(Couldn’t be more timely! – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Cross-posted from Integral Psychosis

In what must surely be the most shocking political development since the U.S. system of democratic liberalism was replaced in a bloodless 2000 judicial coup by fundamentalist extremists, China has announced that it will cease and desist all operations and actions in the Tibetan region  and restore full autonomy and self-preservation to the people’s of Tibet; all claims of Chinese ownership over Tibet have been officially repudiated and all Chinese settlers have been asked to return to mainland China.  The Chinese military began their withdrawl, accompanied by all government officials, at approximately 4:01am, local time.

The Dali Lama, who was last scene begining the long and treterous hike from Nepal to Lhasa that thousands of Tibetan refugees have traversed over the years in fleeing their homeland, was quoted merely as saying “Holy shit, I didn’t see that one coming.”

Later, an official from his government in exile released a clarifying statement witch read:

The Dali Lama, for quite some time, has insisted that he does not seek independence for Tibet, but merely “more autonomy” and freedom to practice and preserve their religion.  This move by the Chinese government will only disrupt our comfortable and privileged lifestyle here in Dharmala.  We ask that the Chinese government carefully reconsider their rash and bold actions.  Just because some bored, over-privileged middle class kids have been rioting in the streets of late does not mean that there’s any political legitimacy to their demands.  Without the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the region is at risk of losing millions of dollars annually in re-development funding, as well as tourist income into the local economy, which as we all know languished for thousands of years in mere subsistence and the idol pursuit of individual happiness and the meaning of human existence.

Only time will tell what will come next.  

(promoted because it’s important for news like this not to get lost in the clutter of the Dem primary stuff – promoted by JDRyan)

On Saturday German Chancellor Angela Merkel became the most significant world leader to announce she will boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics in solidarity with the people of Tibet in their most recent struggles against the imperialist Chinese.  Her announcement came after Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk and Czech president Vaclav Klaus announced the same.  As other European nations contemplate similar actions, and the unprecedented (at least to my knowledge) spectacle threatens to spread worldwide, it will be hugely interesting- and important- to watch how China reacts.  It is a huge international embarrassment that, unlike the U.S.’s reaction to being made to look foolish on the world stage, is clearly very troublesome to the Chinese government.

For those who haven’t been following any of these events, I’ve put together (largely from CNN.com, the AP, and the UK Guardian) this timeline of the past few days in Chinese-occupied Tibet.  Very inspiring to see the long-persecuted and oppressed Tibetans fighting (bravely) for their independence from the harsh Chinese government.

March 10: Hundreds of monks turn-out to protest Chinese occupation on the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan Uprising (which ultimately led to the exile of the Dali Lama to India).  Protesting the recent arrest of a group of monks who were celebrating the Dali Lama’s receipt of the U.S. Congressional Gold Metal, about 300 monks from the outskirts of Lhasa (the capital) attempt to peacefully march to the Center of the city but are stopped by the Chinese police; the apparent organizers and leaders of the march are arrested.  Then, 15 monks from Tsuklakhang Temple are joined by 2 laypeople and march to the center of Lhasa, along the way shouting pro-independence slogans, handing out literature and raising the Tibetan flag (all of which, including the flag itself, are outlawed).  They are quickly arrested and reportedly beaten.  Nearby shops are ordered closed by the police and armed troops are deployed to warn others throughout the city against joining the protests.  None of the detained monks have been seen or heard from since.  As word quickly spreads, over 130 monks in Qinghai Province (which borders Tibet) converge with over 200 laypeople outside a government building and shout pro-Dali Lama slogans.  Police stop the protest and no one is reported arrested.  Chinese officials convene an emergency meeting with monks in Qinghai Province, but 70 of them walk out carrying a portrait of the Dali Lama (which is banned) and shouting pro-independence slogans.

March 11:  Hundreds of monks from the Sera Monastery show-up to protest, demanding the release of those arrested and shouting pro-Tibet slogans.  Riot police use tear gas to disperse the crowd.

March 12: 100 nuns from the West side of Lhasa peacefully march towards the city center but police forces turn them back.  Meanwhile, 30 miles East monks at Gaden Monastery launch a protest; police surround and seal of the monastery.

March 13:  The same group of nuns attempt again to march- they have not been see  or heard from since.  Later, two monks from Kirti Monastery in Sichuan Province stab themselves in the chest, hands, and wrists.  They were said to protesting the arrest of 17 monks from the Sera Monastery on Monday (3/10).  They have been taken to a nearby hospital and are not expected to live.  Other monks at the same Monastery are staging a hunger strike.  By the end of the day, 500 students at Tibet University have been arrested.

March 14:  Monks from Ramoche Temple attempt to launch yet another protest march but police seal off the streets and prevent it.  Laypeople join in and fighting ensues.  Reports are of widespread rioting, with more than 1,000 people in the streets hurling rocks at police, and setting fire to vehicles and shops owned by ethnic Chinese who have moved to Tibet since the occupation.  CNN.com is also reporting that telephones and electricity have been shut-off in Lhasa.  Meanwhile, at the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi, India, at least one person was beaten by police, several arrested, and dozens chased away as they protested in solidarity with their friends and family of Tibet, shouting pro-Tibet slogans and waving the Tibetan flag.

March 15: 6 demonstrators have been arrested in New York in front of the United Nations building; 3 have been arrested in Sydney; at least 20 demonstrators have been arrested in Katmandu; tear-gas was used to break-up a pro-Tibet really in the Swiss city of Zurich; and un-confirmable reports suggest that demonstrations and rioting continued in Lhasa in the morning- the Chinese government has imposed strict curfews and given Tibetan demonstrators until Monday to “turn themselves in” as they “show constraint” against the protests, which many are calling the most significant (and violent) in all of China since 1989’s Tinnaman Square.  By the end of the day, pro-Tibet demonstrations were reported in cities across the world, including Washington D.C. and Chicago.  Lhasa is now said to be “like a ghost town” with thousands of Chinese troops maintaining “order” and enforcing strict curfews.

Tibetan exiles living in India are reporting that at least 100 people have been killed so far, with hundreds missing and there whereabouts unknown; Chinese officials put the number dead at 10.  Exiled Tibetans in India (primarily in North New Delhi and Dharmsala) have now been encircled in their neighborhoods by Indian police and are being prevented from leaving.  Protesters who had otherwise been planning a march from the exiled Tibetan government’s offices in Dharmsala to the border of Tibet- a march to protest the plight of the Tibetans and confront Chinese officials ahead of the upcoming Beijing Olympics- have largely been arrested or put under house arrest by Indian officials.

The Chinese State has, as is usually the case, completely censored the media.  Western journalists requesting access to Tibet have  been entirely ignored, and their Beijing offices are reporting that the vast majority of Chinese people have no idea what is happening (most all internet sites mentioning the protests have been blacked out, along with cable news channels).  Images and details have been leaking out sparingly.

How things in Tibet, and India, progress over the next couple of days remains to be seen.

Friday, on Bob Kinzel’s VPR show VT Edition, the last caller asked Congressman Welch “How could you vote for a Homegrown Terrorism Bill that (targets) people like me who speak out (against the war)”.  His response? “There’s no such bill.”

The problem is, it seems that Welch is either voting for Bills in the House without knowing anything about them, or he just straight-up lied to the caller (and the rest of us).

The Bill, HR 1955, is very real.  And Peter Welch did vote for it.  Here’s a pretty good, level-headed take on what HR 1955 is and isn’t, and why organizations like the ACLU are very much against it.

Or for Hillary, And Certainly Not for McCain, And Not Even For Ralph

By Wayne Price

Re-posted (with his in-direct approval) from here

Just thought I’d throw this out here; I really couldn’t have said it better myself.  I know this won’t be popular on GMD, but I agree with it, and (agree or not) it’s an important, rational perspective.

In the United States, there has developed an enthusiastic movement of support for the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. Besides the large forces he appeals to, especially among young adults, he is overwhelmingly supported by the left: liberals, social democrats, and Stalinists. I appreciate the movement-like aspect of his popular support, yet I personally will not vote for him. I do not try to persuade individual friends, family members, and co-workers not to vote for him, but I would like to change their attitudes. It is typical of liberals, etc. that they start elections by declaring the Democratic candidate to be the “lesser evil” (which admits that he or she is an evil). But as the election gets closer, they become convinced of the great goodness of the candidate. (In psychology, this is called the operation of cognitive dissonance. After all, who wants to believe of oneself that we are supporting someone evil? So we persuade ourselves that the evil politician is actually good.)

Let me give some anecdotes about the real Obama. In the left-liberal journal, The Nation (2/18/08), Christopher Hayes wrote a pro-Obama article, “The Choice.” He recalled, “For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the Senate was a collective rallying cry….Young Chicago progressives felt…He is one of us and now he is in the Senate (p. 20).”

And yet…. “That’s not, alas, how things turned out,” writes this supporter of Obama. “Almost immediately, Obama…shaded himself toward the center….His record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators (same).” This is a typical story of a young idealist becoming corrupted by playing the game of bourgeois electoral politics.

Hayes suspects that this was due to Obama having “an eye on national office.” But there were other corrupting forces. For example, Obama has boasted to campaign crowds in Iowa that he had passed a law to increase regulation of nuclear power plants. Specifically this was a response to the Exelon Corp. which had failed to inform the public about radioactive leaks at one of its plants. Senator Obama scolded both Exelon and federal regulators. He presented a bill to force nuclear power companies to disclose even small leaks. On the stump, Obama stated that this was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed. I did it just last year (New York Times, 2/3/08, p. A1).”

However, this was a lie. Obama had introduced such a bill, but it was repeatedly weakened until it no longer imposed any demands on the nuclear power industry…and then it was dropped. Obama never got any law regulating the nuclear power industry passed. Why did he cave in? The New York Times reports that Exelon was “one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money (same, p. A17).” Since 2003, Obama has gotten more than $227,000 from officials and employees of Exelon. Two of the top executives are among his biggest donors. Obama’s chief political strategist has been an advisor to Exelon.

In short, good intentions (I assume Obama had good intentions and that it was not a fraud from the start) were overwhelmed by the influence of big business. Of course Obama is a supporter of the capitalist economy. He hopes to be the top administrator of the capitalist economy. In no way is he anti-business, no matter how many unions endorse him. No doubt he would deny that there are necessary conflicts between labor and business. The bringing together of clashing forces is one of his central ideas. For example, rather than fight for a single payer health insurance plan – which would alienate the insurance industry – he proposes a health program which would include the insurance companies, providing them with lots of cash. But like his nuclear regulation bill, the insurance companies will do all they can to water down his original plan and then to kill it if they can.

Perhaps to most people, Barack Obama’s biggest appeal is his opposition to the Iraq war. Unlike Senator Hillary Clinton (let alone John McCain), he opposed the war in the beginning. But this does not make him an anti-war candidate. He proposes that most U.S. troops withdraw, but that a significant number (precise amount unspecified) will remain to guard U.S. personnel, to train forces of the puppet Iraqi government, and to “strike at Al Qaeda.” What he would actually do in the face of a collapse of the Iraqi government is anyone’s guess.

But whether or not Obama will continue this particular war, he remains a supporter of the U.S. empire. This empire has military bases in approximately 150 countries and military alliances around the world. Despite its decline, it still dominates the international economy and drains wealth from every continent. Obama is for this empire , which he discusses in terms of the “national interest,” meaning the interest of the U.S. ruling class (including the executives of Exelon). Because he supports this empire, he is most likely to remain in this war and to get into other wars. In interviews, he has already said that he might bomb Pakistan and that he would consider military action against Iran.

Another major appeal is his race. Just by being himself, an African-American, he makes the point that it is possible for People of Color to rise in our society, even to be president. However, this distracts us from the real problems of U.S. racism. Most African-Americans will remain at the bottom of society, impoverished, last hired and first fired, and subject to police violence. This will not change by having a cool Black man as president. True racial change will require a social upheaval, not just the election of one person.

When pressed, many liberals and social democrats will admit that Obama, like Hillary Clinton, is a candidate of capitalism, militarism, and imperialism. But, they argue, he is far less of an evil than Senator John McCain. In McCain the Republicans have put their best foot forward. Unlike the inept Bush, he is intelligent and witty, a war hero, and he sometimes shows some humanity (as in opposing torture, before he caved). He is still hated by the far right, which does him credit. Yet for all that, he is pledged to carry on the Iraq war, if necessary for a “hundred years..” In general he will continue the programs of the vile Bush regime. It is important to oppose him. Since the U.S. population is far from ready to support a socialist (or anarchist) alternative, it is argued, we must support Barack Obama as the lesser evil.

In response, I accept that the Democrats, however evil, are indeed the lesser evil. I only doubt that the greater evil can really be defeated by supporting the lesser evil. After all, liberals, unionists, the African-American community, the women’s movement, the environmental movement, the GLBT community, etc., etc., have been supporting the Democrats for decades, generations. And yet the Republicans have moved more to the right, and the Democrats have also moved to the right (but remain just a little bit to the left of the Republicans). Lesser-evilism has not worked very well.

Instead of comparing the Democrats to the Republicans, I propose a different standard: What is necessary to save the country and the world from disaster. Does the candidate have a program which will prevent the economic crisis we are sliding into? Will he solve the danger of ecological/ environmental/ energy catastrophe? Will he reverse the spread of nuclear weapons before there is a nuclear war? To claim that Obama (or even Ralph Nader, the independent) reaches this standard is absurd.

No one person can be an effective chief administrator of a unit as large as the United States. On the other side of the coin, any one person’s vote does not make a difference, considering the size of the country. This is just too big a social unit. We need vibrant local democracies, political, economic, and social, more than we need an imperial president.

People argue with me: But what if everyone (or if a lot of people) had your (my) negative attitude toward elections or for supporting pro-capitalist candidates? My response is: Great! Then there would be a mass movement.

The gains of the thirties labor movement were won mainly through sit-ins in the factories as part of mass strikes. The gains of African-Americans in the fifties and sixties were won through mass civil disobedience and urban uprisings (“riots”). The struggle against the Vietnam war was fought through massive demonstrations, student strikes, and a virtual mutiny in the army.

The gains of most social movements have been won through non-electoral means, not by electing lesser-evil politicians. Independent electoral actions, such as that of Ralph Nader or the Green Party, have never been very useful. If successful (as in some European countries), they will also be corrupted by the pressures of electoralism, money, and the need to administer a giant capitalist government.

My goal is not to persuade individuals to not vote. It is to raise the idea of independent mass struggle. A single general strike in a U.S. city would do more to advance the struggle for freedom than any number of Obamas.

It is exciting to see the popular response to Obama, especially by young people. This lays the basis for a new New Left, a new wave of radicalization. But that will be based on recognizing the truth and telling the truth, as best as we radicals can see it – not by capitulating to the illusions which others still have. A new radicalization will develop when people are disillusioned by Obama and the Democrats. And this will happen. Or we are all in big trouble.

Cross-posted from here

You will very rarely find me urging you to get in contact with your State Senator in order to give your support (or opposition) for a Bill that they will soon act on.  Put bluntly, it’s just not my kind of politics.  But S.28 is a different kinda beast altogether:  Introduced by Senators Ayer and Giard of Addison County, S.28 (or “An Act Relating to Retail Sales and Taxing of Specialty Beers”- who comes up with these names?) would lift Vermont’s current (and oppressively asinine) ban on malt beverages (beer) with an alcohol content higher than 8% by volume.  Matt, head brewer over at the Shed in Stowe, informed me last night recently that the House version of this bill was already passed, and this Senate version is due for it’s second reading fairly soon (maybe this week).  If passed, Vermont brewers (and drinkers) would join most of the country in being able to make, drink, and fall in love with beers containing an alcohol percent as high as 16!  Now, don’t misunderstand, this is in no way about being able to get drunker quicker (the behavior- or fear of it- that I believe brought about the initial 8% cap).  But, what it is about is providing Vermonters with the luxury of enjoy some incredibly tasty, complex, and delicious artisan brews.  For Vermont’s brewers, it’s the opportunity to be able to create- to craft- free from arbitrary restraints, in the same manner as other brewers throughout the country.  Lets face it, a good beer, well, is really enjoyable (in moderation, of course).  If S.28 passes, not only will there be a greater variety of good beers to choose from, but Vermonter’s will have the chance to add their own uniquely great concoctions into the landscape.  And we’ll finally be able to buy the Brooklyn Brewing Co’s “Local 1″ that friends are starting to get sick of hearing me mention.  If you enjoy beer, now is a great opportunity to contact your local Senator and tell them just how much more you’d enjoy beer if the State would lift the cap (so to speak) on alcohol percent.

Odum, did you really think we’d let you get away with some kind of hit-and-run graphic designing scheme?

For my 2 cents, I liked the Calendar/ads/blogroll/etc bar on the other side, though probably I’ll just get used to the change.

Glad to see the “About GMD” up there.

And it may take me a bit to decide on my opinion of the new header, but I will start with this observation: the guy who’s tagline is “undercaffeinated” throws a full coffee mug into his blogsite’s logo?  Is this like John giving us the clue that “the walrus is Paul”?  Is there some puzzle to be put together here? If viewed upside down does the header read “I am not 40”?

Other opinions of the GMD make-over?

(Vermont Public Radio?!?!?!

This does not smell good, and I’ve never even heard of it. Great job, Wes… – promoted by odum)

Cross-posted over here

What would you think about the idea of a strategic partnership between the FBI and the private sector aimed at “sharing information and intelligence to prevent hostile acts against the United States”?  If you’re like me, you might first begin to wonder who it is that gets to define and determine what these “hostile” acts are.  Also, if you were like me you’d have some serious questions if such a group were to claim to provide it’s members with “value-added threats, advisories, and warnings.”  See, this isn’t a further inquiry into telephone companies illegally providing the Federal government with whatever the hell they ask for, this is about a pretty secretive FBI program called Infragard.  Infragard members (business leaders, academic institutions, and individuals in control of infrastructure like roads, airports, radio stations) work hand-in-hand with local FBI field offices to “receive education and training on counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, cyber crime and other matters relevant to informed reporting of potential crimes and attacks on the nation and U.S. interests.”  Note potential crimes and the inclusion of the term “U.S. interests”- who’s interests are they talking about? certainly not those of a regular Joe like me (otherwise they’d undoubtedly be working on providing me affordable health care- that’s in my interest).

In exchange for being the Fed’s eyes and ears, members receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does, and even before elected officials.  One business executive even claims they are given permission to “shoot to kill” in instances of Martial Law (according to this article– which you really must read).

Formed in 1996 during the Clinton administration (yes, the Democrats aren’t immune to this crap) Infragard is just one more piece of the intertwining of the government and business- which just so happens to be one of one of Mussolini’s central tenets of fascism.  Like I said, be sure to check out the article above, as well as Infragard’s own website; if nothing else, so that you can get your own sense of exactly what these folks are all about.  Note their links page, which is mostly a few governmental sites (like the Department of Justice and Homeland Security) along with the World Bank (that uber-fine institution beloved worldwide for their transparent, democratic process and their incredibly generous programs which have brought untold riches and prosperity to every corner of the globe, from Argentina to Haiti and beyond).

And if anyone’s wondering, yes Vermont has it’s own chapter.  They appear to be a notable partnering that includes Champlain College, Norwich University, Chittenden Bank, and most interesting of what I could find (membership is a pretty well guarded secret) Vermont Public Radio’s Rich Parker serving as president.  Grrreat! I  feel better and safer now that I know.

cross-posted from Integral Psychosis

By most accounts, the Vermont Democrats are void of a real, big name candidate for governor for this upcoming election because the conventional wisdom is that Douglas is more or less unbeatable.  For a wide variety of discussions about this, and the effects of Progressive candidate Anthony Pollina’s bid for governor, pop over to Green Mountain Daily, where the topic (rightly) gets plenty of airtime.  But anyway, the reality is that there is a rather deep list of Dems with statewide name recognition who are interested in taking a shot at becoming supreme leader of our small, mountainous social and political bubble (Dunne, Racine, and Shumlin to name a few).  However, the insiders all know that these folks are holding out for the 2010 elections.  Generally, there is a belief that Douglas will not seek re-election that year.  This logic, near as I can tell, is predicated on the rumor that by 2010 Senator Leahy may be announcing his retirement, at which time Douglas would throw his hat in the ring for a shot at that job; thus leaving the governor’s seat wide open for a Dem to step into.

Not comfortable leaving one of ‘their guys’ off the ballot, the Dems are floating virtual unknowns (Cambell, Galbraith) as possible sacrifices to the Douglas electoral juggernaut (a juggernaut created, no less, by the Democratic Party’s failure to run someone against Douglas for Treasurer for many years, giving the GOP do-nothing quite a bit of personal political momentum).  For the Democratic Party in the State of Vermont, the 2008 election is pretty much over, aside from the necessary lip-service that has to be paid to the chances of whoever the eventual challenger to Douglas becomes.

Oddly enough, this is more or less the exact same position that the Republican Party, on the national level, is in.  John McCain, as most of us should realize, is not quite “in” with the upper echelons of the GOP.  For what, I don’t know.  He’s generally typified by the mainstream press as the “maverick” of the Party- what this more or less means is that he has a slightly differing stance on a couple of issues than they do, I guess.  Or maybe he’s just always fucking up the secret handshake, or forgetting the words to the hymns they chant during ritual.  Make no mistake though, the national GOP leadership are loath to imagine a ‘President McCain’.  But, for so many friggin years he’s been like that annoying little yapper dog that, no matter how much you try to ignore, is still right at your ankles, nipping and yapping away in the ultimate test of “do I really believe kicking a dog to be immoral?”

At the same time, the GOP leadership can see the writing on the wall.  These folks may have indefensible moral and ethical beliefs, but they are not idiots.  They know that there’s a high degree of certainty that a Democrat is taking the White House in 2008.  I think that to some degree, they realize the possible trouble they could be in as a result of the drastic political polarization that Bush’s tenure has brought.  Because of the long-term problem this could be, and because over the past 8 years they’ve given themselves a pretty good hand at which to reap some serious money (don’t forget, that is the ultimate point of all this), they’ve resigned to the fact that they won’t be president one year from now.

Strategically, I think they’re quite comfortable letting the Dems take control, which over the next few years will allow the American people to slowly redirect their ire and angst from the GOP to the Dems, and which will give them a good shot at dethroning the prez in 2012, and probably a chance to take control of Congress before then.  Given all this, the GOP are allowing McCain to be their sacrificial lamb to the Dems for this coming election.  If they thought they had a chance, they’d certainly be running someone backed by the neo-cons.  At the same time, if the Vermont Dems thought they had a chance, they’d certainly be running one of their big stars.  

So the reality is that on the national stage, the GOP are allowing “not their guy” to give it a shot, simply because the leadership knows this one is  a loss anyway, and so they figure “what the fuck, at least McCain will stop yapping at us about his ‘turn’ to run for the top job’ and we can re-group and be ready to regain control in the next election.”  At the same time, the Vermont Democrats are saying pretty much the exact same thing, waiting for their ‘inevitable’ chance at the big time.  Kinda makes you glad to be a part of such a great political system, doesn’t it?

After reading this post I was hit by a couple of questions that were brought up in the comments, which asked

Why is it you folks worry more about religion in the schools than drugs in the schools?

and

I don’t think I’m going to convert you.  Just reflect on your priorities, guys.  It’s all I ask.

So I figure I’ll give a real quick stab at answering….

Cross posted at Integral Psychosis…

OK, well, here it goes: religious beliefs are an individual choice about how to make sense of the (often complex and confusing) world around us.  Specifically, religion is an authoritarian-minded, mythical/magical way of viewing our lives, society and nature.  There of course are some side notes to that generalization, like many Eastern philosophies or people like Thomas Merton, to name just a couple.  But nonetheless, in a free society we must have the freedom to choose, individually, what our beliefs are and how we’re going to interpret the events around us.  This means that the State, through our school systems, has the responsibility to teach us to be creative, critical thinkers, and to expose us to a wide variety of cultures, myths, and sciences, in order to give us each the tools necessary to maturely decide for ourselves what we want to believe or not believe as Truth, capital “T”.

“Drugs”, on the other hand, are like any other substance we may or may not ingest.  Meaning, whatever we put into our bodies has, to one degree or another, the effect of altering the chemical processes that are continually happening within us.  Given that some substances have a far more drastic effect on us than others, people have seen to it at various times in history to determine that some substances, which we’ve come to refer to as “drugs”, should not be ingested  at anytime, by anyone, because the effects on the individual and society are too dangerous.  However, laws (and the people who make them) are not perfect.  And over time we may find the need to change them.  In this case, as Vermonters, we’re arriving at the point where we understand that the physical and psychological effects of smoking pot are not nearly as destructive for the individual or society as the enforcement of the laws that ban it.  Rightly so, we’re re-considering the logic of keeping such a law.

Would the decriminalization of marijuana be the same as mounting billboards everywhere that literally said “hey kids, smoke pot! it’s good for you!”? Um, no, obviously not.  Can, and should, there be classes which honestly teach our children what the physical, psychological, and social effects of marijuana smoking actually are? Yes, of course.  That would provide them with the information they need to make their own choices.  That is a free society.  Pamphlets explaining to us “why jesus is better than santa” (which to me sounds like “why a firing squad is better than drowning”) do not teach us to do anything for ourselves; it’s simply telling us what right and wrong is.  This gets back to the authoritarian nature of religion.  Authoritarianism, as Bush has helped illustrate so well these past few years, is not compatible with a free society.