PORTUGAL THE BLUEPRINT

Many in the United States have become giddy with the success being achieved in the legalization of marijuana. They should not be. The United States is not a leader in bringing good judgment to the subject.

The United States is light years behind when it comes to a better handling of the drug situation. Unquestionably, one of crisis...

Realization has hit home that marijuana use in the United States has not been eliminated by the harsh penalties and jail sentences of the past 40 years. There had to be a better way. Legalization.

One of the benefits would be less incarceration. Meaning fewer jailed for pot use. Resulting in less enforcement and jail personnel required. A big time dollar savings. Keep in mind it costs $85 thousand a year to maintain one person in prison.

Why is the United States behind? We are still in the throes of legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana use. The far right, conservatives and many religious groups are opposed. They view decriminalization as doing the Devil's work.

A nation has succeeded by legalizing all drug use. The program an outstanding success. Other countries are considering doing the same based on that country's success. 

The nation is Portugal.

Portugal decided its war on drugs was a failure. Drug use was in a crisis mode. Hard punitive punishment was not working.

Portugal legalized drug use in 2001. All drugs. Including heroin and cocaine. Passed a law to the effect. Dropped drug use from a crime with the possibility of prison. Made drug use an administrative matter, if the amount possessed was less than a 10 day supply.

Treatment was provided. Incarceration not. Drug control moved from the Justice Department to the Ministry of Health. 

It is now fourteen years later. Portugal's program a success. Drug use has not been eliminated. However, it is controlled. Benefits have been realized.

Initially, drug use increased. Then gradually declined. Drug use among adults (16-64) is dramatically down. Continued drug use by adults is also down. Forty five percent to 28 percent.

Drug induced deaths have decreased dramatically. Seventy eight percent to 18 percent. The HIV infection rate has dropped significantly. From 42 percent to 4 percent. Teenage drug use is down.  

The decrease in imprisonments dropped beyond initial thought. Jails are closing because drug crime no longer exists. Imagine, not enough crime breakers to fill the jails!

One negative occurrence. The number of people receiving addiction treatment has increased. The cost negligible when compared to the cost of jailing those people, however.

Portugal's approach was considered unusual. Portugal realized from the beginning that total eradication was impossible. The thought was to control drug use.

Portugal has become the blueprint for other nations.

Ecuador is seriously interested. In Ecuador's new Constitution of 2008, it was specifically stated that drug consumption was not a crime. 

Recently, a bill was introduced in its legislative body to supplement  and give effect to the Constitution's language. The bill would view drug consumption as a health concern and not a crime. It is anticipated the bill will become law this year without any problem.

Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and the United States government are not the best of friends. Ecuador at one point gave WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange asylum. Regarding the drug problem, President Correa booted the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration out of Ecuador.

Ireland is next in line. It is giving serious consideration to following Portugal's path. So too, Great Britain.

Portugal, Ecuador, Ireland and Great Britain have seen the light. Prison for drug involvement has proven absurd. It has not and does not work. I read somewhere recently that if the United States' war on drugs were a business, it would have been out of business long ago. Businesses do not survive without success..

The United States should start taking a hard look at Portugal's success. Decriminalizing marijuana is a step too little. Of the multitude of Republicans seeking the Presidential nomination, I doubt any would support such an approach. Except perhaps Rand Paul.

The religious right, conservative America, the Council of Catholic Bishops, Fox, etc., would rally against all out decriminalization of drug use.

It never ceases to amaze me. The United States at one time was in the forefront for change. Good change. Not change merely for the sake of change. 

Today's politics prevent the United States from being such a leader. The United States has not lead in a long time. I fear it will be an even longer time before we are in a world wide leadership position.

CORRUPTION OF POLITICS AND BANKS

Government and banks are corrupt. Indisputable. The reason money. The root of all evil.

I am not telling you anything you do not already know. I suggest two remedial solutions.

The time has come for public campaign financing. Have the government as the sole source of campaign funds. Prohibit the raising and/or spending of private funds. In situations where a candidate is independently wealthy, limit his or her personal contribution to $50,000.

A monstrous task. Perhaps unachievable. Keep in mind, Congress would have to vote for such change. 

A complex issue. Ergo, I am zeroing in solely on Presidential elections. I am generalizing. The devil will be in the details.

The 2016 Presidential race will break every record for fundraising and spending. A disgrace. Most of the monies will be from the very rich and corporations. The minimal $5 or $25 contributions of the 99 percent will mean little. Ironically, several states have tried and some still have some sort of public financing for state and local elections. Most have failed. Blame the Supreme Court. Unconstitutional.

For well over 30 years, we have had a voluntary citizen program to enrich the public funding of corporations. There is a box in the upper corner of your tax return. Check it off and automatically $3 of your taxes will be transferred to a special Presidential fund. The program is not working. Its use has fallen steadily since the early 1980s. Presently, less than 8 percent of taxpayers check the box.

I am not going to go into the specifics of present Presidential public funding laws. Space does not permit. However, if a Presidential candidate agrees to accept federal funding and agrees not to raise or spend any other monies, assistance is available.

Such candidate would receive $91.2 million. Few go down such road these days. Presidential campaigns cost significantly more.

There is one government funding program that both the Democrat and Republican parties receive money under. Religiously, every four years. Disgracefully, also. The Presidential nominating conventions. Each is and has been paid for by the government for years. I cannot understand. We are paying for each party's big bash every four years.

The amount to each party is $18.2 million, adjusted every four years based on cost of living increases. At a time when a significant percentage of our school children are homeless and go to school without breakfast. It is projected each political party will spend $1 billion in the 2016 campaign. With those kind of dollars, the political parties can easily afford their own conventions.

The purpose of public campaign funding is clean elections. Simply stated.

The United States has a Federal Election Commission. The chair is Ann Revel. Revel openly admits that the Federal Election Commission is dysfunctional and has been so for years. She claims various laws prevent her from doing anything about it.

The big banks, Wall Street, and major corporations have defecated on the American people long enough. They must be taken in hand. The banks brought our economy down in 2008. It is going to happen again.

Two things are clear. Big banks and corporations are parking their profits overseas, with few complaints from Congress. Obama consistently fails to take on corporate power. The power is left to do what it wills.

We need another Theodore Roosevelt. He was President from 1901-1909. He took on the big companies. He became known as a trust buster. He felt the big companies had too much power to the detriment of the people. America's upper crust was not looking after the interests of the working class. 

Roosevelt had a sense of right and wrong. He went after the out of hand corporations. His philosophy was to ".....speak softly and carry a big stick." His words. He was of the opinion that a society where businesses profited at the expense of the average American was not right.

Roosevelt sued more than 40 major corporations. The first was J.P. Morgan's Northern Securities Corporation. Sound familiar? A predecessor of today's J.P. Morgan Chase. A leopard does not change its spots.

We need to break up the banks.We need another Theodore Roosevelt in the White House. Senators Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warren have the right attitude. Saunders recently said that if the banks are too big to fail, then they are too big to exist. I agree.

The United States was faced with a monopolistic situation in the early 1980s. The Bell System. In effect, the national telephone system. Bell at the time was the biggest corporation in American history.

Bell was split into separate companies. Such result was possible when it was determined that Bell was violating anti-trust laws.

I am not telling you anything you do not already know. We have a problem with campaign financing and the power of big banks and corporations. My solution is public financing of elections and breaking up the big banks.

Will either happen? I doubt it. We need Congress and the Supreme Court to pave the way. Something both have been reluctant to do.

SAUDI ARABIA AND THE HYPOCRISY OF IT ALL

The United States views Saudi Arabia as one of its closest allies. Why, I have never understood. They gave us $4 a gallon gasoline. They may have been behind 9/11. Today, they fight on opposite sides from those we support in certain Middle East wars.

Saudi Arabia for years wanted a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. They attained the seat in 2014. Now less than two years later, Saudi Arabia is angling to be President of the UN Human Rights Council. The election is in December 2015, the new President taking office in 2016.

I view Saudi Arabia's being on the UN Human Rights Council a mockery. If it were to become President, a greater mockery.

Saudi Arabia beheads people. A well known fact. No question about it.

In 2014, 88 persons were beheaded. Thus far in 2015, 85. The Saudis are running ahead of last year and probably will significantly exceed the 88 number.

Twenty three of those beheaded in 2014 were Christians. There is a Saudi ban on Christianity. A group were practicing their faith in a private home. They were arrested, tried and beheaded. 

Note, this is not ISIS. Saudi Arabia is a recognized independent nation.  A member of the UN Human Rights Council. Hopefully from their perspective, the next President of the UN Human Rights Council.

Thirty eight of those beheaded thus far in 2015 were so executed for non-violent drug related crimes.

Saudis are members of an extreme faction of Islam. Wahabbist. The group is austere in its religious practices and has long been considered a source of global terrorism. Typical of its practices are beheadings in a town square and oppression of women, Christians and gays. The Saudis recently have been jailing innocent bloggers who challenge Saudi Arabia's brand of Islam.

Nillel Neuer is executive director of U.N. Watch. Neuer recently said that electing Saudi Arabia to head the UN Human Rights Council is comparable to "a pyromaniac as town fire chief."

It gets better.

A few days before Saudi Arabia's desire to head the UN Human Rights Council became public, Saudi Arabia advertised for eight additional swordsman. The job description beheading. Apparently the record number of beheadings this year requires more help.

The requirement for the job was singular. To possess a willingness to sever heads of human beings accused of committing crimes. The Civil Service Ministry said no other qualifications were required and that applicants were exempted from usual entrance exams.

The job description included performing amputations ordered by Courts under Islamic sharia law.

The vacancies were advertised on the Civil Service Ministry's website in the "Religious Jobs" section.

Hypocrisy exists at both ends of the spectrum. 

Saudi Arabia in wanting to head the UN Human Rights Council and advertising for persons to fill beheading jobs. 

The United States has its share of hypocrisy. Certain of our phony politicians and media hype what they consider anti-Christian behavior. When was the last time you heard either group speak negatively where Saudi Arabia was involved? The shame of it all is our politicians and media decry beheadings when ISIS does it. Yet turn their heads the other way when Saudi Arabia is the culprit.

The United States will be asked to support Saudi Arabia's desire to head the UN Human Rights Council. The United States should not. If we do, the hypocrisy will sound clear. There must come a time when the United States breaks its shackles with Saudi Arabia. Perhaps opposing Saudi Arabia's desire to head the UN Human Rights Council is that time.

THE PRESIDENT WHO SAVED FOOTBALL

Football is as American as apple pie. Whether played professionally or collegiately. Negatives have developed in the game. Especially in the professional ranks. Brain concussions and deflated footballs.

The time is the turn of the century. Nineteen hundred five, give or take a few years either way. Professional football was not a fait accompli. Still in its formative stages. College football was king.

The game different back then. Brutal and violent. Rough. Fatalities and serious injuries common place. Football fields were described by many as killing fields.

Where not fatal, injuries consisted of wrenched spinal cords, crushed skulls, and broken ribs that pierced the heart.

In 1904, there were 18 deaths and 159 serious injuries. In the several years before, more than 100 had died. Football was a grinding bruising sport. Brute strength was required to move the ball forward. Players locked arms in forward movement and used their heads as battering rams.  No helmets, of course. 

Tackles were gang style. A large number of defensive players ending up on the offensive ball carrier. The accumulated weight of the gang tackle estimated at one and a half tons.

Newspaper editorials called for an end to college football. Some college presidents disbanded their teams. Several state legislatures were considering making the game illegal.

Regardless of the dangers involved, college football was at its peak in popularity. Tens of thousands attended games. College football rivaled professional baseball.

President Theodore Roosevelt got involved. A Harvard graduate, he was never able to play football because of nearsightedness. He supported college football, however. It involved the strenuous life which Roosevelt advocated. The game made men.

Harvard had a bad time with football in 1894. A Harvard/Yale game. A blood bath! Harvard canceled football for two years.

Roosevelt was convinced that football was the proving field for the battlefield. Most of his Rough Riders were former college football players. 

Roosevelt realized that violence had to end for football to survive. Play hard, but do not kill and maim players.

The President called a White House meeting on October 5, 1905. The head coaches of the country’s premier football teams attended. Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Roosevelt said in effect.....Ok guys, time to curb violence. The schools issued a statement condemning brutality and pledging to keep the game clean.

However, the 1905 season turned out to be worse fatality wise than 1904. There were 19 deaths and 137 serious injuries. Among them, the President's son who played on the Harvard freshmen team. In a game against Yale, he suffered significant bruising and multiple nose fractures. That same day, a Union College halfback in a game against NYU was kicked in the head. He died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

Stanford and California switched to rugby after the 1905 season. Columbia, Northwestern and Duke dropped football. Harvard President Charles Eliot threatened that Harvard would be next.

Roosevelt did not think highly of Eliot. For reasons other than football. He thought Eliot was trying to emasculate the game.

Roosevelt was of the opinion that perhaps his October 1905 message had not been heard.  He called another meeting of school leaders. This time, the President put his foot down. Shape up was his message. Otherwise, he would lead the growing sentiment against college football. He ordered that they come up with radical rule changes to make the game safer.

The second conference was known as the Intercollegiate Conference, the forerunner of the NCAA. The group came out with significant game changing rules. The forward pass was legalized. Can you imagine! No forward pass till 1906.

The legendary coach John Heisman had long been an advocate of the forward pass. He thought it would open the game, thereby reducing dangerous mid field collisions.

Other new rules adopted included creating a neutral zone between offense and defense. Mass formations were abolished. First down distance was doubled from 5 yards to 10 yards. Three downs permitted.

Though approval was given to the forward pass, its use was restricted. The ball could not be passed to a receiver in the end zone. The ball could not be passed within five yards of center. An incomplete pass resulted in the opposing team getting the ball.

The New York Times called the forward pass idea radical.

Fatalities and injuries dropped dramatically in 1906 and 1907. The tables turned in 1909. Fatalities spiked. Another meeting, a non-White House one. More reforms. Restrictions on the forward pass eased.

College and professional football might not be part of society today were it not for Theodore Roosevelt. He saved football at a precarious time in its history.

Think how tough football is today. Injuries in every game. Yet, present day football compares in no way to that which existed in Roosevelt's time. A more dangerous sport back then. Hard to believe!

BANKS HURT PEOPLE

There was a time when bankers were amongst the most respected people in a community. No more. The recession which began in 2008 is exemplary proof that bankers are whores. They will do anything for money.

It aggravates me that our government thought the banks too big to fail and too big to prosecute. Banks were never brought to task. As a result, banks continue to connive how they can make more money for themselves without regard to those they serve.

Banks today are in a more precarious position than they were in 2008. They never learned. Why should they have? They were never punished for their wrongdoing. In fact, banks today are thriving and make considerably more money than pre 2008.

It is thought in some quarters that a worldwide credit crunch is coming. If it happens, there will be runs on the banks. Not by depositors so much. They will be too late and perhaps not have the ability. It will be by other banks who have loaned them money. They will turn on each other as sharks in frenzy.

People know they have a capacity limit for debt. We try to live within our means. Banks and major corporations do not. They see no tomorrow as far as their debt limit is concerned.

The banks are playing games. New ones. All in an effort to control the flow of money and increase profit levels.

The following represent today's bank brain child. All new.

Banks want to charge interest on depositor accounts. In other words, we will now have to pay the bank to hold our money in a savings or checking account. The program is being tested in certain parts of the United States at this moment. It is described as negative interest.

Safety deposit boxes. A place for safe keeping. A place for some to keep cash. No more.

Two banks are already requiring renters of safety deposit boxes to sign new contracts with the bank. The new contract went into effect the first of this month. In the new contract, the renter agrees and promises that no cash will be kept in the safety deposit box.

The reason is simple. Banks want to know where every dollar is at every moment. No more secreting of cash the goal.

Banks want to do away with cash. Paper money. They want to go to electronic banking. The depositor will have a debit card. Every financial transaction will be by debit card.

Why? The reasons three fold.

First, the banks want to avoid runs on the banks. If they control the cash via electronic banking, all they have to do is hit a few buttons and no one will be able to make withdrawals. The banks recognize that bad days may be ahead for them. They fear runs on banks as occurred in 1929. You and I may be broke and/or go out of business. The banks will not because they will have total control over money.

Second, the banks fear people will secret money. Under the mattress, the bottom of a drawer, a tin can buried in the backyard. 

Finally and as is obvious by this time, banks want total control over money.

You must realize that banks view your money as theirs. It is. The law is clear that once a person deposits money in a savings or checking account, title to the money passes to the bank. Thank Congress and the President who signed such legislation into law.

The preceding represents to me economic tyranny and financial repression. It is not a question of whether the shoe fits. It does.

Banks and corporations have their sinners. It is not individual society members alone who commit crimes. Banks and corporations do through their leaders and employees. Think Ponzi and Enron.

Wells Fargo is one of our larger banks. Two weeks ago, Wells Fargo was sued by the City of Los Angeles.

Wells Fargo instituted a program to motivate/push their employees to meet certain goals and quotas. One was that every customer have at least eight different accounts with the bank. The program in house was described as Going For The Gr-Eight Initiative.

The pressure was heavy on bank employees. They took their existing customer lists and opened new accounts. Signed them up for new credit cards, also. The customers never gave permission nor had knowledge.

Wells Fargo charged fees to handle the accounts. The customers were unaware of the new accounts and of the fees. The fees were not paid. Many were sent by Wells Fargo into collection. On top of which the failure to pay the fees resulted in negative information being placed on credit reports.

To compound the wrongdoing, it is claimed Wells Fargo became aware of the practice. It did nothing to stop it.

What bothers me is that if I were to write a similar column a year from now, there would be new and different bank transgressions. The banks are not doing what is right by God and country because they have not been punished criminally in recent times for their wrongdoings. 

Send some of the bad guys to jail and I guarantee you bank problems will disappear.

99 44/100 % Pure

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

CHIMPANZEES ARE PEOPLE TOO

It had to be expected after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. Remember the decision. Corporations are people too. Poor decisions open the door to bad law. Law School 101.

Several lawsuits have been brought in New york State in recent months to have chimpanzees declared "persons." Once a chimp is a person, it has the inalienable rights of life and liberty.

Do not think such a result impossible. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 said Negroes were slaves. Neither person nor people. There was a time in history when women and children were considered property. Then, the Citizen United decision.

Leading the fight is Stephen J. Wise, an attorney and animal rights advocate. He has been at it for 30 years. Only recently has he minimally tasted a degree of success.

Chimpanzees are part of the Great Ape family. Part of the biological family Hominidae. The Great Ape family consists of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Note humans are included. All have two similar characteristics. They are intelligent and autonomous.

Though not part of the Great Ape grouping, elephants, whales, and dolphins are also considered intelligent and autonomous.

I suspect Attorney Wise has proceeded thus far only on behalf of chimpanzees because such "clients" were readily available. Success with chimpanzees would eventually lead those others named being considered persons also. One animal/fish at a time, of course.

Four chimpanzees and three lawsuits thus far.

The first involved Tommy. A 26 year old chimpanzee. He resides in Gloversville, N.Y. in a small shack owned by a man who sells and rents reindeer. Tommy's room is a small concrete cage in the shack. The shed is located on an old trailer lot.

Tommy's owner says he is well cared for. Tommy has a colored television set.

Then came Kiko. A former Hollywood performer. He was known theatrically as "The Karate Chimp." Kiko is owned by a New York couple and lives in a cage.

Now the real stars of the three litigations. Hercules and Leo. They are locked up at the State of New York University at Stony Brook. Hercules and Leo are used for locomotion research.

The New York Courts in the Tommy and Kiko cases came to the same result, differently arrived at. One Judge said in effect not my headache, let the appellate court deal with it. The other said chimpanzees could not be persons because they did not have the mental capacity to make decisions involving conformity to the law.

Both cases are on appeal. 

Attorney Wise's argument in the lack of mental capacity case is what about humans in society who cannot choose to conform to the law. Those who lack capacity. People such as infants, coma patients, those with profound disabilities, severe brain damage cases, and dementia.

Attorney Wise sought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Hercules and Leo. A writ of habeas corpus requires a person to be released from unlawful imprisonment. The key word is "person."

A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice signed an order for habeas corpus. "Person" was a part of the language in the order signed by the Judge. The case was set down for a May 27 hearing. Soon thereafter, the Judge signed an amended order striking out the words writ ofhabeas corpus. The hearing still will be held, however.

One hundred fifty years ago, Darwin said the difference between man and other animals is one of degree, and not of kind. "Other animals" and "degree"

being significant verbiage in Darwin's statement.

The issue is not local. It has already been dealt with in some fashion worldwide.

Switzerland in 1992 amended its Constitution to describe animals as "beings" and not "things." New Zealand in 1995 granted basic rights to the members of the Great Ape species and forbade the use of animals in research and teaching. Germany in 2000 amended its Constitution so as to guarantee rights to animals. 

Balleric Island, a province of Spain, in 2007 granted "personhood" to Great Apes. Spain's Parliament in 2008 passed a resolution saying Great Apes have a right to  life and freedom.

Finally in 2010, the European Union on behalf of its 28 member nations banned the testing of Great Apes.

A new and not new ball game. New in the United States. Blame the chimpanzee cases presently in the courts on Citizens United. Attorney Wise relies strongly on if corporations can be people, then so too chimps. 

Two thoughts. The first is there is as much humanity in a chimpanzee as there is in a corporation. Perhaps more. Second, what a waste of time and expense.