program connects these participants and strategies offering a practical and promising way of addressing poverty on a global scale.

But uplifting the poor is not all that is needed. Our relatively new found awareness of the toll we inflict upon the environment requires that the discussion about alleviating poverty must include the using and distributing resources. Ending poverty through growing economies and enabling hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese to drive gas-guzzling cars and to use energy as recklessly as we in the US do is no longer an environmentally viable option. And neither is telling people in poorer countries that they can’t have what we do, that they can’t live how we do. Rapidly developing countries need to do their part to make their growth politically and environmentally sustainable, no question. In a way, the more difficult task is ours however. If global economic growth continues (a given in most minds before the last six months of economic turbulence) most other people in the world will be increasing their consumption and use of resources. The Brazilian student may move up from a bike to a scooter, the Vietnamese family may upgrade to an oven from a cook top stove. In the US however, unless we plan on aggressively defending our unfair hoarding of resources from the global community, we will need to begin to reduce the amount of resources we use. Drastically. Even if free markets can lift all boats, it will mean environmental disaster. The middle class American lifestyle has never been sustainable. We are realizing this just as the world’s two largest countries are economically booming, and striving for that lifestyle. No longer will the United States – six percent of the world’s population – be able to consume 30% of the world’s resources. That’s a fact.

But, I suspect it is a fact that will go ignored or denied. Sure, we may use compact florescent bulbs instead of incandescents. We may recycle and compost. But most of us probably won’t give up our car (or even our second car). Most of us won’t give up our washer and dryer, or our oven, or our spacious homes. In the end, I suspect that we’re all just a bit too selfish and stuck in our ways to make large personal sacrifices for an abstract common good. We want to end poverty, but we don’t want to give up what we’ve been blessed with, and without this sacrifice on the part of the better-off, poverty will continue no matter how much effort is directed at alleviating it.

Like any movie, Slumdog Millionaire has its shortcomings. Its plot is somewhat thin and its characters are not very well-developed. It is a movie more about image than substance. Its details are easily refuted by Indian audiences. However, its vividly showing audiences who have not faced poverty and hardship the lives that many in this world are compelled to lead allows it to be more than just a film. It gives poverty a face and a story that will open most audiences’ eyes to something new – hopefully bringing tangible benefits to the world’s poor while eliciting an honest introspection about what people often must and can do without.

A Police Officer’s View on Drugs: Part 2

Several months ago, in my first piece as a writer for Demockracy, I talked about my perspective as a Police Officer who is against the War on Drugs. In the months that followed, this article became a very popular piece on this Web site and across the social networks. As such, I’ve had several requests to follow up on this piece and talk more about my career experiences and share my insights on this ill-begotten war on drugs. From these requests, I’ve decided to write a follow-up piece. In this follow-up article, I will explore some of my personal experiences that have led me to many of my current conclusions. I hope you enjoy and please share any comments that you may have.

LEAP

As I’ve shared in the past, I am a retired Policeman from Vancouver B.C., and I represent LEAP, Law Enforcement Against [drug ] Prohibition. We are a worldwide organization of Police Officers, Corrections Personnel, Judges, and many others who work in different areas of law enforcement, both active and retired. We currently number some 8,500 members. Our advisory board is made up of one US Governor, four sitting US Federal District Court Judges, five former police chiefs, the ex-mayor of Vancouver B.C, Senator Larry Campbell, the Former AG of Colombia, and from the UK, a former Chief Constable and the former head of narcotic task forces for all of England. We do not support drug use and realize that in an ideal world we would be better off without it. What we do believe is that “The War on Drugs” has created most of our problems with drugs and addiction today. Addiction is a disease, not a crime.

More On My Experience

With that said, let me tell you a bit more about myself and why I have come to these conclusions. I joined the Vancouver Police Department in 1973 and served for 28 years. The date of my joining is important, as the year before in 1972 a Canadian Parliamentary Committee known as Le Dain concluded that due to the high costs of enforcement and the relatively benign effects of marijuana, that there should be a gradual withdrawal of criminal sanctions over time resulting eventually in legalization of marijuana. All in-depth studies going back to the British India Hemp act of 1895 have come to the same conclusion about marijuana. However, the Canadian Parliament chose to ignore those recommendations.

As I recall, there was little focus on drugs when I went through the Vancouver Police Training Academy. (I did however learn that reasonable force extended to choking a dealer to prevent his swallowing the evidence and that the ponytails favored by so called hippies made a very effective handle to restrain them.) After completing training, I discovered that drug enforcement was mainly left to the individual officer’s discretion. No high level traffickers were ever investigated. Enforcement was done only at the street level. Those, however, who centered their activities on drug enforcement made substantial overtime amounts from court appearances. This policy, however, has never been the policy of the Federal Police, the R.C.M.P. They, unlike municipal departments, receive considerable federal funding to enforce the drug laws and do so enthusiastically.

One individual I worked with during my early years routinely arrested individuals on the basis of a dirty hash pipe or a spoon with enough residual heroin to analyze. It was not unusual to bring in 4 or 5 individuals from a rundown hotel room on the basis of a small baggie of weed. At that time, the hotel clerks would tell us the rooms where they suspected the occupants of drug use and hand us the keys, while we turned a blind eye to the other illegal activities carried out by the hotel managers and staff. (I suspect these hotel managers were probably the largest traffickers in the buildings and, according to more than one source, charged prostitutes a premium for brief hotel stays.) Drug charges in Vancouver often resulted in some officers doubling their wages from the overtime and court time involved. The drawback was that there was less police presence on the streets to handle the ongoing and routine crime of downtown Vancouver.

In 1995, I started the Vancouver Police Anti-Fencing Unit. Addicts tend to concentrate in the low rent districts as do pawnshops that often supply the addicts with money. The dealers are normally right outside the pawnshop doors to complete the equation. The average addict at that time was spending between $100-$200 daily on his or her addiction. Unfortunately, pawnshops normally only pay 10 cents on the dollar; therefore to support their habits, the addicts have to steal $1,000-$2,000 worth of property. The evidence of stolen property in these pawnshops was so rife as to be almost ludicrous. I remember at one time entering a pawnshop when an addict came in with an armload of stolen property from London Drugs. While negotiating with the owner, he was ripping the London Drugs labels off CDs with his teeth while negotiating the price with the pawnbroker, as he had no spare hands to do the job.

There are unfortunately a small percentage of people who through nurture or genetics, always seem to fall to the bottom and are unable to survive without their self-medications. They have no time for treatment as their days are filled with theft to support their addiction, finding a dealer, and after purchasing their drug of choice, never knowing the quality of their purchase. We cannot help these individuals by locking them away. We must not kid ourselves; in jails, drugs are readily available. Generally, the prison system tolerates drugs as they tends to calm the inmates. The substance that the jail staff often fear is actually alcohol, which leads to riots and destruction. I was told by numerous prison guard colleagues that alcohol is so valued by some of the old alcoholics in jail that they will often attempt to import considerable quantities of drugs, just to trade for alcohol, which is much harder to find inside.

As a policeman, I attended many untimely drug related deaths in the downtown eastside area of Vancouver where I spent much of my career. Overdoses of various drugs were very common. No one paid much heed, and most were not too traumatic to me, as relatives were usually far away, often in Northern BC or other Provinces, and it was up to the local RCMP detachments to notify them. That area in Vancouver is the poorest area in Canada according to tax returns and acts as a magnet to those who have run away from home due to abuse, sexual and domestic. Few of them had any local support in Vancouver. These individuals rapidly became involved in the drug culture of the area and many died there. It was impossible to determine if the drug deaths were a result of long-term abuse, mixing too many drug cocktails or the strength of the drug being greater than expected, either by deliberation, such as we hear of with a hot cap, or by accident.

It was only when I attended deaths out of the usual pattern that the reality of the horror really set in. A one time partner of mine lost his 16 year old daughter to a drug overdose. Unfortunately, her dealer did not monitor her slide into abuse. He did not offer her counseling or monitor the purity and strength of the drugs he sold. He was probably an addict himself, dealing to support his habit. The outrage is that he and thousands more are still out there still selling their products, everywhere to our children.

Solutions?

Raw opium increases in price by several decimal places from the poppy fields, to the addicts in North America. Coke is not quite as profitable and the other drugs even less so, but anyone can rapidly rise to enjoy the lifestyle of say a successful surgeon or lawyer with no educational requirements, experience, skills, and very little work required. The only way we can break this cycle, ensure a uniform product, help those who request it, and monitor those who need help is to legalize the product, heavily regulate it, and supply it to those in need.

Why don’t we go out and arrest all drug dealers? We could arrest them all and you know what will happen? There will be fights, stabbings, shootings and deaths, AND tomorrow new dealers will be there to carry on business as usual. When you arrest a drug dealer, the only thing you create is a job opportunity. As an example, there was recently an investigation of an individual planning to blow up a city block in Surrey, BC, in order to rid it of all the drug dealers there. Some may believe that his point of view could be justified. The only problem was that he himself was a dealer and hoped to take over all the business with the others gone.

Ask yourself if heroin or cocaine were legal, would you use them? I wouldn’t. No one who is rational and has aspirations for a meaningful life is going to. In fact, 99% of all people tell us that they wouldn’t. The first drug laws were enacted because 1-3% of the population was believed to be addicted to drugs. By addicted I mean unable to hold meaningful work and behave in a socially responsible way. Today, after countless millions have been arrested and billions of dollars spent, the percentage of addicts is still estimated at between 1 to 3 % of the population.

Let’s take the money from the criminals, reduce property crimes, reduce prostitution, reduce disease, and give our social agencies the funds to really have an impact on society. Above all, let’s give that 1-3% a chance of a real life.

Obama, Mexico, and the Drug War

Remember the War on Drugs? Sure you do. It was after the Cold War and before the War on Terror. It continues to be an attempt to crack down on the illegal drug trade into the U.S. It turned out to be little more than an excuse to continue the Cold War in places like Colombia. It also resulted in new domestic judicial rules such as three-strikes-and-you’re-out, and draconian mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, over-crowding prisons with disproportionately minority, nonviolent, first-time offenders in possession of small amounts of drugs.

Since September 11, 2001, we haven’t heard much about the War on Drugs. With the attacks of that day, the threat of religiously and ideologically motivated radical Muslim terrorists immediately became more grave than the crime and violence connected to Latin American (mostly) drug cartels. Our collective focus has been on the threat posed by Islamic terrorism since 2001 and we have largely ignored the growing threat posed by increasingly powerful drug cartels on our southern border.

Last year, drug violence and corruption in Mexico surged, especially in towns and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2008 over 6,000 people were probably killed – that adds up to over 16 people every day – twice as many as in 2007. Many of these killings were particularly gruesome – beheadings and execution style killings. Drug cartels are suspected of downing a plane, killing Mexico’s Interior Minister, and corruption related to drug trafficking has reached the highest levels. The Sinaloa, Gulf, and Tijuana cartels have infiltrated the judiciary, the police, and political parties. The director of Mexico’s Interpol Office and an employee of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency were both arrested for collaborating with cartels. Last spring, the Justice Department declared that Mexican drug cartels pose the “largest threat to both citizens and law enforcement agencies in this country and now have gang members in nearly 200 U.S. cities.” And the U.S. Army High Command has determined that due to the violence, corruption and instability caused by drug trafficking in Mexico, its government, along with Pakistan’s, should “bear consideration for rapid and sudden collapse.” Former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey recently stated that thanks to drug cartels “Mexico is on the edge of the abyss – it could become a narco-state in the coming decade.” Mexico’s foreign minister has had to defend her government against accusations of its being a failed state.

These are damning statements that President Obama’s incoming administration should not take lightly. While I hope the situation in Mexico and U.S.-Mexican relations will be treated with the seriousness they deserve, Obama has not shared his plans concerning Mexico or the Drug War very openly with the American public. Indeed, he appears to have followed Bush’s lead and has focused his foreign policy sights on – you guessed it – Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and other problems in the Middle East. Given our country’s complex and numerous entanglements in the region, this is understandable. But with the drug trade destabilizing our southern neighbor and threatening to cross the border and sow violence, corruption, and instability on U.S. soil it is surely necessary to give our attention to all of these situations, however difficult it may be.

The U.S.-led Drug War has always been deeply flawed and arguably ineffective. The U.S. has always been eager to solve the problem by force – instigating violence in other countries (massive military funding to Colombia, Mexico, etc.) and treating the drug trade in the U.S. as essentially a moral and policing problem that can be solved with a zero tolerance approach and enough cops, guns, and jails. The U.S. has been reluctant to pursue cheaper and more effective ways of battling the drug trade – drug treatment for addicts in the U.S., and development aid for farmers in other countries for example. The War on Terror has pushed the War on Drugs to the back burner, and it has pushed ‘soft’ strategies even further back. It seems we have given up trying to reduce the demand or the supply of illegal drugs in the U.S.

So what exactly does Obama plan to do about the threat posed by illegal drug trafficking? He did not mention Mexico or drugs in his inaugural address, and his public statements since being elected haven’t given many clues. The new whitehouse.gov foreign policy agenda page says nothing about Latin America, preoccupied as it is with Middle East concerns. And as a candidate, Obama said little specific about Latin America or drug trafficking, though at least he mentioned Latin America on his campaign website.

It appears President Obama will not be as hands-off as President Bush when it comes to problems in Latin America. He has indicated a desire for closer and improved relations with Mexico. President-elect Obama was visited by President Felipe Calderon in Washington where they discussed economic issues (including Obama’s campaign pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, something Calderon is opposed to), the environment, immigration, and drug trafficking. Neither man gave many details about their discussion, but Obama has indicated support for the Merida Initiative, passed last June, which commits the U.S. to increasing aid to Mexico for equipment and training to combat organized crime. It does nothing to reduce the U.S. demand for drugs, however.

President Obama also envisions an ambitious new Partnership for the Americas”. In a Miami speech during the campaign he declared:

We need an agenda that advances democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy will be guided by the simple principle that what’s good for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City, and the shrinking of the distance between Miami and Havana.

This soaring rhetoric is unfortunately not, as far as I can tell, matched by detailed or original strategies for combating the drug trade along the U.S.-Mexico border. Increased cooperation between the U.S. and other Latin American countries will surely be helpful and appreciated, but in the midst of so many other problems, the U.S. may not have the resources or the political will to see these changes through. Yet there are glimmers of hope – commitments to improve cross border partnerships between U.S. and Mexican states and pledges to increase drug treatment programs in the U.S.

It is also instructive to examine the recent decisions Obama and his inner circle have made regarding the Drug War. As a candidate, Obama promised to end DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California, but since his assuming office raids have continued. Obama’s staff has said that as soon as new Department of Justice officials are appointed the raids will end, heartening news for those who support medical marijuana laws – and a difficult promise to avoid making good on. Obama does not support legalizing drugs – not surprising for a U.S. president – while at the same time advocating more treatment than incarceration for users, a significant shift from previous presidents. He has suggested ending mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent first-time offenders, and ending a federal ban on funding needle exchange programs reversing years of federal drug policy.

This appears promising, yet Obama’s coterie does not have a history of breaking ranks with the War on Drugs consensus. Joe Biden has been a strong supporter of law enforcement solutions, toughening sentencing rules for drug users, and criminalizing drug use. He played a significant part in creating the position of Drug Czar. He has made more moderate decisions in recent years, but many Drug War opponents remain skeptical of him. Rahm Emanuel has been a vocal supporter of the Drug War, at least when it fits his political agenda, and has a mixed record on issues like medical marijuana. Incoming Attorney General Eric Holder also vigorously supported harsher Drug War policies during his years under President Clinton and as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Obama’s interim Drug Czar – Ed Jurith, a longtime lawyer for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and former Clinton Drug Czar – has been described as “civil and thoughtful” in the ongoing debate over drug policy though he has by-and-large supported the Drug War. It is rumored that Obama’s permanent Drug Czar pick is Republican Jim Ramstad, who has opposed needle exchange programs, a crucial tool in decreasing the spread of HIV and other fatal diseases amongst addicts. While Drug War opponents may not be thrilled with these selections by Obama, many are taking a wait-and-see approach and acknowledging that these individuals are at least politically open to making policy changes.

And in Mexico? Will Obama put forward drug policies innovative and intelligent enough to effectively curb the violence and corruption flourishing along the U.S.-Mexico border? Will he be able to create a new, smarter mix of drug fighting strategies that reduces the violence and corruption that has accompanied drug trafficking in the U.S. and Mexico? While Mexico and the U.S. border states (dealing with the threat of the same drug-related problems) are committed to effectively managing and limiting, if not stopping, the drug trade, it remains to be seen how committed the Obama administration in far-off Washington will be. Inspirational rhetoric is one thing, but confronting difficult societal problems and defeating organized gangs of unrepentant killers is another – just ask former President Bush.

Epoch’s End

I should start by stating that I am a novice in the fields of economics and finance. My career was as a law enforcement officer. I do, however, believe that I have a firm grasp of world history, human nature, and a sense of how much the human spirit can endure until endless mass frustration leads to a chain of events that explodes into actions which can result in regime change and major shifts in worldwide belief systems.

After the First World War, communism and socialism emerged to duke it out with Hitler’s fascism and other conservative regimes for the balance of power in Europe. After the Second World War, unfettered missionary capitalism emerged in the US, bolstered by evangelic Christianity. Liberalism and socialism tended to dominate in old Europe where the relative place of religion diminished, and today is virtually non-existent in many such secular states. Into this mix, multinational corporations emerged, with no allegiance to anyone except their shareholders. Their power enabled them to shape government policies, and their financial weight enabled them to implicitly blackmail governments into giving them sweetheart deals, which were often to no ones benefit except theirs and the richly rewarded politicians who supported them. From this standpoint, I do suspect that the shock waves radiating around the world from the stock market meltdown were not entirely created by a few bad apples running amok in Wall Street, but were rather a symptom of the basic dishonesty that seems ensconced in most stock markets around the world.

Events of the past decade and the past year in particular have convinced me that we are at Epoch’s End and that the current worldwide geopolitical and economic system is so broken that it can never be completely fixed. What will emerge I cannot venture to guess, but it will likely take many years to reach this yet unknown new global equilibrium. In this new equilibrium, the standard of living that many in the western world have taken for granted in recent generations may not be seen again.

Certainly many have been expecting Epoch’s End, through global warming, plagues or famines, but its tipping point appears to have occurred not through those venues, but through economic breakdown. As life has proceeded happily upward for us in the developed world since the Second World War, we have long forgotten that this uninterrupted growth was unprecedented in recent world history. World history suggests that the past fifty or sixty years are more likely to be seen as an outlier rather than as a permanent new paradigm. In the past, plagues have wiped out the working forces, old industries closed down and new ones developed, and populations followed the jobs. Crop failures caused those who wanted to survive to move on to new areas or even to new continents. Growth has been followed by stagnation. Fifty or sixty years may seem like a long time in the scope of a human lifetime. However, it is all but a footnote in world history.

Over the last 50 or 60 years we have come to expect that things will always improve–we will have better cars, holidays, and medical care, and our incomes will continue to provide more of these things. Many companies have based their development on a policy of increasing their revenues as much as 10% a year. Most of these companies have psychologists study shoppers brain waves to use exactly the right words in their sales promotions and to find the best place to put certain items in the store to trigger the buying impulse. We have all happily shopped and shopped for more and more things we don’t need. Products we really need require no advertising. How many television commercials do you see for bread and milk? If the whole world were to enjoy the standard of living that we currently enjoy in North America, we would need three worlds just to keep up. Perhaps most selfish of all, most people now expect to live longer without giving any thought to the potential consequences of this like increasing the world’s population, all the problems of pollution, global warming, polluted water ways, etc. With the world’s population approaching 8 billion plus people, it is close to cardiac arrest. We can’t expect to live forever and have growth forever; death and cyclical stagnation of populations and civilizations are a part of the natural balance of our planet.

As you probably expected, I am nothing of an expert in the ways of the multinational corporation. However, what I do know is that there are many Chinese workers, working at monotonous, dangerous jobs for $5 a day or less, with unpaid overtime expected. They produce cheap quality goods for us that we really don’t need. Who then is the net gainer? At least in the short run, it is a few wealthy shareholders. In order for this situation to flourish, our wage levels must remain 20 times higher, for the same or less effort, than a Chinese worker. The whole approach is broke.

As I write, more and more western governments are announcing huge spending plans to stimulate the economy, using vast amounts of borrowed money. That money is all coming from the sale of our bonds to China. If it works, perhaps we can put off Epoch’s End for a few years, as we attempt to pay the huge debts. Certainly our wages will take a huge hit, and lifestyles will need to readjust. But what if it doesn’t work, what if our spending doesn’t pick up enough to reopen the factories in China? What if China were to ever demand repayment of those bonds to assist their own citizens? We will be bankrupt, there will be no wages for any civil servants, no military wages, no police wages, and no pensions or benefits of any kind will be paid.

Further, as a people, many of us have become lethargic and ignorant. How is it possible to consider people for the highest offices in the land without demanding that they have the knowledge, stability, and honesty to do the job? When you visit your doctor you know that his or her certificate represents years of study, tested time and again by exams and practicum. Yet we are prepared to accept persons for the highest offices because they look good, string a fine line of BS and are just like you and me. Well I have news for you, I don’t want a person like me running a country.

In Canada from where I write, we had a recent Federal Election. The Liberal leader Stephan Dion was put down continually because he didn’t speak perfectly in his second language of English. He didn’t look good in front of the cameras, and he was often filmed from the wrong angles. The saddest thing was that nobody seemed to have the slightest interest in hearing the substance of what he actually was saying. We could save enormous amounts of money and time if we simply gave the job to the best actor and provided a good speech writer. Perhaps getting precisely that for many years has resulted in all our difficulties today. Franklin D. Roosevelt would probably never have been elected today, wheelchair bound as he was. Winston Churchill, similarly, was drunk too often to be electable today. At that time we paid attention to what was said, not the carefully buffed images we see presented today.

In the last U.S. election, most were too polite to state publicly that the election of Sarah Palin as vice president could potentially place every citizen of the US one 72-year old heart beat away from danger. Yes, thankfully Ms. Palin did not become vice president. However, for one of the two major parties of the world’s leading nuclear superpower to even nominate her for vice president should be scary enough. In the case of Mr. Obama and Mr. Dion, being an intellectual was seen as a negative by many. We call this civilization? Thankfully, after eight years of George W. Bush, the America people took a chance on an intellectual. New Canadian Liberal leader and respected Harvard intellectual, Michael Ignatieff, may get a chance in the next few years as well.

If we are indeed at Epoch’s End, we will have all caused this through greed, but most of all because we have failed to keep our eyes on what has really been going on, failed to keep people honest, and preferred to switch on the football game rather than take a glimpse at the foreign-affairs columns or use our computers to access the mass of information which is availably so readily today, yet ignored by most. If we are at an Epoch’s End, it is indeed our own damn fault.

Women and the Obama Administration

The election of Barack Obama has signaled a potential turning point for the people of the United States. Millions have been inspired by Obama’s hopeful message of change, and for the first time ever, a man of color occupies the nation’s top position. Many Americans of all classes and creeds, to say nothing of race, are looking forward in hope for an improved economy, an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a more respectable reputation abroad. With all this talk of change, however, more attention needs to be paid to the concerns of women in the United States. With so many competing pressures at home and abroad, many women’s groups and feminists fear that gender equality will not be a priority of the Obama administration. This essay intends to explore three imminent problems American women face today: pay inequity, lack of representation in leadership positions, and limitations on the right to choice. Congress and past presidents have given some attention to these matters in the past; however much work awaits us if there is to be significant improvement in these areas. Under the new Obama administration, there may never be a better time to make such progress.

While the women’s movement is not as active as it was during its heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, women have by no means achieved an equal status to men. One of the most frustrating problems facing women today is unequal pay. Although employers are barred from discrimination based on gender, and equal pay has been on the books since 1963, women still on average make 77 cents for the man’s dollar. Race and class intersect with gender to structurally disadvantage poor women of color the most. While some middle-class white women can almost touch the glass ceiling, far too many working-class women with darker skin tend to scrub the floors below. There are numerous reasons for women’s lower wages, including but not limited to: the fact that discrimination is extremely difficult to prove in court, the devaluation of women’s work, inadequate family leave policies, and ideals of masculinity/femininity that prevent women from occupying the “top” positions. Solutions to the problem must be multifaceted and should address inequalities that occur at different stages of life. For example, girls need encouragement to develop their interests in traditionally “masculine” enterprises like math and science, and women who become mothers should be entitled to a reasonable amount of paid leave.

Currently, The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) only grants twelve unpaid weeks to employees who wish to care for a family member, although some employers may choose to offer more time off and pay for it. While the FMLA represents some progress in addressing women and family’s needs, the law is embarrassingly stingy compared to the more generous policies of other western countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, women are entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave. Also, paternity leave should be encouraged. Providing leave to only mothers reinforces the idea that women are and should be the primary caregivers to all children. If we strive to make care giving an equally shared responsibility in order to open up opportunities to women, then men should also be incorporated into such leave policies. Clearly, U.S. family leave policy is severely out of touch and inadequate to meet the real needs of working women and families. Family leave policies are generally very politically popular, and there is real opportunity for significant bills to be passed in this area over next four years under President Obama.

In addition to pay equity issues, women are also severely underrepresented in public service. At the date of this writing, women hold a mere 16% of congressional seats and governed only 8 states. In most other forms of political participation, women are equal or almost equal to men, and in some cases even surpass their male counterparts (e.g., women tend to vote at higher rates compared to men). However, when it comes to the most powerful and prestigious positions in our society, such as elected officials, the number of women is dismally low. Spectators have attributed the low number of women in office to a plethora of reasons, including the political opportunity structure, gender discrimination, and the fact that women simply do not run at the same rates as men. However, childcare responsibilities may represent the primary reason why women dangle at the bottom of the political rope. Women are more likely than men to begin their political career later in life after their children are grown. Thus, politically minded women usually lack time (and energy) to gain the requisite experience needed for higher offices. However, with the election of a black president, along with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s historic bids, women may have more of a chance than ever to break the glass ceiling of politics. At the very least, the 2008 elections taught young girls that the President doesn’t always have to be white and male. The President can be black or possibly female. Aside from providing excellent role models, the Obama administration should encourage women to run for office by providing extra support for mothers. As with pay equity issues, paid family leave is essential and a compensation program for elder care-givers (the large majority who are women) might be considered. In addition, because the seeds of Senators and Presidents are first planted at the grassroots level, Obama’s famous technological grassroots organizing techniques could be expanded to help recruit women candidates to run at all levels, including for offices such as in the city council and the state legislator. Many groups, such as Emily’s List, already have the infrastructure in which to invest new techniques. With any luck, such a program would help breed tomorrow’s female Senators, Governors, and even Presidents.

Finally, many women also lack control over their own bodies. Reproductive rights and freedom have slowly but steadily been eroded over the years, and Roe v. Wade may hang by a thread. There are a plethora of restrictions on access to abortion in some areas of the country, and the women who often are the least likely to be able to access abortion services are poor women and women of color. In general, poor women are more likely than affluent women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, either because of indigency or the lack of reproductive providers in their area. Poor women are also more likely than affluent women to have abortions later in their pregnancies, which increases the likelihood of complications and health risks. In the area of abortion rights, President Obama may have the power through appointment to help shape broader access to abortion in the coming decades. He can appoint strong pro-choice justices to the Supreme and federal courts and put pressure on certain states to provide more funding to indigent women who want or need abortions. Obama may also consider becoming a champion for policies that may prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. Such policies would promote comprehensive sexual education for all public school children, which stresses protection and accountability. Abstinence-only education in schools has been shown to be inadequate and ineffective in preventing premarital sex. Such policies would also make contraceptives more widely available to at-risk children. Also, in order to prevent abortions, women need to be able to freely choose to become mothers or not. Without adequate public assistance, childcare subsidies, and paid family leave, many women feel forced by their economic situation to terminate a pregnancy rather than live in poverty. We have to remember that reproductive freedom is not only about the right to abortion, but also about providing women with the means, resources, and opportunities to choose whether to raise a child.

This essay points to three major issues that affect women’s lives–pay inequity, lack of representation in the political world, and restrictions on reproductive freedom. Although women’s issues may not be perceived as important as they once were, the urgency of problems that afflict women in 2009 is just as strong as it was several decades ago. While the substance of each issue discussed is different, the roots of these problems are similar. Women are still the primary caregivers to children and elder parents, despite the fact that both men and women have increasingly expressed agreement with egalitarian ideas about sharing domestic responsibility. To compound the problem, women are not allotted enough reproductive liberty to freely choose motherhood and are not allotted political liberty to be represented by their peers. Additionally, the problems discussed are not discrete, independent issues, but rather are very much interrelated to one other. More women in public office are likely to encourage more family-friendly policy, and attention to reproductive freedom may increase. More reproductive freedom is likely to allow women to take advantage of the same opportunities as men, including moving up in the working and political world. These problems and their solutions thus cannot be addressed individually in a vacuum, but must be addressed together as part of a comprehensive plan to elevate the status of women.

The inequalities women face in the United States are symptomatic of an unequal democracy. If women do not possess as much power, influence, and control over their own lives as men do, then we cannot say that “we the people” rule our country. Obama’s election inspired a hope for a more egalitarian society in which freedom and prosperity could flourish. In order to accomplish this utopian vision, attention needs to be paid to what Simone de Beauvoir termed the “second sex.” Women’s needs should be taken into account, not only to raise the status of women, but also to create a society of true equals. I have hope that the next four years can begin to lead us in that very direction.

The Legends Win in the End

On a rainy Saturday afternoon this past November, San Francisco said its final goodbye to the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Or at least it said goodbye to the one veteran of the brigade who could make it – the hundred-year-old Hilda Roberts, one of about sixty American women who served the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War. Apparently, a couple of other vets had planned on being there but the weather kept them away, and there’s not a large pool to draw on – only about twenty-two or twenty-four of the veterans are thought to still be alive.

The San Francisco event was a commemoration of a much larger leave taking that took place seventy years earlier, almost to the day. For that farewell, remembered in Spain as the Despedida, the crowd numbered in the tens of thousands, as Spaniards filled the streets of Barcelona for a last look at the departing International Brigades, the 35,000 or so volunteers from 53 countries who had come to defend the Spanish Republic from General Francisco Franco’s military uprising two years earlier. Among the departing were about 2,800 Americans – less about 800 who died in Spain – who subsequently became known as the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

At the time, Spain seemed a microcosm of all the world’s conflicting ideas on one peninsula in Europe. Within five years after the 1931 fall of the monarchy that ruled it almost continuously for centuries, Spain’s disparate points of view had crystallized into two opposing coalitions: The Popular Front of Socialists, Communists, and left-wing Republicans; and the National Front of Christian Democrats, fascists, and monarchists. Five months after the Popular Front’s electoral victory, the two sides would become transformed into the warring Republicans and Nationalists when army officers in the Spanish colony of Morocco began the uprising that would end democracy in the country for nearly four decades.

It is hard to convey today what Spain meant to the world in those days, but perhaps the title of Andre Malraux’s novel about the Civil War does it best: It is called Man’s Hope. And the fact the events, while certainly not clearly recalled or understood, have never entirely receded from popular memory came to the fore in the most recent presidential election when both Barack Obama and John McCain claimed Republican sympathizer Ernest Hemingway’s Spanish Civil War novel For Whom the Bell Tolls as one of their favorite books.

Just a few years ago, the Bay Area Veterans, while few in number themselves, were holding annual reunion events at the Oakland Hilton or the Kaiser Center that drew crowds in the high hundreds. Speakers like Ariel Dorfman and Molly Ivins talked of the relevance the Spanish war to the events of the day, and the whole audience joined members of the San Francisco Mime Troupe in singing “Viva la Quince Brigada!” and the other songs of the Spanish Republic. But seventy years is a mighty long time to keep an organization going when there’s no source of new members. A recent obituary for Jack Shafran noted that the 91 year old was “one of the youngest volunteers in the Lincoln Brigade.” So the decision was made to dissolve the Veterans, either upon the death of two of the group’s remaining activists, Moses Fishman and Abraham Sorodin or on the seventieth anniversary of the Despedida, whichever came first. The organization’s work would be continued by the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives.

By the time of the San Francisco event, both of those veterans had in fact died, so there no longer was an organization known as the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The singing would be thin on the choruses of the old songs at the final event, and the 150 seat Delancey Street Theater was less than half full for a showing of a British newsreel on the Despedida apparently never before seen in the US. On the screen, Dolores Ibárruri Gómez, better known as La Pasionaria (or “the passion flower”), delivered her famous send off speech to thousands of the then young volunteers. As a rule, Ibárruri’s speeches included the Republican cry, “No pasaran!” – they shall not pass. But there were no such illusions on that day in Barcelona. Franco’s Nationalists had indeed passed and the Internationals were being sent home because the cause was lost. Instead, Ibárruri told them, “Sois la leyenda.” You are legend. And legends they would be, for the rest of their days. People used to cite the phrase “May you live in interesting times” as an ancient Chinese curse. It seems, however, that this widely cited bit of eastern wisdom may have originated in the east coast of the United States, for it appears to be neither ancient nor Chinese. In fact, the earliest date anyone can find evidence of its use is 1936, the year the Spanish Civil War began. And maybe that’s about right because the veterans of that war embodied this apparently modern curse as well as anyone ever has.

When the western democracies refused to aid Spain’s fight against the military uprising, the Internationals came without sanction of their governments. (The only significant foreign assistance the Republic received came from the Stalin-era Soviet Union.) Afterwards, some volunteers, like the Italians and the Germans who constituted the largest bloc, couldn’t go home. In Spain, they had fought against their own governments because, unlike France, the United Kingdom, or the United States, Mussolini and Hitler’s governments had not hesitated to assist their ally Franco – and take the opportunity to hone their military operations for the larger conflict on the horizon. Others like the Americans were able to return home but were now considered suspect as the times got ever more “interesting.” It seems they had been “premature anti-fascists.” They were anti-Hitler before being anti-Hitler was cool.

The interesting times continued. When US Attorney General Thomas Clark decided to warn the nation about the subversive organizations in its midst on 1947, he did so by releasing a list in alphabetical order, starting with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. And since a good number of the volunteers had, in fact been Communist Party members, they faced “are you now, or have you ever been” questioning for decades.

By the Vietnam War era, the Spanish Civil War was a largely forgotten event in the US. Most of the participants in the big antiwar demonstrations of the day would likely not have noticed the group of old men and a few women, marching behind a Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade banner. But they were always there, probably the most antiwar group of veterans you were ever going to meet. And an activist core continued on, and on, and on. When the Reagan Administration subverted the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s, the Lincolns were well past the age of volunteering to fight the Contras, so they sent an ambulance down instead.

In her speech on that long ago afternoon in Barcelona, La Pasionaria went on to exhort the 13,000 Internationals who were there, “When the olive tree of peace puts forth its leaves entwined with the laurels of the Spanish Republic’s victory, come back.” Considering the Republic’s desperate military position at the time, this seemed like so much bravado. And, at the time, it was. But not in the long run. As the viewers of Saturday Night Live would be reminded week after week, in 1975 General Francisco Franco finally died. And more importantly, with him died his dictatorship. Two years later, La Pasionaria, returned form exile, was elected to represent Asturias in the first post-Franco government.

Still, Spain was reluctant to revisit its Civil War in those first post-Franco years, and it would be nearly another two decades before the volunteer veterans were invited back. But in November 1996, sixty years after the war’s start and three years after Ibárruri herself had died, 400 of them returned to finally see the olive trees of peace and receive a hero’s welcome at the “Homenaje,” the homecoming. Twelve years later, a mere twenty-three of them were on hand for the seventieth anniversary Despedida commemoration in Spain, their numbers having plunged worldwide just as they have in the Bay Area.

But things have continued to change in Spain, and the reluctance to confront the crimes of the Franco has declined with the passing of those personally involved. A recently passed law mandates the removal of symbols of the Franco era from various public buildings and funds the unearthing of Civil War-era mass graves. And it begins the real Homenaje: As of the end of 2008, all descendants of those Spaniards forced to leave the country from the beginning of the war through 1975 will be allowed to claim the Spanish citizenship denied them by Francisco Franco’s war and dictatorship. And although most did not live to see it and had to content themselves with being legends in their own time, this is the final victory of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

Assessing the Gaza Situation

So who started all of this? To watch CNN, ABC News, or NBC News, you might say to yourself, “Well, there go those Palestinians again, always blowing stuff up!” Many in the so-called mainstream media talk about how Hamas broke the cease-fire with Israel by launching rocket attacks. The area had been relatively quiet for six months. Then what happened?

In the theatre, they talk about an actor’s “motivation.” You see, theatre is an attempt to emulate reality, with the paradox that, while reality is spontaneous, everything that happens in the theatre is meticulously planned. And so, when an actor needs to walk to the door in order to open it and see another character on the other side, that actor needs a reason to go over there. That reason needs to be more compelling than “The other character needs to be introduced” or “The actor needs to be over on that side of the stage in order for the blocking to work.” Sure, that’s fine, but within the world of the play, the character needs a reason to be over there, or perform that action. This is what is meant by motivation: Why is that character doing that thing? Oh, the doorbell rang; I’d better go answer it. Door opened. Character introduced. “Hi, how are you?” Now the blocking works. Bingo!

And yet  many TV anchors and print journalists assume that, when it comes to terrorism, actions always happen spontaneously, with no provocation. Why is Hamas firing rockets into Israel? Oh, you know those terrorists: they just love to destroy things! That’s just the way they are!

Thankfully, there is a rational explanation one step beyond “just because” for most any behavior.  Since humans — unless they’re mentally impaired in some way — do things for reasons, the logical question should be, “Why is Hamas firing rockets into Israel?” (So maybe I’m being facetious — just a little — but seriously, no one in the U.S. press is asking why the cease-fire broke down after six months. Hardly anyone in the U.S. press is asking why Hamas started launching rockets.) An investigation that delves just a few inches below the surface of this issue would yield a veritable gold mine of understanding. Too bad many in the media want, instead, to stick to simple, Manichaean narratives involving Israel struggling to defend itself against evil Palestinians stopping at nothing to destroy Israel, simply because it is in their nature to destroy things.

Some investigation reveals a lot. Hamas, for example, did not begin lobbing rockets into Israel without at least some provocation. For one, Israel has spent the last year laying siege to the Gaza Strip, a narrow territory carved out of the southwest corner of Israel, bordering the Mediterranean Sea on the west and Egypt on the south. (I use “siege” in the traditional sense.)

For over a year, Israel has been allowing access for Gaza to “only the minimum amount of goods required to avert a hunger or health crisis among its 1.5 million people, and prohibiting most exports,” according to The New York Times. When the blockade began last year, the United Nations Human Rights Council condemned Israel’s actions, the fifteenth time in two years it had done so, according to The Jerusalem Post.

Israel is often accused of having a “disproportionate” response to Palestinian attacks. Total number of people killed by Hamas rockets prior to Israel’s assault: “about two dozen over the past four years” (emphasis mine), according to The Australian. Total number of Gazans killed by Israelis: 550 in the past week. Yes, that is the definition of “disproportionate.” What percentage of those killed are civilians? It seems that Israel is possibly doing more than is necessary to defend itself. For example, Israel is refusing to let foreign journalists enter Gaza despite an Israeli Supreme Court order to do so!

And lest you may think that Israel is undertaking their military action purely for wholesome and upstanding reasons, keep in mind that the Likud party sees the Gaza conflict as a fantastic electoral opportunity:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will not be a candidate in the elections and may be indicted on corruption charges. But the Gaza offensive could be his last chance to rehabilitate a legacy badly tarnished by Israel’s failure to achieve a clear-cut victory against the Lebanese Hezbollah movement in 2006.

[...]

For the moment, however, the offensive in Gaza is proving popular with Israelis, and [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni and [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak are reaping the benefits. Recent polls show them closing the gap with Likud party leader [Benjamin] Netanyahu, who had opened up a wide lead based on his promise to take a hard line against Israel’s main adversaries — Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

One mainstream news outlet is even suggesting that Hamas was completely in the wrong because Fatah, a faction of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, said it was. Such a conclusion based on that premise seems strikingly superficial and easily explainable: of course Fatah would have nothing but nasty things to say about Hamas; Hamas beat Fatah in Palestinian elections in 2006! They’re competitors for power in Palestine! Just because Pepsi says that their product is better than Coke’s, it doesn’t follow that we should necessarily believe them or take them as a credible source.

Let me be clear that none of this discussion should be read as a justification for launching rocket attacks into Israel. That certainly isn’t justified. In my opinion, nothing would ever justify such abhorrent terrorist actions. However, neither is it justified to obliterate towns (with bombs largely provided by the United States).  Neither side is in the right. But in much the same way that Ron Paul tried to explain “blowback” to Rudy Giuliani, the U.S. media are loathe to talk about the current situation as a result of the choices made by both Hamas and the Israeli government. They would, instead, prefer to talk only about Israel defending itself, as though Israel can do no wrong. Never is the question asked, “Should Israel be doing this? Isn’t this a little excessive? And why is the United States supporting this without question?” But why the United States considers Israel’s foreign policy goals to be 100% congruent with its own is another article for another day.

Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on the issue of the unilateral opinion of Israel within the U.S. government. Is there any issue that both Democrats and Republican politicians seem to agree on, 100% of the time? And, as Greenwald notes, polls suggest that 70% of American people do not want the United States to take sides, and yet 100% of our leaders — President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama — they all give the impression that they think that not only should the United States be involved, but it should support whatever Israel does, no questions asked.

The justification given for the United States’ unprecedented support for Israel (our “special relationship” with Israel seems to be much more dear to our hearts than our “special relationship” with even the United Kingdom for instance) is that Israel is the only democracy in the region, and to let it fall would be disastrous. Not only is this not true factually (Turkey, Egypt — and now Iraq! — technically “Middle East,” are also technically democracies), but even that argument doesn’t fully account for our government’s almost complete, unyielding support for anything Israel does. And to even dare to suggest that Israel may not be completely in the right is to be subjected to, at the least, howls by many of “anti-semitism” and the debate shuts down.

The international community routinely tries to sanction Israel for such disproportionate responses, but U.N. Security Council resolutions always get vetoed by — guess who?! It was only recently that Israel relaxed its blockade to allow medical supplies into Gaza. Is preventing medical supplies from entering the area for a week really necessary to stopping Hamas? Especially with 500 deaths and thousands of casualties? Furthermore, the platforms from which the rockets into Israel were launched are mobile.

The Middle East problem — which is to say, the problem with Israel and all its neighbors alike — is far more complicated than it is being portrayed. Just once, I would like to see something other than complete condemnation of Hamas and complete veneration of Israel.  Is anyone in the mainstream media capable of talking thoughtfully about the subject and its many nuances? Hamas is a terrorist group, to be sure, but the question is: why is it resorting to terrorism? It’s not just anti-semitism; there are plenty of anti-semitic people in the world who don’t launch rockets into synagogues. With terrorism, religious explanations often mask political ones. Maybe we should be investigating that, instead. I bet if we examined the long-term causes, implications, and solutions in the Middle East, there’s the possibility of lasting peace. Begetting violence with violence is no solution. It only ensures that we will most likely re-visit this problem again.

Obama’s Venezuelan Challenge

There is no shortage of foreign policy challenges for Barack Obama as he prepares to take office in a few short weeks.  And over the next few months, you’re likely to read hundreds of thousands of words analyzing a small handful of them, namely those challenges that involve Middle Eastern countries that start with the letter “I.”

But what you will not read much about are the other foreign policy challenges that are equally as important, but not quite as familiar.  So, in an effort to shed some light on the massive, worldwide foreign policy shadow cast by Iraq, Iran and Israel, this piece will be the first in a series of three highlighting the most important “other” foreign policy challenges. While all three of these scenarios will require great diplomatic skill, some are more difficult than others, and we’ll begin with the most manageable in Venezuela and work our way to the most challenging in Pakistan via Cuba.

The Challenge: Keep Venezuelan oil flowing in the short-term before the U.S. can eventually wean itself off of it in the long-term.  At the same time, peace must be kept between Venezuela and its neighbor to the west, Colombia, despite increasing tensions between the two.

The Obstacles: Bad blood has been brewing for the past eight years between George W. Bush and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.  President Chavez has accused the Bush Administration of being responsible for the coup that briefly ousted him from power in 2002 and of plotting another coup attempt in 2006.  If Chavez maintains the perception within Venezuela that the leaders in Washington are still out to destroy both Venezuela and his presidency, he has the ability to wreck havoc with the U.S. economy by shutting off approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil a day that Venezuela currently exports to the United States.

With regards to Colombia, it is no surprise that the left-wing Hugo Chavez and the right-wing president of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, do not get along.  What is a surprise is that the two men managed to maintain a cordial and somewhat productive relationship as long as they did.  For five years, from Uribe’s election in 2002 until 2007, the only major diplomatic dispute between the two nations was quickly resolved when Chavez and Uribe spoke to one another and agreed that they were both at fault for using the media rather than official diplomatic channels to air their grievances.

But then, in late 2007, the relationship between Venezuela and Colombia took an abrupt turn for the worse when negotiations between the Colombian government and its long-time enemy, FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), broke down. Chavez, who many view as sympathetic to FARC’s cause, was involved in the negotiations, and Uribe felt as though its failure to produce any positive results was partially the Venezuelan president’s fault.  This led to a “freezing” of political relations between the two nations. Then, the situation was made much worse just a few months later, on March 1, 2008,  when Colombian forces went after and killed a FARC commander inside Ecuadorian territory.  Ecuador was not pleased with the Colombian invasion of its sovereignty and cut diplomatic ties with Colombia.  Venezuela immediately followed suit.

To make matters worse, the following day, Chavez condemned Colombia’s actions by saying that if Uribe took similar actions in Venezuela, it would provoke war:

“Don’t even think about doing something like this over here (Colombian) President Uribe, because that would be extremely serious….A military incursion on Venezuelan soil would be a cause for war.”

Of course, this comment served only to fuel the perception that Hugo Chavez was and is more interested in harboring the leftist rebels and furthering their cause than he is in actually bringing about peace in the region.  Conversely, Chavez accused both Uribe and the United States of not actually wanting the war to end.  What began as an effort to bring about a greater dialogue ended in complete lack of trust in this strategically important region.

While the probability of all out war between Colombia and Venezuela is slim, if the situation is allowed to continue to deteriorate, the results could be catastrophic.  Further, if such a string of events would occur, it would most likely occur with little or no warning.  Colombia, whose military is partially supported by billions of dollars from Washington and who is already mobilized militarily from their internal war against the FARC, is prepared for an attack from Venezuela at any time.  Recent history shows that the Colombian military has displayed very little qualms about invading another nation’s territory, and if a worthwhile target were to appear across the Orinoco River in Venezuela, Colombia may decide that such an incursion is worth the risk of retaliation. In Venezuela, President Chavez has aggressively been building up his military over the past decade.  In fact, the buildup has been so quick that some U.S. officials have openly discussed concerns that the rapidly expanding Venezuelan military could trigger an arms race in Latin America.  More than 80,000 Venezuelans serve in the country’s army, navy, air force and national guard, and many of them are eager to test out their new toys.

With as little trust as there is between the two neighbors at the moment, it wouldn’t take much to touch off this Amazonian powder keg.  The Americas have been relatively peaceful since WWII, and it is in everyone’s best interest to keep it that way.  President-elect Obama must find a way to rebuild the trust between not only Chavez and Uribe, but also between the peoples and militaries of Venezuela and Colombia.

The Solutions: If there is any hope for the Obama Administration to help rebuild the trust between Venezuela and its neighbor to the west, it must first work with Hugo Chavez to build a stable and more trusting relationship between the United States and Venezuela.

For his part, the Venezuelan President has already shown some signs that he may be willing to make this relationship work.  Since the November 4 election of Barack Obama, President Chavez has made some initial efforts to ease tensions with the United States.  In early November, when the Bush Administration made a slightly provocative move by “inviting” the Venezuelan consul in Houston to leave the country, Chavez, surprisingly, did not take the bait.  Instead, he accepted Washington’s decision and admitted that the Venezuelans had been in the wrong. Additionally, days before the U.S. Election, the Venezuelan President acknowledged that relations between the U.S. and Venezuela were at an all time low, but an Obama victory could go a long way to change that.  Further, Chavez has stated publically that he is willing to talk with the Obama Administration, something neither side has been willing to do during the Bush Administration.

While making a small concession and a non-binding promise to talk may not seem like much to work with for President-elect Obama, it is a move in the right direction and a far cry from the belligerent name-calling that has gone on between the two nations over the past eight years. The Bush Administration’s approach to Venezuela and Hugo Chavez has been to deem Chavez an evil dictator (not quite the axis of evil, but close) and to play off of the American public’s misperceptions about Chavez (which they helped create) in order to score cheap political points at home. This practice needs to come to an immediate end when Obama is sworn in.  One step in this direction would be for President-elect Obama to ensure that no one in his new administration, especially his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, publically refers to Chavez as a dictator, tyrant, or anything other than the President of Venezuela.

This, however, may be easier said than done.  Given the American public’s perception that Chavez is a dictator and enemy of the United States, it may be tempting for the Obama Administration to try to score some of the same political points that Bush did, particularly if some sort of diplomatic hitch arises. If and when Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez do sit down for a face-to-face talk, Obama should make it clear that his overarching philosophy of cooperation will be applied to everyone, not just to Americans, and despite the differences between Venezuela and the United States, he will sit down and figure out where there is common ground between the two countries.

Finding that common ground will be key to building a better, more trusting relationship with Chavez, and it will provide the U.S. with a slightly more secure source of oil, but more importantly, it will provide an opportunity to influence Colombian-Venezuelan relations. War may not be imminent between these two Latin American nations, but such a war would be a nightmare situation that U.S. must do everything to prevent.  Such a war would most likely draw U.S. troops and lead to the loss of its fourth largest supplier of oil in Venezuela.  As such, the incoming Obama Administration must work very hard to prevent such a worst-case scenario from developing.

The Bottom Line: In general, any solution regarding Venezuela is going to be tricky.  President-elect Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will have to walk a diplomatic tightrope, mending a broken relationship with a recent adversary in Venezuela while being careful not to offend long-time ally Colombia. The good news is that because of recent statements by Hugo Chavez, there appears to be a small window of opportunity for the United States and Obama and Clinton to successfully walk such a tightrope. However, faced with many competing international priorities right out of the gate, especially in the Middle East, the Obama administration may be tempted to devote most of their attention elsewhere. They would be wise not to ignore Latin America for long. If they do, the current window of opportunity in Venezuela may be slammed shut. The geopolitical consequences of this could be dire.

Obama’s Progressive Street Cred

The selection of Rick Warren for the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration is troubling, to say the least. Many progressives are rightly outraged at the selection of a man who is virulently anti-choice and homophobic. Yet, this is only the latest in a series of Obama decisions that has left many progressives wondering who it was, exactly, they voted for. Apparently, “change” looks a lot like the Clinton administration. Rahm Emanuel is back. So is Eric Holder, formerly Deputy Attorney General. Most conspicuous of all, Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State. A bevy of liberal-but-not-quite-progressive apologists have tried to explain away all of Obama’s decisions. Here is a list of some of their justifications:

• Obama is pursuing Abraham Lincoln’s “team of rivals” approach. Authors of this justification also cite Lyndon Johnson’s phrase: it’s better to keep one’s enemies “on the inside, pissing out” rather than “on the outside, pissing in.” By keeping his enemies in the White House, those enemies are not in Congress or on K Street trying to defeat his plans.
• Remember how we all said for six months that Obama’s qualifications don’t matter? Not so much. As such, he’s surrounding himself with a group of people who have experience working in a presidential administration, and the last Democratic presidency was Bill Clinton’s, so it only makes sense that he would choose people from there.
• Obama is sneakier than he seems (think I, Claudius, I suppose). He’s putting a lot of center-left (and, in some cases, center-right) Washington establishment politicians in key positions to pay lip service to that establishment. Don’t worry, it’s only a front. The real reforms are going to happen, but from behind a veil of mainstream non-reform. That’s the only way he can get things done down there.
• Obama does not want to continue the divisive politics of George W. Bush. Even though it might anger those on the hard left, Obama would rather heal and reconcile than punish.  Turn that cheek!

Some of these justifications are disturbing. The last one, that Obama should be conciliatory instead of punitive, is put forth by people who believe that the crimes of the George W. Bush administration should not be investigated. The country needs to heal, they say. It’s time to get on with the business of the United States, where “business” is defined so as to exclude investigations of the previous administration. Of course, this logic ignores the fact that the law has been broken. As Glenn Greenwald has observed, politicians are more than ready to throw the full force of the law at marijuana dealers, but when it comes to prosecuting their own, politicians are equally ready to be lenient, even though the marijuana dealer harmed no one and the politician may have, oh, I don’t know, been responsible for torture, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless wiretapping at the least. When crimes are committed, they should be investigated and prosecuted – not just for poor people, but for everyone, including politicians. For Barack Obama to suggest that Bush administration criminals should go free is to suggest that politicians live in a special class above the reach of the law. It also encourages more illegal activity in the future, once it is known that the government won’t prosecute those activities.

Furthermore, it’s not even up to Barack Obama to decide what is or is not investigated. The cult of personality surrounding him is great (in fact, it contributed to getting him elected), but even though we like him we must not forget that, as the president, he has constitutional limitations. It was irresponsible for the media to even ask what Barack Obama thought about Joe Lieberman being kicked out of the Democratic caucus. On November 5, Obama’s life as a senator ended, even though he didn’t officially resign the position until three weeks later. The president has absolutely no say – none! – in the operation of Congress. It would be different if Obama were acting in his capacity as a senator, but after winning the presidential election, especially in a nation eager for a new leader, any notion of Obama acting solely in his capacity as a senator would be extremely naïve. Obama must repudiate the unconstitutional powers that George W. Bush has claimed for himself, either through complete fabrication or malicious misreading of constitutional law.

Given his opinion of things like same-sex marriage (he tactfully says that same-sex couples should not be allowed to “marry” as such, but then says that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples), NAFTA/CAFTA, and Israel, no one could confuse him for a true progressive. Obama’s apologists rationalize his decisions by pointing out that Obama never claimed to be a progressive at all!

Or could they? George W. Bush’s method of saying-without-saying is well-documented. While he never explicitly said that Saddam Hussein was behind the September 11 attacks, there is definitely a reason why, in 2001, virtually no Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible, but in 2003, one third of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible.

Could it be that Barack Obama, whose campaign P.R. was spectacular, performed the same saying-but-not-saying function? Yes, it is entirely possible that Obama clothed himself in the cloak of progressivism while still wearing the mainstream Democrat’s clothes underneath. He has suggested massive new spending on entitlement programs, but he wants to increase the size of the military. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but he voted in favor of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted the administration in warrantless wiretapping. His foreign policy goals consist of using real diplomacy instead of threats, but he voted in favor of NAFTA. He wants to provide government health care for people who have no health care, but he stops short of suggesting a universal-payer system like Canada’s or Great Britain’s. Obama’s positions are a wash: for every progressive-sounding idea, there is another conservative-sounding one to balance it out.

Or, on the other hand, it could be that Obama never suggested anything, but that he was forthcoming about his non-progressive credentials. It could be that we, the progressive Americans, were so thirsty for a change that we latched onto the only candidate (outside of Dennis Kucinich) who even brought up the issue of health care reform (at those early Republican primary debates, not a single candidate brought up the issue of health care), social reform, and getting out of Iraq (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards failed on at least one of these). We projected onto him the candidate we wanted him to be, ignoring the fact that he was not that candidate. Did we set ourselves up for disappointment? Yes, that is possible, too.

And then there’s the argument that all this complaining is pointless, that Obama isn’t even the president yet, and we should all just wait and see what happens on Jan. 20. Well, Rick Warren will happen Jan. 20, and that gives me even less optimism that, at noon on that day, Obama will suddenly throw aside his centrist mask and shout, “You fools! You thought I was just like Bill Clinton! But you were wrong! Free health care for everybody!” Agreeing to take part in Warren’s Saddleback (which sounds dangerously like “bareback”) debate with John McCain, Obama could conceivably have been seen as paying lip service to evangelical Protestantism, just like every president since Nixon has had to do. But putting Warren on the bill for Inauguration Day? Imagine if George W. Bush had hired Hillary Clinton to give a speech at his second inauguration. Yeah, it’s like.

Most troubling in my opinion, though, is Obama’s own insistence, ever since March of 2007, when he announced his candidacy, that he is not an ordinary politician. His grassroots, fifty-state strategy was unparalleled in its success. His speech about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was intelligent and it treated the American people as though they, too, could understand long speeches that contained nuanced thoughts, as opposed to the Manichean sound bites of George W. Bush. His political maturity happened after the Vietnam War era, and, as Andrew Sullivan has suggested, the very core of his being is not instilled with a reflexive fear of Republicans and conservatism.

Conservatism demands the acknowledgment of a false dualism in every aspect of life, with the promise that conservatism will lead people to the correct side of this duality. Democrats buy into this framework and then try to argue the opposite side. The true progressive would never let the Republicans frame the debate and then proceed to work within their ill-conceived framework. To the progressive, there is no debate about whether or not health care should be free, or if there should be a premium for minimum services, or if the government should control it. The answer is: the current system of privatized health care doesn’t work and it should not be repaired, it must be rebuilt from the ground up. Obama appeared unafraid to work outside the existing framework and create a new framework that works in the interests of everyone. “Should it be a public solution or a private solution?” is not the correct question. “What solution is best for the country?” Now that’s the right question. It’s a question that Obama appeared to be asking during the campaign, but one that is being substituted by justifications for increasingly conservative behavior.

« Previous Page — Next Page »